By: Michael Tomasky
It was a rare confessional moment for Barack Obama. At a Miami fundraiser in mid-June, the president acknowledged that it’s “not as cool” as it was in 2008 to support him. It isn’t just a matter of fewer hip posters and viral videos. It’s a matter of votes. Rekindling the enthusiasm of African-Americans, educated white liberals, Latinos, young people, and union members–the Democratic Party’s most loyal and progressive members–will be a huge challenge. After all, you can only elect the first African-American president once, and the past two and a half years have deeply disappointed many liberals. “I know a lot of the kids who worked hard in 2008,” says Hodding Carter III, adviser to the last one-term Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and now a professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. “They walk around like cattle who’ve been hit with stun guns between their eyes. This isn’t how it was supposed to be.”

Obama and his people have heard this sort of thing so often that they no longer bother to take umbrage. When I asked chief Obama reelection guru David Axelrod about this sense of disillusionment, he patiently ticked off a list of accomplishments: health-care reform, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” financial regulatory reform, the drawdown from Iraq, student-loan reform. “Did we keep faith with the things that the president said he would do when he ran?” asks Axelrod. “There is a long list of things he said he’d do that we in fact did.”

It’s a solid inventory. But it’s countered by the undeniable reality that the country hasn’t noticeably moved in a more liberal direction (quite the opposite), and by the widely held perception among progressives that Obama will never wage fierce battle on behalf of liberal ideals. When I interviewed Justin Ruben, the executive director of MoveOn.org, whose 5 million members (many in swing states) must be revved up and mobilized if the president is to be reelected, he gave me four or five variants of the line “People need to feel like the president and the Democrats are really going to fight for their side.”

   President Obama arrives in Miami on June 13.

Unfortunately, making tough, partisan economic arguments has never been the president’s strong suit. “Since the beginning of his candidacy in 2007, Barack has struggled to put together a sustained, winning economic argument,” said Simon Rosenberg of NDN, a Washington-based think tank.

“With ‘Morning in America’ not really a viable option for 2012, he is going to have to draw brighter lines with the GOP, and particularly do much more to discredit their failed and reckless economic approach.”

The base vote can still emerge in large numbers, but the dominant factor this time won’t be hope and change. Instead, the factors will be fear of the other side, state and local political conditions (think of how motivated Democrats are to regain control of their politics in Wisconsin), and demographic changes that are still redounding to the Democrats’ benefit. And because we elect presidents by states, the place to assess Obama’s prospects is on the ground.

Wake County, N.C.; Arapahoe County, Colo.; Franklin County, Ohio–these are representative base Democratic counties. They are in swing states, which means the president will need a big vote in these places to offset a presumed high conservative turnout in other parts of these states. And they are counties that have only recently become solidly Democratic, because of demographic changes. “Obama’s majorities in these counties are not secure,” says Ruy Teixeira, coauthor of the 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority, which predicted the bluing of states like then-red Colorado. “He needs a full-bore mobilization effort in these counties to get his supporters out and develop the margins he needs to carry swing states like Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina.”

Wake County is home to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina. Bush won it by 7 points in 2000 and then, in a sign that demographics were changing, by just 2 points in 2004 against the Yankee John Kerry. But in 2008 Obama blew it open–a 15-point win, 57-42, and a turnout 80,000 votes higher than in ’04. Since then? Very different story. In 2009 voters installed an aggressive conservative majority on the school board, and in 2010 Republicans took a congressional seat and swept most state and county offices (the GOP won back both statehouses last year).

I don’t know a single expert who thinks Obama has a great shot at winning the Tarheel State again. But he wants it badly enough to hold the Democratic convention in Charlotte (Mecklenburg will be another county to watch). Mack Paul, the attorney who chairs the Wake County Democratic Party, believes that population growth has brought in more Democrats since 2008, and he insists, “I hear more anger directed at Democrats who don’t support the president.” His GOP counterpart, Sue Bryant, ventures that her party’s candidate might just carry Wake, but “even if we come within 5 points here, that’s the election in North Carolina.”

In Arapahoe County, outside Denver, Democrats only recently came to outnumber Republicans in voter enrollment. But the trend lines are clear: whereas Bush beat Kerry 51-47 in 2004, Obama romped McCain by 56-43 in 2008, when turnout was about 15 percent higher than four years earlier.

In the last decade, the Latino population of Arapahoe County has more than doubled, to 105,249. If the Democratic Party can register and mobilize this key Obama constituency–Latinos gave him 67 percent of their votes nationally last time–the president would likely carry Arapahoe by a far larger margin than he did in ’08. But Olivia Mendoza, executive director of the nonpartisan Colorado Latino Forum, says the community’s temperature about Obama is awfully lukewarm. “This is very anecdotal,” Mendoza ventures, “but overall, in my experience? General dissatisfaction.”

Todd Mata, the county Democratic chairman, acknowledges that “a lot of people are a little disillusioned, rightly or wrongly,” with Obama, but he says that on the ground, the party structure is working much more closely than last time with Organizing for America (OFA), the Obama get-out-the-vote vehicle. Obama might benefit here from a local GOP that “doesn’t have it together,” according to Scott Adler, political-science professor at the University of Colorado. When I spoke with Joy Hoffman, the county Republican chairwoman, she did acknowledge she’s herding cats, between the more traditional Republicans and no fewer than “15 or 16 distinct Tea Party groupings in the county.” But, she insisted, the state GOP is picking up the pieces from its 2010 debacle, when its gubernatorial candidate got just 11 percent of the vote.

And then there’s Ohio. Big numbers in Franklin County–home to the state capital of Columbus, Ohio’s largest city–are crucial to Democratic hopes. Again, the trend is evident: Al Gore won the county 49-48 in 2000, when 414,000 votes were cast. Kerry won it 53-45, with 517,000 total votes. Obama: a 59-40 blowout on the strength of 575,000 total votes.

It’s pretty difficult to imagine another nearly 20-point win. But Greg Schultz, the county’s Democratic chairman and the state director for OFA, says an on-the-ground network exists today in a way it didn’t even in 2008. “There’s a structure that remains in place today that is self-organizing,” he boasts, even in Republican-leaning parts of the county like Westerville.

Another factor that might motivate Democrats in Franklin, and across Ohio: the unpopular Republican governor, John Kasich. He won a narrow victory over Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland in 2010, when base Republican voters turned out and their Democratic counterparts did not. Now Kasich and his public-employee-union-bashing bill (S.B. 5) are targets of rage. “If the Democrats are smart,” says Herb Asher of the Ohio State University, “here and in Wisconsin they’ll have a very simple theme: Elections have consequences. Look at what happened in your states.”

That’ll be about the strongest argument Obama can make to base voters: it could, and will, be a lot worse if you don’t vote for me. That’s true, and fear is usually a pretty good motivator in politics. But it still isn’t what people were hoping for, and it seems inevitable that some percentage of the most loyal Democrats will stay home. In these three counties and others like them, that percentage will be the difference between reelection and retirement.

Playlist: Road To 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections [ 194 Clips ]

Playlist: Road To 2012 — Barack Obama Re-Election Campaign [ 43 Clips ]

In an attempt to appease and mollify the Clintons, Sen. Barack Obama has practically handed over the control of the Democratic Convention to them. Hillary will have her roll call vote, and she and her husband will deliver prime time speeches.

The Clinton mafia has even secured language in the Democratic platform condemning the media for its “sexist” coverage of Hillary’s campaign. I know that only political junkies read the Democratic platform, but Obama should not have agreed to inserting such a blatant lie. Hillary lost because her campaign was a disorganized nest of snakes and sycophants, and not because of sexism in the media.

Clinton loyalists endlessly repeat that Obama must reach out to the 18 million who voted for Hillary during the primaries. Most of those 18 million are now solidly behind Obama; it’s only a few Hillary diehards who are still swooning over their queen.

These dead-enders are not blue-collar workers or the working poor, but middle-aged bitter women who saw Hillary as their last chance to see a woman in the White House before they croak. These dinosaur feminists don’t represent most women, or even most feminists. They are from the old school of feminism, and they are characterized by a hatred of men and a love for women. They wouldn’t consider voting for Obama unless he was castrated.

This cabal is willing to destroy the Democratic Party to demonstrate their inordinate affection for Hillary. The Hillary partisans have warned Obama not to choose a woman as his running mate, if it’s not their dearly beloved. This proves that there infatuation with Hillary takes preeminence over women’s rights.

Nothing short of naming Hillary as vice-president will satisfy them. Obama is set to announce his VP any day now, and I’m delighted that none of the speculation centers on Hillary.

The Democratic Party should be about hope and change, and not about a cult of personality. Obama has bent over backwards catering to Hillary and her surly husband. Stop the appeasement, Obama should write-off the Clinton die-hards once and for all.

As Obama gained the nomination of the Democratic party last night, Hillary Clinton scoffed and narcissistically refused to concede.

Obama Acknowledges Crowd in Minnesota

Clinton congratulated Obama — not for winning the nomination, but for running an “extraordinary race.” She recognized Obama and his supporters “for all they accomplished.”

Also, and very ungraciously, Clinton the “wicked witch” told the crowd in New York City: “Because of you, we won together the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes.” “I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.” — translate that to: “Obama, I will crawl underneath your skin until you offer me the Vice-Presidency, so that I may accept it or refuse it and then — shove it in your face, in readiness for 2012 elections — since I have done much damage to your candidacy, and I am sure you will lose to John McCain.”

… or simply: “You must woo me if you want to prevail in November,” after all…”I have the ‘White Female Vote‘ and the ‘Bigot vote‘ in my corner!”

What does she really want?

Answer: To be [Vice-President and Co-President] come hell or high water….in her own terms.

Here are some comments from a cross-section of TV pundits:

“Clearly, she’s trying to position herself, keep her options open.” — NBC’s Tim Russert, on HRC’s speech (MSNBC).

“Well whatever that was, it wasn’t a concession speech.” — Fox News Channel’s Brit Hume

“If I were Barack Obama, if I heard that speech, I would not be very happy. … They are living in parallel universes right now.” — CNN’s Gloria Borger.

“This was a defiant speech, against all the kind of advice that [heavyweights] within the Democratic Party gave her” — Ex-White House adviser David Gergen, on whether he was surprised by Clinton’s speech (CNN).

“She did everything but offer Obama the vice presidency” — GOP strategist Alex Castellanos (CNN).

Clinton’s unwillingness to salute Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee should be the ‘last straw‘ in my opinion, and should be the prompt he needs to deny her the vice presidential slot.

Winning an election with Hillary and Bill in tow would just be as excruciating as losing with them — to John McCain.

Obama should put his foot down — win or lose. Allowing Hillary to run with him under her own “co-presidency terms,” would thoroughly undermine Obama’s CHANGE campaign.

Hillary Clinton as Obama’s Vice President would be an act of “Terminal Insanity.”

……and if she is thinking of running in 2012 (if McCain wins this year), then if I were Obama, I would challenge her on an independent ticket….as payback for the “malicious damage” she has done to him during this primary.

Hillary Clinton is a “wild political animal,” worse than a desperate and hungry spotted hyena roaming the wilds of East Africa — she is capable of, and is very ready to break Obama’s “political bones,” in order to get what she wants — POWER!

Earlier in Kenner, Louisiana, John McBOMB also gave a speech in which he tried draw a sharp contrast with Bush — a pathetic attempt to insulate himself from the radioactive George McDUMB Bush. McCain praised Clinton but sarcastically referred to Obama as a candidate delivered to the American people by the media and superdelagates…..[MORE]

     Too Much Hug in Minnesota!

VIDEO REFERENCE

Barack Obama’s Victory Speech on June 3, 2008

Hillary Clinton Does Not Concede!

Comedian Jon Stewart’s Take

OBITUARY

Here are seven reasons why Hillary Clinton failed:
A Gannett News Service political analysis

1. A yearning for change: Clinton underestimated Democrats’ yearning for something beyond politics as usual and their disdain for the Iraq war and George W. Bush. Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the war became a symbol of status quo, allowing Obama, who had opposed the war, to become the agent of change on an issue that had inflamed the left.

When the nomination fight boiled down to Clinton versus Obama, the 35 years of experience Clinton constantly talked about became a liability as Obama became an exciting and plausible alternative.

“She made an initial strategic blunder by focusing on experience in a Democratic primary,” said Dick Morris, who once advised former President Bill Clinton and has become a harsh critic of Sen. Clinton. “They don’t want experience. They want change and newness. That’s why they’re Democrats.”

2. Hot and cold persona: Clinton could never seem to settle on a political style or persona. In her defense, she may have been hurt by gender bias. While Obama drew praise for his ability to invoke passion in his audiences, emotion was radioactive for Clinton. She was criticized as either too hot or too cold, rarely a transcendent figure, and not authentic. When she became teary-eyed before the New Hampshire primary, defenders saw it as a rare glimpse into her soul while detractors saw it as calculated.

She also hurt herself with false claims of ducking sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia when she was first lady. A Gallup Poll in March found half of Americans doubted her honesty and trustworthiness, twice the percentage that had the same doubts about Obama or presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

3. Race trumped gender: When Democratic voters assessed the breakthrough aspects of having a black man or white woman head their ticket, race ultimately won out over gender. The excitement over Obama’s candidacy and the prospect of the first black nominee of a major political party brought young voters into a process they had ignored in the past. Black women, especially, were torn, but overwhelmingly settled on Obama after he won predominantly white Iowa.

Although Clinton still regularly won among women, the movement of black women and younger women to Obama cut into her strongest base, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

4. Tactical errors: While Clinton focused on winning the big states, Obama racked up a delegate lead by winning most of the smaller states’ primaries and caucuses. Clinton put a lot of her eggs in the Super Tuesday basket and her campaign seemed unprepared fiscally and strategically for the fight to go on past Feb. 5, when more than 20 states voted. But no clear victor emerged that day and there were more states than that left to vote. Clinton had to lend her campaign money, and her campaign manager stepped down amid reports of infighting among her strategists.

Clinton was ill served by other advisers, whose ego clashes or professional blunders often made news. She demoted longtime “chief strategist” Mark Penn after it was revealed he was working to help the government of Colombia get a free trade agreement with the U.S. while Clinton was campaigning against the deal.

5. So close on issues: Obama outflanked Clinton on the left or successfully argued there was little difference between them on everything from ending Bush’s tax cuts for the rich to improving health care to revisiting trade deals like NAFTA. In debates, the two Democratic rivals themselves noted they had similar positions on some issues.

And while both agreed on the need to get out of Iraq, Clinton had to defend her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq while Obama repeatedly pointed out his early opposition to the war.

“While I think that her vote on Iraq was a responsible vote, she may have underestimated the degree to which the far left in the Democratic Party is on the ascendancy,” said Gary Bauer, a longtime conservative activist and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.

As voters’ concerns dramatically shifted from the war to the economy, both candidates changed messages. Clinton was able to win some big, late primaries with an economic populist message targeting blue-collar voters, but by then she was behind in delegates. Obama painted her proposal for a 90-day gas-tax holiday as politics-as-usual pandering that wouldn’t solve the energy crisis.

6. One word: Bill: While some voters fond of Bill Clinton’s presidency saw voting for Hillary Clinton as getting two for one, others loathed the thought of the scandal-tainted ex-president back in the White House. A string of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies also was an unpleasant thought for some. Then Bill Clinton infused race into the campaign during the crucial South Carolina primary by comparing Obama’s victory to Jesse Jackson’s in 1988. He spent later stages of the campaign hitting small colleges and small towns where he faced less media scrutiny.

7. Obama the phenom: In Obama, the candidate became the message. Obama’s national appeal, backed up by a broader and deeper national campaign strategy than Clinton had, was arguably the most important reason for her loss. As a long campaign progressed, Obama got more comfortable on the stump and in debates, drew massive crowds and evoked “Change” sign-waving, cell phone photo-snapping and swooning from supporters. Her supporters complained that the media, wowed by the phenomenon, didn’t ask Obama tough questions.

Capitalizing on the ease of Internet fundraising, Obama turned the phenom factor into a political gold mine, out-raising Clinton, sometimes at an unprecedented clip of more than $1 million a day.

With hundreds of White Women screaming murder, the Democratic Party Rules Committee today dealt a severe blow to Hillary “Napoleon” Clinton.

Hillary wanted the whole nine yards of Michigan and another nine of Florida, irrespective of the DNC rules that were set up very clearly and agreed upon by both campaigns before the beginning of the primaries.

In other words, she wants to steal this nomination by hook or crook — including inciting White Women by invoking baseless charges of “Sexism” by the Obama campaign, and by race-baiting.

It has not and will not work Ma. Clinton!

The rulings (by vote) by the DNC today prompted Hillary’s chief delegate Harold Ickes to angrily state: “There’s been a lot of talk about party unity–let’s all come together, and put our arms around each other,” said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. “I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates … is not a good way to start down the path of party unity,” adding that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats’ credentials committee, at the party’s convention in August.

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including super delegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida, for a total of 2,052. Hillary Clinton correspondingly picked up 38 in Michigan and 56.5 in Florida, for a total of 1,877.5.

To Hillary I say:

It’s Over ……PERIOD!!

The party of Clinton is now Obama’s party, whether you like it or not!

You and Bill are nothing but crooks who think that the presidency of The United States is an entitlement, and even a thoroughbred black man like Obama has no business grabbing “what belongs to you.” [see Michael Pfleger video below]

Hillary…..I hope to live to see a woman become the president of The United States someday — that woman will NOT be you. You are nothing but a THUG, in the mode of the “vicious Hyenas” who call themselves Republicans a.k.a ReTHUGlicans.

Go home Hillary — and bake cookies and have tea with Bill, for that’s a sure way of keeping tabs on his “philandering self.”

The FAT LADY has sung!

—————————————

Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama has quit his controversial congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Saturday.

Inflammatory sermons by the church’s longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., forced Obama to initially defend — then denounce — his former spiritual mentor.

Then this week, Obama had to distance himself from another minister preaching at Trinity, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who last Sunday made comments that seemed to accuse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) of acting ‘entitled’ because she is white…[MORE]

Rev. Michael Pfleger Mocks Hillary Clinton

Halleluhya Rev!

REFERENCES:

1. The FIX — Michigan: A Done Deal But Bitterness Lingers
2. The D.N.C. Deliberates
3. Obama Quits His Church