Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Clinton, Obama: Who Wins, Who Loses?

By Joe Sims

This has been such an incredible election, a delightfully rich laboratory of the dialectics of real life. It has caused everyone, politicians, pundits, pollsters, political pros, (and not a few pompous prudes) to look again and again at everything in a new light. Once you think you figured it out, something goes boom! And it’s changed again causing consternation in some, palpitations in others, and among many much delight.

Well folks, it’s changed again. A few weeks ago, the spin on the Democratic campaign was that even if Senator Obama of Illinois wins, he loses. This, due to the mainstream press’s attempt to paint him as the "Black" candidate. Near universal African American support, it was argued (and hoped) would narrow his support, warding off the growing coalescence of a multi-class, multi-racial anti-right wing coalition. Obama’s winning of the South Carolina campaign in particular, would precipitate his losing elsewhere. Well, the opposite happened. Due to the ugly hard ball politics and the injection of hate into the campaign beginning in New Hampshire, voter disgust with such tactics turned everything on its head and groundswell of support buoyed the hopes of the Illinois freshman with 11 straight victories.

Now on the morning of the March 4th primaries, things have changed so much that the Obama campaign is able to argue that even if he loses, he still wins. A campaign memo issued yesterday, suggested that Senator Obama’s lead in delegates is so great that his New York rival, Senator Clinton unless she wins a landslide victory in Texas and Ohio, cannot possibly catch up. The Obama camp is now contending there is no credible path for the Clinton campaign to clinch the nomination.

The Clinton’s however, may not be interested in a "credible path" given the renewed negative tactics utilized by their camp in the last two weeks. Judging by the headlines in this morning’s papers, the ruling class mass media, may not be interested in credible path either. A week ago the conventional wisdom was that Mrs. Clinton needed big victories in Ohio and Texas to sustain her campaign. However, in the small hours, something shifted. Now, a number of papers are arguing that a victory, even a small one, in either Ohio or Texas will "lift " her campaign to new heights. Momentum, according to other headlines is now hers.

Can you imagine such a scenario occurring if Obama has lost 11 straight times by margins of 20 percent or more?

No matter. Today’s election is in the hands of the working class and people of Ohio, Texas, New Hampshire and Vermont. By the way, they are Black, Brown, Asian and white (All that "blue collar white voter" nonsense in the press is driving me crazy. In all of these states, high turnouts bode well for a continuation of the recent weeks trends.


In Ohio, from where I stopped for a few days over the weekend, the election began last week with huge crowds voting early. In Youngstown, campaign committees from both the peace movement and Obama campaigns knocked twice on the door to insure that early voting occurred. Senator Clinton effort consisted in one robo-call that prevented one from hanging up until the message was finished. The Youngstown Vindicator’s (a conservative rag) Sunday front page headline rang: "Working C lass will Determine Victory." The Vindicator? Things sure are changing in America.

[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]

No comments: