The Wall Street Journal
OPINION

Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
By KARL ROVE
April 24, 2008; Page A13


After being pummeled 55% to 45% in the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama was at a loss for explanations. The best he could do was to compliment his supporters in an email saying, "you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible." Then he asked for money.

With $42 million in the bank, money is the least of Sen. Obama's problems. He needs a credible message that convinces Democrats he should be president. In recent days, he's spent too much time proclaiming his inevitable nomination. But they already know he's won more states, votes and delegates.
[Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?]
Chad Crowe

His words wear especially thin when he was dealt a defeat like Tuesday's. Mr. Obama was routed despite outspending Hillary Clinton on television by almost 3-1. While polls in the final days showed a possible 4% or 5% Clinton win, she apparently took late-deciders by a big margin to clinch the landslide.

Where she cobbled together her victory should cause concern in the Obama HQ. She did better – and he worse – than expected in Philadelphia's suburbs. Mrs. Clinton won two of these four affluent suburban counties, home of the white-wine crowd Mr. Obama has depended on for victories before.

In the small town and rural "bitter" precincts, she clobbered him. Mr. Obama's state chair was Sen. Bob Casey, who hails from Lackawanna County in northeast Pennsylvania. She carried that county 74%-25%. In the state's 61 less-populous counties, she won 63% – and by 278,266 votes. Her margin of victory statewide was 208,024 votes.

Mrs. Clinton's problem remains that she's behind in the delegate count, with 1,589 to Mr. Obama's 1,714. Neither candidate will get to the 2,025 needed for nomination with elected delegates. But the Democratic Party's rules of proportionality mean it will be hard to close that margin among the 733 delegates yet to be elected or declared. Mrs. Clinton will need to take 58% of the remaining delegates. Thus far, she's been able to get that or better in just four of the 46 contests.

Her path gets rougher. While Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico are good territory for her, Oregon and Montana may not be. And Mrs. Clinton will be outspent badly. She entered April with $9.3 million in cash, but debts of $10.3 million. Mr. Obama had $42.5 million but only $663,000 in unpaid bills.

In Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama's money could only wipe out half a purported 20% deficit, but the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Mr. Obama behind by 2% in Indiana and ahead in North Carolina by 16%. Those states will vote in two weeks. The financial throw weight he will have in the Hoosier State could more than erase Mrs. Clinton's lead there, while keeping North Carolina solidly in his column. His money could give him a double knockout on May 6, which would effectively end her bid for the presidency.

If she wins Indiana, however, she will surely go forward – and Democrats run the risk of a split decision in June. Mr. Obama could have more delegates, but she could have more popular votes. In fact, on Tuesday night she actually grabbed the popular vote lead: If you include the Michigan and Florida primary results, Mrs. Clinton now leads the popular vote by a slim 113,000 votes out of 29,914,356 cast.

Mr. Obama will argue he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and didn't campaign in Florida. But don't Democrats want to count all the votes in all the contests? After all, Mr. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot; it isn't something he was forced to do. And while he didn't campaign in Florida, neither did she.

And what about the Michigan and Florida delegates? By my calculations, she should pick up about 54 delegates on Mr. Obama if they are seated (this assumes the Michigan "uncommitted" delegates go for Mr. Obama). If he is ahead in June by a number similar to his lead today of 125, does he let the two delegations in and make the convention vote even closer? Or does he continue to act as if two states with 41 of the 270 electoral votes needed for the White House don't exist?

The Democratic Party has two weakened candidates. Mrs. Clinton started as a deeply flawed candidate: the palpable and unpleasant sense of entitlement, the absence of a clear and optimistic message, the grating personality impatient to be done with the little people and overly eager for a return to power, real power, the phoniness and the exaggerations. These problems have not diminished over the long months of the contest. They have grown. She started out with the highest negatives of any major candidate in an open race for the presidency and things have only gotten worse.

And what of the reborn Adlai Stevenson? Mr. Obama is befuddled and angry about the national reaction to what are clearly accepted, even commonplace truths in San Francisco and Hyde Park. How could anyone take offense at the observation that people in small-town and rural American are "bitter" and therefore "cling" to their guns and their faith, as well as their xenophobia? Why would anyone raise questions about a public figure who, for only 20 years, attended a church and developed a close personal relationship with its preacher who says AIDS was created by our government as a genocidal tool to be used against people of color, who declared America's chickens came home to roost on 9/11, and wants God to damn America? Mr. Obama has a weakness among blue-collar working class voters for a reason.

His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.

Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their too-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.

But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.

Mr. Obama is near victory in the Democratic contest, but it is time for him to reset, freshen his message and say something new. His conduct in the last several weeks raises questions about whether, for all his talents, he is ready to be president.

He's probably as ready as anyone can be when being forced to battle not only his own opponent (and her husband) but also the advocates of his eventual adversary from the other party.

I think he's done admirably thusfar, all things considered...

quote:

Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship.

Obama has talked a multiple times about working with Republicans on a number of important issues such as nuclear nonproliferation (S. 2566) with Richard Lugar (R-IN) and ethics reform (S. 2590) with Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). But Rove has never had a need for truth when winning is on the top of his priorities.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth Jackson:

quote:

Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship.

Obama has talked a multiple times about working with Republicans on a number of important issues such as nuclear nonproliferation (S. 2566) with Richard Lugar (R-IN) and ethics reform (S. 2590) with Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). But Rove has never had a need for truth when winning is on the top of his priorities.

"talked!"

Actions speak louder then words Seth, and Obama consistently votes left (radical party line).

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:
He's probably as ready as anyone can be when being forced to battle not only his own opponent (and her husband) but also the advocates of his eventual adversary from the other party.

I think he's done admirably thusfar, all things considered...

Admirable?!

Being more radical then the normal liberal and calling yourself the agent of change (I guess because you are left of left) is admirable?

Going to a "church" with a radical leader whom you call your mentor and he is racist, anti-American, etc, while his church praises people like Farrakhan is admirable?

Where do you stop?

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Admirable?!

Being more radical then the normal liberal and calling yourself the agent of change (I guess because you are left of left) is admirable?

Going to a "church" with a radical leader whom you call your mentor and he is racist, anti-American, etc, while his church praises people like Farrakhan is admirable?

Where do you stop?

Well... he seems able to stop at the right places, so far... judging from how he behaves under all this fire he's been drawing!

His church did NOT "praise Farrakhan"... their magazine published ONE article written by Wright's daughter, which recognized Farrakhan's contribution to a major mission of their church... i.e. that it is "Afro-centric" in its social programs.

I don't see anything wrong with that. While Farrakhan represents a pretty radical group, what they do doesn't affect me at all. It does, however, have a positive uplifting effect on some number of blacks... for what reason I don't know. I also believe that the way Farrakhan, and Wright for that matter, think and talk about race relations and American politics is about as relevant in 2008 as using punch cards to store computer data was in 1968.

Obama is of another generation, and a really good spokesperson for the new era. I like the guy. I dunno yet whether I'll vote for him in the contest against McCain... but I could see that happening... for the sake of America's future.

It'll depend on who he and McCain select for their VP, and how they handle the nonsense that's gonna come down the pike once the real campaigns get underway after August; and what might happen in international events between now and the November vote.

I say this because I'm one of those who really likes McCain, at least as well as Obama.

Couple of other points worth making:
1. I had the time to watch the ENTIRETY of that 2nd "Million Man March" on Washington that Farrakhan organized. I gotta say, most of the speeches given were offensive to my ear, and a couple of them were actually alarming.

2. I EXPECT Obama to be left of center... he is a liberal! That doesn't bother me nearly as much as it would if he were a liberal whose personal conduct or personality was such that he'd destroy the good aspects of America (as Billary surely would do without a second thought, and then blame it on somebody else.)

So, other than the current propaganda about what Obama stands for (most of which is a distortion of reality), what is there not to like?

To put it another way, I cannot name ONE President elected in my 60+ years who, once elected, didn't become something totally different than the person who was elected... from Nixon to Carter to Clinton and Dubya.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

His church did NOT "praise Farrakhan"... their magazine published ONE article written by Wright's daughter, which recognized Farrakhan's contribution to a major mission of their church... i.e. that it is "Afro-centric" in its social programs.

Farrakhan is a friend to Trinity Church and Rev. Wright.

Farrakhan received the “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer” Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala held on November 2, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.

“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens.” -Wright

hopefully not.

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history..." -Wright

(ask other Jews about this)

Really, it's not important. We have already established that Obama clearly associates with very radical people.

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
Farrakhan is a friend to Trinity Church and Rev. Wright.
> It's still a free country... no?

Farrakhan received the “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer” Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala held on November 2, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago.
> Well, we may not agree with that award, but, fact is, Louis Farrakhan HAS spent a lifetime making an attempt to improve the condition of black folks... in his own way.


“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens.” -Wright
> Yes, that is true, SOME of "black America" DOES listen, no? If they didn't, we wouldn't be mentioning it, right?

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history..." -Wright
> Maybe recently, and maybe in his personal life, but I do share some strong disapproval of a lot of things he has said about white folks in the past.

Really, it's not important. We have already established that Obama clearly associates with very radical people.
> So too do a LOT of politicians, in fact it'd be difficult to find one who didn't... including the likes of Orin Hatch.
> And, for that matter, what does "associate" actually mean? Does it mean that they know one another? Does it mean that they agree on one another's positions? Does it mean that they have found themselves in the same places at the same time? Does it mean that because one of them believes in something the other one does too? Does it mean that they secretly hope for the other one's success?

What the heck DOES that word mean in the context of a presidential election?

I think it often means character assassination by innuendo.

PA needs to stop coming on this forum and "associating"" with liberals..

He is jumping on the same old Republican character assassination bandwagon. It's the easiest thing to do--attack someone's social connections rather than arguing over the merits of their political views.

And PA's friends at GOP attack central can't seem to make up their minds about Obama. First they said he was a Muslim extremist because his middle name is Hussein. Then they said he was an elitist because he went to Harvard. Now he's a radical because his minister admires Farrakhan.

I guess they'll keep flinging their sh_it on Obama until they find something that sticks.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
PA needs to stop coming on this forum and "associating"" with liberals..

He is jumping on the same old Republican character assassination bandwagon. It's the easiest thing to do--attack someone's social connections rather than arguing over the merits of their political views.

And PA's friends at GOP attack central can't seem to make up their minds about Obama. First they said he was a Muslim extremist because his middle name is Hussein. Then they said he was an elitist because he went to Harvard. Now he's a radical because his minister admires Farrakhan.

I guess they'll keep flinging their sh_it on Obama until they find something that sticks.

ROFL! It's like I've become your morning cup of coffee Pete; somehow your irrelevant life needs me!

Obama doesn't need me to prove he is without character!

Political views? Obama is left. How is that?!

In fact he says he can work with Republicans but he still votes left. Didn't someone give him a "F" for that already?!

I don't know who started calling him a Muslim. Maybe it was the "GOP attack central," I have no clue! But who said he was a elitist because he went to Harvard?!?!?! Obama is a book smart type of guy! I do think he thinks he knows what is good for us "bitter" and "frustrated" rednecks and that makes him a condescending elitist pr_ck. Not sure how Harvard plays into that though! And Obama is radical you moron!

Amazing how far you will go to defend your man Pete. Yeah, go ahead and tell me he is not your man.

He's just like Clinton with you regardless of whatever John or Kevin (I forget which) who doesn't think you defend him. Just take a look at any posts that mention his wrong doings and watch who comes to his aid!

You may say you don't like him ( ) but your words don't mean much. WAIT!! That's something you have in common with Clinton AND Obama!!!

quote:

I don't know who started calling him a Muslim. Maybe it was the "GOP attack central

Read: FOX

quote:

I have no clue!

Obviously. You prove that here daily. Guess I'm not the only one with an "irrelevant" life.

quote:

I do think he thinks he knows what is good for us "bitter" and "frustrated" rednecks and that makes him a condescending elitist pr_ck. Not sure how Harvard plays into that though!

His Harvard education was mentioned frequently in the stories calling him elitist. And it should be pointed out that Hillary was one of the first to label him elitist for his remarks--which is hysterical coming from her.

quote:

And Obama is radical you moron!

I'm sure he seems radical to a mental midget conservative jock-sniffer like you. You can't think outside the box your GOP buddies have you in.

quote:

Amazing how far you will go to defend your man Pete. Yeah, go ahead and tell me he is not your man

Amazing how you divide the world into "us" and "them". If I challenge what you say, I automatically am supporting the other side.

quote:

He's just like Clinton with you regardless of whatever John or Kevin (I forget which) who doesn't think you defend him. Just take a look at any posts that mention his wrong doings and watch who comes to his aid!

If you said "Clinton shot JFK" and I said "That isn't true" you'd label me a Clinton supporter for calling you on your BS. John and Kevin both know I'm no fan of Clinton because they read what I say, not what they think I must be saying. They both have the ability to think for themselves and don't have an agenda to push.

quote:

You may say you don't like him but your words don't mean much.

Right. It doesn't matter if I say I never voted for him or that I don't approve of him--it's just a liberal/jedi mind-trick.

quote:

WAIT!! That's something you have in common with Clinton AND Obama!!!

Coming from a guy who beats the war drum and pretends to support soldiers who serve on his behalf, nothing you say means much.

Proud American

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:

quote:

I don't know who started calling him a Muslim. Maybe it was the "GOP attack central

Read: FOX

Interestingly, there is some credible evidence (I guess one would call it) that, in fact, it was the Clinton campaign responsible for getting that myth started...

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:
Proud American

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:

quote:

I don't know who started calling him a Muslim. Maybe it was the "GOP attack central

Read: FOX

Interestingly, there is some credible evidence (I guess one would call it) that, in fact, it was the Clinton campaign responsible for getting that myth started...

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Me either. And she definitely jumped onboard calling him an elitist. It was Hillary who got the info out about Rev. Wright and his connection to Farrakhan.