Hillary’s Voice

Between 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina (with help from Mr. Rove and Mr. Limbaugh), George Bush managed to get a few million Americans riled up whenever other people questioned their president — as though the questioners were calling Bush fans’ mamas “ugly.”

Brilliant strategy: getting people emotionally invested to the point that they took personally any political opposition to a guy most of them weren’t even friends with.

Six days ago, I received an email evincing that Barack Obama’s campaign staffers are using a similar tactic. In part, the email reads:

“…We won Wyoming on Saturday, and we just learned that we won Mississippi by a large margin tonight.

“Between those two states, we picked up enough delegates to erase the gains by Senator Clinton last Tuesday and add to our substantial lead in earned delegates. And in doing so we showed the strength and breadth of this movement.

“But just turn on the news and you’ll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.

“They’re not just attacking me; they’re attacking you.”

Actually, the Clinton campaign hasn’t attacked Obama’s supporters (or their mamas). It has merely questioned whether some of Obama’s victories are truly “overwhelming,” given the numbers of voters involved and the likelihood that multiple states Obama won will give their Electoral College votes to McCain in November.

First, Caucuses are different from primaries (not an attack, just a fact). In primaries, people vote privately. At caucuses, which last hours, people publicly defend their candidate. Understandably, caucuses include far fewer voters than primaries (usually politically active people with flexible schedules). Compare these few primary and caucus states:

………………………………Delegates…………….#Voters

Wyoming (caucus) …………12…………………….8,753

Georgia (primary)………….12………………1,046,485

Hawaii (caucus)……………..17…………………..37,247

Rhode Islandr(primary)……18…………………184,904

Iowa (caucus)……………….45…………………….2,501

Oklahoma (primary)………38…………………401,230

Fewer than 50,000 people voted in caucuses to decide who got Wyoming’s, Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s combined 74 delegates. More than 1.6 million people voted in primaries to give out Georgia’s, Rhode Island’s and Oklahoma’s combined 68 delegates.

In other words, at least 32 times more people had input into who would win the primary states’ 68 delegates than participated in giving out the caucus states’ 74 delegates.

The natural question: are caucuses as broadly representative as primaries of a state party’s voters’ opinions?

Of the 26 states (plus Washington DC) that Obama won, 12 of them were caucus states. Now add Texas, where Obama lost the primary (which decided two-thirds of that state’s delegates) but won the caucus (which decided one-third of the delegates). That puts 13 caucus states on Obama’s score card.

Hillary has won 2 caucus states — sort of, anyway, as she won the popular vote in Nevada but Obama won more delegates there.

It’s both fair and factual — and not the least bit insulting — for the Clinton campaign to point out that many of Obama’s victories were in caucus states that had far fewer voters deciding who got delegates.

Second, neither Hillary nor Obama is likely to win “Red States” in November: McCain probably will.

Of the states that Obama has won so far, 10 are “Red States”: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming. Those 10 states have a combined 64 Electoral College votes — which will likely go to McCain. (I didn’t count Texas, whose caucus Obama won but not its primary).

Clinton has won 2 “Red States,” Texas and Oklahoma, whose EC votes total 41 (which also will likely go to McCain).

Long story short: Obama’s victories in some caucuses and primaries don’t really reflect how he would do in November if he were the nominee.

The Clinton Campaign would be remiss if it didn’t point that out.

Obama’s supporters may not like hearing such things, but those statements don’t constitute personal attacks against those supporters. The Obama campaign’s email continues:

“… the fact remains that Senator Clinton’s campaign will continue to attack us using the same old Washington playbook. And now that John McCain is the Republican nominee, we are forced to campaign on two fronts.

“It’s up to you to fight back. Please make a donation of $25 today:

“https://donate.barackobama.com/math….”

Telling thousands of people that Sen. Clinton is attacking them (or their mamas) is as divisive as it is factually questionable. Thus, its hypocritical for the Obama campaign to accuse Clinton of “divisive campaigning.”

Given that the get-them-to-take-it-personally tactic was used by George Bush (circa 2001-2005), it’s equally hypocritical for the Obama campaign to accuse Clinton of “using the same old Washington playbook.”

And notice that the email suggests that the way to fight Hillary is to give Obama $25 — the way televangelists prescribe monetary donations as the way for viewers to secure salvation in the hereafter.

Given that the Obama campaign has tried to paint itself as embracing a new style of politics (i.e., clean and nice), I’m surprised that the media isn’t focusing more on such emails.

I’ll be happy to forward the email to you if you email me.