Campaign Postmortem: New voters elected Barack Obama

Steve Hildebrand, Obama deputy campaign manager, said he is firmly convinced that it was the campaign’s success in registering new voters that flipped the election. New voters determined the outcome in 8 to 9 states, he said.

“If we hadn’t had this very aggressive, very targeted voter registration effort, then Obama wouldn’t have been president,” Hildebrand said.

In one-on-one interviews between sessions of a Post-Election Conference in Lawrence, Kan., Hildebrand said new voter registrations were the margin of victory in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. New registrations may have also determined the outcome in Pennsylvania, he said.

The campaign’s overwhelming field operation facilitated the new voter registration and increased turnout. (How big was the field campaign? See below)

Comparing voter registration to the margin of victory provides the proof.

In Florida, for example, the Obama campaign registered 900,000 new voters. Before that registration drive, Democrats had a 650,000 registration advantage in the state.

“We won by 230,00,” Hildebrand said. “I think it’s pretty easy to see that if we hadn’t done that registration, we wouldn’t have won Florida.”

In Virginia, Obama lost the white vote by 23 percent, yet “Democrats in a Republican state turned out at an 8 percent higher rate than Republicans.”

The youth vote also helped cement the victory.

After the Obama voter registration drive in Colorado, voters under the age of 30 represented a larger portion of the electorate in that state than voters aged 60 and older.

“That’s unprecedented in American politics. If you look at virtually every battleground state in the country, voters 18 to 29 represented a higher portion of the vote than those 65 plus. Colorado was 60 plus. Other states were 65 plus. Those were new registrants.”

An aside: How overwhelming was Obama’s field campaign?

At the Post-Election conference, veteran GOP operative Ed Rollins of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush fame; and John McCain strategists Sarah Simmons and Christian Ferry said they were stunned when they heard at the Lawrence conference about the details of Obama’s operation.

I now return you to the non-political geeky part of your day.

A president we can be proud of

By Nancy Jane Moore


My friends Mark and Mary Gayle and I started to believe that Barack Obama might actually win this election when MSNBC told us he'd carried Ohio. But his electoral vote count stayed at 207 for about an hour and nothing seemed to be happening, so we switched over to Comedy Central to see what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had to say.

They were clowning around, occasionally interviewing some people (like Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, who was pretty damn funny for a law professor), and then the clock ticked over to 10:01 PM (CST) and Jon Stewart suddenly had an important -- and real -- announcement: "Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States."

Obviously every news outlet -- even The Daily Show -- was just waiting for the polls to close on the West Coast.

We confirmed things on MSNBC, made a quick check of Fox News, just to be sure, and then broke out the champagne and waited for the speeches.

McCain's concession speech was decent enough to remind me that in the past he'd had the reputation of being a more honorable man than his campaign suggested. But mostly I was just glad to know that it was the last word I'd have to hear from him for some time to come.

And then Obama made the kind of speech you want to hear from a president and I was moved. I wasn't just happy because I voted for him, or because I agree with him on many (though not all) of the issues before us or even just because it means Bush will soon be gone. I was deeply moved because he speaks so well and with so much depth and substance, and because his speech reflects an intelligent man who gives great thought to what he says and does.

And his victory reflects a man who knows how to bring the right people together to get the job done.

It occurs to me that for once in my lifetime, I might have a government that I can be proud of, one that at least reaches for the idealism that we were all taught about in high school while being competently run.

I was, in fact, so moved that I suddenly had the desire to go to Obama's inauguration.

You should know that I recently moved back to Austin, Texas, so going to the inauguration is a lot harder than it was when I lived in Washington, where I could just hop on the subway.

You should also know that as near as I can remember, it's always cold as hell in Washington on Inauguration Day. And I really hate large crowds. And it's easier to see and hear what's going on if you watch the swearing in on television.

In fact, I lived in Washington, D.C., for 28 years and never -- ever -- went to see the president inaugurated. Not even Bill Clinton.

But you know, I'm actually thinking about going.

This will be an historic election -- if Obama wins

By Nancy Jane Moore

I've had the radio going all day, and about every fifteen minutes someone mentions that this is going to be an historic election -- usually in the context of encouraging everyone to vote.

But it's only going to be an historic election if Obama wins. If he loses, we're going to get business as usual, not to mention four more years of failed policies that are likely to finish destroying our country.

So go out and vote for Obama and make some history.

Clio, the Muse of History
painted by Vermeer

The real problem with Palin's $150,000 wardrobe

By Nancy Jane Moore

Joan Walsh on Salon summed up the real problem with the McCain campaign spending $150,000 to outfit "the already beautiful Palin":

Sarah Palin didn't need the best clothing and stylists money could buy; she needed tutoring and coaching on the issues. ... The fact that the highest paid staffer on the troubled McCain team this month is Palin's makeup person is also ludicrous; you can't make this stuff up. But it proves that the campaign values Palin primarily for her star power.

It also destroys any remaining claim that the McCain/Palin ticket is "feminist." Obviously the campaign honchos think it's more important for Palin to look good than to know what she's talking about. You can't come up with a more traditional way of marginalizing women than that.

Of course, Palin was picked as the VP candidate to shore up McCain with the extreme religious right, not just to be attractive. And given the apparent depth of Palin's ignorance of the important issues of the day -- which appears to rival or perhaps even exceed Bush's -- perhaps the campaign figured coaching her on the issues was impossible. If so, that just emphasizes what a bad choice she was, given the mess the country's in.

It was a big enough insult to women in this country for the Republicans to assume that women would flock to a female VP candidate whose policies as governor and stated political and religious beliefs undermine the rights we've worked so hard to attain. But to now treat that candidate as if she were running for first lady instead of vice president is even worse.

Sarah Palin is nothing but a token. How embarrassing for the Republicans; how personally humiliating for Palin. I just hope this campaign destroys her political future so thoroughly that her current political office is her last one.

This country has just suffered through eight years under a person who holds extreme right wing religious beliefs, doesn't understand the important issues of the day, and prides himself on his lack of intellectual curiosity. It can't afford another president like that.

In fact, it can't afford any more senators and governors like that, either.

The Silly Season

We've reached the Silly Season in politics. With weeks still left in the campaign, pundits have decided that they know exactly who will win. The candidate who is sinking in the polls, which may or may not be measuring reality, is throwing everything and the kitchen sink at his opponent. Bloggers are ramping up their rants, and the one thing that is absolutely indisputable is that it is now impossible to escape campaign ads. (Heck, you can't even get away from them in video games anymore.)

After we've all taken deep breaths and nice, long calming walks in the woods, we need to do whatever we can to ground ourselves in reality. Here are a few ideas on how to do that.

• Remember: No one has won the presidency yet. Days can equal years in politics. Withhold your celebrations or depressions until the night of Nov. 4.
• Ignore the polls. Unless you're a pollster or on Barack Obama or John McCain's campaign staff, they'll only drive you crazy and possibly mislead you. No one wins or loses until all the voters vote. If this election matters to you, it's still important to give money and time to your favorite candidate.
• Read every blogger, including me, with a healthy dose of skepticism. Bloggers tend to view the world through ideology-tinted glasses. That article they claim shows how everyone hates Sarah Palin, for example, may actually say nothing of the sort. Check out the article for yourself.
• And above all, fact check everyone, and that includes me.

"I'm not going to the back of the bus!"

Thank you, Donna Brazile.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan. Like Andrew, I got tears in my eyes when I watched this. Perhaps that's because we're both gay and understand what it is to be a oppressed, or perhaps that's because we're both human and know truth when we see it.

PS - Be patient. This video seems to take forever to load. It's at the bottom of the page under a bunch of rather irritating graphics.

Today's Must Read: Everybody take a deep breath

I agree with David Broder that both Democrats and Republicans need to chill out. In talking about the presidential election, Broder writes:

...the uncertainty of the outcome is overwhelming.

Open Letter to Progressives: Let's not let ourselves get "Braziled"

As the Obama-Biden ticket tumbles in the post-convention polls, there is more than a whiff of panic in the air of ProgressiveLand. You can smell it in the blogosphere and in the e-mails, Twitterings and Facebook messages flying around the Internet.

Joan Walsh summed the facts and the feelings up nicely on Salon.com today.

Democrats traumatized by the surreal losses in 2000 and 2004 feel like it's déjà vu all over again, with the sudden surge of John McCain and Sarah Palin in the polls. It's like a bad dream: Even the Obama fundraising juggernaut is stumbling, according to the New York Times, missing its internal targets and having to push harder for cash. Meanwhile, white women have flocked to the ticket with the white female vice president; according to the most recent ABC News poll, Barack Obama had an 8-point lead among white women voters last week; now he's trailing McCain by 12, a 20-point swing in one week.

I'm not writing to say that everything is going to be OK. To do so would be a lie because no one, absolutely no one, knows who is going to win on Nov. 4. Any pollster, any pundit, any beer-drinking buddy from down the street who says that this election is already locked up for John McCain or for Obama is simply a fool.

But I would like to offer some perspective on the psychology of this moment. To understand what may be happening, we have to understand the psychology of competition. Any individual competitor -- or a campaign or political movement -- can defeat itself. Right now, that's what I see as the biggest danger for Obama fans.

To fully explore this idea (and explain my headline), I need to detour into women's soccer. I suspect that Brazil's 1-0 defeat in the gold medal game had more to do with what was going on between the ears of Brazil's players than with what happened on the field.

If you follow the women's game at all, you know that the U.S. once dominated the world (and Brazil), but recently our team has been, at best, a fading power, while the immensely talented Brazil has been ascendant. To make matters worse, our star player, Abby Wambaugh, suffered a broken leg just before the Olympics. Few expected the U.S. to win gold, but we triumphed despite the fact that Brazil played brilliantly for most of the game.

While providing color commentary on the Olympic telecast, former national team star Brandi Chastain offered the best explanation I heard for Brazil's defeat. The U.S. has beaten Brazil so many times in the past that the Brazilians simply couldn't believe that they would win, Chastain said.

Action followed belief.

Reality blossomed out of prophecy.

Today progressives find themselves in the same position as Brazil, except that the stakes are far higher than an Olympic medal.

No one knows what will happen on Nov. 4, but there is one way for progressives to guarantee failure, and that's to remain convinced that we can't win.

For more perspective -- some cheerful and some not -- see these links.

A Democratic pollster puts the latest polls in perspective.

Jonathon Capehart from The Washington Post considers the situation.

CNN does a poll of polls and considers the electoral map.

Tied

The newest poll shows that the Republican National Convention gave John McCain the momentum, but it also shows that the race is now tied. Other polls gave McCain the lead.

All together now: Who decides a tie in a presidential race? Voters do. That's you and me, folks.

Great new resource for tracking the presidential election

By Diane Silver

I'm becoming a big fan of Advocate news editor Kerry Eleveld and her Election 2008 blog. This is, by far, the most sophisticated and useful resource I've seen for LGBT voters to use to track the presidential race and our issues. Eleveld appears to be a careful reporter, and she is certainly a clear writer who is familiar with LGBT issues.

PHOTO: Eleveld interviews Bill Richardson after his Logo/HRC Debate goof. For the full photo, see here.

Obama anti-gay gaffe looms larger

[2/26/08 Update --> Despite the misgivings discussed in this post, I decided to support Barack Obama and enthusiastically caucused for him in the Feb. 5 Kansas Caucuses. For details on my change of mind and for details on the pro-Obama stance of my co-blogger, Nancy Jane Moore, please see links at the bottom of this post.

I am posting this update because a web site called The Hillary Clinton Forum continues to link to my one anti-Obama post while failing to link to my multiple pro-Obama posts.

Diane Silver]

**************************
I wrote in my Camp-KC column this month that I didn't think Barack Obama's use of anti-gay singer Donnie McClurkin was a serious misstep. Now, I'm beginning to wonder.

Every time I think about settling on Obama as my candidate for the Feb. 5 Kansas caucuses, McClurkin keeps coming to mind. McClurkin wasn't even the only anti-gay singer on the bill of the pro-Obama concert tour, according to Pam at the House Blend. The fact that Obama did not remove any of the anti-gay singers when he learned about their stances is more than unsettling. It is downright scary for those of us living with targets on our backs.

I still don't know what to make of this. We're getting to crunch time, though, to make a decision. It's 17 days and counting until the suddenly meaningful Kansas Caucuses.

Perhaps the best thing to come out of this is that it has apparently lit a fire under LGBT Democratic voters in South Carolina.

[More on 2/26/08 Update]
Here are the links to In This Moment's most recent posts about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

By Diane Silver
And The Winner is: Barack Obama

The thrill of caucusing

By Nancy Jane Moore
Why I can't support Hillary Clinton in the Texas primary

It's our turn on Feb. 5

By Diane Silver

The newest Hope & Politics column glories over the new-found power of our vote and mulls our options, comparing Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards on LGBT issues. (And yes, I also discuss Dennis Kucinich.)

As far as I'm concerned, none of the Republicans are worth even the time of day from any LGBT voter. Among the top Democrats, the differences are slight on our issues, but potentially significant.

Pat Oliphant proves that sexism really is alive & well in the presidential campaign

By Diane Silver

I've always been a huge fan of cartoonist Pat Oliphant, but his offering today showing a crying Hillary Clinton is as sexist as you can get. It plays into every sexist stereotype about women, including claiming that women get hysterical once a month because of PMS. (I kid you not.)

This is garbage, pure and simple. Call me naive for even entertaining the thought that this ridiculous view of women was losing its grip.

I have problems with Clinton's positions at times and with other aspects of her campaign, but Oliphant's cartoon shows that Gloria Steinem was right: The double standard is alive and well.

To say that I'm angry is an understatement. If I could vote today, I'd vote for Clinton, for no other reason than the fact that this kind of BS has to end.

IMAGE: Just a bit of Oliphant's absurd cartoon. See the rest for yourself.

UPDATE

Huntsu's post on the topic at Daily Kos and the resulting comments.

Today's Must Read: Judging the best presidential candidate for gays

By Diane Silver

Kerry Eleveld has posted the best analysis I've seen, yet, on whether Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards would make the best president for LGBT Americans. Eleveld is the news editor of The Advocate. She frames the question in an interesting way.

The question for LGBT voters seems not to be which of these candidates is more supportive of gay issues – they have all conducted more LGBT outreach than previous politicians in their shoes. It’s more a matter of which candidate one believes will achieve the best results – the strategist, the bridge-builder, or the journeyer.

What the New Hampshire primary means for Democrats

By Diane Silver

Bottom Line: Hillary Clinton's victory tonight means we've still got a ball game. There will be no early coronation for a Democratic presidential candidate.

It also means that Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, is looming larger. Even something as lowly as the Democratic caucuses in Kansas may actually mean something, and I'm going to be there.

In case you missed it... both AP and NBC are now calling the New Hampshire Democratic primary for Hillary.

The Wife Issue: Hillary Clinton & the elephant in the room

By Diane Silver

Gloria Steinem had a terrific op-ed in the New York Times this morning. Steinem argued that Hillary Clinton is struggling because women still face a glass ceiling, particularly in seeking the presidency. As I have many times in the past, I agreed wholeheartedly with Steinem's ideas. And yet, I still find myself leaning farther and farther away from supporting Hillary.

It's not, as Steinem implied, because I'm too young to understand sexism. I'm 55 and well aware of the obstacles we face for no other reason than the fact that we're female. As Steinem noted, women tend to get more radical as they get older. I've certainly seen myself do that. And to be clear: My anti-Hillary lean is not born of an unconscious feeling that a woman can't be a good president.

No, what's bothered me from the beginning of Hillary's campaign is actually a very feminist idea. It's what feels like an elephant -- a non-Republican elephant -- in the room that all of us feminists are too frightened to name.

The core problem for me is not that Hillary is running as a woman, but that she's running as a wife.

Is Hillary's campaign nothing more than a return to the past where a woman couldn't achieve on her own? In those bad old days, in fact, one of the only ways a female could get elected was to take over for a dead husband when he died in office.

While Bill is still very much alive and kicking, no one can deny that Hillary won her name recognition and launched her own political career by being First Lady. One of her main campaign themes is her experience. As part of that experience, she points to her eight years as somebody's wife.

As a feminist, I'm frankly insulted by the idea that Hillary is a viable candidate for president simply because she was the right man's wife. I am even more angered by the fact that at one time her marital status seemed to put her at the front of the pack.

I know that Hillary has achieved much on her own. I honor her for that. But I don't see it as a feminist breakthrough for Hillary to win, and I'm tired of people telling me that it is.

Iowa caucuses gut check

By Diane Silver

Despite my preoccupation with football tonight, I did keep track of the Iowa caucuses. During the game, I kept switching back and forth between the Orange Bowl and CNN, and when I heard that Barack Obama had won handily, I had an amazing reaction: I felt hope.

I don't mean anything having to do with Obama's book title. I don't mean that I've been an Obama supporter and was thrilled by his win. I'm still not certain who I want to support, and there are times when anybody but Obama sounds best to me. It wasn't even the hope that an Obama candidacy might mean that Democrats could really win the presidency this year.

What I felt was deep. It was a total gut reaction. I'm not even certain I can analyze the feeling except to say that for a fleeting instant I felt like real change might happen, REAL change.

I do so want to vote for a woman, but bottom line is that I want to be inspired. I want a candidate who can do more than stay on message.

Thinking about Hillary Clinton

By Nancy Jane Moore

The Washington Post reports today that Hillary Clinton is leading in the polls because women support her.

I'm not one of those women.

As a feminist, I cannot help but be delighted by the prospect of a woman president. And I find many things to like about Hillary Clinton. She's very intelligent and has accumulated a wealth of experience over the years. Even though she's a moderate at best -- not the liberal painted by the right wing blogosphere -- she is, by word and deed, an advocate for women's rights.

Of course, she is also ambitious and aggressive -- even ruthless -- in her pursuit of the presidency. But so are all her opponents: You don't get elected president in this country without wanting the job very badly and being willing to break a few eggs on the way to the White House omelet. And given that the glass ceiling at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is even thicker than the one in the executive suite -- and we all know how hard it is to break that one -- a woman who wants the job must necessarily be both smarter and tougher than her opponents.

Electing Hillary Clinton president would certainly knock down a few more barriers to gender equality in this country -- and in the rest of the world.

But then we come to the Iraq War and national security -- exemplars of Bush's failed foreign policy. And that's where Hillary troubles me.

I know she's backed off from her original support of the Iraq War -- as have so many other people who seemed to think it was a good idea at the time. But even though she keeps calling it "Bush's war" -- which it is -- she hasn't moved away from it as completely as others have. She keeps refusing to apologize for her vote giving Bush the power to go to war.

And then there are reports like this one in The New York Times, in which she is quoted as saying that we are safer than we were before September 11.

I don't feel safer, Sen. Clinton. I feel like Bush's idiotic policies have inflamed people throughout the world and that more and more of them are turning to terrorism. And it isn't just the foreign policy disaster; there are also vast inadequacies in Bush's "homeland security" program -- Hurricane Katrina showed that. If we aren't even prepared for the natural disasters we know are going to happen, how can we possibly be ready for the unexpected?

It troubles me that Hillary feels safer. Plus Barack Obama seems to have a fresh approach, John Edwards has substantial things to say about social justice, Bill Richardson has varied experience, and Al Gore is out there critiquing the very core of our political system. So I find myself edging away from supporting her, no matter how many emails I get from NOW urging me to send money now.

And yet -- and yet -- the other night on the radio I heard thoughtful analysts speculate on the sexism issue. Then there's this editorial in the Des Moines Register, speculating about how sexism is affecting Clinton's rating in the Iowa polls.

It gets my feminist dander up, I confess. How dare anyone even hint that a woman -- especially a woman as bright and experienced as Hillary Clinton -- shouldn't be president just because of her gender? If enough people keep doing that, and especially if they keep doing it in the subtle ways that are hard to quantify, I'm going to find myself mailing her a check despite my qualms.

The finer points of the Dem candidates' support (?) for fair laws for lesbians & gays

By Diane Silver

The Human Rights Campaign survey showing near unanimous support from the Democratic presidential candidates for fair laws for lesbians and gays may not be as clear cut as it first seemed.

More information is coming out today about the details of the candidates' survey answers. Among the most important issues is each candidate's stand on the misnamed and truly nasty DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

I'm still sorting through all of this, so I'm withholding my opinion for the time being.

However, here's more information from Pam's House Blend complete with a video clip from last night's debate. Pam also has the full questionnaire responses from six of the candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Andrew Sullivan, who is no fan of the Human Rights Campaign, says the survey was rigged to make Clinton look good.

Stay tuned.

A serious Democratic allergy to using the "marriage" word for same-sex couples

By Diane Silver

The Human Right Campaign's newly released survey of Democratic presidential hopefuls has generally good news for lesbian and gay couples.

One lingering pain in the rear remains, though. That's the continuing aversion of candidates to the use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples. Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich is willing to own up to supporting full-fledged marriage for us.

On the other hand, everyone from Hillary Clinton to John Edwards and Barack Obama is supporting full rights and fairness under the law in every other way.

Generally, I think this is good news, but is there any other reason to back away from the word "marriage" except for political cowardice? I expected more from Obama.

The full survey results can be found on the HRC site.