Iraq Not Hurting Hillary Among Democrats, But Obama Surging Among Blacks

Barack Obama is increasingly seeming like the more strategically astute choice for those who want a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton.

First posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

Polling information reported a couple of weeks ago by the Washington Post indicates that Hillary's approach on Iraq has not hurt her with most Democrats.  The Washington Post reported that:

Her position on the war in Iraq does not appear to be hurting Clinton among Democrats, even though she has faced hostile questioning from some voters about her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to go to war. Some Democrats have demanded that she apologize for the vote, which she has declined to do.

The Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent of Democrats said her vote was the right thing to do at the time, while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, [only] 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton [still] led Obama 40 to 26 percent. WaPost

But, a Washington Post/ABC news poll also showed a dramatic shift among Blacks toward Barack Obama, feuling suspicion that Obama may be the more viable candidate for those who want an alternative to Hillary Clinton.  

Democrats who have supported Edwards in the past are now challenged to decide whether to continue in that support or switch to Obama, whose support is twice as high as Edwards' overall, with Obama also surging among Blacks relative to Hillary Clinton.  WaPost

A plus for progressives supporting Obama is that, unlike Edwards, Obama never did support the war in Iraq.

Particularly among leftist bloggers who have not supported Clinton, there may be a move to coalesce behind Senator Barack Obama, both because he is a candidate who can win significant Black votes in the primaries to combine with progressive votes, and because, if nominated, Blacks' will more enthusiastically support Obama than they would Edwards.  Edwards, with lower polling numbers now, and little hope of winning Blacks support in the primaries, is unlikely to overcome Hillary Clinton, and so dividing forces between Edwards and Obama will most likely result in Hillary Clinton being the victor.

Anti-war Edwards supporters must also consider the message it sends about accountability when they support a senator who voted in favor of the war (Edwards) over a senator who spoke clearly against the war even before it started (Obama). Support for Edwards rather than Obama effectively tells Congresspeople that they can vote however they please in the future on Iraq and Iran and still find a constituency among anti-war progressives.

With his broad appeal, strong liberalism, great speaking ability, large crowds (at least 20,000 in Houston), strong fundraising ability,  and increasing institutional support (head of Massachusetts Dem Party endorses Obama),   coalescing behing Barack Obama is increasingly seeming like the more viable and strategically astute choice for those who want an alternative to Hillary Clinton.

First posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

francislholland@yahoo.com

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |