by Don Frederick
A bad day just got worse for Barack Obama with word that the popular Democratic governor of North Carolina, Mike Easley will be endorsing Hillary Clinton Tuesday -- one week before the state's May 6 primary.
Obama has been leading in the polls in North Carolina, and the state's demographics still play to his strengths. But the latest flareup featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could undercut what his camp hoped would be an impressive winning margin in the state -- and perhaps turn the contest into a tossup.
And Easley's backing of Clinton now gives her the type of institutional political heft that helped her cause so much in Ohio (where Gov. Ted Strickland rallied support for her) and Pennsylvania (where Gov. Ed Rendell spared no effort on her behalf).
Intriguingly, Easley's choice, reported by the Associated Press, puts him at odds with the two leading Democrats vying to replace him (he's prohibited from seeking a third term). The pair -- Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and state Treasurer Richard Moore -- back Obama (which recently spurred a controversial Republican ad).
Easley's potential to help Clinton is explained, in part, by this description of his political savvy in the current edition of the National Journal's
"Easley has a blue-collar appeal, in part because he looks to popular culture for political insight; he has instructed his pollster to ask respondents whether they watch Fox television's animated series 'King of the Hill.' Easley is a fan of the show and its main character Hank Hill, a conservative propane salesman in a small Texas town who likes guns and NASCAR. Hill's character doesn't identify with a political party, but Easley has said Democrats have had difficulty winning these voters and likes to know whether his proposals appeal to this audience."
This characteristic, combined with his decision to help her during a time of great need for Clinton, should improve his prospects as a potential running mate if she rallies to capture the Democratic nomination. At the least, as a superdelegate to the party convention, Easley gives her one more tally in that category.
The Obama camp neutralized that gain with its own superdelegate pickup today -- Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico announced his support for him. But in terms of impact, Easley's move counts more. After all, the caucuses in Bingaman's home state were held almost three months ago (and were barely lost by Obama).
Don Frederick, a Washington editor for The Los Angeles Times, wrote this for Top of the Ticket, the Times' political blog.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Big deal. Billary is going to lose NC anyway and she just might lose Indiana. She has already lost the nomination to Obama.
Billary's candidacy is nothing more than a side-show Bob freak show now days, she's only being allowed to stay in this race because her last name is "Clinton" and she was married to a former President, anyone else who was losing as badly as she is now would have already been forced to drop out.
Posted by: John E | April 28, 2008 9:17 PM
First, this guy is no Rendell. Just mentioning them in the same sentence is laughable.
He's on his way out and trying to further his career on the Clinton train. Good. He fits their mold.
Won't help, though.
Posted by: Susan | April 28, 2008 9:24 PM
Looks like this is the slow drip, drip, drip of dems bailing off the Obama bandwagon.
Obama is finally being vetted and people don't like what their learning about him....For 30 years Obama listened to racist Rev. Wright and he hangs out with terrorists.
Abandon Ship!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | April 28, 2008 10:27 PM
I see Hillary Clinton wants more debates -- really, really wants more debates. Losing, underfunded candidates always want more debates. Winning, well-funded candidates don't. All Sen. Clinton does by pleading for more debates is underline the fact that she is a losing, underfunded candidate.
A good example of this is that Hillary Clinton, a winning, well-funded candidate in her 2006 Senate race against a losing, underfunded candidate, John Spencer, agreed to only two debates with him and refused Mr. Spencer's request for more debates. This from the New York Times of September 22, 2006:
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to schedule two debates with her Republican rival, John Spencer, the former mayor of Yonkers. * * * A Spencer campaign spokesman, Rob Ryan, said yesterday that his camp would like many more debates, but that Mrs. Clinton had declined."
Posted by: Nomis | April 28, 2008 10:38 PM
Hey you guys finally got around to reporting this. You guys run out of lattes and have to do some actual reporting or something? "Susan" is right, though. He's no Ed Rendell. But Evan Bayh in Indiana, who also endorsed Clinton, is worth two Ed Rendells and a Mike Easley.
Posted by: Jeff | April 28, 2008 11:07 PM
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: brigitte | April 28, 2008 11:18 PM
Many NC voters have been scratching their heads over the endorsements by the two Democratic hopefuls veying to succeed Governor Easley.
He just proved why he's a popular two termer who, due to term limits, will have to vacate his seat.
He will be missed.
Posted by: ElliotNC | April 28, 2008 11:38 PM
Nomis, I agree with you. Hillary lacks funds, and a televised debate would give her the type of exposure she cannot afford otherwise, and may somewhat negate Obama's war chest lead over her. Additionally, it is politics 101 that if you have a virtually insurmountable lead over your opponent, you have little to gain and everything to lose by debating. I just wish Obama would be up front over these points, which I think are obvious. Instead he makes up dubious excuses as to why he wont debate. Just be honest about it.
Posted by: Herbie H. | April 29, 2008 11:54 AM