by John McCormick
NEW ALBANY, Ind. - Sen. Barack Obama said today that he can close the deal with voters, challenging a suggestion made yesterday by his Democratic opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton.
"The way we're going to close the deal is by winning," he told reporters at an afternoon press conference following an event here.
"Right now, we're winning. What we'll do is keep on campaigning in Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon and these other states," he said. "At the conclusion of all these other contests, people will go back and take a look and say who's won. We have a pretty strong case to make that we've won more delegates, we've won more states and we've won more votes. It will be apparent that we'll be in the strongest position to win in November."
Obama and his campaign have also begun to press the storyline that he troubles in states like Pennsylvania have more to do with age, than race or economic status.
"Our problem has less to do with white working class voters. In fact the problem is that -- to the extent that there is a problem -- is that older voters are very loyal to Sen. Clinton," he said. "I think, you know, part of that is they've got a track record of voting for not just Sen. Clinton, but also her husband. And, you know, we want to make sure that they know that on issues that are of importance to them, like prescription drugs or pension and retirement security, that I've got a strong track record on those issues and very specific plans to make sure that they are getting the kinds of help that they need. And, you know, if we do that effectively, which, you know, we have tried to do in all the states, then I think we end up doing very well here in Indiana."
Obama argued that he will do well in Indiana, partly because he is better know here.
"I think there's a big difference between Indiana and those other two states. People are a little more familiar with me here in Indiana," he said.
In states with large concentrations of white, working-class voters where he has lost, Obama said there were other variables at play.
"In Pennsylvania and Ohio, there were Democratic governors who were strongly supportive of Senator Clinton," he said. "If I'm the nominee, they'll be strongly supportive of me and we'll be in a strong position to win."
Even among working-class voters, Obama said he is making progress.
"We did better in Pennsylvania than we did in Ohio, so we're continually making progress," he said. "We haven't gone backwards, we're going forward. If you look at these states that I'm supposed to win, if you look at the polling, I actually do if not as well, then better, than Senator Clinton relative to Senator McCain."
Obama said he has done well in plenty of battleground states, where he would have a base to build upon in a general election.
"In states like Virginia and Colorado and Wisconsin and Iowa, which are also battleground states, which I won handily, we had a much better chance of winning," he said. "We're very confident about where we're going to be once we're the nominee, but we've just got to make sure that this process plays itself out."
As the Democratic contest drags on, Obama said he is losing time against likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.
"There's no doubt that if we have additional time to bring the Democratic Party together and to focus on the Republican nominee, then we'll be stronger for it in the fall," he said. "And that's why we'd like to wrap up this nominee as quickly as possible. Yes, there's been some time lost."
But Obama said there are advantages to a long campaign.
"I do think that having campaigned in Pennsylvania, having campaigned in Ohio, having to campaign here in Indiana, North Carolina and Oregon, and some of these other states increases registration levels, increases participation in the Democratic primary and builds organization," he said. "So those are all pluses, those are all benefits of a longer campaign."
Obama also responded to a Republican ad running in North Carolina that includes images of his longtime and now controversial Chicago pastor.
"My understanding is that the Republican National Committee and John McCain have both said that the ad is inappropriate," he said. "I take them at their word and I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad that he get them to pull it down, since he's their nominee and standard-bearer."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
DREAMER. So many of us are. Hillary said 'HE CANT WIN", and she has made sure of that.
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Southsider | April 23, 2008 3:55 PM
Of course, he can close the deal and win the nomination, in spite of losing those 10-12 delegates he lost in Pennsylvania. He started 20 percentage points behind Senator Clinton, there and whittled it down to less than 10 percentage points, in spite of entire Democratic apparatus, Govenor Rendell brought to the race and the untold dollars spent by that organization. I would say, he did quite well, as I think, most straight forward people would agree with my assessment of the race!! I look forward to President Obama's inaugural speech in January!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 23, 2008 4:03 PM
FROM THE NYTIMES EDITORIAL BOARD....and they endorsed Clinton:
"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it".
"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election".
"If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead".
IT'S OVER FOR CLINTON!!!
Posted by: Katherine | April 23, 2008 4:07 PM
Word has gotten out concerning the details of the "back room deal" that the Clinton machine is trying desperately to broker. It's called the very obvious attempt to pressure uncommitted delegates to hold off until the time to pounce arrives. Then it will become uglier than ever imagined. If Obama wins in delegates and the popular vote, then by all that is correct he should receive the nomination. On the other hand, if the Clintons have their way, they will do their best to coerce a different outcome from the very ones who are supposed to do what's fair and correct. If that happens, then there's nothing democratic about the Dem party and the disenfranchisement of millions will bring swift consequences in more ways that can be imagined. And that would not be good for the country.
Posted by: SilverFoxUna | April 23, 2008 4:29 PM
he wont be able to close the deal
Posted by: brigitte | April 23, 2008 4:58 PM
So Clinton won the Floyd Turbo vote and pulled the wool over the eyes of the grandpas and grandmas who can't accept the reality that those overpaid union jobs are gone forever. Whippy fizz. Hillary would lead the democratic party to an electoral disaster if she gets the nomination. Whyso? Black America - the core supporter of the party - would abandon it en masse - some might even vote Republican. Kiss off the Independent vote - they loathe the woman. Kiss off the veterans and active military - multiple sources indicate the serving military prefer Obama even over McCain - but if it becomes Hillary vs. McCain the military vote goes overwhelmingly to McCain. White males are not going to support the Wicked Witch in November - they'll go for McCain no matter how bad the economy becomes. And the media won't be able to softpeddle all of the dirty linen that the Republicans will dig up about her and Slick Willie - the swift-boating done to Senator Kerry will look positively benign by comparison. So, who's left? The Floyd Turbo vote? By itself, no longer decisive. The aging feminist fanatics? Hillary represents their last hurrah as they become increasingly irrelevant and marginalized. The Catholic vote? By itself, not dispositive. Latinos? Maybe in California and New Mexico - they'd be offset by the anti-Hillary groundswell in the big midwest and eastern states. So, Hillary fanatics - savor your essentially meaningless victory - one battle does not decide a war - and the powers that be in the Democratic party want to win the '08 election, not genuflect to Empress Hillary.
Posted by: Wolfgang | April 23, 2008 5:19 PM
The hardworking people of PA were not taken in by the boyish charms of Obama and his eloquence. I guess when a person works hard idealism is empty promises, and realism is what is needed. Hillary spoke real issues and connected, whereas all Obama had to give the people of PA were lofty words meant for the more educated, not for the "bitter" hardworking people of PA. His appeal may be to the college educated, younger crowd, but it will be the hardworking, older voters who will carry the election in November because they are the REALIST and the backbone of this nation. Let the college crowd sip their lattes and keep their heads in the sand because that's where they have been during this primary. Hillary is the best candidate for the Democrats. So what, if for some, she is not Miss Congeniality, she is a fighter and passionate about resolving the issues that face the middle class and this nation.
Obama's ivory tower approach will not play well in November. Moreover, if the race becomes a "race candidacy," too many whites will do exactly what Blacks are doing now - vote color rather than the candidate. If that happens, then the Hispanic and Asian vote will decide the next President. That being the case, Hillary is indeed the better candidate because she can guarantee a win from all sides of the racial divide.
Posted by: the truth | April 23, 2008 5:31 PM
Obama has failed to close the deal. Obama is unelectable. The Dems would be foolish to nominate an unelectable candidate.
Obama's caucus wins are meaningless in the general election. No one is really delusional enough to actually believe that states like Utah ar e in play in November. LOL.
Hillary has already proven she can win big in the big, electoral rich states that are the must wins in a general election. That's what's most important.
Hillary is the most qualified and most electable candidate.
Why did Illinois elect Obama in the first place? His associates are very bad, Rezko, Auchi, Emil Jones, the ttoxic pastor trio of Wright, Moss & Meeks, Wm Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn, radical muslim leader Raila Odinga of Kenya, Africa (Obama's cousin?) WHO are these people and why does Obama associate with them??
The voters have a right to know.
Illinois can do better than Obama. Throw the bum out.
*Vote Smart! Vote Patriotic! Vote Hillary!
Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 5:46 PM
Obama will never close the gap nor will he ever be President. His Rev. Wright legacy will follow him forever. The Republicans will eat him alive before Nov..He should pull out so that HRC can beat McCain and we can once again have a Democrat for President....That would prove he is patriotic, not an elitist ,ego hungry politician..
Posted by: kaye m. | April 23, 2008 5:49 PM
The voters have a right to know.
Illinois can do better than Obama. Throw the bum out.
*Vote Smart! Vote Patriotic! Vote Hillary!
Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 5:46 PM
I love the way the Clinton cheerleaders (see above) always claim that Clinton is the better candidate by desperately trying to smear Obama's character, they can't do it on the issues that matter to people because Clinton has already lost that war and now that she had her hometown Pa win where she blew a 20% lead down to 8.5%, IT'S OVER FOR HER!
Go burn your bra somewhere else, Catherine!
Posted by: Katherine | April 23, 2008 6:08 PM
Obama will never close the gap nor will he ever be President. His Rev. Wright legacy will follow him forever. The Republicans will eat him alive before Nov..He should pull out so that HRC can beat McCain and we can once again have a Democrat for President....That would prove he is patriotic, not an elitist ,ego hungry politician..
Posted by: kaye m. | April 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Wow, Catherine is pulling out all of her pro-Clinton sock puppets tonight....
The Clinton robots must be worried about the butt kicking Clinton is going to get in North Carolina and Indiana....and they should be...
I look for Clinton to say that NC and Indiana are "small staes that don't matter", after she loses them on May 6th. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Posted by: Katherine | April 23, 2008 6:14 PM
What an elitist "The truth" is denigrating people who have been to college and the young.
Posted by: Veritas | April 23, 2008 6:19 PM
"What an elitist "The truth" is denigrating people who have been to college and the young".
Posted by: Veritas | April 23, 2008 6:19 PM
************************************
Veritas, or its it "faux veritas)?
We all have been to college, and we all have young people in our families, but for a candidate like Obama to disparage the blue collar workers of PA by saying that they are "bitter and rely on religion and hunting" to carry them through the hard times - now that perception IS ELITIST. So take your hollow remarks and go back to college and learn something about value and character. Take a psychology course; it may attune you to people if you can find that degree of yours from "two-horse" university.
Posted by: the truth | April 23, 2008 7:09 PM
HRC does not need or have " cheerleaders" or have to bash Obama. He has done it all to himself with his past associates..Every blog you go to discusses it so there are certainly no pom poms here...Even the Republican blogs..So it is universally associated with his name...Go HRC..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME NOW...
Posted by: kaye m. | April 23, 2008 8:48 PM
Every blog you go to discusses it so there are certainly no pom poms here...Even the Republican blogs..So it is universally associated with his name...Go HRC..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME NOW...
Posted by: kaye m. | April 23, 2008 8:48 PM
Really? They even smear Obama on the Republican blogs?
I'M SHOCKED!!
If you weren't already a braindead trailertrash Clinton cheerleader, then you would already know that the Repubs would rather run against Clinton because she is a TERRIBLE candidate and she would fire up the downtrodden GOP base.
Posted by: feminist nazi trailertrash for Clinton | April 23, 2008 10:02 PM
Actually, the difference in votes was 9.3 % (according to AP numbers of 1,260,208 for Clinton and 1,045,444 for Obama at 99% calculated votes). Not bad when starting at 20+% gap, and having all state administration against you, let alone the aging population.
The youth go with Obama because he is the future, and the elders go with Hillary because she is the past.
Posted by: Alex | April 24, 2008 12:43 AM
Wolgang--You really think union jobs were overpaid?
What would Mozart do?
Posted by: WWMD | April 24, 2008 12:57 AM