Really — because I can’t think of a logical, or quite frankly sane, reason for Clinton to use this strategy to explain away Obama’s string of victories. (CNN and you can watch it here):
Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama’s clean sweep of the weekend’s caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors “activists” and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.My god, this is BAD spinning of the highest order. Clintonistas, please step back and replace her name with Jane Doe or John Doe, just remove her from the equation, this is cockamamie stuff. If the candidate had won all these states that their opponent unexpectedly and expectedly garnered, they wouldn’t use this nonsensical reasoning. Kos took this to its logical conclusion. It’s after the jump.She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that “everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were.” “These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.”
…”It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska,” she said, naming several of Obama’s red state wins. “But we have to win Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan … And we’ve got to be competitive in places like Texas, Missouri and Oklahoma.”
Sometimes it’s better just to say nothing and forge ahead, not that the Clinton campaign wants my advice, of course. However, spin like the above unravels quickly as folks take your ball and run with it. Kos:Iowa didn’t matter because it was a caucus state, and it’s undemocratic. Same goes for every other caucus state including Maine. The only caucus state that mattered was Nevada.When you’re being battered up at the ballot box in an election cycle that has been extremely unpredictable, it’s best not to insult the motivations of people in these states that you’d need in the general election. Basically the silly string strategy is to say “none of this is my/the campaign’s fault.” If your opponent has found a formula for success that no one expected, it really is best to leave that alone rather than try to explain it away. It only projects a sense of desperation because everyone knows that none of these rationalizations and generalizations would have come out of the candidate’s mouth had those states ended up in their win column. You really have to wonder about these “professionals” advising the Clinton campaign at this point; they are not serving her well.Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah don’t matter because they’re small Red states that Democrats won’t carry in November.
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana don’t matter because they have black people. Expect the same spin out of DC this Tuesday. Black people don’t apparently count.
Washington and Minnesota don’t matter because they have educated white people.
In any case, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana didn’t matter on Saturday because everyone expected Obama to win them anyway.
Virginia and Maryland, assuming they’re won by Obama, will be a combination of the “black people” and “educated people” rationalizations. Throw a little of “Obama was expected to win anyway”, and you’ve got the trifecta.
Illinois doesn’t matter because that’s Obama’s home state. Expect the same spin when Obama wins Hawaii by double-digit margins in two weeks.
Missouri doesn’t matter because Clinton sent out a press release claiming she won it.
Colorado was a caucus state, so that leaves Delaware and Connecticut. Those are the only two states that apparently matter, giving Hillary Clinton a commanding 10-2 lead among states that matter.
One final line of attack used to minimize Obama’s victories is the notion that “he can’t win states without his base”, his base of course being African Americans, white yuppies, and Red state Democrats. Yet the corollary of that is what? That Hillary can’t win states that
1.) she hasn’t lived in recently (New York and Arkansas),
2.) aren’t next to states she has lived in (Tennessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma),
3.) don’t share a media market with states she has lived in (New Hampshire), or
4.) are outside the Southwest with its large Latino population (California, which she won with the strength of her SoCal vote, Arizona, Nevada and probably New Mexico).
***
Then there is the matter of the states punished for moving up their primaries — Michigan and Florida. Hillary Clinton is trying to make the case that those delegates should be seated at the convention. The DNC stripped those states of delegates, so neither candidate campaigned in the state. From an interview with CNN’s Leon Harris and The Politico:
LEON HARRIS: …Michigan was being punished for having moved up their date and their delegates are not supposed to be getting seated. Now some of your supporters are saying that they should be seated because you won the Michigan primary. It was a primary though where your name was the only one on the ballot. Barack Obama’s name was not on the ballot. Do you think those Michigan delegates should still be seated and if so, how is that fair if Barack Obama did not get a chance to contest you in Michigan?The problems with that thinking:SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Leon, I think that both Michigan and Florida should count because these are two states we have to carry. This is not about, so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot. I chose to do so. My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote uncontested. There was a campaign going on and it was a campaign against me and I still won a majority. In Florida, 2.7 million people showed up and said we will not be disenfranchised again.
1. How might the outcome differed if both Obama and Clinton actually campaigned in Florida and Michigan? You cannot unring that bell. Will she call for the DNC to undo the penalty, allow campaigning and hold the primaries again? What ensures a fair outcome?
2. In Michigan, the request to seat delegates is particularly egregious, since Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot. Come on, “uncontested” isn’t the same as a candidate’s name. If Barack Obama had been the only name there and had won that state, the Clinton campaign would obviously not call for those delegates to be seated. We all know that.
Again, I don’t know how this kind of spinning makes any sense, because of the transparency of Clinton’s desperation to squeeze out delegates in her favor. Conversely, the Obama campaign’s craven insistence that they not be seated is because Obama knows those outcomes may not have been in his favor, even with campaigning in the states.
But the DNC took that out of their hands with its decision making at the outset, so those delegates shouldn’t be seated. It’s not good for democracy, no matter how you slice it. Considering what happened in FL and OH last time in 2000 and 2004, the DNC should have thought twice before creating this mess that resulted in disenfranchising the state’s voters. You think that perhaps the folks high up in that food chain was just as sure that the campaign would be over by now?
The issue of states desiring to take part in the frontloaded presidential candidate selection process is a serious one. I feel disenfranchised because in any normal cycle, May 6 is way too late in the process for North Carolina voters to have a say in the nominee for either party. This year may be the one exception, but even with this incredibly close horse race, it still could be decided before May. Both the Dems and the GOP need to figure out with states how to resolve this issue in the future, but there are no easy answers.
Argh. And we haven’t even talked about the superdelegate mess yet. That’s worthy of its own post.
70 Responses to “Silly string spinning strategy: Clinton campaign fatigue must be setting in”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I like that reference to the proud, noble African-American voter in Louisiana; it makes them sound like they’re some sort of subject of study in a National Geographic special. I hear some wild anthropological theories that posit that they may be related to the Virginia and Maryland tribes who will enact their bizarre voting ritual today, with similar results. We’ve tried getting further information on the so-called District of Columbians, but all attempts at meaningful contact have been unsuccessful.
By the way, she was up by 36 points on Obama in Maine in just October of last year. Had that lead held, I’m sure we’d be talking about the gruff, independent, hearty, lobster-mongering, salt-of-the-earth types that make up Maine caucusers… not these wild-eyed ACTIVISTS (and likely socialist Canadian operatives with forged IDs) who apparently showed up on Sunday.
Then there was this bit from the Guardian this weekend:
The Clinton team, before the polls closed, tried to play down the contests, attributing their expected defeats in part to his outspending them on advertising: $300,000 more in Louisiana on television ads, $190,000 more in Nebraska and $175,000 more in Washington state.
Yea, because party activists, African Americans, and educated white folks in caucus states are so easily swayed by advertisements. Give me a freakin’ break. I felt insulted and I didn’t even attend my caucus in Washington (for the record, I was working). And most of the ads I saw on my limited television viewing were Ms. Clinton’s ads and they were good ones.
Eriposte over at The Left Coaster explains it better than Hillary (or I) could.
^%$#@! Try again.
Nice analysis, Blue Jean. Despite all the complaining that Hillary is displaying sour grapes or the like by pointing out the differences between caucuses and primaries, I have yet to hear one person make a reasonable argument that these differences do not matter, or that caucuses are as or more democratic than primaries. And it’s not just for political junkies; I was surprised to hear a relative of mine who doesn’t normally follow these things expound on caucus/primary distinctions yesterday.
And of course every candidate is going to have explanations of why s/he didn’t win particular states. If that explanation takes the form of “this state has a particular demographic that I tend to lose,” I think it’s unfair to characterize that as “this demographic doesn’t count.”
And of course every candidate is going to have explanations of why s/he didn’t win particular states. If that explanation takes the form of “this state has a particular demographic that I tend to lose,”
But that’s the problem here; Clinton is losing demographics that she clearly assumed that she would win, and her campaign thought it would all be over after Super Tuesday. That’s why it’s probably a better idea to just let it go and look forward to her “firewalls” of Texas and Ohio and say she enjoys being the underdog and will make her case to the voters — rather than dismissing the losses as irrelevant in some way.
It sounds like a campaign that is too shell-shocked to step back and figure out a better way to create effective spin for its candidate.
But that’s the problem here; Clinton is losing demographics that she clearly assumed that she would win, and her campaign thought it would all be over after Super Tuesday.
Yeah, I think it would be fair to characterize her campaign’s spin as “I will make a poor general election candidate because I can’t carry this demographic.”
Add this to the pot and it’s quite an icky stew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html
The more she talks, the more I look forward to voting Obama in my primary on March 4th.
Clinton barely have field office in last week contested states. She is not even on the ground and she expect to win?
Field offices per February 5 state:
Alabama: Obama at least 5, Clinton 2.
North Dakota: Obama 4, Clinton 0.
Idaho: Obama 5, Clinton 0.
Colorado: Obama 12, Clinton 1.
Minnesota: Obama 7, Clinton 1.
Alaska: Obama 1, Clinton 0.
Kansas: Obama 20 staffers, Clinton 3 staffers. (same link).
February 9-10:
Louisiana: Obama campaign had “really been working the state harder [than Clinton].”
Washington state: Obama 3, Clinton 0.
Nebraska: Obama 1, Clinton 0.
Maine: Obama 1, Clinton 0.
February 12 states:
Maryland: Obama 9, Clinton 0.
Virginia: Obama 9, Clinton maybe 1.
snap the numbers from this post.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/11/10835/8086/130/454463
Thanks, 15th. Well, we all knew Hillary doesn’t have Bill’s common touch, but I think the exhaustion is showing. What she needs is 24 hours worth of sleep without interruptions, but that would look like she’s caving. What makes me nervous is that Obama is going to face double the pressure in the GE, and I don’t know if he’s as tough as Hillary. It’s easy to be upbeat when everything’s going your way and the media adores you, but when it’s not?
FWIW, Huckabee has been making a similar argument from the flip side. I.E., that for the Rs to win the presidency, they need to win the historically Red states like Kansas, Nebraska, etc and that he is better positioned to win those than McCain.
It may not be a great argument for Huckabee or Clinton but it IS a valid one
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Clinton’s comment represented a strategy. On CNN, it certainly looked like she was caught flat-footed and said some shit. It was defensive shit, but we’ve all been there. If there’s a strategy going on, which this defensive flopping around hints at, it’s to mobilize the “traditional democrats,” that is, blue-collar white folks. That’s a tough demographic, one that’s lost a lot of ground to the Repugs over the last n years, so making the appeal will certainly call for a much stronger strategy than just teasing Obama supporters for being too activist, educated, hippy or black. We’ll see what they put together when they’re thinking straight…
That quote quote from Clinton underlines one of the things that bothers me most about her, which is that she seems to believe that she has somehow already earned the nomination, so anything that gets in the way of her being the nominee is inherently unfair. I voted for Obama in my state’s primary on Feb. 5. I can’t point to any one big overarching reason for supporting Obama, but, well Patrick says it better than I can:
Interviews like this one certainly don’t do anything to make me regret my decision.While it is true that Hillary Clinton performs poorly in caucuses, the problem is that she knew these rules going in to the nomination. If she’s a good campaigner, how come she wasn’t able to pivot in such a way as to win caucuses?
I do feel her campaign’s reaction is a form of sour grapes because her staff figured that she’d have such an easy time of it in the primaries that either (a) caucuses wouldn’t matter, or (b) caucusers would support her as a “default candidate.” She knew the rules ahead of time but thought they wouldn’t affect her, and now they’ve come back to bite her campaign in the butt.
Re: Michigan and Florida, do people actually think that if those delegates get seated they won’t be proportional like the rest of the states? Uncommitted (read: Obama) in Michigan got 40%. Do people actually think that because of those circumstances it’ll be winner-take-all?
Are people really that fucking stupid?
Dr. Squid: The only solution I heard so far was for Michigan to have a caucus, in which case the Canadian communist saboteurs can stage a land invasion via the Upper Peninsula to thwart the will of the 99% of the population that wants Senator Clinton to be nominee.
Florida’s fucked, but that’s not news.
Let’s take a look at these states over the past few elections:
Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, and Nebraska have all gone Republican every election post-LBJ. I’m not sure if Obama’s popular enough to net any of these states, but it’s pretty certain that Clinton isn’t.
With the exception of Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Massachusetts has been all Democrat since Eisenhower. Same goes for New York, with the exception of Nixon in 1972. New Jersey, California and Michigan have been Democratic since 1988. It’s pretty safe to say that, no matter which candidate gets the nod, these states will go Democratic - Obama’s second-place primary totals beat McCain’s in all of those states (not counting Michigan, where Obama wasn’t on the ballot).
I consider Florida’s results meaningless as no campaigning was done there and voters knew ahead of time the results wouldn’t count.
That leaves Arizona as Clinton’s sole argument. Do you really want to say you’re the better candidate because you did better than Obama in McCain’s home state? Especially when it’s the one place you *didn’t* actually do better than McCain?
Uncommitted (read: Obama) in Michigan
Edwards was still in the race at that point; I live in Michigan, and I didn’t vote at all because I wanted to vote for Edwards, and I thought that “Uncommitted” would be taken as a vote for Obama. But I have no idea how other Michiganians decided what “Uncommitted” meant.
So, is anyone at Pandagon going to post about this? Or this? Or this?
Gosh, wonder where all that “fatigue” is coming from. I know I’m goddamn exhausted.
Whoops, forgot New Mexico and the overwhelming mandate they haven’t finished counting yet.
Uncommitted won Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor), BTW.
in which case the Canadian communist saboteurs can stage a land invasion via the Upper Peninsula to thwart the will of the 99% of the population that wants Senator Clinton to be nominee.
Walking across the ice won’t work.
I’m…assuming this is not sarcasm.FL, sure, totally up in the air. But Michigan? Round the corner from Obama’s home state of IL, with similar layout? Detroit, with a huge African-American population — not to mention the largest Arab-American population in any city in America?
He’s already shown an ability to work rural IL, Iowa, etc. I can’t imagine that the Obama campaign was terrified of running in MI, unless I’m missing something?
Well a good number of prominent Obama supporters say Hillary only wins any votes because stupid women vote with their vaginas. So… I can’t get too upset about this.
Can we go back to the “activist” Obama supporters for a minute? I keep seeing discussions pop up about Hillary supporters being bullied by Obama supporters in the caucuses, and of course there are gender dimensions to the theory. I read a piece on Shakesville over the weekend about women and caucuses: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/women-and-caucuses.html.
I’m interested in what ya’ll think about this? Full disclosure - I voted for Obama.
Perhaps we’re finding out that the only good politician in the Clinton family is Bill.
I guess when you run as Your Inevitableness, you have something of a problem when you don’t prove yourself to be inevitable.
We’ll never know for sure, but Obama probably would have beat Clinton in MI. Contrary to what some folks think of my home state, it is highly educated all-around, has a big African-American pop, and is fairly activist. Those demographics, plus the post-industrial malaise that is the result of the Clinton-Bush regimes, would have bode very well for Obama. My wild guess is MI would be somewhere around 55/45 for Obama had there been a legit election. (Especially later in the primaries, dammit!)
I know a few party bigwigs in MI and they were of course for HRC. But every person I know who makes less that 200K in MI was squarely for Obama and was very pissed that they were functionally excluded. Clinton’s argument that not seating them at the convention is disenfranchisement is defensive BS because that would be a double disenfranchisement of all the Obama voters who never had a chance.
In fact, they’re so prominent that they’ve transcended the need to have a name, can call half the population stupid without any ramification, and can now presumably speak exactly for the candidate (this was Senator Clinton’s own quote, after all). I love you, proof by assertion and faux-tu quoque! Let’s never fight again!
a good number of prominent Obama supporters say Hillary only wins any votes because stupid women vote with their vaginas
Unless we have some quotes to back this up — a good number of quotes, not the one or two nuts you can find in any movement, including Senator Clinton’s camp — this stands as another example of the spiteful rage Clinton’s supporters have been displaying as they find she’s not going to be coronated without some discussion.
More and more, this discussion of gender bias in Obama’s supporters (as opposed to such bias in the media as a whole, where it is real and persistent) stinks of projection. One of Clinton’s supporters, for instance, called Obama’s early wins a “premature ejaculation.” That’s what I mean by projection.
Compared with the population at large, Senator Clinton is clearly a person of outstanding accomplishments. But in the company she’s keeping now, she’s mediocre at best, a dull, uninspiring, focus-group-focused drone who supported Bush as long as it was politically popular. She has no problem teaming with such slimebags as Liarman in ridiculous crusades against “violent video games,” while at the same time voting against restrictions on cluster bombs. She even skipped the FISA vote just now — what a coward!
She’s be a Republican if there were such a thing as sane Republicans any longer. No wonder she’s having trouble trying to take the lead in the Democratic party.
.
Perhaps, Dana, but the fact that she’s still breaking even is remarkable; most politicians would have been swamped by Obamamania long ago, as your favorite newspaper points out.
From Sarah MC: “…stupid women vote with their vaginas.”
Yeah, but they must be smarter than me- I can’t get mine to reach the lever!!
I like the Louisiana explanation- but that wouldn’t fly up here in Maine, which she also lost last weekend. She was expected to win here and had big endorsements- nada. Wonder why?
stage a land invasion via the Upper Peninsula to thwart the will of the 99% of the population that wants Senator Clinton to be nominee.
… or they could just use the entry points at Port Huron and Detroit that millions of Americans and Canadians use each year.
Can anyone imagine the reaction if Obama tried the “proud, noble” thing with white female voters, I mean seriously (though I have to admit that, i’d laugh then feel guilty and wrong, if someone played the “Where all the white women at” clip from Blazing Saddles), its patronizing and sad, and I’m getting a bit tired of having Clinton supporters explain that Clinton would win Californina, and other heavily hispanic states, while Obama would lose them to Mccain, while simultaneously assuming that African American voters would just come around and vote for her in the general. An extension of this is the “Clinton gets the base voters” argument, primarily because it ignores the fact that the true base of the Democratic party for the last 40 or so years is African American voters, while so-called “Lunch Bucket Dems” crossed over for Reagan, African American support has never waivered (seriously, I can’t find an election post-1960, where the GOP presidential canidate garnered even 20% of the Black Vote).
Finally, can someone in Texas, or another heavily hispanic media market please tell me if the fact that Obama was one of the two Senators (Ted Kennedy was the other) to actually march during the immigration protest is common knowledge? I realize that there is a good chance that this would kill him in the general, but you think he would at the very least run ads showing him marching for Immigration Reform– an act of immense political courage, and ironically probably less alienating than his stance on drivers licenses (symbolically, its a powerful image– he can literally say that he not only stood with them on immigration and licensing, he marched with them as well).
Posts like this sound too much like trying to put words into someone’s mouth or give their words meaning other than what they’re actually speaking. I’m interested in what the candidates are saying, but could care less what other people think they’re *really* saying or implying beyond taking their words at face value (since that sort of conjecture is almost entirely shaped by the opinions of the listener and is not validly attributable to the speaker).
What bugs me in addition to the subtle racism of Clinton’s remarks, is her dismissiveness of smaller states, while we might not be able to carry Nebraska, Idaho, or Utah, I would think that some of the states that she basically writes off (much like Kerry and Gore did, and god knows that was an effective strategy for them) are states we can carry in the general election– Colorado for instance is highly flippable with Obama, hell the whole Mountain west aside from ID, UT, and WY are probably doable (MT will flip, I can almost guarantee it, assuming Hillary is not the nominee). Additionally, Hillary and her supporters see nothing hypocritical about touting other red states that she could flip (see: TN, OK, and laughablly AZ), claiming that Bill won them (which is funny in and of itself, given the repeated insistence that Hillary is her own canidate) while not adding that: a) Bill was a much stronger canidate (frankly the Bill Clinton of 1992 is more comparable to Obama, both rhetorically, and in terms of crossover appeal, than he is to his wife) b) that Al Gore helped deliver at least one of those states c) the states in question have become demonstrably more conservative due to the rise of the evangelicals and d) Bill won a plurality, not a majority. Seriously, the only Red State I can see Hillary turning BLue that Obama would not also flip is Arkansas.
iFor what it’s worth, I don’t think Clinton’s comment represented a strategy. On CNN, it certainly looked like she was caught flat-footed and said some shit.i
I would buy that argument if Bill Clinton hadn’t been on the radio this morning saying almost exactly the same thing.
I saw on the news this morning that Obama had actually outpolled Clinton in California before Super Tuesday, although just by a few points. The actual vote put her ten points ahead. I wonder how much of the early voting is responsible for that and I’m thinking that Clinton doesn’t have much call boasting about her victory in California.
Blue Jean-
Obama, may not be as tough as Hillary, but he also doesn’t have a negative charisma, and isn’t destested by nearly 50% of America. Frankly, Hillary is the sort of ultra competent technocrat, that governs well but can’t win an election, she’s John Kerry without the heroism, or possibly a less experienced Al Gore, and I’m sorry but me and what appears to be a majority of the Democratic party are tired of running canidates who can answer all the questions but put you to sleep doing so. Also can someone please explain to me how a canidate whose primary argument (experience) is going to win in the general election when said argument is obviously on the side of her opponent? (God, I just imagine Mccain in a debate talking about how Hillary said experience and being “ready on day one” are paramount, and then asking how being a senator for seven years makes more prepared to lead the country, than a man who has been a senator for 20+ years, and congressman before that, and an American Hero before that, I mean what’s she going to do talk about how she was right on Iraq?! )
Help support Hillary please.
Agree with Socraticsilence 100%
What Hillary’s saying re caucus states is: Support for a black man melts away when no one’s watching you vote, so nominate me for President because the general election ballot is secret. Plus there’s a lot more white women than blacks in America.
A couple of friends say they are voting for Obama because he can more easily be moved to the left than Clinton. While I don’t find this argument that convincing it is an interesting one. How will he stand up to corporate pressure when push comes to shove? Can someone explain the differences between Obama and Clinton - other than the war vote, and health care plans?
I find Obama a charismatic person, and I’m moved by his speeches, but after they are over I ask myself, “what did he just say”? I sometimes question the substance in all of his “change” rhetoric. There is no denying that he has tremendous momentum right now, and the Clinton camp appears lackluster. But, I wonder if an Obama nomination may actually split the party in the long run, in ways that a Clinton nomination would not. Honestly, I don’t know if he could beat John McCain even though some current polls suggest that he can. I have heard several older, long-time democrats say they will vote republican if Obama gets the nom.
These are heady times, and I’m still trying to figure out what to make of it all.
I’ve been thinking that a lot of this debate– on both sides, although Obama would never be as dismissive as HRC– centers on which states and/or constituencies can be taken for granted by Dems in November. As jfpbookworm noted, apparently Clinton is trying to pretend that reliably Dem coastal states would become swing states without her as the nominee, while African-Americans and (probably to a lesser extent) the ‘activist’ votes would remain, simply because we/they have no options other than accepting her. This seems completely backward to me; the larger states won’t swing GOP anytime soon even if turnout’s slightly depressed because she’s not the nominee (unlikely, IMO), while the AA, activist, and youth populations are much more likely to stay home and hurt her in truly marginal states.
That said, I will say that I worry a bit about Ohio & Pennsylvania with Obama as the nominee, although until they actually vote in the primaries I guess there’s no point in fretting.
Loneoak-
You don’t understand, if Michigan voted for Obama, it wouldn’t count because we all know Detroit has a lot of those kind of voters (wink, wink, nudge nudge) and they can’t think for themselves. /sarc
I think one of the underexplored stories is that racism might be a major fact that Obama isn’t getting more of the elderly caucasian vote, what with the younger generations being far more colorblind.
But, I wonder if an Obama nomination may actually split the party in the long run, in ways that a Clinton nomination would not. Honestly, I don’t know if he could beat John McCain even though some current polls suggest that he can. I have heard several older, long-time democrats say they will vote republican if Obama gets the nom.
Splitting the Democratic Party, hmm… let’s see: in 2000, Al Gore’s nomination caused Progressives to vote for Nader — that didn’t work out so good. In 2004, Democrats rejected the charismatic Dean for the uncontroversial war hero Kerry — that didn’t work out so good. Dukakis, Mondale: I’m going to say that Democrats avoiding a party split doesn’t work out so well. Hillary is not only bland but polarizing — expect a McCain presidency if she wins. And if you like the Supreme Court now, just wait till Stevens retires.
I have heard several long-time Republicans say they will vote for Obama if he gets the nod.
Latts-
PA does worry me, but Ohio should probably be reliably Dem due to the GOP implosion in that state (basically, they lost on every single level in 2006, due to massive corruption– if Obama/Clinton runs Keating 5 attack ads their Mccain would get slaughtered). Conversely, the one swing state that I thought was definitely going blue, but which now might be unflippable is VA, due to Mccain’s rapport with the Military (massive bloc in VA).
Redmountain-
The two best endorsements/explanations of Obama that I’ve seen are by Hilzoy on Obsidian Wings, and by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig on his blog (he has a link to a video lecture/presentation of his reasons at the post as well).
Well a good number of prominent Obama supporters say Hillary only wins any votes because stupid women vote with their vaginas. So… I can’t get too upset about this.
This crystallizes what has bothered me for weeks about this election - it seems like people on both sides can get really worked up about the misbehavior directed at their candidate, but not when it’s directed at the other. We should all be outraged by the sexism directed at Clinton, the racism directed at Obama, and any and all disreputable and dishonorable campaigning that takes place. We should separate who it comes from (from the media, or from the supporters of a candidate, or from the candidate’s campaigners, or from the candidate him/herself) when making our critiques. Sexism is deplorable even if you’re an Obama supporter, and racism is deplorable even if you’re a Clinton supporter. And you shouldn’t ignore dog-whistles, just because they’re coming from your own side.
The comparisons between the as-late Clinton campaign and the Giuliani campaign just keep making more and more sense. I meant to do that, really…
To an extent I kind of think of this whole thing as similar to Bush’s oft-commented-on conception that democracy means elections, and all you need for something to be a democracy is for there to be elections. The problem is in order for the election to actually be a democratic election there have to be a whole series of other conditions met, things like freedom of the press and freedom of voters to share their views with one another, and freedom of potential candidates to get their names on the ballot, and campaign, and make their case to voters. And surely some other things besides these five I’ve listed, but my point is, in Florida, we had three of these five things. In Michigan, we had two.
I wish people would stop spreading the false information that Clinton was the only one on the MI ballot. The situation is much more complex than the spin being used to support your candidate. Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel were on the ballot. So were Obama, Edwards and Richardson at one point. Those 3 filed paperwork to femove their names even though the DNC made no request to anyone to remove their names. It was a slimy trick to make Clinton look bad and I was pissed at Edwards for being involved in it. But I forgave him for his boneheaded short sighted move and voted for him in Florida.
Florida which had a record turn out. No one campaigned here as the DNC requested but Obama ran ads in nearby states that ran in Florida. I saw plenty of Obama ads but none from any other candidate.
How did the primary get moved up in Florida? The republican legislature moved it up. The democratic state party officials begged the republicans to move the date to Feb 5 but the republicans refused. What’s to stop them from doing it every year?
Everyone knew this fight was coming. Everyone knew the rules allow the MI and FL delegation to petition at the convention to be seated. What Clinton is doing is stating she will ask her delegates to support that petition.
oceankat, I applaud the try but I hope you’re not too invested in good sense having an impact at this point. The reality is that caucuses have a self-limiting structure designed to service those who have free time on the day of the caucus. Unless a law requires employers to free up several hours of time for people to caucus then they will be unrepresentative. In primaries people are voting their hearts- not their vaginas or race per se. If you feel that you may only have one chance to pull the lever for that particular candidate then you will. It is a very close race and many feel that they may not get the chance a second time. So far Obama has been harping on his underdog status and it gives him an edge with heartstring voters, as he narrows the gap and the ridiculous fawning of the media escalates that gap will narrow.
And I know several long-time Democrats who will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee, but no long-time Republicans who will vote for Clinton under any circumstances. This can cut a lot of ways, and what any of us heard from three or four people we know doesn’t mean very much. If you think Clinton is the better candidate, by all means, vote for her. Personally, I agree with those who have said the Dems have a long record of losing with competent but uninspiring candidates, and I see Clinton in that camp. But I find this notion that the party will be irrevocably broken by this battle for the nomination really overplayed.
Well a good number of prominent Obama supporters say Hillary only wins any votes because stupid women vote with their vaginas.
I honestly have not heard this so much as, “If Clinton wins the nomination it will be ALL THE FAULT of the WOMEN who voted for her, and we’ll have four more years of Repugs! Call the waaaambulance!”
I’m getting mighty sick of this “blame the stupid voter” crap. If the Dems manage to lose this time it will be because of one or a combination of the following: 1) They are so inept they make the Keystone Kops look smoove and 2) the mainstream media is so weighted towards the Repigs, meaning everything a Repig does is right and everything a Dem does is wrong, that any Dem with a spine will get swiftboated to death.
The Dems screwed up MAJORLY in 2004 by nominating Kerry. The MSM was all over the “Dean Scream” like white on rice. If it weren’t for those two factors…
All I know is that if the Dems do lose (again!) it won’t be the “fault” of whoever voted for Clinton (or for Obama for that matter). The Dems need to grow a spine and hop off the waaambulance.
Hector B.:
Splitting the Democratic Party, hmm… let’s see: in 2000, Al Gore’s nomination caused Progressives to vote for Nader — that didn’t work out so good. In 2004, Democrats rejected the charismatic Dean for the uncontroversial war hero Kerry — that didn’t work out so good. Dukakis, Mondale: I’m going to say that Democrats avoiding a party split doesn’t work out so well.
Pretty much. The Dem status quo unwillingness to court young voters and strong progressives is what’s created the moribund Democratic party of today; the Third-way pitch to an abstract, non-existent moderate-middle-class voter is what makes Dems look out of touch. The excitement that Obama generates is in some ways more relevant than the actual difference in issues, because an excited base of young Democrats translates into movement gains in progressive causes across the political spectrum.
Betsy:
This crystallizes what has bothered me for weeks about this election - it seems like people on both sides can get really worked up about the misbehavior directed at their candidate, but not when it’s directed at the other.
I agree with this. The MSM’s been pushing sexism against Clinton more strongly than racism against Obama, but both (as well as false or overly general accusations of both) have been prevalent in the Democratic party itself, which is really just unacceptable.
Hear, hear.
This isn’t a choice between good and evil. Really, it isn’t. If you think it is, what do you say the choice is between these candidates and another Bush? It devalues he discussion if you over emphasize the differences.
Oh, I dunno…if Hillary takes out a raygun and vaporizes Barrack during a debate, that’d probably not a good thing…
Blue Jean wrote:
Actually, The Philadelphia Inquirer is my newspaper of choice!
I credit the fact that Mrs Clinton is still standing in this race to the sheer power of the Clinton political machine; as much as I dislike the Clintons, there’s no denying that political power.
But even if Hillary Rodham had managed to win a Senate seat without being married to Bill Clinton, she’d never be considered presidentibili based on her personality, her charisma or her accomplishments.
Thanks Hawise. Truth is I don’t think there is any good sense solution to the mess the democrats face at the convention if one candidate doesn’t win both the popular vote and the state delegate count. The primary system is so flawed coupled with the really stupid decision to bar the FL and MI delegates there is no fair way to deal with it.
I’m just having trouble watching what I see as a willful blindness to facts. I’ve always had a lot of respect for the comments on this blog but now I feel like I’m in the spin room.
Its very easy to blame Kerry, he lost, he’s a loser, etc. but we really don’t know what would have happened if someone had run instead. They could have possibly lost more states. It’s all conjecture.
I think FL is a problem because the Repugs moved the date, so an accommodation should have been made. However, MI voters need to blame these state party.
Sorry, that was “blame their state party.”
don’t share a media market with states she has lived in (New Hampshire), or
Since when is New Hampshire in New York’s media market?
Maybe you prefer the Hardball spin; namely, the only people who prefer Hillary are dried up old women and the poor uneducated (read: too stupid to grasp the lofty rhetoric of BO)
I really don’t get the whole ‘Clinton is tougher’ meme. Can a Clinton supporter, or perhaps even someone who respects her politics, please, please tell me one tough thing she has done? Shrug off Reichwing attacks doesn’t count. I mean, what one thing has she done that damaged/risked her political persona AND was the right thing to do? Sure, she has progressive policies on domestic stuff, which is incredibly important, but that’s bread and butter for Dems. She’s not risking anything by proposing universal pre-K. When it comes to LOOKING tough, she votes right-wing every time. When it comes to BEING tough, i.e. actually making a brave stand on something that is risky for her but morally the right thing to do, she sucker-punches progressives.
Three actual votes that were the wrong thing to do AND fit in perfectly with her need to out-right-wing the right-wing:
1) Iraq authorization
2) Voted AGAINST banning landmines and clusterbombs
3) Voted FOR Kyle-Lieberman saber-rattling on Iran
And Obama’s position is opposite hers each of those. If she were really tough she would stand up to the right-wing on these issues and tell them whey they’re wrong, but the whole Clintonite strategy is to minimize right-wing talking points by going along with their fever swamp delusions. That’s cowardice, not toughness.
If anyone out there can give me counterexamples, I will consider myself STFU’d.
Yeah, and I’m tired of voting for candidates who look great before the nomination, but fold like umbrellas in the general because they haven’t been vetted/dicn’t see the attacks coming/etc (See Kerry and the Swiftboaters, Dukakis and Boston Harbor, etc.) And make no mistake about it; attacks will be coming, no matter who’s the nominee. I’ve seen a lot of Dems walk through that wall of flames and the only candidate who’s ever come out victorious is Bill and Hillary Clinton. That’s why the GOP hates them so much, and why the Clintons have so much “negative energy”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like voting for a candidate because the GOP harpies hate him a little less than the Clintons at the moment.
Just because cons like Bill Kristol praise Obama now doesn’t mean they’re going to praise him once he gets the nomination. The only reason they’re backing him now is because they think he can do the thing they’ve never been able to do; take down the Clintons. Obama may be a lot of things, but he hasn’t had his personal life turned upside down in a 70 million dollar investigation, he hasn’t been accused of murdering half of Arkansas, and raping the other half. or stealing from the elderly, or selling secrets to the Chinese, etc. Maybe he’d cope just fine with those attacks; maybe he won’t. While I’d be happy to be proved wrong, I’d rather not take that chance, and that goes for a lot of Dem voters too.
Dana,
LOL! Thanks for the info. Would Hillary be considered presidential if she hadn’t married Bill? Maybe, maybe not. One could argue that she’d have gone a lot further without Bill. What I find both amusing and irritating (and a lot fo older female Hillary voters find just irritating) is that Bill’s accomplishments are considered his alone; Hillary gets no praise for their successes, but plenty of blame for their mistakes.
“because they haven’t been vetted/dicn’t see the attacks coming/etc (See Kerry and the Swiftboaters, Dukakis and Boston Harbor, etc.)”
Amanda knows a bit about not adequately anticipating attacks.
On the risk of repeating myself, Blue Jean, on what basis do you claim that Hillary survived these attacks? That she’s still standing? Sorry, but survival like that isn’t the best criteria for choosing a president. She has moved so far to the right on some very important, morally and politically relevant issues, that one can’t really say her survival strategy is good for many people but herself and her political machine. It’s certainly bad for the party and the country.
I like Hillary at the moment because I think she is the Democratic candidate who is the best choice to throw under the bus. Don’t get me wrong, in good circumstances she has the brains, stamina and political savvy to be a good candidate. She has the charisma of a worker ant but I don’t think that that is a bad trait with what is before the American government for the next four years.
Picture the next four years- not what the various candidates promise but what they are going to have to deal with before those promises can be met. A massive debt, an equally massive deficit both monetary and trade, every department of the government is disheartened, underfunded and understaffed, a crumbling infrastruture that is already taking lives, a military that is undermanned and overcommitted, an emergency response organization that has been gutted and run into the ground and an economy that is at best teetering on the brink of collapse. With luck the Democrats will get enough legislators in both houses to be able to actually pass legislation, which if they are actually doing their jobs right will be radically unpopular among almost every demographic imaginable.
So as I see it, Hillary knows how to keep working even when she is radically unpopular. She has the brains to wrangle politicians into the meetings that may result in unfortunately necessary legislation.
I see Obama has brains and the charisma to do the work but even he won’t be able to meet expectations for 4 long years of this.
I’ve said it before- you throw Hillary under the bus this time and you save Obama in reserve to keep the Democrats in the White House for the next two terms. Otherwise I see Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan.
“Amanda knows a bit about not adequately anticipating attacks.”
Thanks, Eric, for reminding us that you definitely have your dickish side…
Hawise, I see your point, but the problem is that 95% of the voters aren’t going to see it that way. I can’t see convincing people, on a wide scale, that what the Dems need is a sacrificial lamb. The American public just doesn’t think that far ahead.
And if he wins (oh please Ceiling Cat) then he might well be the second coming of Jimmy Carter…or he might not. Maybe having a Democrat president will put some starch in the collective Democratic Congressional spine.
I really don’t get the whole ‘Clinton is tougher’ meme. Can a Clinton supporter, or perhaps even someone who respects her politics, please, please tell me one tough thing she has done? Shrug off Reichwing attacks doesn’t count.
———————————————————–
It doesn’t count for you. It does for me. Ok, its really hard for me to campaign for Clinton even though I support her because I only support her because she and Obama are the last 2 standing. The only progressive running I can’t vote for. There’s a reason Nadar started an exploratory presidential committee the day after Edwards left the race.
To me its like flipping a coin, the 2 candidates are so alike. So I understand why some might go heads while I go tails. What I don’t get is why some people like him, why they really care. I see two centrist establishment politicians.
That he’s inspiring doesn’t count for me. I’m totally unmoved by speeches. in fact I rarely watch them. If I’m interested in a speech I read the transcript.
I see 2 politicians that have been involved in deals with rich backers that I think are distasteful. Not quid pro quo, nothing illegal, but clearly I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine.
I see 2 candidates that have been on the corporate payroll. Like Obama’s vote for the energy bill a few years back.
They both have done things on the campaign trail that go against my principles.
I see 2 candidates that have done virtually nothing to halt the war or the dismantleing of our freedoms. While I give him credit for opposing the war he’s certainly got a lot of mileage with one speech. In 2005 obama was talking about a 10 year plan to withdraw from iraq. When Sheehan was in Texas where were they? When you think of someone in congress fighting the war Murtha comes to mind. Does either Clinton or Obama come to mind? They both reauthorized the Patriot act.
I don’t buy either of these two but I have to chose one of them. They both are intelligent and knowledgeable but I think Clinton is the bigger policy wonk. I like policy wonks. Her depth and breadth of knowledge exceeds his. I think she understands the corridors of power in Washington better then him, she has more and longer term relationships she can use to get things done.
But the main reason is that the Clintons have been fighting the right wing for years and each time they thought they had delivered the knock down punch the Clintons were still standing. I want someone who will fight tooth and claw. I’m totally turned off when someone tells me the problem in washington is the bitter partisanship and extrols the virtues of bipartisanship. It makes me think of Liberman.
But I will vote for whoever gets the nomination.
I see 2 candidates that have been on the corporate payroll. Like Obama’s vote for the energy bill a few years back.
Illinois is coal country, especially southern and western Illinois. Coal feeds and clothes a lot of Illinoisans who have few other job opportunities. Obama was just supporting his constituents.
oceankat–
Don’t vote for Nader. Nader doesn’t care about choice or about gay rights. You want a perfect candidate? Write in your own name. You won’t have compromised yourself in any way, and your vote will be every bit as meaningful.
And if McCain gets elected by a narrow margin and kills 100,000 people in Iran, and if he appoints the justice who finally provides the margin to overturn Roe v Wade, and if the deficit balloons further, thanks to another round of war and tax cuts, you can take comfort in the fact that Obama and Clinton would have been just as bad.
Maybe having a Democrat president will put some starch in the collective Democratic Congressional spine.
History says that my boy will learn to fly first. I understand the hopes and dreams and change message. Heck, it was what got Bill Clinton elected the first time. Then he arrived with his backpack filled with conflicting messages from the divergent groups that supported him. His own party turned on him because he was an outsider, they fell hard due to their own ineptitude and he was forced to start compromising to keep the government running. One by one the divergent groups started hating him, popular opinion stayed high because he actually kept the trains running but the loud voices started to pick away at him.
I can hope and dream that the Democratic party has changed but they eat their young, always have and always will. Hillary has no expectations left to be smashed, can Barack say the same?
Maybe you prefer the Hardball spin; namely, the only people who prefer Hillary are dried up old women and the poor uneducated (read: too stupid to grasp the lofty rhetoric of BO)
It goes well with the Clinton spin: The only people who support my opponent are black people (Noble People for whom we have the Greatest Respect) and little children. I saw her on TV the other night and she actually said “I think it’s great that Obama has brought so many young people into the Democratic Party. But this election is serious business.” (Not verbatim, but very close.) My jaw dropped. It was so unbelievably condescending. It seems really stupid of her to write off young voters - the Democratic party desperately needs them to come out and vote in the general.