An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Hillary Clinton: “The Tide Is Turning”

Clinton Pennsylvania Victory Means Democrats Split Could Deepen (Analysis And Roundup) »

If Obama’s Inevitable, Why Can’t He Sew Up the Nomination? (& Why that’s the Wrong Question)

Posted by DAMOZEL in Media, Politics.
Apr 22nd, 2008 | Comments

Even before her win tonight, Hillary was pointing out that a Hillary win in Pennsylvania demonstrates the fallacy underlying the ‘Obama is inevitable’ argument.

Hillary Clinton said if Barack Obama does not win Pennsylvania despite his huge campaign war chest, people ought to ask the question, “Why can’t he close the deal?”…

Clinton went to say that if she wins Pennsylvania, she will have accumulated wins in key states that Democrats need in order to retake the White House in November. She seemed to be speaking directly to superdelegates when she tried to raise doubts over Obama’s ability to win. “With his extraordinary financial advantage, why can’t he win a state like this one if that’s the way it turns out?” Clinton asked. “Obviously we have a long way to go before people are finished voting and the votes are counted. This will be one more in a long line of big states, states that Democrats have to win.”(CBS News)

At Political Punch earlier today, Jake Tapper also wondered why the much better-funded Obama can’t win over Clinton’s constituents.

I don’t begrudge the Obama campaign for successfully setting Sen. Clinton’s bar so high — that’s its job — and of course I understand that in order for Clinton to have a real shot, she needs a big W so as to eat away at Obama’s 800,000 popular vote lead, and to make the argument to super-Ds that states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida are a problem for him.

Fine, fine.

But what’s so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner — flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings — should be able to win a blue state primary?

Just because Clinton has the support of the governor and the mayors of the two largest cities? So what? This isn’t about Ed
Rendell…..

The Obama campaign may likely spin tonight’s outcome as a W for him as long as she doesn’t win by 25 points. I, for one, ain’t buying it. (Jake Tapper; emphasis added).

"Why can’t Obama just win it all?" looks like it’s becoming the new media meme.

But it’s really the wrong question. The right question is this: If neither can sew it up, isn’t it a clear sign that neither is the party’s choice and that they both need to run together?

If tonight’s win proves anything, it proves that the two warring candidates — now more than ever — really do need each other. Neither has the support of enough of the party to be handed the crown without grave offense to the other half.

I’d say it’s about time for them both to come to terms with it. The only question really ought to be which one should be at the top of the ticket. For experience and proven ability to understake a hard, uphill work, I’d say Hillary all the way with Obama taking his turn in the fullness of time.

But it’s time for them to have a sit-down and time for the Hillary-versus-Obama show to close down. This isn’t about them; it’s about all of us. The two of them need to start focusing on how they’re going to win it all for the rest of us Democrats.

Memeorandum here….

CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

schraubd

I'm not sure what this "close the show" question means. Clinton's still strongly contesting states, so she'll win some -- particularly those that (like PA) already tilt in her favor. This is like trying to stem a "Democratic candidate is steamrollering in the general" meme by questioning why he can't win Georgia. Even winners don't win everything -- particularly when their opponents stay in the game.

The funny part is, Obama has "closed the show" for all intents in purposes, because he's pretty much sewed up the nomination. Clinton stands no chance of coming into the convention ahead on delegates, and I can't seriously believe that the supers are going to go against the pledged delegate leader, much less that enough of them will flip to turn the tide towards Hillary. So Obama will win. Show closed.

surakmn

"Why can't he sew it up" is kind of a silly question. The Democratic process is very differently structured than the GOP one, and it's one that's not necessarily going to give a clear, early winner when you have a race with such atypical candidates as this one.

pacatrue

I think I agree, damozel, that it is the wrong question. Obama appears to poll well with certain types of voters and Clinton polls well with other types of voters. Unless a large number of voters start voting for a candidate they prefer less specifically to wrap things up, these people could go on campaigning for years. The same thing would be true if McCain and Huckabee were still going at it. Huckabee would continue winning some 10-20% of the Republican electorate, because they like him better. The legitimate winner of an election doesn't have to win every race. The same is true in the Democratic race.

ryan

"The two of them need to start focusing on how they’re going to win it all for the rest of us Democrats."

There are a number of points this post makes that I think are worth debating, but your "for us Democrats" line in particular seems to crystallize (for me) why I favor Obama over Clinton. I started following politics closely in 1992, and since that time it has been more about party than about the country as a whole. Whether he delivers on this promise or not, Obama campaigns as someone who wants to lead the country, and not just the party, while Hillary continually states that she is better prepared to "fight the Republicans". While she is correct, that mentality means that if she is elected she will lead the 51% that put her in power, to the detriment of the remaining 49%.

Answering your question about why the primary season is continuing, Hillary represents politics as a battleground while Obama represents politics as a collaboration. After years of brutal elections with often despicable tactics, many feel that only a candidate who has a win-at-all-costs mentality is capable of winning elections and governing. Obama clearly does not fit that characterization, so there are many, many voters who are skeptical about him, thus the continuing primary season. With the math on his side it looks like Obama will be the nominee, and only then will we find out if politics today will allow a candidate who isn't a brawler to succeed.

StockBoySF

ryan, good points and I agree with them all, thanks! The only thing I have to add is that this ongoing Dem race is exactly why my Rep. relatives hate the Dems- that the Dems can't pull it together and choose to bicker. Not to sound like a whiner (or to alienate/discount the remaining contests) but I wish the superdelegates would step up to the plate and as so-called leaders, they would have enough balls to show some actual leadership. Of course they don't want to risk crossing the Clintons.....

Amanda

I agree with Damozel that the Dems as a whole need to come together and just pick a nominee already. But a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket just doesn't work. I think the trouble many have with this race is that the candidates have similar levels of experience, similar views, and similar weaknesses. The biggest difference between them is in their style of politics. They both need a VP who can balance them out and help broaden their appeal beyond the Democratic party. We all know that registered Democrats (with the possible exception of a few sore losers) will vote for the Dem candidate in November, no matter who it is. So whoever the nominee ends up being, whether it's Obama or Clinton, they have to find a VP who appeals to more centrist/moderate/independent voters, has some serious foreign policy credentials, and can act as a unifying agent within the party.

Mike_P

I'm with Amanda - no way we're going to see a ticket featuring these two. I can't believe Hillary would be willing to play second fiddle to Obama, and I can't believe Obama would be naive enough to take her and Bill on as subordinates. That would be suicidal - Can you imagine the lack of message discipline?!

There are plenty of good choices for VP out there to balance an Obama ticket: Jim Webb for instance (though I don't think he'd take it), or some other western or southern Senator, governor, etc.

sh0ter

You ask why Obama's money doesn't translate into a vote lead:

Well the answer is simple really, campaign money can't be used to buy people, nor readily change their deepest core beliefs.

DLS

He's not inevitable, nor another JFK, Martin Luther King, or Jesis, that's why. He's just the flashier, more-beloved-by-the-kiddies candidate in the Dems' "identify politics" American Idol contest. (So far Clinton hasn't required to wear black or devil horns.)

DLS

"Hillary Clinton said if Barack Obama does not win Pennsylvania despite his huge campaign war chest, people ought to ask the question, 'Why can’t he close the deal?'"

While the lefty kiddies on here either fail to see the obvious or wander into self-imposed distractions, the question is perfectly real, but what all of you missed is the irony of it, for it is an implicit reference to an Obama clincher by, and a defeat of, of all people, the other person competing for the nomination. I.e., it is a cheap shot and "spin" of the most bizarre nature.

blog comments powered by Disqus