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

« Ted Kennedy’s Crisis

A Little Perspective, Please »

Wheezing and Whining: The Self-Glorification and Self-Condescension of Hillary Clinton

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Jun 2nd, 2008 | Comments

This, from the NYT, bothers me: “In many ways, Mr. Obama is wheezing across the finish line after making a strong start: He has won only 6 of the 13 Democratic contests held since March 4, drawing 6.1 million votes, compared with 6.6 million for Mrs. Clinton.”

I do not dispute the numbers — Hillary has won more votes and contests since March 4 — but how is Obama’s performance akin to “wheezing”?

As I have said over and over again, Hillary is a very strong candidate. There’s no disputing that. To suggest that Obama should have been able to “finish” by now — that is, finish her off — is to make much less of Hillary than she really is. Pundits have made that suggestion, but so have Hillary and her campaign, along with her supporters and surrogates, and it’s what I’ve come to call “self-condescension.” Is it that Obama is so weak or that Hillary is so strong? The latter, clearly. Were it not for Obama and the movement that has coalesced around him, Hillary would have wrapped up the nomination a long, long time ago. And, even with Obama leading, she continues to do extremely well. Why should we be surprised by this?

Furthermore, while it is true that Hillary has won more votes and contests since March 4, it was Obama who drew even with her on Super Tuesday — winning more contests, proving to be an equally (if not the more) formidable candidate, and crushing the presumed inevitability of her nomination — and then ran the table from February 9 to 19, winning 11 contests in a row. It’s not that he’s “wheezing,” it’s that the calendar, which benefitted Obama back in February, had Hillary-friendly contests scheduled for March 4 and later, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico.

The pundits, along with Hillary and her campaign, are treating this race like a college football season, where a loss early on is far less meaningful than a loss at or near the end: a school loses one and then wins ten, it goes to the BCS and competes for the national championship; it wins ten and then loses one, doubts erupt. But this isn’t college football, and Obama’s recent losses to a strong rival candidate in states that are friendly to her should not be taken to be signs of inherent weakness and impending doom. Obama’s February run was amazing (especially his huge wins in states like Virginia and Wisconsin), and those contests count just as much as the more recent ones, but, in general, remembering that before it started it was Hillary’s to lose, the race has gone pretty much according to expectations.

And it’s a race that Obama has won.

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

runasim

Hillary is a strong candidate becasue she knows how to use everything I dislike about politics.
Particularly offensive are her attempts to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.
Playing by the rules, the nominee is not selected by popular vote, Hillary!

StockBoySF

Thanks, Michael for the post. I agree. I'd also like to point out that the 500,000 spread btwn. Obama and Hillary represents just 4% of the vote- hardly overwhelming. Furthermore Obama has won something like 35 contests.

I think another spin to this is: After Hillary lost 11 contests in a row she made a little bit of a comeback, winning just 7 of the 13 contest and netting only 500,000 more votes. Her campaign, while pulling ahead a little in these last contests, has not made any big inroads into Obama's lead and is still limping behind him overall. Furthermore her campaign is deeply into debt by tens of millions of dollars whereas Obama continues to raise large sums of money. :)

DAD1

One thing that people seem to be forgetting is that once Mr. Obama saw that the nomination was essentially his he stopped the hard campaigning and spending that he would have normally done. Had he continued to spend money on ads in places like Kentucky and West Virginia and Puerto Rico it would have forced Ms Clinton to spend more and just may have forced her out of the race earlier because she would have had even more severe money problems.

DLS

"her campaign is deeply into debt by tens of millions of dollars"

Are she and her husband still in this in order to try to reduce the debt, or even end in a surplus (receive an effective windfall) if they persist?

* * *

"once Mr. Obama saw that the nomination was essentially his he stopped the hard campaigning and spending that he would have normally done"

Yes. He does have some problems, but remains the stronger Dem and yes, he backed off and probably (gee, this is difficult to envision) starting to shift in earnest from opposing Clinton to opposing McCain in anticipation of his likely nomination.

StockBoySF

DLS, I think part of what is driving Hillary's continued effort is to paydown the campaign debt (including money the campaign owes to her). And if she can recoup money then more power to her.

I think another reason she is stil pursuing this is to show that she is still viable. She'll leave the campaign a very different person (politically) then she started out as. Showing that she "narrowly" lost the nomination will give her more strength than if she had "lost be a landslide".

DAD1 and DLS, as far as Obama backing off... yeah, I can see that. But I'll have to think some more on it before deciding one way or the other- thanks!

StockBoySF

I also meant to mention in my original comment, under my alternative spin, this:

"While Hillary may have made a small measure of progress in some states, in other states where she won, most notably California, current polls show she is now trailing Obama by good margins."

blog comments powered by Disqus