« Georgian Conflict: Leaders Show Increasing Anger, Russia Digs in, Civilians Suffer (A News Round-Up)
The Edwards-Hunter Scandal: Where Some People Go, Trouble Seems To Follow »
They’re Back — And The Clintons Are Here To Stay?
A growing theory now making the round on the right, center and in some parts of the left is that Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton have now effectively-hijacked a good part of the Democratic attention away from Democratic party presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama. Those who believe this pooh-pooh reports of a compromise to let Clinton have her name put in nomination and contend it was actually forced on an unwilling — and poll-weakened Obama –and that the worst for Obama is yet to come.
Here’s one of the best summaries of this view.
The only problem with this interpretation is that it assumes the Clintons have such political hubris and are so self-absorbed that they — and their backers — don’t realize that if Obama loses it will NOT be a confirmation of what Hillary warned about if her backers stay home and don’t vote for Obama. It’ll signal to many that some Clinton supporters cared more about Hillary and not the party or policies and values shared by Democrats. (such as a less-conservative Supreme Court appointee). And if that is the conclusion in the wreckage of an Obama loss — and I believe it would be — then Clinton will face a battle royal in 2012. And, if she wins office, she would have a segment of her own party greatly distrusting her.
But what is certain is that the pro-Hillary rallies, the Bill Clinton speech (which is likely to praise his wife and detail his own legacy rather than passionately urge Demmies to vote for Obama), the Hillary Clinton speech, the introduction of Hillary Clinton by daughter Chelsea will dilute the usual impact of a convention. Modern political conventions are now the best chance for a candidate to control the image and delivery of that image. Now it’ll be Obama by 1/2.
News types will focus on the Clintons’ appearances and Clinton backers’ threat to essentially sink the ticket. And on Obama’s speech.
But it will be a diluted message nonetheless. And Republican Sen. John McCain’s message won’t be diluted.
UPDATE: Marc Ambinder says those who claim Obama “blinked” and that Hillary and Barack aren’t getting along are wrong.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “They’re Back — And The Clintons Are Here To Stay?”
“But it will be a diluted message nonetheless. And Republican Sen. John McCain’s message won’t be diluted.”
I think you're right on this. Even in defeat the Clintons continue to divide the Democratic Party, just as they did in the primaries. THe Republicans uneasily came together around McCain and he still has problems with certain elements of the Republican base, but when one thinks of the Republican presidential candidate, one thinks of McCain with problems. When one thinks of Obama, one thinks of Obama and the Clintons….
The Clintons are like an annoying little dog with its mouth clamped down on Obama's pant's leg. He's mostly standing tall, but the annoying dog is holding him back and one can't help but notice it. Even though one knows that the dog doesn't really matter. The roll call vote for Hillary at the convention may be meant to honor her accomplishments… but you're right that Obama's message is diluted. Instead of one message unified around Obama, there are two messages not unified at all.
Unlike McCain, where he will get attention due him. Even if some of the speakers at the Republican convention are distractions, they're not trying to steal the spotlight from him in order to run for president in 2012.
Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney will both be speaking at McCain's convention.
No wonder–just like you reported yesterday–a lot of elected Republicans are going to avoid their own convention.
I don't think this is such a bad thing as a lot of people have made it out to be. What would you have Obama do, lock them in a closet? I'd say that Bill is the real sore loser here. Aren't there going to be a lot of people speaking at the convention? Why does Bill speaking make the entire day Bill Clinton day?
This is certain? You keep on using that word Joe. I do not think it means what you think it means.
stockboy,
Think, it's not about the Clintons. The DNC, RBC stole votes and delegates for Obama. the caucus were manipulated in Texas toward Obama. There is plenty of testimony and evidence. The people who are in an uproar are Democrats who realize that the party has been hijacked by a Chicago thug whose political history is obliterating his competition before they can even run. Do your homework find out what's going on and stop hate mongering. You might not like the Clintons but under Bill's watch we were still a Democracy and doing pretty well economically. So, think.
It's not only that Obama lacks substance and experience, it is also that he is a liar and a crook. We already have that in the WH, you want another four years of that crap? Check the list, FISA, NAFTA, campaign financing, separation of church and state, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, abortion rights, etc.
Are you aware that he expediently changed religions from “secular” Muslim to Christianity when he decided to run in politics? Are you aware of his tactics and back stapping. Are you aware that he built his war chest with the help of Rezko after throwing money and contacts to Rezko and his Syrian gangsters?
Country before party!
No fool like a silly one. Want more ice in your kool-aid?
click212,
Well, Obama was chosen in the primaries by more than just TX- he won 36 of the contests, often by really large margins.
It was Hillary's folks who helped write the rules regrading the MI and FL votes, which she wanted to change after the vote so she could obtain more delegates. It was Obama who allowed Clinton more delegates with regards to this issue. He could have just stuck by the rules.
Obama also ran a superior and better organized campaign than HIllary. Even after Hillary's bud and superdelegate supporter the guv of PA, Rendell extended the deadline for delegates to be filed for the PA primary Hillary still came up short.
Besides, what does Obama's religion have anything to do with it? It doesn't matter whether he is a Christian or a Muslim. The last time I checked in this country we could still worship the religion we believed in.
If anyone has hijacked the political process for the Dem primaries it is clearly Hillary- no one can dispute the fact that after certain outcomes she called for the rules to be changed to her favor and she did obtain more delegates.
Obama may have taken advantage of the arcane TX caucus rules, but he did it within the rules and he did it without whining about how much effort he and his team spent in understanding those rules. Hillary could have cared less about the caucus rules (and not just the TX caucus) and her team did not want to understand those rules. I like a president who does his homework and plays by the rules, even if they are bizarre. After all Obama did not make those rules. He knew he had to run as clean a campaign as possible or else he would be charged with hijacking the primaries, which I see he is being charged as having done anyway.
Don't tell me to do my homework.