Obama I: Why Clinton’s Goose Is Cooked & How She’ll Try to Climb Out of the Oven

February 21st, 2008
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist

Print Print

01aaclin_finger.jpg

I’ve been killing a goodly number of brain cells lately trying to figure out how Hillary Clinton can keep from driving off the electoral cliff, but I keep shooting blanks.

For one thing, the mathematical deck is now stacked against her. She needs to win the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4 by huge margins, but that looks increasingly unlikely, while a big win in Pennsylvania on April 22, where she doesn’t even have a full delegate slate, would be too little too late.

With voting over in all but 14 states, Barack Obama leads Clinton 1,336-1,251 in delegates, according to The Associated Press’s count, with 2,025 needed to secure the nomination.

Perhaps the biggest reason that Clinton’s goose is cooked is the enormous fluidity of the Democratic electorate this year — with an ample helping of Independents and Republicans who have been able to vote in open primaries.

In other words, Hillary, it takes a village.

Except for mimicking the Bush administration (”If you don’t like the rules, change ‘em”), the Clinton campaign seems to be caught in a state of suspended animation, and with every succeeding primary Obama draws in more voters from her core constituencies — women and working-class voters.

And yes. White men can jump, Hillary. From you and John Edwards to Obama.

This is vividly illustrated below in a comparison of a demographic breakdown of who voted for Obama based on exit polls in 16 states on Super Tuesday (first number) 16 days ago and then in Wisconsin (second number) on Tuesday:

All voters: 49% - 58% (+9)
Men: 53% - 63% (+6)
Women: 45% - 50% (+5)
Blacks: 82% - 91% (+9)
Whites: 43% - 54% (+9)
Independents: 58% - 64% (+6)
Households less than $50,000: 45% - 50% (+5)
Households more than $50,000: 45% - 60% (+15)
Union households: 46% - 54% (+8)

A big ouch, eh Hillary?

Rick Moran, crunching the numbers at Pajamas Media, notes that the most important Wisconsin exit poll result may be that voters soundly rejected by a 2-1 margin Clinton’s “experience” argument and embraced Obama’s mantra of “change.” Obama also continued to score better on the three most important issues Democrats say are facing the country — the economy, Iraq, and health care.

Moran writes that:

“It appears at this point that Clinton has virtually nothing to say nor can she demonstrate any quality that could start bringing some of these core constituencies home. . . . [W]atch over the next two weeks as Obama begins to catch and then surpass Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas. A double loss in those states would almost certainly bring loud and persistent calls from leading Democrats for her to exit the race.”

So what’s a cooked goose to do?

Certainly not concede, as Obama’s campaign manager suggested in an atypically silly remark. What Clinton is left with is stealing and attacking.

Stealing as in trying to manipulate the superdelegate count and get delegates seated who are pledged to her from Florida and Michigan. Because of the longtime connections that she and Bill Clinton have to the party establishment, she would seem to have the inside track on this.

But, says The Economist:

“The risk for Mrs Clinton is that she gets stuck with a reputation for being willing to do anything to get the nomination, even if that were to mean stealing away Mr Obama’s electoral victory. With the fight against Mr. McCain looming, she runs the risk of looking both aggressive and desperate, hardly the person the Democrats would want taking on the Republicans’ genial and confident war hero. “

Attacking, of course, is a two-edged carving knife . . . er, sword, as Reed Hundt explains at TPM Cafe:

“The Clintons will attack Obama in harsh, personal terms for two main reasons: they hope to attract attention from the media, which they need to overcome Obama’s advantages in paid ads, free media coverage . . . and field organization, and they want to instill doubts about Obama in the voters in Ohio and Texas.

“The attention-seeking will work. The free media, especially the cable shows, will report the Clintons’ charges. The allegations may be straight from the Rove playbook — illogical, self-contradictory, twisted, trivial. But whatever they are, they will be reported. . . .

“In a sense, it is the news that Mrs. Clinton and her sharp-tongued surrogates want to make and so they deserve the coverage.

“But will the attention inure to her benefit? Will it actually stop voters from moving to Obama, the way they have done now in vote after vote, across all demographics, in a clear sign that overall he is a much more popular candidate?”

Hundt concludes that the attacks will fail because Clinton will have to walk a fine line, is much better at nasty than nuance and has no detectable sense of humor, which comes in handy when trying to camouflage the delivery of a poison pill. Besides which:

“Successful attacks in politics usually depend on policy differences that can be used to explain a choice that voters can make. But the policy differences between Clinton and Obama for the most part favor Obama — Mrs. Clinton spent too much time hammering out her position in the middle of the political spectrum to be able now to get to Obama’s left.”

The issue will be how Obama responds. Here Hundt and I are of a like mind:

Obama must respond, of course, but leaven that response with humility. And most importantly, he must stay on the offensive. These are all things that he has done well in his long, improbable climb toward the mountaintop.

He won’t stop doing them now and Hillary knows it.

Photograph by Jacob Silberberg for The New York Times




This entry was posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2008 at 4:55 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Superdelegates, Independents, Debates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Shaun: I've been needling some of the absurdly pro-Hillary gals at TMV: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/barack-oba...

    and I've noticed that they generally do not respond to your pieces on Obama or Hillary.

    Is it the cologne you wear, or is it just the scent of broiling fowl ass that keeps them mum?
    • ^
    • v
    Cheney has set an example of what a non-non-entity VP can be like.

    The DNC may "arrange" (twisting arms, punching, kicking Obama) to have Clinton become Obama's strong VP "choice." So be ready for that.
    • ^
    • v
    DLS: Ain't gonna happen. O's surging precisely because he's NOT Hill the Chill. Edwards has a better shot, but he likely won't wanna be #2 twice in a row. Richardson is a good bet, or even Biden or Dodd.

    If he really wanted to 'gore' the r's though, he'd offer it to Chuck Hagel.
    • ^
    • v
    "O's surging precisely because he's NOT Hill the Chill."

    Or any other DC fixture. Also, you're right about Edwards as a possible VP and I've said the same thing, but under Obama, not under Clinton. Biden -- bashed Bush too much. Dodd I can't stand because of his crappy behavior after the 1994 elections, with his constant lying about "extreme" and "extremist" Republicans.

    Just be ready for it. (Clinton as VP, improbable as it otherwise would seem; I am not convinced Obama would agree to be Clinton's VP, no way.) Also be ready to see the Dem establishment arrange for DC fixtures and other retreads from years gone by (including Bill Clinton) in Cabinet and other important Dem administrative positions. The party leadership and the ambitious fixtures and retreads would want that.
    • ^
    • v
    I've made my points about why I'm not voting for Hillary, but I don't like this demonization tone that I've been hearing lately. It'd be nice for Dems to remember that soon enough the primary will be over and that both candidates will still be working for the same team after that. I'm not going to be voting for Hillary, but this doesn't have to be a zero sum game. I can support Obama without thinking Clinton is a whiny cutthroat shrew. Apparently there are quit a few people that think differently.
    • ^
    • v
    Obama has a health care plan that will be more appealing to Republicans. That means less political capital will be spent on getting it passed. If the congress has the political will and strength they can make it the Hillary type plan. The point is to get a comprehensive health care plan passed. Hillary does not think in terms of working with those who don't agree with her. Obama does.

    The reason she is in the bind she is in is because she did not realize that America is tired of her way of solving problems. America dislikes Bush not because of his political philosophy but because of his political methods. As far as I am concerned her methods are no different than Bush's.

    She must get that now since she just accused him of being like Karl Rove. She wants to paint him like Bush.That is contrary to Obama's basic philosophy of life.

    Sorry, Slamfu but the Clintons are mendacious. Obama has an ethical standard to live by. All politicians skirt the truth at times, Hillary may also, I don't know, but she listens to Bill and he certainly does not.
 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus



By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.