« He can’t be President of Black America!
Obama Assassination ‘Would Leave Road Paved for McCain’ … »



Clinton Supporter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Says Obama Will Get Nomination

February 23rd, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

_6D5F2884_2F06_4F0E_9DFE_59E63BA82E73_.gif

Political Wire has this item about comments by Clinton supporter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend — and Townsend’s analysis makes us wonder if she reads The Moderate Voice. Most of this analysis is what we’ve been saying on this site:

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, spoke at St. Mary’s college in Maryland last week and offered a very frank assessment of the state of the Clinton campaign. A Political Wire reader emails a summary:

“Townsend said she expects Sen. Barack Obama to win the Democratic presidential nomination and that Clinton is finished. She believed that the Wisconsin results demonstrated that Clinton’s coalition (voters over the age of 50 and those earning less than $50,000) had fallen apart. When asked why the Clinton campaign had failed, Ms. Townsend had plenty of opinions and she placed significant blame on Bill Clinton and his racially tinged statements in South Carolina. She also felt that Clinton made a tactical error in making “experience and inevitability” her central campaign themes. Townsend argued that Clinton had little more experience than Obama and far less than candidates such as Senators Dodd and Biden. Additionally, making the inevitability claim hurt her when she lost Iowa… Townsend then lamented Clinton’s decision to go negative and question Obama’s readiness. She said that she called the Clinton campaign and advised that they ‘go out on a high note’ but her advice was politely dismissed.”

It sounds like a campaign that still intends to do what it wants to do, despite advice it may receive from those who disagree with its course of action.

Cartoon by Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com



This entry was posted on Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Negative Campaigning, Democratic Party, Barry Goldwater, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    While I wish Clinton would focus her campaign on why she would be great and less on why Obama isn't as great as many think, I completely grant the Clinton campaign to throw everything they have left before March 4. It's the last hurrah and defeat is not yet assured. As people have said, if Obama can't handle the Clinton campaign on attack for another week and a bit, he's got no hope in the general election.
    • ^
    • v
    pacatrue- I agree. On this, "if Obama can't handle the Clinton campaign on attack for another week and a bit, he's got no hope in the general election" I'd like to add that Obama is handling criticism from not only Hillary but McCain.

    She might pull this off (she's really not that far behind Obama in delegates), but I expect Obama will get the nomination. I still fear that she'll get enough votes in TX and OH so that even if she's still a hundred or even one hundred and fifty delegates behind Obama she'll drag this out to the convention and then have MI and FL seated. Obama needs to win by pretty good margins in TX and OH to take HIllary out of the race once and for all.
    • ^
    • v
    At this point, Hillary has nothing to lose really. Apparently she's just being true to herself, when she launches into this pretty caustic diatribe. She's just showing her humanity that she too can be pissed off. However, I believe that it would be even more effective if she remains positive, and she concentrates on what she can offer, rather than what Obama can't. That way, when she manages to win Texas and Ohio, she'll be viewed in a more positive way. Not the divisive Hillary that many have come to believe (rightly or wrongly). That way she can also unite the Democratic Party at an even faster pace. And if she loses, at least she'll be viewed still in a positive light.
    • ^
    • v
    LOL- excellent cartoon.

    On the point made by pacatrue and stockboySF, from a GOP perspective this is the gift that keeps giving. As long as Hillary keeps tossing the mud, McCain can keep his hands relatively clean- while also watching to see what sticks and what doesn't. It's amazing that anyone on the Dem side wouldn't see how destructive this is- either Hillary's going to win a nasty fight and then have a lot of independents who favored (adored, more accurately) Obama so angry that they'll vote McCain (who's acceptable to a lot of them anyway) or Obama wins it but his achilles heel will have been identified. Just because the attacks don't work for Hillary doesn't mean that McCain won't be poised to take advantage of the situation; after all, a lot of the reason that Hillary's arguments don't work is that she's actually too similar to Obama on policy herself, and even on experience she doesn't have the resume to close the deal.
    • ^
    • v
    CStanley nailed it. With Obama having such a large lead in delegates, and Ohio and Texas looking highly unlikely to deliver the huge wins that Clinton needs, at this point all that attacks against Obama can do is split the party and help the Republicans for the general election. In addition, whether they are true or not, attacks made by a Democrat against a Democrat are more likely to be seen as true than those made by one party against another, and as a result we're almost certainly going to see these same attacks (perhaps even with video of Hillary saying "shame on you Barack") resurrected for the general election.

    Going on the attack hasn't served Hillary well in this election, so to continue doing so is a particularly disappointing strategy. She did well after showing a human side in New Hampshire, and her support seemed to rise after her closing in last week's debate. However, in both cases she immediately squandered any opportunity - New Hampshire was followed by comments that attempted to paint Obama as not being genuine ("fairy tale", etc), and the debate was followed yesterday by an attack based on campaign literature that has been circulating for some time and that actually appears to be factually accurate. Had Clinton treated her opponents more respectfully and focused her campaign on herself and the country voters would have had a tougher choice, but recent results indicate that the country is ready for someone who (hopefully) will move politics away from a win-at-all-costs mentality and avoid the nasty tactics of the past two decades.
    • ^
    • v
    CStanley and ryan, I agree. I've always thought that Hillary's strategy to winning the WH is to win each battle at any cost, then go on to the next battle. Even if it means going negative and/or splitting the Dems in individual states. She expects the Dems to unite behind their candidate come Nov. to get the Republicans out of the WH. To be fair the other Dem leaders expect the same (including Obama) but their strategy isn't to divide the Dem party (like Hillary does) and expect it to make up at the end.

    A lot of Dems won't vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination through back-door methods (i.e. hijacking superdelegates). And the Dem leaders can't expect Dems to dutifully line up and support the Dem candidate just to get the Republicans out of office. I see the Dems in congress making a lot of worthless noise about Bush and his policies, but then the Dems end up supporting Bush anyway. If I knew the Dems would be different than the Republicans, I would probably vote for HIllary if she got the nomination through nefarious means. But the Dems have done very little in the last couple of years to show that they really are different from the Republicans. I like Obama because you know where he stands on the issues, no flip-flopping for him (he seems to have the most consistent stands throughout his career). Whereas the other Dems (and Reps) seem to make politically expedient decisions, without really standing for anything.

    Just as an aside- I'm not looking to convert Republicans to voting for Obama and I imagine people won't try to convert me to McCain. I think as long as we all look at the issues (and other factors) and support our respective candidates knowing their strengths and weaknesses, then we all should respect one another. So when I say that I don't like the Republicans, it's mostly directed at their blind support of Bush and his failed policies. There is a lot to like about Republicans and I could support a Republican who really wants to work with the Dems on issues. To me Obama has pulled a lot of diverse people together in the past to get legislation passed. Obama doesn't have the same political baggage that the other candidates (Hillary and McCain) have.
    • ^
    • v
    I had doubts about Obama's toughness a few weeks ago, but I have to say that he's shown the best way to defeat such is to make the other person look petulant, and that's the best description of Hill right now. As for McCain, if I'm Obama I'm slavering to take him on- he's a lousy debater.

    Also, Obama seems to be developing a Reagan-like Teflon coating. He has that indefinable extra thing that only a few leaders ever has.
    • ^
    • v
    "Also, Obama seems to be developing a Reagan-like Teflon coating. He has that indefinable extra thing that only a few leaders ever has."

    Many politicians can't win arguments based on an argument's merits. They have to resort to half-truths, lies, battering down opponents, etc. to win. Obama is the adult in the room. He doesn't flip-flop on issues because he knows his values, beliefs, etc. If Obama does change a position then it's because of new information, not because of political expediency. He doesn't go along to just go along. Most importantly he's smart enough to make good decisions. And because he's not in the pockets of big oil, big pharma, etc. he can make good decisions, rather than have to explain why he did what he did. Obama has a clear sense of self and he wants a government run from the bottom up (like he runs his campaign) rather than the Bush form of government which is, "Trust us, we know what we're doing and this is what we're going to do."

    I'm not saying Obama is perfect, but he doesn't want to be Prez. just to have power. Obama (who taught constitutional law) understands that government is by the people, for the people. Government is not for his own personal gain. What really convinces me of this is that after he first met his future wife, Michelle started changing her schedule to become more involved in the community. And she left her job as a corporate attorney. She may have left for a good paying position, but it wasn't the same career track which would have earned her wads of money. If Obama can inspire people close to him to change their priorities (spend more time with the community and don't focus on earning lots of money) then that tells me he is sincere in running a clean government.

    That's the teflon coating- no hidden agenda, having the brains to make good decisions (and knowing when to listen to others) and able to back-up those decisions based on their own merits, rather than obfuscate.
    • ^
    • v
    Stockboy: Yes and no. I think the Teflon is borne of a confluence of the times and the man and the message. 2004, even were he the same age, he's not even on the radar. Look at Reagan in 68 or 76- he was a joke. But things came together in 80, and he coasted. I think O has the mojo and the times with him.

    Better to be lucky than good, but if you can be both there's a chance for something special. Honestly, when was the last time anyone got really excited about an election? Not 2000, not 1980. Prob 1968, with Bobby Kennedy.