The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Queen Hillary the Survivor, like St John the Maverick, is a media creation. She's never had a real opponent prior to Obama. (She won her Senate seat by using her husband's presidency to push out a congresswoman who was, up to that point, the presumptive nominee, and then coasted to victory in the general because Rudy! was diagnosed with cancer and dropped out.) She survives because of the fact that the press wants to keep the Clinton Soap Opera going. If the Windsors and the Dukes of Hazard could be smashed together, the result would be the Clintons.
I think you're giving Clinton far too much credit here as a human being. The unfortunate truth, or at least so I believe we'll find, is that she'll keep going until forced to get out. (Rest assured that if she were getting ready to call it a day, she wouldn't be having her donors write obnoxious letters to Nancy Pelosi over Pelosi's comments, or threatening Howard Dean over Florida and Michigan.) If that destroys Obama in November, it just means she's gets to try again in 2012. If she were going to accept defeat graciously, -- I, frankly, think we're long past the point at which she can -- she would've dropped out after Texas, at the latest (going out on a high note).
Put simply, you're assuming the Clintons will observe the niceties. After all, Edwards did. Richardson, Biden and Dodd did. Obama, to this point, has. Candidates always do. Clinton, however, has not, and all the press talk of "Well, if she gets the shit kicked out of her in this or that state, she has to drop out, or the math doesn't work" sounds great, but we ultimately find it proven silly when she winds up, you know, getting the shit kicked out of her in this or that state. (The only thing that winds up changing is that whatever state the press referenced is branded "insignificant" for a variety of reasons -- too many blacks, too much money, not enough Mexicans, too many young people, undemocratic caucuses, sexism, affirmative action, Republican conspiracies -- by the Clintons and Mark Penn.)
I'll happily swallow my words if I'm wrong, but remember who told this to you when Denver comes and Clinton is clawing her way there from Puerto Rico: The Clintons are not honorable people, and Lady Macbeth (as TBG likes to call her) will stay until her candidacy is killed by the superdelegates. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
"The Clintons: We're There When We Need You."
Let's stop pretending that, as Joke Line insists, these are honorable people. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
For the reasons Drew has already posted but also, speaking realistically, Obama hasn't put her away yet. She is still within striking distance. One major gaffe by Obama and she's in.
One analysis posted on MyDD put it thus: if things go according to predictions Obama will need ~35% of the PLEO delegates at the convention to win the nomination while Clinton will need ~72%. That would be hard for her to accomplish both from a "What's In It for Me" stance as well as the demonstrated incompetence of the Clinton campaign. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Failing that, the campaign is over, unless the superdelegates flip it (in which case we have Armageddon -- blacks (who she's already only polling at 55% with against St John) and young people walk, along with God-knows-who-else -- and Clinton loses anyway). Obama will, in all likelihood, close some of the gap in Penn and win huge in NC, Montana, Oregon. And SD. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
We may of course disagree or be outraged at how she is conducting her campaign, but that's another issue entirely. She has certainly done her own credentials with the Black vote and just about every left of centre voter a lot of damage by seizing on the Rev. Wright issue when there was absolutely no need for her to do so - the GOP and the press where always going to pursue that issue in any case. However, so far, there is little evidence this has damaged her in the polls.
The reality is she is still a viable candidate, even if she is only barely hanging in there at this stage. It would take a major mistake by Obama to lose the Nomination now, and if he wins it he will be strengthened by the fact that he has come through in such a tough campaign. The Dems are stealing all the limelight and creating all the mobilisation on the ground - all of which will stand them in good stead in November.
The only issue now is can they close the deal - and reunite once the nomination is decided - and my bet is they can and they will. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Look, I don't disagree at all. She's not merely entitled but rather has every right to continue campaigning as long as she chooses. (It's no secret that I don't like her, but I'd be the first to defend her if she were told otherwise.) Hell, even if it became mathematically impossible for her to win, she'd still have the right to fight out any remaining contests.
I'm on-board with the view that we're stealing the limelight from McCain for the moment. But that is, as I think you'd agree, wholly dependent upon the public perception of how the contest is being handled by Obama and Clinton. And I do think we're rapidly approaching, if we haven't already passed it, the point at which the public sours and sees it as a childish game of tit-for-tat. (Good strategy in game theory, not good for winning elections.) If and when that point is crossed, the contest will need to end quickly if we're to hope for an undamaged nominee.
However, so far, there is little evidence this has damaged her in the polls.
Actually, although I have no idea what's causing it, her favorable ratings are plummeting in the NBC poll to be released tonight that First Read has now written about (down to an all-time low of 37%). For the record, that's her lowest since March of 2001, when she took office after being pounded as a carpetbagger in New York.
Now, granted, the same poll gives her a statistically insignificant lead over Obama among primary voters (although an also-statistically-insignificant worse showing when comparing O and C against McCain), but there ya go.
My bet -- and it is that I agree with you -- is less a bet that they'll ultimately unite the party. (I think McCain will do that for them in the end.) It's more a bet based upon the fact that Dems so clearly outnumber Reps, and that such a huge chunk of Indies lean towards the Dems. Couple that with the fact that we're in a time when a GOP president is about to preside over his second recession, and when the (unbelievably unpopular) Iraq War is starting to hit the news again with violence rising in Basra, and it's difficult to see how the Dems don't pull it out even after a bitter primary.
That said, I think guys like Kos are kidding themselves if they believe it's in the bag. We're not going to beat McCain by making him unlikable. (That's just not going to happen.) We're only going to beat him by focusing the contest on how incredibly wrong he is on everything. And that's difficult because of the magic of message (more specifically, blurring). He's damned good at playing the Old Noble Servant. (I have to salute the Reps. They picked their strongest guy, even though they all hate him.) And that's not easy to counter at a time of crisis, even when the McCains of the world produced it. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
We're not going to beat McCain by making him unlikable. (That's just not going to happen.) We're only going to beat him by focusing the contest on how incredibly wrong he is on everything.
I think making him unlikeable is the only way to win. Bush won - kind of, anyway - because he played the likeable guy at the bar.
He was also incredibly wrong about everything. And only a minority of people go that ahead of time. If voters cared about wrong, Bush would never have had more than 30% of the vote.
McCain meanwhile has the advantage of being an obvious patriot and hero. He's white, he's ex-military, he's totally American[tm].
He's also senile and psychopathic. But don't expect voters to care about that.
So the only way to take him down would be to break that identification with America, or to be so very much more charismatic that he becomes insignificant.
Hillary, who is certainly living up to the Lady Macbeth tag, isn't capable of either. Her sniper-fire attempt to play the hero turned into a media farce.
Obama might be. He understands media and rhetoric, while McCain's handlers don't seem quite so deft. And the McCain himself is clearly losing it.
Obama's way to winning is to wrap himself in the flag, run with the 'We're all Americans' line he's been using, and crowd out McCain's media presence. He can then be likeable and quasi-approachable at the same time as he's presidential.
McCain doesn't have that kind of charismatic ammo at his disposal. He'll appeal to the stiff old patriots and the Washington cynics, but not so much to anyone else.
She started with a hard negative of ~40%. Her attacks on Obama has alienated Obama supporters and other Democrats and that's being reflected in her rising negatives. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
As they say about the matrix, you have to see it in order to understand it... well, halfway. But don't blame me if you come back scarred for life.
I like monorail cat. "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
I think the real battle for these SUPER super delegates will come in June when the Primary season is over and the Dem party gets down to the real business of hammering out an electoral policy platform (and who gets what jobs). This will happen mostly behind closed doors, but expect a steady stream of high profile endorsements to keep the news flow going on quiet days of the campaign to create the sense of a gathering moment of change behind Obama.
McCain may have peaked too soon. He doesn't really have anywhere else to go - whereas the Obama movement is still growing. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
As I stated previously; its possible they wanted Pennsylvania to play out as they were afraid to alienate Hillary's base while a big state like Pa was to come in the primary season. The other reason may be the Gores, Edwards etc are pragmatists and just like Hillary would like a shot at 2012 so didnt mind Obama being bloodied up by Hillary enough to lose to McCain. Thereby Hillary gets the blame for defeat and allows Gore, Edwards,etc to run in 2012. Let's not be surprised that politiciams would want their own ambitions to come before the country's welfare. I hope this is not the case as I believe Obama will beat McCain because Obama's movement will still be growing and the status and perceived status of the economy will continue to worsen during the general election campaign. Obama's campaign line of 'Do we really want a Bush third term !!!' will be the mantra of his general election campaign.
by rifek - Apr 7 1 comment
by gmoke - Apr 3
by rifek - Apr 1
by rifek - Mar 30 1 comment
by gmoke - Mar 29
by gmoke - Mar 22 1 comment
by Oui - Apr 12
by Oui - Apr 716 comments
by rifek - Apr 71 comment
by Oui - Apr 6
by Oui - Mar 313 comments
by Oui - Mar 3110 comments
by rifek - Mar 301 comment
by gmoke - Mar 221 comment
by Oui - Mar 17 comments
by Oui - Feb 2810 comments