Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom and Fatal Attraction.

As an observer of the last few weeks, I have to share some thoughts.  Four weeks ago, the fact was that Hillary was up by 20+ points, establishing a rather easy bar for her to limbo under.  All she had to do was maintain that lead or not lose any more than 5 points to meet the conventional and easy-to-quantify wisdom.  Many around mydd in fact did a fair amount of understandable chest thumping over the 20+ point lead, daring Obama to even consider beating Hillary.  I was very nervous.

I am an Obama supporter, believing that neither race nor gender have ANYTHING to do with how we should be selecting our next president.  We owe nothing to either candidate based on either shallow concept.  Both race and gender are mere happenstance...not a reason to infer whom is the best candidate.  Anyway, I know (as any honest student of politics and social science would tell you) that in order for Hillary to win, she needs to turn the 20+ point lead in PA into a 20+ win (maybe 15 would do), which in theory will propel her to subsequent 20+ leads and wins in IN, NC, and OR and the rest. That is the only legitimate path remaining for her to the nomination, and frankly, if she meets the threshold above...she'll deserve it and will get my support if she does.  

However, things seem to be in flux, to the detriment of this narrative.  In the last 3 weeks, Obama has closed the gap AGAIN.  By most standards/polls, he is within 10 points or so.

Why?

1) Obama's campaign is smart and agile.  He and his team had the wisdom to build and execute a great plan.  Key endorsements were gathered and announced, a highly successful bus tour was executed, and his performances on the stump have been excellent.

2) The Clinton campaign has been troubled; not even the most stubborn HRC supporters could deny this unfortunate fact.  The Penn disaster finally came to its predictable and sickening end. While that was good news for HRC, it is probably too damn late to make a difference (that fool should have been shown the door weeks and weeks before).  BUT, the Bosnia gaffe was truly a problem for her. For good, ill, or indifferent, that oft-repeated and self-aggrandizing yarn reminded many of the sort of things that we didn't like about the Clinton years; namely the not-so-honest (but creative) story-telling.

In concert, these are the reasons why the "bittergate" fiasco was so embraced and met with glee by HRC, her team, and her supporters.  It seemed on its face, to be a possible silver bullet, fatally wounding the competition with one brief shot.  Unfortunately, this silver bullet, like those before it (using Jeremiah Wright, Rezko, and Power as a means of attack), was a dud.

I respect Hillary, and loved her husband, but this is getting tiring. This is not about gender or race, but about being wise enough to see the forest for the trees.  Conservatively, if the balance of this process goes all the way through the to the end, Obama will have approximately 1925 delegates to HRC's 1700. This means that he needs only 33% of the supers to Hill's 67%.  That is just not going to happen..look at the list for pity's sake if you don't believe me...and let's not even discuss the notion that SOME of Hillary's SD's WILL defect at the end.  

The longer it goes on the more it helps McCain; a man who just earlier this very week declared he'd RATHER face Hillary than Obama (for obvious reasons).  

If Hillary was really smart about this, what she'd do is suspend her campaign NOW...or at least right after PA.

Why?  

1) She would be viewed as a truly magnanimous candidate and player.  She would engratiate herself with the Obama supporters and party elders/leaders who are growing impatient, if not didsdainful with the manner in which her campaign has and is behaving.

2)The numbers aren't going to change appreciably relative to delegates.  She would enter the convention with very nearly the SAME number (some Sd's might drop off, but it would be close)!  Should Obama implode or something tragic occur, she could enter the convention with her delegates, take advantage of number 1 above, and become the standard-bearer.

3) Most importantly, it will be easier for Obama to focus on McCain with his 40 million-dollar mountain of money.  The more $$ he is forced to spend on a protracted battle with HRC, the more money is NOT spent fighting the real enemy...the GOP.  Obama could campaign throughout the summer, leaving McCain in the dust.

I fear however..that this won't happen.  There seems to be no end to the desperation and slash and burn tactics that Hillary's team is capable of, and all too willing to use.  Sure, there is being a "fighter", but there is also being a counter-productive nincompoop... snark ahead:

Every time I see Hill these days I am reminded of "Fatal Attraction" when Glenn Close screams, "I WILL NOT BE IGNORED, DAN!!!!"

Lord, I feel like we are ALL Dan.  We, as progressives and the like-minded indies & enlightened GOP, have had our fleeting and passionate moment with Hillary...but it as in the movie, we, like Micheal Douglas, realize that the affair was a terrible mistake and must return to logic and our ideals.  

Please, please Obama folks...GOTV and get it within 10...PLEASE!..before she boils our pets!

Guns


Poll
What's Gonna Happen?
Obama wins PA by less than 5
Hill wins by the 20+ she had 4 weeks ago
Hill wins by less than 10
Hill wins by less than 5, and continues on
Hill wins by less than 5, and quits

Votes: 12
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom (2.00 / 1)

Here, here. Guns has it right. Mojo to you, sir.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:00:41 PM EST

Re: Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom (2.00 / 0)

Thanks, ragekage!  I am sure that the GOP will be using the elitist narrative...but in truth, I don't think that given his background, relative wealth when compared to McCain's, and proclivity for sports...I don't think it will stick well.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:10:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom (2.00 / 1)

It won't. Clinton's the only one keeping this alive because she has to have something to try and bash Obama over the head with. It's the only way she can win.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom (none / 0)

As a working class, white male Democrat, I'll point out Obama's problem for you, and contrast it with my reasons for supporting Hillary.

See, the Clintons busted their asses for ten good years to see to it that poor working people were able to survive and even get ahead.  Yes, they say shit that's completely off the wall, but I know where Hillary's heart is, and I know what she'll bust her ass to deliver.

When I see Obama, I see somebody who is probably a good guy.  Probably.  But I also see someone who also lies, exaggerates, and will say one thing while he does exactly the opposite.  I also see an arrogant a-hole who looks down his nose at Hillary, brags about how great of a campaigner he is, and is dismissive of things he doesn't want to hear.  All that would be fine, if I knew what he is all about.  As it is, he is a politician like any other, except I don't know where his heart is.  I have no reason to believe that is with me.

That is the wall Obama is up against.  There is a tremendous chunk of registered Democrats who don't trust his judgment or his intentions in the least.  Hillary can drop out tomorrow, and that still doesn't go away.  And a pile of cash can't buy it, either.

I understand that a majority of Obama supporters do not trust Hillary either.  That's fine.  The only way I us beating the GOP come November is a fusion ticket.  Unfortunately, Obama has already dismissed that idea.  If this follows the path to an Obama nomination, this election is more over than you think.


by SuperCameron on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom (none / 0)

We'll disagree over the content of his character.  Where you see vaguaries and falsehood, I see reason and sincerity. He'll win in November...as would Hillary, though I argue it would have been a longer haul for her, and McCain and Limbaugh know it.

In any event I'll have supported her.


by a gunslinger on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:17:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Every time I hear and Obama supporter (2.00 / 1)

say Hillary should dropout for the good of the party and her self, I send her money.

There is absolutely no evidence that Hillary staying the race helps McCain. In the very least, it is probably better that we have the Wright, Bitter, etc... dialogs in our primary rather than in a general (not that we can stop that from happening anyway).

And what about the very, very clear evidence that indicates this whole processes is building our party like never before? I thought we weren't into just anointing a predetermined victor before a democratic process plays out?
by linc on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:16:54 PM EST

Agree/Disagree (2.00 / 0)

I agree that there is an argument that by staying in she DOES make Obama a much better GE candidate, by making him respond to attacks.  I get that.

BUT...you cannot deny that every dollar that is spent in fighting amongst ourselves, is money that we fail to spend against McCain.  You CANNOT deny that this IS true, and helps McCain.  Can you?  

If it doesn't help McCain, I'd LOOOOVE to hear how it hurts.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree/Disagree (none / 0)

Yeah...that's how I thought you'd respond.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I could be wrong (none / 0)

but to your point #3, I thought primary money could not be used for the general election.

Anyone?


by Coldblue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:25:02 PM EST

Re: I could be wrong (none / 0)

Some can and some can't.  The way it works, as I understand it, is that only money from donors who HAVEN'T already maxed out at 2,300 can be spent AFTER the primaries...before the convention.  I know that he has MOUNTAINS of summer money that HRC nor McCain have.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just remember (none / 0)

Kerry having money he couldn't use.

Thanks.


by Coldblue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just remember (none / 0)

That was in November.  he left millions on the table in the final weeks.  Shocking.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just remember (2.00 / 1)

It was pretty damn amazing.  I was pissed.


by SuperCameron on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just remember (none / 0)

To this day, it is a goddam head scratcher.  Mojo.


by a gunslinger on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't, and have never felt like Dan. (none / 0)

Just saying.


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13:48 PM EST

Re: I don't, and have never felt like Dan. (none / 0)

All kidding aside, don't you think that the arguments regarding the reasons for the facts on the ground in PA are at least SOUND...and that maybe...just MAYBE I might have something regarding the endgame?

Just askin'.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't, and have never felt like Dan. (none / 0)

1) She would be viewed as a truly magnanimous candidate and player.  NO SHE WON'T.  ALL OF YOU WILL CALL HER A LOSER AND SAY SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT MONTHS AGO.  She would engratiate herself with the Obama supporters and party elders/leaders who are growing impatient, THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, OBAMA SUPPORTERS AND PARTY ELDERS/LEADERS DON'T MAKE THE FINAL DECISION...AND WASN'T BILL CLINTON CONSIDERED A PARTY LEADER/ELDER BEFORE THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN TRASHED HIM AND HIS ENTIRE RECORD OF PUBLIC SERVICE?  if not didsdainful with the manner in which her campaign has and is behaving.  I'M SORRY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS.  

2)The numbers aren't going to change appreciably relative to delegates.  She would enter the convention with very nearly the SAME number (some Sd's might drop off, but it would be close)!  Should Obama implode or something tragic occur, she could enter the convention with her delegates, take advantage of number 1 above, and become the standard-bearer.  IF SHE QUITS THEN SHE WILL NOT RETAIN HER DELEGATES AND WHEN OBAMA IMPLODES, SHE WILL NO LONGER BE IN CONTENTION FOR ANYTHING.  SHE WILL BE NO BETTER OFF THAN DODD, EDWARDS, KUCINICH, ET AL.

3) Most importantly, it will be easier for Obama to focus on McCain with his 40 million-dollar mountain of money.  The more $$ he is forced to spend on a protracted battle with HRC, the more money is NOT spent fighting the real enemy...the GOP.  Obama could campaign throughout the summer, leaving McCain in the dust.  OBAMA CAN CAMPAIGN THIS SUMMER AGAINST McCAIN...NO ONE IS STOPPING HIM.

I READ THIS TODAY, AND OFFER IT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

Paul Lukasiak has a post up at FireDogLake that talks about race and gender and polls, etc.

(In the comment section he responds to this quote from an obvious Obama supporter who said this): "I agree that Clinton's negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot."

Lukasiak's response: "Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't, and have never felt like Dan. (none / 0)

C~

Hillary was enjoying the BEST media coverage EVER, before about mid-october, when she got involved in the "driver's license for illegals" answer.  AND what's more, and more importantly, her team couldn't decide whether or not to compete in IA. She got caught in a bad media cycle at a strategically bad one.

By the time they did decide, team Hillary had neither the time nor as it turns out, the resources to establish a good ground game. Yes, she MAY have taken some lumps...but nothing that was brought up anywhere prior to IA come even close to the scope and depth of the negativity that is in evidence with team HRC now.  Which is to be expected (though it is now hurting the chances of the nominee later).  Come on... you KNOW it is dirtier now.

As for your point..:

"OBAMA CAN CAMPAIGN THIS SUMMER AGAINST McCAIN...NO ONE IS STOPPING HIM."

C`....that is the VERY POINT!!!  The longer the time between NOW and the point he can focus his resources on the GOP...are moments misused.  Every chance WE get to undo Johnny Mac, we should be taking.


by a gunslinger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was more than one comment from... (none / 0)

Senator Clinton:

"...all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot."

I just don't agree that one comment during any cycle could/should be the undoing of any viable candidate.   Note too how Lukasiak recounts how Clinton was running a positive campaign (everyone was) and Obama, et al, turned negative on her to get traction.  And it worked.  So that's how we got where we are in this miserable primary.

Also, Obama can run his advertising taking a nominee stance against McCain right now - from what I feel you're all saying, Clinton has no shot, so why waste his time/money even bothering with her?  All he has to do is ignore her and she will go away...right?


by CoyoteCreek on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't, and have never felt like Dan. (none / 0)

Coyote, "nearly the SAME number" , is not the same as MORE pledged delegates. Even if Obama, or Clinton wins by more then 1 pledged delegate then that person WINS. It's not how close you get to the leader, it's who WON the most delegates.


by venician on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Nearly the same" is a comment (none / 0)

Gunslinger made - I was responding to his prior comment.


by CoyoteCreek on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.