Today, a relatively young black politician from Chicago clinched the Democratic nomination. In just a few years, he elevated himself from obscurity to take on one of the most formidable families and fund raising machines in American politics. And he accomplished this by planning carefully and strategically, managing his campaign competently, relying on grassroots donations, sticking to a core message, and by generally resisting the temptation to engage in the increasingly negative and divisive tactics used by his opponent.
In December, I really felt like we had a choice between two worthy candidates. That’s changed: I’ve grown increasingly frustrated as I’ve watched Clinton’s stirring up of identity politics and descent into Rovian schemes (e.g., Bill Clinton’s appearance on the Rush Limbaugh show–WTF!?), listened to her phony rhetorical calls to “make every vote count” in Michigan and Florida when she supported the DNC’s punishment at the beginning, and struggled to wrap my brain around the tortured mathematics that went into her popular vote counts.
Obama won because he learned the rules of the delegate, primary and caucus game and played them well:
The Clinton people need to recognize that it is not coincidence that Obama’s vote was more efficient [i.e., had a more favorable vote to delegate ratio]. I have discussed this before. Part of this efficiency had to do with the fact that the delegate allocation system contains within it biases that happened to favor Obama. However, part of it had to do with the fact that the Obama campaign had a better understanding of the system. It found the possibilities in it and made the most of them. What’s more, the Clinton campaign let it do this. Simply put, Obama out-maneuvered Clinton.
Clinton went in cocky and underestimated her opponent, and when she found herself losing the game, she began challenging the rules themselves. If the 2008 Democratic primaries were a schoolyard fight, Obama was the kid who threw clean punches and if his opponent fell, waited for them to get back up before engaging again. Clinton was the sand-throwing, kidney-punching, kick-them-when-they’re-down dirty and mean bully.
I don’t get what her supporters see in her that makes them so passionate. If you’re a Clinton fan, please speak to me–I want to understand this better. As a member of the electorate, I feel respected by Obama (if a bit harassed for donations). I feel manipulated and talked down to by Clinton.
I hate to make this post about Clinton on the night of Obama’s victory, but I’m worried about where she might take this. Even with superdelegates flooding into Obama’s camp (he had a comfortable 20 to 30 delegate lead by the end of the night), she refused to concede to the party’s presumptive nominee. What’s her game? What’s her motivation? She has enough of a coalition to spoil a Democratic victory in November (especially if she goes all Lieberman on the Dems) but not enough of one to win. And I wouldn’t put Clinton above using extortion to maneuver herself into the VP position.
Update (6/4 12:05 AM): Apparently I’m not the only one distracted by and suspicious of Clinton on this historic occasion. Michael Tomasky of the Guardian says:
The lead story tonight – my “lede,” as we spell it here – should have been about the remarkable fact that a black man has been nominated by a major party to lead a developed Western nation for the first time in the history of the world. A man – in whose lifetime people with his shade of skin were denied the right to vote and to use public accommodations – who is now on the cusp of the presidency. It says something good about America, and I would like to have been able to dwell on it.
But no. Once again, it’s all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I’ve heard in a long time. And I’ve left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Read more.
