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.
8 responses so far ↓
1 C. L. Hanson // Jun 3, 2008 at 11:58 pm
I agree completely. I’m glad this train wreck of a primary is finally over. I just hope the Democrats can get back on track for November.
2 xJane // Jun 4, 2008 at 6:47 am
I agree that she should’ve graciously backed down some time ago but “Rovian”? “Emasculating”? I think that’s going too far.
On NPR, however, the opposite happened. Even as results came in from South Dakota, where she won, all talk was about Obama. So I guess it’s a matter of perspective.
The notion of an Obama-Clinton ticket has had its day. It was a good idea when people were dropping out. It was a great way to “unify the party”, a phrase that’s getting worn. However, now the party needs to figure out where it’s going and choose a VP that will complement Obama’s skills; not one for whom it is a consolation prize. After having been First Lady (arguably more powerful than VP) would she even accept second fiddle? Perhaps it would be good for the party to offer her that place and for her to graciously decline and encourage her supporters to support the ticket, whomever it has on it.
But that’s not real likely.
3 John // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:32 am
xJane, let me clarify what I mean by “Rovian.” I’m referring to non-policy-driven campaign tactics that deliberately cause division, resentment and fear, which were used by the Clinton campaign throughout the primary season. These include the following:
- The misleading fliers sent to women in New Hampshire on the eve of the primary.
- The fear-provoking, “3am” ad on the eve of the Texas primary.
- Encouraging Republican attacks on and votes against Obama (incl. Clinton’s Rush appearance).
- By not acknowledging Obama’s victory, by claiming popular vote victory and by leaving her option to challenge the DNC Michigan decision open, she colors Obama’s victory with an air of illegitimacy.
- By emphasizing tying her losses to sexism (in a way that Obama has not claimed similar racist victimhood, but has instead pointed to victories in predominantly white states), she stirs up resentment and division, instead of working towards unity.
I’m not sure what Tomasky is referring to when he said “emasculating.” Not a term that I would have used.
I agree with you that Obama-Clinton ticket is highly problematic at this point. We’ll have to see how the chips fall in the middle of this power play. At least Pelosi, Reid and Dean aren’t showing much patience with it. One can only imagine what kinds of backroom conversations are happening right now.
4 Kevin // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:38 am
Well said, John.
As the probability of Clinton winning fair-and-square waned, her persistence made less and less rational sense. Now that the probability is 0 it makes even less. She’s an intelligent person so I have to conclude that she has a “plan B” in mind.
I’m hoping her “plan B” is to use her still-active campaign as a bargaining chip to get nominated for something. But I hope it’s not VP. They just don’t seem like they’d work well together. I’d be worried about undecided voters choosing McCain on that basis, and also worry that once elected they would be at odds all the time. After all the point of this exercise is to elect a president and VP that will be effective.
I’m a little fearful that her “plan B” is some kind of rule-bending, smoke-filled room shenanigans. As an under-31 progressive Democrat I’ve cast my lots with Gore, Dean, and Kerry, and every time I’ve lost due to a combination of shady maneuvering and shallow negative campaigning. If Clinton pursues that strategy any further and it works, that’s strike 4, which could be the tipping point that causes an entire generation to abandon the DNC. Yikes.
5 John // Jun 4, 2008 at 9:13 am
Kevin, that sounds like a realistic assessment. I think you hit the biggest risk on the head: losing a generation of potential lifelong Dems. Hopefully the leadership has some foresight.
Regarding the VP slot: it might still be a possibility–historically, it’s been a powerless, symbolic position (though Cheney did much more with it). Obama could use her to build a strong Dem coalition (while risking independents and moderate Republicans (how many of those Appalachia dems who voted for Clinton are going to stick around, I wonder)), then hope to minimize her power in the White House. The role makes it easy, but Clinton would make it hard. It’s high risk.
Clinton’s got some leverage right now, but it’s leaking away fast–it will probably deplete quickly past the new Friday deadline for superdelegates to declare, esp. if there is a massive show of force for Obama.
By not conceding, it’s a high stakes power play that Clinton is risking. The pressure’s on her to act in the next two days. Obama just has to hold out. Whether or not she ends up on the ticket will demonstrate just how much or how little of the old order he’s turned on its head.
If the rest of the Democratic Party closes ranks behind Obama, then I’m not too worried about the damage Clinton could do–she will increasingly fade from the limelight, and we’ll see the policy differences between Obama and McCain emerge. For example, how many female Clinton supporters are really going to choose McCain with his consistent anti-abortion, anti-family voting record?
6 xJane // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Morning Edition (I think) mentioned a Supreme Court nomination. I think that would be rockin’!
7 wren // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm
15 months ago I sat in a room with a dozen other supporters and we brainstormed about how to get the word out about Obama. Huzzah! What a journey it’s been!
s I was lucky enough to see him in Iowa the week before their caucus and I was there in St. Paul last night. (pics a plenty)
I turned off the news around 8 tonight because I was tired of the coddling of Clinton. She lost 2/3 of the contests. She changed the bar on a weekly basis. Terry McAuliffe was textbook jerk right up through last night. Her ideas aren’t majorly different from Obama’s. What is very different is the attitude and the ethics and those are crucial in a leader.
I’m relieved he made it so I don’t have to rethink who I’m going to vote for in November.
8 Ebonmuse // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:12 pm
For what it’s worth, I agree with Kevin. I think Hillary Clinton has been nurturing a sense of unfairness and wounded pride among her followers, encouraging them to believe that the nomination was hers by right and was somehow stolen from her. If she can get a substantial fraction of the Democratic base to be loyal to her personally, rather than to the party, she can use them as a bargaining chip for a VP slot.
I sincerely hope it’s an offer Obama turns down. I don’t think she adds any noticeable strengths to the ticket, and she comes with a whole lot of baggage. It’s already obvious that Clinton has tried to make this race all about her, and I suspect she’d continue that strategy as Obama’s VP pick, overshadowing him and distracting attention from his campaign. That’s a millstone he doesn’t need hung around his neck. And whatever her followers say now, I don’t seriously believe any substantial number of them are going to vote for McCain. Once a little time has passed and tempers have cooled, Clinton’s supporters are going to realize that Obama really is the nominee and look at the alternative, and then I think they’ll come home.
Leave a Comment