Friday, March 7, 2008
Hillary Clinton: The Nader of 2008
Good article from the perspicacious John Chait:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c
Trenchant insight:
"Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?"
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c
Trenchant insight:
"Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?"
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Obama v. McCain/Clinton v. McCain
The first 50 state poll is out....
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php
Sunstein on Obama...
Great endorsement of Obama's real gift...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html
Sunstein on Obama...
Great endorsement of Obama's real gift...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Obama/Clinton 2008
I think I was a tad depressed and drunk last night, and it got the better of me. I momentarily lost all my marbles. Upon reflection, I think Clinton is much more suited to the attack-dog, small bore style befitting a Vice Presidential nominee. Obama, with his soaring, inspiring message and his conciliatory rhetoric is the proper Presidential nominee. Moreover, if Clinton was the President then Obama's role would be minor, as Bill would essentially be a co-President. She's won the major states, and is not that far behind in delegates and popular vote. Give the woman her due. As her victories in Ohio and Texas prove, Hillary knows how to attack and undermine an opponent very well. As such, she would be a boon to the ticket. But since she cannot overcome Obama in delegates, and is not likely to beat him in the popular vote overall, she cannot insist on being at the top of the ticket. Party elders (i'm talking to you Gore!!) need to lean on both candidates and say it's time to deal.
Prior to the South Carolina primary, Clinton noted her admiration for President Johnson and his role in the passage of key civil rights bills. She noted this as part of her strategy to undermine Obama's obvious rhetorical brilliance, which was being trumpted as a modern incarnation of President Kennedy and Dr. King. Well, I think, to an extent, that the analogy holds. Obama is Kennedy and Clinton is Johnson (the non-sexy, nuts-and-bolts, roll-up your sleeves and get to work type of pol). Kennedy and Johnson may have hated each other, as Obama and Clinton possibly do, but they made it work and won an election against a generally moderate Republican who's foreign policy bona fides (anti-communist crusader) were far superior to the Democratic nominees. An Obama/Clinton ticket would, like Kennedy/Johnson, prove to be dynamic and effective, in comparison to McCain's moribund manner.
An Obama/Clinton ticket would be historic. A black man and white woman. Both brilliant and passionate, though with different strengths, would lead to a tidal wave victory in November. Women would come out in droves, young people would come out en masse. The dream that is America would be validated. We need to bind the wounds in our party, and this is now the only viable option.
Obama/Clinton 2008: Change America, Change the World
Prior to the South Carolina primary, Clinton noted her admiration for President Johnson and his role in the passage of key civil rights bills. She noted this as part of her strategy to undermine Obama's obvious rhetorical brilliance, which was being trumpted as a modern incarnation of President Kennedy and Dr. King. Well, I think, to an extent, that the analogy holds. Obama is Kennedy and Clinton is Johnson (the non-sexy, nuts-and-bolts, roll-up your sleeves and get to work type of pol). Kennedy and Johnson may have hated each other, as Obama and Clinton possibly do, but they made it work and won an election against a generally moderate Republican who's foreign policy bona fides (anti-communist crusader) were far superior to the Democratic nominees. An Obama/Clinton ticket would, like Kennedy/Johnson, prove to be dynamic and effective, in comparison to McCain's moribund manner.
An Obama/Clinton ticket would be historic. A black man and white woman. Both brilliant and passionate, though with different strengths, would lead to a tidal wave victory in November. Women would come out in droves, young people would come out en masse. The dream that is America would be validated. We need to bind the wounds in our party, and this is now the only viable option.
Obama/Clinton 2008: Change America, Change the World
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Clinton/Obama 2008
I hardly believe I'm typing this. Tonight has left me in a daze. I knew Hillary would win in Ohio, but I had no sense that she would win by such a large margin. And she's storming back in Texas. The latest numbers have her taking the lead. Even if the delegate distribution goes to Obama tonight, Clinton will now stick it out through April 22 at least. Many super-delegates will remain on the fence. The popular vote will be close no matter what and Obama will likely hold a delegate advantage even should he lose in Pennsylvania. But if Hillary is able to claim victories in NY, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and secure the overall popular vote, then I believe that it will be in the best interests of the party for Hillary and Obama to make a deal whereby Obama would free his delegates in exchange for a VP slot. I know, I know. There's some bad blood. But tell that to Reagan/Bush 1980. A floor fight would be very bad for our party. A nomination secured by superdelegates would be insulting to the millions who have voted. We're all adults, and our wounds can heal. Hillary would need Obama's energy and enthusiasm, as well as his ability to attract new voters. Obama is young and is in need of some more national experience, some executive experience could serve him well. Of course, the results are not in yet for Texas. If he holds Texas, the pressure on Clinton to step aside will be great...
Texas and Pennsylvania....The only two states that matter now...
Monday, March 3, 2008
Matthew Yglesias: Clinton and the Media
Spot on:
"The Clinton campaign is pushing hard on the idea that the press has been kinder to Barack Obama than it's been to her, and I know a lot of her supporters are totally up in arms about this. I'd say it's definitely true that, on balance, Obama has gotten better press than Clinton. Still, I think Clinton fans are going more than a little overboard with this monocausal account of the campaign. For one thing, one important exception to this is that if Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, there's no way he'd still be treated as a viable candidate. Similarly, if Clinton had reached a situation where nobody can mathematically see a way for Obama to catch his lead without altering DNC rules, I seriously doubt the race would continue to be covered as a serious competition.
From another direction, even though the press has often been unfair to Clinton about petty stuff, they have been very willing to go along with the idea that she has a vast experience edge over Obama even though it's always been unclear what exactly that edge consisted of. On top of that, the country's most prominent liberal columnist has been pretty consistently attacking Obama for months now. Now, yes, I do think there's been more BS thrown in her direction and there's obviously been an "Obama swoon" factor that there's no equal of on the other side (even Krugman, for example, writes only about his loathing of Obama and his supporters and never says anything good about Clinton) and that's been a factor in the race. Still, on the central argument of her campaign, Clinton's been treated reasonably well and the press has actually bent over backwards to keep her in the race under circumstances when almost anyone else would have been written off."
"The Clinton campaign is pushing hard on the idea that the press has been kinder to Barack Obama than it's been to her, and I know a lot of her supporters are totally up in arms about this. I'd say it's definitely true that, on balance, Obama has gotten better press than Clinton. Still, I think Clinton fans are going more than a little overboard with this monocausal account of the campaign. For one thing, one important exception to this is that if Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, there's no way he'd still be treated as a viable candidate. Similarly, if Clinton had reached a situation where nobody can mathematically see a way for Obama to catch his lead without altering DNC rules, I seriously doubt the race would continue to be covered as a serious competition.
From another direction, even though the press has often been unfair to Clinton about petty stuff, they have been very willing to go along with the idea that she has a vast experience edge over Obama even though it's always been unclear what exactly that edge consisted of. On top of that, the country's most prominent liberal columnist has been pretty consistently attacking Obama for months now. Now, yes, I do think there's been more BS thrown in her direction and there's obviously been an "Obama swoon" factor that there's no equal of on the other side (even Krugman, for example, writes only about his loathing of Obama and his supporters and never says anything good about Clinton) and that's been a factor in the race. Still, on the central argument of her campaign, Clinton's been treated reasonably well and the press has actually bent over backwards to keep her in the race under circumstances when almost anyone else would have been written off."
March 4 Predictions
Obama wins Texas by about 4% points, and Vermont by 10+%...
Clinton wins Ohio by 7% and Rhode Island by 3%...
Overall, the delegate math doesn't change much. Under the rosiest of scenarios, Hillary doesn't come away with more than a net 12 of total pledged delegates. (A small win in Texas for Obama is much better, delegate wise, than an Ohio victory for Clinton by three times the Texas margin)...
Hillary will soldier on undoubtedly if she wins at least one of the biggies tomorrow. But she really needs to win both in order to completely change the dynamic of the race in a way that will give her the possibility of winning later states by larger margins, which is necessary for her to close the gap...
Also, don't forget that many post-March 4th states are shoe ins for Obama...(North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota). That means that she has to completely crush (70-30 or better) Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Va, PR, Kentucky, as well as trying to force a do-over for Michigan and Florida (which still is a remote possibility)...While I think she can win Pennsylvania, the big post-March 4th prize, I doubt she can beat him by more than 15%. I really just dont see how she can make up all this ground w/o resorting to some nefarious backroom shady dealing...Party elders have been breaking toward Obama, and I just dont see her overcoming all of these obstacles unless we find out that Obama did something truly illicit...
Clinton wins Ohio by 7% and Rhode Island by 3%...
Overall, the delegate math doesn't change much. Under the rosiest of scenarios, Hillary doesn't come away with more than a net 12 of total pledged delegates. (A small win in Texas for Obama is much better, delegate wise, than an Ohio victory for Clinton by three times the Texas margin)...
Hillary will soldier on undoubtedly if she wins at least one of the biggies tomorrow. But she really needs to win both in order to completely change the dynamic of the race in a way that will give her the possibility of winning later states by larger margins, which is necessary for her to close the gap...
Also, don't forget that many post-March 4th states are shoe ins for Obama...(North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota). That means that she has to completely crush (70-30 or better) Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Va, PR, Kentucky, as well as trying to force a do-over for Michigan and Florida (which still is a remote possibility)...While I think she can win Pennsylvania, the big post-March 4th prize, I doubt she can beat him by more than 15%. I really just dont see how she can make up all this ground w/o resorting to some nefarious backroom shady dealing...Party elders have been breaking toward Obama, and I just dont see her overcoming all of these obstacles unless we find out that Obama did something truly illicit...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
