Night of the Living Dead
As the good tidings for Hillary Clinton came in Tuesday night, Philly Mayor Michael Nutter told an amped crowd of her supporters that, as far as he’s concerned, “a win is a win.â€
The Mayor is absolutely right. With a comfortable ten points of margin, Hillary Clinton handily won the Pennsylvania primary. Equally true, Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination more than two months ago on Super Tuesday.
The Obama campaign itself, in a purloined internal document that made the rounds of the Web weeks ago, conceded that Pennsylvania would be lost. And that it would matter little. There could be no suspense in a state that was demographically the most favorable to Clinton with 1/3 of voters Tuesday aged 65 or older.
The fundamentals of the Democratic nomination fight have not changed. After Pennsylvania, the only way Hillary Clinton can capture the nomination is the same way she could before Pennsylvania. By overturning the protocols of democracy and persuading un-elected Super Delegates to nullify the results of the primaries and caucuses, by taking the nomination away from the candidate who will have the greatest number of elected delegates and popular votes.
It’s about that simple. Clinton’s net gain of delegates this week is less than ten, still leaving her 150 behind. And still behind a half million popular votes. I’ll spare you the math, and the reality check that comes with it, but there still remains no plausible way for Clinton to make up the difference. On top of that, her campaign coffers are dry.
Not to say that Pennsylvania was some sort of picnic for Barack Obama. Hardly. The needed majority of Super Delegates who have yet to disclose their preference have been anxiously waiting for some signal event that will make it easy for them to come out and endorse Obama and get this thing over. Looks like they, and Obama, will have to wait a couple of more weeks until the next round of voting in North Carolina and Indiana (the former which Obama has no chance of losing and the latter where he’s up five in the polls).
In the meantime, the rest of us are about to wallow through the nastiest stretch yet of the Democratic campaign. Hillary Clinton has already amply proved she’s more than willing to take her crusade as deep as necessary into the muck. In the fight for Pennsylvania, she vowed to “obliterate†Iran if necessary, didn’t flinch from running attacks ads tying Obama to Osama, and readily joined in with Stephanopoulos and Gibson of ABC when they sandbagged Obama for his association with a gray-beard former 60’s radical. It was an appalling enough performance that only hours after her Pennsylvania win, a New York Times editorial as much as un-endorsed her, accusing Clinton of becoming “the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11,†running an ad “torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook.â€
So we know what tack Clinton will take in the days to come. The ultra-negative tone was set during her Pennsylvania victory speech filled with adolescent mocking of Obama’s theme of hope. One can only imagine the millions of turned-off newly registered young Democrats who won’t vote for her even if she somehow steals the nomination.
There’s only one major piece of this puzzle that remains in play. Which way will Obama turn in the next two weeks? In the last few days, as Clinton slashed and trashed, Obama found himself drawn down into the fight. Some of his advisers want him to quickly regain the posture of a front-runner and not respond to Clinton’s baiting. Others around Obama are urging him to get a lot tougher, to once and for all punch her lights out and end the charade. But he already did that a few months ago. And there seems little point in swinging at a ghost.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Hillary’s Scenarios A through C (actually getting the majority of delegates, Michigan and Florida counting, and the superdelegates overriding the pledged delegates) are all clearly defeated, so she must cling to Scenario D: wait for Obama to destroy himself to the point that he has to bow out completely. The bad news is that this scenario can last all the way to the convention since there’s ample time for self-destruction, so there is no way she’ll bow out herself until then. The worse news is that Obama has proven over and over again that he can withstand the most damning gaffes and fiascos without losing any support (and in some cases, *gaining* support), yet Clinton won’t recognize his proven resilience as the nail in Scenario D’s coffin. *shrug* That’s the way the party crumbles.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 am
Marc, you’re absolutely right.
Hillary Clinton lost this battle a long time ago, but the impacts of this Pennsylvania victory worry me. In the next few weeks, she’ll go on to flaunt her victory and talk about how the American people are “having doubts about Obama.” She’ll continue used the same tired Republican tactics to viciously attack him and chip away at his image. The media will no doubt go along for the ride to make all this more sensational and cutting edge than it is. For the record, I’m glad there are journalists like you who put truth over sensationalism and remind us that Hillary cannot win this democratically. Far too many people in the media are loving this prolonged fight. Of course, all this is John McCain’s dream come true.
A big part of me can’t help but think that Hillary has no hesitation in taking down the Democratic Party with her.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 am
The good news is that Obama can finally put those knuckledragging, gun-totin’ Pennsylvania morons behind him and move on to the sophisticates of Indiana and Kentucky.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 am
I love the irony of Clinton’s Iran comments this week after her incessant prattling about how much more experienced she is in foreign policy.
I can’t recall any president expressing themselves more recklessly than this, not even the nitwit who said “bring it on.”
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 am
It would be wise of Barrack to hide his ‘change’ plan to wring the bitterness out of America until ‘after’ he is elected.
This will not be an easy task however, since those around him seem bent on exposing this sickness in America more quickly. Political activist Reverends, Revolutionaries, and Spouses are hard to control, to say the least.
Grandmothers, on the otherhand, actual have old fashioned common sense. But common sense and judgement are not qualities recognized or appreciated in youth. Even in their ‘dreams’.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
Marc: …even if she somehow steals the nomination.
Reminds me of these lines from “Dumb & Dumber.”
Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me… ending up together?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I’d say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you’re telling me there’s a chance!
If there is a one out of a million chance that HRC could become President, then those odds still worry me. I have a feeling that Clinton has a secret knock-punch that she’s holding back and ready to pull out right before the convention. Never count out that dirty, sleazy whitetrash.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 am
You’re beginning to sound like a broken record Woody. Irritatingly repetitive.
Try a new tune please.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Jim R., if you’ve complained about Bush once, does that mean that you’ve used up your quota? If critical repetition bores you, then how can you stand to watch CNN talk about Republicans?
With HRC, I’m talking about a problem that won’t go away and gets worse as time goes on.
Maybe it’s a broken record and irritatingly repetitive, but check out what The NYT has to say about their junior senator today. The Low Road to Victory
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
I read somewhere that maybe Hillary’s trying to tear down Obama so McCain wins and she can run again in 4 years.
Any other ideas on why she’s still in this?
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
This is all about the Party choosing its candidate for President. They’ve constructed a convoluted approach that approximates democracy with caucuses (party activists), primaries (actual voters), and super-delegates (party officials). Some states allow non-party members to vote in the primary, thereby polluting the purity of the selection process. And after all this neither candidate has the majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination, and the difference between the two, in pledged delegates, is 10-12%. So, if you were Hillary Clinton wouldn’t you stay in the race? Wouldn’t you try to make the case that you are the better general election candidate? If you were a Party official, wouldn’t you want to put your best candidate in the race in November? Even if you think McCain is a pushover and especially when, from a policy perspective, there is little to differentiate Obama and Clinton? Or are you more committed to the principal of democratically selecting the candidate?
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
The Democrat rules could no be more fucked up if they were concieved and written by Karl Rove. They are about 17 different kinds of stupid.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
“… if you were Hillary Clinton wouldn’t you stay in the race? Wouldn’t you try to make the case that you are the better general election candidate?”
I shudder at the thought of being Hillary Clinton, but point taken anyway.
So far, her campaign has made two *numerical* cases for why she’s the better bet. One is indisputable — she wins big states. Pennsylvania was only the latest. But the other has got me scratching my head: she wins in the electoral college, Obama doesn’t, even though Obama would probably get more of the popular vote against McCain than she would.
Yeah? Maye so, but … can anybody explain to me how that computes? Is this a credible claim?
“Or are you more committed to the principal of democratically selecting the candidate?”
Forget the principal, it’s the rate of interest that makes the difference.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
BBBBBBRRRRRAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNNS!
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
One is indisputable — she wins big states.
Not sure this can be called indisputable. She wins big states against Obama, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to being the “better bet”: feasibly, she could be worse in big states than Obama in a head-to-head vs. McCain. This isn’t certain either way. On the one hand, from last night’s exit polls, about 25% of Clinton backers threatened to either sit out on election day or instead vote for McCain if Obama won the nomination–the number of Obama backers making such a pledge was much smaller. On the other hand, what kind of Democratic candidate seems like a “better bet”: one who can carry only the traditional blue states (Hillary), or one who can deliver the blue and a number of red (Obama)? In other words, it wouldn’t matter if Democrats in blue states preferred Hillary, so long as they end up supporting Obama in November. But given all these angry old Clintonistas, all bets are off.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“readily joined in with Stephanopoulos and Gibson of ABC when they sandbagged Obama for his association with a gray-beard former 60’s radical.”
Its only sandbagging if you are for Obama. If you are for HRC, then the statement is “Why has the press waited so long to ask Obama cogent and on target questions?”
Speaking of gray beards, Marc, neither you or I are spring chickens and I believe that YOU were a former 60’s radical? Hmmmmm?
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I thought Hillary’s Iran comments were sadly typical and somehow received little scrutiny. Here she publically calls for “massive retaliation” and, as Marc says, promised to “obliterate” Iran trying to paint herself as tougher on Iran and more committed to Israel than Obama. She worked to give listeners the impression that she’s launch a nuclear attack on Iran if it attacked Israel in any way (because, you know, that’s what “massive retaliation” means). But that’s not particularly sober, threatening nations with nuclear force, so she deploys her foreign policy experts to go on this and that program promising that she didn’t actually mean a nuclear attack and, in fact, she means the same thing as Obama - you can’t attack Israel without facing arousing the serious ire of the US.
Instead of a serious defense of liberal foreign policy, something that America is in the mood for right now, we get this feints to the right that neither indicate her true policy goals nor help wage the war of ideas.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hillary is perfectly willing to “blow up” the Democratic party to get the nomination because it serves her strategically even if she loses the fight.
If Obama is weakened and McCain wins the general, it’s a much better scenario for her to run against a 76 year-old McCain (or his VP) than against either an incumbent of her own party (President Obama), or to wait eight years and run when she’s 68 years old.
Basically, Hillary and Bill will root for McCain against Obama because it serves their own venal interests.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Certainly the Clintons are willing to obliterate the Democratic Party–present and future–to get this nomination. I don’t think there is any grand 2012 strategy at work…it seems like good ol’ noblesse oblige, with a necessary overlay of narcissistic personality disorder.
I saw her this morning stating flatly that she believed that even elected delegates pledged to Obama were fair game under the “rules.”
Well, what’s a generation of African-American and young people lost to the Party compared to Hillary’s claim on the nomination? It’s her turn, dang it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“Hillary Clinton lost this battle a long time ago, but the impacts of this Pennsylvania victory worry me. ”
I agree. I’m wondering about the impact in Indiana.
Does anyone know how its demographics match up with PA’s? For instance, are its small-town, duck-hunting bowlers Democrats (as in PA) or are they Republicans?
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Michael Turner: well said and good catch. You make me laugh (at my own expense)!
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I haven’t finished it yet, but I can’t resist: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10157
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Dan O… Thanks, what a great find and a terrific read!
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
“cogent and on target questions?â€
That’s a joke, right ?
April 24th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Hillary has given up on the dominate side of her Party. They have make it abundantly clear which of the two candidates they can depend on to promote the leftist agenda, which is clearly not a middle America agenda, and I believe they are ‘wright’.
As we all recognize, she is the consummate power-hungry politician who will say anything and do anything to win. Right now, it looks like the road to winning is to move to the middle now and project the a tough, shooting, beering, rednecking, security minded alternative to a clearly McGovern/Dukakis/Kerry leftist.
What has she got to lose? Donations from MoveOn? Endorsement a KosKid? A kiss from a Kennedy?
Her new tact seems to be working, but not too well I hope. I prefer Obama.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:47 am
“….you can’t attack Israel without facing arousing the serious ire of the US.”
Oh. This ‘resolute’ statement will really worry Ahmadinejad. Let’s see; “If you use the nuclear weapon we are signaling we know you are developing and we agree we to let you, you will really make us mad if you use it on one of our allies.”
Jezus Crackrist! How to hell do you think we prevented nuclear disaster and won the cold war? Brought to us, by the way, by a couple of leftist US citizen spies for the communists. It was done by a real resolute threat, just like Hillary’s original, that any use of a nuclear weapon against any one of our allies is a guaranteed nuclear attack on you?
We are not playing a softball game here girls, and signalling any weakness of any kind can cause a misunderstanding of the consequences of such an action, causing the very thing civilized people want to avoid.
This is the very thing that worries the hell out of me by having a leftist, especially and immature one, dealing with foreign policy. What is is about the lessons of history we don’t understand?
April 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Jim R:
The difference of course is that there is an accepted manner and vocabulary for these sorts of statements. They tend to sound pretty banal, and deliberately do not inflame. Warnings about our resolve to come to the aid of our allies and honor our treaty obligations serve to make the point nice and clear.
Talk about obliteration is, well, stupid, and makes her sound more like Ahmadinejad and less like George Kennan. She is basically blowing away any claim to more credible foreign policy experience.
Finally, please point to the leftist in this race. I can’t wait to find out who that is!
April 24th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
evets, Hoosiers tend to be Republicans. There certainly are a significant number of rural Democrats, mostly in the southern part of the state where my family lives. The northern part of the state is highly Republican outside of the municipalities of Fort Wayne, Gary/Hammond/East Chicago and South Bend.
There aren’t a lot of suburban liberals in the state. The Democrats in the southern part of the state are certainly conservative. The southeast part of the state, between Louisville and Cincinnati, except on the north side of the Ohio, was represented for 30 years by Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the Iraq Study Commission. He ran unopposed more often than not. He has endorsed Obama. I do not know how widely this is known or how hard he is campaigning for him.
In sum, the Democratic Party at this time is generally conservative, and has become more so as the influence of the unions, particularly the UAW, has weakened. The UAW retirees, though, are very important in the party, and older folks could vote more Barack’s way than in PA or some other places. The UAW invests a great deal of its resources in Region 3 (Indiana and Kentucky) on educating and motivating retirees politically, or at least it used to when I worked there.
My sister, who is supporting Hillary unless she has changed her mind, believes that Hillary will win the state, and that would be my guess as well. I would think that Barack’s fortunes rest in Gary and, yes, in the areas where union retirees are strong, such as Anderson, Kokomo, maybe Muncie and places like that. I don’t know about Indianapolis. I will do a little research and report back.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jim, the the question had nothing to do with a nuclear attack on Israel, just an attack. That’s why her response was out of proportion. So your comment doesn’t really relate. Remember in the real world Iran still doesn’t have nuclear weapons.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Whoever made the zombie crack (”Brains”, or something to that effect) was the most on target in this thread. Hillary Clinton will be satisfied if the Democrats lose the presidential race (and, potentially, three supreme court justices…..along with about multiple generations of hard fought civil rights battles) if it means that she can say, in four years, “I told you so.” She is clearly covering her ass to have political capital in four years. In other words, her campaign has never been about working class Americans (even those that marveled at her drinking capabilities), but rather about her own big fat inflated ego-driven thirst for power. Being number 44, 45, 46, 47, or even 48 (and we both know she will live that long) is more important to her and her sleazy husband than the nation going into hell in a hand basket.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:42 am
In case anyone was confused as to who Reverend Wright cares about most, he has answered us by poking his self-important head up again to run his racist mouth right near the end of the first real opportunity for a black man to become candidate for President of the free world.
It ain’t about blacks, it ain’t about Obama., it ain’t about his flock, and it ain’t about Jesus. Like all demigogues, it’s about him of course.
The fact a smart guy like Obama would sit listening to the ramblings and ravings of this character for 20 years though, has to set people wondering once again just what effect this character has had on his thinking.
It is just sad to see the damage, real or not, the revolutionary left has done to this great guy. On the other hand, he made his choices consciencely as an adult which dreams, and of who, to follow.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Not just sat and listened. He donated $26,000 to this guy’s church last year. No matter how many brilliant speeches he makes on the subject, Obama committed himself to this guy.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Maybe Cooper has never seen “The Night Of The Living Dead.” Remember who wins?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I suppose it is asking a little much for internet political dialogue to be respectful, but a lot of people who don’t know anything more about Rev. Wright than I do seem very comfortable condemning him.
There are a number of men of the cloth whose political beliefs I reject totally. Let’s say the late Dr. Falwell. As much of a dangerous buffoon as he often seemed to be in his public activity, I think it is entirely possible that he was a good pastor and that members of his church may well have gotten much good from him and particularly from the church community. As Jim R recognized, there is much good in Sen. Obama…perhaps Dr. Wright’s influence has been for the good. Perhaps?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
No joke reg… I included “on target” in case jcummings was reading.
The cogent was included to make you come up with a snark