I know many of us are tired of being told all of Obama’s victory are in states that didn’t matter. Today’s Time article by Michael Grunwald will put a smile back on your face, at least momentarily:
Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the ninth and tenth straight time last night, with blowouts in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Needless to say, this means nothing. As Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained yesterday, Wisconsin has a lot of independent voters, so it doesn’t really matter. And Hawaii is practically Obama’s home state, so it obviously doesn’t matter. Anyway, as Penn said recently, “winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election.” It’s apparently not even a sign of who can win the Democratic nomination — at least not when the victories are Obama’s.
The Clinton spin machine has been consistent about this. Nebraska, Idaho and Utah didn’t matter because they were deep-red states. South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia didn’t matter because they had large percentages of black voters. Maine and Washington didn’t matter because caucuses aren’t truly representative. Maryland and Virginia didn’t matter because Obama was expected to win there. For a moment, it looked like Missouri might matter when the networks called it for Hillary — her campaign quickly bragged about winning a “closely contested toss-up state” — but the networks were wrong. On the other hand, it looked like Nevada wasn’t going to matter at all because there were polling stations in casinos, but it ended up huge because Hillary won. …
Spin works best when it’s intermittent and plausible; the Clinton camp’s has been constant and ludicrous. Is it really wise to dismiss the vast majority of the United States as insignificant? Does anyone believe that the misguided attack on Obama’s kindergarten ambitions was “a joke”? Explain to us again why Michigan’s delegates should be seated even though Democrats agreed not to campaign there and Obama wasn’t even on the ballot? Why are we supposed to ignore Wisconsin when it’s got exactly the demographics that Penn has assured us are part of Hillary’s “enduring coalition,” back when Hillary had a massive lead in the state and just about every other state?
He ends the piece by saying the only spin they’ve put out that appears at least reasonably mired in reality is the “where’s the beef” question re Obama’s experience. Of course, those of us who have looked for the beef and found it right where it was supposed to be, know how this one is going to turn out.
Our best leaders weren’t the ones who told us, in plodding terms, of their accomplishments, even if they had many. Our greatest leaders have been the ones who moved the Overton window, who taught us new things using, amazingly enough, words, who reminded us that their election wasn’t about what they could do for us, but what we could and should do for each other.
Sorry, Hillary. It seems it’s not the states you’re losing that don’t matter. It’s you. After March 4, I hope you’ll have the decency to give up this futile quest and let the party come together behind the most exciting candidate we’ve had in 40 years.
Clinton has run as an establishment candidate. This is what they do. Act cautiously, play to the middle and spin like a turbocharged washing machine.
And look where it has gotten her.
I’m only afraid where it will get us, if we let her get away with her latest crap – trying to steal pledged delegates and trying to seat delegations from the uncontested states of Florida and Michigan.
There was a time I would have been happy for either her or Obama to get the nod. That time passed right around South Carolina.
Clinton has run as the incumbent, willing to go along with the charade of having opponents. Acting as if she shares an inside joke with voters. Not quite understanding, that fur much of America, the Clinton’s are the punchline.
Clinton tells us that she’s “a fighter” and without any real proof to back that up, we’re supposed to believe it. In her speech last night, she told us that she was “the only one to have any serious Republican opposition”. She tells us that for 16 years the Republicans have been after her and that she’s still here. If she was such a fighter, after 16 years, you’d think that there’d be a winner in this war of words. If she can’t even lay flat the mostly stupid and inane GOP talking points, how big a fighter is she?
I think you’re dead right, fabooj. Hence, also, the shock and resentment at somebody’s being an effective challenger.
Unfortunately, I don’t think she’ll do like LBJ. (Now that is a strange sentence to find oneself writing.)
Yes fatigue is setting in.
Clinton says ‘if’ not ‘when she is president
this following interview on Monday in Wisconsin whe said “here in Iowa” reporter had to correct her.
related, they’ll do a re-run of the Alamo:
Bill Clinton: Texas Could Be Hillary’s Last Stand
never their fault. never
Did you see that story about the Clinton campaign’s fight with the people who did their ads? One of the admakers grumbled, it’s always the ad, never the message, implying the direct opposite.
No, I didn’t. However, if the admaker in question is the one responsible for the two “youth-oriented” ads that were posted here recently, I have to side with the Clintons, for once.
here’s the story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295209438666989.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone
And here’s the quote:
Thanks, but it doesn’t really answer my question. It tells me that there was conflict over the final product, but nothing about who was responsible for which parts of said product.
I’ve seen Hillary ads so awful that it boggled my mind–particularly knowing that a lot of money had to have been paid for them. The “ABC” ad, for one.
Now, for example, if Mark Penn etc. had said to the high-priced ad agency, “We want something that will present Hillary Clinton as a candidate who is youthful, vigorous, and attractive to young people” — and the “ABC” ad is what the agency came up with — then Penn and co. would be in their rights to boil the agency in oil (metaphorically speaking). A good ad agency should be able to fulfill that request for somebody who isn’t Gerald Ford or the Keeper of the Crypt. (A really good one could do it for the Keeper.) And Hillary is neither. On the other hand, if the Clinton people said, “You know, we really think this lame arrangement of this old Jackson Five song, performed by a bunch of ‘kids’ utterly lacking in personality, is the thing ” — then it’s on them.
In short, much as I dislike the Clinton campaign and people, I’m still not prepared to side with the ad agency on this.
The point isn’t where to place the blame.
The point is that each side thinks it’s the other’s problem, in other words, there’s internecine warfare going on, and that’s a sure death gasp for any campaign.
The fact that they’ve turned on each other means they’re in real trouble.
Okay. If that’s your point, I agree and apologize for not having realized it earlier.
For what it’s worth, I think that’s a good analysis. Campaigns that are going well don’t have internal divisions like this. The absence of them is not a sure sign that the campaign is firing on all cylinders — but their presence should be throwing up red flags like a bad Chinese opera.
Despite the media’s focus on Obamamania, what’s most apparent is the echo chamber effect (i.e., incestuous amplification) that has colored the Clinton campaign’s perspective and rendered them unable to solve their problems, because they are bound up in their own denial.
Confronting denial can be a painful process, and it also tends to warp one’s perspective, thus leading to increasingly bizarre rationalizations which are generated in order to protect oneself from a painful truth.
I’m reminded of the popular girl in High School social hierarchies, who spends considerable time attempting to ingratiate herself with others in order to maintain her social standing — which she is firmly convinced is her rightful place in the pecking order. Despite her exorbitant effort to maintain her popularity, and also because of it, people soon tire of the game. The resulting crash in social status spawns a legion of excuses, rationalizations and exotic theories, all designed to restore her popularity in her own mind by resorting to various forms of illogic.
We’ve heard this profusion of theories; Obama supporters a just a cult, Obama supporters don’t know the facts, Obama supporters were conned by a slick talking flimflam man, Obama supporters are prejudiced, and so on. All of these theories share a common trait — they presume that there is no logical process that could result in choosing Obama over Clinton. Less an attempt to persuade the other, it’s an attempt to deny the other’s point of view, i.e., an act of nihilation.
Deep inside the bubble of Hillaryland, the idea that people could actually choose Obama for logical reasons is incomprehensible. It’s an uncomfortable truth that needs to be repressed. The excuses that are thrown up to account for Obama’s success require extraordinary contortions of logic to avoid the obvious. These outlandish rationalizations are as much attempts to protect one’s ego as they are attempts to spin the story for public consumption. Confronting the truth would require an awful realization. Maybe she isn’t the most popular girl after all? But that’s unthinkable.