Hillary Clinton has no intention of going quietly into the night. She is running hard and giving it everything she has. She’s fully content to damage Barack Obama’s chances in the general election despite the impossibility of her becoming the nominee. And that’s a key point. If she had a better chance of becoming president than Mike Gravel, her antics would not be so disturbing. But she really doesn’t have a better chance than Mike Gravel. She will not get the nomination. Consider this exchange.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked about former President Bill Clinton’s error-riddled defense of his wife, regarding her Hemingway-esque accounting of her 1996 trip to Bosnia.
“I can’t for the life of me figure out why the president would have said it except he may have been having a late night adult moment,” Pelosi told CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “but let’s leave it at that.”
I’ve said this before, but it really is true that Clinton’s chances of being the nominee are actually diminished every time she is perceived to be unfairly attacking Obama. The reason? She can’t win the nomination on the first ballot, and her chances of winning on the second ballot are hurt if Obama’s delegates refuse to see her as an acceptable alternative. To become the nominee she needs Obama to implode, but she can’t be seen as causing that implosion…especially in a way that is seen as illegitimate.
Take a look at Clinton’s hard-hitting diatribe against Obama that she delivered today in Indiana.
I find it kind of amusing the way that Clinton casts herself as a kind of George Wallace champion of the white working man, but I’m less entertained by her assertion that Obama is an elitist that is looking down his nose at small town America. Obama’s response is strong:
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Hari Sevugan, spokesman for Obama for America, released the following statement in response to remarks delivered by Senator Clinton this morning in Indianapolis:
“We won’t be lectured on being out of touch by Senator Clinton, who believes lobbyists represent real people and is awash in their money and who can’t tell a straight story about her lengthy record of supporting trade deals like NAFTA and China that have devastated communities in Pennsylvania and Indiana. She won’t change the broken Washington system that all too often leaves American workers behind, but Barack Obama will.”
But the back and forth between the campaigns is not the point. The point is that Clinton is providing ammo for the Republicans and doing all she can to hurt Obama’s ability to attract voters that we need in the fall. The reason this is intolerable is that she has no chance of being the nominee. I know that she may believe otherwise, but her delusions are not a legitimate excuse. If she has a 2012 strategy, where she hopes that McCain wins the election so she can run against him in four years, that is even less acceptable.
These attacks are a distortion of what Obama said, and certainly of what he meant. And the Clintons know this and don’t care.
It’s a scorched earth strategy and party elders need to step in and put a stop to it.
If Obama plays this right, though, he can strike a hell of a blow to both McCain and Clinton. He gets to play outsider while also pointing out (without actually saying it) that both of them are enormously wealthy through their marriages.
But, again, that’s only if he plays it right.
Hope.
Yes he Can.
(via Attytood)
Check this Hillary’s ‘Rocky’ Road – a Philly Daily News editorial Animation.
Turn on the sound. Press GO.
It’s a scorched earth strategy and party elders need to step in and put a stop to it.
The same party leaders who unilaterally took impeachment off the table thuse giving Bush carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants in his last two years? I don’t see it happening.
BTW- John Conyers was in Philly today (I wasn’t there) and a friend of mine called me to tell me that Conyers asked the assembled crowd if any of them would object to impeaching Bush. No one objected. Then he asked about Cheney. Again, no one objected.
I don’t know the full context of his remarks, but it’s interesting that he is bringing it up right now, the day after Bush admitted full complicity in torturing people.
It’s pretty clear that Clinton is distorting Obama’s positions on several issues. I can’t imagine where she came up with Obama saying anything close to that the majority of American people have been better off under Bush than they were under Clinton. Do you know where she is getting anything about Obama saying something about “bitterness,” because she uses that meme several times?
link
Thanks, I found more context as well. His response sounds like more of what I would expect from Obama than that of the spokesperson cited in your diary:
But will the media show this? So far as I’ve seen they’ve only been talking about his apologizing for using the words “cling to.” In fact, I heard on NPR’s All Things Considered the host dubbing this “Bittergate”!
It’s up to us. We need to flood — and I mean of Johnstown and Katrina proportions combined — the newspapers, ombudspersons, radio stations, national AND local, to showcase this response.
Do it soon. And do it often.
we’re not done with Hillary. There’s this little matter of her trustworthiness: on Colombia and Bosnia, her $109 million haul over 8 years so she needs to change the subject.
Damm. Archives Hillary girl. Which is it?
There is a key idea in the heart of Obama’s response to using the term “bitter” that is being destroyed by Hillary attack when in actuality it is the heart of what the Democratic general election message must be.
Here is what Obama said:
“Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage.”
For years many working class Americans have voted against their economic interests because Republicans were able to distract them and focus their anger and frustration–and yes bitterness–on social issues like guns, abortion, and gay marriage. They convinced them that “government is the problem” and therefore it is unable to rectify their economic woes. They also made sure government did not help its citizens when they were in power under Reagan and both Bushes.
Free market economic theory has dominated our government policy for decades now–even under Clinton. If workers well-being suffers as the market “balances” itself that is just the way the system works as far as they have been concerned. In other words the well-being of workers has not been a priority, the well-being of the market has.
Many Americans have felt helpless in the face of an system that worked against them
Obama wants to return to a more Keynesian view of economic policy that stresses a certain level of government regulation is essential for keeping the market more fair and balanced. To him workers’ well-being IS part of the equation. If he can convince Americans that government can work for them that he will promote THEIR interests and then as president reforms the government to do so, Obama will indeed improve the outlook for many American.
Those hearing him speak gave him a standing ovation for his “bitter” remarks because they see someone who is willing to acknowledge their pain and frustration and is offering to do something about it.
Hillary doesn’t want this message out.
Exactly. Obama’s sin is to sound the teensiest bit socialist. He’s saying that people need to vote their economic interests.
If I were leading the party elders I’d begin having people step up one by one to talk against Clinton’s reactionary bullshit. They need to call her on it. Her disgusting, divisive, lying politics need to end.
The fundamental problem is that the bulk of the “party elders” are going to have their jobs intact next year no matter who wins the election, and simply being the party elders, they can all retire with nice fat pensions. Like they fucking care one way or another about their party or their country. Short of an actual armed revolution, they’ll be safe, sound, and fabulously wealthy in their gated communities. Why should they stick their necks out for any reason?
Oh sure, once it’s completely safe, some two-faced dickhead like John Conyers will ask a rhetorical question, far, far from anything remotely resembling the halls of Congress about, say, impeaching a president who has publicly admitted to violating the constitution and committing war crimes not once but several times and dared Congress to do something about it — but don’t count on these self-serving parasites to actually say it where it counts, in an actual impeachment trial. If that doesn’t move the bloody party elders to wave their lobe-fins and wriggle onto land, what makes you think that the vastly less consequential back-and-forth of a party primary is going to move them?
eodell, I can’t say that I completely disagree with you on this. Too many Dems who want Hillary to go away have been publicly quiet about nailing the coffin down.
A month ago there was a stirring of Democratic leaders who were shuffling their feet and saying, “Sure wish this was over. Boy, this should be over soon.” There were even indications that Clinton was running out of campaign money, but she’s refueled.
She, over the last month she’s managed to take the situation from both Dems beating McCain (with Hillary not able to win the nomination) to neither Dem beating McCain (with Hillary not able to win the nomination).
It’s time for a little courage here.
I am so tired of this deference to these two…what, is Billary royalty or something? Enough of this wretched pair. This party needs to grow a pair–balls or breasts, I care not–and be done with this. Five minutes ago.
When their rhetoric aligns with Teflon John, I see know reason to accord them any respect. At all.
Fuck ’em–it’s a concept Bill especially understands.
It’s just amazing how they treat these two as such astute politicos and champions of the party. WJC gutted welfare. Hillary refused to consider national health insurance in her “Hillarcare” debacle. They ceded financial authority to Wall Street and the Fed — and, hey, how’s that workin’ out? AND THEY LOST THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE UNDER WJC’S PRESIDENCY!!!!!
I. Don’t. Get it.
She’s not providing ammo for the Republicans – they have all the ammo they need and they got it directly from Obama on this. He’s the one that put his foot in his mouth by saying what he said in the way that he said it. I’d rather have him learn this lesson in the primary than in the general.
I suspect that when this is played out, Obama is going to come out fine. He’s parrying the attacks well. He admitted he didn’t phrase it well, apologized if he offended anyone and then stuck to his guns and said he was right. Yeah it’s going to haunt him in the general but that’s not Hillary’s fault.
The party leaders aren’t going to stop this – first because there really aren’t any party leaders and second because it’s up to Obama to fix his own campaign missteps.
And truthfully – Hillary thinks that she’s going to benefit from this in the long run but I doubt it. It mostly just makes her look bad. Maybe she’ll eke out an extra point or two in PA. But so what?
You miss the point that attack ads and talking points gain in power exponentially when they can use a Democrat to make the attack.
By your logic we should never have primary campaigns.
no.
primary campaigns should not last beyond their mathematical conclusion.
primary campaigns should not take cheap shots at their opponents, question patriotism, religion, or call each other elitist.
clinton’s argument is that Obama is unelectable, and she is trying to make him unelectable to prove her point. since she can’t win, she should be arguing on his side to defend him against cheap shots on his patriotism, misconstruals of what he says, etc.
if she wants to campaign, fine, but keep it positive.
I agree. But this campaign is not mathematically concluded and will not be mathematically concluded on June 3. You and I may reasonably believe that the superdelegates aren’t going to give the nomination to someone who was behind in the number of pledged delegates but so far they haven’t proved us right. At some point the number of pledged delegates and the number of endorsing superdelegates will get us to a mathematical conclusion but we aren’t there yet.
As for primary campaigns, are you kidding? Cheap shots abound in primary campaigns. There is no rule that she needs to keep it positive when he lays himself open for the attack.
This is not a situation where she dug up some dirt on him. If this makes him unelectable it’s because of something that he said in the middle of a campaign. He’s the one who brought up guns, immigration etc. She didn’t. He opened himself up for attack and she’s not saying anything the Republicans won’t and aren’t saying.
Personally I think he’s doing fine. You are the one diminishing him by arguing that he needs to be saved from himself by the party leaders on this one. Let’s see what he can do with this.
name me some cheap shots Obama has taken against Clinton, or Edwards, or anyone else.
How many times has he let Clinton get away with stuff that the GOP would kill her for?
Why isn’t he arguing that her lying about Tuzla makes her unelectable, that her creepy church group means she’s an elitist that is out of step with ordinary folks?
Has he said that her victories are only due to be being a woman, or that she is unqualified, or that McCain is better qualified than she is?
Has he had surrogates talk about how she’s really a Goldwaterite, or question why she socializes with known terrorists and radical left-wing professors?
The list is nearly endless. When did he stop selling crack or whatever it was he was doing in the hood while Hillary was achieving world peace in Bosnia and Ireland?
Isn’t a problem that people think he went to a madrassa and might be a Muslim? Let’s discuss.
Please, Mary, give it a rest.
How many times has he let Clinton get away with stuff that the GOP would kill her for
Booman,
The minute he starts to go after her like she deserves, he’ll turn into the angry black man that the Clinton campaign wanted him to be.
WE have to take her down just by telling the hard truth. People listen.
I’d like to know know why you think I deserved that rant.
My opinion is that if the superdelegates took your advice right now and came in and ended it based on this particular situation it would make him look weak and would in fact weaken him. I think it would be bad politics.
I didn’t mean to rant at you, but you keep saying that it doesn’t hurt him to have Hillary say things that the right is going to say anyway. I totally disagree.
I also disagree strongly these types of attacks are simply fair game, especially in a race that is functionally over and can only change through some kind of unforeseen scandal.
I don’t think I `keep saying’ anything and I think you’ve mischaracterized what I did say.
But I’m not going to go repeat it. I stand by everything I said.
This is exactly what I’ve been calling for and even though this story is not sourced, the Scotsman is a responsible paper.
The optimal time for them to do that would be next Sunday so that it will be fresh in the minds of PA voters next Tuesday.
Thanks, NYT for burying the voices of PA in defense of Obama; these come at the end of the second page of Clinton Seizes on Obama Remarks to Question His Appeal to Working Class:
oops – meant to reply to the relevant post! Sorry for the off-topic.
We just need to keep pointing out that someone who has an offshore account in the Cayman Islands that she CLAIMS to oppose is not someone who can relate to the working class.
Or someone who thinks that having a SUMMER VACATION HOUSE that has no heat or water is roughing it.
Ha.
I don’t think she’s giving ammo to the Republicans. Nothing she said is different from what they would say. What she is doing is worse: she is legitamizing those smears in the eyes of otherwise Democratic-leaning voters. She is costing Obama several million dollars in post-convention advertising to win them back. None of this is undoable. But she is making the undoing more expensive.
She has to be brought down in PA.
your point on post convention advertising cost is good, otherwise beg to disagree.
BooMan’s points are well made. Hillary is using Rovian tools and GOPers see it; loving it that she’s making easy their book on Obama:
Noam Scheiber, TNR
Clinton Campaign Further Strengthens the Democratic Party
I’ll working hard to defeat the Clintons. whereevr.
There are a couple of interesting stories by Christopher Beam (Trailhead) over at Salon.com about the mathematical impossibility of Hillary winning.
Using the very, very unlikely outcome that she wins all of the remaining primaries by an average 10%, which won’t happen, she would have to get 70% of the the remaining superdelegates. But she’s not going to win all the remaining primaries by an average ten percent. She’ll probably break 50-50 if she can hold off Obama in PA. Maybe not that.
When figuring in the add-on delegates, which should break for Obama, even if you figure she gets 50-50 there, she would have to get 90% of the remainder of the undeclared superdelegates to pull off this caper.
Ain’t gonna happen.
I don’t know if the Clintons have a basement large enough to hold the number of hostages they’ll need to get this done.
I think I pretty well represented the articles, but go find them and read them for yourselves, then do the math.
[My own interpretation: Long short, she can’t win, she knows she can’t win, and even if all of Clinton’s followers still are high on the sweet smoke blown up their asses, Clinton’s backers know she can’t win. So the question is, what is the continued campaign all about? Is Hillary trying to destroy Obama for a run in 2012? I can’t imagine a Democratic Party in 2012 that will back another Hillary run. The most logical explanation is that H. Clinton is destroying the Dems for the Republicans, that she is and always has been more of a Republican than a Democrat.]
Sorry, not Salon, Slate.
Are Hillary and Bill Clinton more loyal to themselves or the Democratic Party?
The next couple of weeks will tell the story.
In the meantime, she must know she’s handing the Republicans an unabridged dictionary on how to run against Obama. The most charitable reason I can dredge up is she’s still in denial that she’ll lose.
Hopefully she reaches the “acceptance” stage of grief soon, because I can’t believe even she wants to see McCain take the Oath!