If You Need Someone to be Mad At
It shouldn't be Barack Obama. It shouldn't even be Hillary Clinton.
It should be people like Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Joel Ferguson, and the other architects of Clinton's abysmal, atrocious and sometimes outright offensive presidential campaign.
Among other things, Obama supporters should be upset over the plagiarism allegations that came from the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Clinton's closing statement last night which, um, borrowed heavily from both Bill Clinton and John Edwards. It was nothing short of the political equivalent of an own-goal. Kos called it the, "Worst. Political. Attack. Ever."
Red state Democrats should be upset over the constant denigration of red states. Ferguson's "second-class" comment is particularly loathsome.
Most importantly, Clinton supporters should be upset with this group for taking Clinton, who is by all accounts one of the toughest, most intelligent figures to come out of the Democratic Party in decades, indeed at one time not too long ago the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination, and completely tanking her campaign and her image.
Clinton's political career overall is by no means over (she should be able to remain in the Senate for as long as she likes), but her 2008 campaign is effectively done, and the likelihood of her ever again attaining the national political clout she had only a few months ago is remote at best. If she does, I guarantee it'll be with an entirely different group around her.
This is not to take anything away from Obama, who's real strength is not his speaking ability near as much as it is his grassroots organization. If nothing else, Obama has conclusively proven the 50-State Strategy works. But all things equal Clinton would have overtaken him weeks ago.
Of course, all things are not equal. Not even close. Given the early voting in Texas, and Obama's clear advantage in the ground game, Clinton will likely start election day there not at zero, but at around 50,000 votes behind. For her, winning Texas at all looks improbable at best. Never mind the 65 percent or so she needs to keep up with Obama in delegates. Ohio may play out in a similar manner as Wisconsin.
Clinton has some serious fence-mending to do, no question about it. It won't happen until she jettisons Penn and company, but I'm hopeful she will sooner than later.
It should be people like Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Joel Ferguson, and the other architects of Clinton's abysmal, atrocious and sometimes outright offensive presidential campaign.
Among other things, Obama supporters should be upset over the plagiarism allegations that came from the Clinton campaign, especially in light of Clinton's closing statement last night which, um, borrowed heavily from both Bill Clinton and John Edwards. It was nothing short of the political equivalent of an own-goal. Kos called it the, "Worst. Political. Attack. Ever."
Red state Democrats should be upset over the constant denigration of red states. Ferguson's "second-class" comment is particularly loathsome.
Most importantly, Clinton supporters should be upset with this group for taking Clinton, who is by all accounts one of the toughest, most intelligent figures to come out of the Democratic Party in decades, indeed at one time not too long ago the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination, and completely tanking her campaign and her image.
Clinton's political career overall is by no means over (she should be able to remain in the Senate for as long as she likes), but her 2008 campaign is effectively done, and the likelihood of her ever again attaining the national political clout she had only a few months ago is remote at best. If she does, I guarantee it'll be with an entirely different group around her.
This is not to take anything away from Obama, who's real strength is not his speaking ability near as much as it is his grassroots organization. If nothing else, Obama has conclusively proven the 50-State Strategy works. But all things equal Clinton would have overtaken him weeks ago.
Of course, all things are not equal. Not even close. Given the early voting in Texas, and Obama's clear advantage in the ground game, Clinton will likely start election day there not at zero, but at around 50,000 votes behind. For her, winning Texas at all looks improbable at best. Never mind the 65 percent or so she needs to keep up with Obama in delegates. Ohio may play out in a similar manner as Wisconsin.
Clinton has some serious fence-mending to do, no question about it. It won't happen until she jettisons Penn and company, but I'm hopeful she will sooner than later.
Somewhere where they don't ask questions about his last job.
Besides, if he were really in trouble, would he have beaten Clinton 2-1 in the Illinois primary like he did?
The negative campaigning isn't working. The momentum is on Obama's side. The organization is on Obama's side. Clinton got nothing out of the debate last night, indeed I think she lost ground. Even big unions are openly calling for her to withdraw NOW.
In the words of Dandy Don Meredith, "Turn out the lights, the party's over ..."
where does that wisdom fit into the picture?
Mark Penn and Bill Clinton have been leading Hillary like a lamb to slaughter following the campaign politics and rules that worked for in the 1990's and that worked for Bush.
There is a new game in town. It is called Grassroots. It is called Democracy from the bottom up, not the top down.
It is called transparency, no more deals in back rooms.
It is called meet with leaders, talk with them. Insisting that leaders of other countries follow your prerequisites before even talking to them is an absurd foreign policy stance. Talking with someone does not mean that you agree with them but it does open the door for the possiblity of understanding.
We need a new approach to our foreign policy. One thing that I saw last night, at least from the rhetoric that came out of Hillary's mouth is that she has no plans to change an approach that has not been working.
Link
Hillary 08
As for this particular post, the last few days I've been harshly critical of Hillary for trashing red states. But on reflection I'm OK with dismissing said attacks as misguided comments by boneheaded campaign staffers. So in that sense I'm willing to forgive her for them.
2 - If he won that primary with a percentage in the low 50s or something like that, sure. But not at 2-1. If you want a high-profile Democratic senator in trouble against a serious Republican challenge in 2010, look 45 minutes south of me and find Harry Reid.
3 - If he were to be running for re-election, Given their current state I doubt the Illinois Republicans would have a strong challenge in the first place. Even if they did, I don't see a scenario where he gets less than a 10-point win.
4 - If you really think he'll lose Texas (or Pennsylvania, for that matter), frankly you're uninformed and/or deluded. Obama's ground game is simply overwhelming in both states. At best Hillary will take a close win in Ohio, but I'm increasingly unsure even about that.
5 - Obama can win this cleanly and without controversy surrounding superdelegates or anything like that. Hillary no longer can; you just flat out said so. Do you really want a nomination like that?
While my handicapping of a potential Obama re-election campaign 2010 is admittedly speculation, you have yet to refute me with anything intelligent on that.
Same goes for Obama's organization in Texas and Pennsylvania. It's the ever-popular "I know you are but what am I?" defense. I'm not going there.
Seriously, show me something, ANYTHING, that points to anything resembling competency in Clinton's grassroots efforts in Texas. I have yet to see that.
But here are a few hard facts:
FACT: Supers are already jumping off the Hillary ship ( Link ).
FACT: Big labor is openly hinting that Hillary should withdraw now, not after Texas and Ohio, but NOW ( Link ).
FACT: Hillary's campaign has potentially fatally botched their organization in Pennsylvania by failing to file all their delegate candidates there ( Link ).