  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Clinton BacklashPosted on Mar 31, 2008By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Chill out. More specifically: “We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say.” Thus, Bill Clinton’s advice to Democrats who are gnashing their collective teeth over whether the extended struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will cause their party to lose an election it once seemed certain to win. One person who took Clinton’s advice was Obama, who went out of his way last weekend to defend his opponent’s right to stay in the contest. That was a shrewd move since the Clinton campaign is gifted at turning any effort to push her out into (1) a form of sexism, (2) a fiendish plot against her by Washington “insiders” and (3) a way of raising lots of money online. In any event, the argument about ending the race now is miscast. Even a miraculous intervention by Al Gore and John Edwards would do little to settle the matter. St. Al and St. John are powerless as long as Clinton and Obama want to keep their battle alive. Only one thing will end this brawl, and that is the self-interest of one of the candidates. For now, Clinton has a strong argument for continuing. Obama leads in delegates but that advantage is not overwhelming. Clinton still has a chance—a pretty good one, according to an analysis posted by Michael Barone on U.S. News & World Report’s Web site—of emerging from the primaries with a lead in the popular vote, though it seems impossible for her to overtake Obama in the delegate count. Clinton’s campaign song has become “Don’t Stop Thinking About the Next Primary.” For the long run, it is neither sexism nor insiderism to say that unless she sweeps the next contest in Pennsylvania and also primaries in other places such as Indiana and North Carolina, the decision to end the race by dropping out will fall upon Clinton. But there is a more immediate decision for her to make: As long as she is in the race, how will Clinton choose to win? The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama, but what it is doing to her. For all Democrats, the worst thing that has happened since January is the tarnishing of the Clinton brand. Clinton haters: Don’t laugh. The truth is that when this whole thing began, the vast majority of Democrats—including Obama supporters—and a fair number of independents had largely positive views of Bill Clinton’s record and Hillary Clinton’s merits. In light of today’s economic crisis, most Americans look back fondly on the rapid and widely shared growth of the 1990s. What neoconservatives see as a “holiday from history” in foreign policy, most Americans see as a time of peace when the United States was respected in the world, and even rather liked. And while Bill Clinton’s triangulation (and his scandal) did damage to the Democratic Party, Obama himself has acknowledged that President Clinton was right to pull the party back from “the excesses of the ’60s.” Bill Clinton, Obama told me in an interview last fall, “deserves some credit for breaking with some of those dogmas in the Democratic Party.” As for Hillary Clinton, nobody doubts her intelligence. Those who know her reject the media-built image of Clinton as a cold, calculating machine. Such a person would not inspire the loyalty she has earned from her partisans. If Obama does win, he will draw on her policies, some of which are better crafted than his own. Yet much of this has been lost. Bill Clinton’s approach to the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign’s effort to ignore everything it once said about the irrelevance of the Florida and Michigan primaries, Hillary Clinton’s willingness to say (or imply) that John McCain is more prepared to be president than Obama—all this and more has created a ferocious backlash against the Clintons. The result is that when the word Clinton crosses their lips, many Democrats sound like Ken Starr, Bob Barr and the late Henry Hyde. “Chill out” is good advice. Hillary Clinton has every right to keep fighting. But her campaign has suffered from a ricochet effect. Attacks aimed at her opponent and efforts to exaggerate her experience have weakened rather than strengthened her claim to the nomination.
This is obviously a problem for Hillary Clinton herself, but it is also very bad for a Democratic Party that cannot afford to see the entire Clinton legacy discredited.
Previous item: Maybe It’s a Guy Thing Next item: A Submarine to Fight al-Qaida’s Navy Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Conservative Yankee, April 6 at 4:37 am # caucusdebacle “You have to go to the town clerk and verify that you are unable to attend—leaving out again the people who can’t go out. I am not aware that any other caucus state allows an absentee ballot procurable simply by mail.” Nope, wrong again...Two things Going to the town clerk or having the town deliver the absentee is EXACTLY the way ballots are obtained for a general election here. There is no longer a requirement in Maine that a “reason” must be given for the procurement of an absentee ballot. All one must do is request one. The campaigns of both Token, and the Business shill were on the phone all day offering to bring these ballots to the house. When the ballots are obtained by someone other than the voter, a notary or dedimus justice must authenticate signatures, but most campaign workers have these credentials BUT if you can not make it to the polls,Dedimus can be found at at: maine.gov/sos/cec/notary/dedimus.html OR by contacting your county commissioners. The person will come to the house for election documents FREE OF ANY CHARGE!!! Voting is a serious business in northern New England. ....and over the line in New Hampshire where the business-shill won, the number of absentee ballots would not have changed the election one iota. The percentage of absentee ballots cast for the business shill, were (within the point spread) close enough to not have made a difference. Since age is not recorded on the ballots, not collected by the election commission, no one is sure what of the age of the average absentee ballot user. In my circle of friends (admittedly not a scientific sample) NO older woman expressed a preference for the business shill. Only one was voting for Token.. The great majority (Xtian and conservative) voted Republican! Oh, one more thing.. There is no requirement (except handicapped access)in Maine that caucuses be held in any particular buildings. They are OFTEN held in senior centers, Legion Halls, and Nursing homes.
By Conservative Yankee, April 5 at 5:50 am # By Joe in Maine, April 4 at 5:38 pm # “"Re: Another vicious Clinton Lie You are correct sir! Your 90-year old grandmother was allowed to vote absentee in the Maine caucaus. Did you stick around to watch, or did you drop and run? The caucus in our little neck of the pine forest waited until the end to count them. When Obama had a slight lead the Obama captain, acting as caucaus chairman, asked for a show of hands to decide if the absentee ballots should be counted. She was sure to remind everyone that people who vote absentee favor Hillary. The vote to open the absentee ballots was denied to my horror."” No Joe, I always stay for the Caucus, AND if I had been present at your caucus I would have immediately contacted the Maine Ethics commission, <www.maine.gov/ethics> The Bangor Daily News,<www.letters@bangordailynews.net> The Portland Press Herald, and The both the Token,<my.barackobama.com> & Hill-the-business-shill campaigns <www.hillaryclinton.com> and the super delegates (John Baldacci, Mike Michaud, Tom Allen, John Knutson, Sam Spencer Marianne Stevens Sam Spencer and Jennifer DeChant.) all to be found at <www.maine.gov> To fail to count ALL votes is a criminal offense, as well as being unethical. What was done with the sealed ballots? It is illegal to dispose of active ballots in an improper manner. Who chaired your Caucus? Anyone who condones voter fraud is guilty of a class II Felony, and subject to a prison term. IF you have your facts in order (better than your post which refers to my “Grandmother” who has been dead for 55 years, and therefore intelligible to vote...even in your town) Why not make them available to folks who can make a difference, instead of posting worthless criticisms here? There you go, I’ve done the work for you.. all you have to do is write a letter copy it to all, and submit a list of witnesses. As you know a real Mainer isn’t afraid of a fight in defense of old people! You’re It… I’ll be watching the papers!!!
By Conservative Yankee, April 6 at 5:12 am # (sic)Cinton Bashing ... and the death of theBy Lee, April 4 at 1:43 pm “It seems your Hero is a war monger too! tee hee ...” Absolutely correct. They are both “warmongers” as is Bush, Bill Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Reagan… etc. During my mother’s lifetime we fought: To be continued
By Mikhail, April 3 at 12:58 pm # Obviously desperate for heroes..Reading all these comments and replies to comments gives a good view into the base of the Democratic Party. And, damn, what a view. Most of you choose one or the other as your hero/heroine based on personality. And I’ll admit there isn’t much more to base judgment on. Some play up experience. Screw experience, get some fresh blood in there. That’s why all you folks that are so anti-war seem so silly arguing the pro’s and con’s of these two. What is so painfully obvious is that you all are motivated by prejudice or you would have voted for the one true anti-war candidate regardless of party affiliation....and that was Dr. Ron Paul. You that play up experience, he has it. Those of you that play up judgment, he has that, too. But instead, you as faithfull Democrats are blinded by your own prejudices and instead of voting for the true anti-war candidate, you choose to vote in accords with what makes you feel warm and cozy inside instead of making harsh decisions in a time of harsh reality. So we come to the end of this pre-election campaign with three of the weakest people available to vote for for President of the United States. No even a homeless person void of any type of media for years coulda dreamed up such an unrealistic scenario as this. Unfortuately America’s tendency to wear rose colored glasses to filter out reality is why we’ve been stuck with a president that dances like a puppet with the Saudi’s and a president that sucked on a cigar that smelled like a used Tampax while in the Oval Office. Get a grip people. Bad as I hate to say it, if we know much about any of these, that’s more than enough not to vote for them. But you make your choices based on that warm fuzy feeling and not what is good for this country. Had you all woke up to reality and voted for Dr. Paul, this country would be on the way to fiscal responsibility instead of saddling our grandchildren with insurmountable debt...which will come about more and more regardless of which one of these candidates you vote for.
By Conservative Yankee, April 4 at 7:34 am # Re: Re: The Math is Not the MathBert says “the founding fathers created a “democratic republic”??? What please tell, is that? A democracy is one man (or woman) one vote. We are representative Republic (See Franklin). This means instead of voting on issues we hire representatives to do our governmental work. The USA has never been any type of democracy.
By Conservative Yankee, April 3 at 5:12 am # Another vicious Clinton LieMaine allows absentee ballots for caucus participants. My 90-year-old mother cast her absentee ballot, and I know this is true, because I trotted it down to the Caucus myself… She voted for Kucinich, and has given me permission to divulge this fact. two myths blown to hell! I know… maybe people can cast absentee ballots for other candidates, but not for the business shill? Add Your Comment |
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article