Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Email this post | Back to Blog home
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
New primary night, same funeral

 

The Democratic party's longest slow-motion funeral ceremony continues tonight, as more nails are hammered onto the coffin bearing Hillary Clinton's hopes and dreams.

And these are galvanized nails, which are particularly resistant to transient shifts in the political weather, such as another double-digit Hillary win in Appalachia. Barack Obama will be well positioned to withstand the momentary corrosion of a Kentucky loss, for this simple reason:

By the time the dust clears tomorrow - after Kentucky has spoken and after Oregon is fully tallied - Obama will have achieved an important milestone, clinching a majority of all the pledged delegates. There are 3253 pledged delegates nationwide; Obama enters tonight with roughly 1610 already in his camp, which means he needs only 17 more (out of 103 available tonight in Oregon and Kentucky) to clinch first place in the pledgee pool.

He also will emerge tomorrow with a nationwide popular vote lead of roughly half a million votes (not counting Florida and Michigan, which were disqualified because they held their primaries too early in defiance of the party rules that all candidates, including Clinton, originally agreed to honor). Obama will likely finish the season with the popular vote lead, given that he is reportedly strong in the handful of small states that have yet to vote, notably South Dakota and Montana. He has also clinched first place for the most states won (31 at last count), and he leads Clinton comfortably - at last count, by 14 points - in Gallup's tracking poll of Democratic sentiment. And he has also surpassed Clinton in the total tally of pledged superdelegates, having garnered 73 percent of all the supers who have tendered endorsements since February 2.

Which means that Clinton can gain this nomination only if all the still-unpledged supers, joined by a giant horde of pro-Obama supers, somehow decide that the candidate who has lost by all the aforementioned metrics should still be awarded the prize.

That does not seem likely to happen. Apparently, not even former Clinton inner circle loyalist Patti Solis Doyle ("When I'm speaking, Hillary is speaking") believes in miracles, because now there are reports that the recently deposed campaign manager is in talks with the Obama people about joining their general election team. And it doesn't appear that John McCain believes in miracles, either - given the fact that since last Friday he has concentrated all his fire on Obama, with Obama responding in kind, with the result that these fussilades have shoved Clinton to the margins.

(Tonight, watch how Obama tries to frame the story. His double-digit loss in Kentucky will potentially dominate the media coverage - at least in the eastern time zones - with no corrective from Oregon until the wee hours. Obama will try to trump all that by delivering a general-election speech, with the focus on McCain, while stumping in Iowa...a state that narrowly went red in 2004, a state that is very much on his map for November.)

One feature of the slow-motion Clinton funeral ceremony is the ongoing procession of euologists, all of them offering reasons for the demise of the Clinton candidacy. Clinton herself, naturally, doesn't believe it's her fault; she blames it on sexism ("people who are nothing but misogynists"). Her husband doesn't think it's her fault; he blames it - naturally - on the press (he said in Kentucky, "this has been the most slanted press coverage in American history"). And her in-house loyalists - quoted not for attribution in perhaps the best article of all - pin the blame on various top aides for alleged messaging, tactical, and strategic deficiencies.

And yet, all these eulogies seem to overlook the biggest factor of all: Clinton fatigue. The inescapable truth is that a huge Democratic constituency was hungering for an alternative to the Clintons. I heard this repeatedly, as far back as 2002. While interviewing Washington-based Democrats, I was struck by how often they would trash the party's golden duo. (I knew it was coming when they would preface their remarks by asking, "Can I go off the record for a moment?") As one prominent party woman - this is someone who appears regularly on national TV, in a neutral mode - remarked to me in 2003, "We need to put the Clintons in a cage somewhere, with a blanket thrown over it."

The point is, millions of Democrats were poised to support a strong not-Hillary candidate. Obama filled the bill, and the Clintons, convinced of their entitlement, were way too slow in taking him seriously - and in recognizing that his early support was, in some important ways, a referendum on them.

All of which leaves Hillary with basically one argument, and I suspect we'll hear it again tonight: the notion that, in the wake of a Kentucky win, she is actually ahead in the national popular vote...as long as one ignores the party rules and counts Florida and Michigan. Right. And if she only had wings, she could win the Boston Marathon. 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 11:25 AM  Permalink | 14 comments
SAVE AND SHARE
Comments
Posted by anonymous 11:52 AM, 05/20/2008
Let's not forget the Puerto Rico primary. I'm sure we'll hear her say when she wins there that it's proof she can win the general.
Posted by Calvin Jones & the 13th Apostle 02:09 PM, 05/20/2008
Anon: I wouldn't count PR in her column just yet.
Posted by JSS 02:25 PM, 05/20/2008
Sexism is today's buzz word. Ferraro used it this morning. It is the way she ran her campaign and the need for someone different in the White House that has the Dem's excited about November. Go Obama !
Posted by syj 02:41 PM, 05/20/2008
the sexism thing would be more valid if she was running against a white guy. Most close minded people would rather vote for a white woman than a black guy, even if they arent thrilled with the idea of a female president. Race always trumps gender.
Posted by Djoko Pritza 02:43 PM, 05/20/2008
Where is Pradeep when we need him?
Posted by AHiredGun 03:35 PM, 05/20/2008
Dick, you hit the nail right on the head. While Hillary is a good candidate, and is qualified to be president, the country im general, and democrats in particular, do not want a repeat of the Bill Clinton years. If Hillary won, the Republican attack dogs would be let off their leash with the sole purpose of bringing Hillary down. It is simply time to turn the page of history on the Clintons.
Posted by amg 04:20 PM, 05/20/2008
Want to see something really comical? Watch this video of Terry McAuliffe on MSNBC's Morning Joe show from this morning. When I was watching it this morning I kept thinking that I wasn't sure what was worse, McAuliffe's level of delusion or the fact that since Joe Scarborough wasn't there, nobody challenged a word McAuliffe was saying. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24728117#24728117
Posted by amg 04:58 PM, 05/20/2008
Actually most Dems would LOVE a repeat of the Clinton years with the caveat that he is the one doing the repeating and you excise the entire Lewinsky scandal. Most Dems look back at his 8 years with great affection for his policies and leadership and would be happy for 8 more years of that, minus Monica and with Hillary off dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
Posted by p-diddy 06:44 PM, 05/20/2008
We aren't turning the page of history on Hillary Clinton. She'll still have her NY senate seat for years to come, as long as she doesn't make another colossal error like she did when she voted for a "preemptive" strike against a feeble Iraq.
Posted by Djoko Pritza 09:10 PM, 05/20/2008
The cable newsies are talking about how Clinton continues to score heavily with the white working-class voter (don't they mean "hard-working" white working-class voters?). She has an amazing demographic: Uneducated, poor and racist. Poor Barack. He's stuck with educated, affluent, liberal. There's no future there.
Posted by Djoko Pritza 09:25 PM, 05/20/2008
At least Chris Matthews has the courage to point out the racist flavor of Hillary's support.
Posted by mcnuckel 09:45 PM, 05/20/2008
Obama has a big problem. Until he figures out how to get the voters that Hillary is getting, he loses. The states that she keeps wiping him up in are swing states, therefor she'd be a much tougher candidate against McCain. It would be foolhardy not to take her as his running mate.
Posted by tom - wilmington, de 12:35 AM, 05/21/2008
Racism in the Democrat party? Are you kidding me? I thought all the racists were in the Republican party!!!!!! Will wonders never cease. I also wonder what the buzz would be from Dick if McCain had lost any states by 35-40% after he had become the "presumptive" nominee. We would probably be reading about how Republicans do not have confidence in their own party's nominee that he would lose in landslides. Obama is in real trouble if he cannot turn the HRC voters over to his campaign. Many of them will not vote for him in November. Diddy, I agree with you...HRC will probably become the next Senate majority leader...more face time for her to gear up for another run in 2012. As for 8 more years of Clinton, I would not mind either if he had a Republican Congress like he did form 1994 to 2000. As for leadership, I think he bailed on that....after all, he had weak reactions to us being attacked, and never reacted to the USS Cole bombing. He led too often based on polls, and that is not leadership.
Posted by amg 05:20 PM, 05/21/2008
Where to start - comparing losing WV by whatever margin to any McCain loss falls apart before it begins because all of the other candidates have dropped out. HRC is still running. Important fact that got ignored. - Tom you need to educate yourself on the USS Cole bombing. Look up the date, compare it to the end of Clinton's 2nd term, read the reports from the intelligence community and then look at what W did with the intel he was handed. Better yet, I'll help you. - The USS Cole was struck on October 12, 2000. Bush would "win" the election less than a month later but the transition was delayed because of the recount and uncertainty of the results. In the meantime, our intelligence agencies repeatedly told Clinton that they had no solid evidence indicating who was responsible. Clinton wanted to retaliate but was told no because they couldn't build a case for a strike against any target. He had the intelligence group continue gathering evidence. He held transition meetings with Bush's cabinet once the election was decided and handed over all the intel. Our intelligence agencies still had no conclusive proof as to who was responsible for the attack. They suspected OBL and rated him as the "most likely" perpetrator. Bush did not act. Then with OBL as the prime suspect in the Cole attack you would think Bush & Co would pay attention to OBL and track his moves. Well, he didn't and then September 11th happened. - History is a wonderful thing but you have to want to learn it Tom. You have to understand that by learning it some of the things you think are true may turn out not to be true. You have to have the internal courage and intestinal fortitude to seek the truth even if it doesn't agree with your preconceived "truths." As late as March 2001 there still was no definitive proof to act on. Read the 9/11 Commission Report for details on George Tenet's testimony about the investigation and Bush's decisions. These are the facts and they are undisputed.
14 comments
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.