Saturday, March 08, 2008

Welcome to the big leagues, son!

By Carl

I love
this paragraph:

But after his defeats this week at the hands of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, there is frustration and anger among his supporters, advisers and contributors about the Clinton campaign’s attacks on him — and still-unresolved tension about how far he can go in striking back without sacrificing his claim to be practicing a new brand of politics.

Hmm. All these freshly washed faces attracted to the Obama campaign because, you know, he still has that "new pol" smell about him, which is all that distinguishes him from Clinton or McCain, for that matter.

Ethical questions, close ties to shabby lobbyists, the ability to bald-faced lie to voters while cutting back room deals with the people who his "policies" will affect...as a Clintonista, it's been fun watching Obama peeled back like an onion.

But you know what they say about onions: you keep peeling them and finally you're left with nothing. That, above all else, is probably why Obombers are so angry and frustrated right now with what are very mild hits by the Clinton campaign against their hero.

The
Samantha Power incident yesterday shows what a deep fracture there is between the Obama public face and what goes on behind the scenes.

“Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign."

That last bit is clearly a lie. She is senior enough in the campaign staff that those sentiments had been reinforced somewhere in the echo chamber that is all campaigns. You are insulated from reality and develop a deeply paranoid sense of both grandeur and suspicion.

That's just the nature of a campaign, like it or not. You're too focused on the work in front of you to take a breath and put things into perspective.

Which is why it's been delicious this week to watch Obombers sweat a little. The assumption that the nomination was there for the taking has been shattered like the illusion it was ever since there was no clear winner on Super Tuesday, and Hillary Clinton has exposed a deep flaw in the nominating process: once you take it off the table and put it into subjective territory, the case for either candidate can be made.

We Clintonistas knew that, which is why when the Obombers were gloating, we merely smiled, and egged them on. Neither Obama nor Clinton will win this on the hustings. It will be up to the superdelegates, and the Clintons have far more to deal to them, because, you see...well, it's like legislation: you don't want to see what goes in it to get it passed.

The end game is starting to take shape here: Obama will end up with about a 100 delegate lead in elected delegates. He might end up with the popular vote (depending on Florida and Michigan, both heavily Clintonian strongholds), but Clinton can point out that more Democrats voted for her, even disallowing Florida and Michigan, therefore she deserves to represent the majority of Democrats.

That, I think, is a very strong argument, and she can back that up by pointing out that in primaries alone, you know, where the people vote, people who vote and then go to their jobs and not the idle rich who can put in two or three hours standing around a school cafeteria, she not only clobbered Obama in the popular vote, but in the delegate count as well.

In other words, we've got a brokered ticket. And then the fun begins at the convention or before.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

  • Are you an alias for Howard Wolfson or Mark Penn? You sure do like to repeat lines that have already been disproven, especially all the disingenousness concerning NAFTA and the Canadian government since it was the Clinton campaign that first gave them the wink-wink-nudge-nudge that they didn't really mean what they were saying, which should be a given since NOTHING Hillary ever says can be accepted as what she feels is useful to be saying at the particular moment in time.

    By Blogger Edward Copeland, at 7:42 AM  

  • What's more, it's not fair to say that anyone who attends a caucus is a member of the "idle rich". I'm sure Carol can vouch for me on this. She attended one of a caucus meeting in Texas last week.

    Furthermore, the Clintonistas are suggesting that Obama has next to no political experience. He's from Chicago! He was a successful politician there, both at the municipal and the state level, before winning his Senate seat.

    This talk of experience is so ridiculously bogus. What experience exactly does Hillary have? And if that's all you want to go on, then why not just vote for McCain? He has far more "experience" than Hillary? Or why not go with Biden? Or why not just let Cheney run the country?

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:54 PM  

  • And, too, Obama has been the one to run a 50-state campaign. He may have lost in Ohio and Texas (on the primary side), but he narrowed the gap there significantly, especially before Clinton's dirty rotten "kitchen sink" attacks put her ahead in the final days.

    He may have lost in Ohio and Texas, but at least he tried, at least he thanked his supporters, at least he doesn't denigrate those states he doesn't win. Hillary thinks that just because she wins a few big states she's the better candidate? Now that is truly condescending to millions of Democrats around the country, not to mention to democracy generally.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:57 PM  

  • I tire of these posts; they are dishonest and unctuous.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home