A Brilliant Democratic Sucker-Punch?

Sure, hindsight is 20-20. But after watching Hillary and Bill Clinton's speeches over the past two nights, you have to believe that their rousing endorsements of Barack Obama were inevitable. There was simply no way that the Clintons -- perhaps the most strategic, committed Democrats in the country -- were going to squander their prime-time slots and invite permanent reputations as poor losers by offering lukewarm praise.

The Clintons were eloquent, gracious and glowing. They left no doubt that they will work hard to elect Obama. And that they hope and expect their supporters to do the same.

All of which raises a sneaking suspicion. Did Democrats allow word of the Clinton-Obama rift to spread before the convention, or perhaps even fan the flames, knowing full-well that the so-called "tensions" would be healed beautifully in a masterful display of unity and grace?

Maybe the rift was real. Maybe the stars happened to align in just the right way. Maybe the Democrats got lucky. Maybe the Clinton really were planning on delivering passive aggressive or nasty speeches.

Yet whether intentional or not, it now seems clear that pre-convention media obsession with the Clinton-Obama rift raised the stakes of the first several nights of the convention, created a sense of drama, boosted viewership, made the roll-call vote seem even more stupendous, and generated a round of highly-favorable post-speech media coverage about party unity.

And the icing on the cake, of course, is how ridiculous the McCain camp now looks for having rolled out a round of ads emphasizing Hillary Clinton's criticisms of Obama.

This does beg the question of whether the candidate who lacked the smarts to oppose the Iraq war, understand the importance of Afghanistan, keep the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a straight, etc., might have just fallen face-first into a tactical sucker punch.

Comments

[TheImpaler]

I do not see it that way. Healing this rift, whether real or manufactured by MSM, was an example of inefficient use of time. Time that could have been spent on attacking McCain. There was too little of that in my opinion. If Obama wins it will be despite this convention, not because of it; regardless of the speech tonight. But what do I know?

[tigs]

you dont know much, apparently, the convention is a show stopper , i doubt repubs can better it.

[Davwbaird]

Obama will e the next president because he took the high road.

[23000Days]

The "rift" was a MSM fabrication; there was no way to dissuade them. It kep them alive!

[chaosfairy]

UNBELIEVABLE! I'm sorry, O does not 'oppose' the war in I raq! He's just smart enough to play the 'let's bring this to a swift end' card. A card I might mention I raq played FOR him. Remember that 'get out by 2011' broadcast we got a couple weeks ago? I don't oppose O's initiative to bring this w a r to an end. I like the changes he wants to bring to the table. I just hate misinformed 'reporting'. O has also vocally approved turning the w a r efforts in a different direction, like the genocidal governments in A fri can countries. No, he's not playing a race card. He wants to put our efforts where they will do the M O S T good. For everyone.

I know this post looks like a flip flop but it's not. I just want people to say it right. O has not said, "I do not like this w a r." He HAS said, "Let's end this quickly." NOT the same thing. Loopholes and legalese. Find me a politician who doesn't do it.

[Unrepentantliberal]

"People were saying Obama should do this, Obama should do that." What this convention has shown, just as was shown in the primaries, is that he knows just exactly what he is doing. This isn't Dukaukis, this ain't John Kerry's campaign. This is the Obama Campaign and they rock!

All the nervous Nellie's and weak kneed sisters just need a Valium. He knows what he wants to do and how he wants to do it. Obama and the Democratic Party have turned the tables on the vaunted republican ground game. Now it's the Democrats and Obama that have hundred of thousands of volunteers knocking on doors and making the phone calls. That will be the deciding factor in this election.

The republicans? I just saw my first McSame bumper sticker last week. It was on a new Cadillac. How appropriate.

[S1m0n]

The Clintons have made the first three days of what should be Obama's convention all about the Clintons, instead. Such selfish narcissism totally undercuts their supposed endorsements.

It doesn't matter what they said; while they were up there saying it, and conducting all the other will-she-o­r-won't-sh­e drama, & their demands (the Hillary vanity movie, the roll call vote, Bill & Hill's speaking slots and subject assignments, etc ad nauseum) they successfully hijacked the convention and poisoned the chalice Obama just won.

Their agenda, in other words, prevented his agenda. And his agenda is the one that matters. There's only one way to gracefully lose a leadership or nomination battle, and that is the get the heck off the stage and out of the way. Throwing a serices of snipe, pouts, snarks and tantrums is not graceful.

[TheImpaler]

Agree 100%.

[djarvis]

Well said. I think there may still be a little tension between the Obama and Clinton camps, but not nearly as much as the media made it out to be. After all, the media were trying to get ratings and they built up the "controversy" as much as possible to generate viewership. Unfortunately, they spent so much time on analysis that they didn't put a lot of the speeches on the air. I had to turn over to C-SPAN to hear many of the speeches, including many in the early part of the convention that blasted McCain. Then networks like MSNBC and CNN were saying that the Dems didn't offer up enough "red meat" criticism of McCain and the Republicans. But the real problem is that the MSM simply weren't showing those speeches. Bill and Hillary did what they had to do and all in all, gave pretty decent speeches on Obama's behalf.

[MadxAsxHell]

Isn't it obvious? There's no percentage in being a spoiler. The ONLY successful spoiler was Ronald Reagan in 1976, who sank Jerry Ford (a far, far better President than Reagan ever was). Of course, let us not forget that RR's success in 1980 came because Ted Kennedy was Carter's spoiler that year.

Clinton may lose his temper, and he may be disappointed that Hillary's not the nominee or the veep, but the bottom line is he's a savvy politician, a Democrat and Obama's a Democrat and ANY Democrat is preferable to a Republican.

It's more interesting that Clinton and Carter seem to ZERO interest in each other. Not sure what that's about. And, of course, Carter probably STILL detests Ted Kennedy, 28 years later (How can 1980 be THAT long ago??????) Did Teddy EVER apologize for sinking Carter, and giving us Ronald Reagan, putting us on the path to....Benito Mussolini Bush?

[23000Days]

Shrub 1 sank Carter by negotiating with Iran on RR's behalf, getting them to hold the hostages until after the election.

[Siryn]

The rift is real, otherwise Hillary wouldn't have gone 10M+ deeper into debt to try to wrest away the nomination. There are plenty of bitter old women who cannot see beyond their second X chromosome and think that Hillary was treated unfairly because of her sex when it's not true. While they cannot afford to be seen as sore losers, and I don't think they truly are, they have plenty of supporters behaving that way, including some high profile fundraisers.

[tuttlemsm]

"All of which raises a sneaking suspicion. Did Democrats allow word of the Clinton-Obama rift to spread before the convention, or perhaps even fan the flames, knowing full-well that the so-called "tensions" would be healed beautifully in a masterful display of unity and grace?"

Yes. In the world of another seemingly competitive, yet patently scripted world, this technique is called "working the smarts."

[LegalCat]

I just don't get it. I really don't. It absolutely passes my understanding how so many apparently intelligent and savvy commentators can call Hillary's speech a "rousing endorsement." It was a concession that, all other things being equal, she'd prefer to see a Democrat in the White House rather than a Republican, but it said nothing, NOTHING, about why that Democrat should be Barack Obama, other than a throgh-cle­nched-teet­h admission that he was the one who'd won the nomination. If Biden had won, or Kucinich, or Edwards, she could have made the exact same speech, word-for-word except for changing the name, and it would have made just as much sense. Nothing about "he worked his way up from poverty," nothing about "he made editor of Harvard Law Review, which is a hell of an accomplishment for anyone, much less a black guy"; and most particularly, nothing about "that thing I said about how McCain is qualified to be Commander in Chief but Obama isn't? Sorry about that, I had it backwards." It was just a speech about Democrats being better than Republicans. This is an endorsement? More like a desperate bid to salvage some tiny tatters of her political career.

[sharonh]

You said it all right here.

"it now seems clear that pre-convention media obsession with the Clinton-Obama rift raised the stakes of the first several nights of the convention, created a sense of drama, boosted viewership"

Media created, manipulated, and spoon-fed to the masses. I understand their capitalistic urge to get more sponsers, but when it become opinion disguised as news it is propaganda. Call it for what it is.

[terraprieto]

I don't think one speech undoes all the divisiveness that went before.

A good speech by Bill Clinton.

But it will be a long time before he regains my full respect. Though I hope to get there someday.

I remain disgusted and outraged that a former president went on the primay campaign trail and tried to take out the rising star of his own party.

I hope that in the future, Bill maintains the dignity, decorum, and discretion we expect from former presidents.

[CalliDem]

Breaking Breaking ... Because of these types I will be voting for McCain

PUMA

[djarvis]

Go ahead and vote for McSame - let the country go down the toilet if you want to. You're only hurting yourself and everyone else.

[franklin opt]

I understand your frustration. My wife and I both supported Hillary. Be careful that you're not justifying your voting decision by placing blame on those who feel differently. If Republicans get in and let the market forces do what they will, as the inter-related crises in mortgages and home values, the costly war in Iraq, all of Bush's borrowing and the pending collapse of our health care system all coincide to cause economic disaster, remember that we could have had a president who understands the economy.

[HUFFNAME]

" it now seems clear that pre-convention media obsession with the Clinton-Obama rift ..."

So now we can begin the during-convention media obesessing over the pre-convention media obsession?

Please pass the content.

[MikeLee7125]

The fact is all of McCain's attacks have been short sighted. They tried to woo Hillary voters but Hillary herself slammed that door shut. They've tried to define Obama. But Obama has the oratory skill to define himself which he's going to do tonight and for the rest of the campaign. They've tried to paint him as inexperienced and naive, but we've got the debates up ahead.

The debates are going to be interesting. Obama will have the bar set low and McCain is going to have it set much higher. And so far McCain has been one note on both domestic (drill here, drill now) and foreign policy (attack here, attack now). He's not going to have Rick Warren pitching him softballs.

[CalliDem]

Yeah ... he did GREAT in his last appearance with McCain ROFL .... the Clintons have "done their duty" and once again tired their hearts out to save the stupid DNC from their own poor choice. Now they should go to a nice beach, kick back and let the terminally ignorant deal with full karmic effect of their "selection"

PUMA

McCain 08
Hillary 2012

[JinChicago]

vote for mccain in 08. you wont have the ability to vote by 2012.

this is your official warning

1984

[djarvis]

SORE LOSER!!! If we still have a country worth running in 2012, Miss Hillary can have at it!

[kokomokid]

you are exactly why the Dems continue to lose the Presidency....your short sided hatred is real, unfounded and out of touch, if you truly are a Democrat....if you're female, this stance makes you a hypocrite, just like any other Republican....go ahead and vote for McPOW, and watch your right to choose go away like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, my job, my pension, the Supreme Court, my dignity, my hope, the American Dream....your passion is misplaced right along with what's left of your brain and logical thought

[MikeLee7125]

That's it. Keep setting the bar lower and lower for Obama.
If W. can come off a debate with Gore looking like a credible candidate, then Obama will cruise.

[rmadilo]

Don't forget that it also makes the media look like total fools. This has been a pattern for Obama that most fail to appreciate. Sometimes it comes as an extra day of delay in responding to something. What this strategy does is to allow all sides to fully develop their own fact-free analysis and talking points. It also builds interest in what Obama will eventually say about the subject. Once everyone is primed and ready to listen, he steps up and delivers a response that is totally unexpected.

But tamping down on the Hillary/Bill divisions prior to the convention speech would have only increased expectations, and someone, somewhere would have found a contrary opinion (or Joe Watkins would just say Obama was lying), so why waste effort on putting out fires that end up clearing out underbrush?

Obama thrives on the drama created by others, and who creates more drama than Bill and Hillary. Truly a match made in political heaven.