It ain't over till it's over.
Yogi Berra may not have had Hillary Clinton in mind when he uttered those immortal words, yet they seem as accurate a way to describe this year's Democratic jockeying to the White House as any other, unpredictable American pastime.
At the moment, once again, Hillary has no chance. Barely six weeks have passed since the last time Hillary had no chance in the days leading up to the New Hampshire primary: a short period on the calendar, but an eternity in any presidential campaign, let alone this one. There can be no doubt that Obama's sweep since Super Tuesday has been impressive (all the more so because of whom he swept, and by how much), and yet when I read endless accounts about Obama's momentum, and listen to the pundits do their math and shake their heads about Hillary's chances (is it thirty percent now?) I can't help but recall the night before the New Hampshire primary when I, along with every other media type crowded into the tiny state that week, rushed to get to the New Hampshire airport where Hillary (and Bill and Chelsea) was conducting a final rally that at the time was being referred to as the "Last Supper." Ah, yes. This was just twenty-four hours before she resurrected herself once again. Don't we at least know by now how little we know.
Of course, over the past two weeks, Obama's victories, coupled with Hillary's campaign shake-up, and well publicized money troubles have succeeded in making a Clinton nomination look a lot less likely. Lest we forget, however, that there are another two weeks ahead of us before the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio (Clinton's firewall in campaign speak), two long weeks that leave plenty of room for heretofore unimagined story lines (such as, say, charges of plagiarism -- did anyone see that coming?)
To be sure, Obama is now, suddenly, the one who has to worry about screwing it up; such is the yoke a front-runner must bear. Whatever glare he's been feeling up until this point from the media (and with very little exception, Obama has received the kind of adulation normally reserved for conquering heroes, or at least rock stars) is about to increase tenfold. Hillary on the other hand -- who, it could be pointed out, has never experienced real adulation of any sort in her lifetime as a public figure -- now just has to worry about staying in the game (and perhaps keeping a lid on Bill) and there is a case to be made that being down and out is the easiest and quickest way for her to engender a sympathy in the voters her public persona is always struggling to inspire (think New Hampshire tears writ large).
There is also the larger question of whether the voting masses (and relatively speaking, they are masses), once it is afforded a full and extended dose of the Senator from Illinois, will remain as excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. Despite being a phrase that is rarely applied in politics, I think Obama is risking being too much of a good thing. Between the Oprah endorsement and the Kennedy endorsement and the YouTube video, which, after a few days of endless viewing made Obama's subsequent speeches seem simultaneously old hat and bordering on parody (with the end of the writer's strike, can an SNL version can't be far behind?) one wonders much perfectly scripted "inspiration" a person can take before they begin to get a sneaking suspicion they may be participating in some sort of Dr. Phil goes to Washington infomercial?
Up until recently it's been hard to seriously criticize Obama without appearing to be the worst kind of cynic. And really, what's not to like? Hollywood could not have dreamed up a more magical, inspiring, and unlikely response to eight demoralizing years of George W. Bush.
And yet.
There is a phrase in television-land for what happens in the aftermath of the sort of perfect storm of storylines Obama has recently experienced (and really, can a politician wish for a better primary season denouement than the marriage of the Kennedys and Oprah?). It is called "jumping the shark." And it's what happens when, having achieved the penultimate, the story, in an effort to stay afloat and on the public radar, veers into the ridiculous (the reference originates from a scene in Happy Days when the Fonz literally jumps a shark, on water skies, in his leather jacket). One suspects that if Obama isn't very careful in the next two weeks to separate himself from phrases like "cult of personality" and "momentum candidate" and provide a more, dare we say it, pedantic version of himself, we may witness him inspiring the sort of derision that is only possible when the public has been lifted so high the only place for them, or the candidate in this case, to go is down, at much the same speed with which they and he rose. Perfection is not a sustainable resource, after all. Hillary may not have the language (though, apparently neither does Obama), but she inspires the kind of mundane confidence that voters, once they adjust to the idea of Obama as a reality beyond the movement, may prefer.
Time will tell.
What is for certain, however, is that these next two weeks, whatever they may hold, shall pass, along with (at some point) this primary season. And a by the end of this campaign -- whatever the jumps or leaps, or last minute surprises it holds -- the candidate the Democratic party ends up with will require a brand new, large and sturdy bandwagon to carry it through to November.
Follow Glynnis MacNicol on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mediaite
The real problem will come later when they discover that their true addiction was to hate.
When he's trying to convince them he's actually accomplished something, he'll find this group of supporters uninterested in such mundane matters.
They will feed only off of expressing their anger and inner "hole."
A pair beats it, in every sense of the term.
I hope he lives up to your expectations.
This perspective makes Glynnis MacNicol's following comment somewhat ironic:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One suspects that if Obama isn't very careful in the next two weeks to separate himself from phrases like "cult of personality" and "momentum candidate" and provide a more, dare we say it, pedantic version of himself, we may witness him inspiring the sort of derision that is only possible when the public has been lifted so high the only place for them, or the candidate in this case, to go is down, at much the same speed with which they and he rose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
because Senator Obama has ALREADY made the course correction MacNicol suggests in his speeches in Wisconsin and especially in his unscripted speech Tuesday night in Houston.
Obama has gotten more specific in his speeches ("taking to down a notch" as he says, or "more wonky" as other put it). He has separated himself from the "messianic" label some have tried to slap on him and he has also addressed the "all talk" attacks. Here is but one example, you should really hear or read the entire speech to see him touch on all the points MicNicol suggested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19text-obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jumping the shark is a sign of a failed concept. Lacking any support for the ideas you are presenting, you take on a completely absurd premise and lose track of what made you work in the first place.
Jumping the shark comes AFTER your relevance is questioned. It is a symptom, not the harbinger.
Great concepts don't jump the shark. Shows that lose their great concepts jump the shark.
In this case, Hillary jumped the shark when she accused Obama of plagiarism. Hillary jumped the shark when she pulled out the race card. Hillary jumped the shark when she made an ad with mostly women working the night shift while men, presumably, were drinking beer and sleeping with the babysitter. Hillary jumped the shark when she cried in Connecticut (coincidentally, she lost that primary). Hillary jumped the shark in Texas when she danced with a little boy dressed as a mariachi and talked about how much she loved hot peppers. Hillary jumped the shark OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Jumping the shark doesn't ruin your show, jumping the shark happens when your show starts to suck and you know it so you overcompensate by making your show suck even more.
Now, there is another flawed attribution here. The media predicted that Hillary Clinton's campaign was over after Iowa because she underperformed next to her competitors despite being the presumptive frontrunner. In fact, there is some evidence that they were accurate. Hillary only won two primary contests before Super Tuesday, and neither of those was a significant win. She wasn't "resurrected" by New Hampshire, she was saved. And if you look at the polls, it's pretty clear what happened:
1) Hillary stole the woman vote from Edwards. Edwards's support among women dropped by a huge amount from Iowa to New Hampshire.
2) Edwards had attacked Hillary Clinton aggressively in the NH debates the night before. He took much of the blame, it seems, as Obama only lost 1 point among women from Iowa to New Hampshire.
3) Hillary "emoted," which in the case of one anecdotal testimony, caused women to believe that "Hillary needed [them]."
In short, as other candidates fell out of the race, their female supporters flocked to Hillary by default. Exit polls in Super Tuesday showed she got a net 5% of the overall vote JUST BECAUSE OF HER GENDER. And I don't mean counting disparities in gender, I mean people openly stating that they voted for her because she's a woman and comparing it to those saying they voted against her because she's a woman. 5 points. Obama's race, on the other hand, lost him 2 points on Super Tuesday. Compare it and their race and gender gave Hillary a 7 point advantage on Super Tuesday.
What's different? Well, first, the media was ultimately right. Hillary Clinton was expected to dominate and she's been playing catchup to Obama since New Hampshire. There's actually no point in this race when she has been ahead of Obama in pledged delegates. She's been losing since DAY ONE of the primaries.
In fact, despite the whining about Obama doing better in caucuses, Obama had racked up more primary wins than Clinton by Super Tuesday. It's an effective lie they've been perpetrating in order for Hillary to look less like a loser, but the reality is, Hillary Clinton hasn't been winning by any legal, official measure since the primaries started.
Second, the predictions of Hillary Clinton's demise, while prematurely accurate, are now grounded in raw numbers. She needs to sweep Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 17 points EACH. The only state she's done that well is Arkansas.
It's Obama's to lose because he would have to get hit by a train in order for Hillary to get better numbers than him.
Um, OK.
So we've just sat through eleven straight Obama wins, with an average margin of victory of 33%, but it's Clinton who, deep down, the voters secretly prefer. Any idea when or if this secret preference is going to manifest itself in the form of actual electoral victories? Because, if it doesn't happen soon, I don't think anyone's going to care.
Denigrating Obama supporters as having somehow been duped is hardly the way to bring people to your side should Hillary somehow manage to pull out the nomination despite huge challenges. Barack is so much more than your thin characterization of him that it is clear you haven't done your homework or are being intentionally dismissive.
Barack has worked as a civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor and community organizer. He was responsible for personally bringing together a divided state house to pass very progressive legislation and has done the same since arriving in Washington.
Barack is well-versed and accomplished when it comes to doing his job. He has more actual legislative experience than Hillary and has done more in three short years in the senate than she has done in 7. He has a long legislative record that can easily be Googled.
These long years of experience in both DC and Illinois informed his answers in this 52-minute, uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.
Barack has more experience, both in the classroom, the courtroom and on the streets of south Chicago. He has more accomplishments working for real people in the real world. He has more grassroots support and has raised all of his money from individual donors, most in increments under $100. He has run a substantially better campaign and has already won more states, more delegates and has larger base of volunteers in all 50 states.
You don't have to join us in this transformational moment, but understand that Barack supporters simply aren't going to roll-over for disinformation in the media or baseless attacks on his actual experience and fitness for the job.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
"Shout, shout. Let it all out. These are the things I can do without. Come on! I'm talking to you. Come on!"
Tears For Fears