Nice Point Hillary, Now We'll Just Wait for McCain to Make It

The legendary cartoon -- I think it was the New Yorker -- had a bunch of men and one woman sitting around a conference table. All eyes are on her, but it is the man at the head of the table who is speaking. "Nice point, Mary," he says. "Now we'll just wait for some man to make it."

Six months or more ago Hillary Clinton's campaign made two relatively obvious points about the candidacy of a young African-American, fresh from the Illinois state Senate and coming off a wildly popular televised address. She said he could not beat John McCain among key (read, white) demographics and she said his rhetoric filled orations to filled stadiums were empty calories.

For these relatively obvious observations, Clinton, and the people who supported her, were regularly treated as selfish morons standing in the way of the new millennium. Writing in these pages, Mark Kleiman said

"The hand-wringing about whether Barack Obama is "electable" has reached the point of absurdity. The claim that Hillary Clinton's 9-point win over Obama in Pennsylvania "proves" that Obama can't carry the Rustbelt in a general election is completely baseless. But that hasn't kept the Clinton camp, the Rightwingosphere, and a bunch of TV talking heads just parroting the currently fashionable line of patter from pretending to believe it." These people are so crazy they are thinking McCain might actually win. How ridiculous is that, Kleiman asks: "A McCain Presidency is indeed a horrible prospect, but then so is an asteroid strike."

As of this moment, the latest PA polls show Obama holding a 5 point lead over McCain with a 3.7 margin for error, and the national polls show Obama ahead by around 3 trivial points, half of last month's lead. And why is that? Why a man finally said what Hillary had been saying all along: he's not a good candidate for a crucial Democratic demographic and his charisma is no more substantive than a Paris Hilton miniskirt. Contrary to the dreadful Dowd, this is not, um, Hillary's fault. I have the strong feeling that the McCain campaign team could probably have figured out Obama's weaknesses unassisted. After all, they did manage to beat every Democratic candidate who's run for President in the current millennium. So there was no positive payoff to silencing all criticism of the primary candidate.

But by deligitimating criticism of Barack Obama his supporters did manage to silence a lot of people who might have been helpful. Case in point: When the Obama campaign announced its plan for a stadium-based acceptance speech weeks ago, long before the Paris Hilton affair, I emailed a bunch of people privately warning them that there would be images from Leni Riefenstahl's movies all over the Internet, and thus all over TV, and screw Michael Godwin. In place of a triumph, a Triumph of the Will. Now there's a great convention kickoff for you. Followed by the presentation of the millionaire conservative John McCain as, may he rest in peace, Harry Truman. But I did not write of this in public, despite my well-earned reputation as a flame thrower, because the blowback to criticizing Barack Obama is so distracting and also because, well, they would probably wait for a man to say it. But I have grown increasingly uneasy as the time approaches, so today I decided that someone has to say it, so it might as well be me. After all, I was the first one to speak ill of the dead after the unbelievably destructive Tim Russert departed the planet before he could singlehandedly determine the outcome of yet another election. This stadium thing looks like a really bad idea. At best no harm, at worst, a debate about why he's not Hitler, to succeed the debate about why he's not Paris Hilton. They'd better have a lot of footage of John Kennedy's stadium speech to run alongside it.

Maybe Mark Kleiman is right, and the gifted orator will make a speech so inspiring and the visuals will be so brilliant that the pre-convention fretting may all prove to be small-bodies-from-space-aphobia. Kleiman's biography says he's a professor of decision making under conditions of uncertainty and a government advisor and maybe a McCain victory is as unlikely as an asteroid strike. I'm not a professor of decision making. But in a country as closely divided politically as this one, all decisions are made under uncertainty, and one thing I'm certain of is it does not help the process to shoot the messengers.

Comments

[Michael08]

The number of comments posted to this topic is overwhelming, so much so, that I have lost my place in a few discussions, and yet, after reviewing as many comments as possible I have not read anything from Hilary supporters that helps me understand how someone could support the Clinton candidacy and then vote for McCain when his policy positions differ so much from hers.

After all isn’t that what this election is about?

“Objectively speaking the policy differences between Hillary & Barrack are barely negligible, while McCain surrounds himself with neo-cons, promotes a pro-wealth tax policy and privatizing Medicare, Social Security, education and other government functions.
But most importantly potential upcoming Supreme Court nominees hang in the balance.”
(repost)

[Blain]

Exactly what is all of this experience that Hillary Clinton has? Bill was president not her. It was unprecedented that a candidate tried to win the presidency based on their spouses record. I believe that is an insult to women.

[Budokan]

She showed McSame how to win and she did it for a very definite reason: She wants to run in 2012...and she's a closet Republican.

[learnsomething]

Yep, she is a closet Repub. Don't be surprised if she and Bill come out of the closet in the near future.

[saltysea]

Agree with wbgonne down further. i did comment on this one, but i hope it's my last. went down to HQ yesterday. think i'll do data entry instead of canvassing to start down the stretch. If you haven't tried volunteering yet, it's fun--meet new people who think like you do-- breath of fresh air compared to wasting time answering the dead enders.

[Democrab]

Today's polls actually have Obama up 2 points overall nationally. And polls show that at this time, were Hillary the candidate, she woukd be 6 points up on McBush. (CNN)

[Charles1Goodwin]

The problem with this logic and the poll, is Hilary has not been campaigning and needing to take stands on issues. If she were the nominee, she would have to take positions and defend her record and stance. This is not to say that she couldn't. It is just not a true snapshot of where she would be if she were head-to-head with McCain.

[Budokan]

You're living in La La Land if you think for one moment the GOP would not have eviscerated HRC by now if she be our nominee.

"He's not a Muslim as far as I know."

"All Obama gave is a speech."

[leftcoastliberal]

From Wikipedia: Hirshman was also criticized by feminist bloggers such as Leslie Morgan Steiner and economists such as Heather Boushey for having an insufficient empirical evidence for her contention that women were dropping out of the U.S. labor market, a charge which Hirshman says does not change her conclusions.

Hirshman reminds me of a caricature from one of those old misogynist cartoons, a middle-aged matron sitting on a jury at a trial saying, "I pay no attention to the evidence, I like to make up my own mind!" What an embarrassment to feminism! For the sake of women everywhere, I pray that she and her fellow Hillary Hold-Outs clearly want: a McCain victory.

[envirossf]

This commenter has based her conclusions on a false premise, polls in August. If the results of summer polling were accurate, then we would be watching President Kerry hand off the baton at the Democratic convention. Another false premise, that polls are reliably accurate at any time. If this was the case, Hillary would have won Iowa and Barack would have won New Hampshire. This is a new day and time people. Polling based on "likely voters" (people who have voted before, and have listed land lines) are skewed disproportionally towards older and less tech-savvy populations. McCain's demographic. This is also reinforced by media pundits who have no way to fill 24hr news cycles without horse race statistics. How quickly the subject changed from massive new democratic leads in voter registrations everywhere, to how can we keep people interested in watching our b.s., without accusing us of cheerleading?

[MoeB]

Linda:

Get over it! Hillary is NOT, I repeat, NOT the nominee. Jeesh.

Please tell me what your goal is for November. Do you WANT democrats to lose so that your beloved Hillary gets another shot? Because I honestly think that pieces like this one are part of the reason democrats lose so much. Republicans can see the bigger picture. They are all surrounding their candidate and sticking with him til the bitter end...even those who don't like him that much. Yet, democrats, always seem to find a way to LOSE. No unity. Why? Because Hillary lost in a close race, so SOME of her supporters are bitter. Well, sorry, but get over it. This election is about FAR more than your candidate, or even my candidate! If you all cannot see that, then you deserve to have McCain as a president.

[Shezboday]

Guess whose coming to dinner? Bill and Hill...and they are going to feast on Hollywood. You think they have forgotten or forgiven our treatment of them-ha! Bill and Hill-and I have this on HIGHLY reliable info-are going to wade into Hollywood, spill our blood, shoot us in the belly. Geffen is headed to Europe-my guess. Bubba is one p.o.ed redneck, and he is going to take no prisoners in Hollywood. Oy vey for a Mike Dukakis...

[marylandtravelinman]

Part of the reason that O is having trouble is because of the smear campaign SHE started against him. They weren’t predictions they were campaign rhetoric. And no surprise McCainosaurus is using them and they are working....for him. She ran a really bad campaign and is hoping O will lose so she can try again.

What Hillary fails to notice is that SHE would not have gotten elected either. She is too polarizing. The reason she received 18 million votes is because Republicans WANTED to run against her and sent their people out to screw the Democratic Primary. It didn't work and she won't get elected next time either. AGAIN, she lost, fair and square.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Remember the old cry, "Hillary needs to drop out so Obama can get on with running against McCain".
You didn't know Obama and his handlers would be so inept, did you.
Until Axelrod realizes he can not get Obama the Presidency the way Obama got the offices of the Illinois State Senate, the United States Senate, and the Democratic nomination, Obama will NOT win. Destroying the opposition using race-baiting and character-­assassinat­ion against the Republicans is not an effective tactic.
To cry that 25% of the voters are racist and won't vote for a Black candidate to shame them into supporting Obama, just demonstrates how stupid the Democratic Party was to nominate a Black candidate if we knew this in advance. The Democratic Party has not been damaged by anyone, they committed suicide.

[trinidadgirl]

Here's the thing!
Face yourselves people. Obama is getting 200 per cent more scrutiny than any other candidate n history. Why? Because he is a person of colour! Period!
I just wish he would go where he was appreciated instead of having to fight every day for every little thing! Poor O!

[Dhalgren]

This argument falls on its face when you put it to the "Survivor" (CBS) test:

Hirshman is arguing that the 'jury' would have selected Clinton over McCain. But if given a choice between Obama and McCain, they will go with McCain. That's nonsense.

If McCain can beat Obama, then clearly he could have beaten Hillary as well. In fact, I would argue that the negative campaigning would be even more nasty, since so many right-wingers hate Clinton (and I mean red-face hatred - they wanted Ken Starr to wipe the Clintons off the face of the earth).

Clinton would not have won the Libertarian or Independent vote the way Obama did (and still can). Clinton would not have won-over white men (we crackers LOVE Obama).

So simply put, the Tribe Has Spoken. Now join the rest of the Jury.

[Aldyth]

Empty calories, exactly. It is tough to run on a record when you don't have one, except in the Illinois State Senate.

You've been kind. Barack Obama is now tied with McCain in a number of polls. I hope Obama has chosen Biden, because he's the only VP candidate with the experience to balance what Obama doesn't have.

[Hoelder]

The problem with experience is where it has been shaped. I do not know whether 12 years in the Senate would make Obama a better candidate, but I do know that, if books are the accumulated knowledge of many, and education is the tool to critically decipher them, than Obama has more experience than McCain. Far More! Judging from the past 8 years I prefer Obama's smarts over McCain's experience.

[BreathOfFreshAir]

The problem with education is where (and by who) it has been shaped and whether ~20 years of education would make Obama a better candidate. Books don't necessarily contain "true" knowledge and the educational system in place today may teach enough literacy to decipher (decipher here being read and comprehend), but it certainly doesn't do a good job teaching critical thinking. In the real world, experience trumps education almost universally. Education was meant as a way to provide experience in a safe environment...to teach without having to subject the student to trial-by-fire. Education allows us to keep from reinventing the wheel every time. Education prepares a student for real world experience and is meant to provide tools to the learner to better hone his skills from real world experience. Education was NEVER meant to and WILL NEVER replace experience, only supplement it. Worse yet, education that is one-sided or the product of groupthink will damage the learner's ability to process experience.

[raiffer]

This is a pi**ing contest with no obvious winner.
We must remember one axiom: Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line. We are so busy loving our position and our candidate(s) that we can’t organize and prepare for the dramatic, almost cataclysmic battle. Pardon the hyperbole.
If we continue, no amount of damage control will save the party – thus the nation – from four more years (or eight) of Republican rule.
We had a surplus, a balanced budget in 2000. We had global respect. We governed with, if not grace, then at least understanding. Forget the First Lady effect and a then state legislator in Illinois. The effort worked because we had direction, some cohesion, and a balanced sense of ourselves.
We need a swift kick in the ass. We squandered every advantage with intraparty bickering; held to positions – like the Hillary ascendency – even when there is no hope; failed to learn the tactics against which we run.
Now we talk about Hitler-like ceremonies. Hell, the Fascists are already in power!
Rove knows how to win. Allow groups with less-limited funds, like MoveOn.org, to strike hard. Let’s outline a specific and detail-filled plan for the future. Let’s do it right.
Why does someone from the hinterlands have to lecture the “political professionals”? Fall in line, Democrats. Stop the childish attitude: if I can’t have my way, then I’ll take my ball and go home. Play the game to win. Finally.

[DontEvenThinkIt]

It is NOT a pissing contest, it is a contest for the President of the USA. And to tell people to "fall in line" is so totally simplistic and cult-like it is frightening. That is what we say when the republicans do it. The Repubs vote for their personal single issue, be it gun rights or pro-life, and forget any other issue on the table.

Hirshman is right, as was HRC. Obama is not electable. He had those victories in the beginning of the primary that allowed him to hold a lead until the end. The more the public knew about him, the less popular he became. This will be the continuing trend until his defeat in November. Those of us who knew it back then were vilified for daring to to state what is so obvious to us. Not to mention the obviously superior candidate (yes people it was HiIlary) for the Democratic nomination was kicked to the curb by the devoted followers of Obama. Their bad.

[Mesaywar]

If she was so superior, why did she lose so badly,....and rack up so much unpaid debt......even after lending herself over ten million dollars?

[Billie]

Any democrat who would cast a spite vote for McCain after the horror of the Bush years, is a destructive personality. Someone who does not care about the lives lost in war. Someone who doesn't care about universal healthcare. And the list goes on.

I wish the personality thing would just go away and people would wise up and vote for progress. And stop behaving like spoiled selfish brats who need a big show with bells and whistles at a convention. I don't care about all the razz-matazz. I know who i'm going to vote for already. Because I'm a democrat.