It all started in Iowa: Hillary Clinton was the underdog, her husband told us as the polls were tightening, because she wasn't as well known in the state as John Edwards and Barack Obama. Clinton, one of the most famous women in the world (including Iowa), had an awareness deficit against a failed former vice-presidential candidate and a freshman Senator from a neighboring state. It wasn't her organization, her positions, her character, the campaign told us. It was that people didn't know her. And also that she hadn't REALLY tried in Iowa (as opposed to New Hampshire, where she made sure we realized how hard she had worked). She came in third, but Bill reassured us that she had expected it all along.
No one is asking Clinton or Obama to look gloomy every time they lose a state or to publicly excoriate themselves and their campaign when polls are down. But when facts are so blatantly and verifiably the opposite of what is being said, one enters the Bill O'Reilly zone, and that is a very uninspiring place to be. As with everything else, the Clintons don't know when to stop with the spin, and their campaign's pronouncements now often veer into a bizarre alternate universe that is funny, yet vaguely Stalinist in its denial of the most transparent truth.
Rudy Giuliani, who for months managed to convince the mainstream media that all was well with his one-delegate campaign, and Fred Thompson, who didn't have to work that hard (which he liked) to get billing as Reagan's 21st century heir, are sad amateurs compared to Clinton. Not a day goes by in the thick of this campaign when we don't ask ourselves: do her press people and assorted endorsers really think we're that stupid? Yes, they do, and perhaps we are. Isn't the increasingly noisy drumbeat about the warped primary system coming from the Clinton campaign finding its way hourly into hundreds of blogs, articles and broadcasts? And aren't there only occasional, and remarkably mild, qualifiers about how recent the Clintons' conversion is to a "fair" primary system?
Immediately after Iowa, the Clinton campaign questioned the validity of the state's caucuses in stark terms (this was a short-term, possibly desperate tactic, considering the importance of the swing state in November as well as in January). This was quite a jolt, as the Clinton crowd never complained about caucuses (and certainly not about Iowa) until she started losing every single one of them.
Nor, of course, did Clinton disavow the Democratic National Committee for its stance on Florida and Michigan until she desperately needed the delegates from those "contests," where she was essentially unopposed after the DNC deemed them illegitimate. Then, she said, those states' voters were being disenfranchised, a particularly explosive claim in Florida. Surely Clinton knows that it is impossible that the January votes in those states will be counted, and either she is looking for sympathy (no matter how instrumental she was in depriving the two states of their delegates) or she is looking for a scandal that will make the Supreme Court's 2000 presidential election decision in favor of George W. Bush look fair and balanced.
Nor did Clinton snub her nose at the proportional representation rules in the Democratic primaries and caucuses until she won the bigger states by relatively small margins and lost all others by landslides. The race would have been over, Clinton campaign pollster Mark Penn said, had the primary been a winner-take-all system (not only is this inaccurate, true to form, but it is also a mystery how a GOP-style system would have made the contest more democratic). We were also told that this whole delegate thing was terribly unfair, as Clinton was winning the "popular vote;" that was barely true on Super Tuesday (48.7% to 48.4%), but five days later, that too, proved wrong when four states overwhelmingly voted for Obama (in caucuses and, yes, primaries). Given the twisted and blindingly diverse ways of counting votes, it's hard to judge who is winning the popular vote, but if Clinton was ahead by so little on Tuesday by that measure, it's fair to say she is now behind.
The spinning absurdity reached a paroxysm (at least so far) as Super Tuesday results started pouring in. Georgia, which Obama won by 36%, was irrelevant, the Clinton operation told us, because she hadn't campaigned there and Obama had a "consistently [...] wide poll lead" in the state. Left unsaid was the fact that both Clintons were in Georgia days before the primary and that Clinton was well ahead in the state just weeks before the February 5 contest.
It seemed like it couldn't get any worse, but then her campaign claimed that Clinton's Oklahoma win (the first of the evening for her) was important because it was the only state so far where both candidates had "competed fiercely." Oklahoma, as it happened, was the one state in which Obama had not campaigned (he was last there in March 2007, it seems), and one in which polling had showed he was consistently behind by 20 or 30%. The breathtaking inanity of the statement undermined anything else Clinton achieved that night, starting with her strong wins in Massachusetts and California (and no, Obama wasn't expected to win those, but he was expected to do better than lose by double digits).
The Clinton spin finally spiralled out of control that night when her campaign claimed Missouri, an "important swing state," presumably demonstrating her ability to carry such states. Sadly for her, it turned out to be a loss, presumably demonstrating that Obama can carry, well, "important swing states."
There is a stark contrast between the two campaigns in setting expectations and spinning results. The Obama crew, buoyed by huge crowds and infectious enthusiasm, is not good at dampening excited anticipation, but it also doesn't patronize us after the fact. Conversely, the Clinton campaign and its supporters have been much better at managing prospects, albeit with some misfires. One foolish Clinton blogger thought he'd set the bar really high on February 9 by publishing outlandish predictions for an Obama win, until the predictions were exceeded in every single one of the states. And who can forget Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe's post-Iowa statement that "this thing will be over by February 5?" Perhaps he was implying that it would be over in favor of Obama, a case of really lowering expectations for his candidate? In which case, that must mean the momentum is with Hillary, as she has now managed to pull even with Obama-The-Frontrunner!
It is in defeat that the Clinton PR fails, sounding awkwardly bitter and blaming everything from the caucus system to sexism, to open primaries, to independents, to black women, to white men, to red states, to young people, to educated people, to rich people for their loss. This was silly after Iowa, and is plainly ridiculous now: at one point or another in his 19-state winning romp, Obama has prevailed in primaries and caucuses; among white men and white women; states in the South, Northeast, Midwest and West; rural states, urban states and suburbs; college kids and working class retirees. It has been a remarkably encompassing and national success so far for Obama, the Clintons' race-baiting jabs notwithstanding (Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina too, Bill helpfully emphasized).
The Clinton operation's dismissive attitude towards the states that she loses ("didn't campaign there," "caucus!") feels uncomfortably like a post-facto snub by the aggrieved party in a break up ("she's not really my type anyway;" "he snores SO loudly;" "did I tell you I cheated on him once?").
Even the campaign finance rules, under attack by Bill just a few weeks ago, are now the Clinton campaign's new best friend, as the couple are suddenly grateful to be able to pump (ie, loan) millions of their, ahem, hard-earned post-presidency cash into a suddenly impoverished enterprise. We may not need their unreleased tax statements after all: it should be clear soon enough exactly how much money they have made in the past eight years when they spend it on advertising in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
It's a great idea to challenge the primary and general election systems, which are dreadfully undemocratic. But why now? Hillary and Bill Clinton have been running for the presidency for nearly 20 years, and are aware of the rules, have agreed to them, fully endorsed them, were instrumental in creating them, and thrived on them until last month. That they want to upend the process this very minute is a powerful statement about their lack of faith in her ability to win.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I see no reason for her to waste much time where the AA bloc is going to sweep it for Obama.
Clearly, it's all about race.
When Bill Clinton got the AA bloc, it was cool. When John Kerry won 80% of the AA vote in LA back in 2004 it was cool.
Why is it bad that Barack is winning the AA vote? Noone suggests that Hillary should not win the female vote. And no one suggests that Obama should write off the female vote since they tend(ed) to break for Hillary.
Candidates have to earn our votes. Clinton's take votes for granite. That's why females are trending toward Barack now. He's owning votes on his own merits.
Ann, you are becoming a self-parody.
Now you are claiming it is about race? This from the woman who routinely screams 'sexist' at Clinton detractors?
By your own standards you are a racist.
PS: Care to explain how the outcome in Iowa was about race? Or in Washington state? Or...
Lets face facts here - Hillary's base of support is limited to deep-blue states that ANY Democratic candidate would carry. Beyond that, she's got no appeal. That would be a better explanation than blindly screaming 'race'.
My wife and I laughed our heads off when, on 60 Minutes, Hillary Clinton commented about Barack Obama's continuing momentum: "Oh, I don't see it that way." We thought, exactly. She lives in this dream world of her own invention. Spin all you want. The real world will eventually welcome you back.
Good post. I've been wondering about this since I saw her reaction to her first losses. I think there's a message in this that suggests that once you've voted (either for or against Hillary) she's done with you. Before you vote you're the most important person in the world, but afterward, well, you don't really matter. Why would anyone expect her to care more about them after they've voted than she does about all the other people who have already voted? Why won't she be just as dismissive of you?
I will certainly vote for Obama once he is the democratic candidate. But I know many of you Rabid Obama supporters and so called independents will abandon him once Rove and company positions the "son of a Muslim with the name Hussain" next to a decorated Vietnam Veteran. So enjoy the chest thumping now. You are nothing more than Judas in the making.
You know, Obama's campaign theme makes him a hard target for a hate ad. Why? Because his theme is a new kind of politics in place of the divisiveness and personal vindictiveness that is paralyzing government. So the first time they run a really offensive hate ad, Obama can cut the most offensive part out, put it in his own ad, and say, "See, this is exactly the kind of politics what we're running against. This is untrue, it is slander, and it's the kind of gutter politics that people have come to accept from Washington - and it's the central reason the people no longer believe in their government" Follow that with a cut of Obama making his famous "There is no liberal America, there is no conservative America, there is only the United States of America."
Let them take shots at Obama. Pretty soon, they'll figure out their gun has a U-shaped barrel.
Well put!!!
Not all of us Obama supporters are shallow enough to be frightened off by racist taunting either from so-called democrats or the Rovenator himself.
My personal favorite Hillary moment was the emotion she showed in New Hampshire. I'd love to see her really passionate about something - but when you replay that, you find out that her passion came from a deep sense that, if America didn't elect her president, it was going to "slide backward". She wasn't emotional about her candidacy, she was geniuniely convinced that she was the only one who could save us. It was passion born of a super egocentric personality, of delusions of grandeur.
Please. Hillary isn't the savior of the Republic. Hillary is just a politician hauling around a bushel basket full of scandals.
`
10-4,
Lady Hill & Billy are expert spinmeisters,
and like to show contempt for those who oppose them
they are intellegent, competent, sincere, ambitious,
BUT
... TRUTH ... is not a Clinton characteristic
.
Bravo! The Clintons, despite their loyal determined political machine, just can't admit that they are has-beens. It seems they are so desperate to win Texas that their millionaire friend/fundraiser Alonzo Cantu is hosting a PRIVATE Fundraiser on 2/13/08 in McAllen, TX. Seems like he's in a bit of trouble for asking some bigwigs to "lend" their name to his "donation list". He is also coming under investigation for money laundering and also for bundling those "donations" he has already "raised" for Hillary. The Clintons are also scheduled, (imagine that!) to appear in Hidalgo County that same day, to tell those on the lower economic scale how much they will do for them (and their votes). Incidentally, it seems that Cantu profited immensely when NAFTA took effect, and he has been forever grateful to his friend Bill Clinton. Wonder what kind of spin they'll put on this friendly visit. Reminds one of fairytales.
Great post. I hope Texas wakes up and votes for Obama, the Clintons truly only "use" the latinos ........
this piece perfectly crystalizes why it is so hard to support Hillary Clinton.
If she is the warm, real genuine person everyone close to her says she is -- and if she is in charge of her own campaign and is the manager she says she is -- and if she "found her voice" as she said after NH -- why is everything a revolving door with the Clinton campaign
Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear Sen Clinton say - I got whopped in "X" state - but I'll be back there for the general election when I am the nominee of the party and I will welcome the chance to talk to the people of "X" and make my case --
The games - the polls - it's exhausting --
She must be exhausted having to wakeup every day and have a bunch of people tell her who she is that day
This is not my idea of great leadership skills
You Obama supporters are so blind it's not even funny. Here's the real deal. Before this entire race even started, believe it or not Hillary was going to be the Dem nominee. Of course Edwards and a few others were going to run...and get their collective asses kicked... but Hillary was going to be it. Then Obama showed up. And the Dems went to him and said "Dude, don't run. If you do, you'll fuck it all up for everybody. Don't run now, because if you do, you'll divide the party. You've got some bridge-building to do and some time to put in at the national level but once you do, you're a shoe-in. Put your time in and we'll have your back." But of course, if you look back at his record, you'll see that he doesn't give a rat's ass about the party, he gives a rat's ass about his own career. So he pretty much thumbed his nose at the DNC. So now we have this debacle.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, McCain will be POTUS. The Republicans will shred him. Mr. Hope and Change will soon realize that all the rhetoric in the world won't save him from being buried by his own words.
"Before this entire race even started, believe it or not Hillary was going to be the Dem nominee."
And you're okay with this? You're okay with a bunch of professional manipulators telling you who you're going to vote for? You're okay with following along like a lost lamb while an elite clique of powerful politicians create the scenario THEY want and then allow you to validate it?
That is NOT democracy.
Ummm.. your point? Is it Hillary deserved the nomination? Isn't that kind of like saying the people of the Democratic party didn't deserve to pick who would represent them?
This kind of arrogance is exhausting.
To think that no one knows that Hillary was "going to be the nominee" shows that you have been paying absolutely no attention. We ALL knew this, but there were a lot of us that were disappointed that we would not have a choice between her and someone that wasn't so entrenched. If, as you say, Obama ignored the party leaders telling him not to run, then that makes him an even better candidate! Remember, these are the same people who gave us Kerry's disasterous 04 run and effectively castrated Gore in 00. This is Democracy, not a debacle, and there are a lot of people who have been ignored that are now getting a voice. To dismiss this and then to apply HRC's faults to Obama is disingenuous at best, and underhanded at worst.
I'm curious as to what evidence you have to support your November prediction if Obama wins the nomination. Hillary's "experience" which she says makesher the best candidate looks ridiculous when compared to McCain. Her weakness when it comes to candor and honesty will again be highlighted by the public's perception of "straight talker" John McCain. Independents favor McCain by a wide margin over Hillary, and she won't be able to overcome that. She's been around long enough for them to have made up their minds conclusively. Not only that, but the fractured Republicans will have something to rally around: "defeating Hillary". She is such a divisive figure that thinking she will be able to beat a candidate who the public, including independents, have such a positive perception of is unrealistic.
Obama can grab those independents, contrast McCain's war support affectively, draw first time voters to the polls, be a stark contrast to McCain in debates, and even erode some of McCains moderate Republican base. The right wing base , already disenchanted by McCain, will be further sidelined when the Democratic candidate is someone they can't rally their hate around.
xrmychick and bojaker -
This Independant suffers no illusions regarding John McFlipFlop the neo-Neocon nor does he have any respect for the denial pattern of HRC. The simple fact is that she isn't accountable for what she says and does and accountability, personal responsibility matters to me. If she turned her vote issue around and said "I trusted the President to do what he said and he lied to us all - my bad." I might think differently of her but she didn't.
Obama is the only choice left since I would rather vote for a maggot than vote GOP - not to cast negatives on either maggots or Obama.
I have to wonder how things would have gone for HRC if her husband had taken a two year trip to Port Douglas (a favorite town of his - his pics of his partying are posted there). I wonder if she would have done anything differently or simply self destructed sooner.
No matter, now... but its is a mistake to think that Independants find anything attractive about McCain - especially since he has climbed into bed with the neofascists.
One of the primary reasons that I won't vote GOP at this point is that I don't want to see a pardon for Cheney and co if the Dems ever decide to grow a spine and do something more substantial than threaten to think about proposing a discussion about a possible agreement on exploring the idea of maybe voting on whether or not to review the record and decide if, maybe, a committee meeting should be held to ask the GOP if they might allow for a examination of legal responses to the crimes of the Cheney administration....
This Independant suffers no illusions regarding McFlipFlop the neo-Neocon nor does he have any respect for the denial pattern of HRC. The simple fact is that she isn't accountable for what she says and does and accountability, personal responsibility matters to me. If she turned her vote issue around and said "I trusted the President to do what he said and he lied to us all - my bad." I might think differently of her but she didn't.
Obama is the only choice left since I would rather vote for a maggot than vote GOP - not to cast negatives on either maggots or Obama.
I have to wonder how things would have gone for HRC if her husband had taken a two year trip to Port Douglas (a favorite town of his - his pics of his partying are posted there). I wonder if she would have done anything differently or simply self destructed sooner.
No matter, now... but its is a mistake to think that Independants find anything attractive about McCain - especially since he has climbed into bed with the neofascists.
One of the primary reasons that I won't vote GOP at this point is that I don't want to see a pardon for Cheney and co if the Dems ever decide to grow a spine and do something more substantial than threaten to think about proposing a discussion about a possible agreement on exploring the idea of maybe voting on whether or not to review the record and decide if, maybe, a committee meeting should be held to ask the GOP if they might allow for a examination of legal responses to the crimes of the Cheney administration....
McCain and Obama both visited my area recently. Obama drew a crowd of 18,000. McCain drew 150. Both events were open to the public.
I grow weary of the idea that the Republicans have magical powers and that they can do a few incantations and all of a sudden we're all going to be like, "Oh yeah, hope sucks--everything is great just like it is. Staying in Iraq 10,000 years is a good idea. Maybe I don't care about abortion rights or a reactionary supreme court."
How dare he challenge Clinton. Unforgivable. We should have just skipped the whole "election" thing. Pesky voters.
I married a narcissist named Russell,stayed with him for eight years because I kept believing the spin. Finally, when I divorced him, my sister and I starting calling his strange and powerful world Russellland.
A few days ago, I read that Senator Clinton's world is called Hillaryland. Your post helps make the similarities clear.
But let's not forget. Clinton is the "underdog candidate." So we should feel sorry for her and vote for her.... oh -- and donate to her campaign.
This is major problem I have with the Clintons, that tinge (or more) of dishonesty underlining everything they say and do.
When asked to name a weakness she said she is too passionate and believes too strongly.
When she had a genuine moment in NH she quickly spun it into "some people are more prepared than others..."
She deliberately distorted what Obama said about Reagan (even when it turned out she had even more fulsome praise about him). She/They spin and spin and spin.
Now we ought to be asking about her vaunted managerial skills. You know, we need a hands-on President who is going to manage all aspects of the Government. Turns out she cannot even manage her own campaign. No money, no wins, more excuses, borrowing money and on and on.
Oh so correct, Alaska is much more important than that meaningless Florida state. LOL
"Not a day goes by in the thick of this campaign when we don't ask ourselves: do her press people and assorted endorsers really think we're that stupid? Yes, they do ..."
This has been the most surprising aspect of the Clinton campaign thus far ... I'm not surprised by spin, I mean that's the name of the game. But the frequent clumsiness of the spin, the assumption that we'll find such transparently inaccurate statements as fact, seems both amateurish and insulting.
Here comes the sports analogy: Team Hillary is used to playing with a lead, and they haven't adjusted their game plan on the fly very well as the game has tightened up. You expect better from a veteran team.
Here's another sports strategy - Nobody cares about excuses, we lost the game because we dropped the ball. Period.
You are exactly right !
Posted February 11, 2008 | 02:02 PM (EST)