Hillary, We're Just Not That Into You
With her campaign in tatters and her husband becoming unhinged, it is time to get real with Hillary Clinton: she hasn't found a way to connect emotionally with us, let alone given us a reason to vote for her, and the cold, hard truth is that we are just not that into her.
We want to say it's nothing personal, but it is, and the Clintons have now progressed from denial to anger, as they realize that it's not going to happen. We were never in love, at least not with her, and now there's someone else, someone tall, young and male, and she can never be any of those things, as Bill so backhandedly put it.
And so now, she and Bill are lunging at Barack Obama and, by extension, at us, who have elevated him to this lofty place. The Clintons (it is increasingly clear that if we had gotten anything, it would have been two for the price of one--again) really thought they were going to sweep this thing as recently as two weeks ago, and are sick with resentment. Projecting his own inability to speak the truth, ever, Bill is accusing Obama of lying about his position on the Iraq war, twisting the Illinois Senator's quotes to torturous and credibility-defying lengths, for a laughably ineffective result. Hillary's voice-cracking episode may or may not be real, but what was undeniably real was the steely reminder seconds later that "some of us are ready [to be President], some of us are not." Now how's that for not losing sight of your talking points (presuming she meant she was the one who was ready)?
The contrast with another New York loser, Rudy Giuliani, could not be greater: the notoriously volatile former mayor appears to be maintaining his cool, even looking serene, if completely disorganized, and still dead wrong on everything. Perhaps, it is because he has had more time to get used to the idea of a defeat, as his poll numbers started crashing in November, at first state-by-state, then nationally. However, with an average of about 5% of the votes in the first three contests (just above Duncan Hunter; you may not have heard of him, but he's still running), the humiliation in store for him may be more acute than expected
Clinton and Giuliani have this in common, though: they have little choice but to bet heavily on their respective performances in Florida, where nothing short of a spectacular win will be enough to reestablish their credibility.
The difficulty is that each of them had a far better shot at a strong performance in the seemingly made-to-measure New Hampshire primary than in Florida, where no fewer than three Democrats and five Republicans have a plausible shot at a victory or a strong second place.
Giuliani could convincingly say that he skipped Iowa because his moderate social positions were anathema to evangelist voters' (he was right, as 60% of them showed up in the Republican primary and mostly voted for Mike Huckabee). But New Hampshire? Some of the most libertarian Republicans East of Arizona? Where abortion and same-sex unions matter about as much as earthquake insurance? The truth is, of course, that Giuliani did try to win (spending millions of dollars in the process), but it was just too difficult for the battle-hardened Hero of 9/11 to compete with three old men, a flip-flopping Mormon, and a former Baptist preacher.
Why would it be any easier in Florida? John McCain, fresh off his strong New Hampshire performance, is at least as big a threat there as in the Northeast. Mitt Romney's campaign is near-death, except in one major respect: he has instant access to tens of millions of dollars of his own fortune to spend as he sees fit (not done him much good so far, but without the financial investment, he would have probably finished dead last in Iowa). Huckabee has a built-in audience of religious conservatives, especially in Central and Northern Florida that could comfortably propel him to first place in a crowded field. Hell, if he's still in the race, even Fred Thompson could make one last, unlikely stand in the state: Iowa and New Hampshire have kept him alive (despite what his physical appearance may suggest), and South Carolina could provide a minor boost.
Clinton isn't facing as many rivals, but those she is competing with are fierce. That said, Florida has a closed primary, a huge over-65 crowd and a disproportionately female Democratic primary voter pool, making the state about as Hillary-friendly as it's going to get from now on. Clinton, though, has a growing problem with African-Americans, young people and John Edwards, all of whom could further sink her candidacy.
Disenfranchising African-American voters, including her few remaining supporters, by skipping South Carolina as she looks likely to do, and heaping inappropriate attacks on Obama will not endear her to the black electorate, who makes up about 20-25% of Democrats in Florida and a significant proportion in many other states. And Bill, demonstrating clearly that he does not care what happens at this point, is working overtime to make sure that people realize he was never the first black President (every day that characterization looks more absurd). Bitter, inconsistent, disorganized criticism of Obama, a man that many young people seem to be adulating, will just make the kids more intent and fuel what could easily become Clinton-hatred. As for Clinton's Edwards problem: the former hedge-fund investor doesn't seem to be wanting to go anywhere and in many states (Florida for one, I would say) he'll be taking more votes from her than from Obama (the Edwards campaign must think so, at any rate, judging by his ganging up with Obama against her).
It is a dreadful position Hillary Clinton finds herself in, but it is one that she, her husband and her campaign are accountable for, as much as Giuliani is responsible for his own strategic miscalculations.
Of course, the Clintons have gone to extreme lengths before to gain, hold onto and consolidate power, and they are likely to do so now. Exactly what that will involve is anyone's guess, but if they engage in a successful scorched Obama strategy, it will define once and for all what a pyrrhic victory is: how many of Obama's enthusiastic, cultish followers will turn up in November and vote for the person who took him down? And does Hillary really think that if she beats up our new man, we'll be more likely to get back together with her?
Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins
Loading comments…
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
You are SO wrong, so very very wrong.
Senator Clinton can and will win.
Mr. Jenkins --
Excellent post! Especially the ending comment about HC's trashing of Obama as being a pyrric victory.
It just proves to me, an Independent, that maybe the right-wingers aren't so wrong afterall about the Clintons' penchant for nastiness. They (the Hannities & O'Riellies & Limbaughs of the world) should know -- they are the masters of the art of dirty politics, aren't they?
the former hedge-fund investor
Nice, because that's what he's done all his life. What a low blow. You really show your bias with this one.
Dear Paul Jenkins,
Be careful. The egg on your face will have you resembling Chris Matthews and Tim Russert very soon.
Go Hillary!!!
Why don't you political reporters try to do a better job? You over-dramatize everything and it leads to stupid reporting, like declaring Hilary dead after a few Iowan dirt farmers didn't vote for her.
Since we're all clamoring for change . . . this ridiculous article is exactly the kind of nonsense I want changed.
In light of Clinton's win in New Hampshire, this presumptuous BS about females and African-Americans and evangelist voters is absurd and actually quite insulting.
As for questions about dispirited and disappointed Black folks -- we'll manage just fine. We've faced plenty of disappointments and the spirit can withstand an Obama loss.
It's the very White folks in Iowa that appear to be the problem. Instead of a US election, they think this is American Idol.
And I want to know how many of Obama's "enthusiastic, cultish followers" will turn up in November to vote at all?
How many jokers are there going to be in the deck? Cause these folks would just as soon vote for Obama as Ron Paul.
Enjoying your crow???
Molly Ivins said it best two years ago when she wrote - I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton For President http://www
It seems like this person who wrote this article was incorrect. Too bad! ha ha
It just proves that the real thinkers that know she is the best candidate won out.
Establishment, non establishment whatever.
She clearly is the best suited person for this presidential position at this day and age.
As for how far off the New Hampshire polls were, has anyone cosidered the subtle racist "Bradley effect?" Anyone old enough to remember what this is?
What's this still doing up on HuffPo? There's no need to rub the noses of Clinton haters in their own do-do.
Take a positive approach. Just look at the huge, and I mean huge, boost given to Hillary by her loss in Iowa. Going in, had there been no serious opposition, the campaign would have struck no sparks. But to beat Obama in NH after his "bump" from Iowa and all the grossed out polling in his favor makes Hillary look ten times the more powerful candidate.
Thanks to Barack!
Perhaps you should have written your blog AFTER the New Hampshire Primary. Everyone I know will be voting for Hillary.
Hillary wins New Hampshire. YES YES YES
"Hillary: we're just not that into you"?
Seems the voters of New Hampshire are.
I think you should change to first person singular. It looks like your opinion isn't shared by everyone.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
