How Much Damage Will Clinton Do Before She Folds?

In the wake of ten straight losses, Clinton's going to need some miracles to win, and Mike Huckabee's already ahead of her in line for divine intervention. But the question is how much damage she'll do to Obama and the Democratic chances before she quits.

If the fight goes to the convention, we know the answer: Unless she totally routs Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, her sole remaining path to the nomination depends on convincing the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters, and convincing the credentials committee to honor the problematic Michigan and Florida elections. So she'll have to practically destroy the party to save it, or more accurately to save herself. Assuming a possible breaking sex scandal doesn't bring down McCain, he already beats Clinton by 12 points in the latest poll, while Obama defeats him by 7. If the young voters, independents, and African Americans who Obama's enlisted in droves stay home in disgust come November, Clinton's chances would be slim to none.

But she still can do real damage to Obama with her negative attacks in the remaining primaries, particularly in swing states like Ohio. Recent match-ups show Obama a solid victor in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon, and dead even in Ohio, while Clinton goes down to defeat in all of them. But depending on how negative she gets and how long the primary battle continues, she could cost the Democrats the election by forcing Obama to spend his time responding to an endless succession of petty attacks, and by giving the Republicans ready-made talking points, like Hillary's comment that only "one of us is ready to be commander in chief."

The potential damage is magnified if you count Clinton's surrogates. At the Youngstown, Ohio rally following Clinton's Wisconsin defeat, International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." That's despicable rhetoric, echoing the worst Limbaugh/Fox myths about limousine liberals, while it dismisses the majority of union members who just backed Obama in the Wisconsin and Virginia primaries, or the members of unions like SEIU, The Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers, who just endorsed him. It also happens to totally steal its language from the sleazy "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading" anti-Howard Dean ads of the right-wing Club For Growth, that helped give us the disastrous candidacy of John Kerry.

If repeated enough, though, those myths have the potential to stick. Clinton supporters have just created a new "527" political committee, which while technically independent and issue-oriented, is explicitly designed to allow Hillary supporters to evade the standard $2300 donation limits. The group aims to get contributions of $100,000 or more from as many as 100 Hillary donors, so they can pour $10 million in ads into the next round of critical races. Whether or not this is legal, and that's arguable, no other candidate has done anything remotely similar in this election. And since the ads have no checks of accountability, they'll be as nasty as their backers decide.

Between Clinton's actions and those of her surrogates, they might just stigmatize Obama so much that some of her supporters stay home in November, instead of voting for him. They'll also encourage Republicans and independents who've been crossing over to support Obama do the same, or even vote for McCain despite his embrace of Bush's disastrous policies. I think Obama will still win, so long as his supporters do everything possible to make that happen. But Hillary's attacks will plant the seeds of doubts. And these will diminish the magnitude of Obama's likely victory just enough to make far harder for him to pass the major changes we need.

Clinton's attacks could also make a difference in down-ticket races. Right now, Obama mobilizes huge new constituencies that could elect a wave of new Democratic Senators, Congressional representatives, governors and legislators. But if Clinton manages to damage his appeal sufficiently, he will become far less of an asset even if he still wins. Plus the longer she remains in the race, the more he has to spend money responding to petty attack ads like one in Wisconsin where she accused him of avoiding debates, although he'd already participated in 18 and had two more coming up. It also means, as Tom Edsdall has pointed out, that the Democratic National Committee risks getting so starved of cash because it's all getting diverted to the nomination fights, that the DNC can't develop the critical grassroots infrastructure to implement its 50-state strategy.

Hillary may give up if she fares poorly in Ohio and Texas. Bill intimated recently that she had to win both or she was likely done. But she's talked of fighting all the way to the convention, as have her key strategists, so it's at least possible that she could keep the race in limbo until less than 10 weeks before the November election, making it far harder for Obama to focus on defeating McCain.

One solution, ironically, could come from the superdelegates. They were established originally as a conservative force in the Democratic Party, a bulwark against grassroots insurgencies like McGovern. In 1984, they actually handed the nomination to Walter Mondale, for his disastrous candidacy, despite Gary Hart's lead in elected delegates. But they also have an ostensible mandate to consider the Party's greater good, and if they acted in this fashion, they could play a key constructive role.

Suppose a critical mass of superdelegates did what 400,000 petition-signers asked them to do in a MoveOn/Democracy for America ad that just ran in USA Today -- and pledged to honor the will of the voters? Suppose they announced in advance that they'd support whichever candidate had more elected delegates going into the late August convention? Suppose they also came up with a joint solution to the Michigan and Florida mess, where these states lost their delegates by violating a Democratic Party agreement on when states could hold their primaries? It would be a travesty to validate their sham elections given that the candidates couldn't even campaign in Florida, that Obama and Edwards had pulled their names from Michigan ballot, and that Clinton herself told New Hampshire Public Radio that her staying on the Michigan ballot was irrelevant because Michigan's vote "is not going to count for anything."

But what if the superdelegates acted now, to make clear that they will not validate those two elections as they stand, and that they'll encourage their colleagues on the Credentials Committee to do the same? As an alternative, they could urge those two states to do what the DNC has already suggested, and rerun their elections as caucuses. Yes, this would cost some money and effort, but if the experience of the states that have held them is any guide, it would also offer a major chance for the party to mobilize and engage new supporters, and it would bring participants together in a way that reminded them of the values they shared in common. If the two state parties, both dominated by Clinton supporters, still refused to go along, the superdelegates could also offer the alternative of simply seating Clinton-Obama delegates 50-50, to make it a dead wash. But they need to make clear that Clinton won't be able to pull out a last-minute victory by gaming the rules.

Facing a relatively united bloc of precisely those superdelegates that Clinton still hopes to win, I suspect she'd be far more likely to quit, and do far less damage while still in the race. Key party elders like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are already working to ensure a convention process that pulls the Party together, rather than splitting it apart. They and others might play an additional role by speaking out against destructive negative campaigning (whether by Clinton or her surrogates), and making clear that if this goes too far, she will lose their support.

Were Hillary running less of a scorched-earth campaign, it could continue onto the convention without major damage. But she's pursued this approach from the moment Obama emerged as a serious challenger, and seems only to be reaffirming it more in recent weeks. That means that if Democrats really want to avoid a divisive fight, they'd do well to unite around Obama now. He just got the endorsement of the 6-million member Change to Win Coalition (and individual member unions like SEIU, the United Food and Commercial Workers, UNITE/HERE, and the Teamsters). The United Steel Workers, a national social justice leader, initially endorsed John Edwards, and will make a decision at their next board meeting. It's time for the other major industrial unions and progressive organizations to commit too, or to reconsider their earlier support for Clinton.

That's also true of prominent individuals, like Edwards. In fact, I originally supported him, and gave him more money than I ever had to any previous candidate. But it's now well overdue for him to encourage his supporters to back the legitimate inheritor of his quest for change. Maybe Clinton will still make an improbable comeback, but the longer she keeps campaigning, the more attacks and divisiveness we'll see. The more party leaders speak out to prevent this from happening, the less risk that she'll create lasting damage in her desperation to hold onto a prize that's now almost certainly slipped away.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Comments

[Marrob]

Yeah, yeah, yeah

[Lemeritus]

This is a political campaign for the highest office in the land, not a contess for homecoming queen. Why anyone would contend a viable candidate should step aside for "the good of the party" is beyond me. Did anyone suggest that Obama step aside after Super Tuesday -- maybe, but not here at the Huffington Post!

Mr. Loeb, you, at least, suggest the superdelegates "have an ostensible mandate to consider the Party's greater good, and if they acted in this fashion, they could play a key constructive role." In fact, superdelegates act as an antigen (of sorts) against a viral invasion of "sunshine liberals" -- as a lifelong Democrat, I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it, but I doubt very much the contest will reach the smoke-filled backrooms.

Chantng "the longer she keeps campaigning, the more attacks and divisiveness we'll see" is beginning to sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy. And just so ya' know -- it's damned divisive!

[OrcinusOrca]

> Did anyone suggest that Obama step aside after Super Tuesday <

Why should anyone? Obama won more delegates on Super Tuesday than Clinton (851 to 830)!

[PaulLoeb]

Primaries are intended to reveal legitimate differences, in programs, platform, history and style. That's all fine.

The problem is when one candidate, Clinton, has been running a campaign based significantly on personal attacks it then has the potential to undermine the party as a whole. That's particularly true, when her only viable strategy for victory, barring a massive Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania sweep, is to undercut the will of the Democratic voters with backroom maneuvering.

So if Clinton and her allies reigned in the gratuitous attacks and kept campaigning I'd be fine with it, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

[ColoradoAngryRU]

I would like to speak to Mr. Buffenbarger, and anyone else who seems to believe that Obama supporters are "spoiled rich kids." I am 61 years old. I have never gave money to a campaign before in my life, although I have been a lifelong democrat. I do not drink latte, I do not drive a Prius, I do not wear Birkenstocks, and I most certainly do not have a trust fund. I support Obama because he supports my desire for major change in the way business is done in Washington D. C. If you cannot understand that Hillary will bring more of the same old thing, provided she could beat Mc Cain, and according to all polls I have seen, she is not even close to that capability, then you best understand that supporting Hillary, will only bring you more of the same old things that have caused people like you to be so disgruntled. You cannot keep doing the same things over and over, with the expectation of the outcome being different. That is the definition of insanity. Furthermore, ranting and raving about Obama supporters as being some sort of spoiled rich kids, does the democratic party no favors and only harms the party in the long run.

[Tommymac]

I second your thoughts, ColoradoAngryRU. Good post.

[PaulLoeb]

Buffenbarger cribbing the talking points of the right wing Club for Growth really crosses an ethical line. If I were a member of the Machinist's Union, whose past presidents include amazingly courageous figures like William Winpisinger, I'd be thinking about a challenge to the leadership of my union.

Paul Loeb

[tkar]

I would also like to add that there is bound to be many Clinton-supporters -such as I- that would prefer to either stay @ home for this election, or if angry enough, actually vote for McCain. It is a big step to make since he's for the continuation of the war -but those against it have waited a long time already may reason that another in another four years, even the Republicans will be for ending it..

[tkar]

'Assuming a possible breaking sex scandal doesn't bring down McCain, he already beats Clinton by 12 points in the latest poll, while Obama defeats him by 7.'

-This is only if the election were held on the same day as when the poll was taken, there's a LOT of things that can change in time; this is true especially when the Republicans start the attacks on Obama in the Fall, painting him as a left-wing liberal out of touch w/mainstream America. It also depends on how he handles/responds to it. Poll numbers aren't engraved in stone. Hillary has been through this already, she is tested & ready for it

As for the Democratic party, I'd say they've done a lot of damage themselves -they don't need Hillary for that. The problem began when they stripped FL & MI of their delegates for holding their primaries 'too early..' What in the world were they thinking..? One wonders. If a majority of those voting, voted instead for 'Uncomitted' rather than for Hillary, Obama would be FOR counting those states. Anyway, it looks like he's on his way to the nomination, and the Dems are on their way to another loss in the Fall.

[kramskoi]

everyone keeps saying that she's been through this already but she has never faced a Republican in a general election for POTUS...a senate race where she faced cut-outs is a long way from a GE where the Republicans will bring everything to bear on the opposing candidate...

i watched a RNC event on c-span and i can assure you that they have a lot more ammo in store for Clinton than Obama...the speaker was nearly salivating at the thought of having her to face in the fall...

In the end, it does'nt matter if it's Obama or Clinton, the 527's will roll and the attacks will come, it's inevitable and should be expected...

every candidate agreed to the rules regarding MI and FL...circumvention of these rules midstream of the primary process reveals the means to which some will go to effect the ends...rules exist for a reason.

this reminds me of some chess players who agree to touch-move but have the audacity to ask for a takeback...i'm reminded of the following qoute:
"a man who'd take back a move would pick a pocket".

[PaulLoeb]

I agree that any polls now are to be taken with a major grain of salt, but a 19-point margin is huge. It ma also be true that the republican attack machine hasn't been focused on Hillary for seven years now, and that when they do, it will drive her numbers down still further. The point is that at this point, she starts way down in the hole, and Obama's numbers get better and better the more voters are exposed to him

[Plowboy]

I don't believe thaat Clinton will hurt Obama. When she went on the attack with the BS plasgiarism charge, she was booed. She isnn't as dimwitted as a certain current president I coluld mention, so she recognized that Obama had squelched that attack based on his use of two lines previously used by his friend, supporter and campaign co-chair. His statesmanlike and humorous call to end the "silly season" acyually gaqve him a win on that nonissue. Hillary had a few moments in the discussion but mainly thgey showed more agreement than difference. I believe his strongest point is being almost overlooked. That is his statement that in his administration programs like health care will be developed and discussed openly, rather than in backroom secrecy, so that not only can Congress but the public can see what is being done. Together with his distancing himself from lobbyists who have formedd such a large part of her monitary support, this should make him the winner on who can produce meaningful reform.
I think he should have hit harder on changing the mind set in Washington. She has been very much a part of what has been there, so that is a touchy thing for her.
Of course she remains unable to address successfully her votes for war on Iraq and for Kyl-Lieberman.
Her closing statemednt was a winner, but ironically in view of plagiarygate, the best line was taken without credit from John Edwards. But let's agree to leave the silly season behind us..

[kikiva]

No the question is: how much damage have you and the other anti-Clinton columnists (about 100% of this website) done to Democratic unity? The answer: quite a lot with your repeated, vicious and unfair attacks on Clinton. In fact, enough to make many otherwise life-long Democratic party voters such as myself thinking of sitting this election out.

[kempis]

When she does bow out--and gracefully--I wonder if all you stupid Clinton conspiracy theorists will apologize for speculating that she's selfishly evil enough to destroy her party's chances in November.

How old are you people? Do you think politics is really some sort of goddamned cartoon--Superhero v. Supervillain?

God, this campaign has finally succeeded in making me as disgusted with "progressives" as I am their psychological cousins, the "movement conservatives." It's all heroes and villains to you guys, isn't it?

[57andfemale]

If she doesn't destroy the party, we'd be happy to be totally generous. You seem to think we've made this stuff up: her own campaign (and Bill) has said repeatedly they would take this fight to the convention, regardless of popular vote and pledged delegates, taking credit for Michigan when she said on NH radio that the "votes didn't count for anything"; Mark Penn saying things like "Obama's negatives have only one way to go but "up". Last night was the first time she indicated that she wasn't willing and eager to take this bloody fight as far as it would take her, regardless of the consequences.

And no, we should not count Hillary out. I'm annoying at the conventional wisdom that is doing that in so close a race.

I think I speak for a lot of Democrats: at the beginning of 2008 we would have been happy with any of our candidates. I'm a 57 year old white female and I was keeping all of my options (and my mind) open. After Iowa, when I saw the dishonest mailer questioning Obama's pro-choice stand; her speech in New Hampshire where she pulled a Rovian trick that was in essence, "If you vote for the kid you're all going to die" in a terrorist "test", I sat up and took notice. I was appalled that the Clintons would be so eager to become what they said they hated. This was her knee-jerk response. She seems incapable of making her case for her presidency, no matter how many times she repeats it. And the thrust of the campaign has been to bloody another decent democrat instead of making positive claims about your own credentials. I never expected to see this, I never expected the Clintons to behave this way (see how naive I am).

There's a difference between fighting to win and fighting to destroy. I do not want that in my president.

[Lemeritus]

"If she doesn't destroy the party, we'd be happy to be totally generous."

Are you speaking on behalf of the party? Gee, I thought *I* was.

[kempis]

"You seem to think we've made this stuff up: her own campaign (and Bill) has said repeatedly they would take this fight to the convention, regardless of popular vote and pledged delegates,..."

No, they have not. This is the spin that Loeb and assorted other Obama-supporters have put on the Clintons' highly parsed remarks.

It is absolutely absurd to think that Hillary Clinton will take this fight to the convention. She won't. If she did, she could never win the general election, so why on earth would she do such a thing? People are not thinking this through, but we can be assured that Hillary and Bill Clinton have.

It's not the Clintons who are whipping up these insane Clinton Conspiracy Theories, the main purpose of which are to make Obama look even more lke a knight in shining armor.

Hillary Clinton will step down after March 4. And watch how she continues to be vilified by these morally superior Obama-supporters even then.

[PaulLoeb]

FYI, I'm 55 years old and have been active in Democratic and progrssive politics since age 14. And I've made clear in practically every piece I've written that I would support whoever is the Democratic nominee. But there are real issues to be raised about her approach to politics (and Bill's), and I think it's important that people raise them.

I hope Clinton bows out gracefully and works for Obama's election. I know that he would have done the reverse had she been the one to get the nomination.

[Pyrum]

What I don't understand is why so many people are so damned certain Hillary will fold. The race isn't even close to being over yet.

[kempis]

No, it really is. I think Hillary would be a far better president, but there's no way she can compete against "Obamamo." He'll win Texas and possibly Ohio, and then that will be it.

But I'm sure these fine, idealistic, and morally-superior Obama-supporters will still find a way to kick Hillary around long after she concedes.

[Chewelahboy]

Let's take a look again at the facts. If the results of the campaign thus far mean anything, and I would argue that they mean everything, then Obama's string of victories, his delegate lead and his momentum suggest that the Clinton strategy to attack, to not worry about or care how they win has resulted in a strong, very effective, very motiviated Obama campaign that's more than ready to crush any Republican offered as a sacrifice in November.

Also, I believe that Senator Clinton indicated in the debate this evening that she has has no intention of continuing to run a "scorched-earth campaign".

Let's hope the basis for unity that we saw this evening continues to build in the weeks ahead.

[desmirl]

Listen to the kind of thing Clinton surrogates are spouting. Hilary started out as a "Goldwater Girl" and she hasn't changed her stripes--just gone stealth with her real feellings. If anyone can destroy the Democrat Party in the United States, 'She's your girl!" Hilary -- Stealth Republican and Warmonger.

[texanna]

I think if he can't stand the heat from the Clinton campaign, he'd better get out now, because the Rethugs are REALLY going to be tough. Truman had a pretty good piece of advice here, I think "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." He's either tough enough or not, but Sen. Clinton continuing her campaign isn't going to be his downfall. In fact, since he's never really had a tough campaign, Clinton continuing her run could be helpful to him. Otherwise, he might start to believe all those press clippings from the fawing media and be caught by surprise in the general election when Republicans really go at him.

[BoJaker]

You miss the point. Dems are turning out in record numbers in response to 8+ years of divisive politics. Clinton risks sinking the WHOLE PARTY in November if she increases her negative campaigning. Attack campaigning is a scorched earth tactic, it diminishes both candidates. It's a long shot, and Hillary will only be reducing BOTH their chances in November by creating bad press around the Democratic campaign while the Republicans are able to present their lies unchallenged. It also has the effect of increasing apathy in the voting population, especially during a primary. I'm guessing that's her goal since the passion isn't on her side, but that apathy will carry on to November and make it that much more difficult for a Democrat to win.

[Ides]

To use another kitchen metaphor: "The dishes are done."

[ladydriver]

Barack Obama has not only withstood the "heat" from Hillary's kitchen, he's done so with class. He's plenty tough enough.

Mrs. Clinton needs to put aside her personal ambitions and do what is in the best interest of the Democrats and the nation.

Clinton supporters should accept that Bill's not getting a third term, and focus on keeping McCain giving "W" another one. I'm not saying this to be nasty or sarcastic. I think Bill Clinton was a great president.

I think something both Obama and Clinton supporters can agree upon is that our nation can't take much more of the politics according to the Republican agenda.

I originally supported John Edwards. If he was still in the race, I would still be supporting him. But, we are down to reality here, and we need to look at which one of our options is the most likely to unite our people and defeat McCain. Clearly, that person is Barack Obama.

I ask Hillary's supporters to go to www.barackobama.com and look at his positions and plans for this country. You will see that he can take us where we need to be. He has the integrity, and passion, and strength to do it.

It's time to circle the wagons folks, and start paying attention to what we need in November!

[Plowboy]

I like JohnEdwards and berlieve that he coulod be a great Attorney General, but my favorite was Richardson whom I hope will get the VP slot. He was actually the most qualified candidate in many ways. But Obama is more inspiring. And before anyone starts trying to belittle that, we should recall the presidency of FDR. He was not a great thinker, but he was good at surrounding himself with competent people and allowing them to work. His most important contribution was his ability to inspire us to united action, and to put fear aside and believe in ourselves. By the way, I was pleased that one of my all time favorite people, Barbara Jordan, received proper recognitioinn in Austin last night. I can't predict Texas verey well. I can't understand a state that could replace the wonderful Ann Richards with George Worthlessness Bush.
But I also cannot explain how, after his destructive undoing of her work, to turn a state budget surplus he inherited from her into a big and growing deficit, etc., even with that Monopoly Spoiled Media (MSM) he could given the chance to do the same to the nation as a whole. Probably "it was (Bill) Clinton's fault." He gave the slime slingers their chance. (In recent times, have the Republicans won anything without such Rovianism?)

[patriotscholar]

I'm not so sure that Hillary really cares about damage to the party. She seems to be more concerned about herself. Time will tell.

[Tommymac]

Agreed

[vbond]

Excellent post, Paul.

Just one thing, though.

As I have long advocated here, barring a "re-do" in each state, the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated in a "dead wash".

"If the two state parties, both dominated by Clinton supporters, still refused to go along, the superdelegates could also offer the alternative of simply seating Clinton-Obama delegates 50-50, to make it a dead wash."

But "50-50" would only be a "wash" if this was the actual proportion of pledged delegate distribution, and if Clinton and Obama were the only active candidacies left (which means that Edwards' delegates would have to have been allocated by the convention, or it would be a three-way proportional split).

Make sense?

[Nommo]

She is headed towards the dustbin of history.