We can all thank Senator Clinton when John McCain wins the election in November. The Democrats probably will not have a nominee until June. Meanwhile Senator McCain and the Republicans will raise tons of money and will no longer care whether Senators Obama and Clinton agree to public financing. The Republicans will rally around their man in November, while many Obama supporters, especially young voters and African-Americans might opt to stay home instead of voting for Senator Clinton should she steal the nomination by convincing the DNC to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Add this to the fact that Clinton's campaign is largely negative and helped by false rumors, and cowboys in Texas and farmers in Ohio who are afraid of a terrorist attacks on their ranches. Its too bad Edwards dropped out.
The Comeback Kid: Hillary Clinton Does a McCain
Everyone is trying to scramble to explain Hillary Clinton's turnaround tonight. Negative campaigning. Aggressivness. Elbow grease. NAFTA. Rezko. Saturday Night Live. Lots of stuff.
But the bottom line is that Barack Obama's campaign had some air let out of the balloon this week by a media that began to feel guilty for imbalanced coverage of the two. And Obama's folks lost control of the agenda-setting function that a frontrunner usually has.
After the Wisconsin debate, I thought that Clinton had begun to acquiesce to Obama's surge. Many on her campaign -- at high levels -- thought this was the case as well. And what I thought was taking place after was a "negotiation" for what the role of the Clinton franchise would be.
That is now a dead narrative. Clinton is back and wants to win. Obama still has a magic aura, but it is a bit more tarnished this week than last.
And the bottom line tonight -- despite the fact that Obama won Vermont and that Texas is so close and the caucus process so mismanaged that it's hard not to believe that a recount won't be demanded -- is that Hillary Clinton "did a McCain" tonight -- and she's back in the race. . .big time.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
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
How can this country bear eight more years of a Clinton? How? I would expound further, butI am so frustrated that people don't see what this woman is REALLY all about.
sam
Hillary does a McCain? More like Hillary does a Huckabee. The delegate math does not change. Obama came from way, way behind to make two states competitive that had been in the Clinton bank. He fell short of closing the deal, but it does not alter the trajectory of his campaign.
And now we hear the Clinton supporters heralding another great victory, like Florida, or even more tacky, Michigan. A great victory achieved by last minute negative campaigning that precluded a news cycle to inspect them. Clever, but nothing of substance.
The Clinton campaign today maintained that "the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun." The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.
In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton"s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.
The Clinton campaign has said that they have released copious amounts of financial information but there are many questions about their private dealings that could be answered in their tax returns but not in the information that is currently available. For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:
Effective tax rate " including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made
Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too "busy" to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why.
The Clintons" record on releasing tax returns:
FEBRUARY 2008: Clinton Reiterated That She Would Not Release Her Tax Records Until She Is The Nominee
What turnaround? What comeback? She's been polling very well in those states for a long time. There's a reason the Clinton campaign viewed Texas and Ohio as firewall states. She's had strong support there for quite some time, and that support held up.
You're embracing the media-created storyline.
I never doubted she wanted to win. She was absolutely terrific, in spite of the press essentially writing her obituary before the voters logged in.
It was a great lesson for a great many pundits.
Stop navel-gazing. The Voters get the last word.
The ONLY reason why Clinton retained her lead and won in Ohio and Texas is because of the concerted effort by the media. They used the guise of Hillary's criticism to go after Obama non-stop. I will give Clinton this: she knows how to play the media and because it buys into their own biases it makes it that much easier. Consider this: Obama, whom most of us only became aware of in 2004 took on this mighty Clinton Machine with all of the party's might behind it and won 12 straight victories, he ran a picture perfect campaign, he didn't go negative, he had young people and old people re-engaged in the political process, there was no rancor in his campaign what was there to criticize him for in the media? Why should press go after him. On the other hand, Clinton with her name recognition and the party establishment behind her, lost States which she was leading in forever, squandered her money, had to "loan" her campaign her money, fired staff members, refused to publish her tax returns, has that whole situation with her husband and his financial dealings hanging out there, had 12 losses in row, resorted to nasty, negative campaigning and then complained that media was being unfair to her? Which campaign deserved scrutiny?
And think just how unfair the Media has been to Obama. They took Clinton's talking points and ran with them without investigation. I have never seen a lazier, more yellow-bellied group of people in my life. Take Obama's "present" votes in Illinois. How hard is it for the press see whether it is as Obama has said that using the "present" vote was a device to correct a bill or to signal that it needs more work. How hard is that? Rather than continuing to repeat that Hillary lie? The Rezko situation: No one is suggesting that Obama did anything wrong so why - especially after all we know about the Clintons and there dealings - is being tarnished like this. (And some-one should check what behind the scenes maneuvering made it possible for his trial to held just now). Is this guilt by association? And does it apply to everybody or just to Obama? The Canadian/Nafta deal,: Why would the press allowed itself to be used by the Clintons like this? Why?
I concur. Obama ran an almost perfect campaign - no infighting, no firings, etc. What was there for the media to report except what was actually happening in his campaign. But the Clinton campaign has all of the occurrences going on that needed to be reported. So what happened - they blamed the media for reporting what was going on in their campaign. Many of us out here are thinking, breathing adults who see what the Clintons are doing. If you have to go negative to get a vote that will make your job harder when you do get what you want. Does Clinton want her presidency to be 50.9%. She will not be able to get any thing done without resorting to lies and misinformation. If she does not believe it just ask Bush.
Our media is in a sad state. They only run after rabid dogs. Remember if it bleeds, it leads.
Hey Kids, which corporate-picked candidate do you support? Be the first on your block to ....
Let's face it, this whole contest is a lot like rooting for a major league sports franchise. But who picks and pays for the players? Which NFL team gets the best quarterback out of college? In ancient Rome, the emperors ruled unopposed by providing "bread and circuses" to feed and entertain the masses.
This is not a deliberative grassroots process where we pick the best leader. This is a competition among powerful corporate interests that groom candidates to represent their interests. Top-down media campaigns are launched to enhance corporate bottom lines. The candidates are showcased in info-tainment events held by Meet the (Corporate) Press, the Corporate News Network (CNN), etc.
Where did the relatively unknown Barack Obama get the money to launch his leap into the national spotlight? George Soros money? How did Bill and Hillary Clinton emerge? Wal-Mart and Tyson Chicken? John McCain?
Americans are no longer known as citizens, but as consumers. And they are being treated like cattle in a mass feedlot.
What to do? Kill your TV. Take care of yourself. Workout. Eat right. Chop wood, carry water. Wake up.
"Magic" only endures in fairytales. Hopefully the magic will run its course very soon so that we can see the real Barack Obama without the magic. Because he's the guy who might be left standing at the end of all these contests. Started to see some hints at it last night when it was reported that he was busy, busy, busy lining up a "bloc" of superdelegates. In the meantime, we have "magic" as our guide. Maybe that explains why such a supposedly "positive" candidate has such a venom spewing following and still manages to make us believe it's "positive." Now that is magic. We had that in '68, too. It was Eugene McCarthy.
bit like a disfunctional family Xmas this moment, sorting out whether dem mum or repug dad gets to 'run things' next 4 years, was it ever any different? - what about a national unity ticket, the November election decides who is prez, veep
just kidding - but the country does face some biggish problems this moment
I think the results last night have dealt a severe blow to Obama's election hopes. Focusing on delegate counts is no longer the issue. The race will now almost certainly end up as a tie. A 50 or so delegate lead for either candidate when this is through is a distinct possibility and will hardly propel either candidate to the nomination. I think it will boil down to superdelegates looking at who won the popular vote and/or who did best among whites in swing states and from here on in and I think this favors Hillary.
Obama did alright considering what a bad week he had but he is too flat footed when mud is slung his way. His popularity may have plateaued just when he needs it most. He also has to significantly retool his message. His speeches are getting tired and repetitive. He needs to put forth more of a CEO type of image from time to time that includes more detailed plans on the economy.
But Obama is in a bind. He is under attack both from the Right and the Hillary camp and, as we now see, a media that feels it was too harsh on Hillary. But he cannot attack Hillary too hard. My gut tells me that he wants to keep the door to a vice-presidential nod from her open. If he attacks her to hard this door will close. Meanwhile, she is free to attack him at will because Obama will never give her the VP nod.
Obama's only hope is that Hillary's own record will get greater scrutiny and things like her tax returns will get more attention. But who will do it? The Right wants her to win so they will keep mum. The media has been cowed. Obama cannot dig the dirt himself because otherwise he risks doing damage to his future place within the party. The Clintons are really sitting pretty right now.
The real comeback kid is Obama even if he does lose the nomination. He has everything stacked against him. He is black and has 300 years of white phobia against black men to overcome. He has a Arabic sounding name. His father was a foreigner. He has no former president with wealth of political connections to rely upon. He has taken unpopular positions on issues that have turned out to be the right ones.
When I saw images of all of those African Americans lining up to vote in Texas, I felt a lump in my throat. For once in the history of America they had a candidate that truly reflected them, that simply didn't take their vote for granted. Someone that could demonstrate that America's views of Black people were finally really beginning to change. Unfortunately he was stopped by Saturday Night Live; by a racist radio talk show host; by a picture of him in African clothing; by false rumors that he is Muslim; by an incident with Canadian consular officials that pales in comparison to the corruption that takes place in Washington on a daily basis. Perhaps Obama is just too darn nice, too darn ethical, and just too darn black to become president. The dream was nice while it lasted and I pray that I am wrong.
You think, I take it, that it was all about race?
I don't think I agree there.
Race was definitely a part of it in Ohio. I had a spanish girl friend who lived there for a time and she never saw a more backwards, more inbred, racist place. She saw one black family in the entire town. Race isn't the only factor. Slimy negative ads by Hillary scaring people with little babies at 3am also had something to do with it. The part that makes me laugh is she has run a fearmongering, race baiting, character assassination campaign and she's still behind in the popular vote, delegates, states won and money raised. Hillary's big night and she's still losing!!!
Obama/Webb '08!!!!!
Though the Republicans will never admit it, both Hillary and Obama are running a great campaign, and setting an example for future generations. Of course occasionally one camp or the other lets the more virulent wing slip through the cracks and run a negative ad or make a vicious sound bite directed against the other. This sets the Republicans drooling and assuming the two will destroy each other. But no one can honestly fault either campaign or campaigner for more than a few minor slip ups in a long run for the presidency.
You can tell they like each other, and we can only hope that both will team up and work together to get us out of the Bush Mess we face for years to come. Whether as running mates or merely as colleagues, this country will be well served by either or both. I prefer Hillary .... first. Obama can gather some experience and take over after Hillary has made her mark.
Actually I've always felt that Hillary disliked Obama and resented him. She's been so mean, whining and snarky to him. When Evan Bayh endorsed her late last year I got the feeling that he was her pick for vp. I don't think Hillary wants Obama on the ticket, just that if she wins that she will be FORCED to have him on. He's too strong of a challenger and it might be the only way to unite the party. I personally won't vote for any ticket that has Hillary on it. I'm tired of holding my nose when i vote.
Look, the support for Hillary and Obama has always been split. Obama was behind because people were afraid to vote for him because he couldn't win. So when he hung in there, got more press, etc, he surged. It was an honest surge by the America people. But primary battles are not one day, they go on and on and on....there is time between states voting to reconsider your initial passion. People love the optimision, change and hope of the Obama campaign. But they may be starting to feel afraid (or realize) that it's just that - a campaign. There's no guarantee what shiny product they think they're buying will actually appear in the presidency. He's a question mark. Hillary, despite being a lot of things, is not a question mark. Lately, she's been a better candidate. Not by going negative, quite the opposite. She's running as an underdog now, her strong suite. She appeared on SNL. She shut up Bill. She started clarifying her campaign as not an "also change" campaign, but as plain old experience. She can't out-change Obama, and I think she's realized that now. She describes herself now as a "doer," and perhaps she is. She's also stronger on health care policy. As far as Nafta, it wasn't hers, it was Bills, and Bill is muzzled now. And yes, she's talking about foreign policy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and terrorism. Why shouldn't she. She's got the grey hairs and the political experience,so why isn't it fair to say she's ready on day one? What else is she going to run on? This is going to be a long fight. And anyone who says that it's not a problem that Florida and Michigan don't get to vote is deluding themselves. It's a problem. I live in Florida. My vote didn't count. Florida is a huge, important state, and believe me this will come up before the convention and they will have to decide what to do. Despite what Obama supporters believe, there is no mandate for Obama. Democrats are pretty evenly divided.
ELECTION FRAUD.
MI Prim. Voter
Charlie Black, the republican lobbyist who works for McCain, works for the company that just put in a several billion dollar bid to buy Diebold. You know...the voting machine company. Now why would a company want to pay more for a company than it is worth, months before an election? And why would Charlie Black be allowed to remain part of the McCain team?
I agree, the 3 AM ad is NOT negative. A truly negative ad would be one that goes something like this:
"Candidates are judged by the company they keep." With a nice smiling still shot of O'Bambi in the middle and one of his pastor's favorite guy Louis Farrakahn on one side and Rezko on the other.
There's the ad I would run if I wanted to go all negative. Those are the questions he fumbles.
Hillary's BIG wins last night? More due to things like her very POSITIVE "SOLUTIONS for AMERICA" which emphasizes the fact that only SHE is now talking about how to fix things ... while Pander Bear O'Bambi just keeps on talking about "Hope" (which he cribbed from Bill Clinton's campaigns, when Bill was BORN in HOPE, Arkansas!) And "change" ... which he doesn't define with specifics ... change can be two cents on the dollar, just a couple of copper pennies, not worth much of anything.
I agree. I think people voted for her precisely for the reasons I'm attracted to her more. It's the Solutins thing.
I want meat and potatoes. We have a lot of work to do to rebuild this country.
Well, she's always had strong support in those states, so there's really no big story here.
We do have a lot of work to do to rebuild this country. Hillary is all smoke and mirrors.
One could very easily devise such an ad against Hillary, but there would be a lot more bad people in the picture. But this is all academic, as Obama has an insurmountable lead, barring some unforseen development, even if MI and FL hold new primaries.
These primaries have gone from an embarrasment of riches to just plain embarrasing.
The 3AM ad is a fear mongering ad and that's why it's negative. It plays directly to people's anxieties about imaginary events. You can spin all day long that it's not negative, but it most certainly is. What's going to be interesting is that if Hillary pulls this off and ends up being the nominee, John McCain is going to run the same ad against her. And then you can come back and tell us all how positive that is.
Actually, Hillary has a lot of experience taking phone calls at 3 a.m. Bill calling from the strip club, Bill calling on the way back from his girlfriend's house, Bill's girlfriends calling to harass her...
I disagree. I'm glad the ad ran. It asked a question that seriously needs to be answered. Let each candidate present why he/she is best equipped to answer that 3 AM phone call.
Let's say the 3AM ad IS negative. You don't call Obama's Washington is broken "negative"? If Washington is so broken, why did he become a Senator? If he is so against establishment, why would he seek endorsement from the longest running political dynasty in American history? Ron Paul is about change, Kucinich is about change, even Gravel is about change. Obama? He is just a charismatic politician taking advantage the timing.
Let's see, Woody. What could that 3AM call be all about? You obviously jump to the conclusion that it is all about terrorism. Drank that boooshie-kool-aid, didya? As for many of us, we see it as being about levees breaking in Louisiana and people needing immediate help. Or an outbreak of avian flu that has just been diagnosed. This ad hoa no bombs or anything other than children sleeping peacefully ... assured that the WOMAN in the White House is prepared to deal with anything and everything on her plate.
That is not about FEAR ... it is about COMPETENCE to deal with urgent situations. I TRUST Hillary to deal with those types of issues. She'd have it resolved while Bambi was still trying to get someone to hand him a position paper about it. I'd trust him to handle it about the same way ol booooshie did.
Cut and paste speeches wont work on dictators. Obamas nasty followers would do more damage to our world standing than Bush has done
Democrats are waking up to Obamas lack of experience and stage craft. He cant even take the heat about Rezko or his NAFTA faux pas. How is this guy going to deal with a Chavez type or a Putin type. Running for the White house after only one year in the Senate was a mistake. The critical issues are not that simplistic and leaning on advisors to cover for lack of experiences is a mistake.
.
I agree. Obama is making a mistake. He's not ready, he's being ill-advised. It's not his time, YET.
You can't win an election on a campaign of "hope". I think the 3 a.m. ad is actually valid. It's a very real fear. He has ZERO experience! Get a grip people.
Posted March 4, 2008 | 11:49 PM (EST)