Hillary's Gettysburg

I am keenly aware of historical ironies whereby would-be conquerors are destroyed from within by those who overreach as a result of their desire to attain their objective. The examples are endless: the needless expansion of the Roman empire to untenable proportions; Napoleon in Russia; the Nazis in Russia; the Japanese at Midway, General Custer at Little Big Horn, etc.

One of my favorite examples is the Confederates at Gettysburg. The reader will recall that in 1863, the seemingly invincible Army of Northern Virginia invades the North, crossing into Pennsylvania in an effort to bring about a decisive conflict that will end the war. By sheer accident, the battle is joined when the Confederates, operating blind due to the absence of their cavalry, blunder into their Union counterparts near the small railroad junction of Gettysburg. After two days of heavy fighting, General Lee, who up until that point in the war had conducted a brilliant campaign with substantially less men and materiel, makes the decisive blunder of the war by sending General Pickett's division across over a mile of open ground, right into the teeth of a Union line that is entrenched on high ground. The result is a massacre that, along with the surrender of the besieged garrison at Vicksburg, Mississippi a day later to U.S. Grant, breaks the back of the Confederacy.

Since "Junior Tuesday" did not prove decisive for the Democrats, those who have been following this lengthy nominating contest must be wondering just what it will take to break the Hillary campaign. Although she must now capture something on the order of 64% of all remaining delegates to win the nomination, she refuses to admit the hopelessness of her cause, petulantly continuing to wage a selfish, unwarranted "scorched earth" campaign that, instead of clearing her way to the nomination, will instead leave the Democratic Party's November aspirations in ashes. Given her slim chance to overtake Senator Obama in the delegate count, at least by above-board means, she has clearly put her own ambitions ahead of the best interests of the Democratic Party and the country that she aspires to serve as Chief Executive.

However, Ms. Clinton may have finally dealt her own campaign a potentially fatal blow by in effect endorsing racially charged comments made by campaign fundraiser and former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro. Mrs. Ferraro had this to say about Obama's candidacy:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

When confronted with these remarks by the press, Mrs. Ferraro refused to back down, suggesting that she in turn was being discriminated against because she is white.

Two things are notable here. The first is that although Mrs. Clinton superficially distanced herself from these remarks with a few empty platitudes, she refused to sever ties with Mrs. Ferarro. As noted by Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman on Tuesday's (3/11) edition of Countdown, in effect Mrs. Clinton is signaling her tacit approval of these remarks by failing to take more decisive action. By contrast, the reader will also recall that 1) at a recent debate, Mrs. Clinton insisted that rejecting" Minister Farakhan's support wasn't enough - Mr. Obama must "denounce" it; and 2) Samantha Powers was promptly removed from the Obama campaign after stating that Mrs. Clinton was a "monster."

The second issue follows from the first. It is an uncompromising fact that any Democrat seeking election in November must maintain the affections of the African-American voting bloc, which makes up a significant percentage of the traditional Democratic coalition. By appearing to silently endorse these remarks, Mrs. Clinton may soon find herself in a gray uniform, marching across an open field towards a determined formation of hostile African American voters who occupy the [moral] high ground and who stand poised to annihilate what is left of her campaign. Obviously the Clinton campaign knows this, but has made the calculated decision to alienate these voters now in return for the benefit of reminding Pennsylvanians who, at least in theory may not feel comfortable voting for an African American candidate, that Obama is in fact black.

However, because Mrs. Ferraro's comments are so patently offensive to intelligent people of any race, this strategy may backfire, and Mrs. Clinton may look up during her long march across that Pennsylvania battlefield and see a multi-racial coalition of offended voters arrayed on the high ground against her. Obviously, a big loss in Pennsylvania spells doom for her campaign.
Time will tell whether this blunder will be Mrs. Clinton's Gettysburg, or whether she'll have the sense to firmly order her troops to about face on that open field before they march within range of enemy gunfire. If this is to be her Gettysburg, it is only fitting that her campaign, like that of the ill-fated Confederates, will most likely meet its end in Pennsylvania.

Comments

[EdwardTx]

This seems to be an unfortunate analogy or maybe I am being influenced by the Clinton strategy of casting Pennsylvania as a crucially important contest. Using your analogy I see the media casting the Obama campaign as the Confederates and the Clinton campaign as the Union.

If anything the Obama campaign has been cast as seemingly invincible, at least in the short term. The argument can be made that a macro view would cast the Clinton campaign as seemingly invincible but the media has proven that it does not have a long term view. Witness the current myth that Sen. Obama is the "beneficiary" of race based voted by African-Americans when at the outset of the campaign the Clintons held a lead among African-American voters.

The Republicans have proven it time and time again. And the Clintons have mastered it as well. (Remember Sister Soujah) One can never go wrong using race as a divisive wedge issue. To continue your analogy I see the Obama campaign walking across the open (equality espousing) field of the Pennsylvania primary only to be thwarted by those hidden Pennsylvania voters who fall victim to the Clintons cynical manipulation.

A victory in Pennsylvania will be used by the Clintons to support their big state canard and break the back of the Obama campaign. The media is so eager to have the race over that they are ready to declare it done given the slightest opening. A talking head of your choice says, "The results in Pennsylvania are Sen. Obama's worst among white voters in any of the crucial must win states for November. It is clear that if this is replicated across the country the results will be disastrous for the Democratic Party."

[BeeOplentee]

For all its wrong-headedness, the Confederacy fell with some panache. Hillary is going to fall while grimly trying to take the Democrat party down with her.

[drmavis]

I wish it would meet its end in PA! Or even better, tomorrow!

[JAJ2007]

Please correct one small point in your post - in the debate, Obama said he denounced Farrakahn, and Clinton insisted that this wasn't enough - that he must "reject" Farrakahn. After some discussion - Obama then said he would both "reject and denounce"