Congress, Fox News
Barack Obama may yet sail to the Democratic nomination without having to engage in the sort of junkyard dog fighting required of candidates who find themselves — as Hillary Clinton has — in second place in a two-person fight. Ironically, however, if he maintains his momentum after losing Ohio and Texas to Clinton last night and easily wins the rest of the primaries, the result might be that he’s a weaker candidate against John McCain in the general.
To come from behind, Obama would have to resort to the sort of “Art of War” tactics we’ve seen from the Clinton campaign lately that have so outraged his fans.
Finding himself running decidedly behind Clinton would force to demonstrate that he can do more than inspire — that he knows how to fight to win. This would be reassuring to millions of Democrats who agree that Obama might be a great president but find the proposition moot because he lacks a track record of playing the sort of political hardball required to beat Republicans.
It is relatively easy to stay above the fray in the top spot, but if Obama lags into second, he’ll find himself trying to accomplish two opposing objectives: Preserving his image as an inspirational leader while simultaneously trying desperately to draw blood in a knife fight with Hillary Clinton. To come from behind, Obama would have to resort to the sort of “Art of War” tactics we’ve seen from the Clinton campaign lately that have so outraged his fans: attack ads, sharp criticism and negative campaigning (that, by the way, apparently worked).
The Clintons have only lost two elections since Bill’s political career began in 1974, and their path to power is littered with bloodied opponents. If Obama can beat them, he will enter the general as a giant slayer. This would also prove to the hordes of party faithful who are impervious to his charms, considerable as they are, that he can win a contested election. As has been noted in these pages before, Obama lost the only seriously contested election he has ever run, in a primary to unseat Rep. Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther.
Whether the Democratic nominee turns out to be Clinton or Obama, if the national polls remain consistent through the summer, he or she will enter the general running second behind John McCain. The Democratic candidate will face an onslaught of negative attacks would make John Kerry’s Swiftboat adversaries blush. Failure to return fire will result in either Clinton or Obama becoming the third in a series of honorable and decent Democratic nominees to lose on tactics, not merits, to an incredibly flawed GOP candidate.
The Democratic candidate should not expect help from the “liberal media” — they love John McCain as much as they already hate Hillary Clinton. Yesterday, we learned that the media is sharpening its knives for Obama — and he can now expect the same unfair treatment the Beltway guys and gals gave John Kerry over the Swiftboating charges, Al Gore over the bogus claim that he said he invented the Internet and the Clintons over Whitewater et al.
Like her or hate her, there is ample evidence Hillary Clinton is as ready as anyone can be for the Republican smears and lies. As it stands today, no one knows if Barack Obama is ready for this crucial test.
I can almost see this as a George McFly moment. Barack’s hand slowly tightens into a fist and he cleans Clintons clock while she is looking away laughing and mocking him.
Sorry, it is just silly to think that Hillary-hatred will revitalize the rightwing, where racism is alive and well and going strong, any more than nominating a black man would. In fact, it is beyond silly. It is irrelevant because 0% of Republican Hillary-haters will vote for Obama, just as 0% of Republican racists would vote for Hillary.
The racists are worse than the Hillary-haters because, except in rare cases, racism is underground, secretive and harder to track and quantify, whereas the Clinton-haters are vocal and out in the open. Racism comes in degrees too. A lot of otherwise very nice people can be convinced by scurrilous advertising not to pull a lever for a black person. Just ask Harold Ford in Tenn. whose polling evaporated because of the “Harold, call me” ad.
Whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton, unless there is a dramatic shift in dynamics — a catastrophic terror attack that sends independents rallying around McCain or a macaca moment in the GOP that hobbles the McCain campaign, for example — the electoral map is going to look identical to 2004, with McCain taking the Confederacy, the Upper Midwest and Intermountain West, and the Dem winning the Northeast, Pennsylvania and the Pacific West.
It will likely all come down to Ohio again. The good news is, the GOP in Ohio is in a shambles. If the nominee is Obama, the bad news is, there are few more virulent racist enclaves anywhere in the U.S. than Cincinnati and southeastern Ohio. The results last night bear this out.
Finally, I would add that the idea that frontrunners can’t stumble and fall ignores history. It can happen in an instant, as it did with Howard Dean or in a cascade as it did with Gary Hart, or because an opponent gains sudden and surprising momentum as it did with Hillary Clinton.
The unfortunate thing is, as much as we dislike going negative, it always seems to work. So far Obama has not treated Clinton to the kind of bareknuckled campaign that Clinton had to resort to lately to keep her drive alive. If Obama wants to win, he will probably have to open up the pandora box of the ghost of Clintons past to defeat her in her key state of Pennsylvania. I expect things to get uglier and uglier from here on out from both sides.
Ford was a much better candidate that Bob Corker by any calculation. Corker is as dumb as a bag of hammers to put it mildly. The ONLY thing “wrong” with Ford was his race.
It is naive to think Republicans care if Democrats think they are racists. It hasn’t mattered since Nixon converted all the Southern conservative Dems to Republicans via his “Southern Strategy” in 1972, and there is not a shred of evidence that they will care this year.
The idea that Clinton will energize the GOP base is a Rush Limbaugh talking point that Obama-ists have picked up and spread around. Some of them apparently even actually believe it. Rush et al would love it if Obama is the nominee. The rightwingers know that among their listeners are millions of people who will not tolerate the idea of a black family moving into the White House.
Even the less racist, corporatist Republicans are, more than anything else, desperate to win. As they did in 2000 and 2004, they will lie, cheat and steal — and certainly countenance racist smears from their GOP brethren — in order to keep the White House this year. To assume otherwise is beyond naive, it is political suicide.
Clinton won reelection in New York State with 65% of the vote, which means she turned about 15% of upstate Republican Clinton haters into Clinton voters. That was way more than 50+1.
Unfortunately, 50+1 is not something the Dem nominee can opt in or out of. It’s the way the GOP has rigged the system. Unless something dramatic happens, that’s the demographic split the Dem nominee will face this year, like it or not.
If Obama is the nominee he will be lucky to get 50+1. As things stand today, it is extremely unlikely he can even do that. There is no possible way he will win any of the “Red” states Bush won last time. And as, noted, the evidence from Tuesday’s vote indicates he’d have trouble winning Ohio, and if Ohio is the swing state again this year. that will give the election to McCain.
Obama has been shielded by the Hillary hating press and bloggers. What she has “thrown” at him has been lint compared the jet fuel planned for him by the Republicans. Be careful what you ask for.
I must have struck a nerve. You call me names, lie about my positions, and you’re wrong on the facts: 50+1 is not from the 1990s. Both the 1990s presidential races were three-ways with Perot. 50+1 was the strategy used by Karl Rove to win in 2000 and 2004. It has nothing to do with the Blue Dogs, the Clintons or any Democrats.
The 1990s were all about irrational Clinton-hating, so if anyone is stuck there it’s you. The irony is you seem to hate Hillary because of her campaign’s negative tactics but you are far more vitriolic toward her than she is toward Obama. Or maybe you just hate all women.
Turns out the Obama-nation brand of politics is as much about unity as Bush’s “uniter not divider” crap, and just as nasty and divisive.
Triangulation is not the same as 50+1. Triangulation was when Clinton took a position against both the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
At the very least get your facts straight.
My record is public in the 2,000 or so articles I’ve published in these pages. Good luck finding anything I’ve written that puts me to the right of any liberal with common sense. (If you want to know where I stand on an issue, including the war or race and racism, there’s a search box to the right, or try the Google.)
You say you’re a liberal but you sound and act like a Bush Republican: You’re either with me 100%, or you’re my bitter enemy. And you are so blinded by your Republican-sounding Clinton-hatred that you have consistently ignored what I have said about my position on this race. I’m going to state it one last time and will type it very slowly:
I am only interested in winning.
I’m not into your cult of personality politics. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between Clinton and Obama on policy or leadership ability. Either could be a great president. However, I think Clinton has a slightly better chance than Obama to win but the race is McCain’s to lose.
And “your” a misogynist. (Look it up.)