posted on March 25, 2008 08:59:02 AM new
The Long Defeat
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.
First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.
Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
Five percent.
Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?
The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.
For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.
No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.
If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.
_____________________
posted on March 25, 2008 01:06:37 PM new
The party will insure Clinton gets the nod. Even if Obama has a delegate lead, at the convention Superdelegates will be told no "bridges to nowhere" in your district unless they toe the line. A few rounds of votes and Clinton will get the nomination.
posted on March 26, 2008 09:22:50 AM new
Yup, the Republican party will do everything they can to give the nomination to Hillary.
It's time for Hillary supporters to give it up....now, before she(with Republican's help) breaks up the Democratic party.
It's time for Hillary to give it up.
posted on March 26, 2008 10:58:44 AM new
I'm about ready to agree Mingo. For the sake of the election she probably needs to cash it in. The republicans are dying for her to get the nod.
posted on March 26, 2008 11:03:49 AM new
The Republicans have no influence or control over Democratic Party backroom politics. Be prepared for dramatic things.
I will say Hillary has renewed hope that the GOP just may not move out of the White house. She has done more for the GOP than any of the party's candidates. I hope she stays in the race! hehehehehe
It is still a long shot but with Hillary's help ... it may happen.
Go Hillary go!
Ain't politics a chuckle, the Democrats are to be admired. They can overcome any obstacle and still make it close or even manage to lose... hahaha
If they pull this off (losing in 2008) they deserve recognition for helping to elect McCain.
posted on March 26, 2008 11:56:04 AM new
GMA today said that Hillary is now in the "Tonya Harding" stage of her campaign - desperate attempts to destroy her opponent. Is that REALLY what she wants? And if it is, I want no part of her.
-------------------------------------
posted on March 26, 2008 01:17:45 PM new
In political analysis, GMA is right up there with Carson Daly.
deur1:
I don't know where this "long shot" stuff is coming from. In REAL polls, McCain is "admired" by 68% of the public. Both Democrats have TREMENDOUS baggage and have been left alone to hammer at each other. When the Dems pick one, the gloves come off. Imagine every day someone sticking a microphone in Obama's wife's or Farakan's face, or the examination of certain Arkansas land deals.
posted on March 27, 2008 12:08:55 AM new
Clinton should drop out now...she is definitely WACKO!
The Democratic party should have the wisdom and backbone to tell her to get OUT!!!
When her campiagn emailed me I sent back:
"Sorry, I only vote for Democrats"
Her support of McbushCain made me want to puke!
Her lies are MORE than lies ..they're hilarious dreams, imaginings...her inability to understand that the truth was videotaped makes her just plain NUTS!
posted on March 27, 2008 07:42:38 AM new
Right, Mingo!
Whoever is elected president will inherit a Bush/Cheney disaster of biblical proportions.
To elect McCain or Hillary will be a vote for a continuation of that disaster since they both distinguish themselves as able and willing to dance to the prevailing Bush/Cheney warble.
Ater a term of Hillary or McCain we will need someone who can walk on water to restore our country.
Only Obama will restore the constitution and lead our country out of the economic and foreign policy debacle that continues to affect our country and the world.
posted on March 27, 2008 08:37:06 AM new
So your digestive system is upset down in your mangled stump. No need to get upset, there is not a McbushCain running for President.
The GOP has all ready got their candidate-
John Sidney McCain
The Democrats are down to two
Barack Hussein Obama
and
Hillary Rodham Clinton
And if Barack Hussein Obama wins the nomination Hillary Rodham Clinton is allowing him to be on the ticket as her running mate.
posted on March 28, 2008 12:21:57 PM newAnd if Barack Hussein Obama wins the nomination Hillary Rodham Clinton is allowing him to be on the ticket as her running mate.
This make no sense.
If Obama wins, how does HRC make a decision on who his running mate is? Obama has already said he will not pick HRC as his running mate.
"She Who Must Not Be Named is gone. Banished far, far away with her minions to the outer realms where she can't hurt anyone ever again - the profe
posted on March 28, 2008 12:23:17 PM new
And if Barack Hussein Obama wins the nomination Hillary Rodham Clinton is allowing him to be on the ticket as her running mate.
OF COURSE IT MAKES NO SENSE ....HRC is the one that brought the senseless offer up.
Some think she should answer the phone at 3 am ?????
IMO,If Bill ain't home by 3am,why wake her up?
posted on March 29, 2008 06:40:02 PM new
I've read other commentaries similar to this, but none said it as well. However, since both Clinton and Obama continue to be viable candidates, and if one does not graciously step out for the the good of the party, I refuse to vilify either candidate because the only other option is a continuation of this heart-wrenching war and disastrous economy. I've always taken character as a major consideration in voting for a nominee. I like McCain. I think he is an honorable fellow. I think I like him better than Clinton. I can't afford to vote for him. This hell has to stop.
posted on March 29, 2008 06:56:58 PM new
You're going to have quite a problem, since none of the 3 is likely to do a cut and run. Even while the crowds are chanting Obama and bringing them home in the same breath, the campaign worker who quit said a previously mentioned 16mo timetable was "overly optimistic".
posted on March 29, 2008 07:11:02 PM new
So what would happen, according to your unnamed source, to such a timetable?
[ edited by pixiamom on Mar 29, 2008 07:15 PM ]
posted on March 29, 2008 08:34:24 PM new
The source is not "unnamed". It was in all the papers last week when the staffer resigned. There can be no "timetable" for anyone with a brain. You can withdraw some troops when possible and leave a significant force in a non-active role to train the Iraqis and maintain a presence in the area.
posted on March 29, 2008 11:08:55 PM new
Our problem is that nobody with a brain has established a timetable. The war is scheduled to go on ad nauseum.
posted on March 30, 2008 10:15:16 AM new
I'd be careful using the term "the voters" unless you are referring to most of the simpletons here who think the Middle East means they might have to trade in their Suburban for a CRV. Most of the people I know realize what is a stake with an Iranian threat to the gulf. The modes operandi of the left is to allow a crisis to ignite and then spend 10X the number of lives to fix it.
posted on March 30, 2008 12:48:12 PM new
For your benefit I will rewrite that statement to read,
The PROBLEM is that all three candidates support a war with Iran and the world does NOT. In fact, the world sees the United States as the "threat" rather than Iran.
But the neocon hate machine has successfully convinced you and people like you, that now Iran is a threat, just as you were convinced that Iraq was an imminent threat. Isn't it ironic that the Iraq war made the country that you have learned to fear stronger.
Unfortunately, the neocon effort to keep the hate machine in gear moving toward it's next target will not end with the election of a Democrat. Hillary is already on board with MCain on that score and if Obama lives to become the next president he will be also. In that respect you are right.
Now, all that we can do is sit back and wait for the manufactured "crisis" or the manufactured "incident" that will necessitate a war with Iran.
posted on March 30, 2008 03:23:49 PM new
Who said Iraq was an imminent threat? Saddam Hussein was merely the newest of puny dictators attempting to become the head of an Islamic superstate. He merely played into our hands by refusing to cooperate with the UN demands and by funding lowlife extremists. The basis for US policy in the region for 75yrs has been controlling Iran. You cannot have a power in that location seek dominance over the world's oil supply. Look how quickly the US and Europe moved against Nasser when he flexed his muscles in the late 50's.
One does not have to "imagine" or "create" an enemy in Iran. All you have to do is put a microphone in front of the midget running the place.
posted on March 30, 2008 05:50:27 PM new
With the monstrous US embassy in Iraq, the US has no plans to leave. It is Osama bin Laden's wish to get the US involved in a war with Iran to further bankrupt America. If anyone is elected who is sane enough to want to stop this madness, they may very well be assassinated.
posted on March 30, 2008 06:52:43 PM new
Helen, why do you think that Clinton and Obama will support the war, if elected?
[ edited by pixiamom on Mar 30, 2008 06:54 PM ]
Hillary has voted for every bill related to the Iraq war and recently voted for the Kyl-Lieberman act which designates Iran's army as a terrorist group and could serve to escalate a military conflict with Iran.
Obama was absent when the Kyl-Lieberman vote was taken. If preventing an Iran war was important to him it seems to me that he would make it a point to vote on the issue. Although you have to give him credit for advocating economic sanctions and diplomacy first he has not ruled out military action if those efforts fail.
For example.... "During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama stated that he had not ruled out military action against Iran. In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board, Obama stated: "The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to take military action, if any?" Obama stressed that he would only use force as a last resort. Obama has not declared a change in this stance since the 2004 campaign. In 2006, he called on Iran to "take some ownership for creating some stability" in Iraq.
And... In an interview with NBC's Tim Russert on October 22, 2006, Obama said, "I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options...We have not explored any kind of dialogue with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them."
And.... Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 2 March 2007, Obama stated that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table. Sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."[60] Diplomacy would include "more determined U.S. diplomacy at the United Nations," "harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners," and "a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs." He formulated a strategy of "direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War."
posted on March 30, 2008 08:37:04 PM new
I don't believe in preventive war waged to prevent a hypothetical attack which might occur in the future.
And,such preventive agression is considered illegal under international law because no imminent threat exists. But we know how to circumvent that little detail don't we? Lie and manufacture crisis and incidents such as weapons of mass destruction that will turn naked agression into a "preemptive" war.
