The contrasting characters (this is not just a matter of "style") of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been prominently on display since the Pennsylvania results came in. Her killer instinct is so much to the fore that it often seems to be her only instinct. It is both her greatest strength (she never quits) and her greatest weakness (she targets, rather than wishing to talk to, those she disagrees with). With Obama, the opposite seems true: his killer instinct seems not just suppressed but entirely absent. Again, this is both a strength (his appealing consensus-seeking temperament) and a weakness (he prefers to roll with the punches rather than striking back).
Today Hillary was telling an audience in Indiana that she now leads in the popular vote for the Democratic nomination. This is true only if you include both Florida and Michigan--where Obama was not even on the ballot. Her comments made no concession to this fact. She is ahead on the least plausible measure of the popular vote and behind on the others. No problem: that will serve. And here is another instance glimpsed today. She attacked Obama for allowing that John McCain would at least be a better president than George Bush. No, she insisted. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years: he is every bit as bad as Bush. Never give the enemy an inch, is her creed. In that single comment she attacked both Obama and McCain--unfairly, in both cases, but effectively.
Meanwhile, what was Obama saying? He was telling an audience in Indiana what a good race Hillary had fought in Pennsylvania, what a strong candidate she was, and how he had no doubt that the Democratic party would rally round whoever was nominated. This was beyond gracious: these were sentences from a concession speech. It required the New York Times, in its oddly splenetic editorial, to attack Hillary for fighting a negative campaign. (When they endorsed her, were they expecting the Clintons to take the high road?) Her actual opponent was far kinder.
If Hillary could give Obama some of her taste for the jugular--she has so much to spare--they would both be better candidates.
I thought that part of today's speech by Obama was geared towards Hillary supporters. Obama and Clinton have two very different objectives. The nomination is Obama's to lose, so he can afford to start doing a little bridge building with Hillary supporters. (I'd also think that kind of thing might calm nervous superdelegates worried about long term party damage). The only path Clinton has to the nomination is the total destruction of Obama as a candidate.
This is true. But I think his weakness is not so much that he doesn't attack her back (he tried, remember, this weekend), but that he is just so bad at it. Instead of going on the offensive in a way that makes him look better, he goes on the offensive in a way that looks whiny. And when he conversely goes on the defensive, he does so in a way that has a deer-in-the-headlights quality to it, or a petulant "OMG, do I really have to go through this baloney AGAIN?" quality.
But of course, he's bad at if for the reason you state above -- he's not good at being nasty. It goes against his grain. And I suspect the reason is because he's so intellectual. Watch the earnestness and nuance and long-windedness with which he answers a question. He's always thinking. I don't think the guy is a natural extrovert. He's in his head all the time, and so it's not just a values thing with him, but a temperamental thing with him (although our values tend to align with our temperament).
So, honestly, I think he's better off not taking a chapter from her book. It just doesn't work for him. He's gonna have to get his game back by simply being himself and trying to get his own message back. And he needs to have a fighter behind him countering her attacks for him. Somebody who is as verbally astute and crafty as she is.
after listening and watching clinton since the beginning of the camapign, i agree she is a fighter with a killer's instinct to obliterate her political opponents. obama doesn't have that killer instinct to put a the bullet in the head of his wounded opponent. at first i thought that would make clinton a good president. but then i thought about for a while and realized that i was ashamed of myself for thinking that. i don't want a president who has a killer's intstint, i want a thoughtful, steady, even tempered president, not someone who is talking about obliterating countrys like iran. a good president brings people together, and doesn't try to make them hate each other. it's the first time i have ever thought a presidentail candidate was a better person than i am. i think obama is the real deal, and will make a great president.
i pray to god that clinton will have a stroke and drop dead. that's all she's convinced me during her camipagn.
IT'S TIME AMERICA:
It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.
But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
Jacksmith,
By all means vote for her, and root for her to win. Believe in her ability to win the nomination and be a good president. That's your prerogative. But please please, don't fool yourself about the nature of who Hillary is:
Hillary is NOT fighting a heroic fight for the American people. She is fighting an entirely SELFISH fight for herself. Nobody as lying, nasty, and ruthless as she is is thinking about anybody but herself. Gimme a break. And people say Obama's fans are delusional!
Maria
Without Hillary's supporters and donations, it would have been a much tougher race for her. Hillary's campaign is about us and Obama's is all about obtaining power. He lacks the experience to be President!
Mr. Crook, you make a common mistake in this analysis. Obama's campaign is not premised on his being a superior politician; instead, it posits that a majority of Americans are ready to transcend the petty politicking that we've endured for so long. Given your observations above, we might conclude that his campaign has succeeded in spite of this focus. The reality is, enough of us are truly ready to move forward that Obama will only build on that success.
I've been working at mechanical shops since I got back from Nam on December 20, 1968. I'm a high school grad, a vo-tec grad and a few courses at a local community college in upstate NY, in the Mohawk Valley. I've helped my two kids get through college and I'm damn proud of it, and damn proud I served my country in the army, even though the war was a complete waste. So I guess I'm blue collar or working class or middle class, or white Catholic or whatever box you want to put me. In a few years I'll retire and I'm looking forward to it. I wish I had done something different when I was younger and gone to college so I didn't have to bust myself day in and day out. But a lot of people do that, no matter what they say about the color of collars or the color of skin. Hillary Clinton has been to my town twice, when she was running for election and re-election. She made all sorts of promises about new jobs, fighting for us, and the usual crap. She even tried to make believe she was regular girl from town. Some people bought it and some didn't. But let me tell you, she didn't do one damn thing she promised. Not even close. I wrote her once about my VA benefits and got a form letter back thanking me for my support for her work in the senate! My conressman helped, but not Clinton.
Obama has the right ideas and tells the truth as far as I can tell. I don't think any politician is a saint and not a fan of any of them. But on the scale of things Clinton is a liar and thinks she fools people. To make things worse she thinks acting like a macho man, slugging shots, and pushing war talk will prove she's tough. Then when that doesn't work she turns into one of the girls in the kitchen. In my book she is still one of those arrogant hippie freaks from the '60's who thought they knew everything and could use the 'working class' solidarity crap to run things. If you're stupid enough to believe her, vote for her. She didn't pass the bar exam in Washington DC, then went with Bill to Arkansas and got a job in a law firm because of him, and was first lady. That's her whole deal. She's a fraud and anyone who votes for her is a fool. Open your eyes. She can be your president, never mine.
what is unfair about saying that john mccain would be a worse president than george bush? is there really some evidence somewhere that he wouldn't be?
I am a third generation Dem but as a patriotic American if HRC wins the Democratic nomination, I will campaign and vote for McCain.
Here's why.
The Clintons have taken $15 million (w/ ano 20 on account) from the Emir of Dubai. This while HRC sat in the US Senate. Dubai is a repressive antisemitic anti Israel oligarchy and no friend of the US. Nor does the Emir give away money out of the goodness of his heart. He owns the Clintons. Now HRC announces that she wants to include the United Arab Emirates under the same security umbrella as Israel and that she will "obliterate Iran" is it attacks her patrons. This is not influence peddling. It's treason.
Clive ignores the fact that Obama cannot attack Clinton in the same way she attacks him because that will simply give her (and the press) the excuse to play the "uppity n*****" card even more openly than they already are.
One of the many, many MSM memes that I am absolutely sick up to THERE of having blathered at me is the Obama-is-not-tough/mean enough nonsense. First of all, the moment he does so much as point out the fact that Hillary is making an unfair attack on him, an equal-and-opposite Greek chorus starts parroting the Clinton refrain that she has succeeded and bringing Mr. High and Mighty "New Brand of Politics" down to her (pathetic) level. But at the risk of being immediately dismissed without analysis as merely "playing the race card," I have to point out that there is a deeply-ingrained cultural context (or sub-context)working against Obama in this regard. Like all members of groups historically considered to be inherently inferior due to some entirely irrelevent inherent characteristic --i.e., anyone who isn't an upper to "elite" (in the *true*, economic, sense) white male -- Obama has to work (roughly estimating) 50 times harder just to prove he has a right to sit at the table with the presumptively legitimate Masters of the Universe. As a female I will be the first to say that this is true, in so many ways, for Hillary too. However she has the advantage of being able to win points by using her gender to full advantage with her older female supporters, while having their husbands all pull the (now metaphorical) lever for her as well, content in the belief that Bill will really be running the show behind the scenes anyway if his "girl" (as Bill is fond of calling her) is nominally in office. Obama has no such cheat. As multiple chattering heads enjoyed pointing out when we were getting bludgeoned with the Reverand Wright "issue" 24/7, Obama's success with a broader (i.e. non-African American) audience -- or at least his acceptability to same-- has been at least to some extent dependent on his ability to convince people that he does not fit the stereotype of the "angry black male" that so many people were happy to stick on Rev. Wright based upon 30 or so seconds of video. Gov. Rendell is able to praise Farrakhan without provoking as much as an eyelash blink in the MSM (because, as a white man, he is assumed to be "safe" and sane and "one of us")while Obama is a presumptive black panther because he is as close to Farrakhan as he is to Kevin Bacon. Similarly, the moment that Obama appears to lose that now-legendary "cool" that Regular Joe (I was in Congress) Scarborough finds so off-puting he will be portrayed as a raving, raging Black Man popping out the bushes of that exotic Otherplace where people are named "Obama" to beat up on poor little Hillary, homecoming Queen of Scranton, PA. And Hillary has been more than willing to play that "card" as well -- remember the debate (it seems so long ago now. . .) in which (according to Hill) the "boys" were "bullying" her? Put the bullying charge together with the image lingering in the collective lizard brain of non-black America of the black man as dangerous predator and is it any wonder that Obama has to do everything he can to appear as cerebral and non-threatening as humanly possible? In this country a black man who shows even a hint of "killer instinct" is simply putting his head into a noose.
Obama can't appear too angry. The last thing America wants to elect is an angry Black Man for the White House. Given the tremendous handicaps he's working with it is surprises he is where he is at all.
He's fighting Bill, Hillary and John McCain all at once while dealing with Wright, Bitter, and "electability" code words and still manages to keep her Penn win under 10%.
Are you kidding me. It's like that Fred Astaire Ginger Rogers joke. Sure Fred was good but Ginger had to do everything backwards and in heels.
Ouch! Marcus - you said it so much better than I did and in about 1/100th the words.
Too bad Hannibal Lecter and Rambo are fictional characters. If they weren't, then pulp entertainment references like a "killer instinct" and "a taste for the jugular" might have some bearing here.
Boxing isn't really a good analogy either, but, like they say, sometimes the other guy is just too dumb to fall down. That's the case, you don't sink your teeth in his throat. You come out of your corner with your gloves up and take a decision on points.
But these are all silly season debates. Fact is the voters haven't put it away. Some dislike Obama's cool, others are attracted to Hillary's Lady MacBeth impersonation. Or the other way around. The wise guys ringside are bored with the fight and start talking trash. And the thing drags on.
hilesq and marcus -- EXCELLENT points! The media has let Hillary dominate the narrative, and is forgetting what a skilled and disciplined politician Obama is to have come this far. And you are absolutely right -- if he shows the kind of mettle that Hillary has, people will be associating him even more closely with Reverand Wright.
This is the dilemma all "above the fray" politicians find themselves in, such as Bill Bradley, Paul Tsongas ...
Someone attacks you. Do you:
- ignore it, and then let the charges stick.
- simply defend yourself, and come off looking, well, defensive.
- attack back, and then find yourselves at their level, making you no longer above the fray.
It's the old thing about wrestling with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig doesn't care. But the thing is, attacks WORK, and I don't think any political operative has really found an answer to this dilemma.
I think Obama's people were hoping is charisma could rise about this kind of stuff. But that only goes so far. Obama's people need to seriously find the way of filling in the blanks about their candidate. Because, for now, his opponents are doing it for them.
Here, I'll do it for him: Fuck you, Hillary Clinton.
Clive,
Your last few posts have been great. Just a thought on this one: couldn't we argue that the burden is on Hillary Clinton to knock Barack Obama out, not the other way around? She was the front runner, after all. She has the biggest name in Democratic politics, an extensive and well-entrenched network of party support, and what should have been plenty of money. The real question is, why can't she beat him? The failure of the media to ask this question means that we don't investigate the chinks in her electoral armor.
Her campaign has successfully reframed the campaign as a referendum on Obama's potential weaknesses. Does that really make sense? Do we really know, for example, how a post-Lewinsky Clinton would fare in a General Election?
Also, I'm waiting for the stories about Hillary's continued failure to connect with Black voters.
hmmmmmm.......wonder what the Super Delegates would have to say about this article
"Open Letter to the Super Delegates" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=311
Jacksmith:
It's a silly notion to expect the frontrunner to concede defeat to one who is behind based solely on the premise that he will lose the national election. First off, we don't KNOW that he will lose the national. Second, we don't KNOW if she will win it. Third, to base this assumption off of how Obama did in Pennsylvania is not exactly the best measuring rod. Clinton was and has always been strong in Pennsylvania. There was no change or shift in the momentum of her campaign. Her performance there was expected. The best thing that can happen is for both candidates to understand that they ARE on the same team and have similiar goals and values. As such, there should be no scorched earth politics here. Both candidates ought to be intellectually honest in their political arguments. Granted, Obama has not been perfect in this, but for the most part he has based his arguments on intellectual honesty. Hillary on the other hand has really hit below the belt in so many ways, I wonder if she really gives a damn about her party's success. I wonder if perhaps she'd rather have McCain win so that she can run in 2012 if not given the presidency in 2008. Hillary is not a team player and her actions provide ample proof of this. If she is not, how can she expect anybody else to be so. I don't believe Hillary has bad intentions per se (I believe she believes she is doing what is best for the country) however I do believe ambition has blinded her. If Obama does lose the national election it will be partly due to the scorched earth politics played by the Clinton campaign machine, partly by his own gaffes and inexperience, and perhaps partly by the electorates preference for John McCain above both Democratic candidates. Time will tell.
JackSmith,
Coming from behind to narrow a projected lead of 20+ percentage points to less than 10 percentage points is not a 'crushing defeat.' Senator Obama was never projected to win in Pennsylvania. That Senator Clinton managed to lose more than 50% of her projected margin speaks to the effectiveness of Senator Obama's campaign.
No, he didn't win, but he diminished her lead in a state tailor-made for her.
Further, Senator Obama has brought millions of new voters into the process. They are likely to sit out the general election rather than vote for a candidate that they know is a liar and who cannot be trusted. Certainly, I will either vote for McCain or not vote at all rather than risk a Hillary Clinton administration.
I'm not deluded into believing that Senator Obama will be able to 'fix' all that is wrong with the political process in this country; however, I do believe that the chief executive sets the tone. Senator Clinton's tone will be to continue pandering to the corporate elite and lobbyists regardless of what she is saying now. What she is saying now is any message that she believes will get votes. Consider how often her message and her spin has changed over the past 4 months. Senator Obama has maintained a consistent message throughout his campaign.
Crushing defeat? I think not.
Clive's post is thoughtful and so are many of the responses, especially those that consider some of the ways Obama's options for responding to attacks are constrained various factors: His claim to provide a new kind of politics, his race and gender as perceived by many voters, Hillary's use of gender, etc.
But two options always remains open to Obama and, sadly, he has not been skilled at using them.
First, he can redirect the discussion. He failed to do this in the healthcare debates; he stayed doggedly on the specifics of policy and got little credit for it, but he should have shifted from policy to skill at getting healthcare reform enacted. Hillary failed in 1993 and has not learned a lesson from it. Obama should have shifted the discussion to how one puts together a new majority in Congress to support healthcare reform. Similarly, he should have redirected the patriotism discussion and the Rev Wright on endless video loop attack by Stephanpoulos and Clinton - and the way to do that is to sail straight into the storm, say you've sailed through, and come out the other side with the whole issue reframed.
Second, while Obama should not take Clinton's load road, he does not have to lock the gate to it. A perfect example of that mistake was his absolution of Clinton on her Bosnia lies at the last debate. What a mistake! He did not have to say that he accepted Clinton's explanation! He should have said, "I don't want to talk about Sen Clinton's recollections about Bosnia, I want to talk about our records on Iraq and trade and X, Y, and Z and what we are going to do about it." That way Clinton is not let off the hook, Obama does not position himself to be called a hypocrit when his surrogates talk about Bosnia, and he gets to show that he will be dogged in addressing real issues.
Damn. These have been bad mistakes. I hope his team sends him charging back to set things right.
Joe
joe shmoe, the healthcare thought is brilliant.
But I'm a little confused by the rev wright response you suggest. What exactly is it you're suggesting?
It's self-defeating for Democrats to "go for the jugular" against other Democrats. This is especially the case when thinking of Obama v. Clinton - if Obama was to go on the attack against Clinton and many of her ridiculous comments or even past scandals (at this late date) it would only serve to further alienate her supporters, whom he'll need in the fall.