03/05/2008 (8:17 am)
March 4: Thanks That Will Not Be Given
Hillary Clinton needs to thank Barack Obama, but won’t. The Republican party needs to thank Hillary Clinton, but won’t. Well, we might. We’ll see.
Clinton had to win Texas and Ohio to remain even credible, and she did. She also won Rhode Island, which she wasn’t supposed to, and that makes her seem possible, although it will still take something akin to a miracle for her to win the nomination (actually, something more in the opposite direction, like the sale of a soul, although I think she’s already leveraged that collateral.) It looked last week like Obama was headed for a repeat of his primary season streak: start behind, pull even by election day, come out far ahead after the voting. So what happened this time?
What happened, if I’m not mistaken, is that The Messiah slipped off his pedestal, just a little. He’s running a dangerous campaign, populism based on his own reputation and personality. He’s got a great reputation, and a super personality, but if either slips, he loses momentum quickly. Last week, both slipped: he got caught admitting to the Canadians that he was lying to the voters (or at least that’s how it seemed), reporters in Chicago treated him like a real candidate for a change and he ran for cover, and the sordid facts about his indicted Chicago Fixer buddy Rezko are starting to leak out. These are minor issues for a solid candidate, but for a candidate relying on the claim that he’s a new kind of politician, proving that he’s really the same, old kind of politician may finish him. Clinton will talk about how her “3 AM” ad turned voters around, and it might have had a little effect; but I think the real story is that Obama stumbled.
I hate sounding cynical, but this is the best thing that could possibly have happened to the Republican party. We’re facing a tidal wave this year; Bush derangement, as demented and laughable as it is, has motivated the Democratic base dramatically, and they consider their “woman, black” primary candidates two rock stars, so they’re coming out in record numbers, and donating record sums of money. This is a real problem for Republicans. The best thing that can happen for Republicans is a long, drawn-out, bloody, divisive, dirty, bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred, Ultimate Fighting Challenge match between Obama and Clinton that will leave their coffers empty, their faces bruised, and their worst dirt exposed. Looks like we’re going to get it. Better stand back.
There’s one, very ugly event that would make it much better for Republicans: if Clinton wins the nomination after a bloody convention fight. Blacks have always voted for the Democratic party in a proportion unheard-of from any other block, usually around 90%, and no Democrat would win without it. That’s changing slowly, but if Clinton back-stabs Obama at the convention and steals the nomination — and make no mistake, they would regard it as both back-stabbing and theft — it will change overnight. Only a small percentage will shift to the Republican party, but a huge percentage will stay home, or vote Nader, or write in Obama. And the good news for Republicans is, Madame Clinton is perfectly capable of nuking her own party in this manner. They know this, and there will be efforts to prevent it, but a tornado is definitely headed for the Dem convention, and the story will be whether they can stop it from coming.
By the way, Ed Morrissey on BlogTalkRadio yesterday observed that John McCain needs to license Hillary Clinton’s “3 AM” commercial for his own campaign. Says Ed, Hillary running this campaign against Obama is like a minor league ballplayer claiming he’s more qualified to bat cleanup for the Yankees than a kid that’s just been signed from high school… and then having to make the same argument against Manny Ramirez. Clinton has her minions out pooh-poohing McCain’s experience, but can anybody believe they’re serious? Mrs. Clinton chats with Benazir Bhutto about her kids, kisses Suha Arafat on the cheek, and attends a few dozen state dinners, and she’s better prepared than McCain to command the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Really?
As to Obama, I just have to reproduce IMAO’s take on Barry answering that call at 3 AM:
I guess I should note that John McCain won enough delegates last night to clinch the Republican nomination on the first ballot. (Yawn.) Mike Huckabee will certainly be hobnobbing at the convention for some position in the administration, and Vice President is not out of the question. I actually like Huckabee, and I hope he sticks around; I think he’s a decent and capable man. The Vice President question is relevant for McCain, because, at 71 and with a paternal history of heart disease, dying in office is a possibility, and be sure that the Democrats will mention this repeatedly. He needs to pick a VP with some chops, not a lightweight.
Update: Allahpundit at Hot Air posted several incendiary comments gathered from leftists on Huffington Post that illustrate what I was talking about when I suggested a possible meltdown at the Democratic convention. They’re already threatening organized violence.
« « Chavez Threatens Colombia, But Not Us | Main | Was It Rush? » »
6 Comments »
Comment by RM
There also may be some awakening to Obama’s youth and relative lack of experience, the “rock star” novelty wearing off, and some of the negative campaigning by the Clintons taking hold. From what I’ve read and observed, even though people complain about it, the negative campaigning works. I agree, this could get increasingly nasty.
Two other observations, one of which speaks to your thread about Rush Limbaugh’s impact on the primary. John McCain is going to have to find it within himself to stand up to either Hilary or Barack. I think he may be able to find the right formula of firmness, no BS, humor, whatever; but if he does not, he will find himself in a bad, bad way. Every time someone dares utter a discouraging word about Obama, someone in his camp becomes outraged. And that’s when Democrats are dissing him. Can’t even imagine what it will be like when a Republican has the temerity to challenge one of his utterances.
I personally do not like the crossover voting. I have to chuckle at the Democrats complaining about it (the hypocrisy is always simply amazing, it was fine for them to do it), but I feel each party should have the privilege of choosing their own candidate without worrying about machinations from the other party. I’m a registered Republican and the only reason I remain one is because I want to have a say in who is chosen in the primary, and feel that “statement” is more meaningful than the statement I could make by resigning. Don’t feel Dems should waltz in and nullify my primary vote (or vice versa). I can see the potential for “Rock the Vote” rallies urging young aspiring liberals to show up en masse to vote in Republican primaries.
Comment by Phil
A) I agree with you about crossover voting. I would not do it, for the same reason. It’s legal, but I think it breaks the system.
B) McCain has shown himself capable already of taking shots the right way. Remember when Michelle Obama made that gaffe about being proud of her country “for the first time?” McCain’s wife gave a speech two days later in which, without reference to Michelle’s comment, she used the sentence “I’ve always been proud of my country.” Nothing there to criticize. And criticism of Obama’s experience has always been fair game.
The truths that the candidates won’t be allowed to say — like, how Obama is really a radical socialist — you and I will just have to do that for him.
Comment by Zanzibar
Heya! Long time no see!
Honestly, as a Dem, I think the ‘bloodbath’ angle is overexposed. If the voters wanted the discussion to end, then they wouldn’t have voted for Hillary on Tuesday – they’d accept Obama as the nominee and be done with it.
The truth is, I still believe it’s good for the Dems to continue to suck the air out of the pundits talking about McCain and the November election. Democrats continue to be jazzed about both candidates.
Imagine the horror for the GOP if one wins the nomination, and the other accepts the VP slot.
Comment by Phil
Ray! How’d you find me? Welcome, man!
You could be right about the bloodbath. The thing that’s going to happen, though, is that all the sound bites against both candidates will have been battle-tested by the time the general rolls around, and the Republicans will know which ones work. You can bet they’re already doing focus groups on them.
Also, the Dems have a huge advantage in financing this year, but the ongoing and bloody campaign may just level the playing field.
Of course, you’ve got the “Recreate ‘68″ nuts to contend with, and believe me, if Clinton manages to steal the nomination from Obama, there will be plenty of folks jumping ship from the Democratic candidate. Nader could pull over 10%, or Obama might get 15% to 20% on a write-in campaign. That’s the gold ring for the Republicans.
Now, honestly, can you see Hillary Clinton accepting the VP slot, after 8 years of taking dumps on Al Gore? She has better sense than to let Obama stick her in that corner. Obama, on the other hand, could credibly accept the VP slot, but won’t if Clinton has seriously back-stabbed him. The Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket is a very long shot at best. But, yeah, it would sell well.
Stealing McCain’s air doesn’t do much; he’s already got name recognition and solid reputation. I’m no fan of his, but he is a viable candidate.
Again, Ray, welcome to my blog, and come back anytime. Glad to have you.
Comment by NevadaDad
I have always lived in states where cross-over voting in primaries was not allowed. Indeed, the premise eludes me as to why you would allow members of the opposite party to control your destiny in even the smallest way.
What is the rationale behind allowing this. Even if I lived in a place where it was allowed, I wouldn’t do it. It just feels scummy to me, yet I’ve heard from more and a few Texans that giddily cast their vote for Hillary during that state’s primaries, even though they were Republicans. I guess the rationale was to keep her alive so the two candidates could continue to claw one another to death. Still, it just feels wrong to me. Legal, but wrong.
Comment by Phil
I believe the rationale is to remove barriers to participating in the party. They don’t want to create an exclusive club, they want to encourage new membership. So they invite anybody to participate.
The fact that it allows your enemies to pick your candidates for you has only been discovered recently, if I’m not mistaken. I’d never heard before of a crossover campaign like the Democrats attempted in New Hampshire back in 2000.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
