Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BUT DOES IT WORK?
I thought this passage from the Times story about Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was interesting:
In a 20-minute address, Mr. Kennedy hailed Mr. Obama’s ability to transcend racial divisions. Mr. Kennedy, who associates said had become furious by the tone of the Democratic campaign, including the words and actions of former President Bill Clinton, said Mr. Obama would usher in a new era of politics.The strongest case to be made for Clinton is that her willingness to fight hard if not dirty will make her the strongest candidate against the GOP in the fall. And I don't think this is a frivolous argument by any means. Although Obama has shown some ability to fight back (cf. his reply to John Howard, and he did a good job of replying-to-without-naming the Clintons on Saturday) at times he can seem unnecessarily defensive in response to even mild attacks. On the other hand, while I like the idea of having a street fighter as a candidate in the abstract I think one also has to question whether the specific tough tactics being used by Clinton have actually been effective. Given the complete blowout in South Carolina and the recent rash of Obama endorsements, it's hard to make the case that Bill Clinton going on the offensive has been particularly helpful to Clinton's campaign. The odious Jesse Jackson invocation was additionally dismaying because it seemed to reflect a very dim view of 2008 Democratic primary voters, and it's one that I don't think is terribly well justified. I think Clinton does have some very real political skills, and she may well be the strongest candidate in the general election, but her primary campaign hasn't been terribly effective given the large advantages she started the race with.
And one can say the same thing about some of her policy panders. I can maybe see it in the immediate aftermath of Texas v. Johnson when such silliness briefly became a salient issue, but at this late date does anyone think that sponsoring Constitution flag-burning legislation
is going to convince anyone to vote for her? I actually am inclined to
think that her vote on the war represents a sincere conviction that the
war was right, but for those who think that it was political
positioning her judgment has quite clearly been erroneous -- her
position on the war would deprive her of a crucial issue in the general
but also could quite possibly cost her the Democratic nomination. I'm
all for politics being the art of the possible, but Clinton's political
instincts don't always seem especially sound to me.
Or, to put it another way, not only does Mark Penn make me worry a little bit about the policy direction of a Clinton administration (compared to the other major Dems), I see little reason to believe that he's any great shakes as a political tactician either.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (13)
Hillary = President McCain. I just can't believe we are gonna go over this cliff. It's simply not believable.
Posted by: Nick | January 29, 2008 12:54 PM
This is an excellent point. People forget that for all the talk of the Clinton campaign's prowess, where would they be right now if they weren't the lucky beneficiaries of the biggest political fluke of our times in NH? Remember all the talk of the Clinton campaign in meltdown-panic mode? How quickly the discourse forgets and pretends it never happened.
I'm not sure yet that Hillary = Pres McCain, but it is a little close for comfort.
Posted by: greg | January 29, 2008 1:20 PM
Hillary may be willing to fight harder and dirtier, which is good in that should she become the nominee, she's going to face some seriously dirty attacks coming at her from the Republicans. But it'
s also a negative. I, for one, am tired of the s***-slinging.
I agree that Hillary as our nominee makes it MUCH easier for the Dems to lose in November.
Posted by: lux | January 29, 2008 1:52 PM
I'm a big fan of Scott's, but I don't agree that the Jesse Jackson comment "reflects a very dim view of 2008 Democratic primary voters."
Voters of every group, including whites, tend to vote from candidates from that group. In 1960, for example, We Irish stampeded off to the polls, thrilled by the chance to vote for Dear Jack. There's nothing evil or degrading about that. Many black voters are thrilled by the chance to vote for someone like Obama, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be. (Many female voter have said they're thrilled by the chance to vote for Hillary Clinton.) I think we'll all be better off when race "means less" than it does at present, but we don't live in that world right now. In the meantime, every pundit assumed, in advance, that Obama would have an edge among black voters. That's how it worked out in SC, and in my view, it's all good. I think we saw a lot of people "voting for," not "voting against."
Posted by: bob somerby | January 29, 2008 2:38 PM
Hillary = President McCain
I just can't believe we are gonna go over this cliff
Would that be the same Gore = Bush cliff?
Come on. Obama is to her left slightly on foreign policy and FCC issues, she's to his left slightly on energy policy, Social Security and health care. And for that, she's McCain? And he's the great progressive hope?
If she wins the Dem nomination, should we vote for Nader again?
Because, you know, there's no difference...ugh.
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 29, 2008 2:51 PM
Eric Martin: I don't think they were saying Hillary is the SAME as McCain, rather, they were saying that Hillary will lose to McCain. I think it would be a tough-fought contest but Mr. "100 Years In Iraq" is not without his own weaknesses. But I think she'd mop the floor with Romney.
Posted by: SalHepatica | January 29, 2008 3:08 PM
Er...you got a point there SH.
But stay off my lawn ya damn whippersnappers...
(waves cane in direction of phantom adversaries)
Posted by: Eric Martin | January 29, 2008 3:30 PM
"odious Jesse Jackson invocation"
Read the whole interview, and how incidental this reference was in immediate response to a question, and then tell us how "odious" it was. The idea that either Clinton would try to bite off their nose to spite their face and engage in race-baiting -- in a party where the minority population is huge -- is beyond ridiculously absurd. But that's the narrative Republicans have fed us -- and man does it work!
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2008 4:53 PM
I entered the last one. I should have said "the Republicans and the major media."
Posted by: urbanlegend | January 29, 2008 4:55 PM
There was no "blowout". Obama won 80% of the black vote, and a quarter of the white vote.
Close to half the people who said Bill Clinton made a difference in their decision voted for Hillary. Late breakers apparently went for Edwards.
So are you really so foolish as to think that something other than planned happened in South Carolina?
Just 3 days later, after that horrible, divisive primary in which Hillary apparently got "blown out", she wins in Florida. Yeah, the votes won't count. That's not the point. The turnout for something that didn't count was enormous. More people voted for Hillary than voted in all the previous primaries combined. All this for a vote that won't count.
In Florida, Obama got 22% of the white vote, 70% of the black vote, and just a bit of the Hispanic vote.
So I don't think Mark Penn needs to worry about your opinion of his strategic skills.
Posted by: Cal | January 30, 2008 2:25 AM
The Clintons are not racist and the comments that Bill made are being taken out of context and much further than is right. urbanlegend has it right. I am really disappointed that TAP has succumbed to the silliness. It is a little early for anyone to say that Obama has transcended racial divisions. SC looked pretty polarized to me, as does Florida. If he wins the general, then we can say he has transcended something. Don't forget that there are a lot of people who think of him as the black guy with the funny name running for president. One last point... Has anyone considered that Hillary may be thinking a few months ahead? I would guess that her visit to Florida had more about winning that state in the general election than in the primary. Something along the lines of 'I came down to see you when noone else would. When there were no votes to win. Because I care about this state and the people it it?' The big picture is all that matters.
Posted by: JB | January 30, 2008 8:53 AM
Hillary will sweep McCain away. Obama will never get elected in a general election when Republicans vote. Haven't we had enough of an inexperienced President? I am so sick of Obama's flowing words- where is the substance?! And he's gonna be the force of change but Ted Kennedy, the epitome of the establishment, is the support he yells most loudly about! And his constant references to Martin Luther King- you don't think that's deliberately reminding black voters that he's one of them. It's a subtle way of injecting race into this campaign. Don't like him, don't trust him. Hillary will lead us to victory and be a great President!!!
Posted by: brynababy | February 12, 2008 6:45 PM
Thank you for the post.. sesli sohbet
Posted by: sesli chat | September 12, 2009 8:52 PM