Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ON ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDACIES
In trying to speculate as to whether or not Hillary Clinton’s team intentionally leaked news yesterday about her having to loan herself $5 million and accept the offer of campaign staff to go without pay for a month, presumably to save money for media buys, I revisited my notes from Team Clinton’s press call yesterday. I’m willing to defer to Dana’s reactions, as she was on the conference call too, but the fact that the Clinton advisers were stressing how Barack Obama, not Hillary, is now the “establishment candidate” because he is collecting endorsements from politicians provides a big clue. Aside from its facial absurdity, this talking point now strikes me as a hint that Clinton was going to begin refashioning herself as the underdog, insurgent candidate who isn’t blessed with all the advantages like, say, $32M in January fundraising receipts.
Also ironic about the suggestion that Obama, not Clinton, is the establishment candidate are two other points stressed at several junctures during the call by either Mark Penn, Guy Cecil or Howard Wolfson: (1) their emphasis on the significance of the battle for superdelegates, which of course is a battle for elite Democratic support, not mass Democratic support, and which accounts for Clinton’s present overall lead in the race; and (2) their insistence on seating the Michigan and Florida delegates from those non-sanctioned contests. What makes this so ironic, if not downright hypocritical?
Well, for one, obviously a “non-establishment candidate” wouldn’t be touting her advantages among, um, the establishment of the party; the “establishment” of the party and the party’s superdelegates are not synonymous universes, but the latter is a damn good proxy for the former. Second, only an “establishment candidate” would have both the temerity and the power to try to seat delegates won in non-sanctioned primaries by, in effect, declaring them legitimate delegates ex post facto. This move is especially indicative of the Clintons not merely being establishment, but finding or at least believing themselves to be situated at or near the top of that very establishment.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (19)
Yes, no matter what Chris Bowers might think, Clintons ARE the Democratic establishment. The Wahington Post Editorial board is not.
Posted by: Soullite | February 7, 2008 10:18 AM
The move also, I must say, smacks of desperation. The attempt to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates is highly unseemly and I can't imagine they would even consider it if they didn't think they were doomed without it.
Posted by: cervantes | February 7, 2008 10:43 AM
"Facial absurdity"? WTF, dude? You mean, "absurd on the face of it"?
Posted by: Traven | February 7, 2008 10:44 AM
Yes, the underdog Clinton is not blessed with advantages like being able to raise $32 million. She just has the advantage of, you know, having $5 million kicking around to lend herself.
Here's what's also ironic: the candidate who has spent the entire campaign talking about her 35 years of experience is now positioning herself as the anti-establishment insurgent. Must be nice to be able to have it both ways.
Posted by: Fred App | February 7, 2008 10:44 AM
"Well, for one, obviously a “non-establishment candidate” wouldn’t be touting her advantages among, um, the establishment of the party"
She's playinog the Bush/Rove game here.
Posted by: brewmn | February 7, 2008 10:54 AM
[O]nly an “establishment candidate” would have both the temerity and the power to try to seat delegates won in non-sanctioned primaries by, in effect, declaring them legitimate delegates ex post facto.
Sorry, but this is, to coin a phrase, facially absurd. How exactly does acquiescence to the national party's rules, with the consequent disenfranchisement of millions of rank-and-file Democratic voters in these states, add up to proof of establishmentarianism? It seems, on the face of it, the opposite: a willingness to buck the party establishment on behalf of the Dem masses in these states. One could with some justice call it demagoguery, or ceasarism, or something of that nature. But establishmentarianism? Not so much.
Posted by: Amileo | February 7, 2008 10:59 AM
Sorry, hit send too soon.
She's playing the Bush/Rove game by counting on the media to parrot the day's talking points, and never looking behind those points for context or consistency.
Posted by: brewmn | February 7, 2008 10:59 AM
How exactly can you claim to be the underdog when superdelegates are spotting you points in the primary?
Because of superdelegates, Hillary Clinton has to win less of the popular vote in contested elections than Barack Obama does.
Really, if you need to score fewer points to win the game, how can you EVER claim to be an underdog? Especially if you're being spotted points largely because you were married to the former President?
This is really desperate, and I'm sorry, anybody who believes it is a total moron. And I say that as someone who likes Clinton.
Posted by: anon | February 7, 2008 11:07 AM
She might as well parrot talking points as everyone else does w/just as much meaning
Posted by: anon7 | February 7, 2008 11:09 AM
Let's see. Obama has the establishment politicans, the establishment media, and the establishment bloggers.
Gee, I wonder who the establishment candidate might be?
Posted by: John Petty | February 7, 2008 11:50 AM
The "establishment bloggers"? Really?
Who are they?
Posted by: Aaron | February 7, 2008 12:11 PM
What does that word "establishment" even mean in this context? Does it mean that you've been around along time and have set up connections and links to people in power? Does it mean that people who have been in power a long time like you? When I hear politicians use the phrase "establishment candidate", I hear a loaded and essentially meaningless term that reveals only that the other guy is bad somehow. It's like the term "strict constructionist." These phrases have meaning only in the context of competitve politics, and they reveal more about the tactics of the speaker than the attributes of the one being targeted.
Posted by: winer | February 7, 2008 12:32 PM
typo: I meant to write "a long" not "along".
Posted by: winer | February 7, 2008 12:34 PM
"The "establishment bloggers"? Really?
Who are they?"
straight-male "progressives" who have bought the MSM narrative hook, line & sinker.
Closet Clinton supporters exist. Closet Obama supporters? Not so much.
Posted by: anon7 | February 7, 2008 12:53 PM
The Clinton campaign's effort to paint Obama as the establishment candidate and Clinton as the underdog is downright Romneyesque!
Posted by: mikem | February 7, 2008 12:55 PM
"Closet Clinton supporters exist. Closet Obama supporters? Not so much"
I know a few Closet Obama supporters. They're Republicans.
Posted by: winer | February 7, 2008 3:28 PM
Establishment bloggers: Kos, HuffPost, TPM, Yglesias, and many others.
What we're seeing is, partly, a battle over who constitutes the establishment in the Democratic Party. The Clintons have their loyalists, and they are a strong influence and presence.
I read the Kennedy endorsement as an attempt to get back in the game. With Obama as president, old Senate bulls like Kennedy would have more power.
Posted by: John Petty | February 7, 2008 3:53 PM
The Clinton campaign's effort to paint Obama as the establishment candidate and Clinton as the underdog is downright Romneyesque!
Clinton loaning her own campaing millions of dollars is Romneyeque.
I read the Kennedy endorsement as an attempt to get back in the game. With Obama as president, old Senate bulls like Kennedy would have more power.
Leahy too? The horror! Those guys are saying Obama has enough experience and would make a better President.
So John, let me get this straight, Hillary has more experience and will be ready on day one - like Cheney - and yet Obama is the establishment candidate?
Posted by: Peter K. | February 7, 2008 4:50 PM
"Establishment bloggers: Kos, HuffPost, TPM, Yglesias, and many others.
What we're seeing is, partly, a battle over who constitutes the establishment in the Democratic Party."
So you're saying (1) there effectively isn't a Democratic Establishment (or there wouldn't be a battle over who constitutes it; that's the thing about Establishments - they're, y'know, "established") and also (2) that the blogs you name ("and many others") are part of this undefined Establishment ... because they favor Obama, I guess.
Color me "unconvinced".
Posted by: Aaron | February 7, 2008 7:07 PM