How Hillary Clinton Made the Tent a Little Bigger

Last night after returning home from the Pepsi Center, I wrote the following in an email:

We just got home, still a little bit dazed by all the political star power. Hillary Clinton brought her A-game, and every single note rang as well as it possibly could have throughout the halls of the Pepsi Center.

Here's a thought that's haunted me this evening: If Clinton had managed to connect as well during the primary as she has since, and if Obama had been as anemic through the primary as he's been perceived to be since, I'm not sure the roles wouldn't have been reversed between the two this week at the convention.

On a side note, Deval Patrick gave a great speech, as did Ted Strickland, who delivered one of the best zingers of the night: "Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base--and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way."

Hillary Clinton really and truly brought her best speech last night. If there are a few remaining, unhappy Clinton supporters who won't vote Democratic this year, I'm not sure where they are. Except for Debra Bartoshevich, of course, but I think Steve Benen summed her radical position in support of John McCain quite nicely: she's just confused.

After Monday and Tuesday night speeches by Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama arguably has a huge job ahead on Thursday to follow those acts. And that doesn't take into account the other Clinton, set to speak tonight. (See this post from Andy Borowitz at the Huffington Post for an eye opening tidbit to underscore the tension not only between the former president and the contender, but between the DNC and the former president!)

Not only does Obama have to bring his best to Denver this Thursday, he's going to have to improve upon and repeat that effort every single day until the election. No more vacations and no more free passes. Hillary Clinton raised the bar last night on every front. She connected with her audience, and she assailed the politics of George W. Bush and John McCain:"No way, no how, no McCain!" Her call wasn't simply to create unity within the party behind the candidate, but to draw a stark line in the sand for every single Democrat who hopes for a better future for this country. To all her supporters, Clinton asked "Were you in this campaign just for me? . . . Or were you in in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?"

Unlike her concession speech that effectively ended the primary season, Clinton did not simply bang the "I support Barack Obama" drum. Last night she laid down the challenge for Democrats and insisted that we all must support Barack Obama for the future of this country. Hillary Clinton, alone on a big stage, brought the best of her personal and political selves, brought her A-game, and brought down the house.

Smooth

I liked everything Obama said yesterday. And I'm pretty well disposed by now to feel a reactionary dislike to almost everything coming out of the Clinton campaign machine the past several--and no doubt for the next several--weeks.

That said, Clinton sounds pretty darn good in this clip.

"The Tonya Harding Option"

I hadn't heard it put this way before. Jake Tapper at ABC News quotes an unnamed, Democratic Party official as saying that the Clinton campaign, in order to secure the nomination, has only one option.

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

After reading speculation on whether Camp Clinton is hoping for a McCain presidency, just so the former first lady will still have a shot in 2012 (which I don't buy into but I'm also not prepared to guarantee is not the twisted shape of things), I can actually see the "Tonya Harding option" as being not that far from the mark. Which just makes me wonder how much uglier the Clinton campaign stands to get before this is all over.

Texas Showdown

I'm a few days behind on this, but thankfully The Mex Files keeps us abreast of immigration policy and the Texas primary as the March 4 Democratic showdown approaches.

The bottom line, according to Joaquin Tijerina of The Brownsville Herald: both Clinton and Obama voted pro-fence in 2006, and, as the delegate race comes down to the wire and candidates scramble for every last vote, both probably wish they could tell Hispanic voters that they hadn't.

The More Things Change . . .

Via Kevin Drum, Josh Green at the Atlantic Monthly writes about the Clinton campaign muck-up going on right now, and looks into some of the reasons why. What follows is a detailed look into the management style and campaign philosophy of Clinton's recently ousted campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle.

Green's article offers great background on the Clinton camp, reviewing Solis Doyle's role in Clinton's 2006 Senate reelection campaign, and looking beyond that even to 1991, when Solis Doyle first hired on with the Clintons. Kevin Drum's post concerns itself, briefly, with the damning seriousness of Green's article, and implications for the Clinton campaign.

Here's what caught my eye, though:

. . . Clinton chose [Solis Doyle] to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else.

Emphasis mine. In a campaign that has become very focused on change, or at least the perception of change, this sounds an awful lot like the current status quo in the Oval Office, no?

Against the Ropes?

"For Clinton, Bid Hinges on Texas and Ohio." Not a headline I expected to read. Is this true? Is this the media framing the race in terms that are media friendly? Does Hillary Clinton slip far enough behind in the delegate count if she doesn't show up well today that her bid truly hinges on two states?

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Wow. Could be interesting to see what the day brings. My favorite part, though? Speaking privately in order to speak plainly. A certain poetry, that.

Guesses and Predictions on the Straight Talk Express

A couple days ago I posted that I don't believe conservatives will stay home this November rather than vote for John McCain. My thinking is that in the end, the worst Republican candidate is still a better choice for president, to the minds of conservative voters, than the best (read "least offensive") Democratic candidate.

Kevin Drum disagrees. Of last night's caucus results Kevin remarks:

Bottom line: this has been a disastrous night for McCain. Sure, he'll win the nomination eventually, but he looks like a goner in the general election. He's either going to be forced to spend so much time pandering to pissed-off conservatives that he loses the independent vote, or else he's going to beg for independents and wake up on November 5th to find out that half his base decided to stay home rather than vote for him.

Not sure what I think about that, but it's well put and Kevin makes the strong point that, one way or another, McCain is going to lose one group of voters to appeal to another. I have to assume that knowing who he will run against will answer the question of which group will be the disenchanted ones.

Warning: Guesswork and extreme oversimplification ahead. Okay. You've been warned.

If he's trying to beat Obama, then I figure McCain doesn't sweat the independent vote. Not sure why, I just have it in mind that independents and undecideds, and maybe a handful of disgruntled Republicans, too, break for the Democrat in that race. (Deep down we are still an idealistic and optimistic nation. Hope, peace, and prosperity have not gone out of fashion.) In which case McCain woos the conservatives, makes all manner of obscene promises, and descends to the grossest levels of pandering, hoping for a wave of political support (big money) from his party to carry him home to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Plus he prays for a stream of really good press. And it will have to be extremely good press, for the simple reason that every time the papers run Obama's good natured smile--or his pensive "foreign policy face"--next to McCain's temperamental and strangely asymmetrical mug, Americans, being the creatures we are, will find ourselves drawn to the more handsome of the two.

Against Hillary Clinton I foresee a different strategy. McCain doesn't sweat the conservative vote, counting on "Billary" to motivate (should I say "provoke"?) the base for him. Instead he relentlessly tries to make the case to independents, undecideds, and anti-Clinton Democrats that he is the moderate stalwart this country needs right now to restore credibility both at home and abroad. And, since the economy will likely still be in a tailspin as he pushes his campaign toward the finish line--and, incidentally, the holiday season--he'll remind taxpayers they'll be forfeiting significantly more money in taxes each year under a President Clinton than a President McCain.*

The tricky part, regardless of who comes away with the Democratic nomination, is that McCain has to run both these campaign strategies simultaneously until the Democratic nominee becomes clear. In this I agree with Kevin completely:

This is a mighty narrow tightrope he's walking, and it looks like he's going to be fighting gale-force crosswinds the whole way.

The way things are going now, it looks to be a very long summer of mixed messages and minced words on the Straight Talk Express.

*I'd love to offer some insight on how McCain situates the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ongoing War on Terror (which phrase has been dialed down of late in the national colloquy), in his campaign, but this is far too slippery for this amateur political observer.

Upcoming Democratic Primaries

Here's a pretty good run down of what to expect in the upcoming Democratic primaries. Clear, concise, and absolutely honest about the unreliability of prediction making this election cycle.

Making Statements, and Having Statements Made For You

From the AP (via Yahoo):

Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

Now, when I read that, the way it's phrased made me wonder if what Obama didn't say is that the GOP won't have a truckful of dirt on him. Pretty bold, if that's the way things went down.

As it turns out, that's not the way things went down. Read to the bottom and you get Obama's actual words:

And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true.

That's a whole lot different than the opening paragraph of the article. The trick is that Obama didn't specifically say, in some knowing way, that the GOP will have dirt on Clinton (which doubtless they will). What he said is that the GOP attack machine will go after whoever the Dem candidate is, and that any "notion" that Clinton will be "immune" from this is hogwash. Which of course it is. If anything, Clinton stands to get the worst of it, because she's got a longer political career behind her and the Clinton name alone generates hatred among the so-called Fever Swamp like nobody's business.

I'm not too interested in parsing why the reporter framed the article the way she did. There are too many unknowns to come to any substantive conclusion (though that sort of argument rarely stops me). I am actually much more interested in something else Obama said this morning, which also made it into the article:

"I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.

Whoa. I haven't found a transcript of his full remarks, but if this is really how this one went then look out. That's a huge claim, straight up and quite direct. And I'd love to see some numbers to go with it.

What seems plenty likely, to my ear right now, is that there may have been some discussion about the general election that we just aren't privy to in this snippet. In that context, I think Obama's right. Come November, if he's the one, then I suspect he will get almost all those would-be Clinton votes. Does it work the other way, then? Would Clinton be able to get as many of the same folks out to the polls as Obama appears poised to motivate? That seems like a pretty valid question to ask as the country took another step closer last night to the possibility of a brokered convention.

What Comes After Super Tuesday? Wednesday Morning Speculation, Of Course

Everybody agrees: Super Tuesday was a draw for the Democrats. The Washington Post declares "Clinton, Obama Split Super Tuesday Contests." The New York Times: "Clinton and Obama Trade Victories." Los Angeles Times: "With No Losers, the Fight Goes On." The Wall Street Journal: "Obama, Clinton, Split Dems' Super Tuesday." Accordingly, Obama didn't "grab" any major upsets, though I think Connecticut counts as a significant one, and Clinton didn't "blow" any of her expected gimmes. All of which means what, exactly?

As The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen wrote yesterday:

I suspect tonight will be similar. Clinton, I cautiously assume, will win most of the Democratic contests. But how the results are perceived will make all the difference — if the headline reads, “Clinton cruises to victory in most Super Tuesday states,” she’ll have momentum going into the next round of contests and solidify her position as the frontrunner. If it reads, “Clinton, Obama split delegates on Super Tuesday,” it’ll be a wash.

[snip]

I suspect Obama may very well lose [NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA,] but if it’s perceived as one rough day — a rough day in which Obama still wins a lot of delegates from each of the states — it’s easier to bounce back.

I think Benen makes a lot of sense, and he cites Adam Nagourney and Markos Moulitsas on his way to reaching the conclusion that Obama "has to lose just well enough." That is, hang in, keep it close, and continue to position himself as the next great hope. Obama, of course, is running on the platform of change. To this end I believe his campaign wants to continue to generate momentum, chip away at Clinton's top dog status, continue to inspire and exhilarate supporters, thus attracting new ones, and continue to generate preposterous sums of cash. (It's no doubt more complicated than all that, but the point is that a close night for Obama is actually a victory; he was never supposed to come this far against the first family of Democratic politics.)

Now Obama must simply keep doing what he's been doing--it seems to have worked so far--and reap the next handful of primaries where he's positioned to do well. The perceived draw last night, and a number of "Victory" headlines for the Obama camp, even little ones like South Dakota that may trickle in through May and June (eons from now, on the political futures markets), could just put him into the #1 slot as the hype mounts in Denver in anticipation of the August convention.

I'll just repeat that little note, that Obama took Connecticut, albeit the least consequential, in terms of delegates, of the 5 presumed wins Clinton was seeking. Obama's performance also made for dramatic news in Missouri when the AP called the state for Clinton and then reversed the announcement in Obama's favor. That had to feel good.

Contrary to Steve's "rough day" comment, I don't think it looks that way at all for Obama. The Obama camp would have loved a big coup in a state like New Jersey or California, but I think he'll take what he's got and keep working. Clinton, at the same time, is likely chagrined about the 26 delegates she didn't get from Connecticut, as well as the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't turn of events in Missouri. Remember, she's still fighting to keep everything she's got. Obama, for whom nothing is assumed, is fighting for everything he's going to get. Just from the outset, that plays in nicely to him looking hopeful and her looking embattled.

Learning to Like Hillary

I am undecided as to whom I'd like to vote for in the Democratic race for the presidency. Obama appeals to me on a gut level, but I'm not sure that's enough. The comparison is unkind, but you get the sneaking suspicion that millions of Americans voted for George W. Bush--twice--simply because he appealed to them on a gut level. I've read Obama's book, and it reads alright, but man, it's all platitudes. I don't doubt the guy has a big brain full of policy in the making, and that he's not only exceptionally bright but politically savvy as well. But vague brush strokes and a tendency to generalize don't cut it when you're the President of the United States.

Hillary Clinton has the opposite effect on me from Barack Obama: she's rough, I don't like the sound of her voice, and I sometimes feel she comes of as shrill. Her grandstanding on the Senate floor appalls me from time to time, but more because of the factors mentioned above then because of what she actually has to say. When I listen to the points Hillary Clinton makes, I often find myself in agreement (although I strongly object to any rhetoric that validates the sabre-rattling coming out of Iran).

So where does that leave me? That's what I wondered this morning when I sat and read this:

"After eight years of the Bush administration, we are going to be shocked by what we find," the New York senator and former first lady said. "Somebody said to me the other day if there was ever a time for a woman president it's now because we're going to have to do a lot of cleaning."

Ha ha. She's a politician's politician, which I distrust simply because she's neither charming nor endearing like her husband. But she's prepared, she's done her homework, and she might just be able to lead the country back to a place in the world that Americans can be proud of.

"If Hillary Clinton thinks women will support her candidacy simply based on her gender she is mistaken," RNC spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson said. "Women, like men, will vote for a candidate because they share their views, and Hillary's consist of higher taxes, bigger government and waving a white flag in the global war on terror."

If this is how Republicans mean to attack Clinton during the upcoming election, then it may not be a bad thing. I'm at the point where, if "higher taxes, bigger government and waving a white flag" means America is willing to invest in schools, families and the environment, provide a level of health care for all Americans that is in keeping with our presumptions about our standing in the world, and return to American citizens and global citizens alike the Constitutional right to habeas corpus, then hey, I could actually vote for her.

Does Hillary Shop Wal-Mart?

Does Hillary shop Wal-Mart? Well, no. It would be sort of silly to imagine Hillary Clinton has time to do a whole lot of her own shopping at all, I imagine. But this article from the New York Times attempts to shed light on a relatively little-known aspect of Clinton's career. Hillary Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors from 1986-1992, years during which she practiced law at a notable Little Rock law firm and, of course, was First Lady to the state of Arkansas, Wal-Mart's home base.

So how does this play for the Clinton campaign? The article leaves me wondering. On the one hand, Wal-Mart represents to many on the left everything that is wrong with American corporate practices and policies. On the other hand, Clinton is portrayed as a passionate advocate for the advancement of women in the Wal-Mart hierarchy, and as a steward of environmental innovation at a time when it was not so hip to preach green. Then there's this:

And several months ago, Mrs. Clinton helped broker a secret meeting between a top Wal-Mart executive and former Democratic operative, Leslie Dach, and leaders of the retailer’s longtime adversary at the United Food and Commercial Workers union, according to several people briefed on the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly.

The goal of the meeting was to tamp down the rancor between the company and the union, which has set up a group, WakeUpWalMart.com, that has harshly criticized the chain and leaked embarrassing internal documents to the news media, though an accord has not yet been reached.

Several months ago? Pretty interesting. So at the same time that her campaign would appear to distance itself from her career with Wal-Mart, Hillary Clinton appears to be working toward some measure of social justice with the corporation. Do I read this right?

All of this leaves me with questions, the most primary of which is "Whose goals are served?" It will be interesting to see what more develops on this topic as the campaign moves forward.