Once again, Senator Obama out-spoke Senator Clinton, as they each spoke after the North Carolina-Indiana primary day, he from Raleigh and she from Indianapolis. He talked about the struggles of his humble/working-class (and white) ancestors/family members, talked a lot about their (and his) love for America, and derided Senator McCain's program. She also talked about working-class roots, sounded economic populist themes, pitched for contributions through her Web site, and talked about herself as a fighter who wasn't about to give up. Super-talking head David Gergen wondered if her heart wasn't in it, and he noted what he thought was First Daughter Chelsea Clinton's mournful countenance (President Clinton and Chelsea were more in evidence up on the stage today). (Gergen and the talking heads also agreed that Clinton has become a better candidate since dropping the frontrunner and commander-in-chief campaigns in favor of the populist one.) Obama won North Carolina relatively handily, and it appeared that Clinton had won Indiana - despite Obama once having called Indiana a "tie-breaker" with Clinton having taken PA and Obama taking NC. (In spite of Congressman Baron Hill's endorsement of Senator Obama, Obama lost every county in Hill's southeastern Indiana Congressional district [including neighboring Clark and Floyd counties], except for the county with Bloomington, a college town (Indiana University) with not very many African-Americans but lots of white college students and highly educated whites who tilt towards Obama.) But Clinton's speech got delayed because the networks wouldn't call IN, because Lake County, the second most populous IN county and Obama country, in the Chicago metro area/media market and with a large African-American population, mysteriously wouldn't release any vote totals until it had counted all absentee ballots (a reminder of neighboring Cook County IL's old practice of not giving any vote totals until party bosses there decided how many votes they would have to manufacture to put their candidate over the top?). Not knowing whether she had really won may have also hobbled her speech a little.
The math really is pretty daunting for Clinton. But her allies argue that she polls better against McCain in a number of major states (states mainly whose primaries she's won) and that it's the Obama campaign's fault that no delegates are yet authorized to represent Florida and Michigan, big states that the national party stripped of their delegates when they held unauthorized early primaries (primaries that for the most part - until Clinton began campaigning at the end) both candidates ignored, following the national party's wishes. It may well be that Clinton would have won both of those primaries - though it's hard to know what would have happened if those two states had held their primaries when they were supposed to. Party leaders are supposed to meet at the end of this month (after smaller than yesterday primaries in Oregon, neighboring West Virginia, and our own Kentucky) to try to figure out any way to seat FL and Michigan delegates. (I skipped voting by absentee ballot in the Florida primary partly because I supported the national party.) I suspect Senator Clinton will still be campaigning hard then, even if the chance of her winning has shrunken further.
Clinton has done what Senator John Edwards did not do against Senator John Kerry four years ago - really keep charging hard against him - aided occasionally by Republicans and by the media. Edwards stayed "positive" and ended up Kerry's running mate, helping unite the party (see "Another idea"). But this never exposed Kerry to some of the tough criticism that later helped derail the Kerry-Edwards ticket, criticism that - if leveled earlier - might have made it stick less during the general electoin campaign or might have made the party turn to another (stronger?) candidate (like Edwards?).
In the past two elections, the Democrats have run candidates who smacked of elitism - Kerry and Gore - both candidates who grew up - like President Bush - privileged, but both - unlike Bush - also grew up wanting to be president. Will Obama make it three in a row?
On the other hand, Senator Clinton's populist shtick seems a little unconvincing both because she doesnt' seem working-class, and because - thanks to post-White House income - she and President Clinton are wealthy (if not as much as Edwards) and our memory of all of their schmoozing with Wall Street corporate liberals, selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom, pardoning Marc Rich, backing free trade agreements, and appointing folks like Alan Greenspan (whose Fed policies helped cause the mortgage crisis) to help run the federal government. Clinton's populist campaign also reminds me a little of Vice President Gore's populist campaign effort in 2000. Although Gore probably actually won the election (before the Dade County election board and the U.S. Supreme Court's Republican majority took it away), I always thought that Gore's populist line was a tad unconvincing, given all of the Clinton-Gore 1990s baggage I mentioned above (and he and Hillary Clinton are both only OK speakers who talk through applause). Still, it's hard for white working-class people - like the rest of us - not to remember, wistfully, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton-Gore years, and this must be part of Clinton's attraction to them.
The math really is pretty daunting for Clinton. But her allies argue that she polls better against McCain in a number of major states (states mainly whose primaries she's won) and that it's the Obama campaign's fault that no delegates are yet authorized to represent Florida and Michigan, big states that the national party stripped of their delegates when they held unauthorized early primaries (primaries that for the most part - until Clinton began campaigning at the end) both candidates ignored, following the national party's wishes. It may well be that Clinton would have won both of those primaries - though it's hard to know what would have happened if those two states had held their primaries when they were supposed to. Party leaders are supposed to meet at the end of this month (after smaller than yesterday primaries in Oregon, neighboring West Virginia, and our own Kentucky) to try to figure out any way to seat FL and Michigan delegates. (I skipped voting by absentee ballot in the Florida primary partly because I supported the national party.) I suspect Senator Clinton will still be campaigning hard then, even if the chance of her winning has shrunken further.
Clinton has done what Senator John Edwards did not do against Senator John Kerry four years ago - really keep charging hard against him - aided occasionally by Republicans and by the media. Edwards stayed "positive" and ended up Kerry's running mate, helping unite the party (see "Another idea"). But this never exposed Kerry to some of the tough criticism that later helped derail the Kerry-Edwards ticket, criticism that - if leveled earlier - might have made it stick less during the general electoin campaign or might have made the party turn to another (stronger?) candidate (like Edwards?).
In the past two elections, the Democrats have run candidates who smacked of elitism - Kerry and Gore - both candidates who grew up - like President Bush - privileged, but both - unlike Bush - also grew up wanting to be president. Will Obama make it three in a row?
On the other hand, Senator Clinton's populist shtick seems a little unconvincing both because she doesnt' seem working-class, and because - thanks to post-White House income - she and President Clinton are wealthy (if not as much as Edwards) and our memory of all of their schmoozing with Wall Street corporate liberals, selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom, pardoning Marc Rich, backing free trade agreements, and appointing folks like Alan Greenspan (whose Fed policies helped cause the mortgage crisis) to help run the federal government. Clinton's populist campaign also reminds me a little of Vice President Gore's populist campaign effort in 2000. Although Gore probably actually won the election (before the Dade County election board and the U.S. Supreme Court's Republican majority took it away), I always thought that Gore's populist line was a tad unconvincing, given all of the Clinton-Gore 1990s baggage I mentioned above (and he and Hillary Clinton are both only OK speakers who talk through applause). Still, it's hard for white working-class people - like the rest of us - not to remember, wistfully, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton-Gore years, and this must be part of Clinton's attraction to them.
(Incidentally, it may take someone with Gore's stature to finally put an end to the Democratic blood-letting, by helping get them and their aides in a room, along with Howard Dean, and make a deal about the MI and FL delegations and patch things up, through a "dream team" ticket, or even through a third candidate, Edwards, Gore, or someone else.)
No comments:
Post a Comment