Do not doubt for a moment that Hillary Clinton is in the race all the way to the bitter end.
This is how she and Bubba will process what they learned last night by winning in Texas and Ohio:
1) Negative campaigning works. The White House telephone ad did two things: (a) it raised the issue of experience in a visceral Barry Goldwater-Willie Horton way, and (b) it caused Barack to respond with a similar ad. This will be perceived as a sign of weakness by the Clinton campaign. Barack (as they would have done) should have responded by upping the ante and deriding her lack of real experience except for sleeping (sometimes) with the President rather than passively defending his own inexperience. They will further see this as pinning Barack into the good guy mold who cannot go negative without causing a stir. Moreover, the Clintons believe there is a subliminal message behind negative campaigning: As hard as I fight to win, that's how hard I'll fight for you. The corollary is that Barack is too weak to be a strong president.
2) Smear tactics work. From the turban to the darker images, the smear tactics worked. First, so what if they alienated black voters and new voters? Hillary is not going to get the black voters in the nomination fight, and in the general they have no place else to go. The new voters? The Clintons believe as James Carville does, that candidates who depend on new voters or young voters are losers, because in the end they don't show up. Second, the recurring theme of Barack as being just subtly not quite an American in terms of religion, or ancestry, or outlook does resonate with a percentage of the white, blue-collar Democrats who need an excuse not to vote for a black candidate--and there are quite a few of them. Finally, the smears take both Barack and the media off-message to deal with them. Remember, it's not only about getting Hillary's message out, it's about keeping Barack from doing the same.
3) Shifting gears from health care to foreign policy works. Hillary's health care plan is not significantly different enough from Barack's to win votes, and arguments about those differences cause even health care zealots to start yawning. But Hillary will conclude that upping the pressure on foreign policy (expanded from just the Iraq war to trade issues) has caused Barack to make significant missteps. Expect her to introduce Kossovo independence (the Wes Clark influence) and/or the Colombia/Venezuela/Ecuador crisis during the next debates to see if Barack can be induced to make another NAFTA/Canada slip-up. Barack on foreign policy, the Clintons believe, is a one-note-samba: "I didn't vote for the Iraq war." Expect them to point out late in the race that he was right for the wrong reasons, just as she was wrong for the right reasons.
4) Ignoring the small states works. Hillary has to bring something to the table to the super delegates to overturn Barack's pledged delegate lead, and it will be this: Barack can't produce in the big states necessary to win the general election. New York, Massachusetts, California, Texas, Ohio (and probably Pennsylvania, where popular Governor "Fast" Eddie Rendell is a stalwart supporter) will be her cases in point. Moreover, the Clintons have never bought the Howard Dean 50-state strategy, both because (a) they hate Howie and (b) that's not how Bill won. To get Hillary's attention from here on out, she'll concentrate only on the states with at least 80 delegates (except Puerto Rico, which is hers and a special case). If she can deny Barack PA, then she'll argue that she's the Big State candidate and that he's the Little State man.
5) Blaming the Republicans for Florida and Michigan will get Hillary those delegates. They've already started by arguing that (a) the Democratic voters in those states did not violate the rules because they didn't have input; (b) Hillary and not Barack followed the advertising rules; and (c) the Republicans were responsible (especially in Florida) for maneuvering the primaries so early in order to mess up the Democratic process. The result: the Clintons will go to court if necessary to keep Florida and Michigan voters from being disenfranchised by the Republicans. Barack will be painted to appear self-interested and not willing to take on the Republicans if he disagrees.
6) Becoming more hard-edged in debates works. Get ready for more Ms. Bitch. The Clintons realize now that the swing voters they need do not and will not love Hillary, but they can be brought around to respect her and want her on their side. Looking presidential and thoughtful and positive worked for Barack while he was on the winning streak, but now that he's been dunked good once, he's not going to be able to pull it off again--but the Clintons are betting he'll be too much of a political novice to know that.
That's how Hillary plans to win the nomination.
And you'd best be wagering money you can afford to lose if you bet against her.
This is how she and Bubba will process what they learned last night by winning in Texas and Ohio:
1) Negative campaigning works. The White House telephone ad did two things: (a) it raised the issue of experience in a visceral Barry Goldwater-Willie Horton way, and (b) it caused Barack to respond with a similar ad. This will be perceived as a sign of weakness by the Clinton campaign. Barack (as they would have done) should have responded by upping the ante and deriding her lack of real experience except for sleeping (sometimes) with the President rather than passively defending his own inexperience. They will further see this as pinning Barack into the good guy mold who cannot go negative without causing a stir. Moreover, the Clintons believe there is a subliminal message behind negative campaigning: As hard as I fight to win, that's how hard I'll fight for you. The corollary is that Barack is too weak to be a strong president.
2) Smear tactics work. From the turban to the darker images, the smear tactics worked. First, so what if they alienated black voters and new voters? Hillary is not going to get the black voters in the nomination fight, and in the general they have no place else to go. The new voters? The Clintons believe as James Carville does, that candidates who depend on new voters or young voters are losers, because in the end they don't show up. Second, the recurring theme of Barack as being just subtly not quite an American in terms of religion, or ancestry, or outlook does resonate with a percentage of the white, blue-collar Democrats who need an excuse not to vote for a black candidate--and there are quite a few of them. Finally, the smears take both Barack and the media off-message to deal with them. Remember, it's not only about getting Hillary's message out, it's about keeping Barack from doing the same.
3) Shifting gears from health care to foreign policy works. Hillary's health care plan is not significantly different enough from Barack's to win votes, and arguments about those differences cause even health care zealots to start yawning. But Hillary will conclude that upping the pressure on foreign policy (expanded from just the Iraq war to trade issues) has caused Barack to make significant missteps. Expect her to introduce Kossovo independence (the Wes Clark influence) and/or the Colombia/Venezuela/Ecuador crisis during the next debates to see if Barack can be induced to make another NAFTA/Canada slip-up. Barack on foreign policy, the Clintons believe, is a one-note-samba: "I didn't vote for the Iraq war." Expect them to point out late in the race that he was right for the wrong reasons, just as she was wrong for the right reasons.
4) Ignoring the small states works. Hillary has to bring something to the table to the super delegates to overturn Barack's pledged delegate lead, and it will be this: Barack can't produce in the big states necessary to win the general election. New York, Massachusetts, California, Texas, Ohio (and probably Pennsylvania, where popular Governor "Fast" Eddie Rendell is a stalwart supporter) will be her cases in point. Moreover, the Clintons have never bought the Howard Dean 50-state strategy, both because (a) they hate Howie and (b) that's not how Bill won. To get Hillary's attention from here on out, she'll concentrate only on the states with at least 80 delegates (except Puerto Rico, which is hers and a special case). If she can deny Barack PA, then she'll argue that she's the Big State candidate and that he's the Little State man.
5) Blaming the Republicans for Florida and Michigan will get Hillary those delegates. They've already started by arguing that (a) the Democratic voters in those states did not violate the rules because they didn't have input; (b) Hillary and not Barack followed the advertising rules; and (c) the Republicans were responsible (especially in Florida) for maneuvering the primaries so early in order to mess up the Democratic process. The result: the Clintons will go to court if necessary to keep Florida and Michigan voters from being disenfranchised by the Republicans. Barack will be painted to appear self-interested and not willing to take on the Republicans if he disagrees.
6) Becoming more hard-edged in debates works. Get ready for more Ms. Bitch. The Clintons realize now that the swing voters they need do not and will not love Hillary, but they can be brought around to respect her and want her on their side. Looking presidential and thoughtful and positive worked for Barack while he was on the winning streak, but now that he's been dunked good once, he's not going to be able to pull it off again--but the Clintons are betting he'll be too much of a political novice to know that.
That's how Hillary plans to win the nomination.
And you'd best be wagering money you can afford to lose if you bet against her.
Comments
I believe that Clinton will win the Democrat nomination. I have always believed that Clinton would win the Democrat nomination, even when her fortunes appeared to be at their lowest ebb.
Are there not many similarities between 2008 and 1984? In 1984, Gary Hart won more votes and won more primaries and won more delegates than Walter Mondale, and yet Mondale captured the nomination because of the so-called superdelegates. Something similar will happen this year, I believe, in what is, for all practical purposes, a virtual tie between Clinton and Obama.
Clinton's hand will be further strengthened if she wins in Pennsylvania, at which point her campaign will argue, successfully, that the caucus states had "tinged" results and that Obama mostly carried states that the Democrats cannot win in a general election. Will not a majority of superdelegates find this argument compelling?
The witch lives on to fight another day.
Josh
I don't know that they have the courage to go on the offense so McCandidate can with a solid base. This may lead to another Repub. Pres. and a Dem Congress. ie. GRIDLOCK BABY !