The Clintons’ Long War Against Obama

If you think I’m exaggerating when I argue that the Clintons now want to damage Obama as much as they want to regain power for themselves, check out Fallows’ post this morning:

In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? […]

…to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special.

And if you know what really motivates the Clintons, unsurprising.

Obama-Clinton ’08?

Clinton is hinting at a joint ticket this morning. An Obama-Clinton ticket is a long-shot, but Marc makes the best argument for a joint ticket I’ve seen:

Both durable, distinct factions of the Democratic party — united, and working at full throttle. McCain’s national-security edge — blunted overnight. Obama’s domestic-policy edge — sharpened instantly. Ohio, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico — suddenly, much less a worry for Democrats.

But she won’t agree. And Bill would hate it. Obama should offer Clinton privately a Supreme Court nomination. That alone might get her to face reality.

Proof Of The Limbaugh Effect

Dave Wiegel has it. The exit polls prove that Rush tilted Texas for the Clintons. History gets funnier, doesn’t it? Who would have thought back in the 1990s that the Clintons would finally join forces with talk-radio hate? But it seems so fitting now, in retrospect. They are just two sides of the same polarizing coin. They need each other; they feed off each other; they sustain each other.

Breaking their stranglehold on American politics is partly what this election is about. It’s good to flush them out.

Yes He Can

Obamaclintonbrendansmialowskigetty

From Kos’s counting, the night barely changes anything in the delegate math. Clinton wins Ohio 73 – 68 and Rhode Island 12 to 8. Obama wins Vermont 9 to 6 and wins Texas by 99 to 94 (because his narrow loss in the primaries is offset by a lop-sided win in the caucuses). These numbers may change a little as full caucus results come in, but not by much. Once all the dust has cleared, Obama’s delegate lead remains. RCP has it at 1542 for Obama and 1447 for Clinton. I see no reason why this race shouldn’t continue, and that it shouldn’t continue all the way. As a journalist, this is good news. It’s certainly great copy, as they say on Fleet Street. But I see no way that the Clintons can actually win it without re-opening Michigan and Florida, and shifting the super-delegates by super-human amounts. The result will probably be a slow, Limbaugh-friendly trashing of Obama – because Clinton has only gained traction by attacking him, or raising fears about him, rather than by a positive campaign for herself. But the show must go on, because the Clintons’ egos demand it, and because as long as Obama has not crossed the magic line definitively, the destiny of the Clintons to run America for sixteen years must always be pursued. Ask Sid Blumenthal why. It’s also vital for the Clintons psychologically to undermine Obama’s appeal. He represents a systematic rebuke of their style of politics, their tactics and their worldview. If they can manage to damage him enough, even if he wins the nomination, their own sense of their own historical importance will be assuaged. Maybe they can damage him enough to ensure that McCain beats him in the fall. That would, at some level, satisfy them. To be beaten in a Democratic primary is bad enough; but if their opponent goes on to win the presidency, it would be unbearable for them, close to an indictment. That is what is fueling them: the terror of an Obama presidency and history re-written with Clinton as a minor footnote in the minor 1990s.

Obama supporters should not be dismayed.

Obama has a tougher, nastier opponent in the Clintons than he does in McCain. If he wins this by a long, grueling struggle, he will be more immune to the lazy, stupid criticism that he is some kind of flash in the pan, he has more opportunity to prove that there is a great deal of substance behind the oratory, he has more of a chance to meet and talk with the electorate he will need to win in the fall.

I think the argument for Obama is easily strong enough to withstand the egos of the Clintons. The more people see that her case is almost entirely a fear-based one and his is almost entirely a positive one, the more he will win the moral victory as well as the delegate count. In the cold light of day, the bruising news that the Clintons are not yet dead seems less onerous.

Know hope.

(Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty.)

Paths To Victory

0591894800_2

Josh Marshall on what Obama needs to do now:

I think the big question is, can he fight back? Can he take this back to Hillary Clinton, demonstrate his ability to take punches and punch back? By this I don’t mean that he’s got to go ballistic on her or go after Bill’s business deals or whatever else her vulnerabilities might be. Candidates fight in different ways and if they’re good candidates in ways that play to their strengths and cohere with their broader message. But he’s got to show he can take this back to Hillary and not get bloodied and battered when an opponent decides to lower the boom. That will obviously determine in a direct sense how he fares in the coming primaries and caucuses. And Obama’s people are dead right when they say, he doesn’t even have to do that well from here on out to end this with a substantial pledged delegate margin.

At the end of the day, the winner of the pledged delegate race has the strongest claim to the nomination. Everything else is spin. But it’s a strong claim, not incontestable.

Ross thinks Clinton has to earn the popular vote to have any claim to the nomination:

Hillary has a chance at victory, but only if she can pull ahead in the overall popular vote, including Florida (she’s already ahead if you include Michigan, but of course Obama wasn’t on the ballot there), and then argue, to the superdelegates but also to the public, that as the choice of the majority of voters in the Democratic nominating process she has a "moral claim" on the nomination.

Email To K-Lo

The cynical Limbaugh-style vote for the Clintons in Texas might have made a difference. Here’s one Texas Republican bragging:

 
My goal is to have Hillary win the Democratic nomination because I believe McCain has a better chance of beating her vs. Obama. Not that I am very happy that McCain won the Republican nomination.

If there were a polar opposite to the hope that Obama has ignited in this country, it would have to be something as cynical and as hollow as this. Naturally, the Clintons gravitate toward it – but it is a piognant coda to the 1990s, isn’t it? They are now in league with those who once hated them.

The Trap Of Defense

Matt Cooper argues that Obama risks losing the hope and change mantle if he keeps talking about math:

If I were Obama, I’d stop arguing it’s over and say, "Okay, let’s keep this discussion going." (It’s gonna keep going anyway.) You’re still the candidate of the past. You still supported NAFTA and voted for the war. He should show he’s tough enough on national security by finding some issue where he can get to the right of her. (Putin? Kosovo?) The more people see Obama the more they’ll probably like him. So roll with it.

Couldn’t agree more. Obama must not let the Clintons into his head. He has to make this campaign about his positive ideas again. Their goal is to destroy his inspiration, to make this election about who you’re most familiar with in a world of nasty Republicans and nasty Islamists. His goal must be to swamp them, as he has already, with his talent, his reason, and his optimism.