POLITICS MAY 13, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Though it’s been clear more or less since Super Tuesday that Barack Obama was going to finish the primary season with more delegates than Hillary Clinton, her campaign has relentlessly tried to move the campaign's goalposts, resetting the thresholds needed for victory as suited their needs. And the media more or less had to go along: when Clintonistas claimed that Obama's caucus victories ought to be less important than Hillary's big-state wins, or that Michigan and Florida should count, or that pledged delegates could vote for whomever they like, beat writers duly noted the new flare-ups, and talking heads chewed them over. The narrative of the horse race following her successes in Texas and Ohio on March 4 became a question: "Is there a way she can catch up?" All of which played perfectly into Clinton's down-but-not-out, scrappy-fighter makeover. Last week, however, Clinton fell short of the expectations her own campaign had set. As Bill Clinton's sickly countenance revealed during Hillary's half-victory/half-concession speech, their campaign finally ran out of spin. Finally, we’re all on the same page about the math involved in the fight for the nomination. Pledged delegates plus superdelegates plus Florida and Michigan plus zero credit for Michigan's uncommitted delegates and John Edwards' supporters--Clinton's fantasy equation--still add up to an Obama lead. The totals under Hillary's best-case scenario: Obama 1942.5, Clinton 1890, according to Democratic Convention Watch. Of course, hope dies hard, and Bill Clinton has been barnstorming West Virginia, telling voters they “will see the earth move” if enough of them show up to lead a miracle comeback for Hillary in the popular vote. Hillary has had two motivations for staying in the race. One was prudential: Obama really was about as untested as his opponents claim, and there was always a chance that some surprise would trip him up. Yet even when his closet turned out to be hiding the braying carcass of Jeremiah Wright, Obama buckled but did not crumple. The other was psychological: It was impossible for the Clintons, given their massive sense of entitlement as well as their faith in Bill's political expertise, to believe that Hillary essentially lost this campaign before she was fully paying attention to the rules. But the fact that top Clinton officials are arguing now about whether Mark Penn understood proportional representation last year is just the latest sign that they had an irretrievably bad winter. For all the finger-pointing within her campaign, there has been a heroic aspect to Clinton's resolve. But to extend its fight, her campaign has thrown around a lot of sand, obscuring two important facts that should become much clearer to everybody in the days ahead. First, superdelegates were never going to trump an Obama nomination by breaking en masse toward Hillary. Calling superdelegates party elders is just another way of saying they are politicians with long records. They want to preserve their own careers, not trigger riots about hijacking the presidential primaries, and maximize their access to the next president. And that means they are subject to the same public pressures and bandwagon-jumping calculations as any other politicians. Naturally enough, more than 150 superdelegates endorsed Hillary back when she was leading the national polls. Then, as Obama won primaries and caucuses, superdelegates started hopping aboard his campaign, to the point where Obama now holds a narrow lead in their support. The superdelegates who remain uncommitted today are no great profiles in courage; they're mayors and congressmen who didn't want to guess wrong--or, more charitably, who wanted to let voters have their say. Either way, they are submitting to the legitimacy of the popular will as expressed through primaries and caucuses. The second reality emerging from the (near-)resolution of the Democratic race is that "momentum" is a function of place as much as time. In the weeks following Super Tuesday, Obama looked irresistible as he racked up one victory after another, but in reality, he was on favorable terrain almost everywhere. Then it seemed like he was faltering as he couldn't knock Hillary out in Texas and Rhode Island. Demographics matter; Clinton and Obama spent six weeks and more than $15 million in Pennsylvania without fundamentally altering the dynamics of the vote there. Recently, the nominating calendar has given Hillary a boost, as she ruthlessly isolated Obama's weaknesses among working-class Catholics, Scotch-Irish, and seniors. The Clinton campaign has used her success in a series of states that happened to be strung together on the schedule to create the impression that she is strong and Obama weak all across the regions that will matter in November. Result: In comparing Clinton and Obama, the media have focused on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. But it's a big country. Obama leads John McCain in Colorado, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin in recent polls, while Hillary is losing those states to the Republican. Obama also outperforms Hillary by seven points in Minnesota and eight in Oregon (where the Democrats are ahead), and by four-and-a-half in Nevada (where McCain leads). He's within striking distance of McCain in North Carolina, as well as Virginia, where Clinton trails by double digits. And scattered polls over the past few months have shown Obama ahead of or close to McCain in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and even Alaska--all states Clinton has no shot at winning. Clinton might make a formidable general-election candidate anyway; her full-throated adoption of right-wing talking points against Obama has been so successful among Appalachians that she could put states such as Kentucky and West Virginia in play. But Clinton always needed to win Ohio and Florida to beat McCain. Obama might not.
Which brings us to the big question confronting each candidate in this new, terminal phase of the nominating race. For Hillary, it's how much she wants to hurt Obama. And when she equated “white Americans” with “hard-working Americans” in attacking Obama last week, she signaled that she’s still willing to campaign destructively. As long as Hillary is playing with her knife collection, she can make Obama bleed. Until she puts it away, next-stage questions, such as how the Michigan and Florida delegations will be seated and whether Hillary merits a vice-presidential nod, will go unanswered. For Obama, the big question is just how much he believes that 2008 isn't just a Democratic year but a realigning election. His safe play would be to aim for a replay of the 2000 and 2004 elections with the national baseline a few points more favorable to the Democrats. Under this scenario, Obama ought to put Hillary or a Clinton surrogate on the ticket and focus on bringing traditionally Democratic and swing states into the fold. But looking at today’s electoral map, Obama knows he has consistently polled very well in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, Democratic-leaning swing regions where Hillary’s scorched-earth campaign may actually have helped him among progressive whites, and where anti-Bush sentiment is running particularly high. Obama’s landslide primary coalitions in Virginia and North Carolina, combined with recent local Democratic successes, could put those states on the table, too. The Southwest and Mountain West trended strongly Democratic in the 2006 elections. And none of these areas is dominated by the kinds of voters who have given Obama so much trouble over Jeremiah Wright. He might well try to sweep them all, dispensing with the calculations and shifts required to win Ohio or Florida and winning with a "new politics" reform coalition of African Americans, white liberals, new voters, anti-war/anti-Washingon independents, and less-enthused Clinton Democrats. Obama’s newly-launched voter-registration campaign would play a huge role in this. That strategy would turn whole swaths of purple and reddish states blue if it works. But it requires a heavy investment in states that aren’t used to voting Democratic, and where McCain is currently quite popular. And there probably wouldn’t be a Rust Belt to fall back on if it failed. Which way to turn, and how big a bet to make on fundamental change--that's the argument Donna Brazile and Paul Begala started to have in their televised smackdown last Tuesday night. It's likely to keep us busy all the way to Denver.
Peter Keating, the former senior writer for politics at George, covers sports business for ESPN The Magazine.
By Peter Keating
24 comments
Keating has put his finger on the Clintons' narcissism. The diagnostic criteria for the disorder are: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations 6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others 8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
- AlexLawyer
May 13, 2008 at 12:38am
Hah! I recall saying everything in this piece at one point or another over the last couple of months except the last bit about abandoning the Rust Belt. Maybe there's a way for Obama to collect the new blue states and OH and PA too. Why not? Of course, Mr. Keating proves himself a keen and insightful analyst for agreeing with me. The particular point that I made repeatedly, without much on anyone paying any attention, certainly not the TNR editors, is that the particular demographics in each state mattered a great deal and that it made no sense to impute momentum or a change in the race when a candidate merely won what, based on the demographics, that candidate ought to win. The "game changer" was really in TX when Hillary barely hung on, and won fewer delegates than Obama. Without an overwhelming showing in TX, her success in Ohio was quickly wiped out by his success in MS, leaving the race in roughly the same position as it was after before TX-OH, but with Obama a bit further ahead. She really had no chance from there on out and affirmatively lost the race in PA by failing to do more than eke out a single digit win. Yet the Hillaristas and the MSM and the pundits touted that as a great victory and a turning point. Of course, their spin was short-lived as PA was quickly wiped out by NC. Even if retrospective, it is nice to read here a more clear-eyed accounting of the momentum mirages that marred so much of the reporting and the discussion. I hope John Judis reads this piece.
- roidubouloi
May 13, 2008 at 12:39am
There's a third reason (according to a post on Huffington) for her staying in. She can't pay herself back the money she's sunk into this Hindenburg campaign if she drops out before the convention. This must be the real reason she's still in, and it's certainly in character. Why she keeps spending more money is beyond me though. Maybe she's got a deal with Howard Dean?
- WaltB
May 13, 2008 at 3:52am
"He might well try to sweep them all, dispensing with the calculations and shifts required to win Ohio or Florida and winning with a "new politics" reform coalition of African Americans, white liberals, new voters, anti-war/anti-Washingon independents, and less-enthused Clinton Democrats." Just so, and this provides the answer for McCain - while Obama will delight in saying that McCain will give us Bush's third term, McCain will essentially say that a victory for Obama will give us George McGovern's first term...
- emcgargle
May 13, 2008 at 12:01pm
AlexLawyer has nailed it. The Clintons are the poster kids for all time for Lasch's Culture of Narcissism and Wolfe's "Me Generation." The perfect irony that their last gesture should have been to win over the geezers just older than this generation with their shameless P.T. Barnum flimflam of pretending to be white populists sharing the pre-60s, anti-narcissistic values of these oldsters. I voted for Bill twice, but increasingly detested his grotesque combination of arrogance, entitlement, and sheer, shameless lying. Hillary's taken up their vain torch again, and, fortunately for us all, been driven into with it by Obama's combination of brilliance and decency. The ultimate intolerable insult to the Clintons is the clear fact that he's simply smarter than they are.
- Jean Renoir
May 13, 2008 at 3:50pm
Psst...Barack, here's your line: "To those supporters of Senator Clinton I say: I know that I am not your first choice, but I will work hard to become your second. There is more that unites us than there is that divides us."
- Eric Gage
May 13, 2008 at 4:03pm
This continual trashing of Hillary Clinton by Obama supporters will drive more Dems away from their candidate Obama than by anything Ms. Clinton will say or do in the month ahead. Polls show that Democratic voters want her to stay in the race until it is finished. Those millions of people who voted for her, who donated money to her, and who support her as a candidate want her in the race until Mr. Obama actually seals the deal and has enough delegates to put him over the top. She is an exciting and necessary voice for millions of Dem voters, and we don't want to see her continually trashed and demonized by our Democratic brethren. If such trashing of an loyal and hardworking Democrat like Ms. Clinton continues, then you will see many of us loyal Democrats either stay home in November or decline to mark our ballots for either Obama or McCain (or write in Ms. Clinton's name). If my party thinks they don't need me as I am a working-class, white voter, then fine, I will get the message loud and clear by the time the Obama supporters get through dragging Hillary Clinton's body behind their war chariots.
- jonjon
May 13, 2008 at 4:11pm
My training and experience in psychoanalysis lead me to regard Obama as the clearly most narcissistic candidate in this race on either side; in fact, probably the most narcissistic candidate on either side in many elections. The Clintons' personality dysfunctions tend to be along quite different lines.
- intrepidone
May 13, 2008 at 4:50pm
Here's an idea I haven't heard in the MSM, and I don't know why. Mark Warner for VP. He was touted early on as the anti-Hillary for this election, until he decided not to run. He's the popular former GOV of VA, a big state Obama is on the verge of flipping blue anyway. And it further cements Obama's whole "Washington outsider" mystique. I know he's running for Senate, but he's trailing the well-entrenched incumbent. Just a thought.
- Jake
May 13, 2008 at 5:58pm
Imagine! The unmitigated gaul to want, in a democracy, to count Florida and Michigan votes! Hasn't anyone told the "Clintonistas" that we're "changing" the way things are done in the U.S.to more closely resemble (in every way) a banana republic?
- maureen rehg
May 13, 2008 at 6:25pm
Are you talking about clinton or the Obama Drama man?
- maureen rehg
May 13, 2008 at 6:26pm
Keating should go back to covering sports business. His assertion that Hillary is using racist tactics is complete nonsense, another example of Obama supporters in the media playing the race card. His analysis of the general election map is also incredibly biased. The fact is that a Dem can't win without winning either Florida or Ohio, and Hillary leads McCain in Ohio and is tied with him in Florida, while McCain is beating Obama soundly in both. It's too early to say anything definitive about November; much can change. But it's doubtful that Obama's media-fed trajectory will be upward, given that he still has received so little scrutiny relative to Clinton or McCain. It's clear keating won't be giving him any.
- What a scurrilous, stupid articl
May 13, 2008 at 6:42pm
In the tank much ?
- Alison
May 13, 2008 at 6:58pm
Words, words, words. Can Obama win without Ohio or Florida? Decide for yourself, the right way, with statistics and calculations, at http://www.270towin.com/ I tried, and it seems virtually impossible for him to do it.
- JackC
May 13, 2008 at 7:44pm
Go and vote for Obama, who is determined to sell out this country. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, we Hillary voters will work full time to pull him down by campaigning for McCain.
- KS
May 13, 2008 at 7:45pm
*"The totals under Hillary's best-case scenario: Obama 1942.5, Clinton 1890, according to Democratic Convention Watch."* The last time I checked, it takes 2025 delegates to win the nomination. And unless Obama's "new politics" also includes "new math", 1942.5 is less than 2025.
- unlawflcombatnt
May 13, 2008 at 10:31pm
Peter Keating, your article is a great piece of political literature. Your analysis and conclusions are convencing. Although, Sen. Clinton does not want to go away. I think official democrats have to find ways to show her the exit, otherwise chances of winning in November are going to fade. She is really trying to hurt Sen. Obama to satisfy her own ego and her selfishnesses nothing more.
- Musaad A. Musaad
May 13, 2008 at 10:37pm
How about a fourth reason, to ensure that Obama loses the general election so she can run in 2012. Believe me, HRC does NOT want to be anyone's VP. As far as this idea of staying in the race to be able to pay herself back, it doesn't make any sense. By staying in the race, she is only going further and further into debt. You don't actually believe she is receiving any significant donations, let alone enough money to match what she is spending? Do you? I wouldn't believe half the crap you see in the press about why Hillary is still in the race. She's in it to either try to steal the nomination from Obama, if possible, or, if not, to beat up on him sufficiently so that he becomes unelectable. As long as there are enough numb nuts in states like WV and KY, who believe that Hillary Clinton is honest and shares their values, she will continue to get votes and make her "case" to anyone who listens.
- Interested in Fairfax
May 13, 2008 at 10:43pm
How about a fourth reason, to ensure that Obama loses the general election so she can run in 2012. Believe me, HRC does NOT want to be anyone's VP. As far as this idea of staying in the race to be able to pay herself back, it doesn't make any sense. By staying in the race, she is only going further and further into debt. You don't actually believe she is receiving any significant donations, let alone enough money to match what she is spending? Do you? I wouldn't believe half the crap you see in the press about why Hillary is still in the race. She's in it to either try to steal the nomination from Obama, if possible, or, if not, to beat up on him sufficiently so that he becomes unelectable. As long as there are enough numb nuts in states like WV and KY, who believe that Hillary Clinton is honest and shares their values, she will continue to get votes and make her "case" to anyone who listens.
- Interested in Fairfax
May 13, 2008 at 10:44pm
This is a very well written article, spot on in my opinion. Obama should bet on a fundamental realignment; the internet has changed the landscape more than many pundits understand, John McCain is a very weak candidate, and Hillary's high negatives will carry over to Obama if he puts her or a "Clinton surrogate" on the ticket with him (it would turn me off of the ticket, for one).
- Benjamin
May 13, 2008 at 10:46pm
Ok, Mr. Keating supports Senator Obama. It's clear where this article wants to lead. And, lead it does whomever wants to be led.
- Ben
May 13, 2008 at 11:14pm
WHAT THE POLITICAL PUNDITS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT OBAMA HAS NO CREDENTIALS OR PAST PERFORMANCE TO REFLECT HIS SCRIPTED SPEECHES. LIBERAL MEDIA AND "MOONIES" HAVE FLOCKED TO HIM BASED ON HIS INSPIRING SPEECHES AND FOR THE THINGS THAT HE PROMISE. DO WE EMPLOY SOMEONE BASED ON HIS TALK OR HIS EXPERIENCE. DO WE HIRE AN INEXPERIENCED LAWYER OR SURGEON? OBAMA HAS MADE HIS CANDIDACY OF TRANSPARENCY, HONESTY AND CHANGE. BUT WHAT WE SEE IN REALITY IS THAT HE IS DISHONEST, LACKS JUDGMENT AND IS A VERY CALCULATING CANDIDATE WHO HIDES BEHIND RACE TO SHORE UP HIS CANDIDACY. WITHOUT THE BLACK VOTE HE WOULD NEVER BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF MAJORITY OF WOMEN, HISPANICS, LATINOS, ASIANS AND WORKING PEOPLE. OBAMA IS DECEPTIVE, HE SURROUNDS HIMSELF WITH AMERICAN FLAGS BUT DO NOT RESPECT THEM. HE WANTS TO CHANGE WASHINGTON BUT CANNOT CHANGE CORRUPTION IN ILLINOIS AND CODDLES SHADY CHARACTERS LIKE, RACISTS PASTOR WRIGHT, CORRUPT INDICTED SLUMLORD REZKO, TERRORIST AYERS. HE LACKED JUDGEMENT WHEN HE SUBJECTED HIS LITTLE CHILDREN TO THE DIVISIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE SERMONS OF WRIGHT. HE DENOUNCED HIM NOW AFTER 20 YEARS BECAUSE OF POLITICAL EXPIDENCY. HIS WIFE, MICHELLE SAYS SHE WAS NOT PROUD OF AMERICA UNTIL HER ADULT LIFE AND THAT AMERICA IS "MEAN".
- UTWO
May 14, 2008 at 9:50am
I neither support Obama nor Clinton, but definitely like analyzing facts and data. The tone and manner in which facts and data is analyzed is completely one-sided, even the rain doesn't leave leeward side so dry. Especially to note is the last para, i.e. leadings and trailings of possible contest with McCain. It just talk about how strong is Obama against McCain and if he lags behind McCain it is just by wee little. Considering it is winner take all contest for each state thus... a. It doesn't matter by how much you lead, it is same as winning by 10% margin and by 0.1% margin b. Obama's winning Colorado, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin (total of 46 electoral votes) is still less than (total of 47 electoral votes) which Clinton can win. Now if you want to do a real comparison, just take the poll data for these contests and add up electoral votes for what states Obama & Clinton are winning and forget about 2 point lead or 10 point lead. You have the answers.
- sanjay
May 14, 2008 at 11:51am
"In comparing Clinton and Obama, the media have focused on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. But it's a big country. Obama leads John McCain in Colorado, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin in recent polls, while Hillary is losing those states to the Republican." Colorado, Iowa, Washington, and Wisconsin = 37 electoral votes Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania = 68 electoral votes I'll take Clinton.
-
May 15, 2008 at 1:36pm