This is News: Onus on Obama…? — [Dirty Harry]
Posted by Dirty Harry on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008
You don’t have to agree with Harold Ford Junior’s politics to find him a bright guy who understands how the game works. Yesterday, his fine-tuned political mind said the game has changed in the Democrat primary and that the onus is now on Obama:
“You have to win Indiana,” Ford told Barack Obama (via an interview on MSNBC). And, Ford added, Obama has to “steamroll” Clinton in the other state with a primary two Tuesdays from now, North Carolina.
That’s a helluva thing to say to the candidate with all the math on his side — the guy were told by the talking heads who can’t lose. Ford obviously senses a disturbance in the superdelegate force. And believe me, he’s more in tune than Chris Matthews.
The smartest thing Hillary’s done throughout her entire 14-month campaign (not that there’s a lot of competition) came yesterday when she asked the simple question, ”Why can’t Obama close the deal?” That was The Question — an undeniable question — one the Obama-media couldn’t ignore and is now the new narrative.
Hillary Clinton is winning the war of attrition. Using Obama’s unforced errors, she’s dismantled him piece by piece until he became that quivering tower of fecklessness we all saw at the last debate. And now Harold Ford (who knows the math) is saying the math might not matter. Wow.
If Hillary can’t win in 2008, she intends to win in 2012, and he’s in her way.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Clinton’s strapped on her thousand-yard stare … and the most dangerous place in America is between a Clinton and their ambition.
Hat tip: Instapundit
Filed in General |
JohnFNWayneon 23 Apr 2008 at 2:35 pm 1Just think. Four whole months from the convention still. Plenty of time for more blood to spill
RufusTon 23 Apr 2008 at 3:44 pm 2Harry,
Two things:
1. I think a lot of Dems hate Hillary (and Bill) and want to see her fail. Look at how many superdelegates and Dem Governors and mayors declared for Hillary long before when it was necessary, or politically expedient. I think they just did it to see her and Bill squirm.
2. Even if Hillary wins Indiana and converts some superdelegates how do the Democrats give her the nod over Obama without alienating a majority of blacks in their base? I’ve said this before, but the majority of the primary voters Hillary is getting will vote for whichever donkey is on the ticket in November. A lot of the voters Obama is getting are voting for Obama and may not show up in November if he’s not on the ticket.
Lexingtonon 23 Apr 2008 at 8:21 pm 3Harry,
Like I said on Libertas, I think you’ve been overblowing Obama’s weakness right now; he lost a race he was always going to lose by a margin that was actually much lower than initial expectations.
“Why can’t Obama close the deal?” Scheduling and demographics for the moment, but that’ll change. Hillary’s only chance here is if Obama gets eaten by a dinosaur.
Rufus,
I’m not sure about your Point One. I’m fairly sure that the superdelegates that came out for Clinton early did so for two reasons:
1) Political patronage.
2) Boosting their favored candidate’s aura of inevitability so that she could sew up the nomination early. Remember just how favored Clinton was going into this.
romanon 23 Apr 2008 at 9:08 pm 4Hillary is a death sentence for Democrats.
McCain is terrified of running against Obama.
64% of Americans voted in 2004. President Bush’s approval rating is 30%. Remember these numbers in November.
RufusTon 24 Apr 2008 at 5:56 am 5Lexington,
I worded it awkwardly (hey, that’s what I do!), but my point about Superdelegates was not about those who came out for Hillary, but those who came out for Obama. Some prominent Dems followed Ted Kennedy’s lead early, way earlier than necessary. Good politics would have had them sit on the fence for a few months to see how the primaries played out with Dem voters. I think they came out early for Obama for the pure satisfaction of sticking it to the Clintons. The Clintons have been running the Democratic party for over 12 years now, and they’ve made a lot of enemies within their party in that time.
RufusTon 24 Apr 2008 at 5:58 am 6Roman,
Hillary’s only chance is with Obama as Veep. She already tried that tactic and he shut her down. She will remain a Senator from New York. Which is great for her, because she’s such a Yankee’s fan, and all.
Obama vs. McCain will play on television as Dynamic, Vibrant, Youth vs. the Old Guard. McCain is great, and has a lot of energy, but this country is in a throw out the old guard mood.
JohnFNWayneon 24 Apr 2008 at 9:31 am 7I haven’t seen any polls in Indiana, so I’m not sure how either candidate is doing, but couldn’t this all be rouse to give Obama more perceived momentum with a win?
Lexingtonon 24 Apr 2008 at 10:03 am 8John,
The polls have been somewhat erratic, but I think they’re about tied, with a slight Obama lead. I’m not sure who’d be leading this enormous conspiracy, though. The entire Democratic party?
JohnFNWayneon 24 Apr 2008 at 11:51 am 9I wouldn’t exactly call it a conspiracy. All it would take is some sort of narrative dropped into the press “Obama has to win this one” and all of a sudden he’s slayed the wicked dragon and hes back to Messiah-ville where he can walk water, raise the dead and talk soci-economic policy to the masses once again.
Rufus T. Fireflyon 24 Apr 2008 at 12:15 pm 10JohnFN,
If the Dems were organized enough to pull off a conspiracy like that I think the much smarter play would have been to sit Barry and Hill down in a room about 12 weeks ago and say, “Here’s how we’re going to do this, Kids. Barack, you haven’t paid enough dues yet, you’ll get your turn in 2016 and ‘20 and to help you get that seasoning you’re going to run as the V.P. on Hillary’s ticket.”
Missing that boat, the smart play 8 weeks ago would have been, “Hillary, Barack’s got the momentum. Our party needs the White House and you’re no help as a V.P. on the ticket. We need you in the Senate, guding legislation for our team. It’s time to announce your support for Barry.”
The fact that hasn’t happened shows that nobody in the party, including her husband, has a bigger pair than she does.
Lexingtonon 25 Apr 2008 at 5:56 am 11John,
Eh, I think you (and Harry) are overestimating the press’ love of Obama. Whatever it might have been, it’s gone now. Heck, ABC News seems absolutely determined to puff Clinton up over Obama these days, even going so far as to run her campaign’s slogans (”Why can’t Obama close the deal?”) as article titles.
RufusTon 25 Apr 2008 at 7:28 am 12Lexington,
The Press’ main impetus is to attract eyeballs. Their insatiable desire for attention even trumps their liberalism. Underdog stories are great for the press and Hillary is now the Underdog. She’d down in the vote count and everybody is saying there is no way the Dems can toss her the nomination.
The Press wants to keep this thing alive as much as Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos operatives. This is great theater. The Press sees that and they are driven to keep the story going.
Lexingtonon 25 Apr 2008 at 7:55 am 13Rufus,
Oh, agreed - I’m not one for Big Media Conspiracy Theories, and I’ve already argued pretty much the same thing as you’re saying over on Libertas. It’s just amazing to me how quick and overt this particular heel-turn has been (well, maybe not so much for ABC News after the flak they took over their debate, no matter how much they might’ve deserved it).
Now, I’ve got a general feeling that this mood will be blunted over the next week or two as superdelegates start trickling in for Obama, and Clinton turns nasty again as her momentum fades (especially if she starts to fall in the Indiana polling), but this has been a heck of a burp.
RufusTon 25 Apr 2008 at 8:30 am 14“Overt?!?!”
That was today’s secret woid! Congratulations, Lex, your next 3 posts at Dirty Harry’s Place are gratis; On the house!
Lexingtonon 25 Apr 2008 at 9:20 am 15I demand confetti!!!
RufusTon 25 Apr 2008 at 12:05 pm 16Two more free posts to go…