First, an admission of bias: I’ve supported Sen. Obama since Iowa and still do.
Nevertheless, I am agitated and object to those who characterize Sen. Clinton as having evil motives in her campaign. Those who say she is selfish, cold, calculating and on and on have merely adopted long-term Karl Rove-like whisper campaigns from Right Wing talk radio. It’s insulting and manifestly untrue.
Likewise, I object to those who characterize Sen. Obama as unpatriotic and racist. This is also insulting and manifestly untrue.
I also object to those who support Sen. Clinton by tearing down Sen. Obama on grounds they object to the behavior of posting partisans. I agree that some Obama supporters go over the top very aggressively; however, Sen. Obama has often rejected these tactics and begged — literally pleaded — for an end to this type of campaigning. In addition, not ALL nor nearly a majority of Obama supporters engage in this type of discourse and it is a stereotype as pernicious as either misogyny or racism. It’s not fair to tar Sen. Obama by a guilt by association with the most extreme and emotional of his supporters, no matter how ill-advised the language of a few.
The very core of Sen. Clinton’s campaign is that she is a determined and persistent fighter for the things in which she believes strongly. Her life experience is that there are many battles in a campaign for important goals and that some will be lost, but the goal gained by never losing heart. She cannot be true to herself and simply quit only because she is faced by difficult obstacles.
No matter how desireable an end to the primary may seem to some, calls for her to throw up her hands in defeat when she is on the brink of winning the Pennsylvania primary — perhaps by a good bit more than 10 percent — are premature and futile.
I understand those who seek a more civil atmosphere and exchange in the primary campaign. I also understand the realities of elections and one of the few options of one who is behind is to go on offense and try to show one’s opponent in an unfavorable light. How far to go in that direction is a delicate and difficult choice and no choice will please everyone. After Sen. Clinton lost 12 states in a row in the aftermath of what was seen as a “draw” on Super Tuesday, the New York senator was justified in exploring that option: she was clearly behind, but her cause was far from hopeless at that time. Fingerpointing at her own staff for its failures during February would not solve her problem, it merely defined the problem.
Sen. Clinton showed her admirable qualities of grit and determination by digging in and winning Ohio and sorta-kinda winning Texas.
One thing not mentioned yet in these comments is that Sen. Clinton has a great many allies among the “uncommitted” superdelegates who have that status as a result of being placed by close Clinton associates on the Democratic National Committee (most of them were chosen by Sen. Clinton’s close campaign advisor and former DNC head Terry McAulliff). They cannot, for the sake of party unity and “good form”, announce their preference, but many of them are quite certainly supporting Sen. Clinton. It’s one of her Aces in the hole because the card remains hidden.
Sen. Obama’s ace in the hole is that he is the candidate most likely to come into the convention with the most declared delegates and, although not enough to automatically be declared the nominee (over 2024), but enough to hold the majority. This will give him control of the credentials committe and, therefore, control over the Michigan and Florida delegations. They will be seated, but according to Sen. Obama’s discretion and not Sen. Clinton’s. My best guess is that the decision as to the delegates will penalize the states by reducing their numbers of voting delegates and then Sen. Clinton will pick up delegates, but not enough to gain the majority of overall delegates.
Another Obama “ace” is Speaker Pelosi who was leaning to Obama and then was confronted with an insulting letter from some of Sen. Clinton’s donors attempting to use their money to influence the San Fransisco treat. She has a power and leverage over congressional superdelegates Sen. Clinton cannot overcome and the Speaker has already begun undercutting Sen. Clinton’s appeal to that group.
After Sen. Clinton loses both Indiana and North Cartolina shortly after Pennsylvania, there will be some well-timed endorsements for Sen. Obama from superdelegates, making the margin of declared delegates very nearly mathematically impossible any chance that she can catch up in the remaining 7 states. Sen. Clinton’s practical choices at that point make this a likely end point to the campaign as we now see it. Of the 7 remaining states, Oregon is likely to end all hope that Sen. Clinton can go into the convention in the lead by any reasonable metric.
At some point before June, Sen. Clinton will announce that she no longer has the resources to campaign but that she will fight for the things she believes in, including a universal healthcare plank, going into the convention as the acknowledged underdog, bloodied but unbowed.
We will hail her as a determined leader and an example of the very bestAmerica and our party has to offer and a gleaming example for all women in all walks of life.
While his campaign vets vice presidential nominees, Sen. Obama will spend three weeks speaking to “women’s issues” in an inspiring and transformational speech delivered to thousands of adoring supporters, increasingly composed of older, white women who have calmed down and know in their heart they cannot allow Sen. McCain to name 1-3 Supreme Court justices and keep sending their children to Iraq. These very die-hard supporters of Sen. Clinton are not in any way stupid, even if they may at times say provocative things in the midst of an exchange about their passionate beliefs.
Sen. Clinton will spend the month on the campaign trail bulldogging Sen. McCain’s support of tax cuts for the rich and the foreclosure of the homes of millions of “ordinary” Americans.
President Clinton will campaign for “downballot” races with energy and ferocity, seeking to build an unbeatable Democratic Party majority (and to burnish a legacy presently criticised as being the President who lost the House in ’94).
Everybody will be happy and the general election campaign will be off to a decent and winning start after showcasing its stars at the convention all singing “We Shall Overcome” and “Kumbayah”.
This is every bit as logical a projection into the unknown future as all the “sky is falling” guesses.
No campaign or candidate is perfect, they all have flaws of greater or lesser importance depending on one’s point of view. Nevertheless, there is no need for a black hat/white hate mentality; there need be NO villains. We can have our differences and grievances and still support two good people. It is unreasonable to believe that two such popular and intelligent and well-educated public servants are at this place in history have the evil attributes some have projected onto them. Whether it is Rev. J. Wright or Tuzla ceremonies, these are insufficient evidence of the deep flaws alleged; nothing involved in either of those controversies are significant compared to two lifetimes of exemplary human behavior and choices. It’s like the Chinese proverb: you may say 99 wise things and never get praise, but if you say one foolish thing you will certainly be reviled. Let’s get some perspective here.
Sorry, just had to get all that off my chest.