Every day Real Clear Politics puts together what they see from their slightly right-of-center point of view to be the important headlines. If this morning is any indication, we’re already living in some kind of five-dimensional world. The extra dimension is the one where Clinton still matters and still has a chance to be the nominee. That dimension yield headlines like this:
Hillary Rises: The Race Goes On – Joe Klein, Time
Clinton Resurrection May Mean Chaos – Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times
Fight Makes Democrats Stronger – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe
Blood-Letting Could Damage Party – Jurek Martin, Financial Times
Momentum, Delegates & Second Looks – Karl Rove, Wall Street Journal
Hillary Has a New Math Problem – Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
Obama, Not Clinton, Faces Tough Math – Marie Cocco, RealClearPolitics
Only Gore Can Stop a Meltdown – Charles Hurt, New York Post
Five Options for Florida and Michigan – Roger Simon, The Politico
Meanwhile, the reality we all deserve is co-existing with the reality we have, and it yields headlines like this:
Obama’s Pessimistic Message – Victor Davis Hanson, RealClearPolitics
McCain’s Consistent Iraq Folly – Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune
A Target-Rich Profile of Michelle Obama – Jim Geraghty, National Review
Michelle Obama & the Politics of Candor – Lauren Collins, The New Yorker
Even within the two separate dimensions you can see dichotomous ideological splits. Michelle Obama is great…Michelle Obama is a loose cannon…etc. It all proves that in American political life, we tend to form up sides, stop listening, and start throwing bombs. While I might modestly aspire for something better, I have no problem with this feature of our national discourse. What I have a problem with is the prospect of another seven weeks of existence in a parasitic (and, therefore, slightly unnatural) national dialogue..
Yesterday, I posted a diary in orange, asking Hillary Clinton supporters to answer two questions. First, how is she going to secure the nomination. A lot of people has some answer for that question. But I also wanted to know how she would be able to accomplish that goal without mortally alienating blacks, the youth vote, Obama’s supporters, progressive activists, and people that just believe in democracy (meaning, the person with the most votes, wins).
In 237 responses, no one gave me any substantive answer other than she would achieve unity by making Obama her running mate. Of course, even Clinton seems to acknowledge that Obama has earned at least that much.
In two television interviews, hours after she scored critical primary victories in Texas and Ohio that helped revive her presidential bid, Clinton was asked about a joint bid with the first-term senator from Illinois.
“Well, that may … be where this is headed, but of course, we have to decide who’s on the top of the ticket,” Clinton said on the CBS “Early Show.” “And I think that the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
But no one could explain why the person with the most delegates would agree to take the second position or, if she somehow muscled the superdelegates into negating the will of the people, that Obama would be inclined to accept a job as Clinton’s underling. Clinton supporters seem to exist in some kind of extra dimension, where they engage in what we might call magical, or fifth-dimensional thinking.
At their most grounded, Clinton supporters argue that the popular vote is not the be-all measure of popular will since these primaries take place over time, and the people’s will can change. There is some merit to that. I can envision a situation akin to Gary Hart’s 1988 run, where a candidate starts off well but them becomes embroiled in scandal. It could well happen that a candidate might win all the early contests and lose all the late ones. And then measuring the popular will becomes murky. It is for dealing with such ambiguities that the superdelegates exist in the first place. For some, this might justify the continued activity of the Clinton campaign. But that’s a false choice. Even the pledged delegates are not legally pledged to their candidate. If Obama were to be indicted or fall seriously ill or display signs of mental instability, few people would question a decision by his pledged delegates to vote for Hillary Clinton at the convention. She need not pile up pledged delegates to win the nomination if Obama suddenly presents himself as unfit for office.
The issue here is whether or not the Clinton campaign will spend the next seven weeks trying to manufacture the perception that Obama is unfit for office, and how that will serve the party and the issues that the party is supposed to represent. In asking Clinton supporters how their candidate is supposed to prevail, I heard some barely plausible answers, but I heard no answers for how she could do it in a way that did not infuriate and alienate huge swaths of the Democratic electorate. That’s because there is no answer. Ignoring that fact is what I call ‘fifth-dimensional thinking.’
What I hope is that the superdelegates will explain four-dimensional reality to the Clintons after the Mississippi primary on Monday. My sanity and our future may depend upon it.
I love everything about this post except the name – Clinton suppporters aren’t exhibiting five-dimensional thinking. It’s one-dimensional thinking, and frankly, it’s not even thinking.
it’s not a compliment.
The Clintons’ honeymoon is over, no pun intended: New NAFTA lies, new scandal(s) tied to those tax returns.
The WaPo’s Paul Kane just spent an hour taking multiple questions on Rezko, implying that it’s a big deal. Yet he downplayed the one question he got on Hillary’s NAFTA hypocricy, saying Obama didn’t lose Ohio by 10% due to that controversy, and besides, that article was just too darn hard to understand. Deep journalist, there.
Put him, and WaPo, in the Oligarchy column.
I know. But it makes it sound smart, hence my objection! ;-D
Keeping the 5 dimensional ball juggle in the air, that’s the game. Meanwhile, McCain and the Rep party will lay fat and happy in their nests.
I hear more confirmations coming out that Obama’s 50 SuperDelegates are getting ready to come forward tomorrow. Oh for some sanity.
From your lips to the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s . . . um, whatever passes for ears.
Obama as vp–I don’t see as healing anything. It would convince everyone that politics hasn’t changed an iota.
Am trying to think of one positive aspect of a combined ticket. Nope not there.
ain’t gonna happen, not after the HRC 3:00 AM ad, not after the NAFTA lies – on the latter see my comment upthread.
It’s the height of arrogance, not to mention desperation, when you’re behind, to suggest the front-runner should be your VP.
With most of the anger having left my system from the last few days, I am starting to see this as a real opportunity for Obama. We’ll see how they handle it. I am relatively confident that they’ll do something innovative in politics, not just playing by the slash and burn rulebook that the Clintons operate by. Perhaps the rumors of him having 50 Superdelegates in his back pocket will turn out to be true. That could help, but who knows.
We’ll see. But I don’t know if I can deal with another 7 or 8 weeks of this. Something’s got to change. I have a feeling that Hillary doesn’t want this to go on until Pennsylvania though. Some of her White House records are expected to be cleared for release before then and she’s also now promising her tax returns by mid-April, before Pennsylvania. The press will go wild over that stuff.
Personally, I hope Obama and she get together and make a private deal like promising her the nomination for the first available Supreme Court Justice seat. But I just can’t see them serving as a joint ticket. She won’t take the number 2 spot, yet she doesn’t deserve the top spot.
You present some good points. We yearn for creativity as opposed to traditional slash and burn. I am really maxed out on the latter. What I hear from Ohio friends is that the Clinton game plan there was really bad news and is the prototype for PA or, god forbid, MI and FL. He sent some links I have yet to follow.
One of the positions I’d feel comfortable having Hillary occupy is the SCOTUS. She’d be insulated from the other political influences, as much as one can be, and hopefully she’d show herself as the liberal she claims to be.
Obama must make it clear that he does not consider being VP. He is either in this for the presidency or nothing. There is no other way to apply for the job. If he fudges and accepts the VP slot, his popularity will tumble dramatically in all demograpics. He must cut the Clintons off. They’ve started this kind of chatter to insinuate the notion in peoples minds (at 3 A.M. when the red phone rings) that Obama is leaning in that direction. If even the slightest perception takes hold that he is moving in this direction, he will be finished, and then the Clintons won’t even invite him to the inaugural ball. End this talk, now. The Clintons have set a trap. Don’t step into it.
Pundit: ‘Would you accept VP if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. The idea is being played with these past days.’
Obama: ‘That’s very hypothetical and I don’t expect that I might be faced with such a situation. The presidency is what I’m working towards.’
Or something like that. It’s a big, cynical trap!
I think he said as much when he said any talk of splitting the ticket was premature. It leaves his options open, not that he’s going to exercise the option.
link
booman I hope you have seen this diary on Dk reg. the ad you pointed me to yesterday of Obama, which explains it..
link
And this article in Wapo with the following excerpt:
I don’t really want to get into that whole discussion I had yesterday reg. these issues, suffice it to say that I do understand that African Americans see it that way. I just think it is all so unfortunate.
It’s a very good article btw, which explains a lot about how the campaign has gone, and gone wrong.
When the hatchet is buried it will be in Mark Penn’s back, and it will be buried there repeatedly.
It was not twisting to see that Bill Clinton’s representation of Obama as the next Jesse Jackson was to paint him as a black man who will eventually lose.
This is what I think is happening.
Watch the line of party leaders publicly calling for the race to end along with superdelegates one by one announcing their support for Obama while people who would be likely Clinton supporters to not endorse her (like Sherrod Brown didn’t endorse her on NPR this a.m.).
Meanwhile, watch the oligarchy advance some of their favorite dividers to attempt to divide the Dems. Gloria Steinem has already made her appearance. I hear that Jesse Jackson is now in play. Expect Al Sharpton and others to get press coverage soon. Maybe the New Black Panthers will march in support of Obama somewhere. Geraldo Rivera will have a scoop on Obama’s gay lovechild being kept in Al Capone’s vault.
Also, while you’ll hear various iterations of the two being on the same ticket, I don’t see it. Obama gains nothing from Hillary on the ticket. If he can’t win New York, California and other blue states without Hillary he’s not going to win. Besides, considering the oligarchy’s desires I wouldn’t want Clinton one heartbeat away. Better someone like Gus Hall. Obama might bring something to a Clinton ticket, but how do you ask the winner of the pledged delegates to give up the nomination?
It’s over. The question now is how much Clinton is willing to fight and destroy the Party, because she ain’t gonna win the nomination.
“even Clinton seems to acknowledge that Obama has earned at least that much? The veep slot and because Ohio Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans said so. And of course only it matters little that Obama received 50% more votes than McCain in the primary.
Is this arrogance, or what?
The telling thing for me is that list of winger headlines. The GOP wants Clinton to get the nomination. That tells me:
The question for Clinton supporters, then, is why is the GOP so enthusiastic about your candidate?
Exactamento!
Well, you know how I feel about Village Idiocy like this.
I’d call it fantasy. De plane, de plane!
Sigh, I wish you’d take onJjerome in a public forum.
Booman:
I don’t have the answers to your questions, but I do have a sincere question for you. You are concerned about the possibility that Clinton getting the nomination might alienate “blacks, the youth vote, Obama’s supporters, progressive activists” etc. Are you also concerned about the converse? Because… I am hearing a lot from the other side about alienated and angry white women, seniors, centrist democrats, etc.
My question is sincere – I don’t want an argument. I wonder whether you see any problems with severely alienating these democratic groups as well. Do you care about those groups? I personally don’t want to see any of them alienated and I’m disheartened at the level of animosity between groups. But I don’t think that some groups are more deserving of concern than others either.
Thank you.
I’m thinking about your question…
Who has won more delegates?
Who has won more of the popular vote?
Who has won more states?
My first choice was Edwards…he didn’t win by any of the above measures, so he had to drop out, and I’m not bitter and angry about it. And yes, the press was unfair to him too.
If, in spite of the answers to my questions above, Clinton somehow wrestles the nomination out in Denver, there is plenty for black and younger voters to be angry about. And with good reason, it will turn a lot of people off because of the underhanded, back-room, business-as-usual aspects of that.
When your candidate is in second place, and unlikely to move out of it by any of the above criteria before June or August or whenever the convention is, there’s a lot less righteousness to the indignation of those supporters, don’t you think?
Just my $0.02.
Keep in mind the difference between the on-line community and the real-life community. The real life community is much calmer about this election than the on-line community.
Exit poll after exit poll shows that self-identified Democrats as a group would be fine with either candidate. The only way you alienate a group is if the group believes that the candidate they didn’t support somehow received the nomination in an illegitimate way.
I agree with Cabin Girl above. If a voter’s candidate has been playing catch-up the entire time and has been behind in popular vote and delegates the entire time and that candidate ends up not winning – there is less chance that their supporters will be so upset that they would be alienated.
I forgot to mention Latinos. Some of my Latino colleagues at work are telling me that they are getting increasingly angry about the outcries that the Democratic Party cannot afford to alienate african americans, and that hillary should therefore get out of the way. They ask why no one is equally concerned about the alienation of Latino voters if Hillary is pushed out by superdelegates, etc. Just a thought.