March 17, 2008
Column: Bill sets the trap of a Clinton-Obama ticket
The contest for the Democratic nomination has entered a period of suspended reality. The next big vote, in Pennsylvania, is five weeks away – and is unlikely to affect the race much in any case. This agonising, drawn-out sequence of primaries is not in the end going to choose the nominee. When it is over, Barack Obama will lead in elected delegates, but not by enough to settle the thing. The Democratic party’s unelected “superdelegates” will do that, quite possibly not before the party’s convention in August.
The Clinton campaign is already concentrating on making its best case to the superdelegates. For the moment, this means arguing that Hillary Clinton will be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November. Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton are both tied with Mr McCain in national polls – though these do not yet show the fall-out, if any, from the recent surge of interest in the racist demagoguery of Mr Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Also, Mrs Clinton can argue that she has the edge in the swing states that the Democrats have to win.
Later, if she manages to eke out a lead in votes cast, she will bolster that argument with an impassioned line about the superdelegates’ duty to uphold the will of the people. (This is possible especially if the Florida and Michigan contests are rerun.) Of course, should Mr Obama hang on to his popular-vote lead (currently about 700,000), the will of the people will be his line and the Clinton team will challenge the legitimacy of the party’s electoral process.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
When I read of the Clinton’s raw ambitions and of Obama’s troubling admiration of Jeremiah Wright, and then turn to the “hard” news, such as the reports on Bear Stearn and the mounting costs of strategic financial failures in the US (and, largely by contamination, elsewhere), I see alarming disconnects.
One can argue that the US political system is more and more entertainment for the consuming masses. The objective of those who may have some control over the process is merely to safeguard it.
Meanwhile, I read a brilliant article in this week’s Der Spiegel about the relationship between Bush and Prince Bandar. Bush may understand how things really work better than he is credited. His participation in the political process hardly has advanced our civilisations. So, where are we.
Posted by: WCM | March 17th, 2008 at 8:55 am | Report this comment> “Bill sets the trap of a Clinton-Obama ticket”
But that was before someone leaked footage of Jeremiah Wright.
> “Bill sets the trap of a Clinton-Obama ticket”
Until Jeremiah Wright himself blasted his loyal protege’s chances to smithereens.
THE IRONY: anti-racists would come out in droves on Election Day to vote against any ticket with Jeremiah Wright’s loyal protege in it.
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | March 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am | Report this commentI agree with WCM about the disconnect, and disagree with HKLivingston about Jeremiah Wright. This may be overly optimistic, but I think this latter story will be off the news in a few days. If I am wrong, it will just mean that the anti-Obama Swift Boat campaign of smear and fear is starting earlier this year than ever before. Indeed, it is starting so soon in this campaign, that one can only wonder if the protagonist(s) are not the normal Republican suspects, but, rather from inside the Clinton camp.
If this suspicion were true, would it not make the so called VP “offer” from the Clinton side even more ridiculous than it already is? As for l’affaire Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama is being criticized for not having immediately left his church the moment that the pastor made an inappropriate comment. Well, what was the Senator supposed to do, quit the Christian faith in protest and become a Muslim? Ah, but I am getting ahead of events; that belongs to anti-Obama Swift Boat Phase II, which may not be long in coming.
Unfortunately, if one wants to hear bigoted, intemperate and delusional remarks by so-called spiritual leaders, there are all too many American churches that are ready to provide examples. Some of them are black, but many others are white, especially of the evangelical variety. If every politician exposed to such comments from his/her pastor were immediately to quit the church concerned, overall church membership would suffer a big drop. But this will never happen, because white candidates rarely, if ever, are called on to denounce intemperate statements by their pastors. This game is one with only black targets.
The whole Jeremiah Wright Swift Boat episode is not a test of Barack Obama’s patriotism, which no one one could rationally question, but of his ability to fight back against what has already already one of the dirtiest campaign smears in our history. Even a reference to the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry may be misplaced - the attacks against Barack Obama, not only based on Jeremiah Wright but on distortions of some remarks made recently by Michelle Obama, are far more vicious. If they are successful in helping to elect yet another Republican president, America will richly deserve the continuing misrule that it would surely suffer under for at least another four years.
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Report this commentWCM–you are correct. This is already showing up in the Rasmussen poll numbers as quoted below:
“The dialogue about Wright’s controversial comments appears to have had at least a short-term impact on public perceptions of Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator is viewed favorably today by just 47% of voters nationwide. That’s down five points since last Thursday.
Looked at from a slightly longer perspective, Obama’s overall favorable ratings peaked at 56% on February 21…Since then, Obama’s net favorability ratings have fallen seventeen points (from plus 14 points on February 21 to minus 3 points today).”
Mr Crook–the last paragraph in you column today should be amended to read, “As President McCain is inaugurated…”
Posted by: Ann H | March 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentTo return to my question about who is responsible for the Jeremiah Wright Swift Boat attack on Senator Obama, one possible answer comes to mind, but, I hasten to add, only as a speculation based on the circumstances, since there is no proof of this at all - ” Maybe it’s the Clintons, stupid”.
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this commentalgasema–You’re right–The Clintons are responsible for Jeremiah Wright, HIV, 9/11, today’s financial meltdown–and every other tragedy that has befallen the US in the last 20 years.
However, that does not explain the 17-point drop in Obama’ favorability rating since February 21, well before the Wright disclosure.
Posted by: Ann H | March 17th, 2008 at 4:17 pm | Report this commentThis would make sense if it were not for the millions of the DWDWC-Democrats Who are Done With the Clintons- that have swelled in numbers as the primary season progresses. Like many, I started out early in the primary season delighted to have a number of viable candidates. Unfortunately, I have been reminded what really bothered me about the Clinton years and how their brand of politics did not differ in kind from the Rovian variety. I will not support a Clinton or any superdelegate who votes for a Clinton at the convention.
Posted by: Fedup with Bill and Hillary | March 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm | Report this commentEducated white man here (since it seems everyone needs to, somehow, label them self), who finds the prospect of a Clinton-Obama ticket repulsive. I cannot imagine his caving to a sub-subordinate role. As I shared with friends and colleagues in late January (a position I still hold), I strongly suppport Senator Obama. In the event that Senator Clinton is forced to abandon her candidacy (she’ll never voluntarily concede), the will of the people will prevail. If, on the other hand, her insatiable desire for power prevails and she becomes the nominee, I will - for the first time in my life, vote for the alternative. And that impending action frightens and disappoints me.
Posted by: Eric in the SW | March 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Report this commentAnn H., it is always helpful to avoid distorting someone’s views, even when one disagrees with that person’s opinion. I have never objected to discussing Obama’s or anyone else’s positions on the issues. Moreover, I am a Democrat and was a strong Clinton supporter while they were in the White House. If Obama or anyone else goes up or down in the polls as part of a legitimate debate, so be it. That is what democracy is supposed to be about.
But dirty tactics, which both Hillary and Obama know something about being on the receiving end of, have no place in our system. Try telling that to Fox News, however, or to any of the other media that thrive on character assassination, particularly directed against candidates with liberal (or even not so liberal) views.
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 7:01 pm | Report this commentalgasema–I do not know what dirty tactics you are referring to since I don’t watch Fox News.
I would note in general that the media have handled Obama with kid gloves (as opposed to bashing Hillary every chance the media gets), and have been very restrained regarding Jeremiah Wright (see MTP yesterday), unlike the furor the media raised over Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks, which were benign in comparison.
I would also note The Clinton conspiracy theorists (such as The Clintons leaked the Wright video clips; Mrs. Clinton will somehow find a way to steal the nomination from Obama) only echo right-wing talking points, damaging the Democrats in general.
As to the Democratic Party brand, Jeremiah Wright has killed any chance of winning over the Reagan Democrats, independents, and moderates that the Democrats need to win the general election in November. Whether the fallout will be limited to November, or hurt us for years to come remains to be seen.
Posted by: Ann H | March 17th, 2008 at 7:33 pm | Report this commentAnn,
I don’t buy that
“Jeremiah Wright has killed any chance of winning over the Reagan Democrats, independents, and moderates that the Democrats need to win the general election in November”
There are any number of crackpot Religious types all over Chicagoland; enough that the local media has quit covering most of them, or favorably reports only their Leftist quackery, rather than their over the top attacks on others.
The specific case of Rev. Wright is that Sen. Obama has attached himself to the cantankerous Reverend, and stuck by him for 20 years, despite repeated vile episodes in the life of his spiritual leader.
Sen. Obama may have killed his elect-ability by choosing to stay in Rev Wright’s Church. But perhaps the Sen. should be responsible for his own actions.
Posted by: John Powers | March 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm | Report this commentWCM,
“The horror, the horror”
Marlon Brando in Apocalyse Now.
Dump the USD, get rich, start a Move on dot org.
you get the picture.
lol
B…. is the new Black; but Black is the new President, B….
Posted by: Jay B | March 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm | Report this commentSNL
John Powers–I wish I could agree with you, but check out Rasmussen’s latest presidential polling numbers (excerpts below). The Jeremiah Wright story has legs, and it is not going away any time soon.
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain with a six-percentage point lead over both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by an identical 48% to 42% margin.
McCain has gained ground against BOTH Democrats in recent days as stories about Obama’s former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, have been widely discussed.”
Posted by: Ann H | March 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm | Report this commentAnn H., what you mention is precisely the story on Fox News that I was referring to, and which the country is taking far more seriously that it should, as was the case with the vile tactics of the Swift Boaters.
Swift Boat and Jeremiah Wright: Two birds of a feather. Blame the victim? Again?
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 8:25 pm | Report this commentI meant: “more seriously than it should”.
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm | Report this commentThere is nothing like hearing Barack Obama speak in person or shaking his hands (yes, he actually held both of my hands for a moment). His unique charisma and truly good nature are unmistakable. The fact that Barack is within striking distance of this nomination and ultimately the Presidency is no accident. Barack has supporters who don’t waiver becuase of a media onslaught. Being preyed upon by the status-quo is a compliment and it reinforces why so many people are giving so much time and resources to his campaign. If he doesn’t intend to change Washington and the culture of corruption, then why would he be resisted in this way?
Posted by: Bethany | March 17th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Report this commentI have actually bet against Obama/Clinton (Clinton/Obama is out of the question and the author should know this already). See, people are just digesting the Wright and Rezko stuff and what they are gladly realizing is that Billary and McBush (and other establishment politicians) have nothing else….NOTHING ELSE…on Barack. It’s debatable whether Wright and Rezko constitutes “having” anything on him anyway. This is the good news as of late.
By the way, Barack thanked me and smiled when I said, “It’s nice to meet you, Mr. President.” Hey, I may never have another chance to address him formally and I didn’t want to let the opportunity pass me by.
algasema–I still have no idea what you are talking about. However, if you are referring to the Rasmussen presidential poll, that has absolutely nothing to do with FOX. It is simply an independent organization that provides polling data for anyone to use–me, you, FOX, CNN, etc.
As to Swift Boating, get your facts straight. John Kerry was a war hero, whom the Republicans took down by slander and innuendo.
As to Jeremiah Wright, he is a pastor that in his weekly sermons spewed racial hatred and anti-Americam sentiments (Mr. Crook calls it “racist demagoguery”). That is hardly an apt comparison.
Furthermore, if any Democratic politician were associated with a white Jeremiah Wright, he or she would be toast right now.
The real victims of Jeremiah Wright are the Democratic Party and the United States of America.
Posted by: Ann H | March 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pm | Report this commentBethany,
(Obama’s opponents) “have nothing else….NOTHING ELSE…on Barack”
They have a fact that Senator Obama is a Leftist, stuck in the failed economic and social policies of 1972. The thought of a return to price controls, isolationist trade policy, and government controlled wages really is not all that appealing.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 17th, 2008 at 9:25 pm | Report this commentWhile I strongly disagree with both John Powers and Ann H., at least Mr. Powers is expressing an opinion on the issues, which is the definition of legitimate debate. Ann H., on the other hand, insists on trying to find some excuse for the vicious Jeremiah Wright smear attack against Barack Obama’s patriotism which, for her information, Fox News was one of the first outlets to promulgate (this had nothing to do with any poll), just as Fox News was also one of the first and loudest with the Swift Boat lies.
Certainly, I do not mean to imply that Hillary Clinton and Fox News, which is to the Bush administration what the Volkischer Beobachter was to the German government between 1933 and 1945, or what Pravda was to the Soviet Union before 1989, are colluding in any way. But Republicans usually do their smearing and sliming in the fall, not one month before the crucial Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. This is why the timing of this particular piece of mudslinging is so curious.
However, perhaps the Republicans wanted to get it out in order to have Hillary nominated, thinking she would be easier to beat. Or perhaps they just couldn’t wait to let go with this juicy piece of character assassination, especially against a black target, which would be so much in keeping with their customary reliance on racial hatred against blacks and Latinos to win elections.
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this commentAs a clarification, John Powers, in one of his above posts, also purports to give some credence to the guilt by association Jeremiah Wright smear against Barack Obama. Therefore Ann H. is not alone. The difference, as I have mentioned, is that Mr. Powers also clearly believes that the issues are important, something with which I fully agree.
It is fine, if that suits one’s ideology, to call one’s opponent a leftist, stuck in the past, isolationist, or whatever, just as those of us on the other side have a few choice terms for the Republican philosophy of running things as well.
If only we could have a campaign on that level (such as it is) and forget about the “Obama is black and didn’t quit the church, so he must hate white America just like that black minister does” type of politics. But it is unlikely that those who think they can gain from this type of racist drivel will allow a real debate to take place.
Posted by: algasema | March 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm | Report this commentalgaesama–get a grip! I never once mentioned, much less questioned, Obama’s patriotism. And since I don’t watch FOX news, I still have no idea what smear you are talking about.
Posted by: Ann H | March 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Report this commentAlgae,
I purport very little. I actually note that for 20 years Sen. Obama has had the opportunity to either follow Rev. Wright, find another church, or least likely-persuage Rev. Wright that his way are in error.
The junior Senator from Illinois has been given enough free-passes from the press for his contradictory politics (hopping off ADM’s plane to condemn the influence of lobbyists comes to mind).
There is a major difference between guilt and responsibility (Sen Obama is not guilty of Rev. Wrights racist remarks) but how about holding the Senator responsible for his judgment on this one?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 18th, 2008 at 2:14 am | Report this commentAnn H. I am no more a fan of Fox News than you are. It is useful only as an indication of when and where the next smear against a Democratic candidate is coming from. Now, it is full of Jeremiah Wright. In 2004, it was non-stop Swift Boats. If Hillary wins the nomination, there will be endless Fox News smears about how she “stole” it from Obama, not to mention rehashes of Whitewater, “Travelgate”, Vince Foster, etc.
Ignore this channel if you wish. But neither of the Democratic campaigns are doing so, I am quite sure. I am off to watch THE SPEECH by Obama which, fortunately, is on a different channel.
Posted by: algasema | March 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Report this commentI am so glad that Sen. Obama reminds us that he has “already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright in his speech”.
He condemns Rev. Wright by supporting him for 20 years and naming him a campaign adviser.
With Sen. Obama twisted logic, he could justify almost anything.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm | Report this commentObama’s speech is simply the greatest speech that has been made in America since Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Will Obama’s speech put an immediate end to all the smears and race baiting against him? Of course not, any more than King’s speech put an immediate end to segregation. But, regardless of who wins the presidency (and I think Obama’s chances have just gone up to the point that I would be willing to bet hard currency on his victory - no declining US dollars, please), this speech will long be remembered as one of the greatest in our history.
Posted by: algasema | March 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Report this commentHmm..
I suppose if you replaced Dr. King with a Jetson’s model Uniblab Robot that was also a Harvard Lawyer under the direction of some maniacal Chicago PR guy, you would have a good comparison between Dr. King and Sen. Obama.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Report this commentFunny thing, JBP, your comments sound quite a bit like what people were saying about Dr. King in the 1960’s, though, of course, a bit more crudely. Indeed, a lot of the same type of invective that is now being used to demonize Barack Obama’s former pastor was regularly used against Dr. King.
Dr. King was usually referred to as a “demagogue” and “agitator” whose mission was supposedly to stir black people up to violence against whites, something that even Rev. Wright hasn’t been accused of. He was, also, of course, regularly labelled as a “Communist”, hounded by the FBI and, of course murdered.
Therefore anyone who claims that he/she would respect black leaders now if only they were like Dr. King in the good old days is simply rewriting history. Being a black leader who seeks better race relations in this country comes with a price - one that Martin Luther King paid more than 40 years ago, and one that Barack Obama is paying today as the target of racially inspired abuse.
Posted by: algasema | March 18th, 2008 at 9:38 pm | Report this commentThe Uniblab was quite young in MLK’s time; there were certainly a lot of kinks to work out with the Jetson’s various robotic acquaintances.
If you can find a reference to MLK’s as Jetson’s robot, I will gladly drop my point, but I think I have uniquely generated this one.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | March 19th, 2008 at 1:17 am | Report this comment