Returning to the Democrats, however, what happens in Wisconsin today -- and in Hawaii as well, to a lesser extent -- is important to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama did indeed defeat Hillary in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia last Tuesday, and because he did so in decisive fashion, he has (as predicted here last week) cemented his status as the "frontrunner" for the Democratic Nomination. As I also predicted, the stories came fast and furious about Hillary's imminent demise, and we even saw the first postmortems for exactly why her once "inevitable" campaign for the nomination had crashed and burned. Most believe (and the polls show) that Obama will win both Wisconsin and his home state of Hawaii today, and he is clearly riding a powerful wave of momentum. And sure, while today Obama has a delegate lead of more than 100 delegates, and while it seems that he has enough momentum and buzz to continue his string of primary and caucus victories all the way to the nomination, it ain't over 'til the [Clinton] lady sings. Here are several reasons why I believe the media, the pundits, and even the Obama campaign itself, are premature in their belief that the Democratic Nomination is his:
- Clinton may just win Wisconsin today: Demographically, Wisconsin should be a great fit for Clinton and offer her a good chance for victory. Oddly, however, the Clinton Campaign seemed to essentially write off Wisconsin in the immediate aftermath of her losses in the Potomac Primary last week. Nothing better illustrated this than the fact that as the results began trickling in last Tuesday night, Obama was in Wisconsin -- site of the next primary, but Hillary was in Texas -- where the primary isn't until March 4th. The Clinton Campaign even released a memo by Chief Strategist Mark Penn in which he outlined the campaign's plan to emphasize Texas and Ohio on March 4th and Pennsylvania on April 22nd as the contests in which Hillary would make her stand, thereby essentially conceding any chance of victory in Wisconsin -- "Change begins on March 4th," Penn wrote. Late last week, however, after some polls indicated that the race between Clinton and Obama was actually quite close in Wisconsin, the Clinton Campaign changed its tune, and began to make a push, albeit a cautious and expectation-lowering push, in the Badger State. This leads me to believe that the Clinton Campaign's internal polling also showed the race to be within reach, and so they opted to try to upset Obama there or at least finish in a very close second place. So keep an eye on Wisconsin tonight, as a Clinton victory would be a significant shift in the campaign dynamics, and even a respectable second place could be used by the Clinton Campaign to show that she remains strong.
- Hillary and Bill Clinton will not go down without a fight (Part 1): As mentioned in my last post, the Clintons will absolutely fight for this nomination, and they are not averse to fighting dirty if necessary. Since last Tuesday, Clinton sharpened her attack on Obama, declaring that she is in "the solutions business", while Obama is in "the promises business". While acknowledging that Obama gives a great speech, "words are cheap" Clinton said, and it is she who can actually deliver results -- not just talk about or promise desired results. Obama deftly countered the charge in the days that followed, but he then faced an attack on his response to the attack, and it was here where we potentially saw very preliminary indications of the Clinton Campaign taking the low road, when yesterday they accused Obama of plagiarism. Specifically, the Clintons charged that Senator Obama had copied Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in remarks he gave on Saturday in Wisconsin, remarks in which he sought to respond to Clinton's "words are cheap" comments. Said Obama Saturday:
"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? Just speeches?"
In fact, his remarks are very similar (in fact, nearly identical) to those given by Governor Patrick last October when he said the following:"'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words? Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' -- just words?"
Clearly, the remarks are too similar for it to be a mere coincidence, but as it turns out, the remarks were ad-libbed and not in the prepared text of the speech, and perhaps more importantly, Deval Patrick and Barack Obama are very good friends who support each other politically. The Obama Campaign, in fact, responded with a statement from Governor Patrick himself that read:"Senator Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Senator Clinton, I applaud him for responding in just the way he did."
Obama's campaign further charged that Hillary Clinton was in no position to criticize Obama on this issue, citing instances where she herself had made remarks that Obama had heavily used previously, such as "Yes We Can" and "Fired Up and Ready to Go". In the end, this ploy was a losing one for the Clinton Campaign in my opinion, as it was essentially an invalid claim, and a hypocritical and fairly petty one at that. This type of tactic, however, is one that we will likely see replicated and intensified in the event Obama wins Wisconsin today, and one should never underestimate the ability of the Clintons to engage in political combat -- be it hand-to-hand, or knife-to-back. - Hillary and Bill Clinton will not go down without a fight (Part 2): In addition to launching attacks on Obama, the Clintons are also exhibiting what appears to be a belief that the rules can be changed in order to best serve their political interests. If you have followed the campaign, you've almost certainly heard about the controversy surrounding the Michigan and Florida Delegates. This is a fairly complex issue, and so I will try to simplify it as best I can. Last year, Michigan and Florida both opted to move their primaries ahead in the electoral calendar this year. In doing so, they were defying the wishes of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), who had indicated that if they did so, their respective delegations would not be seated at the Democratic National Convention in September, thereby taking away the ability of the voters of the two states to influence who the Democratic Nominee would be. In observance of the DNC's ruling and penalty, all of the Democratic candidates agreed months ago not to campaign in Michigan or Florida. Despite all of this, both Michigan and Florida proceeded to hold their primaries (on January 15th and January 29th, respectively), even though they were effectively meaningless "beauty contests", and even though in Michigan, Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate whose name appeared on the ballot. The Obama and Edwards Campaigns were not pleased about that, and they were further angered when Hillary flew to Florida on the night of the Florida Primary to declare "victory", a hollow claim for a contest in which no one had campaigned, and an action viewed as violating the spirit of the DNC's decision and the candidates' agreement. Now, with Clinton and Obama locked in a tight race, the issue of what will happen to the Michigan and Florida Delegates -- 167 and 172 delegates, respectively -- could be very important in determining who the nominee will be. The DNC never dreamed that the nomination would be this tightly contested and therefore is unsure of how to solve this problem -- potentially a big one. The Clinton Campaign, of course, is now happy to offer their suggested solution: award the delegates as is. In other words, in Michigan, based on the number of votes Hillary received, she would be awarded 99 delegates, while "Uncommitted" -- the only other choice on the ballot for Michigan Democrats -- would receive 68 delegates. (Those 68 would presumably go to Obama, but one can imagine how someone who was an Edwards or Kucinich or Richardson supporter and who therefore voted "Uncommitted" might feel about having their vote arbitrarily assigned to Obama). In Florida, Hillary would take 105 delegates and Obama would claim 67. The net result of the two contests would be a pickup of 69 delegates for Hillary -- a significant increase in a delegate count in which she is now trailing by approximately 140 delegates. Hillary cloaks her belief that the votes in the two states should be counted in the name of avoiding the disenfranchisement of the Michigan and Florida voters. The Obama Campaign understandably objects to the Clinton Campaign's newfound concern for the voters of Michigan and Florida, seeing it as the blatant and politically-motivated ploy that it is. All of the candidates and campaigns agreed to the rules about Michigan and Florida, and the Clinton Campaign's position now amounts to an attempt to change the rules late in a game in which they find themselves losing. (The Clintons' desperate attempts at changing the rules in the midst of the game will not likely stop here if they continue to trail Obama. In fact, as of this morning, that effort has broadened with the report that the Clinton Campaign will not hesitate to actively seek the support of Pledged Delegates -- in other words, delegates whose support Obama has already won in the previous primaries and caucuses -- in order to win the nomination. I believe this is unheard of in the history of the Democratic Party's nominating process, but leave it to the Clintons to be the first.
- The "Frontrunner" title is a new dynamic for Obama, and it can be a double-edged sword: While every candidate seeks to be "the frontrunner", attaining that title and position is not without peril because, with the frontrunner title comes frontrunner scrutiny -- from the media as well as from the opposing candidates. In presidential politics, when a candidate takes the lead, that candidate will understandably receive more attention to everything he or she does and says. This can be a very good thing for a skilled and disciplined candidate, allowing the candidate more airtime to communicate his or her message. On the other hand, it raises the stakes, making any gaffe or mistake by that candidate that much more widely seen and heard, and thus that much more consequential. This is a new position for Obama, and while he has given every indication that he is a uniquely skilled and disciplined candidate, we should never underestimate the power of the spotlight to throw even the most polished politician off his or her game. Another potentially negative byproduct of Obama's taking the lead is that the media begin to train their prying eyes on him, his background, his associates and essentially anyone with whom or anything with which he has ever done. The best way to illustrate this is by giving you just a sampling of the headlines and stories about Obama and his campaign (and even his wife) that have appeared since he "officially" became the frontrunner just one week ago:
- Obama is Not Inevitable
- Is Obama Good for Business?
- Obama's Iraq Record: A 'Fairy Tale'?
- Will People Tire of Obamamania?
- Obama Casts His Spell
- And Now the Press Will Come After Obama
- Is Obama Too Hip For His Own Good?
- Obama's Waffle on Public Funding
- Beyond Change: The Obama Mystery
- Obama Sells Same Old Stuff
- Obama's Fine Words & the Economic Reality
- The Risk and Reward of Obama
- The Magic Fades but Obama Persists
- Michele Obama: She Said What?
- Cult of Obama Will Turn Off Independents
No comments:
Post a Comment