Off the Mat

Chris Matthews' jaw hung in slackened misery during the wee hours of last night as the numbers dripped in from Texas, and he struggled to combine syllables into words and words into sentences. I don't blame him. Matthews and his chorus was dumbfounded by one of the great comebacks in American political history - one that rivals John McCain's rise from his electoral grave of last summer.

Let's look at the scope of Hillary Clinton's victory. She'd lost 11 straight contests to Barack Obama, the most beloved candidate in either party since at least the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan and possibly since FDR's reelection in 1936. Obama's campaign outspent Clinton in Texas and Ohio by four to one, according to some estimates. His field operation was the stuff of organizing legend, and his big rallies made hers seem like church suppers. His online fundraising doubled hers. He led in all the national polls, and her leads in those big states had evaporated. Her imminent departure from the race was declared.

Hillary Clinton was laying on the canvas and the ref was pretty much at nine.

But she got up. She won by three points in Texas, 10 in Ohio, and by 18 in Rhode Island - all of these were surprisingly large margins. On March 1, Clinton was eight points behind Obama in the Gallup national daily tracking poll. In the March 4 poll she is four points ahead - and that's before her bounce from last night.

As great a candidate as Barack Obama is - and man, he is something - Hillary Clinton is his equal in many ways, mosts obviously in her ability to take a punch. She ran a great technical campaign in the last week - tough, but not vicious, and she made herself available to the voters through her SNL appearances. This was all accomplished while virtually the entire national press corps tried to push her toward the exits.

Yet last night, Obama had Clinton just where he wanted her - bruised and dismissed by the media. He had a month's worth of momentum, one of the great months in presidential electoral history. She was waiting to be put away.

And for the third time in this long, long fight - he swung and missed while she connected. What a race.

So we're in for it - a historic ride, possibly to Denver and the convention. A lot of panic everywhere in certain circles about this close race somehow destroying the party and annointing McCain. I think that's silly - this is great for the party. But Kevin Drum provided some much-needed perspective about the most vicious Demcoratic nomination battle in recent decades:

1968. Consider. The Democratic incumbent president was forced to withdraw after a primary debacle in New Hampshire. The Vietnam War had split liberals into warring factions and urban riots had shattered the LBJ's Great Society legacy. A frenzied primary season reached all the way to California in June, culminating in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. The Democratic Convention in Chicago was a nationally televised battle zone. Hubert Humphrey, the party's eventual nominee, had never won a primary and was loathed by a significant chunk of the liberal community. New Left radicals hated mainstream Democrats more than they hated Republicans.

In other words, this was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous. But what happened? In the end, Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1%. A swing of about a hundred thousand votes in California would have thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

If long, bitter, primary campaigns really destroy parties, then Humphrey should have lost the 1968 election by about 50 points. "Bitter" isn't even within an order of magnitude of describing what happened that year. And yet, even against that blood-soaked background, Humphrey barely lost. This suggests that if primary divisiveness has any effect at all, it must be pretty small.

Comments

[bruce b.]

TW,

I agree with what you wrote on Hillary Clinton and this election, but can't agree with Kevin Drum re: 1968. Remember, that election was only as close as it was because George Wallace took 13.5%, votes that otherwise would have mostly gone to Nixon.

1968 was the last gasp of the New Deal coalition, one of the greatest political coalitions in American history, ripped apart by the "race issue" and Vietnam. It was also the start of the Republican "southern strategy."

But your overall point stands. It is ridiculous to compare the current division in the Democratic Party to 1968, unless I am REALLY missing what is going on.

In 1980, the divisions in the Democratic Party might have cost Carter re-election, although Reagan won by quite a bit, in the end. Reagan's margin was a surprise to all.

[judith]

It is a wild ride for sure. I am just hoping that whoever wins is a Democrat who can actually do something for Ohio and the other states that are suffering through very hard times. The problems are real even if the coverage is not.

Thanks for your sane posts.

[tina oticica]

I've just read Hillary hints at a possible joint candidacy with Barack Obama(NYTimes.) I was thrilled last night although I couldn't wait for the bitter end... for the Obamists. It's in our delicio.us network.

[bcelaya]

I'm in Texas. My boss is a 100% complete asshole Republican, and he voted in Tuesday's primary for Hilary. And I'm sure he was not the only one. For days Rush and Hannity and other slimeballs have been telling their sheep in Ohio & Texas that, since McCain had it sowed up and there was no contest on Repub side to cross over & vote for Hilary so the Dem slugfest would continue. Did enough of them do it that it changed the outcome of the election? Who knows. But I find nothing charming or positive about the way this is playing out. Everybody knows Hilary will never surpass Obama in the delegate count (save some contemptable backroom armtwisting among superdelegates), she is only causing further sliming of the Dem brand & causing the wasting of millions of dollars on an inter-party negative campaign, money that should at this point be directed at McCain instead. I used to have a positive feeling about the Clintons, but now that she's turned scorched-earth and win at any cost- never mind the future of the Democratic party- I find her disgusting.

[Andre N]

There never seems to be an end to excuses made for Hillary winning primaries. In New Hampshire she "cameback" due to the racist vote. In Texas she wins because Republicans vote for her en masse. Come on. One could just as well argue, Republicans would much prefer Obama to be the candidate. In fact, it seems he would be *much* more vulnerable.

So, now Hillary is hated because she wants to win at any cost? Unlike Obama of course. How about all the media who want Hillary out of the race at any cost? Did anyone catch how much of the media, Obama supporters, Republicans wanted her to bow out *even before* Tuesday? The utter plethora of confirmation bias is truly staggering. Obama slamming Hillary on NAFTA, negative? No?

[bcelaya]

You've got Hilary out there repeatedly saying McCain is better suited to be president than is Obama. How is that helping the Democratic party? Are you familar with the saying, "That's like burning down the barn to get rid of the rats"? Yea you got rid of the rats but you destroyed the barn in the process. Hilary wants to win at any cost- even if it destroys our chances of winning in November? 48% of Americans say they will never vote for her- how do you plan on winning the general with those kinds of negatives? Current polls show Obama with twice the percentage spread of a lead over McCain than Clinton. Hilary has A LOT of negative baggage she's dragging into this election, and she's alienating more and more anti-war democrats who see Obama as the only candidate to take on McCain's pro-war stance. Win at any cost may be attractive in sports, but when a candidate spits in the eye of her party for her own self interests, it turns me way off.

[bcelaya]

More and more people are stepping forward to say it wasn't just a matter of Clinton besting Obama in Texazs buy her cunning political skills, but rather Republicans crossing over to vote for her. Eric Alterman has a spot on it in his Friday Altercation column, 2 callers into this morning's Diane Rehm show talked about it, and there's this letter in the Houston Chronicle:

The Democrats in Texas voted for Barack Obama, but the Republicans managed to swing the state to Hillary Clinton. Working the polls, all day I overheard people coming out talking about their shock at voting for Clinton, but they could not let "him" win. In my precinct in Montgomery County, Clinton bested Obama 164-89 (before the caucus), and I firmly believe the vast majority of these Clinton "supporters" were just Obama haters. It shows not only the flawed system in Texas, but the depths the right-wingers will stoop to to control politics in this county. Clinton's campaign should be thanking Rush Limbaugh. It is sad so many people can be swayed by what they hear on AM radio.

DYLAN OSBORNE
Spring

So the campaign continues not so much because democrats can't yet figure out who to support as it is this sort of right wing trickery. Whose interests are being served by continuing this slug-fest? Millions and millions of dollars will be spent over the next few weeks to convince voters that whoever the eventual winner is is not worthy of being president, instead of directing that narrative towards John McCain

[Judith]

bcelaya - I am pretty sure the people of Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico think their interests are being served by allowing them to have a vote. So sorry democracy in action is messing with your schedule, but I think it is great.

[Leah]

Bravo, Judith. And Tom Watson. And I say that having voted for Obama on super Tuesday, although until Edwards withdrew his candidacy, he was my guy.

Why is it that people like "bcelaya don't seem to understand the fundamentals of the convention process?

One doesn't get the nomination by winning the most number of delegates in primaries and caucuses; you win it by gathering a fixed minimum number of delegates, somewhere in the 2000 range I believe. Since there are not that many delegates available through the primary process, by necessity, the winner has to get some portion of super delegates.

That was the process which the Democratic Party set up for itself. Perhaps it might want to change it in the future, but this notion that Hillary Clinton and her supporters are somehow ruining the democratic process, small and capitol "d," strikes me as just as divisive as anything Hillary & co are accused of. For heaven's sake, large segments of the media and supporters of Obama were pounding at her to leave the arena before voters in Texas and Ohio got a chance to vote, or to be vilified as a spoiler.

I have no problems with discussions about whether or not superdelegates should be guided by the results of the grassroots electoral process, especially if there is a clear and significant lead one or the other of the two remaining candidates racks up in both elected delegates and in the popular vote, but the notion that Hillary is doing something deeply evil by not folding her tent because she is behind Obama by a 100 or so delegates, and some small slice of the popular vote which could change in her favor by the convention, strikes me as viciously unfair - vicious because of the accompanying complaints that all either Clinton cares about is themselves, or that she is determined to see McCain win if she can't be the nominee, so that she can run again in four years, or multiples of these essentially right-wing tropes that you would think Democrats would be embarrassed to utilize.

My personal bent is to still lean toward Obama more than Clinton. Not by much, though. And I will happily work toward's Obama's election if he is the nominee. These are two good candidates, whose differences on policy are minor. Yes, they represent different strengths and weaknesses, but why is it necessary for so many supporters in both camps to hate the other candidate and their supporters.

My sense is that it is coming more from Obama supporters, but I have read some comments in which Hillary supporters claim they won't support Obama.

Finally, about the issue of Clinton's comments about McClain, could we get something straight here. Senator Clinton has not said that she considers McCain to be a better choice for President than Obama. She is attempting to present her view of what her strengths are as an opponent to McClain, compared with Obama. Her first statement of this theme was clearer than subsequent ones, I am willing to admit. If you check out CBS's reporting you'll see that she talked about how, in an election that may turn on national security issues, she will present herself as representing the kind of experience that can rival McCain's as CIC, while Obama's own presentation of his claimed strength in this regard is the wisdom he showed in one speech in 2002. As it happens, Clinton's failure to show that same wisdom is an important aspect of my own choice of Obama as the candidate, so Clinton makes that argument at her own peril, in the eyes of some voters. But there is nothing illegitimate about the argument. And frankly, it strikes me that there is something crazed and foolish about the insistence of so many Democrats, and a so-called media liberal like E.J. Dionne, and Gary Hart, won reshaping Clinton's message as saying that she is implying she would vote for McCain over Obama.

Clearly that isn't her position, it won't be if Obama becomes the candidate, and wouldn't be if she became the candidate. If independent voters walk away thinking that's what Mrs. Clinton is actually saying, it strikes me that the Obama campaign ought to look into their own hearts and those of their supporters to see who is actually promoting the idea. Naturally, they see it as a way to continue to attack Hillary as the anti-Christ of Democratic politics, but perhaps they need to take a step back, because along with muddying Clinton, which I'll be the first to admit they've perfected, without having to be called out as mud-slingers, a neat trick, and if they can do it against McCain I'm quite prepared to forgive them, but they are also promoting the most negative interpretation of anything she says about Obama. And that isn't her fault, it's their's.

[tina oiticica harris]

Here I am; somebody came from this post to my blog, read for 53 minutes. I wonder who that was. NYTimes just sent me the alert of Wyoming going for Obama.
A very hoity-toity blog has been doctoring Br. blogsville on how Hillary is an attack dog, etc.

It is my recollection the first attack ad came form YouTube, a mash-up of Apple's 1984, with Hillary as The Big Brother.

Barack Obama's top person called Hillary a monster.

Their fanatical attacks never cease. Okay, I love the fact people are voting in large numbers, but let's be fair here. For a change.

[Judith]

Tina, chill. Samantha Power isnt a professional campaign person and frankly should not have been in the role she was given. I like her a lot - she is a passionate and intelligent person and the topics she writes about are importand. But she is more of an academic than a campaigner so she didnt know when to go light a candle and take a soak. I would call her more immature than malicious.

[Andrew]

One question I keep asking myself, at this stage, given the continuing negative coverage of the Clinton campaign in part of the media and left leaning blogs (not this one, happily) is:

"How can Clinton become the positive choice of a united party ready to campaign in the general election in September?"

Here's a scenario: an endorsement from John Edwards.

Clinton's rhetoric since Edwards withdrew has included a number of gestures in his direction, and several of her policy positions (eg health care) are closer to his than Obama's are. An Edwards endorsement would possibly be worth 4-5% of the vote in primaries, 26 pledged delegates, and additional momentum.

Not saying it's likely, just that it's one scenario where a Clinton lift could come from someone with strong credentials at this stage.

[Judith]

hey Andrew - that is a nice idea but more a cherry on the cake as opposed to the cake itself.

But that question can be turned on Obama, too:

How can the Obama campaign recover from the disgraceful, destructive and alienating tactics it has used in the primaries to bring women and Latinos back into some kind of Democratic Unity thang in a GE under his nomination to the presidency. Hint - It can't. And John Edwards cant do it for them. IMO - it has caused its own implosion.