Ms. Hillary’s Big Night
Despite our differences on John McCain, sometimes it’s uncanny how much Bruce and I think alike. Last night, before bed, I sketched out some notes for this post where I would note, among other things that the Clintons do best when, in my co-blogger’s words, “they are on the ropes.” Like him, I reluctantly admire the former First Lady’s tenaciousness while abhorring her partisanship.
It goes without saying that Mrs. Clinton had big night last night. She won Ohio and Rhode Island comforably and Texas narrowly, losing only in Vermont. Her campaign did what it needed to do to save her from political death. Last night’s results put to rest the absurd notion that she’s been running a lousy campaign. The problem wasn’t the campaign, it was the “product” they were trying to sell.
Where she succeeded last night was not by making that product more palatable, but in raising questions about Senator Barack Obama, the only remaining alternative to that product in the Democratic market. Her team succeeded in tarnishing his image, causing voters to wonder about his qualifications to be Chief Executive. In short, last week, she made Obama the issue. And in the final three days before the primaries, she did so with the help of a news media, finally awakening to its responsibilities.
As John Hinderaker put it on Powerline, people are starting to treat Obama like “a normal politician,” subject to the tough questions all politicians get. And with questions being raised, he has begun to look absurd under fire, particularly when he walked away from a press conference, whining that he already had to answer eight questions.
Given the recent burst of stories critical of Obama in the MSM, it’s no wonder late deciders broke for Mrs. Clinton. In Ohio, she “won those who decided three days before by 26 points.” She won comfortably among late-deciders in the Lone Star State. (I also read in several places that late deciders broke two-to-one for the former First Lady.)
Ms. Hillary won not by convincing voters of her strengths and by appealing to their hopes, but instead by waging an effective negative campaign (seems she has learned a trick or two from her husband). Hugh Hewitt believes she “was rewarded by throwing anvils at the young and lightly credentialed Illinois senator, and by drawing attention to the Rezko trial.”
Hugh’s not the only way to attribute Mrs. Clinton’s success to her negative campaign. Writing in the Politico, Ben Smith observes:
Clinton’s lesson from Ohio and Texas is clear: Attacking Barack Obama directly works. Five days before the primary, she attacked his fitness to serve as commander in chief in a television advertisement depicting a late-night crisis at the White House. In the same short period she attacked his credibility on promises to rein in free trade.
(H/t Instapundit.)
Compiling a list of reasons for yesterday’s results, blogger Bruce Batista headlines his post, “How Obama Blew It,” citing, among other things, the Illinois Senator’s conflicting statements on NAFTA, his relationship to Tony Rezko and the aforementioned press conference. He concludes:
Most of the above explanations fall into the “Obama Lost” rather than “Hillary Won” category. . . . [Obama] is especially vulnerable now that he has been exposed to hostile-media kryptonite for the first time. It also shows that Clinton may have been selected by many voters as the “least bad†option. Consequently, it is not apparent that either candidate will be particularly strong in the general election.
(Also via Instapundit.)
In short, Ms. Hillary won because of the effectiveness of her negative campaign. And now, with Obama vowing to sharpen his criticism of the former First Lady, we can expect an increasingly nasty campaign for the Democratic nomination.
Last night’s victories were not so much a sign of Hillary’s strength as of the effectiveness of the Clinton attack machine when the MSM joins the couple in piling on their adversaries. Even as these victories further expose Ms. Hillary’s weaknesses, Republicans can’t count on defeating Mrs. Clinton solely based on her high negatives, negatives certain to increase as she trades attacks with Senator Obama.
Just as she can only win the Democratic nomination by undermining her opponent, so too could she win the fall contest by attacking John McCain. Should she win the nomination, she’ll go all out to destroy this good man. We can only hope that his team is up to the politics of destruction that Hillary and her husband have practiced for as long as either of them has been in politics.
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hugh Hewitt’s link… mmmmmmmmmm. Crispy. Yummy!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 5, 2008 @ 11:04 pm - March 5, 2008
ILC: That’s a great commentary , isn’t it?
Comment by Vince P — March 5, 2008 @ 11:21 pm - March 5, 2008
Why do people get on this moral high ground with politics? I get annoyed when I start hearing about…oh how terrible that ad was or how nasty she was. This is the battle for the highest office, you should use everything you can to get it.
Let loose the dogs of war
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — March 5, 2008 @ 11:22 pm - March 5, 2008
#3
I’ll drink to that.
My concern is the lack of tenacity on the part of the RNC and McCain. I just hope they don’t have to and HillOrgasma will bloody themselves.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 6, 2008 @ 12:00 am - March 6, 2008
Is it true that the Dem Convention isn’t until the week before Labor Day? If that’s the case, then it’s going to seriously impact the Democrat’s ability to organize their national campaign.
Comment by Vince P — March 6, 2008 @ 12:38 am - March 6, 2008
#5:Â That’s just a crying shame, no?Â
Comment by John — March 6, 2008 @ 7:06 am - March 6, 2008
Actually with a long primary, you could debate whether this is good for bad for their national organization. Obama, and now Hillary, are developing their get out the vote systems in each of these states as they go. They shouldn’t have a problem of reving the engine when it comes time for the national election. I think money might be an issue but the Democrats have been raising money all year, and they are still ahead of the Republicans. Not to mention, Republicans have a lot of seats to defend in the House and Senate that will need to focus on.
John Kerry had no real primary season and look what happened to him. He thought he could just wait till the convention to start talking, uh yea….it was too late by then. Hillary and Obama remain in the spotlight and McCain drops back, and they will both be hammering him and the Republicans. True, they will going against one another but I think it will make the canidate stronger in the end.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — March 6, 2008 @ 8:03 am - March 6, 2008
You make no mention of "the Limbaugh effect." Rush suggested crossing over and voting Hillary to keep the campaign going. He further opined that Hillary would do the work on Obama that McCain would not do. Since McCain had a lock on the nomination, why not use your vote offensively? Neither candidate can lock up the nomination now. They will probably have to rerun the Florida and Michigan primaries to get the delegate count settled. So the super-delegates will rule the convention in the same way they did before this whole primary tradition began in the 1970′s. The Clinton machine and the Obama machine will be hard at work doing back room politics and playing footsie with the media.
I do not disagree that Obama suffered in Ohio and Texas from voter fatigue with his squishy rhetoric. But I think that a lot of Republicans crossed over to help create the mess that Clinton and Obama now face.
Comment by heliotrope — March 6, 2008 @ 8:45 am - March 6, 2008
"Limbaugh" effect? Crossover republican voters? Are you kidding me? Wake up people. Why do you think Obama’s main victories were in RED states? Crossover voting has been going on all along in this race. Diehard republican friends of mine living in South Carolina said they personally knew several republicans that publicly admitted to voting for Obama because he was less of a threat in the general election than HRC.
Comment by Leigh — March 6, 2008 @ 1:28 pm - March 6, 2008
#9
I think the idea is to let Hillary destroy Orgasma (since McCain & the RNC won’t cross a black man) and then Hillary gets destroyed by McCain. Libs are racist bigots and Hillary would have no qualms.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 6, 2008 @ 5:19 pm - March 6, 2008
I think you all are ignoring Hillary at your own peril, she will not be easy to beat. I think the election will depend on what issues are framing it, Hillary will carry an edge against McCain when it comes to economy and on defense it will go to him.
I would think by now, she would have proven to most that she is hard to beat. McCain is not nearly as good of a politican as the Clintons or Obama, sometimes the issues mean less than they should
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — March 6, 2008 @ 5:25 pm - March 6, 2008
A Democrat will be inaugurated come January 20, 2009. And you all had better pray that it’s Hillary Clinton, a known quantity, and not Barack Obama, about which we know so little.
Obama strikes me as a lot like cotton candy. He looks good but it all disappears when you take a bite.
We do know something about the junior senator from Illinois. George Soros, moveon.org, DailyKos, John Aravosis, and others on the far left jumped aboard the Obama long before it picked up speed. In these cases, there’s cause for guilt by association.Â
Comment by Trace Phelps — March 6, 2008 @ 6:13 pm - March 6, 2008
I’m almost with Ann Coulter.. I rather see Hillary than McCain sometimes. But then the fog lifts and I say to myself "What the fcuk where you thinking"
Comment by Vince P — March 6, 2008 @ 6:22 pm - March 6, 2008
Vince P, if you find yourself on the cusp of possibly entertaining the fantasy of musing about voting for Hillary, you should give up worrying incessantly about global warming and immediately cash in your bio-credits. You could slip into Obamaism without even knowing it. This is an official warning.
Comment by heliotrope — March 7, 2008 @ 10:24 am - March 7, 2008