Patterico's Pontifications

4/13/2008

Politico: Hillary is Holding Back on Obama

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 12:35 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The Politico claims that Clinton advisers believe that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, Republicans will unleash on Obama in a way Hillary has been unwilling to do, and it will ensure a Democratic loss next November:

“In fact, the Democratic race has not been especially rough by historical standards. What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: that if Obama is the nominee, a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.

Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

This view has been an article of faith among Clinton advisers for months, but it got powerful new affirmation last week with Obama’s clumsy ruminations about why “bitter” small-town voters turn to guns and God.

There’s nothing to say that the Clintonites are right about Obama’s presumed vulnerabilities. But one argument seems indisputably true: Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges.”

There’s much more at the link, including that Hillary won’t drop out of the race because she is on a mission “to save Democrats from themselves.”

I’ll be right back. I need a drink to wash down all this popcorn.

— DRJ

16 Responses to “Politico: Hillary is Holding Back on Obama”

  1. It isn’t so much that Hillary isn’t willing to do it, nor is it that the battle has been a bit too ‘genteel’, it’s more that the attack lines that will work against Obama in the fall will backfire with the liberals that determine the Democratic nomination. And as an aside, it’s rich to see Hillary trying to exploit Obama’s elitism, for she is no more a fan of the church-going rifle-toting small towner than he is.

    stevesturm (8caabf)

  2. If Hillary won’t do it, she just gets surrogates to do it. I’m not buying this BS.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  3. Most of the way that Hillary has been hindered in attacking Obama is that in substantive positions, attacking the vapid Obama would just alienate the Democratic koolaid core without gaining any votes. In the general election, attacks on Obama’s vapid, juvenile positions will be more successful in driving independants away from Obama.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Perhaps Hillary can enlist the assistance of Un-Documented Campaign Workers to do the job Americans (Hillary) won’t do?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  5. The reason there has been no substantive discussion in the democrat race is that the candidates only differ in two respects – Hillary is a white woman and Barack, a half black man. Criticize Obama and you are a racist; Clinton, and you’re a sexist.

    Neither Clinton nor Obama have enough experience to get an interview for a $100M CEO job from any responsible corporation. Both want to raise taxes, cut defense, nationalize health care, ban guns, run away from any national security issue involving violence (all of them), dump Israel, support infanticide and abortion on demand, ban Christianity in every public place, ban free speech that does not agree with them, educate political correctness, ban CO2 emissions and hamstring business. Both have plans but will never let them see the light of day until the election is over.

    The real problem the democrats have is that they think Americans either agree with their far left position or they are ignorant. I respect the American voter. They will make the correct decision and once again the left will be furious.

    arch (28fba7)

  6. You said it all on paragraph number 5.!!!!!! Both of them are arrogants and snobs. They think they are the only intelligent people in the planet.

    AMA (5846e2)

  7. No, this race has extremely tough on the DNC, and it’s historically very unusual.

    The only other recent brokered convention was a disaster… Hillary is making arguments that would have drawn shocked gasps in years before (such as asking delegates to vote contrary to the voter’s wishes). The attacks on Obama have been feverish, just as the attacks on Hillary have been, and though they have all come from the traditional media, that’s simply how Democrats fight. It is meaningless that Hillary doesn’t take responsibility for her mudslinging.

    One important note is that for all the money that the dems have earned, they have spent nearly all of it. They have turned their major advantage into, at best, a minor advantage, and if Obama is as unpopular as I think he will be, Mccain will start seeing some serious money.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  8. Anyone investing in popcorn futures?

    Vermont Neighbor (629f2e)

  9. As many have noted a lot of the delegates Obama has in his nomination count are from states likely to vote Republican.

    Sure it adds to the count now but it will do little to advance him in the General Election.

    That is part of the Clinton camp argument to the Super Delegates…their is count and their is effective count…whole different animals.

    SlimGuy (ea6549)

  10. I think Hillary has thrown in “everything but the kitchen sink” against Obama. At any rate, reading a lot of political sources, I don’t know of anything bad for Obama that hasn’t been picked up in the press.

    In contrast, a lot of Hillary scandals (e.g., pardons for FALN terrorists for New York votes) and dishonesty about her positions as First Lady (e.g., pro-NAFTA; usurping the role of HHS Secretary and sending Health Care Reform down the crapper) are completely unknown to (or forgotten by) people who rely on TV news or even newspapers.

    Can anyone explain what exactly Hillary is holding back on? (except perhaps a racialised explanation of why Obama might be a weaker candidate, which explanation her surrogates have actually been promoting, and for which one can point to other groups where Obama would be the stronger candidate)?

    DWPittelli (2e1b8e)

  11. Flawed thinking. It ignores the current zeitgeist of a morally inverted America. Obama is the next president — no matter what he says or does. A spoiled and frustrated nation too long away from the consequences of Jimmy Carter — or the consequences of anything — and completely blind to the dangers of the Left (thanks to the voiceless and toothless George Bush) is ready and willing to experiment. The media will do the rest. Of course it will be a disaster, but one we seem to need, in any case will get.

    rrpjr (7f8235)

  12. Slimguy,

    Your argument is weakened by the fact that many of Hillary’s wins were in states which, equally, will not be in contention because they are, except in blowout Republican wins, reliable votes for the Democrat. Among swing states — the ones which would count in a proper analysis of the type you put forth — it looks pretty even between Obama and Clinton.

    DWPittelli (2e1b8e)

  13. Wishful thinking, rrpir. Obama has virtually no chance of beating McCain unless the latter turns out to be some kind of pedophile. Obama can’t speak intelligently when he’s off script – if Rev. Wright and his latest gaff don’t end it, he’ll be crushed trying to debate a seasoned politician like McCain.

    And don’t mistake zeitgeist on the left for zeitgeist of “a morally inverted America”, whatever that is. Obama needs those bitter, gun-toting, slack jawed, white trash kinda folks to win and they know a phony when they see one.

    I suspect he’ll get blown out so badly Democrats will reminisce about Carter’s drubbing by Reagan.

    Eric (884ea6)

  14. “Never interfere with your opponent when he’s in the middle of making a mistake.”

    Napoleon?

    mojo (8096f2)

  15. From the ARG poll.

    23% of likely Democratic primary voters say that excessive exposure to Obama’s advertising is causing them to support Clinton.

    I’ve seen this sort of thing in my own district back in 2006.

    It’s a new phenomenon that campaigns will have to deal with .. Overexposure !!
    Too much money as a problem ?? Who’d a thunk it ?

    Who would have thought that having somebody constantly interrupting your life would cause them to dislike you ?
    I wonder what Obama’s mother-in-law is like ?

    Neo (cba5df)

  16. Here is some stuff that you would think Hillary would be playing off of more … were it not that Hillary’s associates are just as crooked.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0691 secs.