Pajamas Media

Super Tuesday: Is This Hillary’s Last Hurrah?

by Roger L. Simon If either party's nominating process reaches a conclusion on Super Tuesday, conventional wisdom has it that it will be the Republicans with McCain sweeping the Northeast and California. But a surprise may be brewing on the Democratic side. Obama fever is clearly growing.

February 4, 2008 - by Roger L Simon

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

The latest California Field poll shows McCain up eight, but more unexpectedly shows Obama within two points of Clinton in the nation’s most populous state. Other polls are less favorable to Barack, but it’s clear the younger man is surging.

Hillary is lucky the primary is this Tuesday. Another week and she could be toast. In the long run, she could be anyway.

What does this mean for the Republicans? Nothing good. Running against Hillary would not be difficult for them. The country is experiencing Clinton fatigue and what with recent revelations like Bill’s nuclear finagling in Kazakhstan (probably just the tip of an endless iceberg) Hillary presents them with an easy target and likely victory.

Not so Obama. He is the “cool kid” on the block and getting cooler. Everyone wants to be part of him. “Yes, We Can” - a new video by Black-Eyed Peas featuring Scarlett Johansson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, among others - although based on the usual campaign rhetoric, radiates an optimism about a future with and through Obama, which we haven’t seen since Reagan, ironically.

Furthermore, Obama’s lack of record or experience, while obviously something any concerned voter should be concerned about, may be an advantage for him. There’s less to shoot at.

In a head-to-head, Obama’s glamour could be lethal. McCain would look like Barack’s crotchety old father and Romney-even worse-a starchy, clueless businessman (in Huckabee’s words, “the guy who fires you”). I don’t have to tell you, the facts are not operative here. Images rule.

This was writ large by Frank Luntz’s focus group after the recent California debate at the Kodak Theater. Unlike the pundits, the people in Luntz’s group overwhelmingly declared Obama the winner, although he had spoken largely in generalities throughout the entire debate. Hillary, the wonk, had focused on the details of her programs. Who wants to hear about them? Again ironically, they just contribute to Clinton fatigue.

Like it or not, people are more interested in being inspired.

So, on Super Tuesday, all eyes will be on whether McCain can administer a knockout blow on the Republican side.

But the spotlight should be shared equally with the Democrats. Hillary, even more than McCain, needs to win with some deciseveness on Tuesday. Otherwise, she will be on the wrong side of a juggernaut.

22 Comments

Joe:

OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR LATINIOS!
Ms. Obama, VP Chicago Hosp, that charges minorities 6 times as much, isn’t cold hearted enough, she also caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs, to be more efficient she said! In 05, elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiaries, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic! Huge blow to a rural town jobs paid a starting wage of $11hr, Company pays top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while destroying middle-class America. Raises the question not only about corporate values but about Barrack Obama’s own values. Specifically, while he bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, make $45,000 and up a year serving on the board of Chicago comp that pays her a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

There is always going to be some revisionism with historical figures — Earl Ofari Hutchinson did a killer deconstruction on the recent rewriting of Martin Luther King Jr’s legacy — especially those who have died, so, let’s dispense with the niceties: John F. Kennedy did propose the landmark civil rights bill and that is most of his “legacy.” Actually, the record was mediocre. Just some of the highlights: Opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts. Used this as a wedge issue against Nixon! to help capture the “solid South” in the 1960 election. Did absolutely nothing for civil rights in his first year of office. Encouraged, told or instructed Robert Kennedy to sic Adam Clayton Powell on Martin Luther King, threatening to expose an imaginary sexual scandal with Bayard Rustin, MLK’s black gay top lieutenant, to prevent a march in Los Angeles. Opposed the 1963 March on Washington. Refused to deploy troops to protect the Freedom Riders. Ignored the Albany, Georgia bus station riot. So many more lost opportunities to choose from….

In the early 1960s, obviously, JFK’s attention was diverted to Cuba, Berlin, Vietnam, and, increasingly, Marilyn Monroe and other actresses. If Kennedy capitulated to the blacks, the Southern white Democrats would revolt. If he did nothing–which he mostly did–the violence would continue and world attention would focus on the inept White House. The Kennedys had a horrible relationship with Congress, so, there wasn’t much the president could on his. On the other hand, by sitting on his hands, the violence quotient increased, which is why he was forced to “propose” the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Oh yeah, this probably helped endear his family to black voters in Chicago and New York City. There was an election in 1964 …

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:15 am Unite America:

I am a moderate Republican and, if given a chance, will vote for Barack Obama in the general election.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for John McCain. I know many Democrats don’t like to hear that, but more than anything, I want this country to move away from the Bush-Clinton-Bush era.

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:26 am A. N. Pierson:

Nice prepared boilerplate, “Joe”. Who do you work for?

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:28 am John:

John McCain approached the Democrats in 2001 about switching parties so he could deny Republicans control of the Senate and hobble the Bush administration.

Why is this story being buried?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:44 am John:

Roger, you forget how great the Clintons are at spin. Any victory on Super Tuesday by Hillary, no matter how minuscule the margin, will be pushed out in the media as showing that the tide has turned in her race against Obama. And while many in the press have been smitten by Barak, there’s still a pretty good contingency of Clinton acolytes out there who will be willing to carry whatever message is sent out from campaign headquarters Wednesday morning (George S. on “This Week” was already speculating on whether Hillary will offer Obama the VP spot, so you know nothing short of outright victory on Tuesday is going to stop people like that from putting out the question “Has Obama’s challenge failed?” the next day).

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:59 am Al Fin:

Obama is leading the charge to bring back an audacious hope to American voters.

The sheer dynamic energy that one finds in the Obama camp is startlingly explosive. Senator Obama has what it takes to not only lead a successful campaign–he can lead a successful nationwide, even worldwide, movement.

The Illinois Senator now has the momentum. He has the celebrity firepower behind him.

Not since the David Dinkins mayorial campaign in New York City, have I seen such hope behind a candidate.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:26 am TONY:

Wishful thinking….wishful thinking. Hillary will win the vast majority of the states on Tuesday. Some will be close, but winning twenty states would signal a great momentum for her. If Obama won twenty states, you guys wouldn’t even be questioning the significance of the day. All of the Clinton-hating is so transparent it is ridiculous. I don’t want a “cool” president. That’s how Bush marketed himself. I want someone full of ideas and not kum-buy-ah empty rhetoric. Change — give me a break.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:27 am MarkJ:

Like it or not, people are more interested in being inspired.

Yeah, but inspired to do….what? Hitler and Stalin were “inspiring” too, weren’t they? If you can tell me where’s the beef in Obama’s “style sandwich,” let me know.

Let’s say Obama does slide in: I suspect his “magic” will quickly dissipate once he’s forced to condescend to us mere mortals and actually start putting specifics on what constitutes “hope” and “change” in his temporal plane of existence. One look at Obama’s political career establishes that the guy has spent most of his political career doing his best to avoid taking a position on anything. All those charming, and “inspiring,” platitudes he’s uttering right now will count for nothing if he screws the proverbial pooch overseas and/or domestically. He’ll likely find, to his shock, that Al Qaeda will hate him every bit as much regardless of how much he “consults” with the United Nations or how many Gitmo prisoners he releases back into the general population.

Obama needs to remember this old political adage:

“Living atop Mount Olympus is nice, but it also makes you an easy target for lightening strikes.”

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:28 am David Thomson:

“Like it or not, people are more interested in being inspired.”

This is another way of saying that anti-intellectualism dominates much of our political process. Thinking is deemed nowhere near as important as what one feels about something. Our country is doomed if things are truly that bad. However, I am not quite that pessimistic. It is only the beginning of February. Never forget the fact that most Americans don’t seriously pay attention to politics this time of the year. The electorate will demand more from Barack Obama in a few more months.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:32 am Banjo:

What dream world do you live in, David. Thinkers are always outnumbered by the ignorant by some factor beyond calculation. Perception rules which is why Obama despite his thin resume will be the next president. Age vs Beauty doesn’t come off well. Never has. We can only cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Feb 3, 2008 - 11:09 am David Thomson:

“Thinkers are always outnumbered by the ignorant by some factor beyond calculation.”

You are half right. The dumb will most likely inherently outnumber the smart. A democratic society, however, depends on only a sufficient number of individuals to save it. America can currently be saved if its more responsible citizens carry out their responsibilities. Is it fair that so much of the burden falls on their shoulders? No, but who ever promised you a fair world?

Feb 3, 2008 - 11:20 am BoiseBB:

Hillary’s strongest qualification, and perhaps her only one, is her ambition. She is a total pragmatist who will do what needs to be done to keep her in power and not tarnish her image.
Based on Obama’s record, he is an empty suit that desperate and/or disgruntled citizens fill with their own hopes and dreams.

Feb 3, 2008 - 11:53 am Zhombre:

“Not since the David Dinkins mayorial campaign in New York City, have I seen such hope behind a candidate.”

You’re joking, right? If not, then I’m OK with President Obama if it means he’s followed by President Giuliani.

Feb 3, 2008 - 12:07 pm Norman Gleason:

I’m not sure that analysis about Obama holds. The Clinton machine is not toothless and nothing if not ruthless.

If Obama gets the nomination and wins the Presidency chances are Hill is out forever. However, if the nomination is close and Obama loses the election she’s almost a shoe-in for the next nomination.

Therefore, what do you think the Clinton machine will be doing during Obama’s campaign?

Feb 3, 2008 - 12:41 pm Foobarista:

If Obama wins, the only “hope” will be hope that he doesn’t double my taxes. Once you get past the shiny packaging, he’s all about saving America with big government powered by more taxes - on the “rich”, of course. But somehow, Warren Buffet and George Soros are missed and they end up raising taxes on people like me, with decent salaries that we achieved after decades of hard work.

Internationally, he’s basically Jimmy Carter 2.0; I’d rather see Hillary than him if it comes to having to fight a war.

Now if he lowered taxes and got rid of the vast number of useless layabouts in Washington, that would be reason for “audacious hope”. But he’s just more same-old, same-old.

Feb 3, 2008 - 12:55 pm Candide:

Ironically, Obama rise reminds me most about much younger Bill Clinton in ‘92. I remember how in summer ‘92 BJC candidacy was a laughinstock in all major media outlets. I remember cartoons with large figures of Bush and Perot and itty-bitty Clinton at their feet…

Feb 3, 2008 - 1:23 pm Poole:

If I were Senator McCain, I would have my staff start preparing a policy for dealing with a collapse of the North Korean and Cuban governments before the election.

While Team Obama is talking about taking the high road and Team Clinton hinting at about NoKo and Cuban contributions to one of their foundations, Team McCain can be making substantive policy proposals.

Feb 3, 2008 - 5:11 pm Mary:

Right after Iowa, I was thinking wow! she lost! Now I’m thinking … oops! she lost (I’m a Republican by the way …)

But seriously waking up and knowing that Hillary is the new prez makes me feel like I’ve been socked in the gut. Waking up with Obama as the prez doesn’t make me sick to my stomach … but it does make me wonder if I’m incredibly naive.

Feb 3, 2008 - 9:59 pm Beth:

I can’t believe this charlatan (Obama) is getting a pass on so many things–his ties to crooks in Chicago, his heinous “church” (I hesitate to call it a church since it’s clearly not Christ-centered), his “present” votes, his laughable inexperience, his rhetoric not matching his actual (thin, but far-left) record, and the list goes on.

Indeed, as said above, the ignorant outnumber the thinkers. Not just the ignorant, though–people who vote based on stupid emotion and wishful thinking rather than logic.

Hillary sucks, but by God, Obama is WAY worse.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:17 pm GCA:

Obama is scary because he is an unknown. His pandering to those who feel entitled to live off the work of others is certainly disconcerting, but I wonder what he would do once elected. JFK, after all, lowered taxes after running a left-looking campaign. Obama is intelligent; might he bow to reality and use his inspirational talents to push a new personal responsibility rather than demagogue against the “rich” if elected?

How do those of you who equate an inspirational leader with mindlessness square that with your adulation for Reagan? He was inspirational and much of his success was attributable to his ability to make people feel good about themselves. Were you a mindless supporter of his policies?

I Don’t want an Obama presidency, and will even vote for McCain, whom I dislike, if he is what the Republicans end up with. However, Obama seems to genuinely wish to inspire the country, and I will take an Obama administration over another ruthless, corrupt, do-what’s-good-for-Bill&Hill Clinton administration any day.

Feb 3, 2008 - 10:49 pm Timstigator:

If Hillary’s hopes are dashed on the night of Super Tuesday then I will go to church and persuade the priest there to have a special service of thanksgiving. Millions will attend.

Feb 4, 2008 - 10:51 am Brady:

Typical sexist blah blah blah. No you idiots, having been in a campaign or two the GOP is gleeful at the idea of an Obama nomination. They can’t throw anything at Hillary — it’s all been done. He is red meat. They are going to vilify him like never before. This guy has so many skeletons in his closets but we want to believe in his fancy words that have no substance. He has lied his way. His campaign is dirtier than hers ANY DAY. But sexism always beats racism.

Feb 4, 2008 - 11:01 am