Hello and welcome to Back Alley Media.

Saturday musings

Feeling a little better today.  It helped that I ended up drunk at a karaoke bar last night at 2am — sorry Sebastian, if I’d known earlier I’d have given you a shout out!

So, a few things seem clear at this point.  I think Obama’s biggest threat is losing the argument on why he shouldn’t just be Clinton’s running mate.  I think the superdelegates see the race — and each side’s supporters — becoming increasingly polarized, and the obvious solution is to put both candidates on the ticket.  Of course, if Obama’s ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, which he will be, he should be at the top of the ticket, right?  Here’s where Clinton has a checkmate.  Her candidacy obviously is enhanced by including Obama, and his is diminished by including Clinton.  So while Clinton’s out there touting the Clinton/Obama ticket, he won’t be doing do the same.  This leaves his potential superdelegates vulnerable to the “unity” argument of backing Hillary and getting a “two-fer.”  Clinton knows that superdelegates above all fear alienating constituents, and so offering up the “please everyone” option could become irresistable.  It also doesn’t help that a poll was put out showing that only about half of democratic voters will mind if the superdelegates override the popular vote.

Also:  notice what this says about Clinton’s strategy.  She now knows she cannot win without Obama on the ticket, period.  She knows that’s the only way to persuade the superdelegates to override the popular will. 

To reverse this course of things, Obama needs to take control of the argument again, and show why HE is the standard-bearer for the party, and Clinton is not.  The conventional wisdom is that the two candidates are virtually identical on policy.  Of course, this was Clinton’s “frontrunner” strategy when all she needed to do was mirror her opponents and reap benefits from her aura of inevitability.  But now, she’s pivoted, and Obama needs to seize on the opportunity it opens up.  She’s now the Lieberman hawk democrat (Thanks to Keith Olbermann for pointing that out!).  Obama needs to point out forcefully that she has abandoned the democratic platform and embraced McCain, and that the party has a real choice. 

I’ve said a few times that the only way I can stomach this primary is to realize that Obama’s test is now — not the general.  He has to defeat this brand of politics before he can transcend it (I think Andrew Sullivan said that…).  It’s also a test of the democratic party — and I think Obama should frame it that way.  Do we want to be Lieberman democrats with Rove tactics?  Or do we want to actually put our money where are mouth is, and get behind the candidate who doesn’t apologize or hide from liberal values but champions them, who doesn’t just abandon liberal views for fear-mongering when backed into a corner. 

This Clinton move should be familiar to any democratic leaders who’ve been around awhile.  It’s the classic Clinton triangulation — and it’s a preview of what we’ll get if she is our President.  Her back is against the wall, so she takes a hard right and starts parroting a republican viewpoint that goes against the democratic platform (i.e., “tough” foreign policy) to try to drum up a little panic, and in the next breath talks about putting Obama on her ticket.  She uses republican talking points to smack the “liberal” wing of the democratic party, polarizes the party into fierce factions, and then offers up the “compromise” — her on top of the ticket.  And superdelegates feel like they might not like it, but it’s the best way to prevent the civil war that Clinton herself fomented. 

There’s still time to turn it around.  It’s troubling to me that Keith Olbermann literally is the best surrogate for Obama right now — and really the only one on the national stage pointing out the meaning of Clinton’s pivot toward McCain.  Obama needs his surrogates to get out their and help him. 

At the end of the day though, if the superdelegates have retreated to fear over this whole thing, we’ll have our answer on what the party stands for. 

UPDATE:  Phew.  Today Obama ruled out running as VP.  This is the first time he’s said that — normally he just says the whole question is premature.  I hope this means he realizes how threatening the suggestion is. He has to rule it out early and often.  But he also has to win the argument on why it’s a bad idea.

UPDATE II: Bill’s laying out the logic for the dream ticket, calling it an “unstoppable force.”  Obama simply has to refute this, now.  Whatever else you say about the Clintons — they’re making a compelling argument on this right now, and Obama isn’t making any argument.

Posted on 8 March '08 by Suzanne, under Uncategorized.

16 Comments to “Saturday musings”

#1 Posted by chris (08.03.08 at 18:41 )

Great post Suzanne! I totally agree with your comments about Obama needing his surrogates to get out there and beat the drum for him. For example, what happened to the Kennedys? Has anyone heard from them since they first declared their support for him? He needs them out rallying the national media and thus the electorate in Penn.

From afar, it just seems like Clinton is dominating the messages and that does not bode well for Obama in the long run if this thing stays close. He needs to not attack her, but show why he is the best choice to be president. If he can’t make that argument, the VP discussion is going to continue to bubble up.

Chris

#2 Posted by Sebastian (08.03.08 at 20:15 )

i’m not fully convinced that the VP thing is as damaging as the clinton think it is. in any case, i’m not sure it should really be harped on over and over, by surrogates or otherwise. just a simple statement that it’s not going to happen, and that’s my last word on it.

part of the clinton strategy is to throw up an endless series of never-ending stinkbombs, forcing obama to be on the constant defensive. it’s what happened in the days leading up to march 4 and obviously afterwards as well. i’m just not convinced it serves him well to answer each and every charge. if he does that, then he must go on the offensive too, resulting in a foodfight, which only she can win.

btw, i think you’re absolutely right on clintons right-leaning attack strategies and that clinton can only win with obama on the ticket — that said, that’s not why they’re throwing the idea out there. they just want to ingrain in everybody’s minds that obama is #2 material.

#3 Posted by jf2 (09.03.08 at 11:00 )

How can they say, in one breath, that BO is not fit to be president, and, in the next, that he would be a “dream” VP. Either they are being sincere, and they are stupid (you can’t have a VP that’s not ready to be President); or they’re being cynical, and they think that we are stupid.

#4 Posted by Scott (09.03.08 at 11:07 )

Obama’s people need to do a better job of framing the issue.

On the one hand, Clinton wants him a “heart beat” away from the Presidency (read: needs him - as in can’t win without him at this point.)

On the other hand, she is saying he’s not qualifed to be Commander and Chief. (No experiece at hosting Irish tea parties I guess?)

So which is it Hillary, is he qualified or not? Because if he isn’t you obviously have no business running with him, and if he is you need to step forward and tell the world that right now.

#5 Posted by piompino (09.03.08 at 11:08 )

The Clintons are constantly throwing out the idea of Obama as her VP as a mind game — to get people to stop thinking of Senator Obama as the president and discounting him into VP material. By Senator Clinton speaking of Senator Obama as her VP, it also makes voters feel that she is actually winning, when in fact, she is not. It is rather deceptively brilliant and republican all at the same time. I think Obama’s quote yesterday was quite good, but he has to get voters to start to see Senator Clinton downgraded to vp, because right now that is the reality.

#6 Posted by Anonymous (09.03.08 at 11:18 )

The VP thing is also designed to undermine Obama and make HRC look like the presidential one. “Oh, yes, he’s good enough to be VP.”

#7 Posted by emma (09.03.08 at 11:29 )

“Only about half of democratic voters will mind if the superdelegates override the popular vote.”
ONLY half? Half the party can cause a huge uproar. Superdelegates know that.

#8 Posted by RaymondA (09.03.08 at 11:50 )

Here’s a simple argument Obama surrogates can make. Hillary Clinton and her supporters all know that Obama would enhance her ticket, and that her choice of him would improve her standing. Yet no one seriously things that he benefits by being associated with her. How can she possibly be the better general election candidate if she needs him, but he does not need her?

#9 Posted by alex k (09.03.08 at 12:26 )

brilliant insight on the triangulation!!! god i hate the clintons. ps. andrew sent me

#10 Posted by Karen (09.03.08 at 12:42 )

The first time this “dream ticket” came up was Wolf Blitzer asking it at the Los Angeles debate right before Super Tuesday and the Hollywood stars applauded wildly. Worse than George Will helping Reagan prepare for the debates in 1980 and then praising Reagan. Blitzer used his position as moderator to carry out Clinton campaign strategy. It couldn’t be more obvious.

#11 Posted by Hillary Clinton's Slash & Burn Campaign (09.03.08 at 12:48 )

[…] her back is against the wall as Clinton’s now is, she tacks to right in quintessential Bill Clinton triangulation style and slams the oh-so-liberal Obama by using […]

#12 Posted by Knemon (09.03.08 at 13:44 )

“Obama’s test is now — not the general”

Hubris. The general will be nobody’s cakewalk.

#13 Posted by dpolsby (09.03.08 at 14:16 )

Great insights, Suzanne. I’m not as worried about the “Obama=VP” line of rhetoric as you are (shocker), though I think you’ve correctly assessed their reasons for using it. I think it smacks of bizarro hubris and not a little desperation. Imagine a general who’s getting routed (not that she’s getting *routed* yet, but you follow me) offering his counterpart an unconditional surrender and you see what I mean.

I agree that Obama has to respond, but/and I kind of think it will be easy to — one merely has to expose it for its illogic and desperation: (HC: “Okay, so you’re beating me in state after state after state and have an insurmountable delegate lead. I’ll offer you the vice-presidency, and that’s my final offer, take it or leave it.”)

#14 Posted by vshawnt (09.03.08 at 17:17 )

Obama needs to respond to this by pounding hard on the arrogance (or the “audacity of audacity”, as I heard it called) of someone solidly in 2nd place hinting that she’d be open to him being her VP. That simultaneously stifles their ability to hint (falsely) at the chance for a two-fer just to draw votes, and changes the story to one that reinforces the negative perception of the Clinton’s arrogance.
It would be absurd for Obama to be VP, since 1) he’s in the lead and will remain there, 2) Bill will be the VP.
It would be absurd for Obama to ask Clinton to be his VP because, 1) Clinton brings a lot of negatives, 2) They’re both from solidly blue Northern states, 3) He brings Bill into the White House which would be a distraction.
Obama needs to make the Clinton’s pay for this type of political manipulation by turning this story into one that highlights her hubris.

[…] the Clinton triangulation strategy? Back Alley Media does: This Clinton move should be familiar to any democratic leaders who’ve been around awhile. […]

#16 Posted by More Triangulation | Back Alley Media (09.03.08 at 22:26 )

[…] Suzanne’s awesome post, which was linked to by Andrew Sullivan (!), here’s yet more evidence that the Clinton […]