|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Peggy Noonan in Wall Street Journal: Obama is invincible
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Peggy Noonan in Wall Street Journal: Obama is invincible
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| modeams |
Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?
By PEGGY NOONAN
February 8, 2008; Page W14
If Hillary Clinton loses, does she know how to lose? What will that be, if she loses? Will she just say, "I concede" and go on vacation at a friend's house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait?
Is it possible she could be so normal? Politicians lose battles, it's part of what they do, win and lose. But she does not know how to lose. Can she lose with grace? But she does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance.
She often talks about how tough she is. She has fought "the Republican attack machine" that has tried to "stop" her, "end" her, and she knows "how to fight them." She is preoccupied to an unusual degree with toughness. A man so preoccupied would seem weak. But a woman obsessed with how tough she is just may be lethal.
Does her sense of toughness mean that every battle in which she engages must be fought tooth and claw, door to door? Can she recognize the line between burly combat and destructive, never-say-die warfare? I wonder if she is thinking: What will it mean if I win ugly? What if I lose ugly? What will be the implications for my future, the party's future? What will black America, having seen what we did in South Carolina, think forever of me and the party if I do low things to stop this guy on the way to victory? Can I stop, see the lay of the land, imitate grace, withdraw, wait, come back with a roar down the road? Life is long. I am not old. Or is that a reverie she could never have? What does it mean if she could never have it?
We know she is smart. Is she wise? If it comes to it, down the road, can she give a nice speech, thank her supporters, wish Barack Obama well, and vow to campaign for him?
It either gets very ugly now, or we will see unanticipated--and I suspect professionally saving--grace.
I ruminate in this way because something is happening. Mrs. Clinton is losing this thing. It's not one big primary, it's a rolling loss, a daily one, an inch-by-inch deflation. The trends and indices are not in her favor. She is having trouble raising big money, she's funding her campaign with her own wealth, her moral standing within her own party and among her own followers has been dragged down, and the legacy of Clintonism tarnished by what Bill Clinton did in South Carolina. Unfavorable primaries lie ahead. She doesn't have the excitement, the great whoosh of feeling that accompanies a winning campaign. The guy from Chicago who was unknown a year ago continues to gain purchase, to move forward. For a soft little innocent, he's played a tough and knowing inside/outside game.
The day she admitted she'd written herself a check for $5 million, Obama's people crowed they'd just raised $3 million. But then his staff is happy. They're all getting paid.
Political professionals are leery of saying, publicly, that she is losing, because they said it before New Hampshire and turned out to be wrong. Some of them signaled their personal weariness with Clintonism at that time, and fear now, as they report, to look as if they are carrying an agenda. One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.
And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"
* * *
Mr. Obama's achievement on Super Tuesday was solid and reinforced trend lines. The popular vote was a draw, the delegate count a rough draw, but he won 13 states, and when you look at the map he captured the middle of the country from Illinois straight across to Idaho, with a second band, in the northern Midwest, of Minnesota and North Dakota. He won Missouri and Connecticut, in Mrs. Clinton's backyard. He won the Democrats of the red states.
On the wires Wednesday her staff was all but conceding she is not going to win the next primaries. Her superdelegates are coming under pressure that is about to become unrelenting. It was easy for party hacks to cleave to Mrs Clinton when she was inevitable. Now Mr. Obama's people are reportedly calling them saying, Your state voted for me and so did your congressional district. Are you going to jeopardize your career and buck the wishes of the people back home?
Mrs. Clinton is stoking the idea that Mr. Obama is too soft to withstand the dread Republican attack machine. (I nod in tribute to all Democrats who have succeeded in removing the phrase "Republican and Democratic attack machines" from the political lexicon. Both parties have them.) But Mr. Obama will not be easy for Republicans to attack. He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States.
* * *
He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you. (I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)
With Mr. Obama the campaign will be about issues. "He'll raise your taxes." He will, and I suspect Americans may vote for him anyway. But the race won't go low.
Mrs. Clinton would be easier for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.
The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate, Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.
The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.
The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell. Can Mrs. Clinton Lose?
She really hates Hilary :jj:
and Obama's race definitely does not give him carte blanch |
|
|
| Marinolaw |
| didn't I tell you the Republicans are hoping for Hillary? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
This year, the choice is clear:
Barack Obama or the same old bullshit. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Marinolaw
didn't I tell you the Republicans are hoping for Hillary? |
That is beyond obvious, but for some reason the Clinton fans just can not see it. |
|
|
| Jackie's Career |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
This year, the choice is clear:
Barack Obama or the same old bullshit. |
I like Barack Obama but it's ironic that, of all people, a lifelong member of the Chicago Democrat establismhent is being cast as something other than "the same old bullshit." :p
|
|
|
| Marinolaw |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
That is beyond obvious, but for some reason the Clinton fans just can not see it. |
Because they have time, and money invested in keeping things status quo, the Republicans to. Why do you think think they are so anti-McCain the base is losing it's grip. Voters are deciding. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career
I like Barack Obama but it's ironic that, of all people, a lifelong member of the Chicago Democrat establismhent is being cast as something other than "the same old bullshit." :p |
Well, at least he's not just another white guy. |
|
|
| Jackie's Career |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Well, at least he's not just another white guy. |
Yup. He's just another half white guy.
|
|
|
| danrich03 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
That is beyond obvious, but for some reason the Clinton fans just can not see it. |
Republicans need to come to grips with reality. No Republican will win in 2008. Kerry came very close to winning, and now trends are all looking Democrat -- particularly in key states like OH, MO, IA, FL.
If Republicans truly despise the Clinton scourge (and I happen to agree with them on this point), they should be rooting for Obama, because at least that means Hillary returns to NY. |
|
|
| Rastamon |
| if peggy sez it, be wary |
|
|
| modeams |
Quote: Originally posted by Rastamon
if peggy sez it, be wary |
I always get her confused with Andrea Mitchell, Alan Greenspan's wife. :hhh: |
|
|
| dave24s |
| i can't wait for the show when Howard eats crow and supports Obama. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
| wow... even VTW can't deny peggy... of the wall st. journal... |
|
|
| BarkonCue |
November 6, 2000
Peggy Noonan
George Bush is a compassionate conservative. He sees the needs other, older conservatives did not always see, or did not always think they must or could address. But he applies conservative solutions to these needs: more freedom, more choice, the inclusion in the public sphere of faith-based approaches. All the money in the world, he knows, cannot and will not turn around a troubled child’s heart. But God can, and his workers are eager. Bush does not fear faith as an opposing power center to the state. He likes it as an opposing power center to the state. After all, faith freed Poland; perhaps it can free a tough 16-year-old in inner-city Detroit too.
Bush is sunny, ingenuous; he assumes good faith. His assumption of good feeling has a way of spreading it. That has been his history, in Texas, and in baseball, and in business. Gore, on the other hand, is a rather strange individual. He has seemed in the campaign like a rapper on MTV, all strut and no strength. He cannot summon the courage to break with his patrons (the unions, the White House) but is aggressive and cutting in the pursuit of power; he will divide to conquer. He is a sophisticated man, and yet he speaks the language of yesterday’s class warfare. He seems at times like an illustration of the idea that some modern men have become, in the great age of feminism, confused about what it is to be a man. The more he huffs and puffs and tries to dominate the less manly he seems. Powerful men don’t deride and intimidate; they speak the truth and lead. They don’t lie.
http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=289 |
|
|
| jigzaw |
I don't see it.. I see it the other way around, actually. I think that Clinton would be more formidable because she can talk about the issues in a specific manner. The issues will win for the Democrats. Obama is a good speaker and would make a fantastic cult leader (he basically already is), but I find the substance to be sorely lacking.
I'm also a bit creeped out by the messianic quality his campaign has tried to promote. Seeing Obama leading a "yes we can" chant gives me David Koresh flashbacks. When his campaign is Oprah's shivering loins and Scarlett Johanssen wandering around in a video looking like a spaced-out hippy, it just doesn't inspire confidence in the man... at least to my skeptical eyes. |
|
|
| modeams |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
wow... even VTW can't deny peggy... of the wall st. journal... |
:yes: zactly :hhh: |
|
|
| modeams |
Quote: Originally posted by jigzaw
I don't see it.. I see it the other way around, actually. I think that Clinton would be more formidable because she can talk about the issues in a specific manner. The issues will win for the Democrats. Obama is a good speaker and would make a fantastic cult leader (he basically already is), but I find the substance to be sorely lacking.
I'm also a bit creeped out by the messianic quality his campaign has tried to promote. Seeing Obama leading a "yes we can" chant gives me David Koresh flashbacks. When his campaign is Oprah's shivering loins and Scarlett Johanssen wandering around in a video looking like a spaced-out hippy, it just doesn't inspire confidence in the man... at least to my skeptical eyes. |
Have you seen Obama's site where it clearly maps out his stance on most issues? Or perhaps the 60 minutes special where he was criticized for being too professorial and delving into the minutia of policy? Didn't think so... |
|
|
|
|
|
