MyDD :: The Upside Of Competition

The Upside Of Competition

by Todd Beeton, Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:17:23 PM EST

Josh Marshall rightly observes the vast gap that is evident both in readiness and professionalism between the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain (election night speech with lime green background, anyone?) As one of the primary reasons for this, Josh credits the enormous challenge posed to Barack by Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

...in these first few days of the general election, in addition to McCain's and Obama's fundamental qualities as candidates, I think it is increasingly evident that both campaigns are hitting the ground at very, very different speeds. Clinton gave Obama one hell of a run for his money. He's been campaigning and fighting at a fever pitch -- as has his whole campaign -- for months. And it shows.

On the contrary, McCain's operation is simply a wreck. Flabby. Disorganized. Sometimes comical. And one big reason for that is that McCain hardly won the nomination. It defaulted to him. [...] With the rest of the field flopping around like fish on dry land, McCain was able to sew the nomination quickly with pluralities in the GOP's winner-take-all contests.

Josh makes another point, which, I suspect may actually become conventional wisdom in the blogosphere, although it will likely be met with some resistance from the more Obama-partisan corners of the 'sphere, which is that while many were wringing hands and crying foul about some of Clinton's attacks on Obama at the peak of the primary race, it may have ultimately been for the good.

Hillary supporters claimed that there was nothing that Hillary was throwing at Obama that McCain and Co. wouldn't be thrown at him later. So at a minimum she was helping him get the stuff behind him and perhaps even making him a stronger candidate.

This always struck me as what I can only very generously term a deeply disingenuous argument. And I still find it deeply disingenuous. But I'm coming around to the belief that it may have been an accurate one -- much more than I realized or was willing to credit.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Hillary was trying to do Barack any favors. (see Matthew 18:7) But looking forward, it seems far better to me that all the Reverend Wright, Rezko, Bitter and and all the rest are out there and run through and basically old news.

I think this conclusion is an important part of the primary post-mortem puzzle and I think it's fitting that Josh, as the honest broker he has been throughout the primary (although his preference for Obama was never in doubt), is among the first to offer it.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, john mccain, hillary clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 82 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 4)

Why when Hillary criticizes Obama is it an "attack" but when Obama criticized Clinton it was "hammering" or "jabbing" her? Ask yourself that someday? If Hillary were the nominee, how would Obama camp saying "she'd do anything to win", she's "divisive", she's "Republican-lite", she's "beholden to special interest", she's "desperate", her experience as First Lady boiled down to "having tea", she "lacks judgement" or that the "american people don't trust her" have helped her? Frankly, she barely laid a glove on the guy.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:25:06 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 2)

If Obama had called her an elitist and constantly pushed her own version of Rev. Wright and "bittergate"... if he claimed to win illegal elections and count votes only in states that he won... if he said that "black people like me, so pick me, 'cos you need black votes and forget the others"... if he did all those things, then yes, I would agree with you...

Hillary's attacks were a 100 times worse than anything that Republicans will throw, since she was a democrat... People expect Republicans to kneecap a Democrat, not someone from the same "family"... those attacks cut much deeper and are much more damaging than anything a Republican could throw. Even seemingly "innocuous" attacks are greatly magnified 'cos they are coming from the same camp.

by LordMike on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pushed Reverend Wright? (2.00 / 2)

Who PUSHED Reverend Wright?

by catfish2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pushed Reverend Wright? (2.00 / 1)

Texas Darlin' honey. She loves catfish.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pushed Reverend Wright? (2.00 / 2)

Hillary did... to the superdelegates... all throughout April....

by LordMike on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pushed Reverend Wright? (none / 0)

Bull. The Reverend Wright issue surfaced on HateRadio over a year ago, and it was only when the GOP decided to raise the volume on it that it became THE issue.

The Clinton campaign was as much surprised by it as anyone.

Why, would you wonder, did the GOP's attack machine allow only dribs and drabs of this to come out early on?

Simple: The GOP SELECTED Barack Obama as the Dem candidate early on, since he is the easiest for McCain to run against.

They began the hateful Wright smear campaign with their accomplices at ABC, at Drudge, at Politico, at NewsMax, at TownHall, at the WaPo and the NY Times when they calculated it would do the Democratic Party the most harm.

You REALLY think the reason that Obama was molly-coddled up to that point was an ACCIDENT?

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pushed Reverend Wright? (none / 0)

Yeah, that's why Fox News and Rush Limbaugh were pushing for Hillary and getting the votes out for her... sure... they wanted Obama... that's why they rolled out the red carpet for Hillary...

whatever..

by LordMike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pushed Reverend Wright? (none / 0)

The GOP, FOX, and Limbaugh wanted this fight to carry through to Denver, and Obama as the bloodied, weaker candidate.

You have to listen to El Rushbo a little more often, or a little more closely. No matter how disgusting that sounds, lol. He is arrogant enough to tell you exactly how, when, and where he is going to attack you, and dares you to stop him.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're wrong... (2.00 / 1)

the clinton campaign may not have pushed the wright thing publicly, but privately they were talking to people about it long before it exploded on the public scene. i can't think of a single clinton event i went to were the "obama's pastor problem" wasn't brought up. the clinton campaign sent me the 2007 nytimes article on barack's faith that talked about how problematic wright was. terry mcauliffe referred to wright in his remarks to contributors in chicago when he was talking about how hillary would win. they expected public reaction to be so much worse than it actually was. "when people learn about obama and his past, they will abandon him in droves" was a specific remark that i've never forgotten.

i have no idea why you think otherwise. i can only assume you didn't have a lot of contact with hillary's campaign. as for your inane assumption that hillary would have been a stronger candidate, republicans had 15 year of video tape of hillary contradicting herself. there's a reason why so many republicans were running for president. they all wanted to be the one to exploit hillary's ge weakness. she took eight years to design a campaign for president that absolutely sucked. it's a good thing democrats did not do what they tend to do: choose an incredibly weak ge candidate because they viewed that person as more "electable." hillary divided the left and united the right. even if barack cannot unite the left, the right remains demoralized and disinterested in this election...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're wrong... (none / 0)

I was an early contributor to Hillary';s campaign, I'm a New yorker, and have supported her since before Bill got to the White House. Your assumption that I am inane of had little contact with Hillary's campaign is dead wrong. I can show you at least 1,000 emails from Patti Solis to McAuliffe to Chelsea to Bill keeping up with us faithful.

AS to which candidate was stronger, I would only encourage you to research many "inane" pieces written just last month which analysed the Electoral Vote pictures of Hillary and Obama vs. McCain and showed Hillary from 25-100 Electoral votes stronger.

Even today, most analyses show that Obama will struggle in places like Ohio, PA, and NJ, where McCain spoke yesterday, and in every state in the South including Florida.

FYI, the Rev. Wright issue goes back to before 2006 on the Sean Hannity show, when the OBama movement was in its infancy and the GOP was picking up oppo research on ALL the candidates, way before the 2007 NY Times article that was published because the GOP began to turn the heat up.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're wrong... (none / 0)

i should have said "personal contact." i already conceded that they may not have pushed the wright meme publicly (because i don't know).

obviously, you have an emotional commitment to hillary and can ignore how eager republicans were to run against her. the fact that grover norquist (almost a year ago) and roger stone (over a year ago) were publicly praying for hillary to win because, in their words, she was the weakest democrat running, must be dismissed (because of your emotional commitment). the fact that rush limbaugh spent two months encouraging republicans to vote in the democratic primary for hillary BECAUSE SHE WAS THE WEAKEST of the two has to be ignored. they know nothing, right? and certainly, you are better informed than they were.

obviously, i'm not as smart as you are. i took republicans at their word for wishing and hoping that hillary would be the democratic nominee. i still take the mccain campaign at their word for saying that it will be harder to raise money against barack than it would have been against hillary. but what do they know?

thanks for the attempt to inform me, but i was specifically talking about the clinton campaign pushing the wright meme, not when it first appeared. i already knew that the clinton campaign was inept at oppo. hell, they didn't produce a single original or new piece of information. but that only confirms their weakness. it's surprising that you know that but can still argue that hillary would be a credible, let alone competitive, democratic nominee (against any republican nominee)...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're wrong... (none / 0)

I can argue that Hillary would not only be a credible, not only competitive, but by far the stronger nominee simply because I can read an Electoral-Vote map like everyone else has.

She runs stronger against McCain in the swing states, OH, PA, FL, and MI. Especially FL, with its rich chest of 27 Electoral Votes which makes it worth more EV than any state except the huge troves of CA, TX, and NY.

Also, and very importantly, because of her strength with the largest minority, Hispanics and Latinos, she runs stronger against McCain than Obama in the New West frontier that has just begun to turn Blue: NV, NM, AZ, and CO.

Again, Rush Limbaugh's effort was named "OPERATION CHAOS", not "Operation Elect Hillary". Had Hillary been in Obama's position, he would have told them to get out and vote Obama so there would be dissension, division, rancor, and grudges held among Democrats until the Nomination in Denver.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're wrong... (none / 0)

yeah, you could. it's just not a credible argument. most of us followed the primaries closely, where hillary had another huge lead over her opponents -- and watched how she blew that lead over and over. why would we think that the general would be different?

as for florida, i'm from florida. hillary had no chance of winning florida -- something that is attested to not only by her own attempts to elect surrogates to statewide office (she's 1 out of 5) but also from the tradition that democrats poll much better than they run in the state (kerry was actually ahead in the last poll taken in florida). i will repeat: sam brownback polled better than hillary did in the critical i-4 corridor less than a year ago. sam brownback. that's how popular she was outside her core four counties...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're wrong... (none / 0)

Hillary WON the Florida Dem Primary by over 300,000 votes. In my opinion, she would have no trouble winning FLorida outright: The state is demographically made for her. It has big parts of all her strongest supporters: People over 60, women over 60, latinos, and working-class voters. And, because of the courageous stand taken by the minority Dems, fewer electronic voting machines.

Al Gore WON Florida, too, when you counted all the votes the right way.

Kerry lost Florida by 300,000 votes, because of Conservatives, Jeb Bush's vote suppression tactics, and a piss-poor campaign.

by dembluestates on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

You know, you sound like those retrograde Southerners with bumper stickers that say "Ferget, hell!" and refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". Sure, it was bloody. Sure, it was brutal (by modern standards; go read your history and you're realize this was almost a slap-fight by comparison). But it's over. Get a grip and let it go.

by beerwulf on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 2)

Sigh.

I'm so very tired of this bullshit. Fine, Hillary was a bloody saint, martyred for her goodness. She is at the same time a fighter whose sheer ruthlessness we needed to recruit, and she is also a do-gooder which barely laid a glove on her opponent. She's a second Jeanne D'arc, both warrior spirit and yet filled with the light of holiness.

Happy now?

But if you truly want a response and not all your questions were rhetorical: all of the attacks on Hillary were attacks that could have just as easily applied to McCain and even more intensely -- For example: "Republican-lite" is hardly an attack that would have damaged Hillary in the election against a full-fledged Republican. If anything it might have even helped her. Same with the argument that she showed lack of judgment in supporting the war. If she won the primary, that fact wouldn't have hurt her against McCain who also showed the same lack of judgement except even worse.

But Hillary saying that McCain has a lifetime of experience unlike Obama? Not the same category of attacks.

Or to put it briefly: Obama attacked Hillary from a Democrat perspective, Hillary attacked Obama from a Republican perspective. The former set of attacks couldn't be used by rightwingers. The latter set of attacks on the other hand will lend credence to the Republican attacks.

by Aris Katsaris on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Exactly: the one claiming that she and McSame had crossed the threshold and all Obama had was a speech has already been run by the Republicans and will likely be used heavily during this campaign.

Peace
:)

by eaglecries on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:22:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Spoken like a true Obama supporter.

At least you admit that Obama ATTACKED.

Many of your cohort deny even that.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So which Clinton scandal ... (none / 0)

... would you like to have started with? The pardons? The renting of the Lincoln Bedroom?

by Brad G on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So which Clinton scandal ... (none / 0)

Sure, bring it all on. You seem to forget, or don't want to remember, that these were ALREADY tried on Clinton, right? And she STILL enjoyed a huge popularity surge. Face it, America loves Hillary today, period. More than they love Obama and McCain.

In the meantime, even the HINT that the GOP may have something on Michelle threw the Obama campaign off-message for a whole day, forced their spokespeople to make statements, and open a new front on the Internet.

Look, I think we're getting off=course and fighting old and bitter battles.

Let's agree with Todd, OK? Obama is much better off for having had Hillary as an opponent.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're wrong... (none / 0)

hillary remains the weakest of the three. from gallup:

Hillary Clinton Fav Unfav Unsure
5/30 - 6/1/08 54 43 3

John McCain Fav Unfav Unsure
5/30 - 6/1/08 56 37 7

Barack Obama Fav Unfav Unsure
5/30 - 6/1/08 58 37 5

hillary has the highest negatives and the lowest favorables...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:46:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're wrong... (none / 0)

I wonder what other head-to-head polls say?

Oh, look!!

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

NBC-WSJ 6/6-6/9

McCain 40% Clinton 49%
McCain 41% Obama 47%

CBS

McCain 41% Clinton 50%
McCain 42% Obama 48%

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm sorry i confused you... (none / 0)

i will be much more specific from now on. i was responding to this:

America loves Hillary today, period. More than they love Obama and McCain.

head to head matchups don't speak to who the public "loves" more. hillary's advantage in head to heads has more to do with the fact that voters knew they couldn't vote for her in november...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm sorry i confused you... (none / 0)

Pure speculation as to the reason she leads in head-to-head.

I would suggest Hillary's advantage now has a lot to do with America discovering that the Hillary they were told, especially by the Obama campaign, was "the Real Hillary": That cold, ambitious, divisive, calculating, unprincipled witch and worse turned out to be a case of pure right-wing taling points, negative hype, and character assassination.

Instead, they found in Hillary's persona a courageous, never-say-die warrior, a fighter, a person dedicated to making a difference and fighting for the forgotten people, for the rights and interests of working-class Americans.

And they looked again at her history, and they lolokoed at her record, and they listened to her voice, and they voted for her in droves.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm sorry i confused you... (none / 0)

In addition, we could never have elected her. Her negatives were too high and getting higher by the day. Let's face it. She is mean.

by DemoDan on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm sorry i confused you... (none / 0)

i don't need to speculate. you're giving import to something that isn't even statistically significant. it just fits your pre-conceived notions (and emotional needs).

if voters viewed hillary as you do, she'd have won. instead, she was rejected by democratic voters -- even thought she had eight years to prepare for the run and the strongest political brand in the country. granted, she also had the highest negatives ever polled for a non-incumbent, and no non-incumbent has ever been elected with the negatives she was starting with. it didn't help that she ran a shitty campaign. republicans would have slaughtered her. that's why so many took a shot at the gop nomination this year...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm sorry i confused you... (none / 0)

You are dreaming. She was not "rejected by democratic voters" at all.

She BEAT Obama in the popular vote, especially since February 20. She won almost 750,000 more popular votes than Obama in the last three months of the campaign, all over the map from Pennsylvania to South Dakota to Puerto Rico.

I repeat: Obama was brought in as our nominee not by the will of the people, 50% of whom voted for Hillary, nor by the will of Dem voters in true Dem Primary states, but by the will of the Superdelegates.

That's fine. I support Obama v McCain 100%. I just want to make sure we remember things as they really happened, not as we want to rewrite them even if the winners do get to write the History books!

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 07:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she lost... (none / 0)

that's rejected in my book. but if you want to believe that she's the democratic nominee, i won't disturb your fantasy. i won't even attempt to speak to your conspiracy theory stuff. i am a reality-based observer. i'm sure that there is someone out there who you can talk to about hillary's victimhood...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's agree Hillary didn't help and move on (none / 0)

What is a discussion supposed to be? Singing to the choir? The fact is some of us here disagree with Todd and have put forth genuine points for everyone to consider. Lets agree to disagree and then move on! OK

by eddieb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's agree Hillary didn't help and move on (none / 0)

I disagree with your header, let's move on.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's attacks defeated her own talking point (2.00 / 1)

As a guy who did, in fact, cast his vote for Hillary in the California primary, one of the issues I was tracking was the "is he/she tough enough" to stand up to the GOP slime attacks I knew were coming. Well, the Clinton campaign tried just about everything they thought they could get away with in the context of a Democratic primary. BTW, To those commenters saying her attacks were worse than we'll see from the GOP, I say, just wait, "baby mama". The Clinton campaign tried to throw Obama off-stride and he fought through it with style. At the end of the contest this voter's qualms on that score were laid to rest. Obama and his campaign can, indeed, fight through gotchas and unpleasant "revelations" quickly getting back on-message. Actually Obama's better than that. He takes stuff like the flap over Rev. Wright and turns it into a teaching moment on race relations. So, long-winded, but I agree, with the following coda: Competition was good because the competitors were great. I still like Hill. But now I like Obama a lot more than I used to.

by 1arryb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:54:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

republicans were prepared for hillary... (none / 0)

and they had the visceral hatred to push her hard. i've seen little evidence that they have anything near the preparation or the emotional commitment to do the same to barack. i'll be looking for evidence to the contrary. at this point, i'd suggest that mccain is focused on shoring up his conservative cred so that he can mobilize them on his behalf...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Josh Marshall is a hack. (2.00 / 3)

BTD is a tepid Obama supporter and he agree, Marshall is a hack.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST

Re: Josh Marshall is a hack. (2.00 / 1)

Well if Armando says it, it must be true. Or something.

by rfahey22 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:44:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Josh Marshall is a hack. (none / 0)

LOL if Armando speaketh it must be true. And "tepid" is putting it lightly.

by Skaje on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:07:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Josh = Obama cheerleader (2.00 / 1)

Josh, as the honest broker he has been throughout the primary (although his preference for Obama was never in doubt), is among the first to offer it.

Um...which is it.

by catfish2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:37:52 PM EST

It isn't impossible (2.00 / 1)

to prefer a person and be an honest broker. It is done all the time by arbitrators.

by gchaucer2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't impossible (none / 0)

Not by Josh, or his site, lol.

The closest any of his contributors got to being fair to Hillary was Greg Sargent, and he was vilified until he changed his tune.

The entire Progressive blogosphere has been in the tank for Obama for a year.

Let's just admit it and move on.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't impossible (none / 0)

Stop!... and think about what you just said....... Now ask yourself why would the ENTIRE progressive Blogesphere be "IN THE TANK" for Obama? What would that tell a reasonable NON-partisan observer.

by eddieb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It isn't impossible (none / 0)

There was an excellent analysis done by someone that showed that the Right wing's hate-filled rhetoric and constant attacks on Hillary had many Progressives nervous and looking for alternatives from early on.

Markos, especially, and many who followed him were dead-set against Hillary from back in 2004, when the first realization that Hillary would be the strongest Dem candidate in 2008 began to materialize.

As a Hillary supporter, I have been in almost daily fights at every Progressive Blog out there that has comments on. Even here at MyDD, there is a faction of Obama followers ready to jump on and denigrate not only the commenters, but the owners and hosts of this site on almost every thread.

I am not sure how to answer your question as to what that would tell a NON-PARTISAN observer, since I don't recall ever meeting one or having one comment here.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now that the decks have been (2.00 / 2)

cleared with the first two comments, I agreed with Josh's assessment -- as an Obama supporter. Clinton was fierce competition -- not just in the "kitchen sink" stuff, but in debates. For the most part, when she wasn't getting nailed with a "gotcha," she was flawless. Also, things having nothing to do with her like Wright, Pfleger and the bitter comment gave him a chance to deal with crises from his own camp.

by gchaucer2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:38:37 PM EST

hillary turned out to be fierce competition... (none / 0)

her campaign did not...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hillary turned out to be fierce competition... (none / 0)

I rise to her defense.

After February 20, Hillary's "ineffective" campaign beat Obama lke a drum. She earned over 750,000 more votes, she beat him in like 9 out of the last 15 contests, sometimes by outrageous margins, she beat him in the swing states, she beat him in states that had Primaries, she beat him hands down.

Had it not been for the Superdelegates stepping in and CHOOSING Obama, that contest is still going and Hillary would have owned the closing momentum.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree, hillary gave a great effort after this... (none / 0)

race was decided. she worked harder than anyone, but her campaign still sucked. we will be studying her campaign for a very long time to learn what not to do when one runs for office. given the amount of time she spent planning and preparing for this race, it's easy to conclude that it was the worst campaign ever (at least, among a major contender). there is no question that there is a lot to learn from the clinton campaign -- but not in a good way...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i agree, hillary gave a great effort after thi (none / 0)

I agree the race was "decided".

And it was not by the voters, but by the Superdelegates.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

Josh, as the honest broker he has been throughout the primary (although his preference for Obama was never in doubt)

Todd - the same could be said of you, with HRC replacing Obama in parentheses. In retrospect I think we can say not only that the HRC campaign was good for Obama, but that mydd, in all its fire and fury, turned out to be a very good place to get everything worked out for the long haul.

Keep up the good work.

McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.

by obsessed on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:46:57 PM EST

Agreed... (2.00 / 1)

Todd is AWESOME here! While he sometimes said things here that caused me discomfort as a fellow Hillary supporter, I couldn't ever disagree with him because I knew he was just being honest. Frankly, I think Todd's brilliant analysis and brutal honesty are two of the biggest reasons MyDD is a must read for me (other than getting to see all of you!). ;-)

Help Clintonistas for Obama help Democrats win! :-)

by atdleft on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh geez... (2.00 / 1)

Need to drive up the comments and hits, stir shit up with a post about Hillary v. Barack.

Can we stop this crap? Seriously. This isn't snark. The "Hillary did Obama good" angle has been covered here time and again. There was a time it was relevant.

Let's elect a Dem President!

by SpanishFly on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:49:52 PM EST

Re: Oh geez... (none / 0)

It sure sounds like snark.

It is "relevant" NOW more than ever, with the Election less than 5 months away, and it will become more "relevant" as the GOP begins to unfold its closing strategies against Obama.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Agreed McCain is an awful candidate running a weak campaign but don't you think you're overdoing the triumphalism a bit when in spite of all this and the overall political landscape Obama's lead in the polls is quite modest actually.

by ottovbvs on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:50:44 PM EST

And DNC having cash problems too (2.00 / 2)

Delaying press walkthrough:

Continuing struggles to raise cash for the Democratic National Convention forced the suspension of a national media event scheduled for Thursday at the Pepsi Center, multiple sources said.

The Democratic National Convention Committee announced Friday morning that it had postponed the Spring Media Walkthrough, a meeting designed to give the hundreds of media organizations that will cover the convention important logistical information.

Because of the protracted Democratic nominating process, Denver's host committee responsible for raising $40.6 million in cash for the convention has fallen behind its schedule. The host committee and the DNCC have been looking for ways to cut costs. Those measures have delayed several logistical decisions, said the sources, who are familiar with the planning and negotiations.

The news sent a shudder through hundreds of media planning offices, as travel plans and plane tickets had to be scrapped in what appears to be the first such delay based on funding problems.

by catfish2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And DNC having cash problems too (2.00 / 2)

technically .. it is not the DNC .. it's the host committee .. which means that Denver isn't ponying up the money they should be

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no... (none / 0)

all candidates (besides barack and hillary) have had trouble meeting their projections this year. i can't think of a congressional canidate who has this year...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no... (none / 0)

Maybe the economy has something to do with it.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

certainly a valid point... (2.00 / 1)

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no... (none / 0)

All Obama needs to do is ASK and overnight they would have more money than they need. This has more to do with having the compaign linger on and on. Many backers were holding back, but now it's just a matter of shaking the money tree a little harder.

by eddieb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They are both losing - McCain not trying (2.00 / 2)

it's embarrassing to watch. His campaign is a rumpled mess.

by catfish2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 2)

Just admit it. You'd love McCain to win just so you can say I told you so. How sad.

by conspiracy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:33:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Actually, the point is clear: Without the trial by Hillary, the margins might be even smaller.

The Obama campaign has done a good job of extending its gains and beginning to contest in areas where McCain least expects it.

Let the chess match begin, with Obama tough and smart and owning the board.

by dembluestates on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

While I agree that Hillary wasn't flinging all that shit out of the goodness of her heart, it did serve a purpose. Obama is no longer under any illusions about the whole "civil, respectful campaign" rhetoric. I think now he realizes that it ain't Showfriends, it's Showbusiness. I loved McCain's little blurb today about how wives should be off-limits, while his surrogates & Repug hacks sharpen their knives for Michelle. Personally, I think they'd have better luck with Barack. That lady is from the South Side, & those chicas will hand you your guts in a bucket...

by Kordo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST

I guess in the end... (2.00 / 3)

This prolonged primary season really has been a blessing in disguise. Team Obama learned quite a few lessons as they competed with us Clintonistas for the nomination. And now, Obama's emerging as a stronger candidate.

Think about it. His debate performance has improved greatly while McBush's hasn't. He's had a chance to give his "hope & change" message plenty of details and policy specifics while McBush was busy flip-flopping. Obama's learned how to become a better fighter while McBush just expects the GOP & the 527s to do all the hard work for him.

Hillary Clinton really may have been the best blessing in disguise Barack Obama has received. ;-)

Help Clintonistas for Obama help Democrats win! :-)

by atdleft on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this Obama supporter agrees with you (2.00 / 2)

Hillary did help improve Obama's campaign.

by slinkerwink on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:45:35 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

For the most part, I agree that Hillary's hard campaigning helped get Obama ready for the general. The biggest exception is the "commander in chief threshold" comments, which have been used in Republican advertising already. I also think the length of the primary caused some to harden from pro-Hillary to anti-Obama, to the point where they are basically rightwing smear merchants now (specifically, No Quarter and Hillary is 44.).

But once again, the old CW "primaries are bad" seems to be wrong overall.

John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way

by bosdcla14 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

Seems like a case of "it was all a blessing in disguise" to me.

If Obama's campaign and campaigning ability wasn't already so excellent before the primary, he wouldn't have beaten the "inevitable candidate".

McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.

by PantsB on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 2)

Like a friend of mine put on his blog, the post-primary story is one of Obama supporters getting over themselves and admitting to the bullshit and vanity level of their claims.

It's nice to see that Josh is getting over himself a little bit. He never admitted to the merits of most of Clinton's real arguments or strategy and always focussed on the rhetorical follies of her surrogates. I'd love to know whether the Obama campaign paid him.

by killjoy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:36:06 PM EST

Obama will be fine (none / 0)

Obama will be fine. Key is the advantage in partisan ID.

% Vote Part Reg Adv Dem. Nominee Rep. Nominee Major Independent

1980    Dem    43    15    67    27    6
    Rep    28        11    85    4
    Indep    23        31    56    13
1984    Dem    38    3    74    26
    Rep    35        7    93
    Indep    26        36    64
1988    Dem    37    2    83    17
    Rep    35        8    92
    Indep    26        43    57
1992    Dem    38    3    77    10    13
    Rep    35        10    73    17
    Indep    27        38    32    30
1996    Dem    40    5    85    10    5
    Rep    35        13    81    6
    Indep    22        44    37    18
2000    Dem    39    4    87    11
    Rep    35        8    91
    Indep    26        46    48
2004    Dem    37    0    89    11
    Rep    37        6    93
    Indep    26        50    48
7 election Avg.
    Dem    38.9    4.6    80.3    16.0
    Rep    34.3        9.0    86.9
    Indep    25.1        41.1    48.9

3 election Avg.
    Dem    38.7    3.0    87.0    10.7
    Rep    35.7        9.0    88.3
    Indep    24.7        46.7    44.3

2008    Dem    38    9
    Rep    29
    Indep    33

by chatters71 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:45:02 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

wish you hadn't included this: "...one big reason for that is that McCain hardly won the nomination." it's really hard not to retort to that on hillary's behalf...

by california voter on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:54:06 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Running a good competitive primary can be helpful. But I think everyone will agree there are instances where primaries get so negative that it permanently damages the winner. The question is whether our primary went over the edge. I don't think it did, but it got pretty close at times.

by Skaje on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:15:55 PM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 2)

I think it did. The question now, for me, is if Obama is strong enough to recover from the wounds inflicted. Pretty tough having a Clinton in Republican TV ads. But there she is.

Let's elect a Dem President!

by SpanishFly on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:04:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

This is an important point. I think that many who are wringing their hands over the "negative" nature of the campaign lack historical perspective. Having watched some nasty Democratic primary fights during the sixties and seventies that really came close to breaking the party, I can tell you that, in comparison, this one was one big Kumbaya. It was heavy on policy and short on rancor, even via surrogates. What's new is probably the internet and youTube. Before now, there was no forum like this one for partisans to directly (and anonymously) interact. It's easy for the rhetoric to heat up under such conditions. So, deep breaths, folks: The party decided on a strong candidate; the losers aren't going away mad (I discount Clintonites for McCain, who are fringe); and we have a good chance to win in November. It's all good.

by 1arryb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

I'd like to expound on the "short on rancor" in my previous comment. My sense of the primary campaign is that, overall, the party punished bad behavior. There was a lot of pushback against the sexism and racism -- often from within the camp of orgin. Both Hillary and Barrack Obama benefited at times from backlashes after they were unfairly attacked. Finally, the worst stuff came from outside from the party from people who were only too happy to cause mischief for the Democrats.

by 1arryb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Upside Of Competition (1.50 / 2)

josh marshall, honest broker? you're kidding with that. just another sexist frat boy throwing his man love at BO and hatred at hillary. how sweet he's had an ex post facto rethink. and obama's campaign against hillary was reprehensible. full of right wing framing and playing of the race card fanned by his fan boys in the media just like josh marshall. one of the many reasons this hillary partisan and life long Dem believes obama is a disaster for the party.

by joker on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:28:25 AM EST

Matthew 18:7?? (none / 0)

This is what Marshall is quoting now?

by Sieglinde on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:48:56 AM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Josh makes another point, which, I suspect may actually become conventional wisdom in the blogosphere, although it will likely be met with some resistance from the more Obama-partisan corners of the 'sphere, which is that while many were wringing hands and crying foul about some of Clinton's attacks on Obama at the peak of the primary race, it may have ultimately been for the good.

As someone who's probably thought of as an "Obama-partisan," one of the reasons I ended up supporting Obama in the first place was because of the grace with which he responded to the Clinton onslaught. He continually managed to turn negatives into positives and come back on the offensive without ever crossing the line. This was, to me, extremely impressive, and Clinton did a great job (unintentionally, of course) of turning him into a much better candidate.

I'm only a click away

by juliewolf on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 07:08:27 AM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (none / 0)

Competition within the same team does propel a better team front runner. Well, sports wise at least.

"Rankles and Rush Limbaugh, ruining the chaos brand since 2008."

by alyssa chaos on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:29:29 AM EST

i gotta disagree... (none / 0)

hillary's attacks -- and i'm almost embarrassed to call them attacks -- were basically old news. the were all (that i can think of) either opportunistic ("he wouldn't have been my preacher") or recycled from 2004. you might argue that hillary's opportunistic attacks made barack stronger, but you'd be hard pressed to say that her use of blair hull's oppo did. it's almost as if hillary didn't even have an oppo team working for her. if she did, we can only assume they were idiots.

i'm not sure mccain will be much better. his lean organization concept may not allow room for a strong opposition research team. or he may just hope that this will be done by the 527s. and since the rnc was so focused on hillary for so long, one has to wonder if they've actually put something solid together against barack. it sure doesn't feel like it (yet).

nor would i argue that hillary's strength took the primary to the end of the season, and should be applauded. the obama campaign seemed to always assume that a.) it would go that long, and b.) they wanted to organize everywhere anyway. so hillary's presence in the race after X date was meaningless -- and it sure felt that way from the obama side.

no, obama's strength was from the fact that they analyzed things correctly: the rules, the political climate (yes, change is more important than experience), the political landscape upon which they'd compete. they drew up their campaign blueprint based on a realistic assessment, not wishful thinking ("this will be over on super tuesday"). and they stuck to their plan, even when people doubted it. obama's strength was their initial condition, and the ultimate outcome was derived from that. so i don't think hillary hurt barack -- it feels like she was always behind the curve in this race -- but i'd suggest it's folly to argue that she "made him better." that's what we tell hillary's ardent supporters to make them feel better. but let's not get caught up in the consolation to believe it. because i don't see how it's true...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:42:21 AM EST

Re: The Upside Of Competition (2.00 / 1)

I could point out that there were some real drawbacks to this idea. For example Obama was unable to respond properly because he would have been attacking a fellow Democrat. If these issues were not brought up by her or she didn't joint the wingnuts against Obama. He would have been able to respond more forcefully to the entire "Rev Wright issue". He the would have vanquished it as just another Repuglican swiftboat attack. Hillary would not have been considered as a ringer for the wingnuts! Obama still hasn't silenced the Wright issue and when it comes up they will always have the ability to say "Hillary made Wright an issue not them". We could also point out the terrible impact of a Democrat bringing up Race as an issue. This fact give credibility to the wingnuts who will launch similar attacks. How can Dems condemn repigs for doing the very same things Hillary did? So don't pat Hillary on the back to much. I would be happy to wager Obama would much rather have the Repigs bring up these issues after he was the nominee so every Democrat would have join him, including Hillary to counter attack with one voice. I can not and will not agree hillary did Obama a favor in running a negative campaign.

by eddieb on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:51:40 AM EST

We are talking about Obama (2.00 / 2)

I'm sorry but we are talking about the guy I supported from before the Iowa primary , here.
Obama won his senate seat against a republican effort that flew in a handpicked opponent - a former presidential candidate.

He won by almost 80 percent of the vote. Just blew him away.

This is the cat who consistenly stood against the Iraq war, even when Clinton voted for it. And thats under enormous pressure - remember, the dems were being pushed around by the GOP then.

You aren't seeing a strength in Obama's opponent. Far from it. You are seeing the strength of an involved electorate. Obama inspired... I daresay ... millions of new voters this year.
And we're marching across the US this week.

McCain is smart enough to draw Obama out on the issues. His best hope is to let the voters decide between the GOP and the new democrats under Obama.

And one other thing. Obama has long. long. coattails. Missippi. Is a good example. Unlike previous dems, anyone who ties their candidate to Obama this year gets their wagon hitched to a star.

Hillary, on the other hand, inspired that kind of response only in the older generations. The divide is clear.

We, the people. Are not going to dream that Obama getting the white house means all our problems are solved. But we're going to put him there because he's listening to us right now. And we know that the only way to do it is to keep his attention.

Lobbyists are on their way to try to lay claim to the general election victory coming. They're paying consultants right now to do nothing but try to cook the books to convince Obama that their "Campaign" is going to get him victory.

But we. The people had other ideas. All along.
Which is why Obama not only won Iowa, he blew Clinton away . She was all the way down to third place.

I like Clinton. Good VP material. Maybe. But at this point its hard to say that Obama's campaign wasn't organized from day one. Strong , from day one. How do you win the Iowa primary, if it were not so?

The argument is incorrect. If the complement of the Obama campaign was a factor in the victory of Barack this year, the factors would have combined for a loss in Iowa.

On the chessboard, the queen makes a big target. We don't rely only on her, to win.

by Trey Rentz on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST

I had no problem with Hillary (2.00 / 3)

Bringing up Wright/Rezco etc etc - what bothered me is when she compared McCain favorably to her fellow Democrat.

by highgrade on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:23:50 AM EST

Nice to see him coming around... BUT (none / 0)

If Josh thinks Rev. Wright and Co. are "old news", then I'm afraid the Cool-Aid has gotten to him too. Obama is BARELY ahead of McCain (the old weird geezer running a crappy campaign). That is 60% due to Rev. Wright, bitter, etc. 40% due to the loss of Clinton Dems. Just my opinion. That's not saying Obama won't win- again, he's AHEAD of McCain, just barely. Were it not for all of those things- I'd say he'd be 10-15% ahead.

by easyE on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:58:11 PM EST

You lost me at "honest broker." (none / 0)

Josh has been far from an "honest broker" this primary season. Like most of the left leaning blogs, he clearly was in the tank for Obama early on. There's no doubt that I'm supporting Obama in the election, but I also have no need or desire to listen to the musings of Marshall, Kos, or any of the other people who were little different than the propagandists on FOX news in how they covered the primary.

by bouvougan on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST

Honest Broker??? Puh-leeze! (none / 0)

Josh was never an honest broker. Period!

by BigBoyBlue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:06:50 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.