The campaign turned nasty in February and got worse in March. Others have chronicled the many examples of blatant misogyny in the media, but it wasn't just the media. The comments section of major blogs dripped with animus toward the Clintons. As I have said many times, never, in all my association with the Clinton campaign, did I ever hear a racial remark made about Sen. Obama, yet there was not a day in March, 2008, when I didn't see Hillary Clinton referred to in the basest terms. (Many progressives who think their consciousness has been raised are mistaken.)
By the end of February, after a string of 11 straight caucus victories, Sen. Obama had opened up a small lead in delegates, which prompted some in the Obama camp to conclude that Hillary couldn't possibly win and, therefore, should drop out of the race. This was a difficult proposition to sell because of the closeness of the race, the distance yet to go, and the closeness of the over-all vote. Besides, did anyone tell Ted Kennedy to get out in 1980 when he was over 1000 delegates behind? Did anyone tell Jesse Jackson to get out in 1984 or 1988 even though his cause was hopeless? The answer to both questions is "no." I remember those campaigns and such an idea was not even considered by partisans on either side. Why Hillary?
Hillary continued to maintain a small lead in super-delegates. The whole concept of "super-delegates" emerged after the McGovern-Fraser reforms of 1972. Four years earlier, in 1968, the Democratic Party had blown itself up in a dispute between the established powerbrokers and the anti-war left. The "McGovern Rules" were mostly about taking power away from "the establishment." In the future, nominees would be chosen in local caucuses and state primaries.
The institution of "super-delegates" emerged precisely after 1972 in order to re-assert "establishment" influence and counter the prospect of someone steamrolling through the nominating system. Bruce Miroff, author of The Liberals' Moment: The McGovern Insurgency and the Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party, wrote:
It was his (McGovern's) campaign that demonstrated to Democrats how to win in the brand-new electoral game of primaries and caucuses through grassroots organizing and mobilization. This was one feature of the McGovern campaign that was largely stifled after 1972, as the party leaders who took over after McGovern’s defeat turned, out a fear of liberal grassroots activism of the McGovernite stripe, toward wealthy contributors and the political consultants who used their donations for media politics. Yet it has remained a powerful undercurrent in the party, from Jesse Jackson through Paul Wellstone to the contemporary netroots.
Some in the Obama campaign began to worry that Obama would win the most pledged delegates through the nominating process, but the 795 super-delegates would weigh in for Clinton. Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000, member of the Democratic National Committee and Obama supporter, told CNN: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."
The Obama campaign tried to dislodge some of the Clinton support among "super-delegates" by asserting that they should vote as their states did, an argument that quickly foundered upon the observation that Ted Kennedy and Janet Napolitano, then Governor of Arizona, would have had to switch from Obama to Clinton. As Colorado National Committeeman, Manny Rodriguez put it, when asked if he'd switch from Clinton to Obama because Colorado's caucuses had gone Obama's way, "I'll switch when Ted Kennedy does."
Meanwhile, all eyes were on the next batch of primaries, the four that would be held on March 4, which included the big states of Ohio and Texas. I opined on February 24 about the possible course the rest of the contest could take.
Start with the fact that she's only down by about 100 delegates right now. On March 4, the big states of Texas and Ohio primaries. Clinton leads by about 8% in Ohio. Texas is basically tied, though Clinton has a slight edge. If HIllary wins those, it's game on. True, she won't close the gap in delegates, most likely, but, if Hillary wins, by any margin, the terrain starts to shift.
All eyes will turn to Pennsylvania on April 22, a state where Clinton currently leads. If Clinton were to win Pennsylvania, she would have won primaries in 9 of the 10 biggest states, losing only Illinois to its native son, Obama.
As the rest of the calendar played out, it looked to me, and many others, that, demographics being destiny in this race, Clinton would likely win Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky, while Obama would win North Carolina, Mississippi, and Oregon. Still, the race would be too close to call, which then could turn the focus onto the last primaries, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.
This again underscored the importance of Michigan and Florida. True, both those states had "broken the rules," but then so did Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Something would eventually need to be decided about how the delegate selection in these two states would be handled. Both states were swing states, and Democrats did not want to go into the fall having angered the citizens of both.
I happened to be talking with local Democrat, Mike Lutz, at the Colorado Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, and he said he thought that whoever won on March 4 would be the eventual nominee, which, as a Clinton supporter, cheered me because I thought he just might be right. As it happened, the late surge again went with Clinton, and she won Ohio big and Texas more narrowly. (She also won Rhode Island. Sen. Obama won Vermont.) I said at the time:
Hillary wins three out of four, including both Ohio and Texas--exactly what she needed to do to change the calculus of the race. For the past three weeks, the Obama campaign has seemed like a wave flowing over the nation. That stopped tonight.
Hillary won Ohio by 12%, bigger than expected, and topped off the night with a solid win in Texas. She scored particularly well with traditional Democratic constituencies, especially women, working people, older voters, and Latinos--all of them stalwart for Hillary. Moreover, it appears she dramatically closed the gender gap with male voters.
These states set up particularly well for Clinton because of their high proportion of traditional Democratic voters. Pew research had shown that traditional Democrats tended to vote strongly for Clinton. In fact, at this point in the campaign, even though Sen. Obama still led in over-all votes, Hillary led by over a million among traditional Democrats.
It should be noted, again, that even though Hillary won the Texas primary, the Texas caucuses, which were something else again, went to Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama's caucus strategy was clearly paying off, although, again, there were a number of irregularities--over 4,000 in Texas alone.
With her March 4 victories, the national media narrative started to show some signs of change. Mainstream pundits, in particular, began to take a fresh look at the Clinton campaign.
The issues seem to be moving Hillary's way as well. She scored on foreign policy with the deft, if controversial, "3:00 a.m." ad--the first ad in this campaign that actually seems to have moved voters, and one of the few in recent years that will likely stand as a campaign classic.
As the economy gets worse--Warren Buffet just today said it's obvious we're already in a recession--bread and butter issues come more to the fore. This, too, is now Hillary's turf. The people in real need--unfortunately, an increasing number--are going to start thinking more and more about health care and jobs. The middle class, and especially people at economic risk, remember Bill Clinton with special fondness. The Clinton brand name on economic management is pretty good.
Granted, she didn't gain much tonight in terms of delegates. Obama tends to win caucuses, and he's likely to win the most delegates out of Texas even though Hillary won the state. Hillary tends to win primaries--full elections, with wide participation, in crucial states.
Looking at the calendar ahead, we can see states likely to be Obama states, such as Oregon and Mississippi, and states that look likely to be Clinton states, such as Indiana and Kentucky. Pennsylvania will be big, and looks good for Clinton. We could eventually be talking about Puerto Rico!--likely for Clinton, by the way.
It is unlikely that Hillary can fully close the gap in delegates. If, however, we complete this primary season and Hillary has won the big states, has won among Democrats, and has won full primaries, she can make a powerful argument to the superdelegates.
I have been involved in politics since the watershed year of 1968. Of the twelve presidential campaigns I've experienced as an adult, the nominating process of 2008 was the closest, and rivalled 1968 for energy and mythos. It was--I said, hyperbolically--"the campaign of the century."
This is a campaign of legend and lore--two excellent campaigners, each powered by important and broad constituencies, rallying their considerable forces from state to state as the Great Democratic Adventure moves back-and-forth across the country...
This is the greatest campaign in decades. Our people flock to the polls in droves. How can we top it off? We can complete the Campaign of the Century with a ticket that can win, and can lead a long-term Democratic governing majority. For the good of the Democratic Party, in support of the progressive agenda, for the benefit of middle and working class Americans, they--and we--ought to do it. Then, we had better deliver.
Comments