Clinton: The bigger loser?
Posted: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:09 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Bloomberg's Al Hunt sums up what is probably the undeniable fallout of this campaign regardless of who ends up the Dem nominee: "Bill Clinton May Be Biggest Loser of Campaign." More: "Before this campaign, he was an international statesman extraordinaire and the guru for ambitious Democratic politicians. In recent months, he has devalued himself and his future by his conduct. Although he has a decent relationship with John McCain, given the continuing partisan resentment of Bill Clinton, he would remain largely in exile under a Republican president.”
“If Hillary Clinton upsets the odds and wins the presidency, it's likely to prove an unhappy time for her husband. He would be scrutinized, politically and personally; political strains between the president and first spouse would emerge.”
“A President Obama would drive him crazy. If not irrelevant, it would make Clinton a secondary figure within his own country and party. There is little that would make him more frustrated or angrier."
Speaking of Bill, the New Yorker's Lizza has an interesting piece about Bill vs. Barack. "Adjusting to the modern, gaffe-centric media environment has been wrenching. At most of his Pennsylvania stops, the national press was represented mainly by a pair of young TV-network ‘embeds,’ whom Clinton regards not as reporters but as media jackals who record his every utterance yet broadcast only his outbursts, a phenomenon that has helped transform him into a YouTube curiosity and diminished him -- perhaps permanently. ‘It’s like he’s been plucked out of time and thrown into the middle of this entirely new kind of campaign,’ the adviser told me. Jay Carson, a senior Clinton campaign official and Bill’s former spokesman, said, “Because of the way he is covered, the only thing anyone ever sees is fifteen seconds that is deemed by the pundits to be off message.”
About that $10 million in one day from 100,000 donors... Politico's Vogel throws some cold water on the figures: "It made no difference that the details didn’t always add up -- wide variations in the numbers of new donors; a conflicting timeline of when the money was actually raised. It was the eye-popping $10 million figure -- the most ever claimed in a 24-hour period -- that dominated the news cycle."
More: FEC "reports cannot and will not prove the campaign’s claim of raising $10 million in one day." And: "Unlike the Clinton campaign -- which also indicated it raised $4 million after both Super Tuesday and the March 4 primaries -- Obama and Paul on their websites displayed tickers of sorts keeping a running tally of contributions received in real time during their respective fundraising surges." Though, he points out those are unverifiable and had some "technical glitches."
The New York Times’ Kristol, um, crystallizes the chatter we've heard from conservatives regarding the never-ending Clinton candidacy. "I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.”
“The fact is Hillary Clinton has turned out to be an impressive candidate. She has consistently defeated Barack Obama when her back was to the wall -- first in New Hampshire, then in several big primaries on Super Tuesday, on March 4 in Ohio and Texas, and then last week in Pennsylvania, where she was outspent by almost 3 to 1, yet won handily. She is, of course, still behind in the race, and Obama will most likely be the nominee. His team has run the better campaign. In particular, it realized how important the caucus states could be: Obama’s delegate lead depends on his caucus victories. But Hillary may well be the better candidate."
NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli asks: Lincoln and Douglas didn’t debate in a flatbed truck, did they? But that’s what Clinton proposed last night in her latest effort to pressure Obama into a fifth one-on-one meeting. On Saturday, Clinton proposed a moderator-free debate, mocking the complaints from her rival’s supporters after the Philadelphia debate April 16. On Sunday, Obama told reporters that he didn’t want to spend more time “in a studio,” preferring more direct voter interaction.
But Clinton would not back down. “I think that this state deserves a debate,” she told hundreds gathered on the Cape Fear River in North Carolina. “We could even do it on the back of a flat-bed truck. Doesn't have to be in some fancy studio somewhere.” The debate challenge, Memoli adds, has become a regular part of Clinton’s stump speech since her victory in Pennsylvania last Tuesday. Obama had accepted an invitation to debate in North Carolina, but the forum was later canceled by organizers.
McClatchy’s David Lightman revisits the management question. “Despite Hillary Clinton's big win in Pennsylvania last week, the story of her campaign is often one of mismanagement and missed opportunities, and it raises questions about how she'd organize and run the White House. ‘There's a certain style to the campaign, and it shows what we might expect in a Clinton presidency: a lot of viewpoints and a messiness,’ said James McCann, a political science professor at Purdue University in Indiana.”
