Don’t Give Up On Clinton

Weekly Standard: Despite Obama’s Successes, The N.Y. Senator Can Still Win The Nomination

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by John J. DiIulio Jr. .

---

My American politics undergraduate students tease me without mercy for predicting a year ago that the Democratic nomination was Hillary Clinton's to lose. (I also predicted that Mike Huckabee would outlast all the Republican hopefuls except maybe John McCain. "Professor D's latest lucky guess," they joke.)

But when the teasing stops the questions start. "Do you think there is any way that Barack Obama can lose?" they ask. I say nothing, and they share self-reassurances: "There's no way for Clinton to beat him now…right?" "C'mon, McCain is way behind him in the polls!" I can no longer stay mum: "Well, Hillary led by double-digits in all but a few polls for over a year, and she's still ahead in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania." Their somber faces make me wish I had said "Hey, nine straight with Wisconsin; he's in!" or handed out "Yes We Can" buttons.

Hillary-backers and College Republicans are not extinct on my campus. But the undergraduate enthusiasm for Obama transcends gender, race, religion, region, income, and party affiliation. I have been teaching American politics for a quarter-century and never have I seen so many students inspired by a candidate. And it's not just an Ivy League or secular-elite university phenomenon. The national polling data prove as much, as do exit poll numbers on young voters. Colleagues who teach at religious and other colleges attest to it too.

My students may yet get their wish. But for all that Obama has achieved so far as a hope-inspiring, crowd-swelling candidate with great appeal to young voters, and despite the successive thrashings that Clinton has received since Super Tuesday, she can still win the Democratic nomination. And if Obama does get by Clinton, an even steeper challenge awaits in John McCain.

Obama has had some stirring, even brave, things to say: most notably concerning how public education has failed too many low-income children in urban America. Organizationally, the teachers' unions are the Democratic party's throbbing heart. Obama, to his credit, was not on their Valentine's Day list. They will lean against him in several upcoming big-state primaries, and as a super-delegate bloc too.

And Clinton can deflate Obama's "change" balloon by relentlessly asking him why he decries the "politics" of the "past 15 years." Does he dislike the Clinton-era presidential politics that expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, widely regarded as the single most successful anti-poverty initiative of that period? Does he mean the bipartisan bills of the 1990s that led to work-based welfare reform? Does he mean the politics of the "past" that yielded the State Children's Health Insurance Program? Or maybe he means rolling back post-1993 expansions in Medicare coverage or college loans or spending on low-income (Title I) schools.

Older Democrats, respectful of legislative accomplishments, particularly may not like that Obama often voted "present" as an Illinois legislator, or that his state and federal records seem so thin. Blue collar voters who earn $50,000 a year or less defected from Clinton in the Potomac primaries and again in Wisconsin. But in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania she may hold voters who can't cut work the way college kids can cut class to attend midday campaign rallies.

Indeed, with big Latino turnouts expected in Texas, older working-class Ohio voters sticking to her like rust, and friends in Pennsylvania like Governor Edward Rendell and Philly's popular new mayor Michael Nutter, Clinton can still nab the nomination. Fence-sitting super-delegates would quickly warm to a three-state sweep.

Obama and his proxies keep repeating that "party insiders" (aka Clinton-backing super-delegates) should not decide the election against the "will of the people." Obama also favors the Democratic National Committee (it doesn't get any more "inside" than that) denying Clinton the delegates she won when millions of people expressed their will by casting ballots in the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries.

Clinton herself agreed to have Florida and Michigan penalized for moving up the date of their primaries. But that won't keep her from trying to turn Obama's public relations flank and use the "will of the people" against him - while also depicting front-running him as the "establishment" candidate. Listen for her to get at how the people's will squares with deference to national insiders' right to punish the states' insiders for holding their primaries before the former "party bosses" had dictated. Listen for her seconds to echo this: Situational solicitude for the "will of the people" might be expected from politicians drenched in the "past," but from the "change" candidate? With the press now dialing back its year-old Obamamania, the disingenuous whining might just work.

Clinton and Obama have not had a serious debate about Iraq. As Obama proclaims, almost as often as he says "change," he opposed from the start giving the president war-making authority. Stipulate that he was right - as most Democrats and a public plurality do - and then ask how, exactly, he reasoned his way to that decision when Colin Powell, John Kerry, and many others with no less information and much greater experience did not? Did he analyze the available prewar data differently, and, if so, how? Unlike Democrats from Joe Biden to Joe Lieberman, why did Obama never offer a serious plan to fix the poorly executed, pre-surge occupation?

As pleasing as his pledge is to the party faithful, how can he be so absolute about bringing all troops home by a date certain? How does that year-before-the-act pledge constitute being "as careful" getting out as we were "careless" going in? Conceding that a "new" global politics would be welcome, what wisdom is he seeking with crusty old foreign policy hands like Zbigniew Brzezinski on his national security team?

If Clinton does not have this debate with Obama, McCain surely will. There is no reason to trust any pre-October 2008 polls showing Obama beating McCain, including those now showing him beating McCain by a larger margin than Clinton would. Obama would be the second consecutive Democratic standard-bearer ranked the Senate's most liberal member by nonpartisan outlets like National Journal. He leapt leftward as he positioned himself to run for president: a "composite liberal score" of 95.5 out of 100 in 2007, up from 82.5 and a 16th-place finish in 2005. (Clinton's 2007 score was 82.8, and her lifetime score is 79.4.)

In a general election, there will be some McCain Democrats. Obama Republicans are more of a question, and independents could be either man's flock. Many general election scenarios remain possible, but, as I reckon it, the only one forecasting a Democratic victory that respects mass-electorate math and state-by-state statistics is a few-point win over McCain that involves McCain getting millions fewer evangelical votes than Bush did in 2004, the Democratic ticket getting as many or more African-Americans as Kerry-Edwards did in 2004, and the sleeping giant Latino vote going decisively against McCain.

Other scenarios for a Democratic win against McCain all pretty much assume that the stubborn post-1996 red state-blue state realities will be changed by a change-agent candidate. Obama generated voter enthusiasm even in Republican Kansas, and he may prove to be a party-realigning candidate, but believing so at this stage requires, well, the audacity of hope.

If Obama wins any two of the Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania primary trio, then he is virtually certain to be the nominee. One thing is for sure: If he doesn't win, I won't be teasing my sure-to-be down-hearted students.

[luvcomments]

Hillary touts she has more experience, like that''s a plus. Her point is? He ll, Cheney has way more experience than her - so would we want anybody remotely like him? We''ve had enough of experience in the wily ways of DC, of fancy footwork, Does she actually believe we want experience in re-speaking, re-writing what one has said and done? Of trying to belittle and scrape up non-existent dirt on a rival because you can''t sell yourself enough? Seems experience has a way of promulgating disgusting behavior and untrustworthiness.

[libra127]

"I was not supporting anybody but after last nights debate I realised that this country is going to have a lot of mess to clean up and the only person that has any hope of doing so is Hillary." Posted by teatea7 at 05:05 PM : Feb 26, 2008

I agree 100%. Thanks for a good post. Go Hillary!!!

[libra127]

"Hillary and Bill Clinton aka Billary- are 2 of the biggest hypocrites in politics.
They both accuse the Black race of voting for Obama because he is a black man."
Posted by ymoneil at 03:57 PM : Feb 26, 2008

You are grasping at straws here. Your statement is not true. If I am wrong, then please provide a reference to a quote or online video of one of the Clintons making such a statement.

[libra127]

"Also, people that say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee are a perfect example of why the rational among us say that Clinton''s tactics are seriously dividing your party."
Posted by binstar at 03:02 PM : Feb 26, 2008

It''s not Clinton''s tactics that are responsible for this, but more like Obama''s tactics that these people dislike. They are saying that their first choice is Hillary because of her intelligence, experience, and dedication. But the next most diserving candidate is McCain. Obama is just too inexperienced and unpredictable. Your laying the blame on "Clinton''s tactics" as "divisive" is just an excuse. VOTE FOR HILLARY !!

[libra127]

NO RATIONAL THINKER BELIEVED ANY OF THE "EVIDENCE" THAT SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ
Posted by binstar at 03:11 PM : Feb 26, 2008

Are you saying that Colin Powell did not believe the evidence he presented at the United Nations, with Goerge Tenet sitting right behind him ?

[dsmi2726]

How you run your campaign, that is not a reason to vote for someone. Just because it is change does not make it right. I do not think it was a conspiracy by the media against Hillary but I do not think they gave her the same covarage. It''s not the first time they have been accused of this even an uneducated person like me can have an opinion on something, I do get to vote.

[libra127]

"It seems as all that she can speak about. Is what happen in the 1990-2000. We want to stay in the now, not the past..."
Posted by missglo at 07:26 PM : Feb 27, 2008

Wow. I guess you missed the most recent debate. Hillary was the one who wanted to focus on plans for the future. The moderators kept urging her to talk about the past (e.g. asking her about her support for NAFTA during her husband''s administration). She wanted to talk about how she wants to fix NAFTA. Hillary wanted to talk about her new effort toward universal health care, while the moderators pressed her to talk about the failure of her 1993 plan. You''ve got it exactly backwards, missglo.

[Wallabeloose]

Oh . . . . yes she can! ;-) Better! Yes she will!

[erasmus6]

"If she loses it''''s her fault, not the media." posted by vmcneil2

If she loses it will be the medias fault. And also the fault of BUSH. Bush controls the media and the media controls YOU.

Not only did you elect an idiot and keep him in for 8 years, you are also going to let him manipulate you into voting in another person that is not suitable for running the country. There''s another 4 years to slip further down the drain.

[vet_sk]

crater7: You may not know this but the troops are following this campaign quite closely and are excited by someone like Obama that knows how to talk, manage, does not antagonize, and who can keep their eye on the ball: Afghanistan vs Iraq. We are looking forward to Barack Obama.

[crater7]

ainttaken at 09:34am,
BIG FAT ZERO;

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE BARRY SUPPORTER.

SO, YOU THINK THE AGHANISTAN WAR, AND OUR TROOPS FIGHTING THIS WAR DOES NOT DESERVED SOMEONE LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR SAFTEY, AND THE RIGHT POLICY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS, AS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE?

I HOPE BARRY, WILL HAVE A BETTER ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMITTEE''S POLICIES, THAN YOUR OBVIOUS BIASED COMMENTS.

DON''T YOU JUST LOVE THE CAP''S?

[vmcneal2]

Some of you will be still be debating Obama''s middle name while he is being sworn in.

[vmcneal2]

Hillary has not run a good campaign. If she loses it''s her fault, not the media. Obama has just done a better job. If Obama had 50 years of experience there would still be people who would say he''s not ready. Some people will never be ready for Obama. Obama is a smart guy with proven management skills. If he hires the right people he will make a great President.

[crater7]

BARACK (BARRY) HUSSEIN OBAMA, CHAIRMAN OF A SENATE OVER SITE COMMITTEE ON AFGHANISTAN, HAS SAID, Al QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN IS STRONGER NOW THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE 2001. YET, HE HAS NOT CHAIRED ANY SUB COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
SEEMS HE HAS BEEN TWO BUSY WITH HIS CAMPAIGN TO TAKE CARE OF THE JOB OF CHAIRING HEARINGS ON AFGHANISTAN,WHERE OUR TROOPS ARE ENGAGED IN A WAR AGAINST Al QAEDA.

"TALK MATTERS" ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND NOT ON POLICY TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN.

[vet_sk]

dsmi2726: So you actually believe that the media had a grand conspirancy. That they were going to convince the best educated part of the population to vote for Obama - to manipulate of. Huh. That is totally and fully rediculous. Hillary did it to herself. If she would have appologized for her vote years ago, and then not voted for the Iran resolution in September 07, had a personality, and not mismanaged her campaign as MCVet has put it, then she would may have been winning.

Look at the debate the other night. She was in a job interview basically, and she said she would not answer hypotheticals. And you can claim all the rediculous national security secrets that she didn''t want to "get out" but really, come on.

And the Weekly subStandard. I don''t understand why CBS puts that rediculous stuff on the site. Although most people just look at it and see what types of things George reads or has read to him.

[mcvet]

I wish neither of these fine people, Hillary or Obama, had to face defeat. It''s always hard to decide when you have to fine people trying to accomplish something good but ONE of them HAS to step aside. It''s called LIEF and right now it most certainly looks like that will be Hillary.

[briannorwood]

Those of you who keep harping on Obama''s experience need to consider this...

At the start of this campaign, Hillary Clinton had all the money, all the experience and the Democratic Party machine in her pocket and a commanding lead in the polls.

Yet, she was able to mis-manage her campaign so badly that she had to "lend" herself $5M in January just to keep going.

Meanwhile, Obama has executed a stunning campaign. Both operationally and strategically, he has managed it with a precision and effectiveness never seen.

If this is a comparison of how well either would manage the government, I say "Congratulations President Obama!"

[dsmi2726]

I only have one thing to say, I do believe the media has been unfair to Hillary Clinton I very much believe they started the whole Obama frenzy. I can not believe the American people fall for it time after time.

[gomee-2009]

Obama does his share of CRYING he knows he has the race card to fall back on if things get rough Pimps are also great talkers .Hillary may not be the greatest when it comes to talk or drawing the largest crowd but actions speak louder then words.its obvious she is not making side deals to get elected as i am sure obama is doing.she is obviously for the poor ,she will not *** kiss just to please.Go HILLARY.

[vet_sk]

George Will recently reminded us about President James Buchanan. He had experience: 8 years as an ambassador, 10 years in the U.S. House of Reps, 10 years as a U.S. Senator, 4 years as the Sec of State. In 1856 he was elected president and in just four years earned the worst president in history award. (The current president may though soon usurp this award). He was followed by a president with only a single 2-year term in Congress. His name was Abraham Lincoln.