LITTWIN: Somehow, Clinton makes the race all about Obama

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 18, 2008 at 11 p.m.

Text size

More Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton has done the near impossible. Somehow, she has made the Democratic primary race all about Barack Obama.

She didn't do it alone, of course. She had help from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and from her enabling buddies at ABC and from the tape-recording blogger at the San Francisco fundraiser and, mostly, from an-all-too compliant Obama himself. Yes, apparently it does take a village.

But if there was one thing I was sure of in this strangest of campaign seasons, it was that any race involving Hillary Clinton would be - first, foremost and forever - about Hillary Clinton. You can't have lived through the past 16 years and think anything else.

And yet. If you watched the ABC debate - and I can you see you shaking your heads now - you saw the not-so-subtle shift taking place before your very eyes, or at least between commercial breaks.

The heat - and what light there was - all fell on Obama.

The funny thing is, the debate was maybe his worst night of the campaign. How does the guy with the silver tongue end up tongue-tied in front of such, uh, daunting figures as Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos? Obama should have just said, in the plainest language, "Are you guys kidding me with this stuff? You - and, yeah, you - (and maybe her) are the reasons I'm in this race. You know what needs change? This needs change."

OK, he blew it. Obama looked tired, and he looked, yes, bitter. But there is one post-debate question you might want to ponder: If Obama lost the debate - and he clearly did - shouldn't Hillary Clinton have come out looking like the winner?

The issue, the moderators said, was electability. But the real issue, it turned out, was Obama's electability. The hard questions for Clinton seemed like an afterthought. When she apologized for saying she has come under sniper fire - like, yeah, we all get that one wrong - were any of you looking for a follow-up? Seriously?

The toughest question for Clinton was how, this deep in the campaign - one in which she's done so much to knock down the caricatures of her - we still see poll numbers saying 60 percent of Americans don't find her trustworthy. That's Dick Cheney territory.

That's why the debate - for what it was worth - came to be about the so-called vetting of Obama. And what matters, apparently, in the vetting world is whether the Rev. Wright loves America as much as Obama does. And how well Obama knew a '60s radical who was infamous when Obama was 8 years old. And whether - this was the real question - Obama is the new elitist (read: the new John Kerry).

Strangely, or maybe not, the old Clinton scandals apparently are off-limits. Or maybe they just don't matter anymore. Of course, that would change if Clinton were to get the nomination (she won't; more on that later), at which time the Clinton wars would resume in full, ear-blasting volume.

I got a full reminder of that at a Clinton rally in Northeast Philly, where the music (no Bruce, by the way) was ear-blasting. The mayor was there. And the governor - who said Clinton's debate performance was "better than Rocky over Clubber Lang and Drago." And so were men in union T-shirts. And, of course, the women turned out - as they do at every Clinton rally - from this solidly white, working-class neighborhood. This, in front of the Mayfair Diner, was the place where Bill Clinton campaigned on a rainy day in 1992 and where, they tell us, JFK drove past in a motorcade in 1960 and where even FDR campaigned in 1944. This is a town that does history like few others.

And it's where Hillary Clinton, reaching into her own campaign history, pulled out a line she has used often on the stump: "It is time for us to clean house, and one thing women know how to do is to clean house."

That got a big roar from the crowd. And then she added this: "I put you on notice; I may need you to come help. There's no telling what we're going to find."

At that point, a reporter leaned over to me and whispered, "Like maybe more Rose billing records under the credenza."

That Obama is getting the tough questions may seem like good news for Clinton, but it's not. The narrative has taken hold. The narrative is that Obama is the clear front-runner and that Clinton - barring a mathematical miracle - is only prolonging a race that is (finally) nearing the end and will go, eventually, to Obama anyway.

Go to Slate's online delegate counter. You can do the math yourself. Not surprisingly, Bill Clinton, for one, sees it differently. He tells a crowd in Erie: "If Pennsylvania says 'Yes,' and says it loudly to Hillary, she'll be the nominee. She'll be the next president."

That's pretty much, you'll recall, what he said in Texas before that vote. Clinton won the popular vote there, but the delegate math looked as difficult for her then as it does now. Everyone expects her to win in Pennsylvania. Nobody looking closely at the delegate numbers, though, sees a way for her to win the nomination at the Pepsi Center in August - unless , well, SOMETHING HAPPENS.

Even Clinton's supporters say she has to win big here - which means by 10 points or maybe more. The polls, which have barely budged since Bitter-gate, show a closer race here than that. And, in any case, Obama still leads Clinton in the national polls.

And, besides, winning is not nearly enough. The only way for Clinton to win the nomination is for Obama to lose it - and disastrously, with an issue that hasn't yet surfaced. For the superdelegates - committed and uncommitted alike - to go to Clinton now, they have to believe Obama can't win the general election.

But they need more than belief. They have to look at Obama and see, beyond a reasonable doubt, a November disaster awaiting. In fact, it has to be so obvious that everyone can see it.

Which means we're all watching Obama. At this point in the campaign, there's nowhere else to look.

littwinm@RockyMountainNews.com

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

April 19, 2008

1:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

arby writes:

Mr. Littwin,
I read you reguarly and enjoy your columns. But I think you have been off base for quite awhile. Obama doesn't have the experience or the connections to get us back on track. Hill/Bill do. When Bill left office we had money in the bank. Now we are in debt up to our eyeballs. I think they are the best pair that can get things going again.
This is the most unusual time we have ever faced. Dubya has totally screwed things up. So the Republicans have virtually no chance. We have a black/white black man running against a woman who is the wife of a former President. The rest of the world has to be wondering how this thing is going to come out just like we are.

I think, when the big boys get together in the backroom over a bottle of JD Black and a box of illegal Cuban cigars. Hillary will get the job. It only makes sense.
April 19, 2008

4:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

JanetP writes:

I don't share the criticism of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. They asked the questions of Obama that I wanted asked. I don't care what his policies are if I can't settle the stains on his character.

We must first be assured that his is an honorable and patriotic man before we reach other issues. The questions were long overdue and are, in my mind, still unsettled despite the questions (largely unanswered) asked in the debate. He is not coming clean about Wright; nobody believes his story about sitting in that church for 20 years and then being surprised to hear the rants on the video. That story is right up there with Hillary's dodging bullets in Bosnia.
April 19, 2008

6:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

samsmargolis writes:

These are questions and issues that were long overdue to Obama. Fact is, it's too late now. The coddling and nurturing of his campaign in the early stages has allowed momentum to build that is unlikely to be overcome now. Should have pulled back that curtain months ago to see what a phony this guy and his dingbat wife are; but, it was all about the kid gloves and trying to buy an inside position. Oh wait, Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. His purity in this realm was another lie that was conveniently glossed over by the media. This guy just gets more despicable by the day. Yet another white-guilt puff-piece from Littwin. Big surprise.
April 19, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

timeandagain writes:

Hillary's problem is that she is BOTH mean AND untrustworthy. If she were just one OR the other, this nominating process would have been over long ago. Obama - despite his inexperience - comes across as NEITHER mean NOR untrustworthy. With the current climate in this country, that point alone will get him the nomination.
April 19, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

david.miller writes:

timeandagain -

You are pointing out that Hillary is a known quantity with the “mean” and “untrustworthy” comments. In contrast, your “comes across” comment describing Obama points out that little is really known about the guy. For this reason, I think George and Charlie did the country and the Democrats a service by putting him on the hot seat a bit. These debate questions will seem like warm-up exercises if he should receive the Democratic nomination. The part that surprises me is that after four years of George W. Bush, these two are the best the Democratic Party can come up with. This should have been virtually a no contest year for the Democrats, but with either of these two it is shaping up to be anything but a slam dunk come November
April 19, 2008

10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

raysmom writes:

Froward- tuck your extremist vitriol in- your ignorance is showing.

Mr. Littwin- you and others just can't admit that Obama is not that bright or informed- he doesn't even understand payroll taxes. The questions were fair and valid, and Obama fell on his charismatic face. But he does represent the people who hate the Bush administration, and the people at the trough. Barack "Santa Claus" Obama. I couldn't care less about his religion, or his marriage, or his associates- all politicians are two-faced, it's the nature of the game. But I do care about re-distribution of wealth, and that's what Santa Obama stands for. What happens when you have drained the people who fill the trough dry? Mr. Obama is no bridge-builder- extremists never are.
April 19, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Obama is turning out to be a turd. He is so pathetic that a couple of minor league Democrats (Stephanopolous and Gibson) were able to crush him like a bug.

And now his supporters are in full blown panic mode.
April 19, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Take away Obambi's teleprompter and ask him any scrutinizing questions, and you either get
"the deer in the headlights" look, like we all witnessed during the ABC debate,

Or he just runs and hides-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkhzs...

Not surprisingly, yesterday Obambi announced he may not participate in any more debates with Hillary.

This guy resembles a dried twig waiting to snap at any second he is put under the least bit of pressure, which is about as un-presidential as you can get.

That of course and having ties to American haters like Wright, Farrakan, Ayers and Dohrn.

The "Rockstar" needs to realize he's only as good as his last release, and that is falling in the charts rapidly.

Must be time for the spectacular Evil Conservative Media speech.

I wonder if that one will send a thrill up Chris Matthews leg-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk...
April 19, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

gwats writes:

Hilary will lose the contest in November if she gets that nomination. She clearly has too many negatives within the party and unless something dramatic happens, a Hillary nomination will torpedo the party and you can count on a significant number of Obama folks to pick up their ball and go home.
April 19, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

JYP3500 writes:

More hand-wringing from Littwin because his candidate, Barack, has not shown any leadership ability.

All the Barack supporters argue the fact that he leads in popular votes and delegates, however, what they are missing is that he accumulated all these votes BEFORE the vetting began. I submit if the voters had known all these negatives about Barack several months ago, he would not be in the lead. Shame on the Democratic leadership for not doing their homework.

And that brings us to the super delegates. As goofy & undemocratic as the concept is, it might actually save the Democrats from themselves in August. In an unemotional and analytical fashion, the super delegates are looking at the big picture and the electability factor.

Let’s be honest. The more we all learn and observe about Barack, the less electable he appears in a general election. No matter how shrill his supporters are, the super delegates are looking at the grand prize.
April 19, 2008

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

Letting hateful idiots run our country is an experiment that has run its course. Here are some of the results:

1. Thousands of American civilians dead in the worst terrorist attack in our history.

2. Thousands of Americans dead and one major metropolitan city completely destroyed with nary a peep from the government other than to say "heckovajob!"

3. Thousands of Americans dead fighting a war that didn't have to be fought. One that is counterproductive to our intention of defeating murderous religious fanatics around the world.

4. Trillions of dollars in debt. Money borrowed, none of which has gone to relieve of any of the more than 3 millions of Americans whose jobs have been off-shored.

5. The American industrial base being shipped away, which not only weakens us economically but militarily.

I'd vote for either Obama or Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat. They're both smart and decent people. In any political contest, our expectations tend to foment more than normal amounts of puffery and other self-aggrandizing nonsense. Then there's the inconsequential criticisms of candid remarks that may be a little more on the mark than we like.

But at least we won't be voting for a fake hero who deserted his cushy post in the Texas ANG and later pretends "Mission Accomplished" when his beloved war has only just begun. George W. Bush is the quintessential conservative Republican. 99% of all Americans are way too poor to vote for these guys.

Judging from the results, the wealthy 1% had best not support conservatives either if they want to live and enjoy their inheritance outside of Dubai for another 4 years.
April 19, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

BJG writes:

Mikey:
Boo hoo!!! Your lover man Obama had to take the tough questions and fell flat on his face. Now like a spoiled child, he's pouting about his poor performance, and has the audacity to blame Gibson and Stephanopolus. This guy wants to be the leader of the free world, but can't take criticism or even a hard question about his friends, what a loser.
April 19, 2008

4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

david.miller writes:

Forward69

You’re just flat wrong. America was built and is sustained by individual competition. Whether it be among the wealthy business creators or common workers. You also seem to be terribly confused on how the economy really works. For instance, as much as the market (supply and demand) determines the prevailing wage rate, so does the market determine the cost of capital (in case you’re wondering, this is the required market return investors demand for risking their cash). We live in a global economy where capital is free to travel wherever the required return can be found. Tax the domestic corporations too much and they will move their operations elsewhere so that they can earn their cost of capital. Should corporations choose to remain, they will probably produce less (employing fewer workers) causing prices to rise and allowing those corporations and their investors an opportunity to earn their cost of capital. This is just the way it works. Neither you nor Obama can defeat market forces through government intervention in the long run.
April 19, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

david.miller writes:

HolierThanThou

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you think will change under an Obama of Hillary administration? Let me offer as a preface that there are both economic and political forces at work that are far greater than anything they bring to the table. For instance, weren’t things supposed to change when the Democrats regained control of congress? Well did they? My position will be that Hillary is nothing more than warmed over Bill who through his inaction led us to 911. Obama, unlike Hillary, isn’t connected at all; and for that reason, he will be a lame duck, first term president. Go ahead HolierThanThou, tell me how it’s going to be.
April 20, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

david.miller writes:

Froward69

I don’t really care who becomes the next president because things aren’t going to change much on that basis alone. Think for a moment on how much things have changed since we got a Democratic congress. They haven’t.

You’re correct; businesses do factor taxes in the cost of doing business. The less tax, the higher the return on invested capital. That’s why you see states providing incentives to businesses to invest within their borders. States simply recognize that trickle down economics is a major factor in the economic expansion of their communities. Businesses often locate where they can obtain the best tax advantages. As much as business is inclined to do this among states, the practice also occurs among countries. That said, you need to think of the cost of capital for the investor as you do for the wage rate required by labor. If either group can’t get what they require, they move on. That’s often why people move, say from Detroit to Denver; or in my case, from Denver to Omaha. Businesses and their investors don’t just eat a tax increase and say “Oh well”; they, like labor, are always seeking to maximize the returns on what they have to sell or rent. Labor sells it’s time and investors rent their money. That’s just the way it works.
April 20, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

olandug writes:

Role Model for Children - Obama

A few days ago Obama gave the 'finger’ to Hillary on national television and smugly laughed about it with his audience. Is this type of malicious immaturity what you want your children to learn: lack of tolerance, vengeance and the bully mentality? After that one event, besides the mindless and uneducated, how could anyone seriously consider this Obama for any office?

Also, Obama's state-senate candidacy was launched at Weather Underground bombers Ayers house in 1995. Ayers who advocate the violent destruction of America may have much more to do with promoting Obama than we know. The organization MoveOn has aggressively intimidated delegates to vote for Obama and to shun Hillary and is likely closely connected with Ayers. Ayers finally got his bomb - Obama.

Obama also rigged his election to become senator by unfairly disqualifying his opponents. He did this by meticulously finding fault with each of the other candidates signed petitions until each of the contenders had to drop out, Obama was the last on standing, there was no election. This was another finger gesture towards the American public by Obama.

If this isn't enough, look at Obama's affiliations:
Wright
Meeks
Ayers
Abongo "Roy" Obama
Rashid Khalidi
Robert Malley
Hamas
McPeaks
Rezko
Auchi

And the list goes on...

This may be the time of the Anti-Christ, but do you want to be on the list of people who voted for him?
April 20, 2008

5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

wdmll writes:

Is Barack the Flim-Flam-Man, the Pied Piper, a Snake Oil Salesman or the Man to Take Charge?

Written by wdmll on Apr-15-08 1:35pm

I wrote an earlier article in which I thought Barack Obama might be the right person for the change in our leadership (link). But since then, new information into the inner thoughts and beliefs of Obama are emerging (link). It must be pointed out that one can’t paint all people of a skin color, ethnicity, political persuasion, religion or any other category, as the same.

Who is the real Barack Obama, what does he believe about racism, loyalty and America? What are his true feelings, what impact did his early Islamic background, his association with white and Jewish hate mongers, have on his beliefs (link)? His past association with an American terrorist (link), his upbringing and life experiences, in totality leads one to believe that he may not be the right person to lead this country. Recently, Obama told a group of elitists in San Francisco, about people in the Midwest, as Middle class small-town Americans, they cling to their guns and clothe themselves in the belief of a hell and brimstone god (link). He further stated, Midwest Americans are against foreigners or anyone that is different. He implied they are bitter white people, mad, mad as hell because their way of life is disappearing. Is Barack Obama right or is he the Flim-Flam-Man who is trying to sell his followers a bill of goods. Are his followers wearing blinders and want change and don’t care what change brings. Is he the Pied Piper, whose tune has hypnotized the masses? Is he nothing more than a snake oil salesman? Or does he have the answer and knows how to lead this country to a new enlighten future?

I thought maybe the country is ready for a person of color. But when the revelations about his spiritual advisor became apparent and his associates, who also advocate hatred for this country and for white people, causes one to pause and ask, who is this man? What does change mean to him, what change is he advocating? Is the new Utopia going to be at the expense of the white man and his way of life? Are we to pay reparations for the past? I thought Barack and Michelle were the vanguard of the new upper class of blacks, who because of their success, were going to lead the way for other blacks. Setting the example, of how people of all ethnicities, have the potential to achieve the American dream. But it looks like more of the same, the outing of one section of society for another. The past has to be included in the study of history, so that we don’t make the same mistakes in the future. But, to live in the past is not the answer. If Barack Obama is going to be the vanguard of change, then he has to look to the future not the past.

To see the full-featured article on Zimbio including links, go to:

http://www.zimbio.com/Non-Politically...'s+Crisis/articles/314/Barack+Flim+Flam+Man+Pied+Piper+Snake+Oil

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Politics › Barack Obama

LITTWIN: Somehow, Clinton makes the race all about Obama

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 18, 2008 at 11 p.m.

More Barack Obama

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links