LITTWIN: The show must go on and on and . . .
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Keith Srakocic / Associated Press
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses the crowd Monday at the Fayette Campus of Penn State University at a stop in Uniontown, Pa. Despite being behind in delegates, Clinton is pushing on with her campaign.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
To the untrained eye, it might appear that I'm standing in the back of a packed community center on the Penn State Fayette campus, listening to Hillary Rodham Clinton address 4,000 semi-raucous supporters at a typical semi-raucous campaign event.
That's because I am, in fact, standing in the back of the campus community center. But this is not - however typical it might look - a typical campaign event.
Yes, a candidate is mouthing words into a microphone. And, yes, eager supporters are eagerly awaiting each applause line. In this case, those supporters are looking for any excuse to break into a Hil-la-ry chant, even if it's to cheer the latest 12-point plan on the economy. E-con-o-my?
But of course, Hil-la-ry (or Full Metal Jacket Hillary, as she's now known in certain outposts of the blogosphere) is not yet - and, if you do the math, probably won't ever be - anyone's nominee, which brings me back to my point, the one about the parallel universe, where this event is taking place.
Which is this: What looks like a campaign event is something else entirely. It's a tribute, I guess, to the American ideal that the show must go on, even if the real show has already left the building.
You see, a month before anyone votes in Pennsylvania, everyone - by which I mean, you know, everyone - knows Pennsylvania doesn't really matter. The conventional wisdom - which has been so reliably wise to this point - has Clinton winning here by 10 points. But she's supposed to win. And unless Obama upsets her somehow, and even the Obama camp doesn't expect that, the race stays exactly where it is. Which is, to say, unresolved.
Which is, as New York magazine's John Heilemann has already said it, North Carolina is now the new Pennsylvania. (For you calendar watchers, the North Carolina primary comes to you on May 6. That's in six weeks. Buckle up.)
It's confusing. But if you have a race in which Barack Obama enjoys a small, and yet insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, then the race can't be about delegates, or it would be, well, over. It has to be - by Clinton terms, anyway - about momentum and superdelegates and spin and Michigan and dueling conference calls and Florida and who's Judas and who's not and a campaign calendar that is rapidly running out of time, even if it doesn't end much before the NBA playoffs do.
And if you don't like the name-calling, and you think it might be destroying the Democrats' chances in November, tell it to your combat-booted mother. That's the message from Bill Clinton, who's campaigning in West Virginia and says he doesn't "give a riff" about the name-calling and adds: "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office. If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an a occasional clip, he shouldn't put the pads on."
It's a football game and the Clintons don't play touch. But it's a month until Pennsylvania votes, and there are all those delegates at stake, and you have to give a riff, or at least pretend to, or what do you to say to all the volunteers and contributors, not to mention those at the rallies? I mean, what do you say to Jack Murtha, who's traveling with Clinton and proclaiming at every stop, "It's Hillary!"
Hillary has just left Pennsylvania (headed to North Carolina!) and Obama is preparing for a six-day bus trip through the state. (Note to traveling press, add Paul Simon to your iPod: "Kathy, I said, as we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh . . . ")
What we see happening then is clearly happening, but, at the same time, it's clearly not happening.
You've seen nothing happen before. Nothing happened, for example, on Super Tuesday. Or on Ohio-Texas Tuesday. If nothing happens here, can it happen in North Carolina - a state Obama is favored to win, so that if Clinton beats him there and, on the same day, wins in toss-up Indiana, it suddenly means . . .
Well, no one knows what it might mean. What we know is the fight is over superdelegates - the Democrats' contribution to democracy - who make up 20 percent of the total delegate count, meaning that, to win without them, a candidate would need to win nearly two-thirds of the pledged delegates. Didn't someone, anyone, see this disaster coming?
At this point, the primary race can no longer be about issues, if it ever was. Now that John McCain is clearly the Republican nominee, he's going after Clinton and Obama on Iraq and on the economy, making the differences on the Democratic side look, well, small.
And, speaking of small, what we get instead from the Democratic side is more on Jeremiah Wright. And more about Clinton on her not-so-sniper-filled landing in Bosnia. She has said she "misspoke" because she was "sleep deprived," which makes you wonder what she'd tell Putin on that 3 a.m. phone call about her days on the tarmac in Minsk.
And Clinton is keeping the Wright story alive by telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review she "wouldn't have picked him as my pastor," even as the pastor of the church she and Bill attended while in the White House (different pastor, same church) suggested ripping Wright is so much demagoguery.
So, let's see: Bill Richardson is Judas. Bill Clinton is Joe McCarthy. And Chelsea gets asked about Monica Lewinsky.
And so it goes, seemingly forever.
But if, as the math insists, Clinton can't win, what is she doing? She's telling reporters how she can win - for instance, by mentioning that even pledged delegates can be unpledged. (Just asking, but would that disenfranchise anybody?) And that superdelegates should vote which ever candidate they prefer, not necessarily the one with the most votes, as Nancy Pelosi radically suggested. This really is a parallel.
But as I'm watching the Clinton rally, I don't hear anyone mention superdelegates. You'd almost think the voters were what mattered. As Springsteen's Promised Land plays in the background, I talk to Charlotte Santore Muzichuck, who tells me how she once met Jack Kennedy and that Clinton "is the candidate who inspires me." I thought inspiration was Obama territory. But Democrats are registering in record numbers here. Someone's inspired.
At a news conference the next day, Clinton offers a different kind of inspiration:
"I think that what we have to wait and see is what happens in the next three months. There's been a lot of talk about what if, what if, what if. Let's wait until we get some facts."
The fact is - for those of you at home in Denver planning that convention - we could be waiting a while.
Comments
Posted by scastaneda on March 27, 2008 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!
Ramble incoherently much? That read like a freshman term paper written in the middle of the night before it was due.
Sounded good when you were still drunk @ 4 A.M. and desperately banging away at the keyboard.
But when you get your grade (C minus) and re-read your "work," you should be just a little disappointed with yourself. But you're probably not...
Posted by Daivd_Anderson on March 27, 2008 at 2:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah - this one's a bit disappointing. Littwin hits a fair number out of the park. This isn't one of them. I still find all of his columns as a whole to be a "good time waster".
Posted by KaySieverding on March 27, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the Republicans are paying Clintons to hurt Obama
Posted by blu_boi on March 27, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Littwin needs a refresher course in Democratic Primaries 101
Candidates make speeches, Pundits pundicate, Supporters jab and stab, Voters vote, Candidates make speeches, Pundits pundicate, Supporters jab and stab, Voters vote, Candidates make speeches, Pundits pundicate, Supporters jab and stab, Voters vote …
When the candidates are bloodied and hoarse and when all voters that give a hoot have voted the Super Delegates take the pulse of the democratic party, check the candidates for any fatal injuries, count up all their bribes and then decide who will be the parties nominee.
Posted by jason on March 27, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can anyone support Clinton......... or Obama for that matter??
Posted by TruthHurts on March 27, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You just have to put it all in Clinton terminology....
It does not matter what your definition of is is...
The question is...is lying lying?
Posted by John_II on March 27, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is only the second time I have read Littwin's stuff. This guy almost makes Campos seem coherent and focused. Almost. What the hell is going on at the RMN? What are the qualifications for being a RMN columnist?
Posted by Nico on March 27, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jay Leno said it all last night, " After Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama finish all their cat fighting and tearing each other down and all their sleazy tactics they can finally get down to 'uniting this country'. EXactly. Then he said, 'Apparently Hillary Clinton was NOT under fire in Bosnia, as she said she was, but, back at home, Bill Clinton WAS under fire. (with Monica Lewinsky) Would be funny if it was not so true and pathetic.
Posted by samsmargolis on March 27, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, if Clinton is now known as "Full Metal Jacket Hillary" by those fun-lovin', anti-American, Obama voters and Trinity church supporters, what does that make Obama himself? Ethnic Bomb 'Bama?"I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs." - from a Trinity Church bulletin printed during "Family Month." I know, how about we call him "Sergeant Obama Shultz" from the "I see nothing...," Hogan Heroes fame? Or maybe "Ain't Disownin' the Brotha Barack?" Least now we know how Littwin writes when he's sleep deprived. Oh wait, this is situation normal. What is your excuse, Littwin?
Posted by Spencer on March 27, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
a better question Jason is how could anyone vote for 4 more years of the same crap we have had for the last 7?
Posted by DeimosJB on March 27, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone else find it odd that Bill Clinton is being compared to Joseph McCarthy? Last I checked, Bill Clinton was the exact opposite of McCarthy. Though the media today inaccurately and willfully smears McCarthy, McCarthy fought communism and did in fact reveal communist infiltration in high level government posts (See Whittaker Chambers, Pumpkin Papers, or Venona cables). On the polar opposite side, the media praises Bill Clinton, who committed espionage to aid communist China (See John Huang, or the Riady's).
Granted, Bill Clinton has to be called something, but I'm just not sure how he got the "McCarthy" moniker.
Anyway, battle on Democrats, and may the candidate who is the lesser evil win the nomination.
Posted by samsmargolis on March 27, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
....oh, I forgot "Toss Grammy Under the Bus 'Bama." So sorry.
Posted by JYP3500 on March 27, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Occasionally I force myself to read Littwin (via free RMN website) to see if anything has changed. I can only come away from his article today asking “Why would anyone actually pay for the RMN, and how on earth do they stay in business?”
I would highly recommend the Wallstreet Journal. Yeah, they lean right, but their opinion articles are researched, comprehensive, professionally written, typically present both sides of an argument, and encourage the reader to use their critical thinking skills to decide.
Posted by Fred1 on March 27, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My take: I do not want to pay higher taxes to support illegals. Our economy works in cycles and will cycle back. I don't wan't to fight terrorism in my own country. Dems get a grip - it is a hard equation and needs to be tackled on the issues. I say, cut the pay on all politicians and get back to the principals on which the country was formed.
Posted by LuvAmerica on March 27, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, this Littwin was sort of a head-scratcher. (Makes more sense than samsmargolis, but that's not saying much!) Usually Littwin's got interesting things to say, but I think he got stuck trying to make something profound out of something that, well, has just gotten sort of dull.
Posted by bassman on March 27, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Littwin got his start as a cartoonist and was effective at this, but his op-ed pieces are not. Molly Ivins, he ain't. I love the Sargeant Obama Schultz reference. How could Obama sit in the pews, take this man as a mentor for 20 years and not discern the virulent anti-white message. It might take me 3 weeks, on the outside, and I'm not a Harvard educated lawyer. It strains his credibility to the utmost. His defense that he wasn't present for these remarks is laughable. He knew what the score was and didn't care. Either, because he agrees, or was so craven in his search for a political base that he couldn't see the impending train wreck once he stepped on the national stage. Either way the chameleon has shown his true colors.
Posted by Don_Lopez on March 27, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I realize that Mr. Littwin is a flaming liberal and a huge supporter of Senator Obama but I wonder if Mr. Littwin really believes that the Democrat presidential nomination will be worth much once Democrats get around to nominating him.
A recent poll suggested that almost 30% of those Democrats who support Senator Clinton will vote for Senator McCain if Obama gets the nomination.
How can any Democrat hope to win in November without almost one-third of their party?
Posted by samsmargolis on March 27, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry to go a little too deep for ya, luvamerica. It was written for those of us who are actually keeping up with current events. You see, Obama has had this 20-year relationship with this hatin' minister and church that he's tried to explain here recently - a story kinda like what Hillary was trying to tell about Bosnia...the kind that makes you "scratch your head." But it didn't make much sense, either. So, in the spirit of Littwin's article where he tried to make fun of Hillary for her selective memory, I was poking fun at Obama for his, 'cause we all know Littwin would never do that. Hopes this helps you through your day....
Posted by dirkle on March 27, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"what do you say to Jack Murtha, who's traveling with Clinton and proclaiming at every stop, "It's Hillary!"
You say "have another beer and take a nap, Grampa."
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
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.