We all love Chuck Todd. He is smart, engaging and intellectually honest which is more than we can say about a lot of journalists.
He is also self-aware which I think is awesome.
He has written today a very interesting column (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...) about how he doesn't think the time for Hillary to drop off has come - not just yet.
I wanted to go through some of his arguments with you to see which ones we concede and which ones we don't. We WANT her to concede. Should she ?
First point he makes:
I use the term "supposed" because I think one can start reading between the lines of statements from the so-called undecided superdelegates. If someone says, "the process isn't hurting the party, let everyone have a say" you know that is code for "I'm still holding out hope for Clinton."
But if a supposed uncommitted superdelegate says, "we need to start thinking about what this is doing to our long term chances of defeating John McCain" that is code for, "I am leaning toward Obama but I hope Clinton will simply drop out so I can always claim to her and Bill that I was never against them."
No argument there of course. How stunning it is though how scared superdelegates from the second category are ? Why is it that everyone acknowledges people are terrified of the Clintons and why does no journalist ever wonder if that's a GOOD thing ? Is this really a way to lead ? And what have they done to make people so scared of them ? What does that say about how they exercise power ?
Still, Clinton should feel vindicated for staying in the race in part because of the Rev. Wright blow up. As of now, it appears Obama has weathered the storm. He deftly shifted the debate from values to a discussion about race and society. For many Dems it was a leadership moment, which may not have occurred without Clinton in the race.
I am sorry but I don't understand that point. Why couldn't have Obama handled it just as well if it had occured once the primary was over ? Couldn't the pushback actually have been even more effective if the party had been united behind him and Clinton had, say, DEFENDED him instead of using it for her own advancement ? And how does it vindicate HER ? Because stuff happens to Obama ? Sure. But if I remember correctly stuff has been found out about her in the past few days too. It does not take a genius to know stuff happens. I would argue that's another reason to unite the party as soon as possible. So that that kind of stuff gets fought back against by the whole party.
Now, Obama was dented a bit, and he certainly lost the very soft support he was getting from Republicans, according to our most recent NBC/WSJ poll. Nevertheless, he held steady with independents.
As one person commented to me, the Wright controversy forced Obama to use his "get out of jail free" card, meaning he had a reservoir of support he could tap into in order to get a large chunk of voters to give him the benefit of the doubt.
That's more that SHE can say. No one gives her the benefit of the doubt. And that's one funny thing about all this. It is, at worse, he would go down to her level of non-support. Even if all her "predictions" were vindicated, there would still be nothing that makes HER a better candidate than him.
Besides, if she dropped out, the reservoir of good-will would be deeper for him and he could weather those kinds of silly controversies with a even stronger cushion of support.
Moreover, I would argue the Wright story turned off enough older white voters so that Obama can no longer argue that when compared with Clinton he will expand the electoral map in a general election with McCain.
Now he can simply say he will use a different map; a map that ultimately might expand for the party as a whole, even if his path to 270 is no less narrow a victory than Clinton's. It is just different.
Obama will rely on greater strength west of the Mississippi, while Clinton will use the same Gore-Kerry map. She will simply promise that she will carry Ohio or Florida.
That's an interesting theory and while I agree I don't expect anymore the landslide we could have expected in February, I really think this is a strangely assertive assumption Todd makes here. So far, we don't have any proof of anything of that kind happening. And November is a long way ahead.
Older white voters who won't vote for Obama because of Wright and solely because of Wright are certainly not people who would have voted for him anyway. And I don't see how him losing that demographics changes anything to his map of support since it was never his strong point anyway.
Did anyone see him lose a state now that he was winning two weeks ago ? I certainly don't. So far.
he party ought to lay off the calls for Clinton to drop out, at least for now, because her presence at worst is making Obama a better candidate. The Wright flare-up was the first true political crisis of Obama's national political career, which is remarkable given how close he is to being the Democratic nominee. Who knows when the Wright controversy would have circulated had the nomination been locked up.
Would it have been catastrophic had it happened in October ? Yes. Was there any chance for this to happen in October ? No way. It would have been dug up earlier.
And once again, I really don't see how this has anything to do with Hillary being still in the race. Unless of course he is suggesting she is the one who provided the story and had it "purged" early enough and that that is why he should be grateful she is still in the race. Draw your own conclusions.
Obama needed to prove he could handle a real media firestorm, something Clinton has done numerous times throughout her career. In fact, her political survival skills have been marketed as an asset by the campaign, something I think would have sold better in '04 when the party was looking for a tough survivor to put up against Bush.
I would think Todd would know better than to repeat that BS now. Does anyone really think she has handled media firestorms that well now or in the past ? Was February well handled spin-wise ? Isn't there tons of media firestorms ahead for her as this week proved ?
Of course, the Clinton campaign would argue that these folks are being naïve if they think partisan bickering goes if Obama is elected. However, as many have noted, an electorate in a change election wants to feel optimistic and Obama is providing that optimism right now.
The one thing that happened with Wright is that it sobered up some of us who naively hoped Republicans would keep on liking Obama even if he was the nominee. That said, I would rather be behind a candidate who tries to move beyond the stupid controversies than one that thrives on them and whose only rationale for campaigning is actually those said penny-worth controversies.
Still, Clinton should feel no hurry to get out. In fact, she is also making Obama a better candidate by forcing him to up his rhetoric on the economy and start working harder to woo these working class, white voters who appear to be eluding him in the Rust Belt states.
Is Obama a better candidate than he was in January ? Yes. However I think it is a little condescending to him to assume he would not have improved in any kind of race (primary or the general) since time is the key here. And it is a little silly to assume he would not be aware he has to woo the white voters of the Rust Belt. Has it looked as if Obama ever made a strategic blunder so far ? No. So I don't know where the idea he would have been stupid enough to neglect bread and butter issues is coming from. He won Iowa on them, didn't he ? And finally there is a counterargument there. Wouldn't he have a easier time talking to those voters if he didn't have to compete with Hillary for their interest ? Once again, missing the forest for the tree. She is PREVENTING them from switching to him en masse.
nterestingly, if the roles were reversed, and it was Obama trailing on the delegate front but in a position to win a long-shot chance at the nomination, the full-court press from the Clinton campaign would be much louder and much more aggressive.
We all know that. So why are they all giving her a pass ? Why is he writing this article arguing she should not drop out if he knows he wouldn't be doing the same if roles were reversed ? That is never explained.
And that is the core of my frustration here.
Still, imagine what the endorsement of 20+ superdelegates this week would have done for Obama’s aura of inevitability. Why didn’t Obama do this? Do they want to wait until after Pennsylvania so that if they keep it close, they use that as the pivot point? Or do they not have as many superdelegates in their back pocket as they’ve led some of us to believe?
I think they are being more cautious than they ought to be. But let's face it they have been burnt before. And the fact smart people like Chuck Todd are still spouting BS about Clinton needing to stay in the race does not help getting cowardly SDs off the fence. Self-fulfilling prophecy, much ?
Then there is the other shoe that could drop.
Clinton knows something else could pop up – another controversial issue.
Because no shoe could drop on Clinton ? Do we really think Bill has been faithful to her in the past eight years when he has never been faithful in the previous thirty years of marriage ? And if there is something huge, why has it not come out until now ? I mean, Wright was an old story after all. So all that could be out there is already out there. And nothing in there would be major enough to make him collapse.
And we go back to one of my points. If, God forbids, Obama collapses, obviously the party would turn to her. So why need be in the race and induce bitterness from Obama supporters who will assume she had something to do with it ? Isn't it better to suspend her campaign, be supportive and if something tragic happens, she can be the deus ex machina at the convention without people blaming her for what would happen to him ? So I don't get the rationale here. If his candidacy collapses, things would be done and noone needs her in the race to do them.
here will be a point where she could do damage to the party but we’re not there yet.
Possibly, the point is May 6, the North Carolina and Indiana primaries.
If Obama should win one of the two that day (North Carolina being the most likely), or if that’s Clinton’s D-Day and she fails to come through with a victory in either state – and she decides to drop out – she’ll still be leaving Obama plenty of time to focus on McCain.
The spin is confusing here. Who should win what for the journalists to declare someone won ? The fact even he is confused goes to show that, by letting the race go on, we are letting the Clintons constantly move the goalposts. At one point we need to say stop. And if we don't do it now, we legitimizes the idea they could go to the convention.
As this campaign has proven, six months is more than enough time.
After all, Iowa was less than three months ago.
I think the campaign has proved three months is not ENOUGH time. It has been three months and look where that got us. Nothing. The more time the better and everybody who says otherwise is BSing.
Who knows, she may even win Pennsylvania big, and sweep the May 6 states, turning the conventional wisdom upside down
How is winning PA turning conventional wisdom upside down ?
Is it somewhat selfish and self-centered for Clinton to put her ambitions above the party? Of course. But believing you can lead the free world is the most selfish, self-centered thing to begin with.
This has got to be the silliest argument I ever heard to dismiss what she is doing right. It is selfish to destroy the party but you have to be self-centered to want to be its head anyway.
Hum. What ?
Sorry for the length but the piece was interesting.
Comment away !