Posted on 03/04/2008 5:43:53 AM PST by jdm
In sports, a defeated player or team member often explains a loss by saying like, “Sometimes you just have to tip your hat to the other guy.” Sportswriters and sports fans even buy this on occasion. That's almost never the case in politics, though. There, defeat always seems to come down to the losing candidate’s weaknesses and/or blunders, not the strengths and shrewdness of the successful opponent.
That’s particularly true where, as may well turn out be the case with Hillary Clinton, the defeated candidate began as a prohibitive favorite. The conventional wisdom is that Clinton sank herself through a series of gaffes and ill-advised strategies – over-confidence, silly attacks on Obama, playing the race card, failure to focus on caucus states, etc.
You can make the case, however, that Clinton’s defeat is mainly down to two things having nothing to do with her campaign: (1) the vote in 2002 authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq and (2) the quality of Barack Obama’s candidacy. That’s not to say that Clinton made no mistakes during the campaign; only that the mistakes may not have been decisive.
Take her silly attacks on Obama in late 2007, such as her reliance on his kindergarten essay in which he disclosed his “presidential ambition.” At the time, with Clinton far ahead in national polls, this looked like an unforced error. But perhaps the Clinton team had figured out (before most of the rest of us) that Obama was coming on strong and had to be put on the defensive. In this scenario, her specific attacks still constituted an error, but not an unforced one.
If one accepts that, in light of Obama’s "force of nature" quality and Clinton’s vulnerability for (among things) her vote on the Iraq resolution, Hillary needed to go on the attack, then the difficulty of her situation becomes apparent. Obama is an enormously attractive figure with not much a record, and thus little she could shoot at in the context of a Democratic primary. To Democrats, his liberal voting record is a badge of honor. And Obama has a great answer, from a Democratic perspective, to the charge of inexperience – he was “right” on Iraq, the central foreign policy issue of the past seven years. On top of that, he developed into a better debater than Hillary.
But now, finally, Clinton may have something to work with. The Obama campaign has been caught apparently talking out of both sides of its mouth with respect to NAFTA. And Obama’s Chicago past – Bill Ayers, Pastor Wright, and especially Tony Rezko – may be about to catch up him.
None of this is really enough to save Hillary, but it’s a start. If tomorrow she is able to win in Ohio and run well in Texas, she likely will have bought herself time – more than a month of it before the Pennsylvania primary. During this period, Obama probably will come under increased scrutiny, maybe even from the fawning MSM. And if that scrutiny propels Clinton to a win in Pennsylvania and to parity or better n the national polls, she will then become competitive among the super-delegates and the race will be no worse than a toss-up for her.
And if these several “ifs” don’t all pan out, she can always tip her hat to the other guy.
UPDATE: The press conference in Chicago that John describes immediately below may be a preview of what's in store for Obama if Clinton is able to buy herself more time tomorrow.
Maybe Obama needs a Change? :-)
http://www.americangreetings.com/ecards/view.pd?i=460692191&m=3837&source=ag992
The Prime Directive is: Defeat Hillary now (while there’s still a chance.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.