Political Jackass

I read this great Op/Ed piece in the New York Daily News by Michael Goodwin about Hillary’s whining and how it’s hurting her campaign, especially in the last debate on Tuesday. She starts out by whining, then tries to make a joke, taking a stab at Obama, and watches it fall flat. Here’s the opinion piece:

You don’t have to love Hillary Clinton to feel her pain. By the end of Tuesday night’s debate, she knew she had failed to change the dynamics of a race slipping away from her. The deflated look on her face telegraphed acceptance, even resignation.

But any sympathy is tempered by the fact she has only herself to blame. Her uneven performance, punctuated by one of the strangest complaints I have ever seen in a presidential debate, likely dashed her last hopes of victory. The self-pity behind the complaint was shocking and unappealing.

She started by being feisty – to a fault. The first 14 minutes were devoted to health care, her signature issue. Yet she was on the defensive and kept interrupting the moderators because Barack Obama skillfully focused on the requirement in her plan that every American purchase health care, whether they want it or not. It is a fair attack because Clinton has never explained how she would enforce that requirement or say what the penalties would be; she didn’t last night, either.

Clearly frustrated by that rocky start, she began her answer to the second question, on NAFTA, with the complaint. “Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time? And I don’t mind,” she said, clearly minding.

Then she made the mistake worse with a foolish rehearsed line: “And if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”

Wow. Woe is her. What a blunder. This is political malpractice of the first order.

This bomb was far worse than her “change you can Xerox” line of last week. This was a petulant whine. There was rustling in the audience, but mostly there was an awkward silence of the kind you notice when someone has said something weird or inappropriate. Creating discomfort in voters over your pain is not a traditional formula for victory.

Obviously, Clinton believes the press is biased in favor of Obama. It’s a charge her team has made frequently. Yet her raising it with a victim’s tone came off as a plea for sympathy – not an endearing quality in someone who wants to be President. A President is supposed to feel sympathy for the people, not the other way around.

There was one other noteworthy exchange. Asked about the endorsement he got from Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who makes frequent anti-Semitic statements, Obama said he had renounced those remarks. He went on to say he was a staunch friend of Israel and cited its “special relationship” with America. He concluded with the touching note that many American Jews were instrumental in the civil rights movement, and that, as President, he hoped to restore what he called a “frayed” bond.

No complaints there. Or here.

Very well said, Mr. Goodwin.

Last night we saw Barack Obama win his 9th and 10th consecutive victories in the race to become the Democratic candidate for President. Hawaii and Wisconsin both chose Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton. These are no long insignificant victories, as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was saying after Mr. Obama’s South Carolina win. She’s got some serious fighting to do if she wants to stay in, but I think she should drop out and not rely on the Super Delegates, who do not have to vote the way people want, in order to win the Democratic nomination. Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist, stated on CNN

I think there’s probably the biggest underreported story: She’s (Hillary Clinton) had nine significant losses. If it were reversed and Barack Obama had those losses, we’d be saying he’s an irrelevant candidate. I mean that’s the biggest story. She had all the toys in the sandbox — the money, the consultants and every type of Democratic establishment behind her — and she still fails to win.

Very well put. Do we (the Democrats) really want someone who has all the “toys” and still can’t win? That doesn’t look good if she has to go up against John McCain in the fall.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party’s nomination without winning the popular vote, I will not vote in the Presidential election. People who know me know that I’m deeply interested in politics and think that voting is one of the most important things you can do, but I will not vote for someone who is put in place by a few elite party members when the majority of the party votes for someone else (Obama).

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in “pledged” delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

So, she’s saying that even though the majority of the people don’t want her to be the nomination, she’s going to stay in it anyway. That is certainly not democratic.

You may ask why I don’t vote for McCain then. That’s simple, while I respect McCain, I think he would be a terrible president and I think he would continue bad policies that have led this country in the wrong direction under Bush. So, if Hillary steals the Democratic nomination, I will not vote. I will watch her lose against McCain. She’s too divisive of a person to beat McCain. I’m in her party and I don’t like her (though, I was a fan of Bill). When McCain wins, the country will be in even more trouble. All because of Hillary.