« Michigan Democrats Voting for Romney | Main | Obama and Clinton Pulling back from the Brink »

Have Obama and Clinton Screwed the Pooch?

The problem that stems from throwing shit around is that your hands get all shitty. Michael Duffy at TIME illustrates the ways that both Clinton and Obama may have screwed the pooch:

Whenever longtime Democrats gather to note how the chemistry and calculus of the 2008 campaign seem to favor their party this year, one or another will always add some version of the following: "Yeah, but we could screw this up before it's over."

After the past few days, the pertinent question to ask is, is the crack-up happening already? Far-fetched as it would have seemed a month ago, the seeds of self-destruction are being planted in the war of coded words about race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The bickering has exploded in the space of a week into Topic A in the Democratic race, supplanting for the moment the war and the economy and health care -- and shows no sign of a quick resolution.

So yes, are the Democrats about to screw it up yet again?

You betcha:

Both campaigns are stoking this fire -- and worrying at the same time about what this could do to them in the fall. They ought to be concerned: Keep this up and neither candidate may be able to marshal the votes from the various corners of the Democratic coalition that he or she will need in the fall. As pollster Andrew Kohut has noted, a party which found that it had at least two candidates who were seen as widely "acceptable" to its various factions just a few weeks ago could soon find that happy consensus has evaporated.


Now we have both campaigns accusing the other of stoking the fire, of deliberately misunderstanding the other (and there is a lot of that going on, here, too) and both sides have had their various lieutenants and seconds trying to "help" explain things, which almost always makes things worse. That much was clear over the weekend, when BET founder Bob Johnson, in trying to defend the Clintons, appeared to all the world to be bringing up Obama's admitted history of drug use (Johnson later claimed he was actually referring to Obama's history as a community organizer, a laughable explanation that only dug the hole deeper.)

It hasn't helped matters that one of the men to whom the party has turned to defuse these fights in the past is conflicted out of this one. Bill Clinton's comment that the Obama campaign -- or Obama's Iraq war position, depending on who you believe -- was "a fairy tale" makes it impossible for him to play that role here. It's going to take some rare and wise soul to sort this one out -- both candidates ought to get on the phone to liberal evangelist Jim Wallis, who knows their hearts well and hosted them both in a forum about faith last summer.

Until then, the Democratic race is sidetracked on a direction that leads, like a scene from one of those Back to the Future movies, off a cliff. Yesterday on Meet The Press, Clinton said at one point she did not think either she or Obama wanted to "inject race or gender in this campaign." By the time she said those words, it was already too late.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Comments (4)


With the folks at the peak of the Democratic Party food chain tearing at each other, I'm getting a picture of a pack of hyenas ripping at each other over chewing rights on a fresh kill.

Not a pretty picture - and as an independent I'd have a hard time understanding how such actions would be likely to make me think either of them would be good Presidential material.

Hillary Clinton might be criticized legitimately in any number of areas, but attempting to play the "race card" against her was never going to work.

The problem with Obama is that he seemed willing to wait and see how it played out, while appearing "above the fray," until it became clear it wasn't working - and even if it did, would have left Democrats bitterly divided in an election year they hold the advantage entering.

Would a President Obama allow surrogates to play the same game if it held out possible political advantage for him?

Steve Crickmore:

Jim, I agree . I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't told Al Sharpton to take a hike, before and after Obama was criticized by the Reverend Al for "being at a disadvantage because of his choice to be race-neutral"...Imagine a white candidate being criticized for being 'race-neutral'.

Lee Ward:

I'm looking forward to seeing how Jesse Jackson, Jr. performs in his Obama-appointed cabinet post if/when Barack is elected -- Not.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.