On Deal Closing
This morning the news media are faithfully repeating Clinton's talking point that Obama cannot "close the deal." What this conveniently ignores is the fact that it was Clinton's deal to close in the first place, at the beginning of the primary process. She's the one who has failed miserably over the course of the past several months to capture her once "inevitable" nomination.
Hillary has utterly failed to capture the core Democratic constituencies of the young, the college-educated, and those African-Americans who do not fall into the first two categories. What does this say about her electability in the fall?
Her campaign will not be able to draw on either the energy of the young, or the wealth of the college-educated, or the mobilization power of African American institutions (black churches, civic groups, etc.). Her supposed "strength" lies in her seeming appeal to elderly, rural, white, working-class voters. But those are the very voters who are most likely to be swayed by John McCain -- i.e. those voters who are most likely to still despise Bill Clinton for his moral failings while in office (and not want him anywhere near White House interns), and most likely to harbor unease about voting for a woman to be Commander-in-Chief.
If Hillary somehow secures the nomination, what Democrats will end up with is a lifeless, cash-strapped, disorganized campaign that cannot even count on its own base.
Hillary has utterly failed to capture the core Democratic constituencies of the young, the college-educated, and those African-Americans who do not fall into the first two categories. What does this say about her electability in the fall?
Her campaign will not be able to draw on either the energy of the young, or the wealth of the college-educated, or the mobilization power of African American institutions (black churches, civic groups, etc.). Her supposed "strength" lies in her seeming appeal to elderly, rural, white, working-class voters. But those are the very voters who are most likely to be swayed by John McCain -- i.e. those voters who are most likely to still despise Bill Clinton for his moral failings while in office (and not want him anywhere near White House interns), and most likely to harbor unease about voting for a woman to be Commander-in-Chief.
If Hillary somehow secures the nomination, what Democrats will end up with is a lifeless, cash-strapped, disorganized campaign that cannot even count on its own base.
Advertisement
I have repeated shouted at the TV, "So, why hasn't she closed the deal?!" I know that the Obama people are just as pushy about their talking points as Clinton's are. We know the media just loves all this fighting. I think they just choose to state the underdog's (Clinton's) talking points to keep the fight going.
April 23, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has closed the deal. Hillary is just trying to re-stack the deck.
April 23, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This election was hers to lose and she's lost it. How in the world does an African American freshman senator from Illinois come out of nowhere and completely derail her? She's the wife of a popular democratic president, a fairly popular senator from a large state, incredible wealth, she and her husband practically own the democratic party and yet she hasn't won the democratic nomination?
April 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's another point that few in the media besides Keith Olbermann even talk about. She's the brand name, has the big party machine, the popular former prez hubby (not so popular these days, however), all the loyalists -- and she's so far behind in the pledged delegates that she can't catch up. Her campaign is a poorly managed train wreck that's in debt and can't raise big bucks anymore due to tapped-out big donors. And the media keeps asking why Obama can't close the deal? Sheesh!
April 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Media needs a check up from the neck up?
April 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, neither can/could close the deal. "The media" (not to mention blogistan, no, they never ever talk about the same thing) talked about Hillary not being able to close the deal when she was the frontrunner and now they are talking about the current frontrunner not being able to close the deal.
So what? Fact: neither has the party-prescribed number of delegates to win.
It's a legitimate topic of discourse if you are into covering the horse race, really the main one, ya know, winning the number of delegates necessary. Either you want horse race coverage or you don't.
April 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like horse race coverage. I simply prefer for it to be honest. Pretending to see no difference between the supperdelegates ratifying the winner of the nominating contests and over throwing the nominating contest results is intelectualy dishonest at best.
April 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And when Hillary loses NC the MSM will hype the inevitable demographic break-down as being of concern should Obama become the nominee. They will not focus as much on Clinton being finished because that is already apparent yet they keep questionaing Obama's strength.
April 24, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
We underestimate Hillary's command of the media at our peril. The headlines dutifully reflect her talking points about "Race", "Obama's Electability", "Bittergate", etc. As old hands and insiders, Billary have a lot of connections - it was revealed in Vanity Fair that Arthur Sulzberger Jr forced the NYTimes Editorial board to endorse Hillary despite the preference of the majority.
"The Times editorial board was, apparently, planning to endorse Barack Obama in the New York primary; the Clinton campaign, getting wind of this, called upon one of its major financial supporters (and eager-beaver prospective Treasury secretary), the private-equity manager Steven Rattner, the best friend and principal adviser of Arthur Sulzberger Jr.," Wolff wrote. "Rattner is thought to have petitioned Sulzberger, and Sulzberger thereupon overruled his editorial board, which then backed Clinton."
The question is what can Obama and his supporters do to counter the forces of the MSM? This has a severe impact on undecideds and independents, and bolsters Hillary's claims that the tide of public opinion is turning.
April 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NYT died when they hired Joe Klein. Their subscripton rate plummeted. So has the WSJ since Ruperts overtake. So has ABC and FOX's ratings. Katie Couric is leaving CBS.
April 24, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can put pressure on/support to the super delegates to support Obama. At this point, the media doesn't matter, even the voters no longer matter. The only thing that truly matters now are the votes of the supers.
April 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama already "closed the deal" way back in Wisconsin.
The media is giving Hillary coverage that no other candidate would get because
a) she's good for ratings
b) she's already more corporate friendly and therefore the lesser of the two Democratic evils
c) she's more easily persuaded by public opinion polls that can be manipulated by the corporate media
d) she's more likely to lose to McCain.
Nevertheless, regardless of what Hillary or the media says, Obama closed the deal in Wisconsin. The question is, when will the supers make it official?
April 24, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "closing the deal" nonsense is such a meaningless talking point.
So Obama didn't know how to "close the deal" in Ohio ... then kind of discovered how "close the deal" in Texas. He really knew how to "close the deal" in Mississippi. Then he forgot again in Pennsylvania.
Just watch .. something tells me he'll just magically rediscover how to "close the deal" when North Carolina rolls around.
April 24, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more the MSM prattles on the more irrelevant they appear. Let's hope that continues to its logical conclusion.
April 24, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think the deal is closed, or nearly closed. But Clinton still knows how to manipulate the media.
Point in case: They are talking popular vote. The reality is that in an heterogeneous system like this primary, it is imposible to add up popular votes in a fair manner. In fact, some caucus states don't even report them. That is why there are delegates. A proportionate delegate system is a way to account for the popular representation in a system as heterogenous as this one. And that is it. Now, Hillary's camp wants to count FL and MI on top of that. So you end up counting states that did not play by the rules, and not counting some that did, like some caucus states.
When talking about popular votes many people bring the argument of Al Gore, that won the popular vote but end up not being president. But the Gore argument was over how to count (recount) the FL votes, not about the total popular vote. Like it or not, the electoral college is in the Constitution and it would have been impossible to make an argument on the basis of the popular vote. In this case, like in the present case, the rules are the rules.
The other argument is about the supers. And here it is true, they can vote any way they want. But would be wise to vote against the candidate that has the more pl. delegates, and that represents the future of the party?. I think not.
April 24, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink