The Clinton campaign's theme of bad treatment by the pundits and the press is like one of those Eat at Joe's signs in old "B" movies and cartoons. Sometimes the message is on, sometimes off, and sometimes it flashes on and off with startling frequency.

During the course of the past five days, Hillary Clinton and her operatives attempted-despite laws of physics-to have that bright neon sign simultaneously on and off within the same 24-hour news cycle.

There were the usual complaints when the Obama people again asked the simple question: where are Hillary's income tax returns, and where are those long awaited records of her days as First Lady. The Clinton team attempted to shrug these things off as non-issues: there's nothing to hide and we'd love to make a full disclosure. And asked straight up by NBC's Tim Russert during the last debate why she could not make these records available soon, Clinton resorted to one of those age old, knee jerk Clintonland spin spews: we've been awfully busy lately running a national campaign for the White House (in case you haven't noticed!) and micro-managing the mundane details of taxes and old Day Runner diaries isn't exactly at the top of my to-do list.

Well, maybe I am paraphrasing, but only barely. Her response was designed to reduce the missing tax returns and the elusive First Lady files to something secondary and irrelevant to the larger political process. Never mind the fact that she is running for the highest office on a packaged theme that counts her eights years as First Lady as tantamount to presidential experience. And never mind the fact that-like John Edwards-she is a citizen of enormous wealth running for president in part to restore a connection between Washington and the common, and often forgotten, middle class and working class Americans. So why on earth would the source of her income have any bearing on why people would cast their vote for her?

When some reporters asked openly why-if it was okay for Clinton to pester and prod Barack Obama so intensely on the issue of Tony Rezko-was it not also fair game to ask merely for her current tax return and her scheduling diaries from her days as First Lady? Again the response was that taxes take time to prepare, and those old records from her years in the Bill Clinton White House would take even longer to pass through all the governmental checkpoints and clearances. According to the Clinton campaign, the comparison between the Rezko affair and Clinton's complex tax records was unfair, and represented just another example of media bias-like all the negative reviews of the "red telephone" TV ad.

Then, during the course of the last three days, Team Clinton introduced a remarkably audacious new tact: wouldn't Barack Obama make a wonderful running mate for Hillary Clinton? Of course, this scenario has been kicked around before. There is no shortage of Democrats-pedestrian and powerful-who have thought out loud about the so-called Dream Ticket. And why not? Not only would such a marriage wed the two parallel streams of support into one mega ticket, it would also create the nation's most politically correct and diverse ticket. The combination of Obama and Clinton on the same ticket would create unity out of this long war of attrition that seems destined otherwise to end up as a bitter, searing convention fight in Denver.

Bill Clinton, campaigning non-stop in Mississippi, has made it abundantly clear he thinks the Clinton-Obama ticket is the right thing to do. The former president began this tack on Friday, but then honed and amplified it throughout Saturday, repeating it as often as possible through the Magnolia State, where voters go to the polls Tuesday.

Still, since these sidebar discussions about the proposed merger have gone nowhere, why talk it up now as if it is headline news? The truth, say the Obama people, is simple: to create yet another tactical diversion. The whole thing smacks, the Obama camp says, of typical Clinton blue smoke and mirror handling of the facts. On Sunday, Obama supporter Tom Daschle nixed the idea publicly, suggesting that since Obama is ahead in delegates and ahead in the popular vote, he has no real reason to take seriously such a meaningless offer. Obama himself wasted no time with a counterattack on the stump. "Why would the front-runner," he asked an enthusiastic crowd in Mississippi today, "choose to be the first runner-up?" And then there was the obvious contradiction: after months of calling Obama unfit to be commander-in-chief and a man ill-prepared to be ready on Day One, how can the Clinton camp now suggest that he would make a suitable number two?

All of this just a week ago both Clintons were trundling around telling listeners that even John McCain would make a better leader when that red telephone rings at three in the morning.

What does Clinton gain in the immediate sense? If her argument rings true, she may gain a few of the super delegates who have yet to make a decision, and she might also entice a few of the supers who have already defected to return to her column. Further, and perhaps more tactically important, Clinton stirs up an emotional best-of-both-worlds mood for Mississippi voters-many of whom are African American-who find their loyalties torn between these two mega candidates-the first black candidate to have come this far in a presidential race, and a redux of the first Clinton years when Bill Clinton built such a powerful and lasting connection to African Americans.

Though most in the media immediately relayed the story-adding to it the chatter and analysis that the whole thing was a simple and transparent ploy by the Clinton campaign-the idea nevertheless gained so much traction that within ten or twelve hours Obama was forced to make an official statement repudiating the idea of a Dream Ticket.

Late that evening on CNN, panelists on Larry King Live kicked the idea around with the nearly unanimous position that the scheme was typical Team Clinton, the sort of shenanigans one might expect under these wartime conditions. Sitting in on the discussion was James Carville, a Clinton supporter, who made no apologies and said, in essence, that this was simply hardball politics at its best.

But there were deep concerns expressed by some liberals and some leading Democrats that Clinton's own words could easily be turned against her in the fall by the GOP. Conversely, those words could be used against Obama as well. No matter who wins in the Democratic battle, John McCain will surely get substantial mileage from Hillary Clinton's pronouncements that McCain is fit for command and Obama is not.

The contrarian view is that sometimes these unlikely marriages of adversaries work well. Lincoln famously filled his own cabinet with political foes in order to find diversity and consensus on policy matters. John F. Kennedy, seeking unity and geographic strength choose his onetime archenemy Lyndon Johnson to be his vice president in 1960. Ronald Reagan, seeking balance within the GOP, chose George Herbert Walker Bush to be his running mate in 1980, despite a long and sometimes bitter campaign of hostile words (including Bush's own speeches calling Reagan's plans on taxes and spending "voodoo economics.")


Finally, there was the flap over former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro's comments about the current Democratic contest. Quoted as saying essentially that Barack Obama would not made it as far as he has in this election campaign were he a white male...or a female or any color...Ferraro-as a spokesperson and fundraiser for Clinton-stumbled publicly in the view of many reporters and analysts by again suggesting that gender trumps race in this unique historical moment. Though clearly Ferraro's comments were taken out of context and subjected to heavy skew in the ensuing brouhaha, the Obama campaign-and Barack Obama personally-expressed outrage and a sense of insult.

Ferraro was widely interpreted as implying that in a head-to-head race between a female candidate and a male candidate, old school gender warfare would kick in and the anti female view would prevail, but because Obama is African American, he was getting a free ride in the press and was using his own race as a way to surf a wave of liberal guilt and goodwill into the presidency. To reporters, many Clinton campaign staffers became openly snarky, suggesting that the whole fracas over Ferraro's comments were nothing more than another example of Obama playing the race card. Clinton at first merely shrugged off the comments as the freely offered remarks of an individual, but when reporters pressed her-Ferraro after all has a titled position of some import within the Clinton campaign-Ferraro herself simply resigned her official post as fundraiser and spokesperson.

Appearing on NBC News that same night, Ferraro said that not only were her remarks taken deeply out of context, but that certainly Obama had been given yet another pass by the media. Asked if she had been forced out she said no: she had resigned in order to take this incident out of the public discussion as quickly as possible so that Senator Clinton could return to focusing on the issues. The press, Ferraro concluded, had chosen not to call this incident what it was-a race card play by Obama.

Obama countered that the Clinton team cannot have it both ways. "First they accuse me of not being black enough," he said, "and now they accuse me of being too black. Which is it?"


With the delegate math so close (CNN's current estimate: Obama, 1527; Clinton, 1428; a lead of 99 delegates) the stakes in tomorrow's Mississippi primary are unusually high for state that ranks 32 in total population and offers a modest delegate reward.

Still, the ex-President and the Senator from Illinois campaigned around the state like it was the last battle. Senator Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, concentrated her efforts on Pennsylvania, where she hopes to pull off another Ohio style victory among the Keystone state's many blue collar and middle class voters. But in Mississippi, Obama is holding onto his comfortable lead, hoping to deny Team Clinton a chance to claim even a modest victory in the Magnolia State.


Tuesday, March 11, 2008:

Nearly overshadowing all of this-in fact it had more airtime than practically all other news during the week-was the drama and spectacle of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's political meltdown. Accused of having direct ties via credit card transactions and emails to a high-priced prostitution ring, it became apparent within days of the story breaking that Spitzer was caught up in a tragic downward spiral. Federal investigators, watching large cash transactions under current banking and corruption guidelines, alleged that Spitzer spent as much as $85,000 over an 18 month period on prostitutes, some of whom traveled from other states to spend nights with Spitzer at swank New York hotels.

Spitzer, who as New York attorney general had built a formidable reputation as a crime-fighter, prosecutor of scoundrel financiers and harasser of the unscrupulous wealthy, found himself in such an uncomfortable spot that he was essentially engaged in a countdown to resignation as governor. Speculation ran large that he was buying time until he could strike some sort of deal with prosecutors, presumably an arrangement by which his resignation would equal immunity from prosecution. The New York GOP pressed for his resignation as soon as possible, and few Democrats in the Empire State resisted the idea of a swift transition.

The blowback for Democrats carried ugly risks, especially coming so soon on the heels of John McCain's own mini-scandal regarding his relationship with a former Washington lobbyist. Some vocal Democrats had pressed strenuously for more investigation in the McCain-Lobbyist matter, despite the general belief that the New York Times story had so little hard evidence and so few on-the-record sources (none, in fact). The Spitzer story obviously had the potential for nastier long-term effects for Democrats.

There was upside for Democrats however: When Spitzer's resignation finally comes, possibly by the weekend or Monday, he will be replaced by a popular and well-like Lt. Governor, David Paterson. Paterson has been a familiar face near Hillary Clinton at many campaign stops during the past months. Unlike Spitzer, who many in New York-Democrats and Republicans alike-regarded as partisan and rancorous in style, Paterson is widely viewed as a bipartisan figure and a conciliatory politician. Paterson, the son of New York City political activist and Democratic icon Basil Paterson, teaches at Columbia University. David Paterson, who will become the first African American governor of New York and the first governor of any state who is legally blind, is also regarded as someone who can work closely with the state's GOP despite his bona fide liberal credentials.

"Over the course of my public life," Spitzer told reporters, "I have insisted-I believe correctly-that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can, and will, ask no less of myself."

A few writers and political savants had taken note of Spitzer during his rise in New York as a tireless prosecutor, and though his style had been aggressive at times, even dogmatic at others, there were a few with a keen eye who assumed he would enter onto the presidential radar screen at some point in the future, especially if his legacy as governor produced positive results. But Spitzer quickly made almost as many enemies as he had friends, even when he was no longer prosecuting white-collar criminals, and his presidential ambitions soon suffered as a result.


Wednesday, March 12, 2008:

Though the Spitzer story quickly rose to the top of the headlines, another chapter in the long saga of the Clinton versus Obama battle was unfolding in the state of Mississippi where 33 delegates are up for grabs.

Though not a surprise, Obama won, and won big in the Magnolia State. Voters again turned out in large numbers, and again the sizeable African American vote insured that Obama's margin would be substantial.

Here's a summary of how Mississippi voters responded:

Though not a complete blowout for Obama-after all Clinton did manage to win about 20 counties-the results were still numerically lopsided in favor of the Illinois Senator. Of the Democrats who showed up to cast their votes, Obama won 255,809 to Clinton's 155,686, or 61% versus 39%. (These figures are derived from CNN's political website).

As expected, Obama's penetration in some Mississippi counties was substantial. He won in the central and western parts of the state most heavily, carrying some counties by as much as 80%. He took Washington County, on the Mississippi River, by 80%; Wilkinson County, in the southwest corner by 80% also; Claiborne County on the Natchez Trace Parkway southwest of Jackson by 80%; and Jefferson County, just north of the city of Natchez, by a whopping 88%, giving Clinton only 263 votes out of 2374 votes cast.

Obama also did well in Jackson, Hattiesburg and Meridian, the state's three largest urban areas not aligned to the gulf coast. Jackson, which sits on the Pearl River separating Hinds and Rankin counties, went for Obama in substantial numbers. Obama carried Hinds by 39,599 votes to Clinton's 9079, a margin of over 81%.

Along the densely populated corridor on the coast, Obama also did well, thought his numbers dropped slightly. He managed to carry almost all the I-10 corridor-Gulfport, Biloxi, Ocean Springs, Moss Point and Pascagoula, his only Gulf Coast loss being Hancock County, home to the towns of Waveland and Bay St. Louis.

Clinton by comparison did best in the northeast part of the state, where she won a cluster of counties by her own substantial margins. Tucked into the corner where the Magnolia State meets Tennessee and northwest Alabama, Clinton carried 11 counties, including Lee County (Tupelo) and Alcorn County (Corinth). Clinton carried Tipah County (Ripley) by 70%, and Tishomingo County, in the extreme northeast corner, by her widest margin in the state, 82% to Obama's 13%. (In Tishomingo Obama won only 393 votes out of nearly 3000 votes cast.)

Still, the state belonged to Obama. He carried Warren County, home to the town of Vicksburg, by 70%. He carried Neshoba County, home of the town of Philadelphia and of a large Choctaw population, by a closer 51%. And he carried Lafayette County, home of Oxford and the University of Mississippi, by 56%.

Obama will walk away with the lion's share of the delegates, probably 20 delegates in the final math to Clinton's 13, give or take a delegate based on the proportional distribution. Added to Obama's winnings from Saturday's Wyoming caucuses, this could extend Obama's lead to roughly 1600 delegates, when you include super delegates currently supporting Obama. This would leave Clinton trailing by roughly 125 delegates (again, give or take, since super delegates make these numbers fluid and the DNC can make adjustments at anytime).

The net result, as was the case in the days following the Ohio-Texas-Vermont-Rhode Island mini Super Tuesday, is a muddied lens through which to visualize the future. As has been reported by the Associated Press and other major news organizations, it has become almost impossible to foresee a way that either candidate can reach the magic number of 2025 needed to nominate by the time of the convention's opening gavel in Denver. In fact, a few math geniuses have crunched the numbers so intensely within the last 48 hours that is has become a central fact of life that the "lost" delegations in Florida and Michigan will matter now more than ever.

Even if Clinton scores and enormous victory in Pennsylvania, which has the next major contest, she cannot catch and surpass Obama. Conversely, assuming Obama wins by huge margins in the upcoming primaries in North Carolina and Indiana (May 6) and Kentucky and Oregon (May 20), where over 300 delegates are at stake, he will not reach the number needed to nominate. This means that the process plods heavily onward to the scant remaining contests, such as Montana and South Dakota, both of which vote on Tuesday, June 3. Even if all of the upcoming primaries and caucuses were to tilt decidedly toward one candidate or the other, neither emerges as the decisive winner.

But writing in Weekly Standard, John McCormack offers a few mathematical possibilities whereby Hillary Clinton might still pull off a sneak-from-behind miracle. Written a few days before the Mississippi primary, McCormack sees Clinton's best tact as relying on her mega state victories-and then amassing as many popular votes as possible through the remaining contests-as a way to leverage super delegates into her column. Doubtful that super delegates would tilt overwhelmingly her way if she arrives at the convention with fewer popular votes than Obama, she must somehow surpass him: a crushing win in Pennsylvania would help, followed by big victories in each of the remaining May battles, which McCormack estimates could net her at least 100,000 more votes-though 200,000 would be better. This is her only course to victory.

If Clinton can defend (and in part define) the moral high ground for Democrats as being her mega state victories-an understandably important factor to the powerful Democrats who make up the supers-she can add to that superior numbers in the popular vote, perhaps finally getting the edge up over Obama. Also, Clinton might still be able to gain some extra mileage from the Florida and Michigan factors. The Obama camp is quietly nervous about re-votes in these states, though openly they support "whatever it takes to give the people of Florida and Michigan a voice at the convention." Clinton's preferred choice is still to take the votes exactly the way they were cast-giving her an obvious heavy win in both states and awarding her the lion's share of delegates. But the Obama people-justifiably-say that is unfair. Obama-like Clinton-chose not to campaign there, but in the last few days prior to Florida's primary Hillary Clinton, perhaps our of a need to generate some upbeat momentum after her crushing loss in South Carolina, hinted suddenly that Florida was important after all.

For Obama, a re-vote is a potentially dangerous wild card. Depending on the breaks, especially in volatile Florida, they might end up gaining or losing. Campaign time would be factor, as well as the money required to hit the airwaves. The Obama preference: a big statewide caucus in each. Obama has done exceptionally well in the caucus venue, and this would give him one more opportunity to steal some of Clinton's thunder. But this is unlikely considering the more popular alternatives, such as the mail-in revote supported by some Florida Democrats and the Republican governor for its low-cost to taxpayers.

Still others in the Obama camp are quietly rooting for the issue of Florida to move front and center. In their view, after all, any revote in Florida is bound to help Obama more than Clinton. If the Illinois Senator is given the opportunity to campaign in the Sunshine State, that diverse tapestry of Floridians might very well warm up to Obama's message.

Ultimately, the end game is about delegates. The candidates in concert with mainstream journalists have thrown much attention on the importance of the popular vote as a guiding moral principle in the Democratic Party's great struggle this year. Rarely has such discussion gained this much traction during a primary and caucus season.

But for many strategically keen Democrats, the popular vote represents the sort of long-term view of the electorate that might finally help reclaim the White House after nearly 30 years of GOP domination. Hillary Clinton, ever the pragmatist, recognizes this fact of arithmetic and makes the point as often as possible: the nominee in this election year must be someone who can reach across that blue-red divide and invite-no, compel-those millions of Reagan Democrats to come back to the fold.

The Senators from New York and Illinois actually agree that their policy differences are narrow and even nitpicky, and they agree that the real difference is in how they will approach Washington and what mechanism for change they will employ.

Obama wants to sweep aside politics as usual. Clinton sees danger ahead if Democrats choose eloquence and idealism over policy aptitude and boxing ring skills. Their arguments about the "popular vote" gain credibility precisely because they each want to reach into the GOP's wider base and bring home those long-missing Democrats in November.

 

Road Show is published each week by Thursday Review publications, copyright 2008

BACK  HOME   NEXT