Odds and ends

I didn't end up working a full day today, so I wanted to do a quick post before getting ready for tonight's class.

First, before I forget to mention it, here's a link to a Clinton Attacks Obama Incident Tracker. I don't think everything is there, but it might jog our memories about the long history of such attacks.

Geraldine Ferraro, who supports Hillary Clinton, has said some downright offensive things about how lucky Barack Obama is that he's black.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Tim Russo at Buckeye State Blog wonders who this is meant to appeal to, musing that it might be designed to push certain buttons with the white blue-collar demographic in Pennsylvania.

Will Hillary "reject and denounce" Ferraro's remarks?

Pennsylvania, as we were reminded by many in the media right after last Tuesday's elections, is "next up" in the schedule of nominating contests. Well, yeah, there was that thing in the Wyoming over the weekend, but that's just a caucus. The views of the "latte-sipping crowd" are irrelelvant. And there's something going on in Mississippi today, but...big whoop. That state doesn't count, because there are a lot of African Americans living there. In fact, according to Ed Rendell, it's the Big Four states that really are important to determining the nominee. And Hillary has even reminded us that even pledged delegates are free to change their minds. Exactly how little regard does this woman have for the will of the voters?

As I've already mused here:

Regarding superdelegates, the common refrain from people speaking on Clinton's behalf is that they are supposed to use their independent judgment, based on what's best for the party. So, rather than voting to reflect the wishes of their constituents, they are supposed to vote for the person who is most "electable".

Is it possible that Clinton's goal is to get Obama "bloodied" enough by (or before) the convention that she and her surrogates could make the case that he's simply not electable?

Presumably, if Hillary Clinton keeps up the attacks on Obama (which have been a lot more negative and unrelenting than Obama's NAFTA/healthcare mailer that she found so egregious that she had to hold a big press conference/photo op. You know, the one where she made strategic use of my governor as a nodding backdrop, while she waved the offending mailer in the air and scolded "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" Hillary Clinton's attacks, however have been constant and disturbing, saying that she and John McCain have passed the "commander in chief threshold, but Obama's entire campaign is built on a speech he made in 2002.

Condescend much? She has actually compared the man who *could* become her party's nominee unfavorably, not just to herself, but to the presumpive nominee of the Republican party. Obama has faired favorably in head-to-head polling matchups against John McCain. That could certainly be seen as a positive indicator of Obama's "electability" in the general election. But if Clinton and her surrogates continue to trash talk Obama while talking up John McCain in the same breath, maybe those numbers will change. If Team Clinton somehow manages to throw enough buckets of mud at Barack Obama, will she then make the case to the superdelegates *and* the pledged delegates that they need to cast their votes for her? Even if any appearance that Obama might have a hard time winning against McCain came as a direct result of her efforts? I have no doubt that she would be willing to do that. My concerns are about whether the delegates will go for that, thus rewarding Hillary Clinton's "say or do anything to win" tactics.

And I'm hoping that, even if Hillary Clinton is willing to stoop that low, the delegates will look at the big picture, and won't let the scenario play out that way.

Haloscan comment thread