Prior to her wins in Ohio, Rhode Island, and the "win" in Texas HRC has waged an all out assault on Barack after getting killed in 11 contests. Barack Obama has in turn questioned HRC's renowned dishonesty. The HRC campaign has done everything in their power to swiftboat the all-but-presumptive Democratic candidate in their path to the nomination. HRC has used charges of plagiarism, elitism while attempting to add some islamophobia into the race ("as far as i know.."), race baiting - just to name a few.
I do not mean to write this out of a pro-Obama bias, instead it is out of sheer disappointment of the techniques of the HRC campaign (which will be referred to as HRCC).
The question I ask myself, now in the home stretch of this primary season, is: Has HRCC effectively made Obama undesirable/unelectable by making him the non-transcendent candidate he is/was? And made him into the Black candidate that Bill Clinton has worked on since South Carolina?
Furthermore, has she tainted the party?
I do not know the answer to either question, at least definitive answers. There is a pro and con scale to her stubbornness to drop out or harsh tone. This has probably made Barack a far better candidate but it also probably has killed off any soft support he received by Republicans.
She seems to have basically murdered her own political career (and any idiotic aspiration to run in 2012 or 2016) by staying in as long as she has and those techniques she has used to stay in as long as she has.
But despite the polls that have Obama's negatives SLOWLY rising, how much has she hurt him? And not in the demographics that he wins with one hand tied behind his back. How does she consistently win the working class with her scant experience with working class folk? And how come he under performs? A large explanation for it is the Clinton brand name. As much as Geraldine Ferraro thinks Obama wouldn't be here if he wasn't black, Hillary would be even farther from where she is now if she was just Hillary Rodham. She must know the reality that if that were the case, it would have been a John Edwards and Barack Obama race. Still, what is really keeping these people from voting for Barack?
About a month or so ago, I was under the impression that Obama's weakness in those "blue collar, white, non-college educated" demographics were easily repairable and needed no concern as they would never vote Republican in the fall. But a lot has changed in 4 weeks. I may be flamed for this, but I do think Hillary has injected race and racism into the Democratic base, a specific core of the base that is not necessarily kind to minorities. Not that I think she is a racist but I do think she knows how to manipulate people's irrational fears and short attention spans.
Despite being of the same party, she pounced on Obama's relationship with the Trinity United Church and Rev. Wright and William Ayers. Despite being of the same party, she pounced on Obama's knack for hope and inspiration with lame catch phrases like "Yes We Will." Despite being of the same party, she had said numerous times she and John McCain would be fit for the job of president --- not Barack Obama. Despite being of the same party, she has not backed away from her NUCLEAR OPTION to grab this nomination.
As Joe Andrews wrote - a vote for Hillary is effectively a vote for McCain's chances in the fall. Though this man is vile and repugnant, Mitt Romney had the sense of suspending his campaign because he saw it any continued campaigning would make it easier for Democrats in the fall. In this respect, Mitt Romney has more sense and cares about his party more than Hillary Clinton. And to his credit, he is on the list for McCain's VPs.
Now, some of you may say she has all the right to campaign and run -- this is so true. She does. But does she have the right to rip her COLLEAGUE on claims of being out of touch and elite with voters he will need in the fall? Does she have the right to goto the convention in August? She does. But does she have the right to declare those who vote for Obama (pledged delegates or supers) as elites?
Am I elite because I prefer one candidate over another? Can a college Sophomore of Pakistani descent be elite without a part-time or full-time job, who grew up in urban and diverse Northern New Jersey in a family that never made more than $30,000 in a year be elite? Maybe I'm just impressionable, as Bill would like to think. And I do like lattes and Caramel Macchiatos.. But I couldn't be one of those who want to see this nation bounce back. Not that I actually read facts and articles and not rely on 3 minute sound bites from some Pastor who knew one of the candidates or stellar, but vague, stump speeches.
You have republican/right-wing journalists applauding HRC for using their swiftboating, dirty and racist techniques on her own Democratic ally. It is unbelievably appalling.
I hear HRC's speeches and the like, and she has taken John Edwards' amazing populist message as her own. She, the Yale and Wellesley alum, touting a populist and shapeshifting with each state. The girl who grew up with pretty well-off means, the girl who didn't need to scrape or ever suffer like the common folk has stolen the message of John Edwards after her message of experience tanked. I supported John until the day he dropped out, and it infuriates me this conservative (Barry Goldwater/Nixon anybody?) dressed up as a democrat politician says she cares about the working class. As the Reverend said, politicians have to say what politicians have to say. In HRC's case, she has to say what will get her votes from the only voting block that has yet not gone to Obama.
But I return to my initial question...
Has she ruined his chances to get the demographic she STOLE from John Edwards by using the tone and language she has been using? Has she ruined herself far more than Obama?
Someone needs to stop this campaign (or at least tone) very very soon.