Is there any way for Hillary to avoid being cast as the villain in our unfolding primary drama?
Last night Obama gave a phenomenal speech, the kind that makes you proud to be a Democrat and a progressive. When he says that his campaign is founded on the belief that "change happens from the bottom up," it resonates because we see that this is the way that his campaign has operated.
In South Carolina, where I saw his operation first-hand, the field staff did an amazing job of putting into practice a true grassroots organization. And now for three straight primary dates he has been able to stand up and proclaim his victories, big wins with a growing coalition of voters, places where he had an honest chance to take his message to the people.
When was the last time Hillary stood on a late-night stage as the lone victor, and what does it say about the way her campaign story will unfold from this point on?
(continued after the jump)
The answer, of course, is January 29th: the night of the Florida primary.
She didn't break the rules of the DNC by dropping in to trumpet victory in the Sunshine State, but she may have bent the rules of decency. Like the other campaigns, she had agreed not to campaign in Florida, and she abided by that pledge. But when she flipped the script and flew in to celebrate her big win, it smacked of desperation.
A victory without campaigning speaks volumes about the lasting good feelings toward the Clinton years, and it shows us how popular Hillary is with most Democrats.
But it also tells us very little about how a candidate is prepared to build a nationwide campaign to take the White House in November.
As Obama continues to rack up wins, the Clinton camp looks begins to look more and more desperate. The Ohio-Texas strategy may work for her. It's silly to compare it to Rudy's Florida gambit because she has deeper support and has racked up plenty of wins. But it's also likely that Obama can pull out a draw in that contest. And if he does, where does she go?
Obviously to Pennsylvania, but also back to Florida, where she will demand that the delegates be counted. She'll more than likely need those delegates to make a win in Pennsylvania meaningful. (There is also Michigan, but since Obama wasn't even on the ballot it becomes a harder case to make). And she has a compelling argument. As Julian Bond has tipped us off recently, the strategy is to remind voters of the Florida 2000 debacle, and who wants to argue against counting people's votes?
But it plays another way too.
As Obama keeps winning, and if he shows strength in Texas and Ohio, many people will see a Florida appeal the same way they saw her celebration speech: as an example of a desperate candidate working the system.
Along with the superdelegate fears, it will come across as backroom shenanigans. And plenty of voters will think about Florida 2000, but they will remember it as an instance when the will of the people was denied because one party had better lawyers, better connections, better traction with the overseeing bodies.
Obama will continue to sound his call for "change from the bottom up," and Hillary will have to play the cards she has, trying to eke out a superdelegate lead and forcing the questionable Florida delegation into the convention. She's being forced into a narrative of insider politics that simply cannot play well against what appears to be a growing grassroots movement for Obama.
Every time he stands as the lone victor, racking up larger and larger victories, she comes closer to being seen as the insider spoiler, sitting it out, waiting and plotting. She is often unfairly typecast as the villain character by the media. I should think that none of us, Hillary included, would ever want her to actually play that role.