Last night if you listened to Howard Fineman, he talked about infighting in the Clinton campaign about what to do next. Some were trying to spin the results of last night as evidence that going negative cut the margin of Clinton's loss in WI. And we heard the Bill C thinks that all it will take is one incident to expose Barack Obama as unprepared to be president.
But the evidence is that what mild attack ads Clinton ran had a negative effect for her. Others in the campaign, such as Mandy Grunwald, are urging Sen. Clinton to be more genuine, show her softer side - after all, to some degree it worked in New Hampshire.
I hope against hope - that the candidate will listen to the latter group of people, regardless of what it may mean for the outcome of the primary contest, which may rapidly be slipping out of her reach.
I will not revisit the difficulty of the mathematics of Clinton even getting close in pledged delegates. As Chuck Todd pointed out last night, as of right now Obama has a lead of over 150 among that group, and if one reasonably assumes that he will win, by whatever margin, states such as NC, MS, WY, SD and so on, the math becomes even more daunting, require Clinton to win something around 2/3 of all other delegates, including in OH and TX - and that is simply not going to happen.
If Clinton attempts to be confrontational, to try to go after Obama, she risks destroying several thing: Her reputation, her husband's legacy, her value as a Senator and national leader, and the Democratic party. She i unlikely to succeed in such an effort, but if she did it would be a truly Pyrrhic victory, because were McCain in opposition to put Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell on the ticket, it would ensure a massive defeat in November - there would be massive crossovers by African-Americans.
We have seen something similar in a very Democratic state, in 2002. When Kathleen Kennedy Townsend got the nomination for Governor in MD, rather than take a prominent Black like Ike Leggett of Montgomery County, she instead took a man who had to change his registration to Democrat to run with her, Chck Larson, the former Commandant at Annapolis. Having nothing to lose, Bob Erlich picked Michael Steele as his running mate, and African-American from Prince George's County. Steele really did not have a strong statewide reputation, but the contrast between the two tickets was sufficient to draw some black votes to the Republicans and to suppress the black vote for the Democrats in the key jurisdictions of Baltimore City and Prince George's County - and remember, her predecessor (with her as running mate) had won his first gubernatorial race 8 years earlier very narrowly, winning only three of the 24 jurisdictions in the state: Blalitmore City, Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties. And Powell (the better choice) and Rice have far more national appeal, and in the current environment it would be viewed as a betrayal of the black community by many of its members.
The math is daunting. Even without further endorsements, say by Richardson and Edwards (neither of whom now seems likely to endorse Clinton in light of last night's thumpings), Clinton will probably lose Texas and is at risk of losing Ohio as well. Thus the temptation to try anything, no matter how negative, must be very great.
Here's what I hope - that Sen. Clinton will run a vigorous - but positive -campaign, put forth a vigorous challenge to Obama: after all, a tough primary is the best preparation for the general election, as it hones one's responses. Run with honor and dignity, and accept the consequences. If outside events give you an opening, she is still positioned to benefit. But she can no longer create that opportunity by her own actions.
I truly think that if she starts to go very negative, as apparently Mark Penn - and perhaps her husband - want her to do, her fortunes will suffer very quickly. I would think that would cause many uncommitted super delegates to jump to Obama now, to make clear that they do not want to see the party torn apart. That might cause her to suffer a set of massive losses on March 4.
Sen. Clinton has at times been a very effective voice in the Senate. Perhaps she can recognize, as long-time senators such as Joe Biden (in his case twice) and Chris Dodd on our side, and Arlen Specter and Richard Lugar among the Republicans, have discovered: that sometimes the best service they can offer our nation is to be the most effective senators they can, that the skills they have honed in their senate service do not eaisly transfer to running for president - heck, even Teddy Kennedy could offer commentary on that.
So my hope against hope is that Clinton will behave with dignity, honoring the many who have supported her with a campaign that reflects the best of what she has to offer. Anything else would be a tragedy - for her, for the party, and for the nation.
A man can hope, can't he?
Peace.