Have you read the astounding article by Sean Wilentz in The New Republic? His loyalty to the Clintons is legendary, but this piece is beyond the pale. He actually attempts to prove that the reason Hillary is losing is that the Obama campaign played the race card against her.
To neutral observers I ask: who is drinking the kool-ade now?
Obama supporters have been lampooned by the Clinton campaign and the candidate herself for being too avid, unwilling to see anything negative in their candidate, and so wrapped up in their emotional response that they cannot think rationally.
And yet, Professor Wilentz, a highly respected historian of the 19th century, seems to be exhibiting all of these traits in his dubious revision on the recent history of the Democratic primary. Perhaps the 20th century is just not his forte.
In Wilentz's world, Obama cannot have won because of better organization, greater appeal, or for having a better raison d'etre than "I'm in it to win it." No, it has to be that the Obama team was more skillful at responding to the exigencies of a campaign season. That, after all, is what he's talking about.
So let's take up that premise, shall we?
Back in 1992, James Carville and the War Room team in Little Rock had t-shirts made up that said "speed kills," referring to their own formidable rapid response media strategy. And this was a key element of Hillary Clinton's campaign for the nomination: we are better at playing the press than anyone else.
If, as Wilentz would have us believe, the reasons for Clinton's fall as a candidate were not of her own making but, rather, a function of her campaign's inability to quickly and effectively respond to and shape the media narrative, you can't also say they didn't know that speed kills.