OK, so now its caught on that Clinton ran an awful campaign. The response to the obligatory "Guess what Frank Rich wrote this week" recommended diary is remarkable in the seemingly endless – well, it feels like a celebration – of this obvious fact. It raises an important question (please consider below).
With respect to Clinton's failed candidacy, people seem to be forgetting that, on top of all the mistakes, Hillary was never a very attractive candidate, to begin with. She’s reeked of dynastic politics and stale-clueless Democratic Party establishment from day 1. As a politician, she has always been the poster child for triangulation. Though she’s gotten better, her early stump-speech performances were so leaden, self-absorbed, and awkward that they were borderline unwatchable.
(To me, the right metaphor for her campaign is the Wizard of Oz – the "Clinton Attack Machine" was a Yugo with a broken fan belt – except in Clinton’s case, the visage of the pretender behind the curtain was well-known from the start. So why has each new glimpse been so surprising?)
So, a weak campaign + a weak candidate = a Super Tuesday stumble and 10 successive blow-out victories for Obama.
But ask yourself this question: who on earth is still voting for Clinton at this point? Who are the 35-40% in her column in each of those blowouts? What are they thinking?
When Mike Huckabee rolls up those kind of numbers, the unchallenged interpretation is that it reveals continuing dislike and discomfort in the GOP with McCain – with the suggestion that it’s a problem for their nominee.
Its naïve to think that a big chunk of Clinton votes aren’t a comparable phenomenon – a big block of votes that is still unenthusiastic about Obama, despite the "writing on the wall." This could be a real problem for us in November.
(I’ve been without internet connectivity the last 4-5 days – hopefully by now the ridiculous notion that Obama will sweep red states, prominent on this site last week, has subsided. If it hasn’t, consider this: in a recent poll in Alabama, McCain crushes Obama. Guess the broader set of Alabama voters hasn’t gotten the memo that Obama’s charm is irresistible.)
Now, some Obama supporters have fumed endlessly about how they are so mad at Clinton "outrage" A, B, or C that they would now never vote for such an evil so-and-so in a general election.
This is kind of like swearing you would never root for the Kansas City Royals in the 2008 World Series.
But for those who feel this way about Clinton, focus on those emotions for a minute – and now turn them around.
If even 1 in 5 Clinton voters stays home or – worse – votes McCain, it will be a big problem for us in close states in November.
I’ve fumed before, as a worried Democrat, that the focus of the Obama campaign on finishing off Clinton has left a void in responding to the growing barrage of real right-wing attacks on him, and has let McCain score easy points (like the nauseating, highly choreographed coverage of McCain's "moderation" problem two weeks ago – there was no one pointing out that he’s as captive to the radical right on most issues as anyone).
Hopefully, in the days leading up to Clinton’s concession on March 6 or 7, the Obama campaign has also dedicated some thought to how to best win with grace – how to try to use the moment to bring more of Clinton’s voters on board. It would be a huge mistake to take them for granted.