"If our nominee is running against someone with the legendary background of John McCain (emphasis mine) — Democrats need to think about this," Clinton said. "Because we're picking a nominee we expect to win. We cannot take four more years of more of the same."
-AP
Legendary background, huh? Way to shoot the Democratic nominee in the foot, Hillary. Or are you so pessimistic about your chances that you'd rather backstab the entire Party, rather than let someone else walk away with "your" nomination?
It is common knowledge amongst the Netroots, and is slowly trickling through to the party establishment, that in order to effect long-term electoral success, we must build the Democratic brand, and tear down the Republican one. In other words, to redefine what the words "liberal", and "Democrat" mean. Short term, we must demand our leaders wear these tags with pride, not as badge of shame. Long term, we must convince our skeptical and suborned neighbors and coworkers to stop assuming that liberal = crazy tax-and-spend peacenik (insert region specific slur here).
Hillary Clinton apparently does not agree. She's complimenting John McCain.
She's complimenting John McCain.
That is phenomenally, critically, idiotically wrong. This is going to be a knock-down, dragout fight come November, and telling your supporters about just what a spiffy guy (hopefully your) oppenent is, is not a good strategy.
It's a bad strategy in the primaries, where, if I may remind Sen. Clinton, Democrats are voting for the Democratic nominee. Telling them you think a Republican is a good guy isn't very enticing.
It's a bad strategy in the general. The name of the nominee is still equally likely to be Clinton or Obama, but do not think the eventual nominee will not be hurt when the McCain campaign dredges up this event (and I wish I could find video). All too easy to crop Clinton's words and use them as a mini-endorsement of John McCain. Certain to hurt the nominee, regardless of whether it is Obama or Clinton.
Sadly, the AP article is lacking in direct quotes, but the following was paraphrased:
The former first lady said McCain would make an open ended commitment to keeping troops in Iraq and knew little about the economic problems facing middle class families. She also portrayed him as a strong debater.
Now I can't tell if she actually used such mediocre language as "open ended commitment" in a stump speech. But that there isn't a direct quote along the lines of "This is a bad war, and we need to end it now" means that Hillary is still giving us the same "I voted for the war, and the war is a bad thing, but I didn't make any mistakes" double-talk that has been her only glaring weakness throughout the primary.
And let me pause to make that clear. She is pretty damn strong as a candidate. Her votes are consistently on the "right" (er, correct) side, by what ever scorecard you prefer. But her language is not that of a 2008 Democrat, much less a progressive. And screwing over the nominee (and possibly, yourself!) in the general makes no goddamned sense. Her 35 years of experience ought to tell her when the winds are changing. She needs to stop running as a 1990s Democrat and start running as a 2008 Democrat.
"I'm actually drawing from voters a Democrat needs to draw from to establish a strong lead against Senator McCain — voters making less than $50,000, Latino voters, women, which has always been part of the Democratic nominee's base," she said. "I have every confidence we can win back the voters Senator Obama has been attracting."
Oh. My. God.
Just- you know what, she can't possibly mean this. She can't possibly be advocating the 50% + 1 strategy. Can she?
True, women have been reliable Democratic voters. And Latinos and the lower middle class are breaking our way. But they haven't been enough. Just ask Presidents Gore and Kerry. And making the statement that women and Latinos are all you need to beat the Republican... Well, I'm just wondering if Clinton was watching the same elections we all saw. Winning the "blue" states and ignoring the "red" states and throwing everything into a few "swing" states is the proven recipe for disaster. Plus it hurts everyone down-ticket. Why should a California Democrat bother voting? He knows his state will swing for the Democrat. Why should a Montana Democrat vote? She knows her state will swing for the Republican.
We need to make the tent a bit bigger. That's Obama's strategy. Clinton's strategy of playing to the base isn't bad. It might give her the nomination, and it might give her the election. I'd say about 50% in either case. But it will do nothing, nothing to help the Democratic brand. It will nothing to help down-ticket candidates. It will do nothing to ensure a 2008 Congress will debate on Democratic proposals. It will do nothing for a 2010 midterm election.
Hillary Clinton's 50% + 1 strategy is the losing strategy. Don't support it.