Read Eric's bio and previous columns
March 10, 2008
Will Hillary Clinton Take the Democratic Party Down With Her?
Perhaps the biggest question not being asked right now among Democrats
isn’t whether Hillary Clinton can win the presidency, but whether she’ll
hurt her own party’s chances nationwide in seeking to do so.
the weekend – as Barack Obama won the Wyoming caucus – an unnamed
Clinton aide said that Obama’s wins have only come in states where they
drink lattes and care more about their feelings than real issues. This
might be news to the same people in Wyoming who supported Obama over the
weekend, and also made their at-large congressional seat competitive in
fact, much of the West, where a new breed of Democrats with a
libertarian streak helped their party seize control of Congress two
years ago, is now – according to this unnamed Clinton aide – rife with
latte-drinkers who care mostly about their feelings. Some of them, like
Sen. Jon Tester, who narrowly defeated Conrad Burns in Montana, are
Clinton’s approach to winning seems built on what has been a standard
Democratic strategy – win New England and the West Coast, pick up a
handful of Great Lakes states and maybe poach Florida. It writes off a
great swatch of the American landscape as unwinnable.
weekend’s comments have been mirrored all along by Clinton aides and
supporters. Early in the contest – in a comment that led progressive
uber-blogger Markos “Kos” Moulitsas to dub it the “Insult 40 States”
strategy – a Clinton aide said that aside from Illinois, Obama hadn’t
won any important contests. Voters in places like Virginia, Oklahoma and
Tester’s Montana might today be alarmed to learn that the Clinton camp
finds their nominating contests unimportant.
of this is no doubt a very common-sense approach to denigrating your
opponent’s successes while playing up your own. The Clinton camp has
said that it is best positioned to win the big, delegate-rich states,
but does its party damage by writing off the states where Obama has won.
is bad for a couple of reasons.
first is that, in terms of available resources, the Democratic Party is
this year much better positioned than the Republicans. It has huge
advantages in raising money, an utterly unpopular outgoing presidency
that will cling to the GOP nominee like a rotting fish, and also a party
being rebuilt on Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, which has
un-written-off those states previously assumed lost to Republicans.
Writing those states off, yet again, fails to take advantage of that. An
Obama campaign that hopes to make as many states as possible competitive
would siphon off valuable Republican resources for states just to keep
them turned red.
also hurts down-ticket candidates – you know, the ones who helped give
Democrats majorities in both houses of Congress. This will be the first
re-election cycle for some of them, and winning re-election the first
time is typically considered the hardest one. Whether the top of the
ticket provides them with coattails or actually drags them down is a
critical question Democrats should ask themselves.
week, much of the nation’s punditocracy focused for a day or so on
comments made by Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power.
Power, in an interview with an Irish journalist, called Clinton a
monster and said she’d do anything to win.
Naturally, she was forced to step down for her moment of candor. No one
stopped to ask whether the statement was correct in either reality or
practice, and – more importantly – if there was any thought in the
Clinton campaign as to whether her strategy to win wouldn’t also throw
the rest of the party under the bus.
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
This is Column #
Request permission to publish here.