What Clinton wishes she could say: Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting

The Politico: What Clinton wishes she could say
By JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI | 4/13/08

Why, ask many Democrats and media commentators, won’t Hillary Rodham Clinton see the long odds against her, put her own ambitions aside, and gracefully embrace Barack Obama as the inevitable Democratic nominee? Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naive Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps, in their view, won’t tell the story. But Hillary Clinton won’t tell it, either.

A lot of coverage of the Clinton campaign supposes them to be in kitchen-sink mode — hurling every pot and pan, no matter the damage this might do to Obama as the likely Democratic nominee in the fall. In fact, the Democratic race has not been especially rough by historical standards. What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: that if Obama is the nominee, a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.

Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship. Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico). Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style. This view has been an article of faith among Clinton advisers for months, but it got powerful new affirmation last week with Obama’s clumsy ruminations about why “bitter” small-town voters turn to guns and God....

***

Skepticism about Obama’s general election prospects extends beyond Clinton backers. We spoke to unaffiliated Democratic lawmakers, veteran lobbyists, and campaign operatives who believe the rush of enthusiasm for Obama’s charisma and fresh face has inhibited sober appraisals of his potential weaknesses. The concerns revolve around two themes. The first is based on the campaign so far. Assuming voting patterns evident in the nominating contest continue into the fall, Obama would be vulnerable if McCain can approximate the traditional GOP performance in key states. The second is based on fear about the campaign ahead....

***

One can be sure the general election will not be such a delicate affair.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=47B82639-3048-5C12-006FAA614CC2E556

will vote for her...

I know this is the third or fourth. Let's quit beating dead horses.

Since I did post it, I'll leave it, along with my usual disclaimer:

I am a neutral poster of articles here, posting articles both positive and negative about both candidates, because I think it's valuable for both supporters and detractors of both candidates to know what's out there in the press. I almost always post articles without comment.

And, if you'll look down the list of posts in this forum, you'll see my posts, falling into those categories. If articles aren't equally divided between the two candidates any given day, that's a reflection of what I find in the press on that day.

That said, I am an Obama supporter, but admire and respect Clinton, and would happily vote for her if she's the nominee.

I am an Obama supporter who will support the candidate who is nominated.

The article has been accurately summarized. However, it's evident Hillary doesn't "get it." Obama's weaknesses are undeniable. But the Republicans have nominated a PATHETIC candidate. Not that I don't respect John McCain's service, guts, etc. But he's simply not a very good candidate. The Republican base DEEPLY distrusts him, and it's bette than even odds the RW wacko Fundies will sit this one out.

And the article says nothing about Hillary's own substantial weaknesses. The one that bothers me the most? The fact that she seems to shoot off her mouth when she's tired. Oh, and there's that fibbing problem. I'll vote enthusiastically for Hillary if she's the nominee. But the article, and the re-poster's logic, has holes in it one could drive through with a Cat D-9 tractor.

and not my own words. And, as I posted upthread, I don't go into GDP, so I didn't know the article had been posted elsewhere. I apologize.

Also, as I said upthread, I don't post articles to make a point for either candidate, just to inform both sides about what's in the press.

I don't get it.

If I didn't feel DU was worth my time, I wouldn't have posted over 32,000 posts here, most of them news articles, or K&Rs of the good contributions of others (and an occasional sounding off of opinion). We each bring different things to DU, as you know having been here a long time. I'm a news junkie, and I generally bring articles. Like some others here who primarily post articles, I don't post as many responses or other commentary as most because going through -- and reading -- a large number of news sources each day, and posting quite a few, takes a good bit of time, and I have to leave some time to live my life.

Before the primaries, there weren't so many political articles to post, and an opinion wasn't generally expected or needed when posting an article. But now the press is full of political articles, most of them favorable or unfavorable to one of the candidates. While I have opinions about this primary battle, I personally have no desire to fight it out with fellow DUers in a cesspool of profanity and rudeness.

I've worked on political campaigns, and learned there that it was valuable to know what was in the press about both the candidate you were working for and the oppostion. If bringing this -- as well as articles in LBN and Editorials and Articles -- to attention here is not something you consider valuable, I understand. As I said, we each bring our own interests, skills and talents to the site -- IMO, that's one of the great things about DU.

For all of Obama's so-called deficiencies, so clearly listed here, you'd think Senator Clinton would be way ahead in delegates. But she isn't. How can that be????? Maybe, just maybe, the author of this hit piece doesn't know what the f--- he is talking about. Or maybe, just maybe, he's lying his damn ass off.

Is regurgitating right wing talking points the best Hillary's crusaders can do? It's over, hillary lost now why don't you do something productive and start talking about how we most easily beat McCain.

I don't think for a moment Hillary is staying in for the good of the country or because Obama is a disaster in waiting. She is staying in on the off chance he does something stupid and she can pick up the nomination. She knows the math as well as anyone. I'll vote for either but whoever wrote this is full of it.