Clinton as the Insiders' Shoo-in: "Expected, relatively meaningless for those not inclined"

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
09/25/2007
Clinton as the Insiders' Shoo-in


The latest sign of Clinton's "inevitability" ... Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh endorsed her presidential
bid Monday. (Getty Images)

It's official: Washington insiders believe Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee....

***

For those less favorably inclined toward Clinton, Washington's alignment behind her is to be expected and is relatively meaningless.

It's no mistake that on the same day that Clinton rolled out her endorsement from Bayh, the Obama campaign held a conference call to announce that Gordon Fischer, the former Iowa Democratic Party chairman, is supporting the Illinois senator. The message? Clinton may have the Washington types behind her, but the people who really matter -- well-connected activists in early states -- are lining up behind Obama. Both Obama and Edwards have spent considerable time seeking to link Clinton to the Washington establishment (and to her husband's administration), believing that Democratic voters are ready for a change in politics as usual, regardless of which party is practicing it.

While political Washington is broadly unpopular, it's hard to argue that official Washington's belief that Clinton will be the nominee is bad for her. Like it or not, much of the campaign conventional wisdom is set in Washington; if a slew of politicians begin to come out for Clinton, it will further cement the idea that she is the inevitable nominee.

The short-term benefit for Clinton is financial. Donors who might have jumped on early with another candidate or simply hadn't opened their checkbook for Clinton yet are almost certain to hedge their bets to ensure that they aren't on the outside looking in if and when Clinton becomes the nominee. One unaffiliated Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about Clinton, suggested there are benefits beyond money for her campaign as a result of the professional political class getting behind her. "She can use official Washington as validators on policy and positions, endorsements from organizations, organizers in key states, and influence media coverage," the source said.

The long-term effects are less clear and could develop in vastly different ways. Under one scenario, Clinton will use her growing sense of inevitability in Washington to turn her campaign into a juggernaut heading into the new year. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, people jump on with Clinton because she looks like the nominee. On the other hand, Clinton's clear emergence as the candidate of the party establishment could raise expectations to an unreasonably high level, meaning that if Clinton doesn't win in Iowa it could be more devastating than if the race was still regarded as wide open.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/?hpid=news-col-blog

Those would be the voters. And Obama isn't doing so great with them at the moment.

what "we the people" think is becoming less and less important anymore. This far out and it's all sewn up, pretty pathetic and very sickening. They sell us our Presidents, like they sell us our cars!

Jackson Browne wrote a line similar to that in his song... "Lives In The Balance" and I see "clearly" now that he is CORRECT!

and so far Clinton's poll numbers have her leading with them. I wouldn't say it's a shoo in yet, but at some point endorsements will swing her way simply because she's seen as likely to get the nomination. That's just politics.

and I can't stand him.

sort of sounds like rudi 9/11, rudi 9/11, rudi 9/11 doesn't it. Jealousy is as jealousy does.

it at all! Try a little OUTRAGE, and you got the word you want!

As a matter of fact, I find jealousy & greed to be TWO of the most disgusting attributes to have! Anyone who knows me will vouch for that! I've always found that people who declare certain statements are the ones who actually feel that way themselves!

Thinking further, politically speaking, jealousy doesn't even seem to fit what goes on. Responding to attacks, or attacking back seems more applicable.

That entire paragraph is based on the assumption that you have to pay to get access to government officials. In other words; donors will give money to Hillary not because they endorse her ideas but because they assume she will be the winner.

whether it's labor unions, hospital administrators or the assoc. of trial lawyers.

National candidates who play this game win. Candidates who don't, lose. If we want to change it, we are very likely going to have to find another way besides trying to elect a candidate who is fighting against the system. That candidate will lose and nothing will change unless we do... something else.

all aboard.... get on the bandwagon now...