Hilzoy is right. If Obama doesn't put this one away tonight, the tone of this campaign is going to get worse before it gets better.
John Aravosis, as just one example, has a long history of using his blog to propel overlooked stories into the national news. For the sake of his party, he is threatening to do it again:
"So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?
Lots. (...) I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country. The Clintons are counting on the fact that none of us will write about their negatives, because we're too nice. So they can get as dirty as they want, with impunity.Well, come Wednesday, if Hillary doesn't win 65% of the delegates in Ohio and Texas, and still insists on staying in the race and ripping our party in two, it will be time to start treating candidate Clinton with the same golden rule she is using for candidate Obama. Why? Not for revenge, but for the sake of our party and the fall election. Hillary and her campaign are in the process of turning Obama into damaged goods in the fall. They didn't have to go there, but beating Obama became more important to them than beating John McCain. So, the first question for Hillary come Wednesday, should she decide to continue risking our chances of winning in the fall even though the math says it's over, will be the question she's asking Obama today: What negatives will the Republicans throw against you in the fall? And as I've noted repeatedly, there are some negatives out there that most of you don't even know about -- but everyone in Washington knows about them, in detail. That's because even Democrats who don't love Hillary, don't go there, for the good of the party. On Wednesday, the good of the party may dictate that we do."
One of the things that I think the Clinton people have not accounted for in their "kitchen sink" strategy is the rise of the new left wing noise machine. Over the past 6 years or so, the left has built a network of activist blogs that have a significant ability to move the national debate. It doesn't always work, of course, but on occasion the results have been fairly spectacular, including several instances in which John was directly involved.
John has nothing to do with Obama. If he decides to go nuclear on Clinton for the good of his party, there is nothing you, I, or even the Obama campaign could do to stop him. Peter Daou notwithstanding, I suspect that the Clinton camp has no idea what might be coming.
I wish this wasn't what was about to happen, but I fear that it is. But let's be clear about this: Clinton didn't have to go kitchen sink on Obama, and she could still back down. All activists like John want are for Democrats to put their party and their country before their own personal political desires. As I said earlier, if a party is to be viable, it must demand loyalty, for without it there's no point for its existence.
I really, really hope this doesn't go down like this. But if it has to happen, I would rather that it happen now than during the general election. The Republicans won't hesitate to air these stories, and Clinton's campaign is premised in large part on being "thoroughly vetted" and "able to stand up to the scrutiny" in ways that they claim Obama has not and cannot. She says that only she can withstand what is coming. And on that front, it looks like we may all be about to find out.
Ugh. Grr.... We don't have to go through this again, do we? Please?
UPDATE: Unspoken in all of this is the fact barring an epic collapse by Obama, Clinton cannot catch him in elected delegates. Without going nuclear, she cannot win. Go do the math yourself if you don't believe me.
That's why John is making this sort of threat. He's willing to go preemptive to stop her.
Have I mentioned recently that I hate preemptive wars?
UPDATE II: Here, via Mike Lux, is how things look from Hillaryland:
So I'm having lunch with an old friend from the Clinton administration today, a veteran of the '92 and '96 campaigns and top-notch political operative, a true-blue Hillary loyalist who has maxed out to her campaign, took time off to go to Iowa for the last two weeks, helped out in the Potomac primary, etc. She is feeling guilty about not being in Ohio or Texas for these last few days, bemoaning the way the campaign has gone, talking emotionally about what a great President that Hillary would be. At some point, I gently ask the question that has been on my mind for awhile: even if you get good news tonight, is there any scenario you see for a Hillary nomination that doesn't involve a really, really ugly endgame? You know, a nasty credentials fight, high-pressure arm-twisting and unseemly deal-cutting with superdelegates, continued trashing of Obama on every imaginable topic?
There was silence across the table. She said, "No, I can't think of any other way at this point."
They all know it: the only way they can win at this point is to win dirty. Obama has brought millions of new people into the party. And they are willing to throw that all away for what? A few more years in the White House?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
