This Morning's Headline: "Clinton Upsets Obama"

You know, I have to say I was actually strangely pleased with that New York Times headline this morning.  Hillary Clinton upsets Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton, former leader of the free world, was the underdog in a race against an until recently unknown urban black guy from the south side of Chicago via Hawaii and Indonesia named Barack Obama.  This is a guy whose punchline in every stump speech during his 2004 Senate race revolved around his funny name.

If that doesn't say something about how much we've already achieved in this race, I don't know what does.  Clinton might be firmly back in this race, but she'll never be what she was before.  Clinton's narrow, late-breaking victory was, as Dana Milbank put it this morning, "not so much a comeback as a return from the political dead."

In twelve months, Obama built a campaign from the bottom up.  He didn't just out-fundraise the vaunted Clinton machine, he did it through a dramatic influx of and emphasis on small donors.  He didn't just build a stronger field campaign and beat Clinton by nine points in Iowa, he did it by dramatically expanding the Democratic base, bringing out new voices and young people, and by setting up an unprecedented grassroots network of field offices that have stretched beyond Iowa into at least 22 states.  

He's a candidate, who from the start of his political career envisioned himself first and foremost as an organizer.

What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer? - Barack Obama, quoted in the Chicago Reader 12/8/95

Change, he insists again and again, will only come if the people are energized and involved, if a working majority is created by shaking up out-dated ideological boundaries.  Why, for example, have polls long shown broad support for progressive domestic policy goals while Democrats continue to lose election after election?  Change will not flow from Washington, it will come because the American people demand it.  The first and foremost task of a president is to activate, engage that movement.

Obama's campaign continues to come close to taking down the biggest brand in Democratic party politics.  We came up a few thousand votes short last night, but there will be plenty more opportunities to come.

And all this in New Hampshire too, Clinton's vaunted firewall, where her establishment support ran through the Shaheens, Kathy Sullivan, 8 of 14 Democratic state senators, the speaker, the majority leader, and most established party operatives.  Obama's endorsed support came from relative new-comers, like Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter.  

What's also remarkable is that Obama's surge there began long before the Iowa caucus:

In spite of all that establishment support, Obama essentially managed to fight New Hampshire to a draw, an accomplishment in and of itself.  And he did all this without resorting to right-wing fear-mongering about potential terrorist attacks, third-party attack ads, or lobbyist or PAC funding.

As EJ Dionne put it this week:

Clinton has not heeded her own lesson. She is campaigning in prose and has left the poetry to Barack Obama. She has answers to hard policy questions, but he has the one answer that voters are hungering for: He offers himself as the vehicle for creating a new political movement that will break the country out of a sour, reactionary political era. [...]

In 1960, the articulate Adlai Stevenson compared his own oratory unfavorably with John F. Kennedy's. "Do you remember," Stevenson said, "that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.' " At this hour, Obama is the Democrats' Demosthenes. [...]

The Clinton campaign is rooted in the idea that "Experience Counts" -- ironically enough, Richard Nixon's slogan against John Kennedy in 1960. But it is Obama who may have precisely the right experience for the mood of the moment. As a community organizer early in his professional life, Obama understood his task as catalyzing citizens into building movements for change. Obama's speeches are about citizen action, assembling coalitions, forcing change through popular demand.

I'll end with an apology for having disappeared for a couple weeks.  Seeing a new six-month old niece over the holidays, volunteering for the Obama campaign in the week before the Iowa caucus, and the coinciding of caucus night with the deadline for several graduate school applications combined into a something of a nightmare.



Display:


This sounds like whistling in the dark (none / 0)

We know Obama is a candidate for sainthood. This sort of stuff is getting the ring of desperation.


by ottovbvs on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:30:22 PM EST

Re: This Morning's Headline (none / 0)

Okay, but who won the Cicero-Demosthenes primary?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:31:15 PM EST

Re: This Morning's Headline (none / 0)

There is still an ongoing recount for the ballots in Piraeus.


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll thank you not to make fun of (none / 0)

Adlai Stevenson! Love that guy.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll thank you not to make fun of (none / 0)

I can only assume your grandfather told you all about him.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my parents were married in Sep 1952 (none / 0)

Dad liked Ike, Mom was madly for Adlai.

That was the first of many elections in which they canceled out each other's votes.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:33:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The community organizer (none / 0)

Will she still campaign in prose?  She says she had found her voice.  I don't think it will work however because to be a good poet you also need to learn how to listen.


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:33:19 PM EST

A little late to (2.00 / 2)

damp down expectations for New Hampshire.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:42:56 PM EST

I don't think there's any need for that, (2.00 / 1)

frankly.  This is long past the spin cycle, I'm just offering my thoughts.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

clearly there WAS a need for that, but it is too late. Frankly, what is your point if not to argue that Obama's performance in NH was remarkable? I am not convinced by your argument but beyond that, what does it matter now?
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cool it BTD (none / 0)

your candidate won NH


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BTD wants Obama to win (none / 0)

He just doesn't like Obama's unity/appealing to indies and GOP strategy.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BTD wants Obama to win (none / 0)

I don't think BTD wants Obama to win.  I think the essential skills, experience and style of Obama baffle him and he is in Clinton camp as a default candidate.


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for (none / 0)

calling me a liar. Very nice. What a group of chuckleheads some of you Oabma supporters remain.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cool what? (none / 0)

Did I say something that was out of line? And if so, what? For the record, I do not support Hilary Clinton. But as usual, that is the Obama supporters first kneejerk reaction to anything that could remotely be unfavorable to Obama. Frankly, I am beyond tired of it and I call you out for it. Cool the shit Satya.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only one picking fights here (none / 0)

is you.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me? (none / 0)

If strongly disagreeing with your post is NOW called picking fights here, then fuck it. So your standard now is you want only people WHO AGREE WITH YOU to comment in your posts? I suggest you stop posting here if that is what you want. I disagreed with your analysis, indeed I find it specious. I said so. I said why. For Obama supporters, that qualifies as pickig fights. If that is so, maybe you need to post in a more insulated environment.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cool what? (none / 0)

psericks has some thoughts and reflects on recent writing.  None of us are spinning NH anymore.  

Have you read either of Obama's books?  Do you have any serious acquaintance with community organizing?  I guess not because you're missing the man Obama - frequently.

I've tried to engage you with a sense of good will on a number of occasions and all too often you are dismissive and don't respond to simply requests for explanation.  

Every time someone asks you why you don't think Obama's style works, you point to a 5 page posting that has links to an additional 10 pages.  The sad part is that you don't really illustrate the key conclusion you jump to in the posting.

Buh Bye.


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And I am disagreeing with him (none / 0)

I made a sly remark. It was hardly out of line. You have called me a liar. That is kosher apparently, because you support Obama blindly apparently. Cut the crap.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And I am disagreeing with him (none / 0)

OK, I'll retract saying that you don't support Obama.  I don't think your second post to psericks was of any value when we're all just regrouping for what comes next.  Like psericks said, he's just offering some thoughts after an incredibly busy week.

I would love to have a discussion with you someday about Obama, but I don't know where to start that conversation.  It sure doesn't begin with your 5 pager.

I've got to go.  I apologize for any aspect of an unnecessary squabble that I contributed to.  Please consider my comment regarding Obama's books and background.  Maybe we pick up later.


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:27:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your definition of value (none / 0)

is pretty irrelevant. I doubt we want to start judging the acceptability of attacking people based on our perceived value in their comments. The fact is I do not think there is much merit in this post. And I expressed my opinion why I think that is so. I thought that is what we do here. You seem to believe you get to judge the acceptability of the value of my comments. I reject your premise.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cool what? (none / 0)

It's kind of ironic that you chastise BTD for pointing to a 5-page posting when your argument is that he should go read Obama's books.

This is not the first time I've heard someone argue that there's this fundamental mysticism involved in community organizing that justifies everything about Obama's style and message, and the rest of us just don't get it.  Well, maybe so, but the goal of politics is to persuade people, not to tell them how little they know.  Deciding whether to support a candidate should not feel like joining the Freemasons.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where are you getting the mysticism? (none / 0)


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where are you getting the mysticism? (none / 0)

From Satya's comment, and also from comments by upper left, suggesting that if we understood the principles of community organizing then we'd get why he campaigns the way he does and not as BTD and myself would like him to.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What exactly were you supposed to be convinced by? (none / 0)

I laid out how the New Hampshire primary demonstrates Obama's strengths, especially his emphasis on organizing, and that's why I think he's eventually going to win the nomination.

My reaction to the headline this morning was genuine.  Just musing about how far we've come.  It was a nice feeling after a long night.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me (none / 0)

What was THIS supposed to mean?
And all this in New Hampshire too, Clinton's vaunted firewall, where her establishment support ran through the Shaheens, Kathy Sullivan, 8 of 14 Democratic state senators, the speaker, the majority leader, and most established party operatives. Obama's endorsed support came from relative new-comers, like Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter.
Please stop with the coy routine. Obama was expected to win NH convincingly. Hell, EVERYONE expected it and do not tell me you did not. Now I am on record that what happened in NH was NOT blameable on the Obama campaign. For pure political strategy, he did what he was supposed to do. The Media did him in by its misogynistic attacks on Clinton. I have long believe that Obama needs to retool his message to make it more partisan. But the fact is he would have sealed the deal in NH without doing it, given the vagaries of the state. Indeed, your argument about how remarkable it is that Obama did this in NH is quite specious. NH was BUILT for the Obama campaign strategy. It is absurd to argue his political achievement there was remarkable AFTER his resounding Iowa win. Not only was it not remarkable, it was quite predictable. And everything was going as plannned, UNTIL Tweety and Co. ruined everything for Obama. so no, I do not buy your argument at all.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I never disagreed that Obama was supposed (none / 0)

to win big.  I was just giving perspective on the long view going forward --- something the media usually isn't interested in.

There are basically two factors at work here that are worth separating out from each other:
(1) Women broke late and heavy for Clinton.  What you've said is basically what Obama folks have been talking about all day on DKos.

The words of the media and the Edwards campaign have nothing to do with Obama, and he had no control over it --- anecdotally there were actually a couple stories of women who felt encouraged to vote for Clinton because they felt it certain Obama would win --- not that I'm saying that mattered overall.

That gives at least part of the credit for the loss to pretty arbitrary timing and doesn't take away from the strength of his organizing operation.

(2) Independents broke for the Republican primary.  The thinking here, both from SenateGuru and Zogby, is that Obama again might have been hurt by the perception that he had this one in the bag.  Independents, given the choice of picking a primary to cast their ballot in, chose to shove it to Mitt Romney.  No one casts doubts on Obama's high favorables among independents.

Lastly, I think the polls weren't "wrong."  There were too many polls showing the same result.  The Obama surge was real.  The problem was not polling methodology but the ground shifting too rapidly for the polls to keep up.  That was Charles Franklin's conclusion at Pollster.com.

Lately people have been convincing me that there's a good argument to be made that "momentum" isn't going to have the same pull in this primary that it has had in others, at least not in the remaining early primary states.  New Hampshire has proven that.  Obama and Clinton at least are too well-known, have energetic and enthusiastic bases of support for these wins to affect them too, too much.  

For Feb 5th, all bets are off.  I have no idea how that's going to work, but does anyone?  We've never had a national primary like that before.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Zogby? Freaking zogby? (none / 0)

First and always, he is a lying charlatan. Second, what you wrote is demonstrably false:
Independents broke for the Republican primary. The thinking here, both from SenateGuru and Zogby, is that Obama again might have been hurt by the perception that he had this one in the bag. Independents, given the choice of picking a primary to cast their ballot in, chose to shove it to Mitt Romney. No one casts doubts on Obama's high favorables among independents.
The independent turnout was NOT under what the polling suggested. What missed is obvious - WOMEN went by double digits to Clinton. I defy you to adjust the pre-polls to the actually results for WOMEN and see what happens. The polling was CLEARLY wrong if polling means anything. They missed with how women would vote. This is a simple story. Indeed, as I argue in my most recent diary, the Wilder EFfect argument is utterly unconvincing. Occam's Razor, the pollsters blew it with their polling of women. That's the whole story.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Clinton was gaining (none / 0)

before the misogynistic coverage of her emotional moment. There's a natural correction that occurs after a big bounce, and it seems like that began over the weekend. Maybe the debate helped her too--who knows?


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was quoting Todd Beeton's post on SenateGuru and (none / 0)

Zogby --- with much fun made of Zogby.  They're hardly the only two pushing this train of thought, I just thought it appropriate to source it.

Women broke for Clinton in the last day or two, pretty clearly either on the tail of the polling or immediately after the final polls were out.  That's not the poll's fault.  

A poll is just a snapshot of the race at a particular moment in time.  They can't make up results to try to predict the future.  They have to give the picture of the race as it is when they poll it, and if the race moves out from under them, it's not really their fault.  You might want to take a look at Charles Franklin's look at the data that I linked to above.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They polled through Monday night (none / 0)


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the exit polls, (none / 0)

independents made no larger percentage of voters in the Democratic primary than they did in 2004.  

This is either because (1) they went over to the Republican primary or (2) registered Dem turnout was so high that it drowned out the independents.  Probably a mix of both.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But that ignores the fact (none / 0)

there was no contested GOP primary in 2004. In fact, as a percentage it went down from 48 to 40. But that is not a true reflection of how Indies went Dem in NH - by 2-1 we are told. Indeed, you are shortchanging Obama's achievement. The number of Indies who voted in 2008 far surpassed the number in 2004 DESPITE there being a contested GOP primary in 2008. Overwhelmingly, Obama took Indies. That is not surprising given Obama's post-partisan campaign. That was Obama's achievement in NH. Zogby and SenateGuru are simply wrog in their analysis and obviously so.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Iowa proved you wrong about Obama's (none / 0)

general strategy.  Sure seems to be working there.  See the comparison with Clinton.

The general election head-to-heads via kos:

   Today, 01/07/08 ...

   Obama defeats McCain by 17 points. (+12)
    Obama defeats Huckabee by 23 points. (+13)
    Obama defeats Romney by 26 points. (+12)
    Obama defeats Giuliani by 40 points. (+19)

   Today, 01/07/08 ...

   McCain defeats Clinton by 4 points (within the margin of sampling error). (-1)
    Huckabee and Clinton tie. (+1)
    Clinton defeats Romney by 8 points.  (+3)
    Clinton defeats Giuliani by 16 points. (+5)


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One state can not prove me wrong (none / 0)

This is a NATIONAL election.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You were just trying to use one state (none / 0)

to prove you right.  New Hampshire.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not at all (none / 0)

NH does not address my thesis at all. It is you who are pointing to NH. I see NH is a political anomaly. That is my point and has always been my point. You can not win nationally running a campaign geared for NH. I think McCain will discover this also. But his task is much easier than Obama's who is runing against Hillary while McCain is running against a bunch of crappy candidates.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lmao, good one (none / 0)


Hillary/Obama 2008
by Sandy1938 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:51:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little late to (none / 0)

You should be thankful that he didn't post a diary before NH, as it might have prompted you to make an embarrassing comment.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thankful? (none / 0)

I covered myself in disgrace without him. Only Jerome can hold his head up today.
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankful? (none / 0)

Jerome was lucky, not right.  Just as HRC was lucky.  They didn't see this coming anymore than anyone else.


by upper left on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NICE SPIN (none / 0)

AND nice try.  Hillary won. Obama lost.  


Hillary/Obama 2008
by Sandy1938 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:50:16 PM EST

Re: NICE SPIN (none / 0)

We know Clinton won.  Has anyone said otherwise?


by Namtrix on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spin Spun Obama is done (none / 0)

He won two out of the first three primaries.  He will win a few more but he is done.

He won Iowa.

He won the media primary.

He blew an 8 point lead and lost New Hampshire and the media feels burned.  No more free pass for Barry Obama.

Obama got a pass up until this morning.  The media begged him to attack Clinton in Nov. He did and the media ate it up.  CLinton attacked back in Dec. and the media said "how dare she attack Barry."

Well those days are gone.

Barry has to stand on his own two legs and his own record.  His record on abortion.  His record on liquid coal.  His record on present votes.  His record on voting for funding for the Iraq war.  His hiring lobbyist like Jim Hodges to work for his campaign.

The playing field is now level.  Clinton vs. Obama.  

I love that.  


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:56:09 PM EST

Re: Spin Spun Obama is done (none / 0)

I'm glad all you cocky Clinton supporters are back.

Never thought I'd say THAT, but oh well.


by Namtrix on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've always loved how Clinton's argument has been: (none / 0)

"You're actually just like me!  You do all the horrible things I do!"

And that's supposed to inspire confidence?  I just don't get that strategy.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama promises more attacks (none / 0)

He said tonight he is a Chicago pol that knows how to play it dirty.  He is going to attack.

How is that different?

Can we expect more talk of Bill's bj from Monica?  Can we expect more of those D- punjab memos?

Can we expect more attacks like we saw from Jesse Jackson Jr. today on MSNBC?  

Is Obama really different?

No.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama promises more attacks (none / 0)

"dirty" is your word, not Obama's.  


by Satya on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dirty is what is in Obama's plans (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:28:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There you go again. (none / 0)

Is Obama really different?

No.

So if they're all the same, how is that supposed to be an argument for Clinton?  Why do Clinton people say that all the time?


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This Morning's Headline: (none / 0)

A picture is worth a 1000 words. Hillary the wife of the former leader of the free world was ahead way ahead for most of the year.
A man three years removed from the state senate came within a few thousand votes of severely crippling her campaign.
She survived to fight another day but they'll be other opportunities.
by joachim on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:42:50 PM EST

What? (none / 0)

Underdog? Um not so much.


by illlaw1 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:55:48 PM EST

nice diary (none / 0)

Good to see you keeping your spirits up, psericks. And no question Obama has built an amazing campaign.

From my point of view I have to say I am strangely pleased that you, so many Obama supporters and the campaign are in denial about the NH results. I agree with BTD, NH is a good fit for Obama's campaign but Clinton managed to beat him. Something about her appealed to more voters in the Democratic primary.

Neither IA nor NH are particularly representative of the Democratic electorate in the rest of the country, and each candidate has their strengths in the upcoming contests, but I think that Clinton's partisan appeal will prevail.


by souvarine on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.