It's the Politics of Negatives -- Not Negativity -- that Matters

[democracy1st]

It's the Politics of Negatives -- Not Negativity -- that Matters
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter



Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is one of the few superdelegates who refuses to join the "Isn't-this-great?" chorus of smiley-face politics. Rather than extolling Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win as a splendid example of good, clean and continuing Democratic fun, Bredesen painted a bleaker and far more realistic picture of what it portends:
"This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen. They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other."

That pugilistic quote appeared in a NY Times' article whose headline -- "The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too" -- was inspired by the metaphor-invoking governor. This primary race is no longer reflective of any internal, Democratic values; it's merely a slugfest for the benefit of one.

Amid all the lopsided cheering and hallelujah hallucinations, the article's author, Adam Nagourney, pointed to the clearer light of day: "Mrs. Clinton’s margin was probably not sufficient to fundamentally alter the dynamics of the race, which continued to favor an eventual victory for Mr. Obama." There are, after all, and as Nagourney understated it, "significant hurdles" obstructing her nomination -- such as Obama's delegate count, lead in the popular vote, number of states won and, by now, the little time that's left.

None of this, of course, has fazed Hillary in the least. With each passing hour, it seems, and always out of whole cloth she conjures a new argument for the urgency of her democracy-toppling nomination. Her latest is that she actually leads in the popular vote, assuming one counts a couple of major states that don't, and in no way can, count.

Yes, yes, I know, it's laughable. On the other hand, Hillary knows her target audience -- those kings of vacillation and spinelessness, the uncommitted superdelegates. They could have secured the nomination for the party's still-presumptive nominee by now, so that he could get on with the more urgent contest of boxing McCain rather than shadows, but that would be too institutionally businesslike and politically sane for these grand poobahs of Democracy. Better to wait a while longer and test the political winds once again, and again ... and again. One never knows, is their motto.

But let's try to think like a superdelegate for a moment and join with Hillary in putting aside all those "significant hurdles." Just forget about them, as Hillary and her supporters are somehow able to do. Let us assume that Obama has no real lead in any of the above and customarily decisive categories. From this artificial balancing we start from scratch; the candidates are even-steven -- right?

Wrong. Because still trailing Hillary like toilet paper stuck to her shoe is that little matter of her negatives, something you and the superdelegates won't ever hear Mrs. Clinton advertising. They are grim, devastatingly grim, over-before-it-starts grim, and which the Washington Post deconstructed last week.

To quoth the black raven sitting atop her electoral burial marker: "While Clinton retains a big edge over Obama on experience, public impressions of her have taken a sharply negative turn. Today, more Americans have an unfavorable view of her than at any time since The Post and ABC began asking the question, in 1992." Pucker up, Mrs. Clinton -- as well as all you uncommitted superdelegates -- because "54 percent said they have an unfavorable view" of you.

That, right there, is the game ender, as virtually any objective political adviser would agree. No presidential candidate with negatives in the high 40s, let alone in the mid 50s, is going anywhere after an election but home. That's just a fact of political life that's also going ignored amidst all the Clintonite hoopla.

And it gets even worse. An accompanying WaPo piece noted that "Clinton is viewed as 'honest and trustworthy' by just 39 percent of Americans ... compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest."

The real killer, of course, was her Bosnia fantasy, against which Obama's "bitter" comments or guilt by pastoral association pale. There's a huge and game-ending difference between recidivist lying to successive public audiences and dropping indiscreet remarks to a few privately huddled San Franciscans, and don't think Americans -- not to mention the salivating GOP machine -- don't know it.

Hillary's verbal contortions regarding her Iraq-war vote have been bad enough; her Bosnia-war whoppers are but 60-second visuals of the final touches, encased as they are within indiffusibly negative atmospherics.

So back to reality as we reassemble things: Obama leads in the delegate count, the popular vote and states won and nothing will change these dynamics, while Hillary leads only in historic negatives. And what conclusion do the uncommitted superdelegates derive from all this? Let us, they say, wait and see.

Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at [e-mail]

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/053

[JBoy]

1. Good article. Hillary's negatives are an unignorable millstone.

Over a year ago, before any of the primaries or polling, I thought Hillary would be unelectable. That she would bring out Republicans in droves to vote against her. Now she's many independents and democrats.