Hillary Courts Her Own Supporters

[one...two...tree 2,762]

She wants them to support Obama, but they may not agree—and Obama may not need them.

By John Dickerson

The Obama/Clinton reconciliation—or lack thereof—consumed the first day of the Democratic Convention. Was Bill Clinton angry? Did Barack Obama fail to make a "courtesy call" to Hillary to let her know the (obvious) news that she wasn't going to be Obama's running mate? Is it true that Bill but not Hillary is off the Christmas fruit-basket list?

Like most convention stories, this kerfuffle was overblown. Still, the situation was serious enough that Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, and Clinton's former campaign manager, Maggie Williams, issued a statement saying the two camps are unified.

Two months ago, I wrote that unhappy Hillary voters would come home to support Barack Obama by Election Day. Those that remained fixed against Obama, I further argued, wouldn't be numerous enough (or live in the right battleground states) to play much of a role. I still believe this.

But I'm getting wobbly.

In the two and a half months since Barack Obama won the nomination, he's been trying to convince Hillary's supporters—but his standing with them has gotten only worse. Roughly 30 percent of Clinton voters say they won't vote for him, and this is not a one-poll anomaly. The number is the same in the Pew, ABC, and CNN polls. That's as bad as it was during the heat of the Democratic primary.

Polls will go up and down, Obama aides will tell you—and they're right. But Obama's poll numbers have been going in the wrong direction on this score—and not for lack of effort on the part of both the Obama and Clinton camps. Historical factors should also help: After eight years out of power, Democrats should be very motivated to support their candidate. Nevertheless, since June, Obama has lost 10 points among Clinton supporters. McCain has picked up 10 points.

Whatever role these PUMAs ("Party Unity My ###") ultimately play, we are learning that Barack Obama's ability to persuade is limited. This has obvious implications for the coalition he needs to build to win, but it also raises questions about the way he intends to govern. He's promised he can rally the nation to change, but it may be that he can rally only a certain constituency (and boy can he rally them) rather than being able to sway opinions and emotions across several constituencies.

The McCain campaign was working hard to drive a wedge in the Clinton coalition. Since Obama picked Joe Biden as his running mate, the McCain team has released two Hillary-themed ads. One claims

for the No. 2 spot because she spoke the truth about Obama. In the second,

says she's voting for McCain. "If we get them we win; if we don't we lose," says a top McCain aide of the Clinton supporters.

Obama aides say that Clinton's speech will bring along her voters. Yes, they want her to say that Barack Obama is great and that John McCain would continue George Bush's policies. But what they really want is for her to tell her voters to come on board. She's made this pitch before, but at the convention she has heavy symbolism in her favor. The most symbolic act she may make is to step in during the roll-call vote to ask that Obama be named the nominee by acclamation.

Will this work? It will almost certainly work in the hall. The Democrats in Denver are ready to cheer. But what about in the rest of the country? The Clinton supporters I've been talking to are a stubborn lot. They don't find her as persuasive as they once did because they think she's supporting Obama only to keep her political future alive.

When I wrote my original story, I got a lot of e-mails from Hillary supporters who disagreed with my analysis. I've checked in with them again recently. None of them (they're not all women) has changed their mind. If anything, they're more fixed in their opposition to Obama.

In the USA Today poll, 50 percent of Clinton voters say they're not sold on Obama. That's a lot of people—and they're not all crazy harridans or racists. Some are snippy, irritating, and impervious to reason (Obama is lucky not to have them), but there are also lots of reasonable, yet conflicted, voices. "I'll never forget the night of the Iowa caucus," writes Carolyn Schmidt, who lives in Des Moines and says she won't vote for Obama. "The Obama people were so young, the Edwards people looked so idealistic, and there we were, the Clinton supporters, looking worried and grim. I'm still feeling worried and grim."

The arguments against Obama are familiar, that he's inexperienced and superficial. But the vice presidential process appears to have stoked the anger. They're angry that Clinton was never a serious consideration, and they're upset with the final pick. Obama beat up Clinton for voting for the Iraq war resolution and because she was a Washington insider. Now he's picked Biden, who voted for the Iraq war and has been in Washington longer than Clinton.

Whether the convention show works for these Obama doubters is part of the question. The more crucial question is whether there are enough of them in the battleground states to cause him real harm. Given how many new, enthusiastic voters Obama is bringing into the process, his strategists may eventually decide they can let these hard-core Hillary supporters go.

If the schedule of convention week is any indication, his strategists may have already made that decision. Tuesday, Clinton will be the issue, but by Thursday, Obama's speech will be controlling the news coverage. Instead of today's talk about the votes he may have lost, the focus Thursday will be on the tens of thousands of new voters he brought into a football stadium.

http://www.slate.com/id/2197501

[Peikko 1,575]

However, he's not running ahead in the polls, so however upbeat this piece tries to be, it's not really grounded in reality, regardless. However, this is a good thing in a way, because one thing they can't do is turn around and blame Hillary for Barack losing, if he does because according to this piece, no matter what she does, she's irrelevant to his winning.

I don't know, none of this makes any sense to me. I might have to retire away and cogitate how this political system actually works.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't know, none of this makes any sense to me. I might have to retire away and cogitate how this political system actually works.

There's no shame in admitting one doesn't know enough about a topic to give a qualified opinion.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is it necessary to be so glib? I have never tried to present myself as some authority on American politics but rather an interested observer. That doesnt mean I have had a lobotomy and can't make sense of anything that goes on.

Yes, the system is different to that which I am used to and so far the differences do not translate to things that are preferable, at least not to me. There is nothing splendid about a system that produces presidents who have severely limited political capabilities - Bush Junior anyone? There is nothing splendid about a system that could produce a president out of adoration of a persona as apposed to sound political policies.

That said, that is an over simplificaiton of what is going on too. However, that piece you quoted does not tally with what the current polls are predicting, no matter what way you slice it, that's optimistic journalism.