Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Effort Slipping Away?

towashington 089.gif By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination is in trouble.

She’s raked in fewer individual votes in primaries than has Barak Obama. She’s lost the caucus states – which reflect activist enthusiasm – to Obama. While she has won more primary elections in pivotal states, she hasn’t won them by margins sufficient to rack up more delegates (divided proportionately) than Obama – who now has ‘won’ more delegates.

While Clinton is favored in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, it is unlikely that her victory there will produce enough votes or delegates to overcome Obama’s lead in both.

Now both Michigan (which held a primary outside party rules that only Clinton entered) and Florida (also in violation of party rules) have determined they won’t “redo” their elections legally. This means challenges to the delegates of those two states in party rules and credentials committee – which will be controlled by Obama.

Finally, the “superdelegates”, a collection of officeholders and party pros that was thought to favor the Clinton candidacy, doesn’t. Hillary’s lead among those who have committed is now down to 30. And any unsentimental professional with his or her finger in the wind will be leaning toward Obama now, not Clinton.

To make matters worse, Obama gave a speech on ‘race in America’ in reaction to racist remarks made by his long-time pastor which was remarkable (and widely viewed as remarkable). While some pundits have argued his refusal to cast his minister over the side make him a black nationalist, that’s just silly. Anyone reading that speech had to be struck by its’ truthfulness and sincerity.

That contrasts well with Clinton’s trash-talking spokesman who likened Edwards endorsement of Obama similar to “Judas Ascariot”.

Hillary’s campaign seems mired in pettiness. Bill Clinton came to California to woo ‘superdelegates’ and became a news story for his vitriolic attack on Edwards. The failed effort to use delegates won outside the rules in Michigan and Florida look increasingly like sour grapes.

Instead of Hillary pouncing on Cheney’s “so what” remark about the lack of public support for our Iraqi incursion we get planted stories about how Obama’s race makes him “unelectable”. (Similar stories were planted about the party’s platform opposing lynching in 1948). I don’t think Hillary planted these stories. But I do think there are those in her campaign who have.

The Clinton campaign always had the benefit and the liability of support from those who wanted to renew the position they had in the 1990‘s. It’s a common problem for those with a lot of time in grade in politics: recreation of a past pleasantry. You build a campaign around your old friends from previous campaigns. You call in chips from those you helped in the past. Clinton had the advantage of eight years of Bill’s presidency.

That meant Obama had far fewer of the party’s pragmatists in his camp. It meant he was building a new coalition. And it’s a fact they are now far less likely to defect than the old Clinton contributors and fundraisers who make up too large a proportion of Clinton delegates. As Nelson Polsby characterized it in Presidential Elections, if you are a rational, game-playing politician, then you “bargain with the front runner”. Hillary has the rational, game-playing politicians, but she’s not the front-runner.

I’ll leave for another time a discussion of who would make a better President. But it’s clear to me that Obama has by far the better campaign for President.

Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker’s Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years.

He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960’s and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly.

Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley and went to work for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker up to and including Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Mr. Cavala manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates.

Posted on April 06, 2008

Comments

"That contrasts well with Clinton’s trash-talking spokesman who likened Edwards endorsement of Obama similar to 'Judas Ascariot'."

Actually, Edwards hasn't endorsed either candidate. The comment you are referring to was made about Bill Richardson.

Otherwise, a great article.

Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2008 01:35 PM

This is a great article.

Posted by: Matt at April 6, 2008 01:40 PM

Comrade Cavala,

Surely you mean "Richardson" and not "Edwards". I know, keeping track of politics is tough...

You just noticed Clinton's pettiness too? Not just in campaigns but in their racism: Noted your issue with Obama. Of corse, the Clinton's are from the democratic "Confederacy" of the South as were the lions share of democratic presidents since Truman...

And what is with the voters in Michigan and Florida being disenfranchised by the democratic party? How many THOUSANDS of voters could get their voices heard due to the fumbling and infighting of the party which doesn't allow for those two states to participate in the election process?

And what about these "superdelegates" anyway? Why is their vote more important than anyone elses? The majority popular vote doesn't have to matter with them? Sounds like the Politburo of old where old party hacks in smoke filled rooms make all the decisions; Comrade, you should feel all warm and fuzzy there...

And you guys were mad when in 2000, Bush Vs Gore was NOT decided by the popular vote, but the opinions of the few, the Supreme Court...Yet you do it to members of your own party in 2008. Incredible!

Posted by: Jay Gould at April 6, 2008 05:43 PM

Politics aside, I still feel Hillary is the best candidate in the fall.
Sue in L.A.

Posted by: Suzanne Gunther at April 8, 2008 11:01 PM

After watching Hillary conduct herself lately I find myself wondering if Karl Rove is dictating this campaign. Boy, does this bring back memories of high school and the bitchiness of girls.

I for one am repulsed by her sense of entitlement and win at any cost mentality. Rather tragic when as little as a few weeks ago, I could have easily supported either democratic candidate.

Given her pit bull mentality of if she can;t win neither will Obama, it certainly appears that McCain will run the country for the next four years. Frightening

Posted by: kate at April 29, 2008 04:34 PM

After watching Hillary conduct herself lately I find myself wondering if Karl Rove is dictating this campaign. Boy, does this bring back memories of high school and the bitchiness of girls.

I for one am repulsed by her sense of entitlement and win at any cost mentality. Rather tragic when as little as a few weeks ago, I could have easily supported either democratic candidate.

Given her pit bull mentality of if she can't win neither will Obama, it certainly appears that McCain will run the country for the next four years. Frightening

Posted by: kate at April 29, 2008 04:34 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker