Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Kneel Before Zod | Let's You And Him Fight | Rooting For Injuries — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Democratic Presidential nomination race continues to be quite beneficial . . . for Republicans. While everyone asks and begs for party unity on the Democratic side, they appear to be doing their best to tear the party apart.

James Carville starts things off with what is intended to be a roundhouse kick to the face:

Last Friday the New York Times asked me to comment on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. For 15 years, Richardson served with no small measure of distinction as the representative of New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District. But he gained national stature -- and his career took off -- when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later made him energy secretary.

So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)

I believed that Richardson's appointments in Bill Clinton's administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton's opponents, merited a strong response.

I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.

Certainly, it didn't take long for the resign-renounce-denounce complex to kick into high gear.

In a bit of bloviation that brought joy to my heart, Bill O'Reilly pronounced himself "appalled."

Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"

Even Diane Sawyer took the analogy to the extreme, questioning, "Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"

Between Carville and Olbermann, who precisely does one root for? I mean, besides injuries?

Read on . . .

Matters may be further complicated by the fact that Hillary Clinton appears to have made the most headway in influencing a John Edwards endorsement. At least, that would seem to be the case if this story is to be believed:

In the days after John Edwards's withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of "big change" they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton's gaudy corporatism--her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries--that he'd essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. "Elizabeth hasn't always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton" is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC's circle says, "Elizabeth hates her guts."

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out--tempus fugit!--and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate.

The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner's diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama's capacity to close the deal. But equally important is how it bears on the questions du jour among Democrats who see their once-uplifting primary campaign descending into self-destructive mayhem: How can we put this thing to bed? How can Clinton be stopped from putting the party through three more months of hell? Where are those vaunted "party elders" who can convince her that it's sayonara time?

The story goes on to point out that contrary to popular belief, there are few super-duper Democratic powerhouses who can go to Hillary Clinton and convince her that she has to drop out for the good of the party. Power is so diffused in the party that such an intervention is exceedingly difficult and even those who have the power to intervene either carry no credibility with the Clinton campaign or are not interested in wielding any of the influence that they may have. Which means that this contest is going to continue.

Hysterically, the thinking now is that Hillary Clinton might want to launch another campaign, this time for Governor of New York. And of course, we all know that the Clintons look upon consolation prizes quite favorably, nyet?

Yes, the thought of one of them throwing in the towel in a race for the Presidency and settling for the State House in Albany gave me a good chuckle too.