Endurance & Negativity

In a recent New Yorker profile of Sen. Clinton, Ryan Lizza writes, “Endurance is the unseen requirement of a successful candidate.” (H/t Roxie’s world.)

That’s our gal, and proudly so.  It’s an interesting review of Clinton’s tenacious campaign thus far, and how it will likely leave Obama a stronger candidate should he secure the nomination (for all his bellyaching about negative attacks). 

But here’s an excerpt showing that those familiar with negative campaigning are not only in Clinton’s employ. Here’s a little known fact about yet another Obama staffer (my emphases):

But perhaps this prospect of a gruelling endgame is not as destructive as it sounds. The attacks on Obama, and Obama’s counterattacks on Clinton, have been mild compared to some heard in recent elections. (Before the Iowa caucuses in 2004, a Democratic group ran an advertisement that showed an image of Osama bin Laden with a voice-over saying, “Howard Dean just cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy.” Robert Gibbs, the spokesperson for the group, is now Obama’s communications director.)

Sure sounds to me like Obama’s getting some good advice on slinging his own mud.  From Corrente, we see that Obama is perpetuating the myth in MS that the Clinton campaign circulated the photo of him in African traditional clothing.  We pointed out weeks ago that this is NOT true.  UPDATE: HERE IS A MEDIA MATTERS PIECE DESTROYING THE NOTION OF CLINTON’S FURTHER INSINUATIONS RE: OBAMA’S RELIGION.

At this point, it’s anybody’s guess who will be the last person standing.  In my gut, it’s Clinton, but I know I and we’ve got work to do in the months - yes, months - ahead.  As we look to PA next month, here’s some pro-Clinton horseracing from The Philadelphia Inquirer.  In talking about a GE match-up, Jonathan Last writes (my emphases):

Remember, too, that Obama’s coalition is composed of more reliably Democratic base voters: African Americans, voters making over $100,000, and young voters. These are groups that Democratic candidates carry most easily. If Clinton is the nominee, she can take these groups for granted.

By contrast, Clinton’s coalition - women, older voters, whites making less than $50,000, Catholics, Hispanics - would be McCain swing voters in a race against Obama. Obama hasn’t been successful in wooing those voters yet, so it’s unclear why anyone would believe he will finally carry them (and then defend them from a very appealing McCain) in November.

In other words, if you look at the underlying fundamentals of the race, and not just the theoretical polls, Clinton can make a strong case that she is the candidate better suited to challenging McCain and winning the White House.

Now, I’ve heard that wealthy liberal voters are the most likely to be Independents, and I’ve also heard the the young are the least reliable voters (especially, we may assume, those who have gone off the rails for Obama).   But I am relieved to see the acknowledgment that McCain has legitimate appeal to a lot of the coalitions behind Clinton, if my mother and other older, white (of-the-) working-class women are any indication.  [And who's personal experience isn't the way of the world here in the 'sphere? ;) ]

I’m tired of Clinton’s coalitions being discounted for one reason or another, and I’m glad to see that Clinton as a tireless fighter for us - whether portrayed positively in her campaign rhetoric or by cranky/blase journalists who insist on describing her efforts as “boring” and by implication, not sexy - is finally taking hold. 

Clinton is still standing after all this time, and she will be come November, and going forward for us at the end of the Bush nightmare.