« The bells of doom toll for Hillary? | Main | Torture: moral dilema or no-brainer? »

February 13, 2008

Pimped out or pooped out ?

To borrow a line from Don McLean:
"It started out quite simply, as complex things can do.
A set of sad transparencies that no one could see through...."
(from "The Pride Parade")

It started out quite simply on Super Tuesday, the day Hillary Clinton was supposed to sew up the nomination. Trouble was, she didn't. Barack Obama fought her to a draw. He actually won more of the states though she got a few more delegates. That's also when we discovered that her campaign was having 'economic difficulties' and she had to lend herself $5 million. But she had lost Iowa too and snapped back in New Hampshire. She could do it again. Only she didn't. Obama took 3 more states and 3 delegates from the Virgin Islands.
Next stop Maine where Clinton would surely rebound.

When in walks David Shuster, opens his mouth, and sticks his foot in it and says: "there's just something a little bit unseemly" (about Chelsea Clinton contacting super delegates on behalf of her mother), adding, "[D]oesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
(I'll bet he wishes he could do that one over.)

Now, other than political sniping, I think I know what Shuster was trying to do. I think he was aiming his comments at the highly desired, Generation Y demographic. And I'm sure he's aware of things like "Pimp My Ride" and "pimpoutyourwebpage" and all the other latest slang of Gen Y, so he used "pimped out" here the way they use it in an attempt to appear "hip", "cool", "with-it", and "in". Except that it didn't fit the context in which it was used.
[Making Shuster appear "unhip", "uncool", "unwith-it", and "out" because he couldn't tell the difference.]

If Chelsea had been making campaign appearances decked out in high fashion, with lots of "bling" (see, I can use "hip", with-it" words too and I'm a Geezer) then it might have fit. But what she's doing is exploiting her place high in the political food-chain to get her foot in the door to lobby for SuperD votes (political gain). And that is the OLD meaning of "pimping out". The nasty one.

And the public reacted to the nasty, mean-spirited meaning with outrage. How dare he say such things about that little girl who's daddy used to be President. That was the knee-jerk and I must confess I fell prey to it also. Only Chelsea isn't 14 years old any more. She's almost 30, a graduate of Stanford and Oxford and politically savvy after growing up in the Arkansas Statehouse and the White House.
So the outrage was misplaced.

Understand that I think Shuster acted like a jerk and it's appropriate that he be suspended and forced to write a 1500 word essay on "decorum", but he shouldn't be drawn and quartered. (Let's save that one for Cheney.)

Hillary also reacted with the knee-jerk, mother's outrage and called
Shuster's boss. Except that, if anyone on the planet understood that
Chelsea is an adult now, not a child, it should be Hillary. So her
over-reaction appeared (to me at least) to be a coldy calculated political move. Apparently it appeared that way to some Maine caucusers (is that a word?) too and Obama won Maine last Saturday.

Still in reactive mode what happened next depends on which paper you read or which network you watched. Hillary's campaign manager either resigned (primary season just too long) or was fired (giving bad advice?) late on Sunday.
(Does anyone really believe she resigned?)
Just in time to make the Monday Morning News Cycle!!!
Did she learn nothing from Nixon's "Friday Night Massacre"? (Bush-Cheney certainly did)

With her campaign giving the appearance of being in disarray the voters in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington D.C. gave their allegiance (and their votes) to Obama (overwhelmingly in D.C. by 3:1).
And the new 2nd in command on her campaign staff has left/got fired too.

The wheels on the Clinton Campaign-wagon may not have come completely off (yet), but they are looking awfully wobbly.
If Obama continues to roll up small state victories (next up Wisconsin) and I predict that he will, Clinton will limp into Texas and Ohio on March 4th in a "must win" situation. A friend of mine thinks she may not make it that far even, but I think she's just too stubborn not to.

Not that it will matter all that much because, assuming an accurate vote tally in Ohio (remember 2004?), Obama will win there also. (55-45 or better) And he might even win outright in Texas. Certainly anything less than a 60-40 win for Hillary will be seen as a plus for Barack.

Her fund raising difficulties continue to plague the campaign. Many of her big money donors are maxed out on what they can legally donate to her campaign. They have lots of money left, but can't give her any. Obama has gotten much of his money from small donors who can probably give another $10, $20, or even $50 in a pinch. And the more he looks like the winner, the deeper they will dig.

With his current lead in pledged delegates, Barack Obama looks more and more like the nominee.

A lot is being made in the MSM about the Super Delegates, but none of them are legally committed to any candidate. They can change their votes right up to the roll-call vote at the Convention. And those SuperDs who are facing re-election, especially those in districts or states that Obama won, will be wanting all those Obama supporter's votes to cover their own asses in November. Nothing motivates like self-preservation.

"And we both know that this masquerade can't carry on too long
You're deep inside the pride parade, but where do you belong?"
(from Don McLean's "The Pride Parade" again)

Disclaimer:
During this primary season, I have been a steadfast John Edwards supporter (I even sent him some money). Obama is my second choice.
In 1996 I was an Electoral College Voter and cast an EC ballot for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Those are the "official" votes that actually elect the President and Vice-President.

Posted by Mac at February 13, 2008 05:32 PM