Is Hillary Done?

In today's Daily News (NY), o-fer campaign manager Bob Shrum makes some salient points about the Hillary campaign to this point:

If (although I strongly suspect the right word is "when") Hillary Clinton loses tomorrow's New Hampshire primary, there will be a few proto-obituaries for her campaign and many more stories about how it will be "shaken up" or "relaunched." Scapegoats will be found and exiled: Mark Penn, the pollster and strategist, foremost among them. After all, the candidate can't very well dispense with the überstrategist who also happens to be her husband and who was fully complicit in designing and driving her message.

The flaw wasn't just the attempt to go back to the future, to the 1990s, but that the Clinton's picked the wrong year in that decade. Instead of 1992, when Bill was the personification of change, their model was 1996. So Hillary ran as a pseudo-incumbent, with a selection of bite-size proposals and an abundance of caution and transparent calculation. Why would any campaign ever explicitly announce a tour to make the candidate "likable"? Or, as happened when the beleaguered Clinton machine sputtered into New Hampshire, that they now had a plan for her to be spontaneous and actually answer audience questions?

There's several points to be made here; first and foremost that a Democrat actually came out and made the point that the media will run with the Hillary "shaken up" and "relaunched" rhetoric. Shrum didn't intend to make that point but it comes through anyway. Just as the media coddled John Kerry in 2004 and therefore insulated him so much that his response to the Swift Boat accusations was tepid at best (laid out expertly by James Taranto here [fourth item]). I know that Shrum has it in for Clinton and the amusement factor of him and her lapdog supporters duking it out is an enjoyable spectacle.

Obama himself has been the beneficiary of kid-glove media treatment but no one in this campaign has received the level of media love that Hillary has. They cast her as the shoo-in candidate from as far back as 2005 and never even considered another candidate could topple her. Alot of that has to do with their uncompromising adoration of her husband. The media fawning only accomplished putting Hillary in a bubble of inevitability that made her see her campaign through rose-colored glasses. She was sure she'd win the "black vote" because, hell, her husband was the "first black president" for crying out loud. While viewing her campaign from that stunted perspective, she allowed Obama to connect in ways she never could. Face it, the guy comes off as steady and rational--even when faced with adversity--while Hillary comes off as shrill and manipulative.

Losing in New Hampshire will not be fatal to Hillary unless it's by an unforeseen huge amount, yet it could indeed be the day her campaign went on life support. An Obama win by more than 8-10% will have the Clinton machine rev up the 1992 "Comeback Kid" propaganda but it just isn't going to work for this particular Clinton.

Clinton has to also be aware that the racial angle is a double-edged sword and she can just as easily be cut by her supporters words. Look for a whisper campaign by Hillary supporters (strategically placed in the media) where they start asking questions like: "is America really ready for a black President" or "did you know that Obama's middle name is Hussein".

As Ruben Navarette wrote recently:

When historians look back on Barack Obama's presidential campaign many years from now, let's hope they pick up on one of the most interesting and important story lines.

You've heard how the 1994 midterm elections were shaped by the angry white male. Well, 2008 should be dedicated to the annoyed white liberal.

Even before his electrifying victory in Iowa, Obama had managed to smoke that creature out of its hole. As an African-American with a serious shot at winning the Democratic nomination, Obama immediately ran into condescension and hostility from white liberals who had other ideas about who should be president.

Much of this hostility comes not in response to anything that Obama said or did, but rather what he represents -- namely, an attempt by an African-American to shake up the Democratic electoral drama by going from supporting role to lead actor.

Indeed.

Update: More proof that the campaign is in dire trouble and Drudge piles on. Drudge reporting the feelings inside the Hillary camp will have a more detrimental effect than a million NY Time's op/eds.

Update: Armageddon for the Hillary campaign--declines 13% nationally after Iowa.

Update: Hillary pours it on:

“It’s not easy, it’s not easy,” Clinton said shaking her head. Her eyes began to get watery as she finished answering the question, “I couldn’t do it if I didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do. This is very personal for me. I have so many ideas for this country and I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. It’s about our country, it’s about our kids’ future,” she said softly crying, her voice breaking.

...That won’t be the outcome if voters think like Pernold, who was satisfied with the answer. “She really loves us and wants us to succeed in the world,” she said. “I think she’s real now, there’s a person there.”

Allison Hampton, a retired teacher who was leaning toward voting for Barack Obama, says she’ll now go with Clinton. “When she broke up at the end, that came from the heart,” Hampton said. “She’s genuine and extremely intelligent.”

I can't believe this was reported by the WSJ and I read it without throwing up.