Stop Saying Obama Cannot “Close the Deal”
A good point on the argument that Obama has not “closed the deal”:
It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the “right” way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn’t count. He has to win the “right” states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to “close the deal”, shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to “close the deal” against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.)
There’s something so Huckabee about it all. Even when it looked like McCain was going to be the nominee, Huckabee was still winning those southern states. Huckabee could have argued, in the same fashion that Clinton is doing now, that Republicans need those states to stay competitive in the general election, and it raises “serious questions” when the presumptive nominee cannot “close the deal” and win them.
But when two candidates - two well financed and strong candidates, each with a lot of support - are in the race, they will each win some states and lose others. What is the point Clinton is trying to make? Since Obama will not be able to win every single state form here on out (he cannot “close the deal”) then we should give the nomination to the candidate who has done worse? It’s not a convincing argument at all.
Basically it comes down to this: Clinton can argue that Obama has not “closed the deal,” but he’s a hell of a lot closer than she is. Just because he cannot win every state, does not mean we should hand the nomination to the loser by default. That just makes no sense.
3 Responses to “Stop Saying Obama Cannot “Close the Deal””
http://www.matthewfunk.net/blog
Another thing that annoys me to no end about the “closing the deal” comment is that no one has yet brought up that the argument suggests an expectation on the Clinton team that they should be /losing/!
She is, in essence, saying, “If you were a candidate of any worth, you would have beaten me.” Why so low an opinion of yourself, Hillary?
Are we really supposed to buy that our President’s best selling point is that she is so pathetic as to be easily trounced?
http://pajamajournalist.com
I have been wondering why nobody has asked Billary, “If Obama is so inept, why is he kicking your ass?”
Or conversely, “If your experience makes you more electable, why is this a young (albeit clean), black man - with a funny name - wiping the floor with you?”
Or perhaps, “If you are so much more ready to manage the country, why can’t you manage your campaign?”
Or maybe, “If you are ready to take on the economy, why isn’t your campaign paying its bills?”
You came close, kudos!
(Sorry - got a little carried away there)
http://www.vertical-politics.com
Doborah, about your comment on electability. Surprisingly, I hadn’t even thought of it that way. I guess Clinton spin is effective. Not in the sense that any of us actually believe the arguments that are coming from Hillary, Bill, and their surrogates. Rather, reporters are buying some of it and they reiterate it to us in the aura of reporter credibility.
But there are now so many holes in Clinton’s arguments for the nomination, that in order for anyone to follow it all, it requires the willful suspension of reality. Just don’t take the time to think about it, and it might start making sense.
Discussion