TNR BLOGS

November 19, 2008 | 5:54 PM
November 19, 2008 | 5:27 PM
November 19, 2008 | 4:19 PM

November 19, 2008 | 4:23 PM
November 19, 2008 | 1:04 PM
November 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
29.01.2008
Establishment v. Clintons

In my piece this week, I tried to get at establishment Washington's frustrations with the Clintons, which have boiled over in recent weeks but have been simmering for years. Last night Politico editor John Harris, one of the most astute Clinton observers around, weighed in with his own take on this phenomenon, and it's well worth your time. The opening anecdote alone is worth the price of your click:

In September 1998, Greg Craig, a lion of the Washington legal community, left a top job at the State Department to go to the White House to help Bill Clinton fight impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

One of his first stops was to an old Democratic friend, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who warned him what he was stepping into: “You’re about three days away from a delegation of senior Democrats coming up there to ask the president to resign.”

Since New Hampshire, my assumption has been that the longer the Democratic race goes on, the more it favors Hillary. I thought her institutional advantages would help her grind out victories later in the race in places where neither candidate had much organization or any money to spend, while Obama was more dependent on momentum, which can fade pretty quickly. But I'm rapidly revising that assumption. I now think a long, drawn-out race may favor Obama. The more the establishment types Harris and I wrote about get frustrated with the Clintons, the more attractive turning the page becomes, at which point the institutional advantages (interest groups, unions, local Democratic officials, etc.) start to favor Obama.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:06 AM with 7 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

A similar race, perhaps, is the Harris Miller/Jim Webb primary in VA.

Jim Webb ran a horrible race in the primary. He didn't raise money, and was outspent like 8-1. And yet, Democratic elites (like John Kerry) stepped in and endorsed him and willed him across the finish line. Why? Because of electability.

That's why these establishment folks are backing Obama. They see McCain on the horizon and they want an electable candidate.

January 29, 2008 11:26 AM

dcshungu said:

This seems to be like the more appropriate place for me re-post what I just posted on the "Waiting for Godot...er...Gore" thread:

In a strange twist that would turn the nomination contest on its head, Gore and the whole Democratic establishment endorse  Obama and Hillary suddenly becomes the anti-establishment candidate and wins. Not at all unthinkable, as people usually vote regardless of endorsements (Gore endorsed Dean in 2004, remember?), so that Clinton might score a huge coup against the new "establishment candidate." That would be something, would it not?

January 29, 2008 11:34 AM

Rhubarbs said:

Is there enough time between now and Feb. 5 for a party-establishment switch to Obama to make a real difference, or are we really just talking about superdelegates here? Would the party really allow the superdelegates to provide the margin of victory for the nominee?

January 29, 2008 12:01 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Hillary is the establishment candidate. She was created by the establishment, nurtured by the establishment, and funded by the establishment. Without them, she will wither and die.

It's already starting. Here's a totally un-photoshopped picture of Hillary as a Senator with establishment support:

www.dandressel.net/.../480px-Hillary_Rodham_Clinton-757732.jpg

And here's Hillary without establishment support:

www.news.com.au/.../0,23599,22946872-2,00.html

The vessel pod that Hillary's consciousness occupies during daylight hours cannot sustain itself without constant nurishment from the establishment:

January 29, 2008 12:09 PM

dbhuff said:

Oh yikes VA!  You should warn people before posting something like that...

January 29, 2008 1:48 PM

dcshungu said:

virginiacentrist  said:

"Hillary is the establishment candidate. She was created by the establishment, nurtured by the establishment, and funded by the establishment."

And now they have "betrayed" her and endorsed Obama in droves, making him the New Establishment Candidate...

January 29, 2008 2:50 PM

The Stump said:

Isaac makes a good point about the MacGillis/Kornblut piece in today's WaPo, which wonders if Obama

February 2, 2008 4:34 PM