Why Obama is better down ticket

This morning I was reading a Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Democrats Have a Nominee” about how it is virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to beat Barack Obama in this year’s primary contest despite her win in Pennsylvania. The Wall Street Journal went on to say that her chances dim as moderate elder statesmen in the party like Sam Nunn and David Boren come out in support of Obama. They said this had as much to do with money as with credibility.

“The biggest event was the Clinton Abandonment. In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?

Money. Barack Obama’s mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons’ strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he’s got $42 million banked. She’s got a few million north of nothing.

But it’s more than that. Barack Obama’s Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons’ “donor base” has been something else.

“It is hard to overstate how fatigued Democratic donors in Manhattan and L.A. got during the Clinton presidency to have Bill and Hillary fly in, repeatedly, to sweep checking accounts. The Lincoln Bedroom rental was cheesy. Bill’s 60th birthday gala (tickets $60,000 to 500K) was a Clinton fund-raiser. The 1996 John Huang-Lippo-China fund-raising scandal pushed Clinton contributors toward a milieu most didn’t need in their lives. Hillary’s 2007 Norman Hsu fund-raising scandal was an unsettling rerun of what the donor base could expect from another Clinton presidency.

It was all kind of gross, but the Clintons never seemed to see that. When Obama proved he could perform this most basic function in politics, it was a get-out-of-jail-free card for many Democrats. For some, this may be personal. For others, it is likely a belief that the party’s interests lie with finding an alternative to the Clinton saga. One guesses this is what Sam Nunn and David Boren concluded.”

That is all true, but I also noticed that Nunn and Boren are from states now controlled by the Republicans. A third reason for why Clinton can’t win caught my eye: down ticket interests. Congressmen and State officials want long coattails to ride come November. Hillary Clinton, with her focus on the big states and her high negatives, is not likely to have long coattails. In fact, she is likely to increase Republican turnout, energizing McCain’s base.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has shown that he can put a number of states in the midwest and west in play in the Presidential race while increasing Democratic voter turnout. These are states like: New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, and Arizona.

Long coattails are important. This is yet another reason why Hillary Clinton’s goose is cooked. With her negative campaigning polarizing the Democratic electorate, perhaps she is simply vying for a VP spot as I indicated yesterday or an Obama meltdown. Either way, she is showing her true first loyalty is to herself and not to the Democratic party or our country.

ADDENDUM: I just read an article which highlighted the absolute exhaustion that Clinton and Obama are feeling after 15 months of campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain has cut back his schedule and, at 71, he is getting a free ride in more ways than one (see story). This is yet another reason the Democrats are nuts to let this primary contest go on and on.