By losing to Obama, are the Clintons winning?

On this morning's Today programme, the BBC's Justin Webb - generally an excellent reporter and covering the US elections very well - reported on events in South Carolina.

He asked whether in winning there, Barack Obama might really be losing.

He probably picked up the idea from former Clinton strategist Dick Morris. Here's how the theory goes. The Clintons fight Obama hard in South Carolina, arguing over which of them is better for blacks. The contest becomes a row about the black vote, with Bill and Hillary deliberately playing up the black nature of South Carolina.

Obama wins.

The media covers his victory in this way - Obama wins the right to be the black candidate. Obama's triumph is then seen as a narrow one, restricted to a heavily black state and not giving him momentum elsewhere.

There's more. Obama then becomes seen as the black candidate. Didn't he fight for that crown, ask the media? Well now he's got it, they reason, he can wear it. So by racialising the contest and losing, Hillary really wins.

That, in any case, is the theory.

I don't buy it.

Yesterday I wrote that much strategy is a myth, a piece of spin designed to make the best of defeats. This is a classic example. Sure, Dick Morris is not deliberately spinning for Hillary (he can't stand her) but he does think the Clintons are incredibly clever and is making even their setbacks look like a masterplan.

If they lose, they lose. That's why they are fighting not to lose.

Comments

[Mattheus Mei]

As seen from Ground Zero in Columbia SC the Dick Morris Plan hits the nail on the head as we say here when it comes to the Clinton "Strategy" for South Carolina. They've proven themselves to be masterful at triangulation and realize that ultimately their message and image doesn't trump that of Obama - so the only way to bring him down is by playing dirty. You'll see that 'racialisation' happen after Obama wins tomorrow, it'll just depend on how willing is the Media to stand up and against the Clinton machine. As we've seen teh New York Times has succumbed and become a proxy by endorsing her without the first consideration of Mr. Obama. If that's a foretaste than Mr. Morris may be correct...

This all from a white male in South Carolina who has voted "absentee" for Mr. Obama and is proud of it and proud of him for being the candidate of unity, of change and progress and not a candidate of divisiveness, or reversion and 'restoration' that is Hillary R Clinton.

[Frank McCain]

Say what you will about the U.S. elections but Justin Webb has a very clear insight into this country and its politics.

[PETER CLOSE]

The reverse is surely true; by unexpectedly losing the previous bout Obama's support received a wake up call and won't make the same mistake again. That's not to say he'll win but he'll give it his best shot.

[Pat]

Everyone loves a legitimate win.

When wins are accomplished by deception, lack of integrity, or unearned, they cannot help but become suspect.

Like her, or hate her, Hillary is absolutely authentic, and that appears to be a great distinction between her and Obama.

Obama's use of a southern accent in the South, and his incessant use of phrases of other candidates that he adopts during his speeches, or interviews reveals that he is yet an unsettled candidate, may have an integrity problem by virtue of the fact that he has an authenticity problem.

Because of political correctness that prefers free passes for minority candidates vs picayune scrutiny for female candidates, the issue has yet to see the consideration of the signifcance or importance of this issue - in the language of English.

The analysis of apples to apples requires a very fine examination of the English language, words, and how they are used to press a point in public elections. Apples and oranges cannot reveal those vulnerabilities. But do many candidates appreciate the difference?

[George C]

Race should have nothing to do with this. Obama has been a senator for only 3 years and is not ready for the number 1 role. His blatant use of the race card and vague promises of change (whatever that means) are playing into the hands of the opposition, and I don't mean Hilary. If by some miracle Obama became president, I personally believe he wouild be worse than George W (and that is saying something!)

[Nigel]

Reading Justin Webb's blog, I get the impression that he tends to parrot the latest line coming from the Clinton camp.
"Winning SC equals losing" is a prime example of this, and looked at in light of last night's results can be seen as patently absurd..
Excellent it ain't.
.

[Sam]

I really do hope that Hilary does not win the Democratic Nomination, as I cannot see America voting for her, leaving us with at least four more years of Republican rule. Senator Obama is the only candidate who can take the US forward, a clean slate into the 21st Century away from the eras of Political Dynasties that are holding America back.

However why is so much being made about the Democrats, and so little about the Republicans, and Senator John McCain, the man who should have won the nomination last time, and he certainly would not have taken us into this mess we are in now in Iraq.

[Daphne Kenward]

If The Hillary Camp was not so Decietful, she could have won, in SC but if she can behave so disgusting her and her Husband, what garantees has the world got she will behave any better, infact she is so undignified, it puts women to shame world wide. What ever happend to honesty, Hillary Clinton has behaved worst than all the Men running in the Campaign, and if any one has the ability to behave worse than G W Bush is the risk the world can not afford. At a time of Global Recession, we need a negotiator, some one who can build, win contracts to create Jobs, America dont need some one that Countries around the world do not want to do business with what kind of contracts will Hillary win none.
Will the Saudies Embrace her with their old fashioned world and ideas thet do not do Business with women. America needs to build not break down, using deceptive lies that most people can see through. Power in the wrong hands is dangerious, as we have seen what G W Bush has done to America not only Bankrupt the Country it is now facing a recession which will cause global slow down. That is the issue it is Not about a bunch of deep seated bigots, who think every thing is a Racial issue, it was not OBAMA who Bankrupted America it was WHITE G W BUSH, and also started an illegal war. Lets stick with the issue.

[richard jones]

I totally agree with George C, Obama is not the right choice for a presidential candidate yet. Neither is the USA ready for a black (well 50%) president, nor has Obama accumulated enough experience. He is a first term senator who has but seen one Senatorial election (1/3 re-elected every 2 years - which makes 99 - wot happens to number 100 and who is he - junior senator for Hawaii??) and has no executive experience (gubernatorial or other).
What Obama will pretty much ensure if the Demcandidate is another evangelical, neo-con Republican in the White House.

[Rob]

The next Kennedy... but which one?

[Sara Orsdell]

I think we should all thank our lucky stars that we have so many good choices for the presidency. Look back at the last election. What a mess. Hilary Clinton, Obama, even McCain are all legimate candidates. Lets listen to them all and then vote your choice. Stop complaining and LISTEN. We have one more (less than a year of Bush) and then we will have a brand new president. Any of these, of course I am partial to the democrats, would be and could be a great president! Sara from Oregon (we know where it's at!)

[Daphne Kenward]

I am going to disagree with George from SC, no one can be worse than G W Bush, when Bush was Govoner of Texas, he has Gassed Mentally disabled people, who got caught up in the penial system, He has granted pardons to men who had committed mass murder, and that should have been a warning. So I was not surprised by the Genocide G W Bush has committed in Iraq. I don't know which plannet some of us are living on. What America needs now is to forget the Arogance the Racism the rubbish, but look at American standing in the world, I agree that Change should be Top of the American agenda. America writes the laws, and exempt it self from accountability, war crimes committed by Richard Nixon, G W Bush are these people answerable under International Laws. Ron Paul is 100% right in what he says the time has come for America to police it self, and clean up the act of Genocide, around the world and America becomes accountable for illegal actions against the Citizens of the world. Funding illegal wars, such as Iraq under Saddam to Attack Iran, whose is going to do the dirty work now? We hear bold words on war on Terror read the History books and find out who has been the greatest Terrorist of all times, people who are called Terrorist are people who are fighting for freedom from opression. Under President Reagan the CIA smuggled Cocaine from South America into Florida to fund the Contras in Nicaragua against the Sandinista Government. Senator John Kerry in 1988 US Senator Committe of foreign relations reported links between the Contras & Dtrug imports in to the US concluded that Senior US Policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a solution to the Contra funding problem to over throw a Democratically elected government. Linking Crack Cocaine in California, largely aimed at African American Population. Oliver North knew about using Drug Money raised via Drug Trafficking to Fund the Contras. So when we hear about the word change, Americans needs to be engaged in the Politics of their country, and Obama is about the only way it will ever happen. Americans needs to engage in how their country is run, and hold people accountable, because Mrs Clinton appeals to the Poor and uneducated this is percicely how the Bush Clinton has managed to control the Country doing absolutely nothing for the people of America. And spend billions per year on Arms while the Country fall into rack and ruin. Americans needs to pay attention to what is happening to their children, how man is falling into drug addiction, crime, left out of the system. Thats is why Obamma has such an appeal amongst the young because they are educated to know about the Change Obama would rather not mention because it would involv mentioning names. I think the unfortunate thing about Americans they don't read, they lack information, in which to base their decisions on.

[Robbie]

Well she's doing pretty well so far, I mean she keeps losing so she must be "winning"?