In Placating Hillary, Is Obama Showing Weakness Or Just Wasting His Time?

There are rumblings throughout the commentariat -- some of it said with glee, some with objectivity, and some with genuine concern -- that Barack Obama is beginning to look a trifle weak in his dealings with Hillary Clinton. Indeed, if theirs were a common law marriage of political convenience, one might even say uxorious.

First, there was Hillary's plea for help with her debt, which, in turn, would sure help the cause of unity. OK, said Barack. Then, it was the matter of a prominent speaking role for the other man, Bill, at the convention, which, in turn, would sure help the cause of unity. OK, said Barack.

And most recently the cause of unity all came down to the issue of having Hillary's name placed in nomination. Furthermore, Hillary really wanted, needed, and demanded a floor vote.

OK, and OK, said Barack, finally -- even though a floor vote, in the opinion of some insider operatives, actually works against the ultimate goal of party unity, not to mention the party's dissemination of message. "By putting her name in nomination, you're putting people on the spot," warned one. Plus, "having a roll call [vote] … just chews into your broadcast time."

And the irony of Hillary's successful pushing, which another insider called "a bizarre strategy" on her part? "It could backfire and show that her influence is waning," said the strategist. "Chances are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the floor as she had in the primary."

That's because we're talking mostly about practical, self-interested politicians -- those infamous superdelegates -- upon whom the magical power of symbolism is largely impotent. They just want to get on with business; and besides, "many Hillary diehards," reports the Politico, "including at least one member of the New York delegation, are reluctant to vote for Clinton after switching over to Obama." Said one: "I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again."

There was, however, at least some notable pushback by the Obama camp this week, although it was discreetly aimed at an erstwhile Hillary surrogate, not directly at Hillary herself.

To wit: "The Obama campaign is denying House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel a speaking role at this month’s Democratic National Convention -- a move those close to the powerhouse Harlem congressman view as a spiteful snub."

That may very well be, but there are some things in the old politics that the new politics cannot and never will change. The victor's slapping down of the loser's lieutenants is one of them. Next time, Charlie, pick a winner.

But back to the matter of Obama's appearance of weakness, vis-à-vis Hillary. To me, it seems he's being a bit too compromising, perhaps, or maybe too congenial, but not what one could legitimately call "weak." Rather, I would say that Obama is simply being too clever by half -- and worse, he's wasting his time.

There's no dispute that Obama is bending over backwards to placate Hillary Clinton -- but, of course, it's not really Hillary Clinton he's interested in: it is, instead, those vestigial Clinton-support groups and the scattering of Hillary's former supporters who may be foolish enough to listen to them.

But if the representatives of two of those main groups -- Just Say No Deal and People United Means Action -- who appeared Thursday on 'Hardball' are the leading lights of the much-serenaded Clinton dead-enders … well, frankly, who would want them?

Both spokespersons were tellingly incapable of providing host David Shuster with any coherent reason why, in the face of Hillary's exhortations to support Obama, they were refusing to do so. Like children, they said they just weren't going to do it and that was that.

And poor Mr. Shuster. He kept trying to make sense of their intransigence -- repeatedly exclaiming in utter exasperation, You mean you'd really prefer opening the door for McCain, even though as a Democrat you're far closer ideologically to Obama? -- but to no avail. These political toddlers were dug in, case closed, reason out, show over. And it was clear why: Their candidate had lost and these folks are nothing more than determined, world-class pouters.

The 'Hardball' segment was, however, profitable for the socio-politically interested: I had not realized that there are adults on the (rumored) more mature left who suffer from such severe, reactionary cases of emotional sclerosis.

The only other clear picture that emerged from the two 'Hardball' guests was that of prissy, chronically disgruntled and intellectually muddled malcontents who are, as far as Obama's campaign should be concerned, better left unsolicited and ignored.

Chasing their votes isn't a sign of weakness; it's just a waste of time.