Dowd on the "Clinton Convention" (ouch)

This is a post-and-run as I've a million and two other things on my plate right now.

Maureen Dowd has nailed it: Bill and Hillary Clinton refuse to let go, they refuse to accept that a young man has overtaken them, and they have, essentially, recast the Democratic National Convention as a celebration of Hillary Clinton's campaign. You might suppose that they're hoping and praying the great political fairy will swoop down and dust all conventioneers with Hillary powder, thereby forcing a great change amongst all delegates.

And just in case the fairy fails to appear, they've still got Howard Wolfson claiming, baselessly, that if Edwards had been revealed as a ratbag sooner, Clinton would have gained his supporters' votes and won Iowa. Absolutely not true. Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg cites a University of Iowa poll, taken on the day of the caucus, that found Edwards's voters preferred Obama over Clinton by a 2-to-1 margin.

You see, Clinton can't have lost due to poor campaign management--to staff infighting, wasting funds, or dirty tricks backfiring on her--and above all, it can't be hubris (remember how long she was the inevitable nominee?). Think back to all of the different reasons why she lost (and how she's a victim), and compare them with the reality. Although some might point to sexism and sheer bloody-mindedness as evidence that Clinton was unfairly treated during her run, Clinonistas might take a step back and think about the practical issues that marred her campaign. Instead of laying their pain and frustration at the doorstep of those who actually orchestrated Clinton's decline (that would be Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson), numerous Clinton supporters are striking out against Obama and, in effect, the nation. PUMAs and their ilk continue to muddy the waters with rumors and innuendo about Obama in hopes that he loses come November. Allegedly, they would prefer a Republican win in 2008 in hopes that Clinton could make a successful bid in 2012. That's taking an awfully big risk. That they're willing to take that risk in itself calls their motives into question.

Here's something worth considering: even if the political fairy swept down and swayed the conventioneers towards Clinton, what makes Clinton and her PUMAs so sure that the rest of the nation--including the millions of Obama supporters--would follow?

Aside: A killer line from Dowd:

Bill continues to howl at the moon — and any reporters in the vicinity — about Obama; he’s starting to make King Lear look like Ryan Seacrest.