McAuliffe Defeat Is Another Blow To Clinton Legacy

[Purveyor]

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, June 11, 2009

(06-11) 12:15 PDT New York (AP) --

Terry McAuliffe's crushing defeat in Virginia's gubernatorial primary is the latest blow to former President Bill Clinton's political legacy, still reeling from Hillary Rodham Clinton's loss to Barack Obama in last year's Democratic presidential contest.

McAuliffe, a longtime fundraiser and close friend of both Clintons, brought money and attention to an off-year election that otherwise would have commanded little notice outside Virginia. Bill Clinton appeared at five rallies across the state for McAuliffe, lent his voice to radio commercials and recorded telephone endorsements to help get out the vote. Clinton also attended a fundraiser at McAuliffe's northern Virginia home.

McAuliffe raised about $7 million for the campaign, nearly double what primary winner Creigh Deeds brought in, and led state polls throughout much of the race even though he was a first-time candidate and newcomer to Virginia politics. But Deeds still won decisively, also beating former state delegate Brian Moran, and will face Republican Bob McDonnell in the fall.

The sheer scope of Deeds' victory — he won nearly 50 percent of the primary vote and carried 10 of the state's 11 congressional districts — made one thing breathtakingly clear: The Clinton star power doesn't necessarily translate into votes.

"I'm not sure I'd say the Clintons' influence is over — Hillary is still secretary of state and former President Clinton certainly still has cachet. But this primary does tarnish it to some extent," said Harry Wilson, a political science professor at Virginia's Roanoke College.

MORE...

AP: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/11/national/a002028D00.DTL

[Taverner]

1. Everyone hates McAuliffe. Even the most die-hard Clinton fans hate him

[Captain Hilts]

2. No one wants that more than the AP. VA voted for the most conservative of the 3 candidates.

And he was a carpet bagger.

It had nothing to do with the Clintons.

I would have voted for Moran who got stomped despite a famous name.

[Still Sensible]

3. I disagree with the premise

Observing from afar, I get the impression that McAuliffe was largely viewed as a rich Washington insider compared to his opponents with longer histories in local Virginia politics.

Were some people against McAuliffe for his DLC-like views? Probably, but the winner looks as least as center-right as McAuliffe. Were some against him because of some of the things he did while working for Hillary's campaign last year? Probably, but even if that were the case those actions were his.

Based on what I have read, it appears the winner ran something of a stealth campaign until late in the game and let the other two savage each other for much of the race. There was some reported backlash against the two losing campaigns for what some saw as too negative campaigning. Generally, it looks like Virginia democrats simply ended up picking who they believed was the most likely candidate to keep the governor's seat in the democratic column.

I don't see this in any way "tarnishing" the Clinton legacy, although some people want to see it that way.

[burning rain]

4. I'd say McAuliffe's failure is his own.

He's just an enthusiastic money-raiser for his party, and that doesn't exactly make you governor material. There's a perverse love of whacking the Clintons in the media. I guess as James Carville said, some people didn't like the peace; some didn't like the prosperity.

[MidwestTransplant]

5. bingo