Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Face It, Hillary Is Going to Lose
Talking Points indeed. Many of the Clinton supporters here and other places simply assert that think HIllary will win and then blather on about experience, ready on day one boloney. The simple fact is that Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates.
One thing that the media has done a good job on is quickly and repeatedly exposing the Clinton spin on words superdelegates (in Clinton/Mark Penn speak: "automatic delegates") and even trying to make a distinction between caucus and primary delegates. I'm waiting for her to spin on the supers again when Obama takes the lead on them too which he has been on the way to doing at a rapid pace.
Every time I hear a member of the Hillary camp make this argument, it reminds me about how woefully unprepared she was for this election and it highlights how she has mismanaged the biggest thing she's ever taken on. For someone of her fame as one of the most prominant names in the world, status, and incredible financial advantage at the beginning of this race to let it slip away demonstrates more than any single factor in her impending loss that she will not be able to beat John McCain. She is not ready and more than anything she is not the right candidate for the Democratic Party.
She is single-handedly responsible for dividing the Democrats by stirring up hate with the race injection (Bill, Rendell, Ferraro, etc.), moving the goal posts and trying to steal (see Michigan & Florida), and now flat out extortion (see Clinton backers threaten DNC) among other things. She's not what the country needs and definitely not what the Democratic Party needs.
She is a divider, not a uniter. One very definite and undeniable flaw that the Clintons have is their demonstrated ability to divide the country and unite Republicans. They are now doing that to our very own Democratic Party.
It's refreshing to see that cooler heads are starting to come forward. Nancy Pelosi has said in an interview to be broadcast tomorrow on ABC's This Week that if superdelegates overturn the will of voters, that it will harm the Democratic Party. It will and she's right.
Donna Brazille in her appearances on CNN, MSNBC and other places reminds me that the grown-ups in the party are watching and listening the same way we are to Hillary and can see much better than many of us just how she's spinning. To them the "automatic delegate" word play rings hollow as do much of the moving of the goal posts tactics, the race game and most of all the simple numbers.
Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Al Gore and others sitting on the fence like Pelosi and Brazille have a bullsh#t radar that is much better refined than the average voter. They also have the Democratic Party's best interest in mind and can see that Obama has attracted and brought out new young voters and African-Americans that they have been trying to actually get out into the voting both for decades; will draw voters in Red states )that HIllary has insulted and written off for the general eletion after losing them) which will boost congressional candidates; that Obama is bringing in money in a new way taking what Howard Dean started and substantially increasing it;
They don't want to alienate a new generation of Democrats and the important and loyal African American constituency by letting Hillary spin, bully and cheat her way into the nomination to likely lose the election to John McCain. Polls have consistently shown Barack Obama doing much better than Hillary against McCain. Plus, the Republican from the get go have been prepared to take on the Clintons and are crossing their fingers and drooling at the chance, but know that Obama for all of the above reasons and more is a much tougher candidate.
As I've said before by directing attention to Frank Rich's early column called "Who's Afraid of Barack Obama," it is Obama, not Clinton who is the candidate who will beat John McCain. As Bill Mahr said 'the sight of Barack Obama on stage with "Grampa Munster" would be enough to sway voters. You can't say that will Hillary who unfortunately like Joe Leiberman favors McCain to Senator Obama. That unprecedented gaffe of publicly siding with the Republican nominee above her Democratic opponent is something that superdelegates will take into mind as Hillary's choosing self-interest over greater party good to set Obama over the top.
Superdelegates know that despite what Mark Penn and other Clinton surrogates say about Obama not beating her in big states other than Illinois, Democrats will carry New York, New Jersey and California. But more importantly, they have to potential to take back North Carolina, Texas and a few other Red States.
I'm sure some of you can remind me of more reasons why Hillary is not the candidate of change like Keith Olbermann did and the one who can win the White House, but I direct you to write superdelegates and put your own arguments in a letter to them.
I'm sure that Hillary's people are going filtering letters but why not give them a little more work or possibly convince them to flip for Obama like superdelegates are. Thanks again Mr. Cohen for your important post which has influenced me to write this (and hopefully is a call to arms to other Obama supporters) to write to the superdelegates myself.
Comments (62)
Well put. It's not that it's mathematically impossible for her to win, it's that for her to win she'd have to hope that the super-dels are stupid enough to fall for some bogus arguments, and that they'd be willing to reward her for a sleazy campaign and overlook the damage she's done by endorsing McCain over Obama, and that they'd find the case for Hillary so compelling that they'd be willing to piss off a large number of Democratic caucus and primary voters by overruling their votes.
To call it a long shot would be generous.
In fact, I think it's more likely that Hillary is going to lose more than this election. Video of Hillary's endorsements of McCain over Obama will feature prominently in campaign ads for McCain. Seeing those words used against Obama, over and over and over again, will ensure that party leaders will remember the damage Hillary did to the party for a long, long time.
March 16, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Injecting race, eh? So what did you think about Jesse Jackson Jr. promoting Obama as the successor to his father in South Carolina back in October? What did you think of Oprah's referring to Obama as "The One" out of Miss Jane Pittman the same month? What do you think of Rev. Wright's comments a year ago about Obama not being electable because America is too racist to elect a black, and there are even some white people who "don't have time to lynch black people". Fancy that.
-------------------------------------------
"Two decades ago, my father ran for president, calling on South Carolina and the nation to 'keep hope alive.' Today, Barack Obama has taken up the torch," Jackson Jr. says in the ad, which will air on 36 gospel and R&B radio stations across the state.
But the senior Jackson has recently been critical of Obama. The Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. told a reporter at The State newspaper in South Carolina that the senator was "acting like he's white" because he was slow to address the case in Jena, La., where tens of thousands of people marched last month, protesting what they view as the overly harsh prosecution of six black high school students charged with beating a white classmate unconscious. The Reverend later said he did not recall making the comment.
Jackson Jr.'s radio ad goes a long way to ease any hard feelings. [Desider: at least towards blacks]
"A lot of politicians call themselves our friends. But Obama has a heart that beats for our community," he says. "Once, South Carolina voted for my father, and sent a strong message to the nation. Next year, you can send more than a message. You can launch a President."
March 16, 2008 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as it seems to you.
Clinton doesn't need to pass or even catch Obama in the earned delegate count. What she needs to do is kill his campaign before the convention. If they go into the convention with Obama mortally wounded (negative lingering stories, plummeting poll numbers, and a string of big state losses - PA, FL, MI) she can pull super-delegates and even some caucus delegates. This is a long shot, but it is her only remaining strategy. And this isn't "cheating". Yucky? Yes. Cheating? No. It's called politics.
I'm an Obama supporter, and I like and agree with much of what you posted. But, Obama supporters better keep sending those $25 cchecks because it ain't over until it's over.
March 16, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like te fight scene in Cool Hand Luke.
All these Supers basically saying, "stay down, kid," while the kid keeps trying to get back in the fight.
The Supers have a lot of respect, and want to give Clinton all the chance in the world to end this on her own terms, but they are getting impatient.
This is not about being undecided. It's about letting the fllen hero exit the arena on her own two feet.
March 16, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her chances to depart with dignity are long gone, unfortunately...
March 16, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misspelled "boloney." It's "baloney," as in, "this opinion piece is baloney."
March 16, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, GREAT point, Portia9!
March 16, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the spellcheck, you have a future as a copy editors. I should stop writing at Godforsaken hours, because the occassional run-on sentences and dangling participles and just leaving out words (like "they" in the first sentence before my spelling error "Many of the Clinton supporters here and other places simply assert that THEY think HIllary will win") are distracting.
Perhaps I should have used held my nose and just used the word bullsh#t again.
Bologna (pronounced buh-LON-yuh) is the Italian city; bologna (or bologna sausage) is the large sausage named for the city and pronounced buh-LON-ee, buh-LON-yuh, or buh-LON-uh. Baloney and boloney are Americanized variant spellings of the name of the sausage and widely used in the relatively long-standing slang noun and retort meaning “nonsense, foolishness.”
March 16, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its actually spelled bologna... sigh.
March 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This exchange is hilarious.
March 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can win without stealing.
She could win the popular vote. Then we'd have to argue the primary/caucus divides and all but it's an argument that isn't really resolved and we don't know how the Superdelegates would see that. National opinion polls taken at that point would probably matter.
And, of course, she could just win on delegates. She's not out of the running delegate wise. We can argue about likelihoods but it could happen.
March 16, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll keep it simple. Baloney.
March 16, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The denial is amazing. The election is probably going to McCain...don't you understand that? Hillary isn't stealing anything, and she's not to blame for the mess the Democratic Party is in. It is dishonest and down-right ridiculous to assert that Hillary is the cause of all the woes in the Democratic Party. Hillary is single-handedly responsible? Wow, not a trace of fair-mindedness or objectivity. The super-delegates will decide this, because neither Obama or Hillary will have enough delegates on their own.
If the super-delegates decide to get behind Obama, he didn't steal it....they decided it. Do you understand? And if they decide to support Hillary, she didn't steal it, they decided to do so based on their judgement. Super-delegates aren't something you can creep in and take while no one is looking. They are intelligent people, and they have a responsibility to choose the best candidate in the event that a nominee hasn't emerged by the end of the primaries.
McCain will take the red states, the Democrat will take the usual blue states.....it's the big swing states, the "purple" states that will likely decide the winner. They are the anchor states in the general election, and Hillary is undeniably stronger in them. She is unlikely to beat McCain in Texas and Ohio, but could win in Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan......effectively splitting them.
Obama hasn't won a single big purple state, and I doubt he would take more than one from McCain... which means we LOSE.
Hillary has more strength in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, she might actually win a few. McCain still has the edge at the moment. The super-delegates have a responsibility to consider who has the best chance to win, and get behind them. It will be their decision and their duty. And it will have nothing whatever to do with "stealing".
March 16, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
From Today's New York Times:
"...interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters."
Mr. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Mrs. Clinton."
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?hp
It's not personal, it's business.
March 16, 2008 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your own link shows how different the views are in what reflects the will of the voters.
“It’s the overall popular vote, it’s the overall delegates, it’s who is bringing energy to the campaign, it’s who has momentum,” Mr. Brown said.
March 16, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary isn't stealing anything,
She won't, but she's trying to.
It is dishonest and down-right ridiculous to assert that Hillary is the cause of all the woes in the Democratic Party. Hillary is single-handedly responsible?
Nobody says she's single-handedly responsible. But she's done her share. It was very nice of her to provide McCain with ads for his campaign, with Hillary endorsing McCain over Obama, for example. I hope he sends her flowers or something.
And if they decide to support Hillary, she didn't steal it, they decided to do so based on their judgement. Super-delegates aren't something you can creep in and take while no one is looking. They are intelligent people, and they have a responsibility to choose the best candidate in the event that a nominee hasn't emerged by the end of the primaries.
And as part of their deliberations they can and should take into account the damage that would be done if they overrule the primary and caucus voters. See Pelosi's recent comments.
They should take into account Hillary's scorched earth campaign, and especially her endorsement of McCain over Obama, and decide if that's behavior that they want to reward.
And if they're "intelligent people" as you say, that's bad news for Hillary because the argument she's making is bogus, trying to extrapolate from the primary results the way she does. Look at the polls for Hillary-vs-McCain and Obama-vs-McCain, and perhaps your concerns will be relieved.
March 16, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
rabbitsmorgasbord said:
Um, amber did. Her exact words were:
March 16, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind the total vote counts before dismissing Obama's chances to win the purple states. Even back when Romney and Huckabee were battling John McBush, in primary after primary, the loser of the Democratic primary garnered more votes than all the Republicans combined. In my Wisconsin, Hillary's vote count surpassed the entire Republican turnout and she lost to Obama by 120,000 votes. Once the Democratic candidate is selected, I think the acrimony will subside and either Hillary or Obama will benefit from an energized Democratic party. Personally, I think Hillary will also energize the Republican party hard core, while Obama will energize the independents and moderate Repubs to consider the Democratic candidate. Just one man's reasoned and insightful opinion.
March 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What he said. The democratic turnout has been seriously under reported, but it is the big story of this election so far.
March 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this so hard to process? If the superdelegates were to give this to Hillary, they would be doing so in spite of the fact that Obama won more states, more of the popular vote, and more pledges delegates. Given what happened to Gore in 2000, and the resulting 7 year nightmare we're in, can't you see how that would affect the Democratic party? The superdelegates of the party would be screwing democratic voters the way the Republican party and the Supreme Court did back then!
March 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
From all that I read, New York Senator You-Know-Her has every advantage in Pennsylvania among the state Democratic Party establishment. As well, she has huge poll leads in dominant electoral demographics and so expects to handily win that state's up-and-coming primary on April 22nd. Senator Barack Obama, though, will win proportionally many delegates, too, although not as many as Senator You-Know-Her. So Buffaloed Girl (whom Deputy Duba Bush easily browbeat into endorsing Vietnam II in the Bay of Goats) will temporarily inch-up a bit on Senator Obama's significant delegate lead.
Senator Obama's campaign aknowledges the unfavorable situation in Pennsylvania, but typically counts on winning more and other states and their delegates so as to render Pennsylvania about as significant for the Democratic Party nomination as Ohio -- meaning already more than compensated for by additional delegates coming to Senator Obama from other states like Texas, Iowa, and California. So, yes, Senator You-Know-Her can "win" another Pyrrhic victory in Pennsylvania while losing more and other battles somewhere else. Senator Obama will compete in Pennsylvania and every other state remaining on the primary calendar for as many votes and delegates as he can possibly win. He will win comfortably more in total than Senator You-Know-Her. He will win more states. He will win more delegates. He will win more popular votes.
As we can all see by now, Senator You-Know-Her had a campaign "strategy" of winning a few big battles while Seantor Obama had a strategy for winning a protracted war. In the end, Senator You-Know-Her will have no other recourse but churlish chutzpah: baldly claiming after losing that "Barack Obama didn't beat me BADLY ENOUGH (by any definition of "badly enough" that I can think of in desperation) so therefore, I WIN!" Something like that. "Close doesn't count only in Horsehoes," she will argue, "but in anything else where I want what I want even when someone else clearly deserves it more than me."
March 16, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is very cruel.
It will be Mark Penn's fault. The Penn is not mightier than his word.
Best, Terry
March 16, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That is very cruel.
It will be Mark Penn's fault. The Penn is not mightier than his word."
True.
No, really. I don't think there is a single thing either candidate has done that sticks in the mind as much, and provokes as much negative feeling, as Penn's off-hand dismissal of Obama's 23 states (at the time) as lacking "significance".
And I'll bet it angered the superdelegates more than the average voter. I'd have a lot more confidence in Clinton's ability to catch Obama if Mr. Penn had been thrown under the bus quite some time ago.
March 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you specifically addressed Clinton supporters, I'd like to simply assert that I still am convinced Hillary Clinton will win the nomination. Period.
As for who's blathering incessantly, it appears in this and most other threads that the ones doing the blathering these days are Obama supporters.
March 16, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far, the math is on Obama's side.
He'd have to fall big -- appear with Rev Wright singing "God Damn America" -- and Clinton would have to win pretty big in each of the coming states for her to get nominated.
If you're hoping she'll win, if you're pledging to keep on fighting no matter what -- well, that's an honest viewpoint. But if you're convinced she will win, period, then you're deluded.
That said, anyone who's convinced Obama will win, should also not get lulled into complacency, even though the math is on your side.
March 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just trying not to blather.
I don't think either one of them will have enough delegates before the convention.
March 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's campaigning has alienated more than just the black vote. She has affected all Democrats who believe in fair play, following the rules, and "big tent" principles.
I keep seeing her 3 AM ad supposedly to project readiness and then comparing it to the debate when she said "Why do I get the first question?" The leader who answers that phone better be ready and willing to take on that first question.
Also regarding that 3 AM readiness ad I still see in my minds eye, "Shame on you..." with such anger. I do not want our next leader to be so volatile. Obama's calmness in the face of all of the kitchen sink thrown at him speaks volumes about how he would handle that call. The rumors of John McCain equally disturb me. Today we need a leader who remains clear headed and not moved to undo emotion.
As a 54 year old white woman, I am ashamed that another woman has played such a nasty dirty political game. Two actions should be unforgivable to any Democrat, much less the Super Delegates, first her endorsement of John McCain made my mouth drop. Second, the inciting of race as an issue disgusts me beyond words.
If Obama gets the most states, most pledged delegates, most votes, and the pundants start trying to sell Hillary to the electorate, I will leave my state and drive to Denver to be at the convention to support Obama and let the Super Delegates know that overriding the will of the voters will indeed have consequenses.
My representative is currently supporting Hillary. She came out in support before her district voted for Obama. I don't begrudge that support. However, if Obama gets the majority support of the people and delegates, and she does not change her support to Obama. I will vigerously campaign against her in her next election.
I will not vote for Hillary. The loss of my vote will not effect the Democratic Party in November as I happen to live in a safe Democratic state. But by writing in Obama when I vote, I will be living by my personal principals.
The Super Delegates need to understand the people want new, fresh leadership. Obama moves me in a way I never thought a politian would ever do again.
Foremost in the minds of Super Delegates regarding any loyalty to the party should be the future of the party membership rolls. Are you willing to let the generations who are dying off dictate while alienating the newest generation who will be the Party's future voters? This alone should be a no brainer.
March 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely GREAT post, add to that the difference in campaigns, one a complete train wreck & the other smooth as silk. Case closed.
March 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smooth, eh? In the last month the campaign has given the Republicans Michelle's "first time proud of America" followed by "mean America", the nudge nudge wink wink with Canada, now followed by a complete inability to anticipate what to say about Rev. Wright's serial controversial statements - Obama even saying he didn't know about them.
If Obama's out to destroy his credibility, he's off to a good start. Will he wait for after the nomination or before?
March 16, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another hate piece! Are you sure there is nothing else you want to hold her responsible for?
Global Warming perhaps?
Increased gas prices?
The rate of out of wedlock pregancies?
The fact that one in four teen age girls have some form of STD?
I mean, come on, why stop with the things you've listed above? Give it all you can!
March 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey gasket,
In all seriousness. What do you think is her best bet? The popular vote argument to convince the supers? A second ballot at the convention?
I admit, I'm torn on what to think if Obama wins the pledged delegates and Clinton wins the popular vote. On the one hand, the popular vote IMO is usually the best estimate of the will of the voters, but the problem with that is the caucus system and the different ways states hold primaries, etc. OTOH, the delegate vote is the way the system is built. If either side were to simply target delegates, the different ways those are allocated would not always follow the popular vote, which is a problem in itself. However, does this system necessarily show who is best equipped to win the GE? maybe the popular vote would show that more than delegates...there's just so many complex things to consider I'm not sure the supers are prepared to make that decision if the PR at the time is swinging one way or another.
March 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drosz
I understand about how you are grappling with the popular vote vs delegates being split between Obama and Clinton.
The way I reasoned that is that the most delegates are awarded to those districts which vote predominately Democratic over a 3 year period. Which means that winning the popular vote is NOT indicate of winning the majority of Democratic voters that vote.
Additionally, the primary rules are about winning delegates to reach the number for the nomination 2025 (I think) which means that ALL the candidates know those rules at the outset.
What Hillary's campaign did was cynically write off most of the democratic electorate and not pay attention to what she needed to do to win the nomination as she beleived she was inevitable and did not need to focus on the votes. They miscalculated that SHE would have the insurmountable lead in delegates and steamroll to the nomination. Her plan failed because they failed to plan. Just like GW Bush's war, same exact strategic blunder.
Given Hillary's 20 years of experience on the national scene and having the most formidable political machine out there, she has been beat fair and square because Obama did play by the rules. He planned to win. He targeted the democratic areas where they vote most heavily democratic and thus he won the most delegates, fair and square.
Because of this, I beleive ELECTED delegates trump the popular vote. If all districts were created equal by the popular vote there would be equal distribution of delegates...it isn't it is weighted and that is so all democratic candidates know IN ADVANCE where they need to campaign and focus. It is those voters in those districts who are loyal democrats.
Given all this and the rules being well known. Delegates trump the popular vote.
Hillary knows that too, she is just trying as usual to change the rules in the middle of the game. The primary has NEVER been about votes it has always been a race for the most delegates to win the nomination.
Obama wins because he planned ahead just like his judgment on the war. The difference between the 2 candidates in how they have run their campaign is precisely the difference between their critical thinking and analysis when it came to their judgment about the war.
Hillary refuses to acknowledge her mistakes, and just like with the war vote, she seeks to obfuscate and mislead about as long as it is politically expedient.
Our country does not need anymore of this.
Hillary will continue to be a fine Senator from NY despite having 6 years to plan for this Presidential campaign, all she did was stack the deck and demonstrate very poor strategic planning skills just as she has done with healthcare.
No popular vote in the primary trumps delegates.
Now if only the media would start telling this hard truth, we might be able to push Clinton off the national stage as her funds would dry up.
March 16, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also make a lot of my judgements on how well a candidate runs their campaign and I definitely think Obama wins in that regard. So in large part, that is why he gets my vote.
My worry is that the same thing that happened in 2000 will happen if there's a split between the popular vote and delegates. Supporters on both sides seem to be taking a suicide stance if their candidate doesn't get the nod, admittedly, there seems to be more Clinton supporters saying this, but Obama supporters are not without sin on this. I tend to think the same as you since that was always the name of the game...get the most delegates. OTOH, how will that look if either one wins without a clear lead in the popular vote?
March 16, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi drosz,
I think neither candidate will have the requisite pledged delegates by the time the convention rolls around.
I think Obama will maintain a lead in pledged delegates but that his momentum will backslide.
I think Clinton will gain momentum and pull ahead in the popular vote. I think she'll maintain her edge in supers.
I think MI will revote, and FL will be unfairly divided, causing a modest and brief uproar.
Much to our dismay, Obama and Clinton will be essentially tied.
By June, supporters on both sides will begin to be hospitalized for a never-before-seen syndrome of exhaustion, mental anguish, photoreceptor damage, and carpal tunnel.
Ultimately, I think Al Gore will have to flip a coin to decide it. ;-)
March 16, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What everyone can agree about is the participation of voters and that participation is stimulated by the fact that the candidate on the Democratic side hasn't yet been decided on. People who want to jump the gun and not give the citizens of states whose primaries are held later a chance to express themselves are simply lacking in Democratic spirit -- to put it politely -- which brings me to my second point: the relatively high number of crude remarks in the statements of the followers of one of the candidates. I hold the CANDIDATE responsible and not the followers who are obviously being manipulated which does not bode very well for the Democratic process.
March 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
stravu9,
Speaking of Global Warming leading perhaps to another Great Dying when life may be snuffed out altogether, Hillary may be giving Mother Nature another chance to evolve an intelligent life form after the current failed experiment.
Got to give Hillary credit for that with her proposals for [he he] "clean coal."
Can you think of anything else we can credit Hillary for?
There must be something.
Best, Terry
March 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This country, and the world, faces an energy crisis and global warming from the unrestrained use of greenhouse gas releasing carbon based energy sources.
In view of this, and in the interest of a greener America and a safer world, would the last person to leave the Clinton campaign please turn off the lights? And could that be as soon as possible?
March 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading the comments, does anyone doubt that if Hillary doesn't pull ahead in the popular vote, her supporters will just find some other goalpost to move?
Imagine if Camp Clinton were in charge of the Super Bowl...
"No, no, no. It's not about touchdowns anymore. They don't reflect the will of the spectators. No, the team with the highest completion percentage wins. Yeah, that's it. Unless Hillary doesn't complete any passes, of course, in which case the winner is the one with the highest quarterback rating. Yeah, that's how it should be done. Well, unless..."
March 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Create a strawman. Knock it down. You're so clever to be able to do that. I've posted several times here that I believe that if Clinton doesn't win the popular vote she should lose.
March 16, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well written Amber.
The media needs to provide better coverage of the nomination process when it comes to Hillary's chances.
By not doing so they keep up an illusion that she is winning, when she is not.
The pundits have failed to repeat ad infinitum that Hillary has not had the lead in delegates since IA. Not once.
The media refuses to hammer home how Obama has won 23 states to her 12 states and that is an injustice to the country as it is not conveying how many Americans are deciding Barack should be the President.
If the media would just do their job that would go a long way to helping Clinton supporters see how badly she is losing.
March 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's fair to say at this point that, unless Obama has an Elliott-Spitzer-style meltdown, Hillary is pretty much finished for this year.
And really, that's a shame in many respects. I personally think she's a far better candidate than is reflected by her advisers (That said, she did hire them...).
This just wasn't her year. I just hope she doesn't damage the Party too much before she sucks it up and does the right thing. Unless she scorches too much earth, I look forward to voting for her in 2016. Obama first to change history: Hillary second.
March 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make an excellent point, Amber. And it put me in mind of something I heard this earlier on MSNBC--from a Republican operative of some sort whose name I can't recall. This woman was responding to a Democratic supporter of Obama and what she said was (and I am not quoting): Now some of the Democrats are starting to understand what Republicans don't like about the Clintons. The Republican story is that Bill and Hillary are experts at the politics of division.
There's a lesson here for Democrats. Republicans will come out in droves against Hillary because they don't want to wander out in the wilderness for 8 years, just as Democrats have done under Bush. Obama is right--it's time to turn the page not only to get progressive policies on the table, but to nominate a president that can work across the aisle to get those policies enacted.
March 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howdy. I'm a refugee from the Fray over on the Slate.
Just wanted to note that it's exactly because Obama is whipping Hillary in the campaign that the Clintons had to play the affirmative action hero card.
Basically, she has to have a "plausible" explanation for why a lightweight one term jr. senator from Illinois is kicking her "35 years of public service"-first lady-ex president husband--$180 million warchest--top level advisors--number one name recognition ass.
Their answer? Because he has the unfair advantage of being Black.
HAR DEE HAR HAR HAR. THAT'S SO RICH.
March 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
To call Hillary a divider is just plain stupid! The divider is Obama! He says he can bring the country together...and yet, in every state since South Carolina, the vote has been divided between blacks and whites, women and men, old and young...
I don't think that is bringing the country together. He is splitting it right down the middle. It's a fact!
March 16, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I get it, it's all Barack's fault. How convenient. But you do realize that your faulty logic would seem to suggest that Hillary is as much a divider as Barack, don't you?
If what you're suggesting is true (and it isn't), why hasn't Hillary managed to bridge the divides you're seeing?
March 16, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that maggi hasn't quite realized that if candidate X is winning all of the A voters and none of the B voters, then it also means that candidate Y is winning all of the B voters and none of the A voters (assuming only 2 candidates, of course).
I think you might have to be a latte-sipping, Prius-driving, ivory-tower-intellectual to get that kind of fancy logic. ;)
March 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
maggi: can you spell Ferraro? can you read exit polling statistics? Obama's support is very broad-based unlike HRC's angry old white women and the uneducated. For the sake of the country, HRC needs to be defeated and relegated to the garbage dump of American history. Her time is long pasted. Time to get over the 1960s folks... I did and so, can you!
March 16, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL she may lose the battle but Obama will lose in November and will tear the democratic party apart. Keep being in denial Obama is not the person he presents and you will be heartbroken when the truth keeps coming out and exposes the fraud for who he is.
March 16, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jennie - This just wasn't your candidate's year. Hillary made a good effort - no one faults her for that, and she'll be a great candidate in 2016. Obama will make history as the first black president, and if he can find an LBJ to do the legislative log-rolling, he'll be one of our great ones, I think; Hillary follows that up with a history-making two terms as the first woman.
March 16, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
mftalbot: I will agree with you in part and disagree with you in part. Obama will be elected in November 2008. However, HRC will never be elected president. She is of the 20th century, old history. By 2016, there will be more 21st century candidates.
I would have pointed out to Jennie that the only campaign tearing at the Democratic Party is that of HRC. Thanks to HRC, $100 million dollars will be spent in continuing the primary campaign for months and still getting the same result: HRC=loser, Obama=winner.
Obama could now be well on his way to building his 60% coalition against the GOP. Instead, he is having to deal with HRC's juvenile pursuit of 50%+1.
And considering that HRC has endorsed John McCain, what else is there to say expect beware of a Goldwater Girl, as she never changes her knickers.
March 16, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wants to register Chelsea2016.com?
March 16, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wants to register Chelsea2016.com?
It's already registered!!
March 16, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was inevitable! *grin*
March 17, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
How's that Donnie McClurkin working out for you, merlot?
March 16, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so wrong about the 50+1 Strategy. I have proof:
from the link in the original post delegatehub.com
No advantage whatsoever. None. "My not having any other opponents on the ballot in Michigan cannot possibly be construed as an advantage. It just shows how inevitable I really am."
Now that is what I call a faith based initiative.
March 16, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep smokin' Jennie, soon you'll buy the bridge I'm selling in NYC.
March 16, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
amber said:
Wait. I thought you said she was not a uniter.
What? Uniting it? I'm confused.
Or maybe you are.
March 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
amber said:
Bizarre how the party leaders seem to be allowing Hillary to cheat, steal, extort, and stir up hate. What's up with that?
March 16, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
amber said:
If you want us to take your argument seriously, amber, then I'd avoid using the oracles of Bill Maher, Frank Rich, and Keith Olbermann.
March 16, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that I can entirely agree with avoiding using the folks that you cited considering that Hillary Clinton made a calculated move on a nationally televised debate referencing Saturday Night Live that made a big splash. (By the way SNL's Tracy Morgan rebuttal to Tina Fey's Hillary endorsement yesterday night was pretty funny: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/16/snls-weekend-update-spitzer-romney-and-tracy-morgan-on-obama/)
However, I see your point although I disagree. Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos made an observation this weekend which I'm beginning to see more of in the media:
"Meanwhile, in Iowa Saturday, Clinton lost a delegate while Obama picked up nine of them in the state's county conventions. In Oregon, the state AFSCME broke with the national organization (which endorsed Clinton) and endorsed Obama for its primary. The party's activists continue to move in large numbers toward Obama while Nancy Pelosi has essentially cast her lot with Obama. Clinton supporters are increasingly paranoid as the walls close in on their candidate's campaign, but it's essentially over. They may rail against Pelosi, or the media, or Howard Dean, or Keith Olbermann, or Daily Kos, or whatever and whoever. But what they are seeing is a consolidation of the party around the primary's winner, and that is already Barack Obama whether the Clinton campaign and her shrinking number of supporters wants to acknowledge it or not."
http://kos.dailykos.com/
March 17, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I am not railing against Nancy Pelosi, the media, or Howard Dean, at least not in this thread.
But I am rolling on the floor laughing at the concept that Frank Rich, Bill Maher, DailyKos, and Keith Olbermann count as "consolidation of the party." I'm sorry, I can't help it. Go ahead and throw in Oprah and Maureen Dowd, I simply don't care.
Pop culture icons and mavens have their place in the discussion. But I personally don't count their place for much more than entertainment or elevate their opinions to a ranking above mine.
As for actual party leaders and VIPs, like Pelosi, Dean, and Brazille, they are entitled to their inscrutable positions. As far as I can tell, Pelosi and Dean have a big mess on their hands. Even bigger if they disenfranchise millions of voters.
March 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing I'd like to point out:
Markos Moulitsas lobbied extensively for Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in the CT midterms in 2006. Lamont won the primary election, yet despite Lamont's overwhelming "progressive" and "party elder" support, Lieberman won every single county in the general election.
So count me unimpressed with Kos's predictions.
March 17, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment