The Same Old Story: Discrediting Hillary

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary

Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning.

Last night Hillary Clinton picked up the sixth big state out of the seven the Democrats need to win the fall presidential contest. Obama has only won one big state, Illinois -- and that is it. She has won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania (and, yes, Florida and Michigan). Yet in today's newspapers and partisan websites, the critics are downplaying Clinton's victory (even her erstwhile supporter the New York Times criticizes her in its lead editorial for running a dirty campaign), dismissing any triumph as meaningless because of Obama's lead in elected delegates, and suggest once again that she drop out so she does not further hurt the "inevitable" nominee, Barack Obama.

How many times have we heard these sorts of admonishments, starting back with the New Hampshire primary? But despite her stumbling start in the caucus states, Clinton has come on strong and has now created a solid coalition that Obama cannot, for all of his money and his eloquence, break into.

Let this drama play out now and let the Super Delegates make up their own minds in due course without interference from on-line critics or hot-headed columnists or TV prognosticators or panicky Democratic Party strategists. Let the delegates in Denver play their proper role in deciding the outcome of this contest. This is after all a democracy.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary

Comments

[druidmary]

really he's only won the elite parts of the states and the black votes in the cities. Not rural America and not blue collar towns.

read

hillaryisourchoice.com/elite.htm

see the numbers , see the maps.

add PA to the list. he wins Harrisburg(wealthy community) and the city. THATS IT! That's not going to wint the GE..

[S1m0n]

Hillary Clinton can polarize the race enough to eke out wins in some favorable states, but at an exorbitant cost: each time she has done this, her tactics disgust large chunks of the party, and this means that she loses the next few contests. In every case, this has resulted in a net loss.

Which is how she ended up in these straits to begin with.

[sraman2]

People in the media are saying that racism is preventing Obama from winning white votes. Maybe a small portion are racists but to label us all -- that is DISGUSTING spin and that is all!

What about the fact that ever since South Carolina ( when Bill's words were negatively spun by the media and Sen Obama's surrogates) -- 85 to 90% of the African Americans are voting for Hillary. Why is the media so afraid of mentioning that. It is a truth and not to be shoved under the rug whilst they call out that racist whites r the reason why barack cannot close the deal.

There are 13+ million people who voted for Hillary -- are they all racists?

[kohoutek]

And in response to the rather childish assertions that if Obama or Clinton doesn't win, "I'll vote for McCain or stay home..." That's just great.

Reminds me of all those people who voted for Nader on the premise there was no difference between the parties. We know how well that worked out. I, too, have become rather cynical about all of Washington. But there is still enough of a difference between the two parties' basic assumptions and platforms to warrant participation.

America needs better access to healthcare, to address Iraq constructively, to address global warming and energy alternatives, to improve education and our crumbling infrastructure, and American competitiveness. Either Obama or Clinton would bring the preferred perspective on all these issues to the White House.

It's time to grow up, people. Republicans hold their nose and rally (witness Santorum backpedaling on McCain). Democrats need to learn to do the same.

[jwod]

With all of the energy and words spent on parsing the minutia separating Obama and Hillary, the message seems to get lost. Polls indicate Clinton has never approached sufficient popularity to win against McCain. Obama is the likeliest General election winner of the two. Isn't that what it's about?
After a disastrous Bush administration, and 15 years of the Republican-led construction of a National Historic Monument-size deficit, how could it be that Republicans still have a chance to win the White House? Easy! Democrats are doing what I thought Republicans had the corner on, fighting among ourselves over who we like, as opposed to the only issue: WHO CAN WIN?
Of the three candidates left, McCain, Obama and Clinton, all leave me wanting. But I'm aware that Obama and Clinton are closer to my viewpoint, although seriously lacking in guts and perspective.
Nevertheless, with Clinton we're likely to get McCain in the White House. Why is it that other Dems can't see that?

[patianneb]

It's going to take a LOT to get me to the "hold my nose" stage and vote for Hillary if it comes to that--mostly because at least at present it is obvious in order for that to happen the so-called Supers will have stolen the nomination from Obama.
I too was an Edwards supporter and have bridled at the "Super" notion since well before Obama moved ahead in delegates & popular vote.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be the first time I've failed to vote for that office, though I've NEVER failed to vote...a longer history than I sometimes like to think about.
Having said that, between Congressional elections, State and Local candidates and issues, there are always matters of great importance on which to vote.
At the end of the day, I feel Congress the Courts and the States themselves are far more important with much longer lasting consequences than the person sitting (or squatting) in the White House.

[kohoutek]

And what you point out, the difficulty of holding one's nose if the superdels contradict the delegate and popular vote math, is the inherent problem with Clinton's strategy. I'll confess and say that at this moment, it would be difficult for me, too. Basically, I'm hoping to be spared that.

Given that an Obama nomination would require no such interventions, I'm hoping the Clinton backers would ultimately get on board with him, and in the meantime understand that a lot of people aren't opposing Clinton's continuing fight out of real animosity toward her or her supporters, or because of brainwashing, but because we see that the only way she'll get the nomination is by what can only be termed a contradiction of the popular will. And that will be difficult to follow, in terms of principle, rather than in terms of candidate preference.

[kohoutek]

I can't quite see the logic that leads from "This is after all a democracy" to "let the superdelegates decide."

I originally was backing Edwards. I eventually settled on Obama, voted for him in the Colorado caucus, being my choices had been narrowed to two by then.

The problem I have with this dragged out process is what I'm seeing here and in other places: The polarization of the Democratic electorate. Does Hillary have the right to fight it out to the bitter end? Of course. Is it helping America? I don't think so.

I do have a problem with a strategy that relies solely on prolonging the fight when the only possible hope for victory relies on being rescued by the superdelegates. Clinton obviously won't have a lead in delegates or popular vote, the two most basic measures of the Democratic electorate's will.

And I have a problem with how that strategy has come to rely mainly on utilizing a Rovian swift-boat playbook. Sure, "that's politics"...As they've come to be defined by the Republicans to obviously disastrous results for the country. And I thought Democrats were sick of this.

Not saying she's evil, not disparaging her supporters. I want a Democratic administration. They'd both be better than Bush, or McCain. Their platforms aren't that different, in the end.

But equating a superdelegate "coup" to democracy in action is a real stretch, and it's time to see that for what it is: clutching at straws.

[urfree2speak]

I am a VOTER...I am a African American and I am not blind ....African Americans supported BILL CLINTON ...WE SUPPPORTED ALL OF THE WHITE PEOPLE THAT RAN FOR THIE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND ... in the Democratic party. But I will tell you this, I will NEVER forget this racial minstrel show that some in the Democratic party has trotted out to the American people. Katrina....now this....Bill Clinton would NOT even sign the anti racial profiling bill....there are single mothers TRAPPED in poverty working just to pay the child care bill..see Bill Clinton and so called Welfare Reform.

We supported Bill Clinton when the republicans were screaming for his scalp...his hide.... over what? WE KNOW WHAT THAT WAS...how low and sad can you sink?...... Well I guess you can sink LOWER....African Americans gave him this "overwhelming black support"

Now he mocks the African American and all of what they stand for ..

Behold the Clinton legacy "the first black president" has literally been steam powered by a young half black man , that has ran a brilliant campaign..managed his resources and is not begging for cash to continue to sling mud at this man (Willie Horten style) Well i say this IT IS OVER...finished....

Lets not for get the brave troops fighting and dying..BALCK AND WHITE... all we can do is this?

What was that that Rev. Wright really said?

[sraman2]

Let us have a honest discussion here. When Clinton used the "fairytale " word he was referring to Sen Obama's vote on Iraq ( or lack of as he was not in the senate). HE WAS NOT REFERRING TO OBAMA'S COLOR! U can disagree with me but if u read an article in Huffpost in early april u will find a link . The media loves Obama and have always painted this factor with a bad slant against the clintons.


Are u saying that every african american who has voted for Barack is done it soley on his merit? Be honest to urself. Your own Tavis Smiley was given death threats because he criticised Obama's skipping the New Orleans mtg of the "Black State of the union...or sth like that". My colleagues ( who happen to be black and good friends of mine) have received phone calls asking them to vote for Barack only for his skin color!!

Up until Sen Obama won in Iowa, the Clintons were well liked by most of the African American population. But it stopped when they realised Sen Obama is electable and their emotions took over and they started to vote for him en masse pretty much. Fine..it is understandable but dont blame it on Hillary or Bill!! Then South Carolina happened and the media and the campaign of Sen Obama did their spin on Bill Clinton's fairytale comment and all hell has broken against them ever since that!!

[Gilda]

Obama can win the "big states" - - as soon as Mrs. Clinton throws in the towel.
She is dividing the party and splitting the vote. Her name will not be on the ballot in
November (hopefully) Her base of supporters will vote Democrat in the fall, unless
she continues to poison the well for her own ambitions.
It would not surprise me if the Clintons somehow figure out a way to get her
on the ballot before the election though. They are reading the playbook right now!

STOP THE SPIN!

[bobdob]

Allow me to make one important point here: as the final states cast their votes, each candidate will come closer to the magic number of 2024, but the difference between them won't change much. Obama is about 150 delegates ahead, and he's likely to stay approximately there from here on out. Before Pennsylvania, Clinton needed wins of at least 65 points in all the remaining states in order to catch up with him. Now she needs more like 68 points--in EVERY remaining state. After North Carolina, she'll probably need to get 80 percent of the vote or better in all the remaining states in order to catch up with Obama. And even if she were to somehow manage to pull off that impossible feat, she'd still need to convince nearly 65% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to back her.

In other words, Hillary's campaign is an exercise in futility. She lost long ago.

[Opus007]

The Clintons know they can't win. BUT 4 out of 5 Clinton supporters think she can. That is because of the steady drip from their email campaign fundraising claiming --WE ARE ALMOST THERE! Do you think that Bill and Hill want to cough up their own money to pay her 10 million in campaign debt. NO WAY! But they have no qualms what so ever about going after the lowest income segment of our society uneducated people and older women for donations - time and time again. It is despicable. The Clintons are like sleazy televangelists fleecing the sheep!

[marika]

You said it! So true.

[kohoutek]

Funnily enough, that might be as good an explanation as any, staying in to raise funds, pay down the campaign debt.

[ZapDuff]

The few media outlets that earn your wrath are the few that are being fair. I assume you endorse those such as most of the clowns on Fox and MSNBC's Scarborough that promote Chillary... as the easiest of the Dem candidates for McCan't to whip come fall. You are critical of the journalists and (sadly also getting way more air time and inches than they deserve) pundits who offer an accurate perspective and context for the Pennsylvania outcome. Your problem would be solved with a cheap calculator. Add up the numbers Schleshinger: Countable votes. Delegates. States. And finally: Future availabilities for these items.

[Listen2me]

IF Senator Clinton had fought ONE-TENTH as hard against Bush and Cheney as she has against Senator Obama, why she would have been nominated by acclamation.

All her campaign demonstrates is that the Clinton selfishness and self-centeredness includes both Bill and Hill. Bill, however, has that intangible quality quality of charisma. People like him.

Hillary hasn't got it. Yes, she was won some big states---at first, with name recognition---and more recently, with a Rove-style smear and rend campaign. Pennsylvania is a Pyrrhic victory---fatal to Barack and fatally costly to Hillary, too. Now she has a shot at a nomination that isn't worth having.

You must live in Bizzaro world. In the real world, Senator Clinton is disliked and despised by the independent voters, and McCain sweeps them up. Now she has infected the Democratic Party---convincing her own followers that Obama is so "Muslim," so anti-flag, so pro-terrorist and anti-gun, etc etc, that they won't vote for him in the fall. Good work, jerk.

Obama rolled a gutter ball in Pennsylvania. Clinton just rolled in the gutter.

There's nothing to cheer about. She has put her own ambition ahead of the party and ahead of the country, and when she LOSES BIG in November, she'll blame someone else for that, too. The Clintons and Bushes deserve each other, but why do the rest of us deserve to suffer through this?

[Gilda]

Perfect!

[FargoRanger]

Hillary fantasizes about ducking sniper fire in Bosnia, about being a leader and gaining experience while living vicariously through her husband's presidency, and now about having a chance to win the nomination. Her apparent victories are best understood as halting erosion of support before the vote is taken. Her strategy of trying to be the default choice after making her opponent unelectable will not win her the nomination. Gore is the default if the Democrats want to win, not Clinton.

[kerlerec]

Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd say this sounds suspiciously like WHINING from the Clinton camp. Their new favorite word. But since it's only the Obama campaign that does that, I must be mistaken --

[bobdob]

Hillary has run her entire campaign on her husband's resume. She's hoping that ill-informed voters will hand her the nomination, thinking that a Hillary Clinton presidency would resemble a Bill Clinton presidency in some way. Clearly it would not. For one thing, Hillary is an unrepentant hawk. Not only did she vote to go to war in Iraq, she also defended the surge and argued originally against withdrawing the troops. And then there's her comment about "obliterating" Iran.

Just what we DON'T need in office--another bullet-headed warmonger, intent upon bullying her way into another war in another Middle Eastern country.

[LBKN]

"......... Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning.........."


Whatever works. We are simply exercising Clintonesque creativity in an attempt to get her to go away. If creative malignant rot and underhanded flexible reality is good enough for her... well then... she and her surrogates should quit whining or get out of the kitchen heat.... like Jessie Jackson did when it became apparent that he couldn't win.

Sleeze is her comstant companion. You, Mr Schlesinger, need to stop blaming things "other -than-Clinton" for the trail of slime that follows her like some giant bannana slug camoflaged in a pantsuit.

It's called karma... and she can't escape it any more than you or I can ecsape ours.... and this is an important aspect of karma... nobody but Hill can create 'her' karma. IOW... whatever sh!t she's crawling through must be an aspect of her own creation. That's the immutable rule.

So, when looking for someone to complain about when your Queen is failing... better check under the hip-tent she wears and calls a pantsuit. She's the source..... blame her.

[Schnitzel]

That's quite a win that Hillary had there wasn't it? What is that a net gain of 9 delegates? OK so she's only behind by, what, 130? That still sounds an awful lot like losing to me. I don't think she's likely to hold onto that gain for very long; by all yardsticks that gain is going to be erased in North Carolina.

For those who mistakenly claim that the anger at Bush is wrongly aimed at Hillary consider this: Hillary campaigns the exact same way that Bush governs; utilizing dirty tricks, divisivness and fear. That's WHY that anger is directed at her. Considering that, why should any rational person expect that Hillary would be any more effective at governing the country? Obviously if she can't build a consensus within her own party - she has a hard enough time building one in her own campaign- she's certainly not going to be able to build one in the White house.

Hillary should stay in the campaign as long as she can afford to; but her debts should be payed first. Her campaign has failed to pay an awful lot of bills and that has hurt a lot of people who haven't made $109 million in the last 8 years. If she can't pay off her debts first and then continue her campaign, she should drop out.

[S1m0n]

"...by all yardsticks that gain is going to be erased in North Carolina."

Every one of Hillary's win is the same. All her victories are Pyrrhic, and within days of every one of them she loses more ground that she'd gained.

Substantially more, because her tactics are also pissing off superdelegates like Richardson. These are people whose support she'd been counting on, but who change their minds in disgust

[bobdob]

The real joke here is that she's now declaring herself ahead in the popular vote. Only one problem: since Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington don't report their vote totals (only delegate totals), she really has no idea if she's ahead or not. Another lie from the Clinton campaign. Interesting also that she's including Michigan--a state where her opponent wasn't even on the ballot--but ignoring four states that actually count. After all her railing about how all the votes must be counted, this is the definition of hypocrisy.

[knighthowl]

I am one of those who voted for Hillary in California. At that time, I had no idea that she was unbalanced (her Bosnia myth) or that she would destroy the Democratic party to satisfy her own ambition. If I could take back my vote and give it to Obama, I would do so in a heart beat. I suspect that I am not alone.

[Shozen]

ODE TO HILLARY

One year ago, she did say,
"Inevitable, it will go my way!
I will be President of this land.
So lobbyist you'd better kiss my hand.
And give me Dough, for which to spend,
So presidential I'll look to the end!"
But a bitter wind grew across the land.
For the Net Roots decided to take a stand.
"We do not want our White House Fair,
To be up for bid, to get her there!"
So by Twenty Fives and Fifties dollars flew,
to a man people barely knew.
He aspired to hope, he called for change,
and his message grew and burned the range!
Until what was once inevitable,
Became a huge pile of Bull.
"To the mud," the woman cried.
"Lets bury Hope, in a land slide!"
But the mud she threw, just could not slow.
That voter current which became an under tow.
Though some wins came her way,
She was gradually pulled out and washed away.

[Democrab]

There once was a man named Obama
Who ran on a platform of karma
But the Clintons said "Son,
It's for president we run
Not His Holiness the Dalai Lama!"

[dzoner]

I'm starting to revile you Hillbots as I already do republlibots and for many of the same reasons.

Corruption piled upon corruption.

[LoRiseAntlers]

Why does Mr.Schlesinger,or any Clinton supporter,for that manner,feel it necessary to lie in defense of her?

Nobody's slamming her for winning,we're slamming her for being a goddamn Republican!

[PhDiva]

People are not stomping on HIllary for winning. People are questioning HOW she won. Yes, winning an ethical and dignified manner actually matters to some of us. Clearly ethics and dignity are foreign concepts to Clinton and her supporters.

[quantum9leap]

Finally someone speaks with rationality. This current election is for DELEGATES.Get it folks? Currently of the total number of delegates garnered Mr. Obama has a 4% lead. The lead has remained in that manner for weeks now and will likely be the lead at the end of the primary election. For those of you who do not understand math 4% is just 4 delegates out of 100 or 40 out of 1000. There is no way that anyone of a rational nature can call that total a mandate.
Forget the points and total votes and all the rest of the garbage.The election is for DELEGATES to the convention at which time the Democratic party will make its choice. Media go home.You have no business interfering in this or any election for that matter.

[bobdob]

First, your twisting of the math is pathetic. Second, no one needs a mandate. Whoever wins the required number of delegates wins the nomination--it's as simple as that. Obama is ahead by 150 delegates, and he needs 330 more to win. That's all that counts. We don't decide this by percentages or popular votes or electoral votes or anything else. It's 2025 delegates. That's it. Spin it any way you like--there is simply no way for Hillary to make up the difference between her and Obama.

Hillary has lost. She lost when she failed to blow Obama out in Pennsylvania. Even then, her chances were impossibly slim. Now they're just impossible. The only reason she's still in this race is because she's an unbelievably sore loser.

[PhDiva]

This is the Clinton math again: If Clinton wins by one vote on anything, she says "A win is a win." If Obama wins by over 100 delegates and half a million voters: "It's a tie." It's not a tie. in an election a win IS a win. Obama has more votes and more delegates; it doesn't matter how much more. This is an election, not a negotation. Obama is winning. Hillary is losing. Deal with it.

[Justtellthetruth]

Yes, and Obama will have more delegates (and the popular vote), so he will win. Exactly right