March 4 Could Place Clinton at the Gore-Huckabee Divide
Here is where we currently stand: not only must Sen. Clinton win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania primaries, she must do so in convincing fashion. If the math of NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd is accurate, that convincing fashion must look like a 65-35 margin.
Though not impossible, the hill she must climb is steep and getting steeper with each Obama victory. Her losing 11 straight primaries to Obama would suggest Clinton did not have a post Super Tuesday strategy.
What else would explain not fighting for delegates in places like Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota? The Obama campaign has demonstrated that the quality of these delegates is equal to those of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California.
Not only has Clinton lost 11 in a row, but also they've been old fashion thumpins.
Moreover, she has run out of excuses. First, it was the caucus system was not necessary reflective of the state. Then it was Obama was winning because of the large African American presence. Then it became Obama was winning states that Democrats can't win in November, while she was winning the states that Democrats need to be victorious in the fall.
But three things happened to permanently debunk those arguments: The Chesapeake primaries, the Wisconsin primary and the unofficial endorsement of John Edwards's supporters.
The Chesapeake primaries comprised of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia demonstrated a widening of Obama's reach. He won rural parts of Maryland that line up with similar parts of Pennsylvania.
He began wining the white men that had previously gone to Edwards, cut into her lead with women, and by winning persuasively in Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama won a state that has been traditionally red and becoming increasingly purple along with a state that Gore and Kerry eked out 2000 and 2004 respectively that is necessary to the Democrat's fortunes in the general election.
Clinton is in an obvious must-win-big situation. If she defeats Obama in Texas by, say, a 51-49 margin, the Texas primary-caucus system could conceivably net more delegates to Obama.
If Clinton fails to win both Ohio and Texas on March 4 -- something that former president Bill Clinton concedes is necessary if she is to remain viable -- what then?
The Clinton campaign has stated for weeks that Texas and Ohio were their firewall. To lose either state would translate into 12 losses in the last 13 primary/caucuses. What would be the rationale to continue?
Should she lose either Texas or Ohio, It would appear that Clinton would be at an unenviable crossroad -- would she choose the path of Al Gore or that of Mike Huckabee?
Though virtually impossible for Huckabee overtake John McCain, he has stayed the race for the Republican presidential nomination. It is certainly Huckabee's right to stay in the race, but in doing so he has been a thorn in McCain's side that has slowed the presumptive nominees ability to unify the party.
After the contentious and controversial Bush v. Gore decision whereby the Supreme Court named George Bush the 43rd president, Al Gore was lauded for his magnanimous concession speech.
Speaking to the American people, Gore stated: "Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it...And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."
Everything that we've seen from the Clintons would lead reasonable people to conclude the Huckabee path is the more likely choice.
The difference being, Mike and Janet Huckabee are not the first family of the Republican Party. His staying in the race may ultimately pay long-term benefits. The Clinton's do not have that luxury.
Bill Clinton has already done self-inflicted damage to his standing as a former president. To stay in the race through the Puerto Rico primary in June simply because Obama has failed to reach the 2025 delegate threshold to secure the nomination could not only cause further damage to the Clinton legacy, it could cause a split within Democratic Party.
Sadly, neither seems to be high priority for Clinton or her spouse. But hope springs eternal.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of "Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War." E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Oh and if Tim Russert really wanted to give Clinton a hard time, he would've asked the question that every journalist has failed to ask and get an answer to. "Was your vote for the Iraq war a mistake, yes or no?" Clinton has never, EVER given a yes or no answer. So quit claiming the media is too hard on her. If anything, they're too easy on her.
On the other hand, to you, Dimmy, was the bill she voted "aye" on, a specific decaration of war, or simply granting our idiot Clown-in-chief the power to send troops into Iraq? Of cousre, I fully agree she was assuming the "adults" (such as Colin Powell) in his cabinet would stop a dumb invasion. Oh, and she was looking at Bush's approval rating, not that she should have.
Obama seems to be doing his best to assist her in bowing out gracefully if that is what needs to be done. Political figures (especially the Clintons) have survived much worse. When will some dems stop claiming the sky is falling?
Be patient and you'll never kill someone who's committing suicide. Hillary is in self-destruct mode, and whatever she says or does will not affect Democratic success in November.
I don't think she's being particularly destructive, and her measured rants are simply attempts to make distinctions out of differences that aren't much.
The big difference in the candidates is that Obama has a clear character advantage over Hillary and Bill, and he's wise enough to stick with his positions with minor nuanced changes.
I think that Hillary will opt out soon, and her speech should be one to make the party and the country proud of her once again.
She could be the best thing that has happened to the Republican Party since the AUMF vote, if she pushes it to the end. Perhaps she wants to be a VP for a crossover campaign with McBain. Wild Bill would love it, and you know he already said how well the two get along.
I bet the Republicans are hypocritical enough to fall in love with ANY Fallen Democrat, even the one they have an avowed hatred of. It would fit with that whole "born again," motiff.
"To stay in the race through the Puerto Rico primary...
The Clintons have demonstrated no concern whatsoever for the party's future, only their own sense of entitlement to power.
They will surely continue on their "slash-and-burn" course, regardless of the consequences to our chance to turn republicans from power.
How Obama handles the Clinton poison-pill, burn-down-
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
