The Latest Clinton Canard

The latest talking point for Hillary Clinton is this race is still early in the process and primaries from previous years were decided much later in the year. She recently told Time, as well almost every other interviewer she's talked to, "I remind a lot of people that my husband didn't formally wrap up the nomination until June."

The point is supposed to be that this race isn't over. They're just getting started. Give her more time. Here's the problem, that isn't really true.

In 1992, the year Bill Clinton won the nomination she's alluding to, the primaries started significantly later than they did in 2008. Iowa was on January 3rd this year and on February 10th in 1992 (remember, this year we'd already had Super Tuesday by Feb. 5th). New Hampshire was on January 8th in 2008 and February 18th in 1992. Super Tuesday was on Feb. 5th this year and was on March 10th in 1992 (we'd already had the so-called second Super Tuesday in Ohio and Texas by this date in 2008).

Secondly, despite the later start Bill Clinton had already locked up the nomination by early April after the New York primary. Hillary Clinton knows this and that's why she inserts a lawyerly word into her statement every time -- formally. "My husband didn't formally wrap up the nomination until June." [emphasis added]

So, why does she employ this needless piece of sophistry? Because she thinks she needs it. She needs to buy more time (can't you just see Scotty yelling down to Captain Kirk, "I need more time!").

The extra time isn't for more elections, there are only ten left. We've already had more than the lion's share of contests. It is abundantly clear that she can't catch him just based on the remaining elections. No, time buys her something else -- the chance for Obama to implode between now and whenever he formally wraps up the nomination.

If it was only a matter of Obama's candidacy self-destructing, that would be one thing. She could sit back and see if anything changes through the next set of elections. You can argue that she's earned that. But it's another thing if she is actively trying to push Obama off the cliff with the extra time she's buying, even though she knows there is a great likelihood that he will be the Democratic nominee.

If you don't care about the Democratic Party or who their nominee is or how they do in the general election, then you have all the right in the world to keep pounding away at your opponent. Who cares how badly you damage him if you're only interested in yourself? Who knows, it might even help your political career later.

But there is one group of people who do care -- Democratic voters. They are beginning to understand that this race is over and the cheap shots at this point aren't helping anyone but John McCain.

The problem isn't hitting Obama; the problem is hitting Obama after the bell. This contest is effectively over and Clinton is using her heaviest guns now. Perhaps she should have rolled them out earlier, but unleashing her most ferocious lines of attack after the writing is already on the wall seems like poor sportsmanship, to say the least.

It reminds me of when I used to watch WWF as a kid. The good guy would win the match and he would be strutting around the ring as the crowd cheered. And that's when the bad guy would get up, sneak behind him and clobber him in the back of the head. This was a cue to the audience -- the guy who hit after the bell was clearly the bad guy.

And if they were a really bad guy, they'd use a chair or worse. Who can forget the time "Rowdy" Roddy Piper hit Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka with a belt? Hillary, you don't want to be Rowdy Roddy Piper. He was the bad guy, a really bad guy.

Watch TYT Here

Comments

[PTBartman]

What an appropriate analogy on this most festive of days Cenk. Happy Wrestlmania to you and yours.

PS. You're dead solid perfect on this one. If McCain wins in Nov she gets another shot in 4yrs. That's why I still say the best thing that could happen for the Democratic Party and the country is for neither candidate to get the required delegates on the first ballot and force a brokered convention and Draft Al Gore.

[doodlefarbe]

C'mon Cenk, let `em go the full 15 rounds. It's about the best entertainment around these days.

P.S. Did you realize your name anagrams to Gunky Ecru? That'd be a pretty cool pseudonym.

[ChimpmasterDJ]

C'mon guys, give Cenk a break! You all KNOW that, if she could, Clinton would make a cogent argument, a BELIEVABLE cogent argument for why she is the better choice. Since she can't, she's lying, throwing the "kitchen sink" and anything else that falls at hand, well aware that this is only helping McCain, no one else.... unless she has plans for 2012. She should go play with her imaginary snipers and let us carry on with the business of electing a Democratic President.

[Secular]

Hi Cenk:
Give me a break. Why are you all so bent on closing the nomination process? Aren't there few more primaries to go? Is it a mathematical certainty that Obama will be the nominee? Are the chances of Clinton less than those of McCain say four months ago? In light of all these why are you guys clamoring for here to get out? You guys are not at all playing fair. First the rules of the game were known to everyone before they started. There are going to be some 800 super delegates and 50+ states would be voting in primaries and caucuses. Unless Obama has the required 2025 pledged delegates, you all better shut up. You are the ones changing the rules ad hoc. the SDs are not supposed to vote according any magic formula of popular votes, majority pledged delegates. These rules were written some time in 1984. Nothing Clintons had engineered. SDs are supposed to vote according their own individual criteria. So I am tired of Hillary haters constantly prescribing how the SDs have to vote. It is none of your damn business. Just wait till they make up their minds. These rules were designed to avoid a blow out of the kind that happened in 1972, when the Dems rode their happy wagon over the cliff. SDs were put in place to avoid the repeat of 1972. The first time SDs have become crucial you are all eager to prescribe how they are to behave.

[CitizenE]

In my neck of the woods, I have been hearing Hillary hate from centrists for well over a year. Obama, who really is almost an Edwards two Americas kind of guy, on the other hand seems to appeal.
But that's not what bothers me. Young people have been energized and engaged by Obama's candidacy in ways that I have not previously witnessed, and I teach college students. People in their twenties have grown up with a serious, and real, cynicism about elected officials, a kind of hopelessness. The Clinton campaign has done more in the last month to discourage their interest than John McCain and the Republican hate machine could ever do.
If the Democrats do not get elected in November, Hillary Clinton will be, watch my words, a pariah for years to come, and former President Clinton has done more to undo the good of his administration in the minds of the body politic in the past three months than an illicit affair in the oval office with a woman half his age ffice and months of impeachment proceedings were able to do. I have no doubt Clinton would be better than John McCain as president, but McCain could not do half as much damage to the Democratic party as Clinton's campaign has been able to accomplish.

[flatus]

I'm not seeing much discussion, maybe because it takes the situation out of our hands, about the Electoral College. Cenk, did I miss the mention? This, supposedly, is what Clinton is banking on to sway the "super Ds" since she has won most of the 'important' states.

[flatus]

if Obama can't stand the heat from a fellow Dem then how do you think it will play when the paid Republican swiftboaters get to work?

No, it's not the negatives about Obama that hurt, it's the positives about McCain that hurt.

[CitizenE]

And which positives are those?

[Jey]

Obama can stand the heat. The voters are getting sick of her bringing down the democratic party. If we stand a chance in hell at winning in November we better show how we can unite. Oh those swiftboaters, thanks for reminding me. That word 'swiftboater' should tell all Americans something. This group of individuals needs to get their arses to Iraq and fight. A member of my family who is serving would love the break.

[SethBLiNK]

No it isn't over, but that doesn't excuse the Clintons for acting as if nothing matter except them winning. If they would fight fair, nobody would mind letting the other states have their say.

And don't say, "the Republicans won't fight fair" as a retort. That's the Republican's job, to beat the Democrats at all costs. It isn't the job or the place of a Democrat to wage that kind of battle against another Democrat.

It's funny that you mentioned WWF because I was thinking about that the other day. The Clintons do remind me of a bad-guy tag-team. The kind where one distracts the ref while the other delivers dirty blows. And then they both act innocent with that "what did I do?" look on their faces.

It would be funny if the future of the world wasn't hanging in the balance.

[mhoiles]

How democratic of you to allow the voting process to unfold. Nice attempt at the assumtive close. It ain't over until the VOTERS say its over.

[rebeccaj]

The voters HAVE said it is over. There is no way that Hillary can win the popular vote and the delegate count. WE HAVE MADE OUR VOICES HURT.

The only thing Hillary can do is hope that a meteor hits Obama or try to destroy him.

How is it so wonderful that Hillary wants to destroy the candidate the majority of Democrats prefer?

You all are tearing the party apart and every dead soldier under a McCain presidency will be on yours and Hillary's heads!

[babar77]

Well, the voters have pretty much said it's over. That's why there's all this talk about the math. The voters gave Obama this lead that is near impossible for Clinton to beat.

This is no different then when McCain became the presumptive nominee for about a month before finally ending it in Texas. Huckabee was a side show not a viable candidate and the voters made it that way. Much in the same way that the voters have made Clinton a side show, not a viable candidate.

[legalclubs]

The Democratic infighting has already turned off a number of my friends who lean Democratic or lean independent. Whereas two months ago they thought that the Democratic party had put forth two excellent canidates: Hillary Clinton with her experience to correct the errors of the past 7 years and Obama with his charisma and ability to lead us back to greatness. A win-win no matter who prevailed and a super win-win if they teamed up for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket. We were unstoppable and the Republicans didn't have a snowballs chance. Now, Clinton is quickly becoming known as a "congenital lier" (that "sniper story" is not going away in a general election given that McCain really did face down fire) and Obama is becoming known as unqualified and the "black candidate" who will represent blacks first, then everyone else second (Rev. White story). We can't win this way. How is it going to look when McCain attacks Obama using a line from Hillary Clinton? It can't be countered as right-wing propoganda if the source was Hillary. This is what destroyed Dukakis -- Al Gore's campaign use the Willie Horton attack in the primary and the Republicans just picked it up in the General Election. Also, could Clinton and Obama ride the same ticket now? Could you imagine VP Clinton in a debate where she is asked to explain comments she made about Obama not being experienced enough or explain Bill Clinton's comments about Obama's patriotism?

[nazgul]

Good points:

How is it going to look when McCain attacks Obama using a line from Hillary Clinton?

She is pre-testing and legitimizing these right-wing style attacks for McCain and/or "his" 527s.

"Could Clinton and Obama ride the same ticket now?"

As a news commentator said last night, she could trust him, but he certainly couldn't trust her. And the sources were close Clinton friends.

"Could you imagine VP Clinton in a debate where she is asked to explain comments she made about Obama not being experienced enough or explain Bill Clinton's comments about Obama's patriotism?"

NOPE. She'd be of no help in responding to any of the other slams, either.

As far as I can see, he would help her get back the AA, progressive and youth communities, but she would help him with almost nothing, since she will never re-convert low, middle income working class back to thinking he's not some angry black man. He's better off with Richardson.

[cam]

Brilliant analysis, Cenk. If she can't find something sufficiently damming (which would be fair enough) then obviously she must fabricate some damming narrative structure about something such as an out-of-context, soundbyte from a sermon. But she needs a catspaw, something that allows her to be perceived as above the fray. People like Bill, Carville and Ferraro cannot serve - they are too close. Perhaps someone could put her in touch with the Swiftboaters - they should be up to the gig.

[elizaW]

What is it with guys comparing this primary to sports and suggesting the game is over? When did they turn into such girly men? (When they became Obama supporters?) Do they need to be reminded of the long list of all the games in every sport that ended in come from behind wins? What if tomorrow Obama dropped the ball? What if suddenly his less than impressive record in office started to actually make front page news? What if we got a glimpse of the real man not the wizard and suddenly felt as betrayed as Dorothy in Emerald City? What if the refs started calling plays fairly and Hillary started to gain momentum? There are lots of what ifs in play and any guy who needs to call game over before the game is actually over is not someone I would want on my team. I'm only interested in real men, the ones who don't act like silly cheerleaders but instead follow the game with knowledge and respect for the sport, knowing anything can and will happen.

[rebeccaj]

You all are pathetic. You want to win so badly that you hope your "opponent" screws up.

Um, hey, folks, Obama is a DEMOCRAT. We are on the "same team!!!!"

Insulting the "manliness" of Obama and/or his supporters is what Repubicans do -- not what Democrats do!

You guys have gone mad.

[Jsens3]

Aw, come on! Hillary and Bill may be a lot of things, but they aren't quitters. There is plenty of time for the Obama campaign to unravel before the convention. Former president Bill has a lot of chips to play yet with the superdelegates.To quote Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'til it's over." Besides, Democrats have always fought with each other. Nothing new here.

[larry278]

HRC is going to be awarded an honorary DDS, Dreadfuf, Disgusting, Sophist, when she give a speech at a 2d tier college. She's earned it.

[mikey683]

Well it seems to me that if you give a supposedly "brilliant" speech on civil rights but you don't think I have the right to marry someone I love, your something of a hypocrite Seems like your not to worried that as a gay man I still don't have the constitutional protection every one else has. The problem with this is that it encourages people to think of me as "less than".

[rebeccaj]

Bill Clinton signed "The Defense of Marriage Act." I don't recall Hillary saying anything against this at the time or any time right after it...

Both Hillary and Obama have the opinion that Civil Unions should be granted to gays at this point in history. Both Hillary and Obama will end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the Military.

But, Obama is the only candidate talks about gay rights and ending homophobia in places like black churches, where it could politically hurt him.

Have you even heard of the Clintons helping gays in a ways that were brave or that were not a complete political calculation?