Hillary's Inconvenient Truth
With recent rumblings of the possibility of a revote in Florida and Michigan, Hillary supporters are starting to sense the beginnings of a Clinton comeback. But there is little evidence that new votes in Florida and Michigan will be valuable enough to put Clinton back on a trajectory that leads to the nomination.
Clinton currently trails Obama in pledged delegates by 156. She leads Obama among superdelegates by 38, a lead that has been cut by more than half since Super Tuesday. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Michigan has 128.
In January, Hillary won Florida with 50% of the vote, seventeen points higher than Obama. But at the time, Edwards and Kucinich were still in the race, and received a combined 17% of the vote. Thus far, exit polls have suggested that Edwards and Kucinich supporters have trended toward Obama.
But let's assume Hillary's dream scenario. We will assume that more than 60% of those Edwards and Kucinich voters cast votes for Hillary. We will assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama's aggressive campaigning in the state won't see any other increase in support. In such a situation, Hillary would win Florida 60-40, netting, at most, 37 delegates.
In Michigan, a state with demographics highly favorable to Obama, we will also assume that Clinton wins 60-40, an amount she wasn't even able to achieve when hers was the only name on the ballot. In such a situation, she would net, at most, 24 delegates.
Between the two states, she will see a net gain of 61 delegates, but Barack Obama will continue to maintain a pledged delegate lead of more than 95. In that best case scenario, she would still have to win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to regain the lead, a feat that will require far more than two-thirds of the votes.
As a result, Hillary has turned her attention to the superdelegates. But even among them, she is seeing a number of pitfalls. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 45 superdelegates while Clinton has lost 6. There are approximately 320 superdelegates that remain unpledged. If Clinton's comeback continues to be as dramatic as we assumed in Florida and Michigan, if she manages to cut Obama's remaining delegate lead in half, he will still have a nearly 50 pledged delegate lead. Clinton will have to then convince almost sixty percent of the remaining superdelegates to ignore the will of the people, tear the party in half, and hand her the nomination.
Such an outcome is truly inconceivable, and the strongest argument the Clinton campaign is making to those superdelegates is markedly unpersuasive.
Hillary Clinton has aimed her sights at painting Obama as unable to defeat John McCain. She argues first that she has won big states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Ohio, all states that are necessary for a Democrat to win in November. Her argument, plainly, is that her primary wins are somehow predictive of her general election outcomes. This argument is ridiculous in terms of its intellectual dishonesty.
The voting population of a Democratic primary is vastly different than that of a general election. Winning the Ohio primary suggests only that the Democratic base prefers one candidate over the other. But in the general election, Democrats, including many who don't vote in primaries, as well as Republicans and Independents will be voting. The voting population is entirely different, and the coalition for victory must include a combination of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans. Hillary's win among Democratic voters says absolutely nothing about her ability to attract other voters. In fact, Obama has consistently faired dramatically better among Independents and Republicans than has Clinton. A recent Survey USA poll shows both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by double digits in Ohio.
Moreover, the notion that Obama would be unable to win California and New York in a general election is insultingly ludicrous. Both states have been consistently Democratic, and no public polling data suggests otherwise.
In terms of electoral strategy, Hillary Clinton is in a far weaker position, and is using misleading data to bolster her claims. It is true that Hillary Clinton cannot win the general election without New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida. She is still playing on a traditional field, the same on which Kerry and Gore served up painful losses. But, as those same Survey USA numbers show, Obama is playing on an entirely different field. Obama's victory will not require Florida, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey. He can build a broader coalition, with states like Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. Obama's success in those states means the party will not have to depend on states like Florida, many of which have been tragically unreliable.
The weakness of Clinton's arguments should say something about the likelihood of her victory. But even if her arguments were logically sound, they are consistently undercut by national polling which has consistently shown Barack Obama beating John McCain. In most polls, Hillary Clinton loses or is within the margin of error.
Her rationale might work with the average voter, but it will not work with politicians and party insiders who are familiar with presidential elections. She has no realistic path to the pledged delegate lead, and lacks any persuasive argument to convince superdelegates to fall in line.
And yet, she continues.
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
Obamath just isn't working these days.
Not "Obamath". It's the math of every news organization that gives him the delegate lead and calculates that she needs at least 65% of the vote in all remaining states to beat him.
Naw, you don't understand. If there was a caucus, the state doesn't count. If some of the delegates in a state that Hillary won (in a primary) support Obama, they can be convinced to change their minds, so they don't really count either. If Obama won a state by a large margin it can only be counted for him if there's a west wind and it's a Tuesday on an even numbered day in the month, otherwise, that state doesn't matter (it was probably a small state anyway). If, at the end, Obama's still ahead, there's always the chance that the super delegates will prefer Hillary anyway. See? It makes perfect sense and it's perfectly reasonable.
Good argument!
That was an argument, right?
What is it about the Clinton campaign (and their flacks), that they are becoming, by the day, increasingly "reality challenged
Every day it's something new. Whether its the argument that hosting a tea in N. Ireland and doing a USO show with Sinbad in Bosnia crosses the "Commander in Chief threshold.
I think the Obama campaign should seriously promote the "reality challenged" meme. "Reality challenged" is the idea that reality and the Clinton campaign are operating on two completely different planes of existence. Just as happened (unfairly) to Gore, with the serial exaggerator meme, every Clinton disconnect from reality should be identified and made to feed the narrative that HRC will simply redefine reality whenever the facts don't fit the way she wishes the world was organized. After 8 years of watching Bushco do just that, I suspect the electorate has had quite enough of politicians who are not "reality constraine
Don't get too worked up about AnninCa-she lives in her own wishful thinking bubble that is never supported by evidence. I half think that she posts here just to rile up people and doesn't even believe her self.
Those who wish to write off Senator Obama's ability to pull off the impossible will do well to go back to December and ask themselves if they thought Obama had a snowball's chance of being where he is today? Exactly, and that is why our opinions don't count because you were wrong then to write him off, and wrong now. He has already achieved major miracles the likes of which Mrs Clinton is unlikely to emulate. Imagine if it was Mrs Clinton who was piling up victories in the red states - she would have been anointed the visionary and the uniter. The media has totally underplayed the massive accomplishments of Senator Obama in the electoral process thus far.
I didn't think he had a chance. I was afraid to get involved with his campaign before Iowa, because I was a Deaniac in 2004 and I got my heart broken and I did not have the heart to back another long-shot candidate. I'm behind him 200% now but I wish I had gotten on board earlier...
SUPER DELEGATES SHOULD CONSIDER 'ELECTION FIXING' BY THE MEDIA
Nice job on MOST of the math, except for this one important sum that was conveniently left out: NEITHER Obama or Clinton will be able to reach the minimum threshold of delegates to be nominated WITHOUT the help of Super Delegates. And the 'rules' of being a super delegate say that you should cast your vote based on what is best for the party, not on the math of votes taken months before.
The simple truth is that the Super Delegates are going to be forced to consider whether or not the media has rigged the primary election in Obama's favor, and whether this promotion from the media was in large part responsible for his momentum and subsequent victories.
There is some actual scientific evidence that the Super Delegates will be responsible for considering BEFORE they make their final vote, and I would suggest the the creator of this blog read this information and report on it to his readers. The independent CMPA (Center for Media and Public Affairs) recently concluded that the network media "Boosted Obama" and "Bashed Clinton". [ Please click on this link to read the actual study report: http://cmp
A second study concluded that while Obama's favoritism has slipped a little, he still enjoys an unfair advantage from what is supposed to be an honest, fair and unbiased press. [ 2nd study: http://cmp
One thing any Super Delegate probably knows is that the favor of the media can turn on a dime. And in a general election against a respected powerhouse like McCain they have to ask themselves will the media continue to protect and prop Obama up, or will they tear him down to make the race more 'interesting' to their viewers and readers?
No one should be elected by the media -- and no one should rely on the media to get elected.
Nice spin - but debunked over and over again. If there's someone who is bolstered by the media, it's Hillary. If the positions of Obama and Hillary in the Demoratic primaries were the opposite of what they actually are, actually, Obama would long have been BUTCHERED by the MSM for his stubbornness in failing to concede defeat! Now dig this!
Jesus Christ I am getting tired of hearing this media bias bull. Where were the Clinton cries of "media unfairness" when she was on the cover of Time magazine in 2007 being named as the presumptive Democratic nominee? Clinton started out this campaign with a media coverage advantage, name recognition advantage, fundraising advantage (which she squandered I might add) and Democratic Party insiders/machine advantage. And she has BLOWN all of them. Can't anyone take a step back and realize that maybe the American public just doesn't think Hillary would be a good President?
For the week leading up to March 5 primaries it was all Hillary ALL the time on cable. I wanted to scream. The media did a complete about turn on OBAMA . It was schizophrenic. The media essentially "swift boated " OBAMA. I have no doubt that the media will do the same in six weeks should the election be close in Pennsylvania. If it isn't close they won't have to prostitute themselves
The media has been blatant in it's favoritism TOWARDS Hillary. Her influence over the media has been alarming, to say the least. And one more thing: Exactly WHY can't a reporter ask her adult daughter even a single question, since she's actively campaigning on her mother's behalf?
The media bias card s heretofore diffused and rendered useless in play by the fact that the idea that Hillary was considered a pratical inevitability in several forms of media including film long before the nation or world had even heard of Barack Obama.
Evidence Exhibit A: Former President Hillary Clinton had her own dollar bill in the motion picture: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.
The entertainment value of the film not withstanding, the point is indisputable that Hillary Clinton has had a media advantage that Barack Obama and any other Democratic Candidate short of maybe Al Gore could only DREAM of having.
The media AND the Democratic Party were practically begging Hillary Clinton to jump into the presidential race in 2004 as a shoe in to win the race.
The fault for not properly captializing on that advantage lies solely at her doorstep.
Thank goodness, someone is finally wiling to say it like it is. She lost this thing on March 4th, but she hasn't the decency or integrity to give it up. Now, she is looking to steal the election and wreck the Democrats chances in November. I'll never vote for her, and I'm a die-hard liberal, progressive Democrat.
Now, if Obama can lose Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and still win the presidency, I'd be impressed. Just because you can add suppositio
I'm prepared to be impressed, but that kind of electoral strategy smells a bit like Giuliani skipping Iowa and New Hampshire to me.
Fear and Smear is all Hillary Clinton has left. She gave up trying to win the nomination on merit which is obviously hopeless for her.
I agree. And she's "smearing and fearing" like nobody's business, and much to my amazement, a significant number of voters are buying it. Who ARE these people?
Sad to say but they are racists.
Though Hillary has no chance of capturing the nomination, she has far too many supporters to drop out now. The best than can happen is for Clinton to continue her scorched earth campaign and turn more and more people off to her. Then, after Obama wins the nomination, she could go out and give a very bitter concession speech, alienating more of her former supporters. Hopefully then, after 16 long years, the party can finally move on and be about Democratic values rather than the Clintons egos.
1) Pledged delegates do not reflect the will of the people, look at Texas [the caucus results being reported right now show how unreflective caucuses are] 2) Clinton and Obama are both stronger than the other in a handful of states but both have a strong electoral strategy (CO,AR, TN, KY, VA, OH rotate in polling depending on the candidate). 3). New Mexico and Iowa are not really "pick-up" states you cannot assign to one candidate or another at this point. NM is my home state and both Obama and Clinton can be competitive in those states 4). The only way that Obama can indicate he "plays on a different map" than Hillary Clinton would be to show he can win in states that are truly red where he has won the primary (GA, AL, KS, SC, etc – the polling does not indicate he has a snowballs chance in those states)
First, I don't think trying to distinguish between "caucus delegates" and "primary delegates" is very useful or compelling argument. No one should have been surprised that the Democratic primary process included caucus states. This is simply more evidence that Clinton's campaign strategy was flawed. Moreover, Obama is still leading Clinton in states won if you exclude all the caucus states. Finally, I believe you are mistaken as to Obama "playing on a different [electoral] map."
http://www
Lossing PA and NJ would not be good and that is what that map shows.
My point about the caucuses not being representative (i.e. they disenfranchise doctors, nurses, and patients; military men and women; the disabled; those with the night shift; etc.) is that now we have evidence from TX on why caucuses should be abolished for the future; Clinton wins the primary by 4% and may lose the caucus by as much as 12% [that is a 16% point difference from the primary].
As to your point number 4, the author correctly pointed out red states Colorado, Iowa, and Virgina for Obama-- all of which have voted Republican in the past two elections, and none of which Hillary polls to win in 2008.
As for your point number 1, TX is very unusual, as we have the primary and the caucus. Sorry if you don't like it, but those more interested in politics have always gone to the caucus. Our delegates are divided so that Hillary got her share for the primary.
If you use straight primaries, Obama is still ahead. Obama is ahead in popular votes. Do you consider this the will of the people?
In your point number 2, you list TN as a potential Hillary win, but no poll shows her winning there. You also list KY -- sorry, but no one thinks this state will go blue.
I agree with you on NM.
TN - Clinton 46% vs. McCain 46%; Obama 38% vs. McCain 54% (SurveyUSA, not the best source but others have shown similar results)
KY - You're right. I no longer see the polling as close. It was in match-ups against Giuliani
VA - Clinton 48% vs. McCain 46%, she has been competitive there all year. http://www
IA - Went for Gore in 2000 (not a last two elections state)
CO - Our Convention is there this year, either candidate is likely to win post-convention
TX - You're right, I am complaining about the rules but for the 2012 or 2016 candidate selection we should do away with caucuses. The caucuses disenfranchise military personnel, doctors, nurses, the elderly, disabled, etc. Our primaries should mimic the general in as many ways as possible.
This is a bit disingenuous. There is a difference between the crossover support Obama and Clinton have been receiving. Much of the Republican crossover vote that Obama has been receiving comes from moderate Republicans tired of towing the far right conservative line. Much of the Republican crossover that Hillary has been receiving as of late (best illustrated in the results of the Texas primacaucus) has been that of iron clad Republicans who simply prefer Hillary as their opponent this fall.
Hillary lost the Texas caucus because those conservative Republicans who voted for her in the primary didn't bother coming back for the caucus.
A Virginia resident myself, I can tell you the state is very likely to go blue under an Obama general election run, but McCain under a run by Hillary. The name Clinton would bring the far right conservatives out in droves.
Hilary has nothing to lose at this point by staying in the race. It’s unlikely she will be able to win the 2008 nomination, but it’s not impossible if she can somehow destroy him before August. Even in the more likely scenario that she loses the 2008 nomination, she’s still better off hurting Obama as much as she can, because she’s better off with McCain in the White House in 2012.
Running against Obama as a sitting Democrat in 2012, when he had beaten her before, would be almost impossible. But if Obama loses the general election against McCain, she can easily get an “I-told-you-so” Democratic nomination. It to her advantage to stay in the race and wound Obama as much as possible, as long as she can do it without alienating too many voters.
"Hil[l]ary has nothing to lose at this point by staying in the race."
Nothing except her dignity and her legacy. (Not in terms of staying in the race but how she runs it.)
"Even in the more likely scenario that she loses the 2008 nomination, she"s still better off hurting Obama as much as she can, because she"s better off with McCain in the White House in 2012."
Which again goes to show how she's putting her narrow self-interest ahead of the Democratic Party's.
Hillary may have nothing to lose but the Democratic Party has....and the longer this goes on the more time she has to slime OBAMA.
While this is slightly better than the arguments that Clinton should drop out because she can't catch Obama in pledged delegates from nominating contests, it's still extremely flawed. First of all, measuring delegates won and lost since Super Tuesday is a bit unfair because everyone knows Obama was having the month of his campaign and was just two primaries away from victory on March 4th. At the very least present some figure on the changes in superdelegates after Clinton's comeback on March 4th. Secondly, even though you acknowledge that its possible for superdelegates to change their affiliation by mentioning that she lost 6 delegates since Super Tuesday, but in your argument about how it is impossible for her to get enough superdelegates to secure the nomination you make it sound like the only superdelegates available are the uncommitted ones, as though none of Obama's superdelegates would consider defecting to Clinton if she started convincingly winning primaries. Counting superdelegates at this point is not really that effective. There are so many things that could change between now and the convention that with a few exceptions, the superdelegate picture could be VERY different by then. While Obama is still the frontrunner, Clinton has a good enough chance at the nomination that she would be foolish to drop out of the race. No one has ever dropped out of a primary this early even if it was half as close as this one.
Also, I am growing increasingly irritated with the whole superdelegates voting for Clinton will be "ignoring the will of the people" argument. First of all, if the margin of Obama's delegate is as close as 50 or even closer to 100, when you consider that there are over 4,000 delegates at stake, that is hardly a sweeping mandate for Obama to claim that he has the support of the people. At best he will have the support of about 51-53% of the people to Hillary's 47-49%, which isn't even as much of a spread as Clinton's victory in Ohio. Furthermore, although Obama supporters don't like to mention this, despite his insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, the popular vote, especially with the potential re-dos in Florida and Michigan (although its still possible without them), is still very much up for grabs. That would further undermine Obama's argument that superdelegates voting for Clinton would be ignoring the will of the people. The popular vote is a equal if not better measurement of the people's so-called will, especially when you consider the inconsistencies of the awarding of delegates from state to state with each state having its own rules, the differences between caucuses and primaries in turnout, etc. The delegate awarding process makes the Electoral College look good! If she manages to secure the popular vote, Clinton would have an equal claim to being the candidate of the people (especially since she would have been gaining support in the home stretch) and then all superdelegate bets are off. I am not saying that she is guaranteed to win the popular vote, but it is still a definite possibility and one shouldn't assume that Obama is going to have the mandate of the voters behind him just because he is pretty much guaranteed the delegate lead going into the convention.
OBAMA Inspires - Hillary Retires
Get used to It!
At the moment, Obama leads not only in delegates, but also in the popular vote. Given that caucus states, where Obama has done very well, count a lot less towards the popular vote due to the smaller number of people involved, that's pretty impressive.
No it is not because Caucuses are undemocratic. Caucuses marginalize the elderly, shift workers and parents who have to be home taking care of their children during the time of the caucus. It's not a surprise that Obama won caucuses. Caucuses favor young people who have no children to care for, and no job that requires them to be there during the caucus.
Look at Texas as an example of how undemocratic caucuses are:
Hillary wins when everybody gets a fair shot at voting by 4 %
Hillary loses when the elderly and shift workers can not participate by ~10%.
What this tells you is, if the system were to be made fully democratic such that primaries were held in all states, Obama will be out of the race by now.
Quit moving the bar. If Hillary can't win pledged delegates, why would we want her in a general election? She was suppose to be the inevitable candidate. Did she not know there were caucuses? Did she not know we weren't counting FL and MI? You'd think that someone with all her "experience" would know a little something about winning delegates. So she failed at that, she lost. But does that stop her? No. Why should someone who's entitled to the nomination give up? What does she care if she messes up the Democratic party forever? The Clintons will say or do anything in the belief that they can always smooth things over later. Hillary's problem is that she's no Bill Clinton. He was likeable. He could say he didn't know what the definition of "is" is. He can say he feels our pain and get away with it. Hillary is playing a dangerous game. She better be careful, or she just may lose her Senate seat. If she wins the nomination, the Dems will have forever lost the black vote. Can you imagine the Dems without the black vote? We shouldn't have taken them for granted. And with a likeable candidate like John McCain, they'll have little problem switching sides. And forget about young voters. They'll go back to MySpace, YouTube, and Wii, and ignore politics. And our shot at future Dems will be lost as well.
You seem to be as disillusioned as Clinton herself. Clinton won Texas and Ohio because of the kitchen sink attack ads. As these attack ads are being disproved, she is loosing credibility. And what little ground she made up, she lost it all since then. And still she acts as though this is the turning point in her campaign. She paints the picture as if she were in the lead by proposing Obama run as her VP. These are tactics to make you simple minded people believe she is actually winning. The more votes she has the better her argument might be to give her the votes she didn't win.
She needs to stop this. She is sucking away much needed funds for the general election. She faught a good battle but she needs to do what's right for the party and for America.
this is where the venom among the two camps start...th
Obama currently has the trifecta: popular, states and pledged delegates.
As it stands, if Obama is leading in all three in August then how do you give this nomination to Clinton with the fallout that will ensue?...a fractured party would have less than two months to unite against McCain...s
the Clinton camp can only blame themselves for their current debacle...
you can't argue for votes counting in FL and MI while disregarding the will of voters in states you did'nt win...this is delusional, hypocritical, disingenious and arrogant but the Clinton mindset tends more toward altered reality than actual fact...2+2
she has to destroy the party to win the nomination
I agree that if going into the nomination, Obama has the lead in states won, the popular vote, and pledged delegates, its going to be very hard for Clinton to justify her candidacy to the superdelegates and she shouldn't get the nomination. The only way she could possibly justify herself at that point would be if she won convincingly (maybe not convincingly enough to get the delegate lead) in a majority of the states remaining and Obama's campaign falters during this time.
That said, that scenario is not a done deal. Obama is probably going to emerge the leader in states won (although thats not quite fair because not all states are equal in terms of population and influence on the general election, so if you count them proportionally, Clinton could legitimately claim a victory there) and pledged delegates, but the popular vote is still very much up for grabs. Particularly in the large states, small differences in delegates won could still result in much larger differences in the popular vote. If that is the case, Clinton has a much stronger argument against Obama's delegate lead.
To respond to this: "you can't argue for votes counting in FL and MI while disregarding the will of voters in states you did'nt win," that argument is completely absurd. When each candidate goes after the superdelegates they are essentially asking them to disregard the wills of the voters in the states that they didn't win. A vote for Obama shows as much disregard for the voters of TX, OH, CA, NY, NJ, MA, etc. as one for Clinton shows for IL, GA, IA, VA, CT, WA, etc. If Obama really cares about this being a democratic process that shows the will of the people, why shouldn't the voters of FL (the third-largest state) and MI get a voice in this decision. You can't count the votes as they currently stand, but Clinton should not be lambasted for pursuing a way to allow delegates from those two states to be seated just because they would probably benefit her (and while FL would almost definitely go for Clinton, MI is not a done deal for her). Obama cannot legitimately claim to have a 50 state strategy if he actively opposes seating delegates from two of the biggest states in the country. At best he has a 48 state strategy. Its unfair for Obama to cloak himself in the argument that the voters will is behind him if he is opposing re-votes in states largely because they would go for Clinton.
Also, I understand that everyone knew what they were getting into re: FL and MI when the states, but particularly in FL, the Democratic party was screwed by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican governor who basically manipulated the system to force the primary to be moved up without the Democrats getting a chance to stop it. In MI, the choice was made by Democrats, but the will of the Democratic voters in FL was basically stolen by the Republicans.
Brilliant.
Bravo...in a nutshell Dylan Loewe!
Dylan Loewe misses the point about MI and FL. HRC doesn't care about the pledged delegates of either state. But combined, there are 54 superdelegates between the two states that wont be superdelegates unless the states' pledged delegates get seated. The rumor is that the vast majority of these supers, like Senator Nelson, have already expressed their support for HRC. Its part of the plan to win by Superdelegates.
Wait, I thought that superdelegates were different. I'm pretty sure that they can vote even if the state that they're from doesn't have any delegates, since they are not pledged to vote for any candidate at all.
See Dylan Loewe's Profile
I'll be posting a detailed article about that tomorrow.
Stay tuned.
It's still the same argument that Huckabee used to stay in the race. If the lead horse gets tired or collapses, the second horse wins. There is no reason for Hillary to drop out before Obama gets the required number of delegates, which is mathematically impossible for him to get, of course.
Numbers of delegates are actually BS. If Obama wigs out, or if he does something that looks REALLY bad, or if they uncover some really BAD dirt, then he's history. All of his superdelegates will flee to Hillary, and possibly even his pledged delegates will flee to Hillary.
This is NOT an election. That was determined by the Federal Court when Florida went to court against the DNC. The DNC can basically do what they want. And if something happens that makes Obama totally "unelectable", then you can rest assured that he will NOT be the nominee. Irrespective of the number of votes.
So all of the talk about Hillary getting out of the way, or whatever, is totally meaningless. She is going to sit there and wait for Obama to make more mistakes, which he appears to be doing.
Interestingly, Karl Rove has turned into a good TV commentator. Yesterday, he pointed out that it was a "mistake" for Obama to make his wisecrack about "why Hillary would want him as VP...". Rove correctly pointed out that this statement SHOULD have been made by a surrogate, and it make Obama sound arrogant and punky. Which he is increasingly looking to be.
Nope, it aint over until its over.
And when you think about it, this is a GOOD thing. We're seeing how these two people really behave under SEVERE STRESS.
Yep, you're right. He's showing just how inexperienced he is. She is baiting him and he is taking the bait every time.
Speaking for myself as an Obama supporter, I haven't argued that she should drop out. What I've argued is that she should stop doing John McSame's dirty work for him, and stop hurting the party's chances of victory in November. Criticizing Obama on policy differences is fair game. Saying he's not qualified to be commander-in-chief -- especially when your own credentials are suspect -- should be off limits. The Democratic nomination is not something to be won at all costs -- especially when one of the costs could well be the general election.
Obama is not making any mistakes. Hillary has been making all the mistakes. She is showing her true colors. This woman comes with so much baggage that Midwest Airlines would not have enough room to put it. Wait until the Clintons tell where that 500 million dollars came from that was donated to their library. I don't want a repeat of the Clinton years, nor do I want Bill saying he did not have sex with another White House aide. Give me a break!
First, I don't think that she should drop out, because I think that it's a great thing that there are more than one candidate this late in the race. HOWEVER, I think that we all need to admit that it's not possible for her to get enough pledged delgates to win, she would have to win by levels unseen in this election cycle. It's equally unlikely for him to win enough pledged delegates to gain the nomination, but he is going to be the one that the American democrats (and independants who are allowed to vote for him, and the republicans who are allowed to, and choose to vote for him) choose. Therefore for the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people will look a lot like Florida in 2000 to the people. If she were to gain enough delegates to overtake him, AND enough popular votes to overtake him in the overall vote count, I would be okay with her as the nominee, but as it looks now, I don't think so.
And as far as her sitting there waiting for him to make mistakes, there are two points that I would like to make:
1) She has made more mistakes than he has, and
2) This harms the party, by forcing Obama to answer her charges, even when they are false, thus not allowing him to focus on McBush, who is making as many charges against Obama as HIllary is.
I wouldn't mind that Hillary was still in the race if she wasn't attacking Obama in a way that hurts the Democratic party. I can't help thinking back to the theory that she'd rather McCain win than Obama because at least she could run against McCain in 2012.
The drift I'm reading lately seems that Democrats want Hillary Clinton to give up. It's a close race and many things can still happen. Win or lose, I'll respect Sen. Clinton more for sticking to her campaign until the end then I would or could were she to toss in the towell. I was disappointed in John Edwards for quitting right before Super Tuesday, but if that's what he's made of, maybe it was for the best. Mostly I'm glad that I will have a candidate in this years presidential election whom I can support with full vigor and energy. G0 BARACK AND HILLARY!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
