Who Can't Win? Hillary's Electability Trifecta

Ask people why Dukakis lost, and they'll tell you: the tank.

Ask people why Gore "lost" (that is, failed to lock the election up so tight that it couldn't be stolen) and they'll tell you: he claimed to have invented the internet.

Ask people why Kerry lost (or, just possibly, "lost") and they'll tell you: he was swiftboated.

Hillary Clinton's claim to be the most electable Democratic candidate in 2008 -- her last excuse for staying in the race -- has always seemed flimsy. But in the last couple of weeks it's been blown to smithereens -- and Hillary herself pulled the trigger.

With her repeated "misspeakings" on a single incident - her arrival at Tuzla airport on March 25, 1996 - she has managed to saddle herself with the fatal baggage of each of the losing (or "losing") Democratic candidates of the last twenty years.

Like Dukakis, she's accused of Snoopyesque fantasies of martial glory.

Like Gore, she's accused of playing fast and loose with the truth.

Like Kerry, she's accused (notably by veterans) of "valor theft": laying claim to derring-do she never did.

The difference, of course, is that while those three candidates were traduced, in Clinton's case the charges seem to be true. And the evidence -- in the age of YouTube - won't go away.

Those who chide the Clinton campaign for inefficiency must concede that, in this instance at least, it has been stunningly efficient. Think of it: tank, internet, and Swift boat in one swell blooper.

Of course, some people will tell you that what ran over Dukakis was not the tank but Willie Horton. And it is, of course, Barack Obama who is most vulnerable to race-baiting (in fact, Clinton and her surrogates have helpfully shown how it can be done).

But whereas Obama has shown an ability to rise above the muck and take the nation with him, Clinton's response is to dig herself ever deeper -- and then, when thoroughly spattered with mud (and, some say, blood), joke about it on Leno.

I wonder: Are the superdelegates laughing?

Comments

[gtt]

Senator Clinton is probably electable. Senator McCain is a very weak candidate. He is an angry, old, inarticulate Republican who is wrong on most every issue. Clinton may be able to beat him, but she would destroy the changes of any congressional candidate locked in a close race. A Clinton administration, while better than a McCain by far, would be a disaster. Death by triangulation. The Republicans in Congress would block all but the most moderate of her policies.

[JohnnySorrow]

Did anyone watch the Super Bowl?

Remember the favored team was inevitable. Until a funny thing happened. They actually played the game.

Hillary is the equivalent of Tom Brady standing in the middle of the field as the final seconds tick away. Even though the scoreboard says they're trailing, without enough time to catch up he persists..."They can't win."

Hillary, if Obama can't win, then how did he beat you?

[Doofus]

'Hillary is the equivalent of Tom Brady...'

Unless Obama is. Or McCain. One thing for sure, we are going to FIND OUT, eventually.

[Doofus]

The fascinating thing about 'InDecision 2008' is that NONE of the
candidates are particularly 'electable'. The 'Black Guy' (well, 'tan'
anyway), the 'Lady', the 'Really Old Guy'. C'mon, people. What were
you thinking?

The amazing thing, opportunistically speaking, is that one of
these people is actually going to be elected President, whether
we like it or not.

The Constitution says to elect a President, so that is what we're gonna do!

Is this a great country, or what?

[2Nurselady]

Hillary Clinton must be considered seriously by the Superdelegates who need to vote for this country and who need to ensure a win of he White House for the Democrats. Their MAIN responsibility is to vote for the candidate most likely to carry the Democratic base in the general election - THAT is Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama may have won "more" states, but the small red states he carried WILL go to the Republicans in the general election. There is no doubt of that. The main responsibility of the Superdelegates is to get the White House back for the Democrats and they won't do it by putting a candidate in office who has proven he cannot carry the Democratic base - the large, high delegate blue states in this country that Hillary Clinton carried in the primaries.

If the Democrats want the White House back to add to a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House so that we can actually - finally - get some things done for this country that have needed doing for a very long time, then we need to ensure that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. It is not reasonable to think that a candidate who could not carry our own Democratic base in the primaries will be able to carry us to the White House in the general election.

[JohnnySorrow]

Why do Clinton supporters continue to make this argument? You are contradicting yourself.

Once again...
If you argue that the traditionally red states will automatically go to the Republican, why wouldn't the traditionally blue states then go to the Democrat?

If that's the case, then you are making the point that we don't need Hillary to be the nominee because you seem to believe that a party's base will support whoever their candidate is. Furthermore, that is even more reason to select Obama because he will then have the base as well as greater crossover appeal than Hillary.

Are you really concerned that McCain will carry New York, California or Massachusetts. Get real. Hillary is preaching that ridiculous argument and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

By the way, your concern about a Democratic House and Senate...how'd the Clinton's do with that last time around? Does the Republican Revolution ring a bell?

[efranklin]

One way to drive home the issue of electability is to (ahem) ... win primaries. You know you are witnessing a last gasp when the candidate with the losing record in the current contest is trying to claim the mantle of "electable". And then to have the audacity to bring this argument to the superdelegates. Think of the Miami Heat whining to David Stern that they're a better team then the Celtics, despite having the worst win/loss record in the Eastern Conference.

[JohnnySorrow]

The only people who buy that nonsense are her supporters.

As they say in sports..."­Scoreboard­!"

Obama has trounced her in superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday. They are just waiting for this process to play out, so they don't offend her camp. Once it's a wrap, they'll put Barack over the top.

You can stick a fork in Hillary. She's done.

[Absintheforall]

Did you read the new biography of her?
" It takes a Clinton to Raze a Village".

[larry278]

I believe that I can win the grand prize of Powerball Lotto. I play regularly & I've won chump change a few times. I'm being unfair to Hillary by expressing my doubt that Hillary can't hope to become the Dem's candidate for POTUS in '08. Sen Clinton you can't hope to become the Dem's candidate for POTUS in '08. You are wasting your time as I do. I won't criticize Sen Clinton for using other people's money for her hopless gamble. Those who fund her campaign were willing to do it just as those who've funded the campaigns of others were willing to put their money on a dream. Disclosure: I support Obama & I've donated chump change to his campaign like a lot of other petty gamblers have done to further Obama's dream into reality.
larry lynch

[2Nurselady]

While Barack Obama has run an admirable campaign, Hillary Clinton is our ONLY real hope of getting the White House back for the Democrats in the general election.

Hillary Clinton must be considered seriously by the Superdelegates who need to vote for this country and who need to ensure a win of he White House for the Democrats. Their MAIN responsibility is to vote for the candidate most likely to carry the Democratic base in the general election - THAT is Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama may have won "more" states, but the small red states he carried WILL go to the Republicans in the general election. There is no doubt of that. The main responsibility of the Superdelegates is to get the White House back for the Democrats and they won't do it by putting a candidate in office who has proven he cannot carry the Democratic base - the large, high delegate blue states in this country that Hillary Clinton carried in the primaries.

If the Democrats want the White House back to add to a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House so that we can actually - finally - get some things done for this country that have needed doing for a very long time, then we need to ensure that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. It is not reasonable to think that a candidate who could not carry our own Democratic base in the primaries will be able to carry us to the White House in

[reggaebass]

You have not responded to the charges in the post. How can she win, how can she be more electable now that she has been caught in a worse position than Gore Kerry and Dukakis combined? If you can't answer this question your electablity argument goes out the window. Just saying she is more electable does not make it so.

[aesova]

"While Barack Obama has run an admirable campaign, Hillary Clinton is our ONLY real hope of getting the White House back for the Democrats in the general election."

Wrong. Our only real hope is Democrats getting over themselves, voting for the Democratic nominee in November. Anyone unwilling to vote for anyone but their preferred Democratic candidate in the general election has to be willing to accept a McCain presidency.

In November, a vote for the Democrat nominee is a vote against McCain. We can't let that happen.

[LionelMandrake]

"If the Democrats want the White House back to add to a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House "

Please...
We all saw what happened to the senate and house once, with a Clinton in the Oval Office, in 1994.

With Sen. Clinton on the top of the ticket, 50% of all national voters will automatically vote for anyone but Clinton, at the top of their ticket.

As goes the top of the ticket, more often than not, goes the congressional candidates below.

We can expect with Clinton at the top of the democratic ticket, that the democrats will not increase their congressional seats, and may even lose some.

Even though she appears to have succumbed to being forced to tone down the anti-Obama rhetoric in her campaign over the last two weeks, (probably by a threat of super delegate defection), we have seen that the Clinton's both present, and in the past, have been dividers, not uniters, (except in uniting repugnant-cans to vote against them.)

[DoninJoisey]

I hear her over and over "I believe I can win" - isn't that the same delusional quality - belief over overwhelming facts to the contrary - that we want to rid ourselves of?

[LeftRight]

Although I am an Obama supporter, let's be serious here. She IS electable. In fact, EITHER one of them is electable, ESPECIALLY against John McBush!

[aesova]

I agree! Either candidate can win if we Democrats stop whining about which Democrat is worse and focus on winning in November. Democrats all need to pledge to vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whether that is Obama or Clinton.

I am also an Obama supporter, but I have intended since the beginning to vote for whomever wins the nomination in November. I had a much higher opinion of Senator Clinton last fall than I do now, but I am not willing to let anything get in the way of putting a Democrat in the White House. My personal feeling is that Senator Obama is the best candidate, but I also know that Obama or Hillary even at their worst, both Obama and Clinton are better than McCain's best.

The stakes are too high! We can't afford another Republican president. It is time to stop fighting amongst ourselves and get to work.

[Overd0g]

You are deluded. There are vast sectors of the populace that will NEVER vote for another Clinton (especially because you give Bubba 16 years as co-President). And now that she has been shown to be a compulsive liar, it's over for her. She has 0 chance. Obama will be an underdog, but she would be DOA.

[ldvisavis]

Are the superdelegates laughing?

Well, Hillary is! In video over the weekend, Hillary is shown doing a Reaganesqu­e-cupped-h­and-to-the­-ear-I-can­'t-hear-yo­u move while laughing at reporters who are asking about her double-dealing chief strategist, Mark Penn.

She is laughing at us all with her kitchen sink, goal post moving, burn the village, dupliciitous, divisive campaign. I only hope she does not get the last laugh!

[chlllfactor]

Me, either, but you never know with Hillary. This campaign season has been despicable. Hillary has no shame and lives in a fantasy world of her own making. The sad thing is to see the Clinton's parlay that same ethic on their daughter. However, I must say, Chelsea is old enough to exercise her own ethical standards - she has not done that either.

The campaign is over unless Hillary can come up with some devastating hype on Senator Obama - which she certainly has been attempting to do. Hillary would need to win at 64% of the vote in all remaining contests, but one (PA) where she would need to win 65% of the vote to secure the lead in pledged delegates. That is not going to happen. I saw another post today that says the Republicans expect Senator Obama to be the next president. One can only hope.

[LionelMandrake]

I wish I was a fly on the wall when Sen. Clinton reportedly told Bill Richardson that Obama can't win.
I imagine what her comments could have been referring to.

Clinton: "He can't win Bill."
Richardson; "Who can't win, McCain?"
Clinton: "No, Obama."
Richardson: "Why not?"
Clinton: "Well,... You know..."
Richardson: "No, I don't. Why."
Clinton: "You know... Because,... Well,..."
Richardson: "No, I don't.
Clinton: (smirking, yet horrified.) ....
Richardson: "What?... Why?"
Clinton: "Because,... He's... a..., you know."

So much for the wife of the first "black" president and her faith and confidence in the American people that they can overcome race.

[dmj618]

I was thinking the same thing and if she insinuated something that offensive it might be the reason Richardson endorsed Obama.

[RabidRightRebel]

While I am not a Hillary supporter I do not believe that she is un-electable. You have to remember this country elected Bush twice, so there is no doubt that even an incompetent fool is capable of being elected President. Further McCain has contaminated himself so much with Bush’s policies that any Democratic campaign should be able to make mince meat of him.

As to Gore and Kerry. Gore lost not because of inventing the internet but because he failed to recognise the desire for tax relief from the middle class. If he would have offered a middle class tax break without the top end tax breaks he would have won. Kerry lost because he was just to stiff and because he would not fight back against the dishonest swiftboat claims. That and because the majority of American voters are morons that refused to see Bush for the incompetent President that he always was.

[MPeter]

She is not only un-electable, she lacks the qualities to make a good leader. She is mediocre in every sense of the word. She can't even lie as effectively as her husband after learning under him for so many years. Now, here is a piece by Grace Lee Boggs which is just a gem. You can find its entirety at Commondreams.

Living for Change: Obama and MLK
by Grace Lee Boggs
The new energies being unleashed by Barack Obama hold great promise. In his person and prose Obama embodies the achievements of the movements of the 20th century and the hope that we can become the change we want to see in the 21st century.

That means we can’t leave it all to Obama. Instead of being followers of a charismatic leader, we must be the leaders we’ve been looking for. This is the best way to make Obama less vulnerable to corporate funders and lobbyists. It is also the best way to protect him from the assassins who gunned down so many charismatic leaders in the 1960s.

“We have come to value things more than people. Our technological development has outrun our spiritual development. We have lost our sense of community, of interconnection and participation.”

[desmirl]

Hillary still hasn't come to terms with her political fate. I can't tell whether she's in the stage of anger or denial, but sooner or later she'll have to reach the stage of acceptance.

[Countess]

Some farm animals actually enjoy rolling in their excrement.