Unfortunately, the Mark Penn Howard Wolfson Clinton attacks on the progressive wing of the party are only going to hurt Democrats in November. No Obama must answer the attacks and take some swings of his own -- HRC won't release her tax records, why? She wants to talk about being secure in our homes at 3:00 AM but doesn't want to talk about the Iraq occupation -- what about Kyl-Lieberman? She was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart -- what does that tell us about her pro-labor position? Wal-Mart sends out a special legal team from Bentonsville AK to break labor unions at its stores all over the country. She voted for tightening bankruptcy regs for ordinary people giving boon to credit card companies from Wall Street -- if we end up with a Hillary-McCain race in November it is going to be really boring -- yawn -- and Bush will rig the voting in several states using the federal "homeland security" apparatus. He's Putin, McCain is Medvedev.
It's Still Over, But At What Cost?
Despite Hillary Clinton's three victories tonight in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Barack Obama (who won Vermont) is still positioned to capture the Democratic nomination. But Obama has to now overcome the John McCain-Hillary Clinton slash and burn politics to accomplish this goal.
In the remaining primaries Hillary must receive at least 60 percent of the vote to tie Obama in the pledged delegate count. Even with the hypothetical splitting of the Florida and Michigan delegations to Hillary and Obama, Obama will still be ahead in total delegates. The "super delegates" will then be in the position to determine what kind of a convention they really want.
The Obama campaign forced Clinton to spend money and time in Ohio, a state that just a month ago Hillary thought was in the bag. Hillary spent 25 days in Ohio and Obama spent 18 days. Remember, in Nevada, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost in the delegate count. In Florida, Hillary won ZERO delegates but declared a great victory, which was really tacky.
What is at stake in 2008 is whether or not the Democratic Party is willing to move in a new direction. Obama has demonstrated that he can bring out new voters and organize local communities in a way where the Democratic Party can reconnect to its activist roots in movement politics. He is talking about social justice and citizen participation in democracy in a way that defies the moribund Democratic leadership. (Just look at the House Democrats caving in to George W. Bush on telecom immunity.) The Democratic base is demanding courageous leadership brave enough to stand up to Bush and the Republicans. Hillary's scare tactics of national insecurity to foreign invaders mirrors the Bush-Rove fear mongering and is a disgraceful departure from the party's roots in New Deal/Great Society liberalism where the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Obama's campaign is also about cleaning out the Clinton-led Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) from party dominance. Hillary's scorched earth tactics reflect the DLC's Republican-Lite politics, which ultimately gave us the Iraq war. Hillary has unfairly tried to undermine Obama's candidacy and the grassroots movement he represents by characterizing his accomplishments as nothing more than "a speech." This echoes precisely what right-wing mouthpieces have been screeching about Obama all along and gives the Republicans ready-made commercials for the general election. It is potentially very damaging to the party.
Clinton said that she and John McCain had the life experience to be chief executive but Obama just gave "a speech." This statement is just the kind of thing that the racists love to hear: Obama is just a "boy" whose 20 years of public service doesn't stack up to a hill of beans. We should simply discount this man's life's work as humbug. That's a pretty harsh attack directed at a fellow Democrat. And why did Clinton leave it ambiguous in a recent interview whether or not she knew that Obama is a practicing Christian?
The Republicans have driven the country into bankruptcy and war. Hillary Clinton has learned that by playing on people's instincts and emotions and fears she can squeak out victories. The question is: At what cost to the Democratic Party is Hillary willing to press her case and how long will it take the party to determine that Barack Obama is not only the victor in terms of delegates and votes, but that he is also the strongest candidate to take on John McCain in the general election.
(Thanks, once again, to Dr. Stan Oden for his collaboration.)
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
It would be ridiculous for either Clinton or Obama to try to make an experience argument against Johhn McCain. It has to be a debate about judgement and direction for the country. What the hell is Hillary Clinton going to say to John McCain? "I have served on the Armed Services Committee, " which he will simply respond, "they don't have committee meetings in the armed services are on the front lines." It's ridiculous for her to suggest that she can do better than Obama in that debate. She nor Obama can win that debate, and it would be foolish for Democrats to try to have that debate with McCain because we'll lose. We have to pivot the discussion to judgement and new direction for the country. If she is the nominee, she will lose the experience argument as well as the judgement argument since she shared McCain's judgement on Iraq. We need a nominee who can illustrate a stark break away from the Republican mind set.
They could win that debate if they were to bring up the fact that he now supports torture, and wants our troops staying and dying in Iraq for another 100 years!
I don't think prolonging the campaign will damage Obama in the long run. It will simply give Obama more time to prove once again that he is more than just a good speech. And it will make Hillary's inevitable bitter concession speech that much more enjoyable. If Obama has any skill at all he should be able to overcome this speedbump with relative ease.
As far as the general election goes, McCain has more to fear from Moqtada Sadr than Obama does from Clinton. McCain will run on the premise that the surge is working. When Sadr lifts the ceasefire in August and the surge is shown to be hollow McCain will stumble badly.
As big Obama supporter ($1,500 to his campaign), I have to say that the disturbing trends of last night were:
1) The inability of the white and hispanic working class to pull the lever for a black man. In Ohio the exit polling was scary (20% said race was a factor in their choice and 8 out of 10 went for HRC). There is even more than this in the Bloomberg Online editorial today about his inability to capture the Archie Bunker. (Google it, I don't feel like posting the link)
It appears there are large swaths of our fellow Americans who have not transcended the racial divides despite the hope that many of us had with his string of wins from Iowa onward.
2) The politics of personal destruction lamented by the Clintons but practiced so expertly by them still works and works dreadfully well.
In a nutshell the American populace is disappointing and despite some progressive movements will likely let the Dems and the country down in November... again. This applies to either Dem candidate because many of the same people that picked HRC over BHO will pick McCain in the GE.
Anyway, I believe Obama should avoid the temptation to go negative, take his lumps (obviously defend himself) and stay with his transformational theme to both running for and being president. If it doesn't work and he loses the nomination he'll be poised to take on McCain 2012, because if HRC somehow manages to wrest the nomination away from him she has no shot in November.
Just to preclude anyone of accusing me of bias against the Clintons I'll say this, I voted for Bill twice and thought we did a decent job, especially given that it was during the time of Gingrich's Contract-On-America. I lost a little respect for him when the Lewinsky situation arose but was hardened in my support of him given the unprecedented / unwarranted treatment he received at the hands of the noxious Rethugs in Congress. I lost my respect for him totally when it became obvious what a disastrous moron Bush was and the damage he's done to this country (not to mention IRAQ). Bill's behavior, or more precisely his thinking about himself over everything else, is what brought us Bush.
Now his wife is showing the exact same behavior, it's all about her and what she wants. It's pretty much a given that she can't win at this point, and it's plain to see she'd just as soon see to it that Obama won't win either by assisting the Rethugs in smearing him. My two candidates have unfortunately already dropped out (Edwards & Richardson), so spare me the Obama worshiping crap. Those two gentlemen plus Gore and Dean must step up now put an end to Hillary's self centeredness.
The Clintons - Rethug enablers extraordinaire
All the calls for Hillary to drop out are unwarranted. However her tactics to secure the nomination are fairly negative and might do long term damage to the energized Democratic electorate.
I read all these posts about if Obama can't handle Hillary how can he handle the RNC, Right Wing attack machine. Well he's handled her pretty well thus far by staying positive. He has chosen not to go negative, not that he can't play hardball.
What is on her Tax returns, where are they?
What's in her First Lady Papers that she touts as experience? Why hasn't she released those papers.
What legislation has she passed. What has she done on the Armed Services Committee.
You do remember how Hillary has been crying and complaining about all the poor media coverage she gets. "He's not vetted like I have been vetted".
How can he win if he can't win the big states. Well most of the big states CA, NY, MI*, OH, FL* are in the Democratic camp already. Also note that the gaps in those big states considering her previous leads there is not significant. He has closed the gaps more than she has pulled away. The question for Hillary supporters is can she bring out voters in the Red States and the independents. Can she bring the new young voters in any state.
Also remember Obama Advantages
28-13 States
1202 - 1042 Delegates
50 MIL - 35 MIL month fund raising
2008 Democratic Popular Vote
Popular Vote Total - - 10,451,927 9,540,370
Popular Vote (w/FL) - - 11,028,141 10,411,356
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - - 11,028,141 10,739,665
Can Hillary win a 50 state strategy? Obama is doing it.
The fight is on now
Obama 08
"Well he's handled her pretty well thus far by staying positive. He has chosen not to go negative, not that he can't play hardball. "
Ya know, there has been plenty of negativity from the Obama campaign and I think we've seen that many of his supporters are about as negative as it gets. Suggesting that Clinton is a "danger" to the Party if she doesn't just quit and hand him the nomination isn't negative? The four page memo suggesting the Clintons are racists wasn't negative? All the spin about her "desperation" when he has only a slim lead isn't negative?
It is absolutely unclear that Obama could win Ohio and Florida in a general election, and as we all know, that's what it's all about. Obama won in the Houston and Dallas urban areas yesterday, but lost virtually all the rural counties in Texas. Same in Ohio. Against McCain, it's not clear he could pull in those white, rural, blue-collar Dems the way Clinton does. And Florida is chock full of Clinton's base.
The bottom line is that in the few large states that are crucial to the Dems in a general election, and with the economy stumbling, HRC is a much stronger candidate than Obama. That became crystal clear yesterday.
It is clear from tone of the majority of these posts, that no matter who wins the Democratic primary, we've already lost our opportunity to have a rational discussion about policy differences, stylistic differences and experience.
I have no issue with either candidate trying to point out their opponent's deficiencies: lack of experience, obligations to special interests, etc.; but it should be done by employing a point by point comparison of one candidates record to their opponent's. Hyperbolic comparisons of "a life time of experience" to "a speech from 2002" is a distorted and dishonest comparison.
On the other hand, when a candidate purports to disdain misrepresenting one's opponent, they need to scrupulously apply this standard to their own campaign. Even minor misrepresentations of an opponent's position are unacceptable, for example the NAFTA mailing.
In the eyes of the rest of the world the US has lost its moral authority, primarily because to the war. It appears the Democratic party is losing its moral authority, in terms of being able to have an exchange of ideas that helps to enlighten the electorate.
Given that Obama and Clinton have very similar policy positions, perhaps we should judge them on their ability educateenlighten the electorate about the critical issues that need to be addressed. And do so in a substantive manner. Perhaps the candidates should reject the MSM's view that the electorate are morons, that can only grasp sound bites. To this end, why don't they spend the next week discussing their shared values and let's see who does the best job of championing Democratic values.
The post Bush world is far more complex and dangerous than it was 8 years ago. This country needs a light-speed education as to the challenges were are facing. We all better wake up, the energy we expend fighting is being misspent. If this campaign degenerates into nothing but attack ads and counter attack ads, then who cares who wins.
Wow, "slash and burn"! So, questioning Obama's fitness to lead the nation is "slash and burn"? It is Obama's job to convince people he is ready to handle the presidency. You haven't seen anything close to "slash and burn" yet.
The sorry thing about this, is that you Obama fanatics are so upset with the softball Hillary attacks that when the right wing slimeboaters go after Obama with a broadside like you've never seen, you'll be apoplectic. Then you'll wonder how he lost to McCain.
Hillary will get the superdelegates she needs, she is clearly the best democratic candidate, and the will of the people (pledged delegates) are moot if neither candidate gets the 2000-something delegates needed to outright take the nomination. Those be the rules, Obama gets no special tx. if he is even 1 delegate ahead if he does not reach the 2000-something winning number, superdelegates rule!
Well by any measure, popular vote or delegate count. Obama wins.
28-13 States
1202 - 1042 Delegates
50 MIL - 35 MIL month fund raising
2008 Democratic Popular Vote
Popular Vote Total - - 10,451,927 9,540,370
Popular Vote (w/FL) - - 11,028,141 10,411,356
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - - 11,028,141 10,739,665
Can Hillary win a 50 state strategy? Obama is doing it.
Actually, if you count all votes cast, which you should, Hillary is beating Obama nationwide. The popular vote now stands at Obama 13,533,300, and Clinton 13,574,463.
I wouldn't call Obama's strategy a 50-state strategy, exactly, since he has lost the New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, California, and Texas primaries. I think last night's results hint at the fact that Obama cannot win Ohio in a general election. Rural, blue-collar Dems won't vote for him.
And then the Democratic Party will fall apart.
That's blind idiocy if the superdelegates do that. Obama has run an amazing campaign, racking up two dozen landslide victories to create an insurmountable lead. Hillary won't have the popular vote or pledged delegate count or the greater number of states. She can spin all she wants but no one is really that clueless.
Obama supporters always overlook the fact that he doesn't have enough delegates either, and will not win enough in the primaries to win the nomination. The leaders of the Democratic Party, the superdelegates, will not annoint a nominee who could not win his own party's primaries in New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas, California, and Ohio.
First, I've also been pointing that out, even as an Obama supporter. However, why wouldn't they give the nomination to the man who convinced more people, total, that he's the better candidate?
He has MORE delegates, and will have MORE delegates when the primaries have finally ended. Therefore, unless the superdelegates want to overturn the majority of their voters, they will be obliged to throw their support to Obama. And it's not only about "winning" the general, it matters who our standard bearer is. I do not want her as the "face" of our party. The 1990's are behind us. Let us move into the future. (And BTW, I noticed that some of you are counting Florida and Michigan. These states' delegates, per the rules to which all of the candidates - including Hillary - agreed, are not supposed to count. You can't change the rules in the 3rd quarter.)
about a year ago, i was excited at the prospect of a hillary clinton campaign. what a difference a year makes! can the american people withstand the onslaught of her team's negative campaigning and the vain, easily-manipulated media's buying into it? stayed tuned.
it's hard work living in a democracy that has so much drag on it.
At what cost? You mean, at what cost to Obama. Since when is it Hillary's job to run his campaign, defend him and secure him the nomination? That is Obama's job. And if he can't counteract what Hillary is saying, there is no way he can counteract the Republican attack. As a Democrat, I would rather see if Obama has the ability to counteract negative campaigning BEFORE he is nominated. If he can't handle Hillary, who isn't playing that rough, he won't be able to handle the Republicans. In such a case, he doesn't deserve the nomination. Obama supporters keep saying that the people should decide this thing, so back off and let them.
Agreed. And what's at stake is NOT whether the Democratic party will move in a new direction. They're doing that anyway by nominating either a black man or a woman. What's really at stake is whether they can nominate a candidate who will beat John McCain in November. And remember, that candidate has to be able to win the big states (not a bunch of little Red states). Hello?
First, you have to win some red states, otherwise you can't win the presidency. Second, EITHER one of them could handily beat McBush in November, because he's got to deal with the fact that he isn't about change, he's about the status quo, much more than either of them!
Democrats already win the BLUE states. That's why they call them BLUE states. And winning al the BLUE states will not deliver a victory. You have to win some RED states. as well.
Or are you trying to imply that only Clinton can win the BLUE states? Hardly.
It is a frightening coalition seeing Limbaugh, Bill, Hillary, Penn, McCain and the Clinton-hang-ons team up against Obama--the only real progressive democrat because they can't stand to see the American people take charge of their govt. Anyone who ever doubted that Washington insiders cling together and respect no party affilliation, you just saw how Repugs and so-called Dems worked last week. This is what Obama has been saying...Hillary does not represent change. She and her hubby are as Republican as Washington can make them. The only question is, are the punks who run the DNC going to stand up and stop the Clintons or are they just going to play dead and let these thugs destroy our chances?
No one wants Hillary to stop running. She has the right to do that. I have issue that she will accept victory in primaries that she gotten nasty and negitive. Is the great new out of Texas that she won by 4% when she lead a month ago by 20%? Or that she won Ohio after blowing a hugh lead there? The tide is turning and getting negitive puts her in the same boat as the GOP. I heard he say today "no one was ever elected with out winning Ohio on the way to the nonination". Well no woman has ever been elected either, or black man or a 71 year old man. Let the best one win, not the one who is left standing. Stop the screaching and lay out your plans. I didn't want this to be that he's bad but I'm not as bad. By cutting Obama down she lowers herself and when the time come to bow out, leaves a candidate wide open to the garbage she has been thowing. I guess in Hillary's world it IS business as usual. Next will be Michigan and Florida. If these states played by the rules they would not have been punished. That's right Hillary, punished, not disinfranchised. Move on and do the math, you have a long way to go and a short time to get there. Oh yea, does anyone think that Obama can't carry NY,NJ, MA, and CA in the general election? Oh, that's right only Hillary can
You're wrong, pfm. Yes, Hillary has the right to run. Nobody is saying she doesn't. But it's not true to say no one wants Hillary to stop running. For one, I want her to stop running. And I'm not alone. Because her brand of scorched earth politics might lead to the unthinkable if and when Obama gets the nomination. Yes, the unthinkable: President McCain, a doddering, utterly corrupt nutcase, who not long ago visited the marketplace in Iraq, proclaimed it a safe and delightful place to do your shopping, with helicopters and armed American soldiers out of camera range. Four or eight more years of a president accountable only to rich tax evaders and war profiteers. I'll say this about Hillary, and no truer words were ever spoken: If God Himself wrote and signed a note telling Hillary she would lose to McCain, she would STILL run. The Clintons' coat-of-arms: "It's all about us."
Not quite true. A bunch of men (especially in the media) want Hillary to stop running. And could we please call her "Senator Clinton"? Why is it "Hillary"(softer first name) vs. "Obama" (manly, presidential-sounding last name)? What is this: a boys' only boarding school?
Possibly because her CAMPAIGN signs say "Hillary"?
Every one I saw last night, anyway. Hillary.. all of them!
Micro, did it occur to you that people don't refer to her merely as Clinton, because there would be confusion. "Clinton worked the crowd in Toledo." Uh... which one? Bill or Hillary? And listen, I can't be the only one to notice that in the head-to-head debate, Obama seemed the softer one and Hillary, 'scuse me, Senator Clinton was as soft as a Teamster.
The notion that men in general, especially in the media, give Senator Clinton short shrift is total nonsense. A lot of women, including those on the talking heads' shows, don't like Hillary either. The "You don't like me because I'm a girl" defense should never be used by anyone with the exception of 12 year olds running for blackboard monitor... if they still have those. Gosh, if Rocky ran against Bullwinkle: "You don't like me because I'm a squirrel."
You're wrong micropainter. I want her to stop running, and I'm a young professional FEMALE.
Posted March 5, 2008 | 03:24 AM (EST)