It's 3 a.m. and Hillary's Dreaming

To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states. Barack Obama, however, has won twice as many primary and caucus states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.

For two or three days, the Clinton campaign will spin itself -and the media--silly, breathlessly celebrating her overwhelming victories in Rhode Island and Ohio and her squeaker in Texas.

After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.

Seven more weeks of campaign slog through Wyoming, Mississippi and into Pennsylvania. And then maybe tack on six more weeks, if you can believe it, into Indiana , West Virginia, and a handful of other states and into Puerto Rico on the 7th of June, quite literally into D-Day. Whatever the outcome, even if Clinton wins all 16 remaining contests -and some of them by veritable landslides, she will still be dozens of elected delegates behind Barack Obama.

She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).

Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?

"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."

Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.

Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.

The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."

Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.

Comments

[hchinaski]

she will just change her mind and her stance in another day...

http://johnnydoom.blogspot.com/2008/03/hillary-vows-to-change-campaign-stance.html

[UrbanInterloper]

Time for a little reality, everyone. So far, Obama has clearly won the national popular vote, even if you add in Florida and Michigan. (There are four states that haven't yet reported and he won three of them overwhelmingly.) He's also won the delegate count so far, whether or not you include superdelegates. Obama has also overwhelmingly won more states. There is not a single criteria by which Clinton can consider herself leading. Not one.

Voters can still choose to support one or the other candidate, and Clinton can still choose to continue running, as is any citizen's right and privilege in the U.S., but there are simple things called facts to be reckoned with. The simple fact is that Clinton can only get the nomination if superdelegates give it to her despite most voters giving it to Obama. Despite her handful of high-profile victories, Clinton has lost the majority of voters, the majority of states, and the majority of proportionally-awarded regular delegates. This is not something she can reverse with grand gestures, cockiness, confidence, or fear.

[diondrabutterfly]

there's still more states to vote, and it can change, because it's close--if you allow voters in Florida and Michigan to count. That's why it will be rough if the margin of the win for Barack in pledged delegates, or the popular vote for that matter, is less than those states votes. Something will have to give if that happens.

[Mojoman17]

Hillary's ad wouldn't have been nearly as affective if it hadn't been for the cooperation of the television news reporters. They gave the offensive ad more free air time than the Clinton campaign could ever afford and made sure that every television viewer in America saw the 3:am phone ringing at least once. Something seems wrong with that, and depressingly unfair.

[BabeeBK]

I have yet to see this question answered on any news cast, blog of even Sen Clinton's website:

On what does she base her foreign policy experience? What crisis has she ever fixed? What war or conflict did she help avert? What treaty did she negotiate?

Why can't anybody answer those questions??????????

[thatvisionthing]

Here's one answer: Personal foreign influence peddling, at the expense of national policy and diplomacy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brady-kiesling/reining-in-the-ethnic-lob_b_77661.html

[LightningJoe]

She "fixed" the potential crisis of having a First Divorce, by standing by her man...

----

stop watching tv.

[LightningJoe]

Bear in mind, that

1) the classic Red Phone is only going to ring if President Medvedyev wants to TALK about the issue (rather than let his Bears do the talking for him),

2) so-called "terrorists," likewise, will let the crisis speak for itself,

3) lacking such a fait-accompli, an issue of concern will allow days, in which to address the level and type of response.

The RedPhone@3AM meme is as fictional as the TickingBombJustfiesTorture meme, if less morally corrupt.

Lastly, don't EVER forget that

4) it's US who have made the world as dangerous to Americans as it is now. WE made sure that we're hated the world over, by explicitly disdaining our manifold opportunities to discuss our differences in a civil fashion with other nations. Reacting out of fear and hate, to threats from others, will only make our situation worse, in regards to the opinions and actions of other peoples.

----

stop watching tv

[dragonfly142]

If you really want to be enlightened on Obama; read Joe Wilson's (Valerie Plame husband) on his statements ..right here on Huffington Post..Obama

makes a hypocrit of himsilf by what he actually said in his book..Audasity of Hope"..according to Joe ; ....Obama admitted himself in his book that he

was priivy to American Intelligence he might have voted the same.......but of course he Obama was tring to get elected to the state senate..(Not

the US) in a very liberal area...where all they wanted to hear was anti war......hell John Kerry, John Rockefeller, Chris Dodd, Tom Daschle, Ben

Nelson...all of them Obama supporters and they all voted just as Hillary did on Iraq in 2002. Obama had a state senate job a part time job at

best...and he wouldn't even commit himselves to a position there...by only voting present.......saving himself from any scruitiny that could have

come his way , had he actually done his job, and taken an actual position. So it is easy to say I would have, or I did.....but you cant say I voted

against the war from the beginning if you were NOT entitled to vote as you were not a senator til Jan 2005

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

[raymichael]

Hey, hold the phone here. Obama is saying that the media is being unfair and he is absolutely correct. There was 5 contests on March 4th. Hillary won 3 out of 5 and Obama won 1. The 5th one they are still counting votes. So, with this being what is happening why is the media ignoring that Obama is ahead in the Texas Caucus? When the media mentions that Hillary won Texas they don't say she won the Texas Primary. How can they by their omission of primary or caucus truly be unbiased and represent the true facts. Seems very obvious to me that Obama is correct in what he says. If Obama wins the Texas Caucus is the media going to say that Obama won Texas? I don't think so.

[diondrabutterfly]

you know everyone would care more about the texas caucus if in the general election the texas electoral delegates were actually awarded based on a caucus system--BUT they're not. Everything in the electoral college in the general is based on primary-type voting. So, if you want to nominate the guy who can win caucuses, go ahead. But Hillary has shown that she wins elections, especially in those states that the dems have a chance in hell of winning. That's why no one cares if Barack wins the texas caucus--it just shows how "undemocratic" the nominating process is anyway regardless of the whole superdelegate issue.

[valleygent]

I am an independent voter (thank God!) and I must point out a very important fact that I think many Dems forget. I voted for Obama because he is a uniting force, his past comments about Reagan being a transformational leader are true. Those comments and other very promising insights that he uniquely displays lead me to have unwavering confidence that he can truly do what I know Hillary cannot. And that is UNITE the American people. Hillary began the negative tone of this race from the start, but especially after Obama won in Iowa, she brought out the "But I deserve the nomination" approach and now the kitchen sink smut. The fact that she draws this very strange sympathy vote in some states suggests a very deep problem with ignorance and the media that we face as a nation selecting a leader. Well, I don't have one ounce of sympathy for a wealthy corporate lawyer turned Carpetbagger Senator that uses Arkansas brand race baiting and Little Rock Mafia kneecapping to gain elected office. It is so plain that Obama has authenticity and is a powerful orginal thinker because that is how he runs his campaign. Hillary's wins in ALL the bigger states are truly statiscal dead heats. She has earned no mandate, she is still behind in delegates after "winning" last Tuesday. Understand that this desire to be crowned President is the underlying negative that follows her like a dark shadow. Her history and record are divisive, just do a fact check on her role in the 94 Republican congressional Victory that held dominance for 12 years, Newt had her number, and so will McCain. Obama supporters are not blindly following a man, they are following a vision, and that vision is possible for America, unless the dinosaurs that support the Hillary cult somehow force the Dems to concede to the past.
If that happens... as an independent I will vote for McCain, not because I agree with him in most issues, but because he displays the talent to reach across the aisle, not to the extent that an Obama could, but far surpassing the Clinton model of my way or the highway. George W Bush failed in his Presidency because he could never reach consensus with the American people on any issue, but of course he doesn't care about consensus. Hillary Clinton will never form consensus, her campaign numbers prove that fact!
What we need in a President is that elusive ability to form consensus and that is what Independent voters will flock to in November.

[hiriumi]

Well said, sir. well said.

[cheryltopher]

Every primary voter who hasn't voted yet should read this.

[TN]

The only problem is every consensus he had, he has changed his tune on now. He sold his sole to the RNC. There will be no more consensus with the new and not improved McBush.

[BardEric]

"Hillary Clinton will never form consensus, her campaign numbers prove that fact!"

If by that you mean being neck-in-neck with her opponent is a campaign "failure", then the same argument could be used where Obama is concerned.

"Obama supporters are not blindly following a man, they are following a vision, and that vision is possible for America"

The mis-guided voters that supported GW in the last two elections were following his "vision" as well. Barack does not hold a patent on Vision, every one of us has one of our own, even if you don't agree with it's principles.

[valleygent]

utter nonsense BardEric; Obama has proven statiscally that his candidacy can create majorities that are far beyond the Clinton 50/50 scope. She will lose to McCain. Hands down. Obama wil win with over 50 percent of the vote. Independants like him, not her.

[Angilix]

The question no one is asking is this. If Hilary doesn't trust Obama to answer the phone as president, then how can she trust him to answer the phone as her VP?

The answer is all she cares about is being president and to heel with the country. You shouldn't want anything that much.
I love politics!!!

[ducatichk]

Well, isn't she just saying that she's the better candidate for the job?

[antirepublocrat]

No. In fact, what she's been saying is that both she and McCain are more qualified than Obama. She's said stuff like, "Both Sen. McCain and I have years of experience... blah blah blah... and all Sen. Obama has is a speech he made in 2002." Ie, she's boosting the Republican candidate ahead of her Democratic rival. If that doesn't turn Democrats against her, then the Democratic Party has a huge collective death wish.

[marky1]

If you can't win Ohio and Florida the election is over. We've seen how that plays out twice already. Nominate Obama and prepare for another heartbreak. Hillary can win.

[doggy]

marky1 your are one of the sheep that believe anything Hillary says. Hillary will not become president because if she become the nominee there are huge pockets that wont vote or will vote gop.

[monique]

Look how she just won in democratic primaries with little to no help from the black community -- probably unprecedented.

She will do just fine, but there are those of us that will find it difficult to vote democratic if she is not the nominee, but we will finally do the right thing -- because no one wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, or to put McCain in there.

Either way, she will do fine, thank you. GO HILLARY!!!

[Beve83]

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

Yet another poll, this one by SurveyUSA that interviewed 30K people, shows, surprise, surprise, Obama beats McCain.

[jdkjdk]

Winning the Democratic primary in OH is not the same as winning the general election in OH.

[cheryltopher]

I work in retail sales and talk to a lot of ordinary people every day. I'm a progressive democrat but tend to listen more than talk when people bring up politics. Do you know what I hear over and over again, across the economic spectrum? PEOPLE REALLY HATE HILLARY. The people that like her like her, but the people that hate her REALLY hate her. I've also heard from lots of republicans and independent types, and I've heard many of them say they would consider voting for Barak. They like him. In a general election people vote for the person they respond to in their gut. They vote for the most likeable candidate. Get it through your heads fellow democrats. Huge numbers of people hate HIllary, fair or not. Huge numbers of people are inspired by Barak. They sense something in him that is real. Something we need. A leader. If it was all about experience Bob Dole would have been president. John Kerry. Michael Dukakis. Think! We can't risk losing this one.

[jdkjdk]

You've got it totally correct.

In old fashioned political terms: "just talk to the cab drivers."

In pollster terms, the Clinton negatives are so high that she can't possibly win in the general election.

This has all been known for quite some time.

There will be no Perot, to help her win in a general election like her husband won. On the other hand, given that her ostensible experience begins with her work for McGovern, she'll at least be familiar with the concept of being crushed.

Nor is it likely that McCain will pull a "Poland is free" blunder like Ford, although we can hope the Hagee thing will be the equivalent.

[BardEric]

No Perot to help her win..Um Looks Nader is doing a fair Perot impression from where I sit...

[antirepublocrat]

Actually, her experience begins with her work for Goldwater. But you're right. He was crushed, too.

[WMK]

This is what I hear also - that a LOT of people really can't stand Hillary. It seems to me that she comes to this race pre-loaded with a massive public relations problem that transcends any 'historic' electoral uncertainty about candidate gender or skin color. The problem is specific to Hillary Clinton.

If she comes up with the nomination I think Hillary's supporters can wave signs and shout "woo! - go Hillary!" all they want from now until election day and then face the music on Nov 12th. We all will.

[Numbskull]

It's funny that voters in Ohio one of the largest voting blocks in the country went solid for Hillary and the press has to spin it into a split draw with Obama holding the lead. What happens if Hillary gets the delegates she won in Florida, and Michigan? People want to make personal attacks on HRC like she's this villanous evil witch, and pander to Barrack who takes 30 million a month from big business and no one says a word about it. When people are crying out that Hillary will steal the superdelegates away from the American voters, I would say to the contrary. The vote is split down the middle for the most part if not favoring HRC a little since a few million voted were all for naught anyway, but the media machine pushes Barrack (Hollywood gave Barrack 30 million in the begining) and the superdelegates are falling in line behind him in a way that does not reflect the popular vote. You may have the press shoving him down everyones throat as this golden boy, but I see (A) a totally inexperienced leader (B) someone who didn't do his job at all while in his first national office (C) someone who's getting so much special intrest money poured into his campaign it's scary. College kids might not understand that it takes experience to develop into the "person" not the "speaker" that it takes to run a country of this size. Barrack gets a failing grade for his first term in the senate, and you want to push him even higher up the ladder? It scares me that people see this "eloquent" "austere" person speaking to them with his buzz words of "Change" and "Hope" and don't see the lack of courage behind it. He won't go to the Senate to vote on any issues because he would actually have to take a stand on something and choose a side. Not to mention he wants Hillary to give a report of her taxes for last year when Barrack mysteriously destroyed all the documents that provide info on his past ten years in Illinois. There is no direct discusion of issues, there is no discussion of policy on how to do things because he has no idea. He has no clue how to properly run a country, he's hoping his good looks and his ivy league rhetoric will fool people enough to give him the office then hopefully he can figure it out. If Barrack takes the nomination I will vote McCain in a heartbeat and it's really a no brainer for anyone with any sense. A freshman flunkie or a twenty year vet with a record of voting with his convictions. At least McCain has spent one full term actually voting on issues. Barrack can say whatever he wants about his stance because he has never been in the Senate when they were actually voting. He uses his campaign as an excuse, but while he's out campaigning HRC still makes it back for votes. It's because he doesn't want to vote so he won't have any voting record for people to criticize, so he can say whatever he wants and not take any stand on anything that actually means something. Talk is cheap, actions are what I want to see, and I've seen nothing from Obama but lip service.

[BBGG]

Amen, Amen, Amen. Thought no one was listening or using their noggin. Wow, I worked in a mental institution for 10 years and recognize sociopathic tendencies. All the rhetoric about YES WE CAN and CHANGE messages are wonderful and upbeat, but not realistic in a world of blacks and whites showing their racist feelings in this election. In a prison setting, the rivalry between blacks, whites, asians and hispanics goes on. This country is diverse, reflecting the attitudes of our families and environment; the formative years have long past, and we are what we are! Do not downplay EXPERIENCE, ever! Thank God when you get an experienced person on the phone when you try to straighten out an insurance claim or clearing up a banking error. We have so much INEXPERIENCE, we are in a helluva mess. We must support our most experienced, brilliant, and energetic candidate who happens to be a woman named Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is destined to be the first woman President of the United States of America.

[cheryltopher]

your name is well chosen - says it all!

[JeffinIllinois]

The post failed to point out that Obama can't get to 2025 either.
Children being murdered in their bed?
Thanks for the post... we're all just a little "dumber" because of it.

And the comments wow.... no one told anyone to pull any names of any ballot in Michigan. I think that was a dumb move, makes no sense, and why would anyone do such a thing? (Good judgement I guess???) There were Democrats on the ballot in MI in addition to Clinton. 44% went uncomitted.

Everyone was on the ballot in Florida. Obama ran national cable advertising. Clinton won.

I'd like to say that no matter which candidate you are for .....it's this kind of crap that makes me hate being a Democrat. I blame Howard Dean and his 50 stake screw this election up strategy. Texas is a joke. Primaries and Caucuses, some people can, some people can't. It really is a disgusting way to run a democracy.

When we were a younger country, people would have gone to Washington D.C. and excercised their constitutional right to remove these people.

[RedBirdy]

I honestly don't understand the deep hatred many have for Hillary Clinton. Face it, the country is torn. Clinton has just as many supporters as Obama. Why should Hillary just step aside and let him float to a nomination, when there are many supporters that want her to be the nominee and many that have show their support by voting. Why should we just let her bow out for the democratic party? If this was a true and unified party, we would support and encourage the process. Let the rest of the country have a say, even if it means Hillary won't be the nominee. Isn't that the point of a democracy? You Obama freaks are amazingly dense, and if Obama was in Hillary's position, you would be telling Hillary to let the process happen. Obama can't have it both ways, he says let the will of the people decide... will, let it. Let the rest of the states vote, and if MI and FL decide to do a redo, the candidates can campaign and lke the chips fall where they may. And it is a known fact that Hillary is ahead in the superdelegate count. Obama is going to need the support of Hillary supporters if he's the nominee, so maybe you should stop insulting our judgement, and our intelligence.

[boatswain]

It's simple. If she loses, she should go away quietly. She shouldn't cheat to win. Marc clearly states the case. The math doesn't add up for a Clinton victory. There are no consolation prizes. If she loses, she must go. If Hillary is allowed to break the rules, why can't Romney? He surely could come back and be competitive against McCain with a few do overs and rule changes now that McCain is in hot water over ethics. You follow me. If it starts with Hillary changing the rules, where does it end?

I'll tell ya where it ends. It ends with another dem loss in November. You DLC folks. You need and intervention. This is NOT the way to lead.

[monique]

boatswain,
You need to get it through your head that neither one of them can win without the Super-delegates.

There is no rule that says if you are ahead, and neither candidate can reach the magic number, the the one with the lower no. of delegates should step aside.

No, the rule is that if neither party can reach the magic no., that then the Super-Delegates can use their power to endorse with their vote, either candidate they want, the one they feel is best qualified, and this vote is not to be based on the popular vote, or the delegate counts -- it is an independent vote.

She is not cheating. What are you afraid of -- that she will win fair and square? SHe is no wussy -- she will not quit which is exactly what you should want in a President.

[marlin336w]

Guess what happened here? The author forgot to mention Hillary is also counting on all those democrats to ignore her theft come August when she uses her connections to force the Super Delegates to vote against the voters and elect her as the nominy. Do you REALLY think she will not steal the election? Come on, she's a Clinton. They have a history of things that are not right and goes against the public they are supposedly representing. Remember all the crap in the Clinton Administration? They (count Hilliry here since she claims credit for anything good, she has to accept the bad as well) IRS audits of political enemies, FBI files with her fingerprints on them in her closet, Enemies list, Travel gate, Vince Foster's "suicide" with a gun from the DC Police lock-up, illicit pardons, money paid to the Clinton Library for those pardons, Chinese illegal contributions, Lincoln Bedroom rentals, Lies under oath, claiming that Bill didn't have to testify in any court because as President he was a military member and not accountable to civilian courts, and I could go on but I am going to use the other stuff in later comments on other subjects. All of this really sounds like the "MOST OPEN AND HONEST ADMINISTRATION" to me...how about you? Remember how the Clintons claimed you got two for one, and that their administration was going to be so honest and above board? That worked out well didn't it? Do you liberals REALLY want that back? Elect the Clinton trailer trash to the Democratic nomination and there is a distinct possibility the country will get it all back again. Talk about legacy! More lies, more theft, more campaign shenanigans, more illicit pardons, more bombs dropped on innocent civilians (see Kosovo since 1993), lies about releasing her/his tax returns (what are they hiding there I wonder...remember the $5,000,000 she loaned herself for this campaign), more of all that GOOD STUFF you liberals have been just crying for.....or maybe, you'll rethink this Hillary and Bill Clinton history (hey she claims she is qualified because they were a team...yet another lie when you look at the history which is why they refuse to release her records from the Clinton Library), then come to your senses and vote for Barak Obama who is at least honest. Hillary is a lot of things: liar, shrill, mean, foul mouthed, and just a misserable person. I would say deal with that except that America needs an honest person as President. Neither Clinton qualifies, no matter how they try to spin it.