Has Hillary Clinton Given Up: She's Placed No TV Ads Yet in Montana and South Dakota, Whereas Obama Appears on TV Every Few Minutes

I'm writing from Deadwood, South Dakota, where I've just spent a mostly eventful two weeks discovering the beauties of America at Mount Rushmore, Yellowstone National Park and points in between in Montana and Wyoming.

I'll be writing about that later, but the point of this piece is to note the disappearance of Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Montana and South Dakota primaries, about which she has spoken so much in her determination to wage battle with Barack Obama to the bitter end.

In two weeks spent mostly in South Dakota and Montana, I've seen Barack Obama TV ads every few minutes and not a single one for Hillary Clinton. She made an appearance in Sioux Falls, and her husband was in Rapid City, and news reports talk about her candidacy.

But the overwhelming presence of Barack Obama in the broadcast media of these two states presupposes that she has given up any serious chance to win these two primaries. Even if her handlers have bought time backwards to appear in the last week or so of the campaign, by that time it will be too late with all the Barack Obama saturation voters will have been spoon fed.

As indicated in an earlier posting, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary after my two preferred candidates John Edwards and Joe Biden had withdrawn. I've watched the race unfold since then, in particular her supporters dropping like flies after Barack Obama's overtouted early wins against her victories in much larger states. This in turn caused the pundits to declare her dead, even as many voters continue to put victory totals onto her scoreboard.

I mention this not to inflame Obama believers, but just to point out it's intriguing that while it appears all is lost, certain state voters are ignoring the obvious and continue to vote for her. Whether in Texas, Ohio, then Pennsylvania, Indiana and a large win in West Virginia. In the TV business, when a show is canceled, the ratings fall precipitously, as if to say that even those who watched no longer stick with a "loser."

Yet so many states continue to vote for Hillary Clinton, and she is expected to win in Kentucky today, while Obama will probably do so in Oregon.

So, the question is twofold: Why do so many people continue to vote for Clinton, who it now appears has no chance of winning the nomination? And more ominously, are they voting for her or against Obama? If the latter, then it may augur disaster in November.

Even if the economy and war issues presume the prediction of a sure winner for Democrats this year.

I am continuously amazed at how sharp, savvy political operatives prefer to jump on a bandwagon, just in case it coasts to victory. They just don't want to be left behind. Or are they hedging their bets citing the obvious, giving rah-rah cheers of "let's get behind the person in front" so that one or more might pick up the slack in 2012 if Obama becomes this year's Michael Dukakis (remember his 17 point convention lead?), or worse if Obama is this year's George McGovern or Al Smith.

Isn't it obvious that a sizable segment of voters in this country are not thrilled with Obama, and a portion of them may not vote for him in November? Are we really certain things are so bad that all Democrats and most Independents will rally around one of the candidates for change so that we can sort out the mess embroiling our nation?

Folks, time and again this has not proven to be the case, and if people keep voting regularly for a fallen star like Hillary Clinton, even as Obama maintains his lead and racks up more and more celebrity political endorsements, there must be a reason. Do we want to take a chance on electoral defeat or should we recognize that the almost split electoral apportionment between them means that voters are not extraordinarily happy with either one of them. Die hards will vote for Obama against McCain. I certainly would. But will it be enough?

Wouldn't it be more mature and practical to rally around someone both sides would happily embrace? Isn't that why the super delegate concept was conceived? To recognize something is seriously wrong with where we have currently found ourselves with a so-called winning candidate unable to close the deal as is pointed out so regularly.

It's not too late to seek creative solutions, which must be found to save us from possible disaster. And the one person who has the best chance to bring almost everyone together is Al Gore. Let's move beyond partisan hysterics and care more about victory in November. Let's be more concerned about improving the quality of life for all Americans and about securing civil rights with fair and forward thinking Supreme Court Justices yet to be appointed.

Obama and Clinton have time to build a more secure foothold on the political landscape. It's clear that a majority of Americans want neither of them. Al Gore has a much better shot to bring home the big prize, and though he has stated he is not interested and did not seek office this year, his sense of patriotism will surely respond to the calls of service, which should be presented to him before it's too late.

Comments

[Michael Russnow - Huffpost Blogger]

HuffPost's Pick

My statement about Obama's overtouted early wins against Hillary's victories, referred not to West Virginia but to her major victories in New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, even with Senator Ted Kennedy's endorsement. The Media counted the number of states won, favoring Obama, even though many of those wins were in caucuses.

Some of you will say, but them's the rules. True, but no one will convince me a caucus attended by political activists is equal to a full primary. And as Obama's star rose higher and Hillary was declared doomed, she won Ohio and the Texas popular vote as well. Some of you say that, due to the Texas system, Obama won more delegates, but she still won more votes.

After more Hillary obituaries, she won Pennsylvania by ten points. She also won Indiana, not by much, but it borders on Illinois. Then West Virginia and Kentucky by huge margins, as George McGovern abandoned her.

A Florida congresswoman said when a candidate starts fading he/she loses primaries, they don't continue to win. And I don't buy the argument that it's a sympathy vote or they're voting for her "because they can," as one apt commenter wrote.

They are voting for her because they prefer her or don't like Obama. When someone is the presumptive nominee and it's all over and people still vote for someone else that speaks volumes of trouble for Obama.

[XME]

I doubt it. I think all his recent losses show is that those who vote for her still want to voice that they prefer her. Many of those still voting for her are stating they will vote for Obama IF he's the nominee. Basically, these people, especially her most ardent female supporters really think that they can sway who the nominee will be, it doesn't necessarily mean that none of those people would vote for him in November.

[shep1900]

I wish. He was my candidate from the start.

But, there are primaries and caucuses for a reason (a deeply flawed process, one and all have now discovered), and someone else can't just sweep in and take the nomination away.

Although I suspect you are right, and it will result in a Democratic loss in November.

[Cathexis]

I suggest, Mr Russnow, that there is an error in your logic. I would assert that it is not "obvious that a sizable segment of voters in this country are not thrilled with Obama." Just because some segment prefer Hillary doesn't mean they would not accept/support Obama. And the converse is true.

I read an excellent analogy but, regretably, don't remember who posted so I can't give proper attribution; to paraphrase:

If a majority of a group of people are allergic to strawberries and are given a choice between a strawberry, a banana, and an apple ... just because they chose the banana as a first choice does not mean they will opt for the strawberry if the choice is narrowed to "apple and strawberry."

I am a Gore fan and he was my first choice. However, I am not going to let my preferences affect my perception of logic or reality -- even if it means a result that isn't my first choice. I *really* wanted Gore. But I *will* support Obama (or Clinton), rather than twist facts/analyses to fit my worldview.

That is for the Rightwingers.

[Fabienne]

Al Gore should just be given the nomination after he has done no work to get it and after he has said he does not want it? He is an admirable man but he was an ineffective candidate and Vice President. He is fine where he is, doing good out in the private sector.

[BookQueen]

Maybe she's just not running ads because she's out of money.

[BassMent]

Yes, you made my comment for me. She's already $31 million in debt, and I'm sure she's got to be thinking about how much deeper in debt she will be in 2-3 weeks if she keeps buying air time.

I am fascinated by Hillary's claim that voting for a nominee is like hiring someone for a job. I hire people all the time, and one of the things I want to know is what they accomplished in their last job, and the ones before that. If anyone ever told me, "I mismanaged my funds to the point that I was over $31 million in the hole in less than a year," the job interview would be over.

[AnotherIADem]

I suspect money is the issue, but lack of money wouldn't stop her from trying to buy air time--she doesn't seem to be adverse to running a deficit. I suspect that no broadcasting company will sell them air time without payment up front.
Would anyone take an IOU from HRC??

[XME]

Bingo!

Anyone who believes HRC has given up is dreaming (and probably praying for that to be the case!)

[MrWinky]

Good God, can we drop the Al Gore junk? I like Gore as much as the next person, but his time has past. He has done absolutely no campaigning, he has the Clinton baggage to deal with as well, plus his own. Sure, his popularity has sored, but there is a difference between being an ex-executive and getting back into the ring in an election. Don't believe me? Why don't you ask ol' Bill how well his post administration goodwill has served him in this election. Many who loved him are now calling him a bumbling, arrogant racist.

Just b/c we think that Obama may have a problem, we would go for a totally unknown? Oh, and all the people who voted for the first woman president, or the first black president, would be content that the DNC brought in a white man to save the day? You're out of your mind.

[JimR]

PLEASE, let us drop the Al Gore fantasy. One sure way to lose in November is to focus on what might have been instead of what is.

Obama is a very good candidate who is energizing millions of voters. Why not build on that? I understand that many in the party would have preferred Clinton. But she is not going to be the nominee.

[Leota2]

Oh my---- "a fallen star like Hillary."

You wax poetic but don't seem to truly understand primaries. What is this rally
around someone who everyone can embrace--Santa, the Easter Bunny?!
You Sir, are one of those "if Hillary can't win let's give it to any Dem except
Obama." We VOTE in this country. Which means we also learn to lose.
The right to vote is the thing. Hillary lost the delegate count--which is THE
thing.

I find it hysterical that people found the delegate count (the only true measure
of a primary win) superfluous only when Obama had basically won it.

You dismiss the states Obama has won, tout the ones Hillary
is winning (and none of us have to explain why that is with W. Virginia
and Kentucky.) I'm from Ohio---surrounded by them and scary Buckeyes
too. Parsing, parsing, parsing.

So please stop the altruism towards your party in wanting a " beloved " candidate
to run. It smells and is mendacious.

[SWilkin676]

Hillary has name recognition going for her - a strong well known political brand. Many people don't bother really looking at the candidates - many are voting for her because they think she has the best chance of winning in November. Doesn't mean they won't back him then.

Why is Iowa "overtrumped" but West Virginia counts as significant? Meaning you're applying a different set of standards for her than him as far as what the media appears to recognize.

She is losing because she plays dirty and lies, I have seen many people like myself totally turned off on her because of her dirty tricks and Bosnia like lies. Changing the rules in the middle of the game and then sanctimoneously spouting on about counting Florida and Michigan is hypocritical to a nauseating degree.

[Fabienne]

Latest poll shows her losing to McCain in November and Obama beating McCain.

[missjabez]

So, the question is twofold: Why do so many people continue to vote for Clinton, who it now appears has no chance of winning the nomination?

That's a very good question. I have my own theory about that, which I will keep to myself.

[S1m0n]

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's candidacy is still dead.

She's walking out there everyday, begging for hard-earned money from people much poorer than she is, money she already knows she's wasted, and making promises she knows she can't keep. She's lying--daily--about her part in the setting, pledging, and then breaking the michigan and florida primary rules, lying about her chance of winning, lying about why she's still at it, and lying about why she's lost.

Yeah, she's one PEACH of a idol for all of us. She should be busted for fraud, not given a second more of the democratic party's time. At this point, her campaign is as big a ripoff as Enron or Bre-X. She should be ashamed of herself, but clearly, SCRUPLE was an inconvenient trifle Hillary Clinton jetisoned years ago.

[allonfla]

"So, the question is twofold: Why do so many people continue to vote for Clinton, who it now appears has no chance of winning the nomination?"

They are voting for her because they CAN. no need to analyze it to death. They know it's just the primary. If they believe that he will be the nominee anyway what difference does it make to them who they vote for now?

Plus, they may be falling for her line that the contest is far from over so this may get some of them hyped up.

[shep1900]

Maybe they just, you know, _prefer_ her? It doesn't have to be complicated.

[inspectormerlot]

I'd like to remind people that, after Texas, all the pundits were declaring that Obama couldn't win the Hispanic vote.
Last week Rasmussen had Obama winning Hispanics 58 to McCain's 35
Now Gallup has Obama winning Hispanics 51 to Clinton's 44.

So... Would everyone please bear in mind that primary voting patterns do NOT reflect general.

[PermacultureMainer]

um, 75,000 in Porltand, OR.....she's toast.....Obama wins it in a landslide of McSame in November....

[mesuki]

I get so sick and tired of this talk about Obama not being able to win in November because of Hillary's white uneducated and working class votes.I garentee you if she is given this nomination based on that premise, the blacks will not come out for her either. so the only winner will be McCain.If Obama becomes the nominee,he will have done so fair and square,but if Hillary gets the nomination it will be because she stole it. Any person with God given common sense can see the injustice in that. If Hillary's supporters can't understand that,I have to assume that the reason they will not vote for Obama,is simply racism,cause I just can't understand their unfairness!

[noneIn2008]

Montana is worth the effort. Put you time and money on the 13 swing states: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.

[rgersmrk]

Just because the candidate you voted is losing doesn't mean that it's the end of the world. Al Gore had his chance in 2000 and blew it. Circumstances out of his control may have played a part in that (having the Clinton brand name attached to him and Florida) but it doesn't change the fact he had an electability problem worse than Obama or Clinton. Other factors like him not running in this campaign and him stating several times he has no desire to be in public office are other reasons why he isn't a solution.

Whover wins this primary is running against a very vulnerable Republican party. As long as we get over the "we can't win" attitude you have so very articulated in this article then November will not be a problem. I say stay positive and support your elected candidate whether it be Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, ect. and everything will be okay.