Is Hillary's Win a Win?

Straight up, Hillary Clinton won tonight, and don't let the expectations-talk fool you.

As I explain over at Robert Emmet, the talking heads are taking the wrong approach to viewing Mrs. Clinton's Pennsylvania win: The only way she gets the nomination is by way of a historic Obama collapse. So as a practical matter her strategy is to hang around to see if it happens (while trying to abet it, of course).

So in that regard, a win's a win's a win. She lives to wait another day (or two weeks, as the case may be).

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary

Comments

[JudgeCrater]

I saw a couple of "man-in-the-street" interviews in which HRC supporters used the n-word quite freely in describing BHO. Supporting him wasn't even an option in their minds. There's some truth to the rumor than bigotry won this for HRC. I'd like to think it wasn't that big a factor but I try to remain non-delusional.

Which is greater: the black vote that wouldn't vote for HRC in the fall or the white vote that wouldn't vote for BHO? And if given the choice between a white woman and a white man, wouldn't some percentage of the latter segment vote for McCain?

[Benton]

Why would I want to be a member of a party that throws around racial epithets to describe one of its party leaders?

[JustMyWords]

Because it still beats being a Republican?

[Tedderdog]

You might as well call it what it is: the white trash vote.

[Nofoolhere]

Call the "white trash" vote a victory if you will, but to the corporatists who engineered this Clinton victory, white trash is gold!

[JudgeCrater]

Ah, but that would be elitest, now wouldn't it?

[LeanLeftAmerica]

Complaing all you want about the white trash vote... it's a fact of life (as wrong as it is). And complaing about Hillary's Rovian tactics... which work in this country. You don't go into November with the country you want, but with the country you have.

[S1m0n]

"Which is greater: the black vote that wouldn't vote for HRC in the fall or the white vote that wouldn't vote for BHO?"

The black vote is greater, because while nominating a black man might cause some racist white votes to stay home ONCE, the legacy of overturning the will of thegrassroots will drive black voters out of the party for good.

And that's gonna lose the democratic party way more than the 2008 presidential election; such a betrayal will blight the party's hopes for years to come.

[oursin2008]

The only difference between the black vote and the women vote is that before they realized that Obama could win they were voting 55 to 40 for Hillary. He had to prove himself to all of them before he became a candidate that they could rally around.(Bill helped out a lot as well) In the case of women voting for Hillary it's more about the obligation that men have to them so give them the presidency this year. To be honest voting for a women is not such a big deal for me, but Hillary is someone who I could not in good conscious vote for. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a women. I mean why would you give someone who you don't trust more power over you and your life. I seems that she will do anything, and say anything to win. She may be drinking to cater to the white working class, and if that works she could also go smoke some weed with some of the inner city blacks.

[ashenthorn]

It's only to the wishy-washy masses of the Democratic Party that this argument could be possibly be made without getting laughed out of the room:
"In a close nominating election between two strong candidates, we really need to nominate the loser because the winner didn't win by enough to "close the deal" before the voting ended, so he's not really the winner."

[Tedderdog]

That's a good thought you should push that, nominate the loser, might have legs. Certainly something only the democrats would consider.

[RIBassist]

Amen. This whole thing is just a cash cow for the media. Jonathan Alter explained on Countdown eight weeks ago why this thing was over, and his argument was elaborated and fully backed up with good old-fashioned mathematics here on HuffPo by M.S. Bellows, Jr. But math is boring, while manufactured drama and wishful thinking are not (I guess).

Every argument put forward by Clinton's supporters is built on a single conceptual foundation: that the rules for governance and conduct of Democratic primaries codified by the Democratic party do not apply to this race.

If you understand the rules, and you can do basic math, and you engage your reason while leaving your emotions out of the equation, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: Obama has won. And once you reach this conclusion through the applicaiton of logic and intellect, you can easily extrapolate that the continuation of this contest serves no purpose other than to damage our nominee, squander huge amounts of money that could be spent defeating John McCain, and lard the coffers of the MSM.

I will not be surprised, come November, if this inept, masochistic party of ours manages once again to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[provgrays]

The Super Delegate system is a time bomb designed to overturn the will of the voters.

The interest of the average voter is to see the best candidate win. The interest of the Super Delegate is to pick the best candidate who will aid their own chances when they face their own voters. This is a clear conflict of interest.

The Supreme Court knows all about overturning the will of the voters. The Democratic Party has institutionalized this tendency and hard wired it into the primary process. By the way, Boston Legal had a brilliant episode where Alan Shore argues a case before the Supreme Court. That show highlighted the hypocrisy, cronyism and fealty to big business that the Supremes truly embrace.

Watch that episode if you can.

[criticalthinktank]

No one cares about the 'will of the people'. When will Americans figure out 'they have no power' period. The Super Delegate system has been around a very long time. The media is on the attack as they are told 'by rich corporate' interests that are backing Obama because they want the paid off candidate to win and you know it. The only reason he hasmoney is Corporate backing. He is the lap dog that will do their bidding.
To sit here in this blog and really think Obama has the people's best interests in mind is really stupid. He will never bite the hands that are feeding him. Big bucks buy candidates. He has been bought...
The war will continue..we can't stop he will say. He will attack Iran and he will attack the mountains of Pakistan. He will as he is for MORE war FOR OIL and control. He has said nothing about 'REALLY' helping African Americans or the Middle class. He says nothing. Three years into the presidency IF he is elected, than he will think about bringing the troops home. THREE YEARS! That is a very long time when you are a soldier stuck in the quagmire. I see no two party system in our country..ONE PARTY and that is Republican, the party of the rich. They have taken over the Democratic party and control ALL candidates running this election. If you are not rich, you are OUT!

[dortmunder]

Umm...did you miss the part yesterday where Clinton mentions "obliterating Iran"?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/truthdig

[provgrays]

You're preaching to the choir. This country is by, for and of the richest 2 percent. the rest of us are here to pay for everything.

[SShaw490]

She can't get within even 100 elected delegates by the end of the primaries - she was 160 behind before last night, she probably will get 13 or so from that, and Obama will take them right back in North Carolina. Even though that win will bring her some money, it won't be enough. Basically, she won the right to stay in the race - and that's really bad for the party, because when two candidates are as similar as they are on issues, the only way to make a distinction is to attack the other's character. Four more months of that, and neither of them will have a snowball's chance in hell in November.

What Hillary won last night was that Obama will have to offer her the VP spot. That's the only way out.

[EyeballKid]

For once, Tweetie was spot on last night in a quickie commentary on MSNBC. He said that the Clintons believe that they ARE the Democratic Party, and that they can do with it what they wish. That's why they have no problem with ripping away at the Obama campaign, nearly with relish, but certainly with impunity. They view Obama as merely "in the way" of their entitled place in the White House, whether it's in 2009 or 2013.

That's why Clinton's negatives remain high and will probably go higher. She simply doesn't care, because in the final analysis, so she thinks, the White House is hers.

[Tedderdog]

Look at the numers: 59% women, 69% 45-60+, Uneducated, low income in PA, fact of the matter is old uneducated white women are driving this vote, being a Clinton supporter is all about the Granny vote, that's what we need right now a bitter Granny for a leader. See who a young actually progressive state like Oregon votes for, it's not even up for discussion. Old east coast bitter uneducated low income white folk, or something new and different.

[mickeyrat]

and yet, you will somehow be surprised when those "old east coast bitter uneducated low income white folk" take umbrage at your description and decide they'd rather not vote for a man whose supporters are such condescending assholes.

Speaking as a relatively youthful Californian, please remember that those old folks were the young Democrats who led the civil rights movement, thereby enabling Obama his (brief) moment in the sun.

You're just flat out offensive, boss.

[Tedderdog]

Fact are Facts.

[JustMyWords]

Somehow, I'm thinking that "old east coast bitter uneducated low income white folk" were the young Democrats "who led the civil rights movement." Most of the leaders of the civil rights movement - both white and black - were far from uneducated. (Low income, well, yes, because social activism isn't exactly a high paying profession.) Those east-coast liberals that JOINED the civil rights movement (not LED) were largely college educated - in fact, they were being recruited from college campuses.

[havisham]

tedderdog--that obama appeals to elitist, ageist, sexist urban voters like yourself is one of the reasons why he is distrusted by older women and less affluent voters. the last time i checked, these are precisely the people who most need a candidate with progressive policy ideas. is it too much to suspect that clinton simply does a better job with them of explaining such issues? of course, many urban professionals vote for obama for the same reason they own a mac instead of a pc--to belong to an club of self-satisfied but myopic "progressives" who do not even care less about their candidate's policies than they do the possibility feeling smugly superior to the less fortunate because they have "transcended the racial divide" in voting for obama. obama's speech on race showed a profound understanding of the intersections of race and class. it should have taught his supporters something about these issues had they actually listened to what he said. instead, they hurt his support by publicly posting snide diatribes against the poor and less educated (and women!). these are people of simple intellect and petty worldview.

[Tedderdog]

You sound like some one who has not spent a day around these people in your life.

[Sardonica]

I understand you're angry and disappointed. I am, too. Lashing out isn't helping. Please, be patient - he'll pull through.

[lily31]

So Right and I sent him another donation this morning just to let him know I still believe in him and know he is "the one"!!!!

Wish every Obama supporter would send in whatever small amount they can afford just to let the country know we are not giving up!

[cbatwins]

I hear alot of talk about Obama not being able to get the "middle class" white vote( about 35%), therefore he is unelectable. Well Clinton can't get the "black vote (9%). Who has the most work to do? Are we to think that just because one group perfers one candidate over another , that group won't support the other candidate? If this is your conclusion then the Democratic party will be finished. If Clinton and the DNC steals this election after losing in all categories, then black people will not turn out to vote and many might vote for McCain. Black people have been the DNC'c MOST LOYAL SUPPORTERS. WE vote 90% democratic. We will no longer let our vote be taken for granite. All we want is a fair process. Most delegates+most popular votes+most states won=Democratic Nomination. Remeber "a win is a win". If Hilary can overtake Obama in 2 of 3 categories, then I will vote for her. If not I will commit political suicide and vote for McCain.

[snobama]

If Hilary can overtake Obama in 2 of 3 categories --

how about looking at 'most electoral college votes' instead of the irrelevant 'most states won'
that would be more fair.... unless your objective was not fairness... but just a pretension to fairness as long as obama wins by the metric...

i am a die-hard hillary supporter .... -- i am counting on her to win the popular vote + show she has the right electoral map . And that HAS to include MI and FL -- i prefer they redo FL adn MI so its fair and square ... but obama campaign doesn't want to because they know they will lose MI and FL in a re-vote.

[divemate]

The electoral college does not determine who wins a primary election. You want a redo in FL and MI because she cannot win without them. Would you want a redo if the roles were reversed and Obama could not win without the redo? I don't think so.

[KarenJW]

Hey snobama, can you lie as proficiently as Hillary and Bill Clinton? Do you change colors and tell people precisely what they want to hear because you are committed to winning by any means necessary? How pathetic are you that you can overlook the "LYING, RUTHLESS, DESPERATE CLINTONS"? Are honesty and integrity not important attributes for the leader of America?????????? Obviously, these qualities do not matter to you. You would have to be of the "white trash" descent! I bet YOU didn't earn $108 million dollars over the past 8 years!

[PghMike]

The time for revotes has long past. You do know that, right?

[mickeyrat]

"We will no longer let our vote be taken for granite"

talk about rocks in the head.

[xxmaryxx]

Hillary won the racist states..Let make this clear and straight. Penn state is a state filled with OLD WHITE BITTER RACIST FOLKS. Yes I said it. They would rather vote for Clinton who makes her living lying about things 109 million worth, THAN VOTE FOR A BLACK man who would probably makes this a better country all around. I always had a GUT feeling if the Clintons didn't get the numbers needed to win fairly, Hillary would win the nomination by using trickery and lies. It's that how Bush 1st won, and when she does , remember you fools brought her in. (eat that when your hungry with no money)
YES YOU WHITE BITTER RACIST FOLKS. THEN WE WILL WATCH YOU CLING TO YOUR GUNS AS YOU HUNT FOR YOUR FOOD.
When is the news Media going to bring out the fact that the CLINTONS are facing FRAUD CHARGES this week.

[havisham]

xxmaryxx---are you kidding??? obama is the candidate who wins the most shamelessly racist states. you are being racist yourself in assuming that people vote against obama because they are bitter and white. what's so hard to understand about this: many people distrust obama's slick, glossy self-presentation. it was ultimately this distrust coupled with his lack of emphasis on the issues that made him lose states like new hampshire

[AliHajiSheik]

I did read exit polling data that about 1 in 10 hillary supporters said they would not vote for a black president. For whatever that is worth.

[Tedderdog]

Right on the money.

[EyeballKid]

From Clinton supporter James Carville: Pennsylvania is Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other end, and Alabama in between.

'nuff said.

[BillZBubb]

Your question should be "Is Obama's Loss a Loss"? The answer is YES. Once again, in a big state with a sizable Democratic base, Obama lost to a less well funded, wounded opponent.

Obama is NOT a viable candidate in the general election. He'll lose MIssouri, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the general election. The Democrats can't win without three of those.

[Loculi]

The fact that Obama has more funding is a good indicator of his grass roots support. It's also pretty silly to act as if this somehow should have won the race in PA for him, particularly when you factor in the Clinton's name recognition and popularity. I'd also add that if Hillary could raise that kind of money, you can bet she would have been spending it as well.

[mickeyrat]

ummm....let's see, the race between Obama and Clinton has been front page for six months now. But you're still convinced that many Pennsylvanians never even heard of Obama's name, hmmm?

Talk about grasping at straws.

[Yurdelite]

How about this fact. Obama NARROWED A 26 POINT CLINTON LEAD to 10 POINTS. The media and the Clinton campaign always spins her wins this way. Nevermind that he comes into a state where he is 20 plus points behind and has to spend money to catch up. Nevermind that he has the BASE OF SUPPORT who will give him the money he needs to beat them back.

Why is it that the Clintons and media have skipped over NC. If Obama was behind in NC then they would be spinning that he needed to win NC to stay in the race. People you are witnessing what black folks have always known and experienced. The rules are different when you are black and they are subject to change at any time you get close to achieving the goals.

Thank you to all the whites, asians, italians, hispanics, and any other group or minority who is supporting Barack Obama because you believe in what he stands for. He has told us it would not be easy. Think about it people! We have a black man who stands on to make history like no other MINORITY before. The presidency has been reserved for whites only every since the existence of this country. The powers that be will give it to a white woman first and you should believe that. But, if we stand strong and believe we will be saying and singing, YES WE CAN...

[TexasCrat]

What about all of the 'white' states he has won? His problem is not with white people but with poor, bitter white people, the same people who are likely to vote Republican anyway. They are just voting for Clinton b/c she's white and she is by all accounts, a Republican.

Clinton will not get those same voters in the GE, plus she will NEVER get the affluent voters or the African voters. If Obama is toast b/c he can't get the 'bitter' vote, Clinton is toast because she can't get the others. But really though, Obama HAS THE ABILITY TO GET VOTES FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T OTHERWISE VOTE FOR HIM, that is why Clinton's margins shrinks in states she is SUPPOSED to win, and let's be clear, there is no way in hell she was supposed to lose old racist ass PA. But she HAS NOT won any state that she wasn't supposed to win and the same can't be said of Obama. She will not win in Indiana were she really should win and she will not win in NC where she shouldn't win. She cannot rally people around her, she only loses supporters, which she managed to do in PA, where she should have won by at least 30%, at least.

[Democrab]

Hillary is so beautiful when she smiles.
I've been reading.
Democrat party is destroyed, witch venom, machines are rigged, stealing the election, mathematically impossible, I hate her, people of Pennsylvania are ruining everything, dread and destruction.
She really does look so good making those victory speeches, don't you think?

[dawlishgal]

Yeah, she has an entirely different look when pandering to "the little people" than she does on those "elitist" (that is what its sponsors actually called it) Renaissance Weekends that she and Bill are so fond of attending. How many of those have they gone to compared the number of times they have visited the crumbling steel towns in PA except when they wanted votes from the very people whose jobs they happily sent overseas.

[BillZBubb]

Gosh, don't let your Clinton hate get in the way of reality! The Clintons didn't "send" jobs overseas. When Bill Clinton was president the economy ADDED 22 MILLION JOBS! The steel towns were crumbling under Reagan.

Why do you Obama fanatics have to resort to right wing baloney points?

[DRPike]

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...must drive you nuts.

[katzooks]

Clinton may very well be the first presidential candidate in history to declare war with another country ! That , in the wake of her saber rattling at Iran, her sheep still flock about her, reminds me of the last election, when -- against all logic -- the American public voted in hordes to re-elect the worst president in US history,aided and abetted by the media.

And the beat goes on.... The same swiftboating media that continues to put ratings ahead of integrity fuels the fires of fearmongering. The media composes a national debate over lapel pins and flags (sounds so very post-9-11). The media persists in ignoring the FACT that Obama continues to command the lead.

The problem is, the same mentality that supported Bush is alive today, even as some of his sheep have morphed into Clinton supporters. This is why not a ripple was made over Clinton's "obliterate Iran" statement. The way I see it, a war whor... er.... horse is a war horse, no matter what the gender.

[BillZBubb]

Perhaps if your judgment wasn't so clouded by Obamamania and/or Clinton hatred, you'd understand Hillary's comment about Iran was couched under a BIG IF. IF IRAN NUKED ISRAEL. Do you really think Iran will nuke Israel anytime soon? Really?

Personally, I see the sheep just the opposite from what you see. I see people blindly supporting an "anti-war" Obama who has repeatedly voted to fund the war, has not really supported congressional efforts to end it, and has not lead the anti-war movement in congress.

[Yurdelite]

And you know like that everything else he would have been accused of not supporting the troops--he's not patriotic. So get off the lies about funding the war thus funding the troops. More Republican propaganda.

You are probably one of the blind sheep who voted for the worst president in history twice. Please...

[chinaskee]

You people who are always complaining about "fearmongering" are always the first to scream "WHERE WAS THE GOVERNMENT" when some terrorists attack. Why don't you all just shut the hell up and stop being such arrogant little pissants. Nobody cares what you think. You're just a worker ant.

[toldyaso]

LOL, so who's the elitist again?

[Nonamnesiac]

I would not vote for Hillary if she won the nomination, as she is a limited world view warmongerer who would send my family into harm's way against the interests of the United States.

Having said that, she appears to be the stronger Democratic candidate against McCain. How do Obama partisans explain that their candidate lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, most of New England, CA and many other must-win states? His wins in states like Georgia, North and South Carolina (I assume he'll win North Carolina), MS, and other such places shouldn't even count, as they are not in play for Democrats in Nov. In FL, although I don't support counting those votes and believe there should be a rerun primary there and in MI (if either state has a chance to end up in the Democratic column in November), the size of her win there, after Obama had won numerous primaries including South Carolina just a few days earlier, should be troublesome for honest Obama supporters. Yes, he won Ill., MO, MD, WI and VA -- important states, but most of his wins are in irrelevant states.

I'd like some honest Obama person to explain -- using straight talk -- how they think they win in November given how unable Obama has been to win the critical states.

[whatevertoo]

I guarentee you that if, and that is a big if, Hillary wins the nomination, she will not win Ohio or Pennsylvania in the election they are Republican states, period, so pleae do not misunderstand the Presidential election process with the primaries.There more republican voters in those states than democrats. Take a look at the percentages of voters and the number of delegates given. The number of delegates depends on the number of voters for the that district. When talking about the bigger states, she didn't win by a very large margin. A state win is not necessarily a win, and it doesn't mean that she will carry that state in November.

[Doofus]

PA has voted for Demo presidents since 1992.
OH voted for Bill Clinton in '92 & '96, otherwise
for Repos. Chances are, they'll both go Demo
again this year, *I* guarantee it.

[demozealot]

The primaries pit Democrat against Democrat, Republic against Republic. The general election pits Obama against campaign, fueled by the momentum of a united party. The logic is straightforward. By your opening sentence yours seems myopic. So you would not vote for Ms. Clinton if she won the nomination? Then who would you vote for? McCain? Or would you abstain. That certainly does not help the Party cause.

[Nonamnesiac]

Thank all of you for your explanations. You may be deluding yourselves, but maybe not. Demozealot: as for your question regarding the Party, I will not vote for anyone who will not commit to immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq. If I vote for someone who won't make that commitment -- especially someone of Hillary's warmongering record and recent comments -- I am voting to put the military members of my family in harm's way, against the interests of the Untied States. Everything else is simply double-talking points by Democats trying to get anti-war voes while they do what they've done since the beginning -- collaborate on killing and maiming our kids in a criminal endeavor, against our interests, for oil.

I will not vote to have a D kill and maim my family against the interests of the US any more than I would vote for an R to do so.

[spaceman3838]

52% of the clinton voters in PA said they would vote for mccain or not vote at all in the general election. a lot of that is the fault of rags like the huffpo that allows bitter and childish people like you to just piss on a women that deserves your respect

[Nonamnesiac]

Send your kids to fight her war - and send Chelsea too, not my family. Through her policies and record, she is personally out to kill or maim my family members, against the interests of the U.S. And it was 26% -- but I guess you were under sniper fire in Bosnia too, after you were rejected by the Marines.

[CanadianinNY]

I actually see a silver lining in these results for Obama. If you compare the Ohio results, Obama made inroads with Sen. Clinton's demographics. After all the reverend bashing and showboating about the "bitter" comment and ABC's hatched job Obama still gained the white vote; while at the same time keeping his own demographics. I think the suppers will pay attention to this.

[toldyaso]

I agree, but I do love to watch the Clinton crowd having their day in the sun for a win everyone knew she was going to get. They're so funny when they're bashing people and complaining about bashing. In this respect, I'm glad this is still going on and can understand why the media continues to drive it. Its entertaining.

[huffyanika]

When I saw your title I really thought it would be about the real chance that Right-Wingers had switched party in order to vote for the relatively 'UN-electable' Clinton.

I haven't heard on televison (MSNBC or CNN) any mention of what must be hordes of right-wing voters who may have switched registrations in order to vote for Clinton -- responding to the request of people like Rush Limbaugh? I heard this may have run to 1 million voters. Therefore, Clinton's 'win' may not be a righteous win at all.

The pundits this evening often were willing to dismiss Obama's electability, his not having 'pulled it off'' and not being able to. If the 'Rush' injunction were followed religiously (and many of these people are VERY religious in sheep respects) it may have made the 'electability' factor, if it exists, moot.

(Buchanan, Conservative, on MSNBC was one of the most vociferous that Clinton was 'more electable' -- and Obama not. Is his motive the same as Limbaugh's, that they are really afraid of Obama's chances against McCain?)

[Doofus]

Seems to me it was reported that there was about a 10% increase in Demo
registrations, maybe half were people not previously registered, so scant evidence
of right-wing hordes after all. (It says something that voters are seemingly unwilling
to change their party registration as a tawdry political tactic, maybe.) What may be
telling is that, geographically, in PA, most locales were 'landslides' for Clinton, with
Obama the outright victor in a few areas. Yours truly, I remain an Obama supporter...

[rwt1138]

I wondered about that but the statistics suggest that the overwhelming majority of newly registered voters went for Obama, which would imply cross-party disumbrationism wasn't a factor.

[RHCNYC]

According to the OFFICIAL Pennsylvania Dept of State Results, as of 3:30am EST:

Clinton: 54.3
Obama: 45.7

That is a spread of 8.6 %.

Details, details.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=12&ElectionID=27

[c1ee]

Thanks for the info. I predicted 8% and i was pretty close!

[spaceman3838]

ahhh i think your more then a little wrong its

Candidate # of votes % of total # of delegates
Hillary Clinton 1,258,245 54.69% 80
Barack Obama 1,042,297 45.31% 66

which is indeed very close to 10%

[MaineMike]

Close to 10%, but actually 9%.

(1,258,245 - 1,042,297) / 2,300,542 = 9.39%

[snobama]

it says "UNOFFICIAL" can you not read ?????

[Caolas]

The irony is that it took a Clinton implosion (remember her media created "inevitability"?) to give Obama the path he has seized.

I find it utterly amazing that her campaign is whining about being outspent when, A) they started this campaign as the most well funded Primary Campaign in history, and B) she has $100million she can tap into if she feels her Candidacy is so critical to this Nation, so there is certainly no lack of available funds for her. The rejection of her Candidacy, and her "35 years of experience", in favor of a 46 year-old Freshman Senator says everything you need to know about how strong of a Candidate she is, or was.

Barack Obama's stump speech often references about MLK Jr's "fierce urgency of now". I sometimes wonder if Senator Clinton thinks that she should felt that and run in 2004 to get rid of Bush...if she was the Nominee then, perhaps we never see Senator Obama give that Convention Speech, and there is no challenge to the thrown in 2008? Just goes to show what happens when you wait; sometimes fate passes you by.