The Same Old Story: Discrediting Hillary

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary

Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning.

Last night Hillary Clinton picked up the sixth big state out of the seven the Democrats need to win the fall presidential contest. Obama has only won one big state, Illinois -- and that is it. She has won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania (and, yes, Florida and Michigan). Yet in today's newspapers and partisan websites, the critics are downplaying Clinton's victory (even her erstwhile supporter the New York Times criticizes her in its lead editorial for running a dirty campaign), dismissing any triumph as meaningless because of Obama's lead in elected delegates, and suggest once again that she drop out so she does not further hurt the "inevitable" nominee, Barack Obama.

How many times have we heard these sorts of admonishments, starting back with the New Hampshire primary? But despite her stumbling start in the caucus states, Clinton has come on strong and has now created a solid coalition that Obama cannot, for all of his money and his eloquence, break into.

Let this drama play out now and let the Super Delegates make up their own minds in due course without interference from on-line critics or hot-headed columnists or TV prognosticators or panicky Democratic Party strategists. Let the delegates in Denver play their proper role in deciding the outcome of this contest. This is after all a democracy.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary

Comments

[Lon]

This reminds me of the scene from the Simpsons in which Homer dreams of scoring a touchdown at the end of the Superbowl and leading his team to a 42-7 loss. Is Schlessinger actually complaining (does it count as whining if it isn't Obama doing it) that as the primary process winds down, the newspapers are actually noting that Clinton has no realistic chance of winning?

Part of what constituted the fact that Clinton has not had a realistic chance of winning for a couple of months now is that even a win in Pennsylvania of 10% does not give her a realistic chance of winning.

Schlessinger is essentially complaining that the media refuses to keep up the charade that this is a close race.

[mickeyrat]

here's another one who thinks that because Hillary can't get 2025 by first ballot, that Obama has won. Uh uh. She can't--and neither can he. He goes into the convention with the lead, and a slim one, of a couple of hundred out of 4,048. Hardly a convincing lead. After the first ballot, pledged delegates are no longer pledged. And while the youthful Obamabots may be unaware that provision exists for more than one ballot, you can bet Hillary isn't.

The nomination process doesn't stop at the end of the primaries. Otherwise we could just say that whoever is ahead in delegates wins. But, as the Obamabots like to remind us in respect to FL & MI, we must play by the rules, and the rules say not a pluratity, which is what Obama will have, but a majority, which he won't.

[Viper]

Sorry, but the super delegates have already agreed they will all decide their votes by June 3rd... We will know the winner then.

Regards

[zozosmom]

Even with the entire media behind him, even with twice as much money, Barry can't get the votes. The sorry attempt by the corporate fascist media to spin Hillary's win will only energize her supporters. She raised 2.5 million dollars last night in three hours-- 80 percent from new donors. The people are done with the media choosing our nominee. It's over, Barry. Go back to Chicago.

[deceiveandobsfucate]

"The people are done with the media choosing our nominee. "

Do you mean all the people that already voted for Obama, giving him more delegates and popular votes, or some other group?

[HG]

Barak is leading by a sliver, not enough to be able definitely claim a victory against another Democrat let alone against John McCain. Otherwise we wouldn't be here debating about it now would we.

The population who voted for Barak isn't enough to guarantee that he wins the presidency. In order to do that, he would need the over 15 million people who support Hillary Clinton to switch over to his side. Now how do you expect to win her supporters over, with the haughty-ps­eudo-relig­ious attitude that Barak's camp expresses?

[Aywaller]

But the lie that Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination legitimately is being perpetuated by the media. If anyone is being helped by the MSM, it's Clinton. But I do agree that the MSM will not choose our nominee-that's why Obama will win.

[max227]

Who is Barry?

[punkingale]

Barack Obama. At one time, he was Barry Soetoro, then Barry Obama, now Barack Obama.

[Filinbills615]

"The entire media" - you mean the media that spent an hour of a 90 minute debate asking about the Weather Underground, Rev. Wright, and flag lapel pins?

And he has way more than twice as much money.

[Lindy222]

Oh come on. She's hardly being stomped on. And her surrogates are out there spinning so madly -- "the tide is turning!" -- that I have no idea where your lead is even coming from. Oh, you mean the fact she's still mathematically out of it and her only path to victory is coup by super delegate?

Well, do you dispute that? Possibly you don't like the word "coup"? Maybe, "wise, judicious act by super delegate" would be your preference?

And here's some more good news for Hillary: Now she's got Richard Mellon Scaife helping her trash Obama! It's a brave new world!

[BillZBubb]

Uh, sorry, but the super delegates were part of the party rules long before this election started. For you Obama fanatics to start whining about the superdelegates shows a lack of class. Each candidate knew they needed to win the superdelegates as well as the regular delegates.

There will be no "coup". Nice spin though. The superdelegates will help do what they were designed into the system to do: get the most electable nominee for the Party.

[AWest]

Which, given any count out there, is Obama.

Though Hillary's clearly trying to do her best to deny reality and destroy the Democratic party, and her own chances for eventual election, I might add.

Thanks Hillary, your self destruction is taking the country with you. I'm sure GW is proud of you.

[Yogsoggoth]

Please cite one example of Super Delegates overturning the popular vote and delegate count. Also, don't tell me how Florida Democrats were at the mercy of the Republican party since all the Democrats voted in favor of moving the primary forward. And don't try the "Hillary is winning the states that matter" (how about, Hillary is winning the states that Dems always win).

The most electable nominee is Barack Obama. Why can't Hillary put him out entirely if she is the best candidate? Why can't she land the knock-out punch if she is the best candidate? Why is her campaign 10 mil in the hole if she is the best candidate? Why can she only win states that Dems always win, if she is the best candidate? Why can't she win the youth vote, or the black vote, or the people under 50 vote, if she is the best candidate? Why does she have to come up with twisted arguments (some states matter) and electoral vote wins or counting states that didn't have fair elections, if she is the best candidate. Why hasn't she won more states than Obama, if she is the ebst candidate?

Once again the hardcore Clinton supporter, DLC hugging faction of the Democratic party wants to run the same 16 State strategy that has been losing elections for a generation. Hillary is this year's John Kerry - a party insider that the party loves but that the rest of the country will tear to pieces.

[tiredoflies]

BillZBubb, It appears Obamaholics are all about the rules until they believe they will be used negatively against Obama. It is always followed by faux outrage.

[mgw]

Exactly, BillzBubb. And where is the outcry for Obama's and his campaign's continuing attempt to shame the super delegates into assuming a role that was never meant for them? Any reasonable person knows that the super delegates role could have never been to vote for the will of the people. Do the people need there will to be verified and sanctioned by super delegates? Obviously not. The super delegates, as you rightly said, play the role of electing who they believe to be the most electable candidate. And if they believe the inexperienced, unrealistic, impatient dreamer is the right person, then good luck in November.

[Aywaller]

No one is stomping on Clinton for winning. Those of us who wish she would just get out of the way and let the Democrats unite are "stomping" on her for her selfishness. There is no way that she can win clean, so she's riding dirty. That's why she's being criticized. This "He can't win the big states" argument is disingenuous at best. Her "win" in PA is being dismissed as meaningless because it IS to everyone except her supporters and the MSM, who want to keep this farce going. Obama can't close the deal? She was the supposed "inevitable" nominee, not him. She was up by 20 points in PA and ends up losing half of her support. She's the one who can't close the deal.

[KMKY]

The primary must play out.

(1) Clinton supporters (most of whom are Democrats, some of whom are not) are not simply going to rally around the DNC leadership's choice because they are told to. It's the same for Obama supporters.

(2) The argument about her win in big states is an argument also about swing-state voters, which includes Pennsylvanians. The more the DNC leadership can learn every step of the way about whose voting and what's important to them, the better its chances will be to appeal to those voters in the fall.

(3) Both candidates have dealt each other blows that are nasty, but if she withdrew now, it would be the last negative thing(s) the media brought up about Obama that would be remembered down through November. Those things right now stand as the "bitter"/"cling" comment and William Ayers. Whether that's right or wrong doesn't really matter. It's about voter psychology, and Republican strategists know how to work that psychology to their advantage. "Bitter"/"­Cling"-gat­e may never get mentioned again, but it will sit there in the back of some voters' minds, and for some Iowans, it will sit atop arugula-gate. Another gaffe by Obama that sounds elitist will solidify that image. It might seem counterintuitive, but a loss in Pennsylvania for him means a fresh start to put behind some of those perceptions. (That's true for both candidates. The six weeks leading up to the PA primary were not kind to them.)

[Roshi98]

"[L]et the Democrats unite?" Millions of Democrats have made the conscious, informed choice to vote FOR her because they believe she is the best candidate. Let the game play itself out. Don't tell those of us equally invested in the process to assimilate to the cause of the Party in lieu of exercising our democratic franchise. I can't think of anything less respectful, more fearful, and incredibly divisive a suggestion than democracy shouldn't get in the way of inevitability.

[Trace8089]

Why has St. Obama stopped the re-votes? Could it be he knows Michigan and Florida are two large states he can't win. Why is he so chicken-shit? He has more money. The name recognition isn't an issue anymore. The reason is white working class voters. The only way Obama wins this fall is McCain imploding.

[fstory]

So now you are bragging that Hillary has raised less money than Obama? There's a winning argument..­.

[BillZBubb]

For decades the Democrats raised less money than the Republicans. Yet, they were still the better candidates. Do you dispute that?

[mgw]

Yes, raising less money and winning anyway is a super winning argument. When a candidate spent so much money over 6 weeks and failed to win a nomination despite his oracle about his ability to unite and bring this country together, it is a huge sign of failure.

[bmora]

Mr. Schlesinger, propping up Hillary may score points with the ladies, but I fail to see a shred of logic to the big state argument. It is a fallacy (Logic 101) in every sense of the word.

If by, "Clinton has come on strong and has now created a solid coalition that Obama cannot, for all of his money and his eloquence, break into," you mean a “solid coalition” that is losing by any real measure, then, yes, he cannot do it at this point. Who would want any part of the losing team, when there are better alternatives?

[mgw]

Here is the deal and perhaps after this we can end the debate. Hillary Clinton made one costly mistake in this race. She assumed the election would have ended on super Tuesday, though, that assumption was not without merit--his­torically, it would have. Because of that--yes, I've already admitted it, mistake--Obama managed to rack up those votes and delegates primarily in those caucus states.

But, nevertheless, it is not a reason for us to sit around and allow the unelectable, inexperienced, not -ready- for- president candidate to derail the candidacy of the woman of substance. The woman who is ready, clearly ready, to lead this nation.

We cannot, cannot elect a guy like Obama. Obama is not ready. The true fallacy is to believe that a candidacy can be sustained on nothing else but a hunch. A hunch that Obama (who has shown no evidence of ability to unite and move this nation in a better direction) will be able to do great things for us. For me, a president must first show some history of ability. What has Obama done?

[punkingale]

Good question, mgw. How big an ego does someone have to have to think they can run a country because they were a "community organizer"?

[fstory]

I don't know, Stephen, how many times? You should at least back up your argument with some examples. I fail to see how she was counted out in Pennsylvania. In fact, the "count" as of a mere few weeks ago had her up 20 points, so I suppose Senator Obama's "money and eloquence" did have an effect.

I'm so tired of hearing that we should "let this play out," whatever that means. It has played out and, after last night, Senator Obama guaranteed himself a victory in the elected delegates, the metric by which Democrats choose a nominee.

Unfortunately, your arguments take on the same disingenuous tone of Senator Clinton's: to create an impossible standard for Senator Obama that she herself does not have to live up to. Her campaign has said a lot about "closing the deal," but will she accept the same deficiency in her own campaign if she were to lose North Carolina and/or Indiana, or any of the other remaining states for that matter? I'm guessing not.

[Trace8089]

He may win the democratic primary but unless Obama can pick up support amongst white working class 4 years of McCain.

[fstory]

So you're saying she's even less electable than him? He has received a lot more votes than her. If your argument is that McCain beats him, then he certainly beats Senator Clinton as well, considering she has done worse than Obama in this primary.

[KateStone01]

Exactly. Obama has to reach out to white working class men and women in a genuine way, not just from his head, so that they don't go for McCain or don't vote at all.

[Countess]

My friend to say as the new york times said that she is running a dirty campaign is the understatement of the year. We now know why so many people hate the Clintons and without her phony reputation built on lies she wouldn't even be considered as a viable candidate.

[atomicprince]

well then let the super delegates decide. But hey pal how about the rules created by the party?

Even Sen. Clinton agreed with the rules right? She also agreed with the situation in FL, MI right? She signed the petition not to count the delegates from those states right?

So stop with all these twist in the middle of the game. I know Obama has not closed the deal. But Hillary has not either. After all she has a huge political machine behind her. Now you guyz are saying he poured in so much money in PA. How about Hillary pouring in 100 Mayors and governor of the state?

The double standard is so stupid. Why couldn't Hillary close the deal after massive victories in so called important big states? Does that count? Or do you think Obama is just winning because the party just wanted to give him the ticket? SO stop the hypocrisy and be practical.

[BillZBubb]

Obama has a slight lead in delegates and popular vote because 1) Florida and Michigan were not counted. 2) He won big victories in a lot of southern states.

What ought to concern Democrats who want a Democratic president is that Hillary Clinton has won the primaries in virtually all the blue and big swing states, while Obama has won big in the red states that will still go Republican in November. That is the practical situation. Obama is very weak with the Democratic base.

[marmama]

Do you really, truly think that NY, NJ and CA will go for McCain in Nov. if (when) Obama is the nominee?

[112985]

i agree with you let it play out - all the money OBAMA has and he still cannot close the deal!!!!!! what's seems to be the problem

[nomobull]

so called experience and name recognition and she can't close the deal. but then why are you using a republican argument to defend hillary a democrat never mind.

[white mende man]

so because the republican party would rather run against hillary clinton is the reason why she should bow out? what a lame arguement. how about this one: i am frankly sick and tired of men "running" this country to the ground whatever color they may be and it's about time for a woman to take the helm and steer this country back on the right path.

[MadamBlu]

The Clinton name recognition, the political machines, her hubby, massive, big-time fund-raisers, and being 'inevitabl­e'... remind me again why Hillary didn't clinch the nomination on Feb. 5th as predicted?

This so-called argument that Obama spent all this money but can't 'close the deal' is absurd. Having a full warchest in no way guarantees a victory, especially when demographics and political machines are against you.

I suppose the fact that Hillary's lead shrunk by 15+% doesn't matter at all. And it's not like this is the only time this has happened. Maybe it's just me, but I can't help thinking if Hillary is so great, why can't she hold on to her lead in states she is heavily favored to win?

[NABNYC]

You can thank the union-busters and Republican supporters Hillary hired to run her campaign for the newest mantra, "he can't close the deal." It is exactly the type of saying we expect to hear from con artists and used-car salesmen: close the deal means complete the scam, succeed in the fraud, get the sucker's money (or in this case, vote). That's how the Clintons look at this whole thing: a big con.

Hillary says fine, does someone want me to be tough? I'll be the nastiest person ever. Like racism? I can do that. Want Dr. StrangeClinton with a finger on the button? Fine, I'll run a campaign based on my commitment to start a nuclear war. Don't like nafta? Fine, I'll say I was always against it. Hate the war? I've always been against it too.

Wake up folks: Obama already has closed the deal. It is impossible for Hillary to overtake him in votes or in elected delegates. The person with the most votes and most elected delegates is the person chosen by the voters, and must be the party's nominee.

Hillary is only staying in as a spoiler, to throw the election to McCain. Hillary is a mad lady with a graffitti pen writing on Obama's building "Obama sucks," and that's the total value of everything she is doing. She cannot win, she can only cause Obama to lose in November.