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

[Shozen]

ODE TO HILLARY

One year ago, she did say,
"Inevitable, it will go my way!
I will be President of this land.
So lobbyist you'd better kiss my hand.
And give me Dough, for which to spend,
So presidential I'll look to the end!"
But a bitter wind grew across the land.
For the Net Roots decided to take a stand.
"We do not want our White House Fair,
To be up for bid, to get her there!"
So by Twenty Fives and Fifties dollars flew,
to a man people barely knew.
He aspired to hope, he called for change,
and his message grew and burned the range!
Until what was once inevitable,
Became a huge pile of Bull.
"To the mud," the woman cried.
"Lets bury Hope, in a land slide!"
But the mud she threw, just could not slow.
That voter current which became an under tow.
Though some wins came her way,
She was gradually pulled out and washed away.

[Democrab]

There once was a man named Obama
Who ran on a platform of karma
But the Clintons said "Son,
It's for president we run
Not His Holiness the Dalai Lama!"

[dzoner]

I'm starting to revile you Hillbots as I already do republlibots and for many of the same reasons.

Corruption piled upon corruption.

[LoRiseAntlers]

Why does Mr.Schlesi­nger,or any Clinton supporter,for that manner,feel it necessary to lie in defense of her?

Nobody's slamming her for winning,we're slamming her for being a goddamn Republican!

[PhDiva]

People are not stomping on HIllary for winning. People are questioning HOW she won. Yes, winning an ethical and dignified manner actually matters to some of us. Clearly ethics and dignity are foreign concepts to Clinton and her supporters.

[quantum9leap]

Finally someone speaks with rationality. This current election is for DELEGATES.­Get it folks? Currently of the total number of delegates garnered Mr. Obama has a 4% lead. The lead has remained in that manner for weeks now and will likely be the lead at the end of the primary election. For those of you who do not understand math 4% is just 4 delegates out of 100 or 40 out of 1000. There is no way that anyone of a rational nature can call that total a mandate.
Forget the points and total votes and all the rest of the garbage.Th­e election is for DELEGATES to the convention at which time the Democratic party will make its choice. Media go home.You have no business interfering in this or any election for that matter.

[Justtellthetruth]

Yes, and Obama will have more delegates (and the popular vote), so he will win. Exactly right

[PhDiva]

This is the Clinton math again: If Clinton wins by one vote on anything, she says "A win is a win." If Obama wins by over 100 delegates and half a million voters: "It's a tie." It's not a tie. in an election a win IS a win. Obama has more votes and more delegates; it doesn't matter how much more. This is an election, not a negotation. Obama is winning. Hillary is losing. Deal with it.

[bobdob]

First, your twisting of the math is pathetic. Second, no one needs a mandate. Whoever wins the required number of delegates wins the nomination--it's as simple as that. Obama is ahead by 150 delegates, and he needs 330 more to win. That's all that counts. We don't decide this by percentages or popular votes or electoral votes or anything else. It's 2025 delegates. That's it. Spin it any way you like--there is simply no way for Hillary to make up the difference between her and Obama.

Hillary has lost. She lost when she failed to blow Obama out in Pennsylvania. Even then, her chances were impossibly slim. Now they're just impossible. The only reason she's still in this race is because she's an unbelievably sore loser.

[cylindar]

Hillary does not have any chance at all to win the nomination. She basically has lost it already and why she continues to move forward is insanity. Everyone knows that if Clinton got elected she would waste most of her time settling scores with Republicans when she should be attending to future business. Obama starts with a fresh slate and can move people on both sides of the aisle.

[Justtellthetruth]

Shes now trying to damage Obama as much as possible so that he will lose, and so she will have a shot again in four years against McCain. Is that not Obvious? Shes a sociopath.

[knighthowl]

Precisely.

[loper2008]

Dems never win Texas. Why count that in your big state strategy argument? Pretty disengenious.

I think in an election year where 80 percent of the population thinks we are going in the wrong direction, Obama will win the Democratic states and key swing states like Ohio, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Colorado. What makes you believe he couldn't?

[MattGuillen]

Very nicely put, Stephen. I responded to someone's post which accused Hillary of being selfish, ego-maniacal and how her winning (discredited as "not really a win" despite Obama spending three times the amount and still coming up ten short) resulted from a cynical manipulation of suckers who don't understand the statistical significance of Obama's support base and don't really care about progressive politics.

My response, which also underscores the issue of "democracy," seems to have vanished..­.a fate similar to other notes I've tried posting which either openly support Hillary or at the very least object to Huff Po's immediate trivialization of opinions expressing respect for her engagement:

"What do you mean "this is all about her"??? This is a DEMOCRACY, remember? It is about the people who SUPPORT her. What are we supposed to do? Roll over and die to please you? Why don't you just say: "God damn America"--since attempts to strongarm Hillary supporters EVEN WHEN SHE WINS amount to exactly the same form of fascism: damn the American democratic process and any point of view that differs from mine!

And don't scream "McCain must be beaten at all cost." Does this include the cost of Democrats in this country giving in to someone, Obama, they honestly believe is a sham? And giving in to fools who'll blindly do anything to disparage his legitimate, honorable AND strong opponent?

What if someone were to say HE is tearing the party apart with HIS "blind ambition"?"

[MontyCello]

OK help me. The last word in Stephens' commentary being DEMOCRACY, how does that square
with the impossibility of Sen Clinton winning either the popular vote or the pledged delegate
count? Fight on oh noble warrior. Just don't insult me by justifying it. The irony here is that some of
our founders (Washington, Adams, and Jefferson to name three) feared leaders holding office also
holding greater loyalties to their party than to the nation. They never envisioned Bill and Hillary
Clinton whose loyalties appear to serve none but their own ambition.

[MattGuillen]

OK, I'll take you gently by the hand and help you, Monty, one step at a time:

1) You write "how does that square with the impossibility of..." Now, how does a long shot, which is the worst that can be said about her chances, square with an "impossibility"? Unless, that is, Obama supporters by deceiving other Democrats into believing Hillary can't possibly win (which is what you're trying to do) coerces us into voting for someone we detest?

2) You state our Founding Fathers "feared leaders...­holding greater loyalties to their party..." Isn't this EXACTLY what you're trying to do? You don't give two pennies for the nation--your entire argument rests on this "impossibility" theme--you say so yourself--the understanding being that Democrats deserve loyalty, that the party must win the election, and that Hillary is hurting, not our country but THE PARTY.

Finally, are you suggesting someone loyal to "God damn America" and the WTC attack is "chickens coming home to roost" is serving his NATION??? And NOT his own ambition???

Now, fully confident that you, as with others supporting Obama, fail miserably at dealing with anything that doesn't exude star power and charisma, however void of substance--please try telling me at which point does what I've said fails to make sense?

Again, as simple reminder, the key word is indeed "democracy­."

[MattGuillen]

OK, I'll take you gently by the hand and help you, Monty, one step at a time:

1) You write "how does that square with the impossibility of..." Now, how does a long shot, which is the worst that can be said about her chances, square with an "impossibility"? Unless, that is, Obama supporters by deceiving other Democrats into believing Hillary can't possibly win (which is what you're trying to do) coerces us into voting for someone we detest?

2) You state our Founding Fathers "feared leaders...­holding greater loyalties to their party..." Isn't this EXACTLY what you're trying to do? You don't give two pennies for the nation--your entire argument rests on this "impossibility" theme--you say so yourself--the understanding being that Democrats deserve loyalty, that the party must win the election, and that Hillary is hurting, not our country but THE PARTY.

Finally, are you suggesting someone loyal to a goon who screams "God damn America" and descrbes the WTC attack as "chickens coming home to roost" is serving his NATION??? And NOT his own ambition???

Now, fully confident that you, as with others supporting Obama, fail miserably at dealing with anything that doesn't exude star power and charisma, however void of substance--please try telling me at which point does what I've said fails to make sense?

Again, as simple reminder, the key word is indeed "democracy­."

[loper2008]

I'm glad she won a state she was supposed to. I hope she can begin to repay all of her debts soon.

[Suprshrink]

You are the only one so far that I have found that has not decided that a win is a loss. The constant and outrageous attempts to get Hillary out of the race, is so disturbing to people like me that Obama is unlikely to win if he gets the nomination because the rest of us will be dropping out or voting for McCain. I hear Hillary vilified for "negative" campaigning but, to me, it is negative media that has dirtied this campaign. The painted Bill as a race baiter. They challenge Hillary's trustworthiness. They downplay Obama's problems and suggest anyone who might bring up his negatives is smearing him. I support Hillary but I cannot support Obama.

[midtown]

Hillary didn't win. She got 9.2%. She needed 20%.

[starrianna]

But she succeeded in reminding the American people why she kicks ass.

And why Obama honestly can't make it.

And Obama gave a lame, lousy speech. And he knew it. Watch his reaction to his wife afterward.

Oh well!

[nomobull]

when you win by less than half of what you were expected to win by it most definely is not an ass kicking. and she was expected to win pa. no come from behind which would have made this a surprise.

[bobdob]

No, what she succeeded in doing was losing a 20 point lead going into Pennsylvania. She needed to EXPAND her lead by 5 points to have any chance at all of turning the race around. Instead, she lost over half her lead. What it shows is that SHE can't close the deal. She couldn't close the deal on Super Tuesday, and she couldn't do it in Pennsylvania either. It raises some very troubling questions about her electability.

More trouble, though, is her constant whining about being outspent by Obama. Will that be her excuse when she loses to McCain? "Well, I would have won, but he OUTSPENT ME! Waaaah, waaaah, waaaahhh!"

If you can't stand the heat, Hillary, get out of the kitchen.

[tsmith911]

How many Obama supporters voted for Bush? Tell the truth!

How Many Clinton supporters voted for Bush? Tell the truth!

When we get those answers we can talk about judgment.

Then we can ask "Who do we want deciding who our Democratic nominee should be?"

[colbertnationfan]

Well said, Schlesinger, thank you because I've been saying the same thing to anyone who will listen for weeks. Hillary has won in all the states a successful Dem candidate needs to win in.
Yet the media deliberately (or unconsciously) painted Hillary into a defensive corner by being so overly-easy on Obama from Day One, then they pounced on her for doing their job, i.e., pointing out Obama's shortcomings. She's criticized no matter what she does!
Right on to the poster who said msnbc's announcers' bias showed last night, and Roger32 has a good point too because voters want a strong leader like Hillary. That's why right after her PA victory she received a ton of money from new donors, we want someone with definite plans for change who is a fighter. Anyway, as Schlesinger correctly points out it IS sad that the majority of the media continues to downplay her victories and strengths, let's hope the Superdelegates prove far more perceptive than the attention-deficit oriented media. Matter of fact, Mr. Schlesinger, I've a recommendation for you: watch the Comedy Channel & boycott the rest - - not only are they playing fair w/both candidates, you will get a few good laughs! Which we all really need!! ;D

[jpeads1]

A decmocratic turkey could win those states

[nippersdad]

It is a historic fact that Democratic turkeys usually do win those states.

[dawn2dusk]

HRC campaign is over $10.3 million in DEBT. She has to keep running and as a result, raising money to pay it off! Otherwise it'll have to come out of her own fat pockets.

[HaroldBeu]

This is about Hillary winning or staying the race. This is about her destroying the Democrats chance of winning the general election by her pandering and slandering.

[Suprshrink]

The media and Obama supporters are destroying the democratic party. It is the hatred spewed in these blogs that I have driven me away from my lifelong party.

[nomobull]

so by showing that you can win without the so called machinery he is destroying the party. and hillary did what to build it up exactly.