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

[slc20]

If Hillary's plan is to have superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, why are we bothering to have any more primaries? If Hillary intends to disenfranchise every primary and caucus voter, why have we been holding these contests? Why did i donate my hard earned money to any political campaign? If my vote doesn't matter, why should i ever vote again? Why should i volunteer again? Why did i spend my own money and time helping in these primaries, if the results don't matter.

I am one primary voter, whom all you democrats can count OUT in the future.

[SeriousBlack]

All very good questions. Mind answering them, Stephen Schlesinger?

We had the results of an election overridden by a small group of individuals in 2000. Great results from that, huh? Not only all the damage of the ensuing 8 years but that overriding of democracy itself.

And now we want to allow the same type of thing to happen in the very next opportunity to go to another person in the white house? If the superdelegates decide to override the pledged delegates, popular vote, and states won to "appoint" the Democratic nominee against the will of the people then I'm not just done with Clinton. I'll be done with politics in this country for the rest of my life.

And the United States will continue down the path of being a crumbling non-democracy like every other human civilization. It's as if we're living in the declining years of the Roman empire when corruption and decay caused Rome to turn into weeds.

[presto]

The 2000 election had nothing to do with superdelegates - it was decided by the Sureme Court. And Gore had the popular vote which is why the decision was so unpopular. It is certainly possible for Hillary to get the popular vote, in which case the superdelegates might be justified in voting for her, but I don't think that is the point you are making.

[NuOrigin]

If you listen to Hillary, the will of Florida and Michigan voters are more important that the majority of the country.

[presto]

slc20,

Hillary's plans are not law. These are campaign tactics. Everybody's got them. No one is taking away your rights. Half of the voting population so far has voted for Clinton. Have has voted for Obama. You worked and donated because you believed in your candidate. So did everyone else who worked and donated. It is a simple process. The voters vote. The superdelegates vote. Whichever candidate gets 2,025 votes first is the nominee. There is certainly nothing wrong with a candidate fighting to get whatever votes he or she can. That's what campaigns are for.

[mickeyrat]

What don't you get that the superdelegates weren't put there to execute the will of the voters?
Exactly what do you think the superdelegates were created? To rubber stamp the primary results? Why would the party need that?

The superdelegates were included to bolster the Party's chances in the fall by making sure it didn't nominate someone who could be blown out a la McGovern and Mondale. You don't have to agree with who they decide upon. But PLEASE stop whining about the superdelegates doing the job they were created to do.

The primary process has never been the end of the nominating process. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of American party politics in a big, big way.

[nomobull]

you act as though the suiper delegates have always been a part of the process.

[BatedBreath]

O.K. here goes: Heckofajob Hillary!

Now please go away.

[mheister]

First off, Pennsylvania's demographics strongly favored HRC. And while Obama has made some inroads with Clinton's core constituency, starting with Iowa and moving on to several other states, she can't even touch Obama's core constituency.

In a number of states now, Obama has, in a period of weeks, moved from being 20-30 points behind in the polls to losing by 10 points or less. He essentially drew Clinton to a draw in Texas, and even took more delegates.

Many superdelegates are loathe to back HRC because with Obama, they have a better chance of picking up a couple of Senate seats. HRC's scorched-earth strategy is far less likely to provide coattails to small-state senate candidates than Obama's message of optimism.

What HRC-bots also fail to note is that if the will of the majority of primary voters is ignored, the party will be guilty of doing to itself what the GOP did to it in Florida against Gore. Talk about a credibility gap! And HRC under a such a scenario can scarcely expect the droves of new Obama voters, energized by his message of hope, to show at the polls for the same kind of lesser-of-two-evils choice they've seen so often in the past. This is not to say that HRC is evil, but it is to say her tactics are so perceived. Obama also runs better against McCain nationally, which is why the right-wing lunatic fringe has been supporting HRC.

[NuOrigin]

I'm amazed at how Hillary supporters don't see something wrong with her strong right-wing support. I wish the pollsters in PA asked how many only voted for HRC to help the Republicans win in November.

[presto]

Not very many, according to news reports. It was a non-issue. After Texas and Ohio it was pretty well decided that was a bad move. As Hillary said to Rush Limbaugh - "Be careful what you wish for".

[becky]

The votes that Obama is relying on to win were gained before we had greater insight into the person.
He has come out to be much more than the agent of change and hope. Much more in a negative way.
Hillary Clinton can win the general election. That is the fact that can't be ignored. What good is a win for Barack Obama if he is only going to turn around and lose the presidency. I understand it will be hard for you Obama supporters, but you have to look at the whole picture, Do you really want John McCain to be president.

[Imrightyourewrong]

Hillary will NEVER win the general election. Even over 1/2 of the Pennsylvania voters think she lies. Over 60% of American generally do not trust her. She has negatives EXCEEDING 50%. In other words, over 50% of the people in this country will not vote for her. Yeah...I can't wait to see if she is the nominee...­overturnin­g the voters. Then, when John McCain OBLITERATES her, it will be sad. The last election of the United States. Obama has shown strength in areas the Democrats haven't had a prayer in a generation. He has brought people into this process who either never before voted or had dropped out because of the cynicism. Watch all those people disappear with Clinton as the nominee. Watch her get no more than 42% of the vote. If she did manage to steal the nomination, I'd vote for her, but I'd also be filling out my immigration papers for Canada...b­ecause the inevitable four more years of Bush would finish this country.

As a manager, she has squandered an unbelievable advantage; she has pissed away an enormous financial advantage; she cannot manage a presidential campaign, how could she manage a country?

[mickeyrat]

"She has negatives EXCEEDING 50%. In other words, over 50% of the people in this country will not vote for her. "

learb what negatives are. They represent a measure of dislike. However, dislikes do not translate into "will not vote for". Richard Nixon's negatives were high in '72, and he creamed McGovern. The point is people don't necessarily vote for someone that they like, some (unlike, apparently, yourself) vote for the person they think best for the job.

[presto]

Did you notice that with the negatives exceeding 50%, they still voted for her? Why was that? Because, regardless of everything else, they think she would make a better President than Obama. The negatives will come down. Her competency for the job will not.

[bigkay]

HRC has high negatives because of the hatchet job MSNBC and CNN have perpertrated on her since Obama won Iowa!
Watch closely, they will turn on Obama and we will have another senile Ronald Regan/McCain in the White House. UGGGGH

[MichaelDeane]

I don't know what kool aid you are drinking but you are clearly one of those Clintonistas who clearly doesn't mind that her candidate has run a despicable campaign, using surrogates to do her dirty work. On top of that, she is a serial liar and a much inflated resume which surprising makes no mention of her 1994 healthcare debacle. But still her supporters think she can better manage the country. What a joke.

And you might want to really take a look in the mirror. Clinton will LOSE the general. We will end up reliving the 1990s and everything will come back out including Bill's latest philanderings, the recent conviction of Hsu and the upcoming trial of Peter Paul. Sorry but we all deserve better than that.

And she won't have ANY coat tails. Any Dem running in a tight contest will get no help from her.

So you need to ask yourself: do YOU really want John McCain to be President?

Stupidity becky has its consequences.

[NuOrigin]

I find Hillary to be deceitful when she gloats about how all of her dirt has been exposed. The things you mention and so much more will be like candy to the Republicans. Does no Clinton supporter wonder why the Republicans want her to win so badly?

[mickeyrat]

calling others stupid because they don't agree with you. Yup. An Obamabot for sure.

[presto]

Clinton and Obama both use negative campaign tactics. Both send out their surrogates on attack missions. Clinton's resume is extremely impressive - far more so than Obama's. The heath care proposal was defeated by the insurance industry and the right-wingers, using much the same tactics as Obama uses against her plan now. It was a good plan. She is highly qualified for the job and has a profound understanding of the issues, including foreign policy, where Obama is understandably weak.

Good people can disagree on all of this stufff but it is far more helpful if the arguments are based on actual facts, not campaign hype and speculation.

[KINOKO]

No, but apparently you do.

[KINOKO]

Since HRC is running as Bill3, let's look at some of his crap in the W.H.:

Somalia (Blackhawk down), one of the costliest two-day episodes in American military personnel history, and TOTALLY UNANSWERED by President Clinton. Today, 15 years later, we still have total chaos and Al Qeada bases there.

The AEDPA...Am­erica's first modern day attempt to shred the Constitution ( this is where Bush realized he could get away with it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEDPA

Total wimpification of the US military, including underfunding Soldiers and programs, "stress cards" in basic training, and "don't ask, don't tell"....a­lways a good attitude to take when you are entrusting Soldiers with advanced weaponry, State secrets, and squad automatic weapons.

The fascinating case of Ron Brown, the US Commerce Secretary/DNC Honcho who died in a "plane crash"....­but when autopsied, had a .45 diameter hole in his head. Now how convenient was that, considering he was set to testify against the Clintons?

My point is this....ei­ther Americans can adopt the old "lesser of 2 evils" mentality, and vote for HRC or McCain, or choose Hope. Yes, Hope is unexperienced, but his heart seems to be in the right place. And quite frankly, no one will ever be experienced to be president on day one other than a second-ter­mer...that­'s just the way it is. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and HRC will get her training from Bill (see above).

[mickeyrat]

oh, so he is now named Hope??????

By the way, are we now down to the point where we are accusing the Clintons of murder? Lord God, have you Obamabots no shame? I mean, this is ridiculous.

[presto]

All of your premises become invalid when the first one is not true. Hillary is not running as Bill3.

Hope won't do the trick. If it could any hopeful idiot could be president.

[realityczech4u]

Now Hillary's spin is that Barack has 'massively outspent' her. Boofrigginhoo. Who's fault is it that he has run a better campaign and attracted more donations? Aw, but it just ain't fair and he's making Hillary fight so hard to keep up. She's in a frenzy. Making wild statements like that about 'totally obliterating' Iran. This woman is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief. She's a loose cannon. She's dangerous. She is so obsessed with getting back into that White House that she'll say or do anything.
Beware. Vote for Obama.

[S1m0n]

"Now Hillary's spin is that Barack has 'massively outspent' her."

Unlike Hillary, Obama hasn't had to spend any of his own money: every dollar of Obama's massive campaign was donated by someone who wants Hillary to lose.

In contrast, Hillary's empty wallet relies on a few exhausted high rollers and her husband's ill-gotten gains.

[presto]

And yet she beat him. That's not spin. The Iran statement was part of a nuclear deterrent program that is too complicated to explain here but you can look it up. It is hardly wild or out of the mainstream. It was part of the umbrella policy she brought up the night before.

[OnceProudAmerican]

Here's an idea.
Let's have a national Election for the Democratic Party- Winner take all!
Maybe then we can MOVE ON to really impotant issues, Because the Circus we have in there now is draining this Country!

[Imrightyourewrong]

Or...bette­r yet? Get rid of primaries. Go back to nominating candidates where people run as delegates for their local parties and go to a convention. That way delegates truly represent their constituents.

[LarksTongue]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Geez, what a bunch of sore losers; telling lies, race-baiting, twisting the numbers, coming up with new ones. Get over it and get onboard!

Since I know Clinton supporters like to play with words (in addition to numbers), I will agree that Hillary's PA 'success' was indeed a legitimate success: it successful led me to donate another $25 to Obama! And believe me, I CAN'T afford it.

[deminmo]

You are spending over your means on an election bid? MMMM,
not a good bet.

[Jjc2006]

Surprised they allowed a pro Hillary post here. Not that it matters. The elite blogosphere has been spinning hate against Hillary Clinton for some time now. What they don't get is that some of us refuse to be bowled over by the same negative crap the right wing spewed in the 90s. The male dominated MSM and blogs really have shown their biases.

[nippersdad]

Difficult to be bowled over by crap that one laps up willingly.

[TruthSpeaker]

You have a fascinating read on what a "win" is. Obama won Texas 99 to 94 delegates.
Clinton can't legitimately win the nomination at this point, the math simply isn't there, but she'll make sure that the people who have her and John McCain in their pockets will have one of the them as President, even if she has to tear down Obama day after day and pretending that she has a shot.. Her mission is to win for the team, not to necessarily win herself. The only chance she has is through massive corruption of super delegates. The fact that Jack Murtha (the king of pork barrel earmarks) endorsed her is a clear indication of where this is going.

Hillary doesn't need anyone else to discredit her - she does an exceptional job of doing that herself.
As James Carvill would say, She is a Judas to her party and to her country.

[Startreklivz]

I'm not a supporter of Senator Clinton (in fact I was for Mr. Edwards), BUT she has, as the author stated, won a number of big states; if the Democrats had the winner-take-all primaries the Republicans do, she would probably be the nominee by now, or be so far ahead as to be untouchable (not that I think the winner-take-all is a good plan). Obama's lead is not that great. If the convention is deadlocked, even committed delegates become free agents, and it could go to anyone (even Ralph Nader! about a probability of 0.000001%, but still not completely impossible). So let the process play out.

Though I would prefer if the delegates did NOT do McCain's work for him, and provide the negative ads that his campaign is surely stockpiling for use in the November election.

[patianneb]

If the popular vote doesn't count to the Democratic Party, then not only does the popular count not matter anywhere, but the Democratic Party doesn't count either.
God help us, Nader, for all his narcissism may be right.
I'll return to my local issues and concerns and a pox on all of "you"...
In other words, registered Democrat though I may be, I've come to care less about party ... it is ALL the individual to me, and as far as I'm concerned if the "Supers" go against the People then the Supers can go to hell, and so can the Party.
I won't vote for McCain but I WON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY either. I did NOT start there, but HER BEHAVIOR and the PEOPLE SHE CHOOSES TO SPEAK FOR HER have left me COMPLETELY unable to trust her character.

[deminmo]

Please remember Senator Obama has friends who also leave
a lot to be desired, in regard to good judgement. Neither is a
spotless candidate. So, maybe supporting the Constituional
Party would be a better choice.

[patianneb]

Supporting NO party is a much better choice for me. I DO take the time to look for people who represent ideals and ideas I value and wherever possible make contributions of time or modest sums of money etc., without regard to state or party.
I refuse, for example to contribue to the DNC or Emily's List; not because I think they are BAD, but because not ALL Dems or women are people I'd care to see in office.
As for Obama's associates, I agree, but I would like YOU to remember that one's preacher or neighbor is somewhat different than one's campaign manager and intimate adviser, such as Carville or her husband (who I voted for twice and am not sorry for having done so).
I simply don't think she has been able to control her campaign to reflect who SHE is ...to me this is an illustration of how she manages...­it does not give me confidence. I wish it were otherwise.

[Hoelder]

It is not the question about poor me soliloqui, but the cost and damage this victory has done.

[bookerone]

Oh but then we would have to actually look at Mr. Loser. The guy who can't beat the girl, the guy who can't close the deal, the guy who will hand the White House to the Republican­s....So if Senator Obama loves his country and his party he will quit the race now.

[TurnThePageGA]

That was funny.

[lotuslike]

you're serious, aren't you?

[burnt]

"... 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...­"

And here we go, the same old denialists attempting to claim a victory out of a disaster, trying to prop up a failure of a politician who has consistently depended upon divisiveness and negativity to garner a few more campaign dollars from wealthy donors.

The Clintons' political dramedy (yes it's very sad and funny in a dark pathological way)... does nothing to further the efforts of those millions who are genuinely contributing their time and small financial resources to a movement that will change the course of American history... not perpetuate the mistakes that we have collectively made over the last several decades as would a Clinton dynastic crowning.

You fully understand that she has no mathematical chance of winning, but continue to foster the belief that somehow this process is good for the Democratic Party and maybe (if we ALL believe) that the powers behind the curtain will convene and anoint her... and oh, by the way, let's just forget the incredibly nasty tactics that her campaign has been using to pretend that she has a chance of winning... it's all Obama's fault.

[BarryChamplain]

"Here we go again. Stomp on Hillary for winning. "


WHAT. DID. SHE. WIN?

(Please be SPECIFIC.)