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

[SevenSteps2Kevin]

Schlesinger, a vote for Clinton is a vote to keep the Iraq war going, maybe even a vote to expand the war to Iran, especially given her recent comments. If the Clinton constituency is too stupid to understand this, or prefers that we keep the war going, then I believe the current political landscape is too far gone to believe anything resembling significant political change can come about. Once again (why should I be surprised, really?), undereducated, racially predisposed whites are the lowest common denominator for this election.

[kira181]

I didn't catch his name but a British reporter appeared about a month ago on MSNBC, during one of its Hillary Must Drop Out-a-Thons, and said about Obama, "It's like he wants to win without winning." This statement was met with dead silence and I have never seen him on MSNBC again.

Al Gore was wrong. He should have continued to contest the vote in 2000 instead of listening to the media -- mainsteam and otherwise -- touting that BS about "statesmanship" and the "good of the party". Voting irregularities in 2004 should have been investigated much more thoroughly. Instead, we were advised to "move on" and the guy from Ohio who promised to "deliver" the election for Bush -- and did -- now appears on MSNBC as a "pundit"-- no questions asked.

Why would anyone with a memory allow the media to tell them what do anymore? Obama supporters should resent that as much as Clinton supporters do. Let as many people vote as possible -- however they choose -- or we're just "moving on" again. Which worked out really well for us the last 8 years, as you can see.

[janmB]

IT SHOULD BE ALL ABOUT EXPERIENCE. AND ESPECIALLY FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AND THE FACT HILLARY WILL MOST LIKELY BRING ON BIDEN WHO SHE WORKED WITH IN THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE --AND GENERAL WES CLARK. ---RICHARD CLARKE AND---MURTHA AND SO MANY OTHERS WHO ARE SUPPORTING HER. I WANT THE CLINTON YEARS BACK AGAIN -----NOT SOMETHING UN-KNOWN.
WE DONT' EVEN KNOW MUCH ABOUT OBAMA EXCEPT HE MAKES PRETTY SPEECHES.
WHAT HAS HE ACTUALLY DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY ----TO EVEN GET NOMINATED ?

THE PEOPLE IN THE LAST DECADE DON'T KNOW HOW TO PICK LEADERS ----WE GOT GWBUSH WHO NOW GETS A BAD REVIEW---BUT HE'S THE SAME GUY THEY ELECTED TWICE ----HE HASN'T CHANGED.

[kizzie]

If Biden is on her team, she has my vote. As well as the others you mentioned. What a ticket that would be! I supported Biden and Dodd in the primaries over Obama and Clinton. It is sad the other candidates didn't get the fair airtime as our "chosen " two got. The media decided for us who we were going to be stuck with.

[TurnThePageGA]

She can't win. Obama or Al Gore. Pick one.

[ohmercy]

Yes, agreed JanmB.
The media never investigated bushed mythology and they aren't doing a good job with Obama mythology either.
Once the GE starts they will turn their mancrush gaze back to McCain and the romance will begin again. Then they will allow Obama to be tarnished with half truths and innuendos as they did with Gore and Kerry.

Obama is not some innocent appearing on the scene out of nowhere. He comes from Chicago politics. He has barely had opposition in his political life at all. He eliminated people from races with lawyers in courts challenging petitions and ran virtually unopposed at the state level. The one election he faced with stiff competition he lost.
He attracted a "king maker" in Chicago. The last year before running for US Senator the godfather/kingmaker threw him a lot of legislation to sign and claim responsibility for, much of which had been worked on by others for sometimes years.
(See the "Black Commentator" online for some excellent articles on this.)

I find a lot that disturbs me about him as I continue to research. I'm sure he's an interesting guy with a lot going on but I'm not at all sure he is ready for the Presidency. I guess we will see.

[ohmercy]

Excellent points kira 181

MSNBC has a very difficult time with anyone countering their claims of the moment unless of course they are bigwigs that they can't afford to alienate.
I've noticed people disappearing from MSNBC (particularly from Chris Matthews) if they strongly differ from the current spouting.

I haven't watched Olbermann for quite some time due to his becoming the Liberal O'Lielly. how he gets off mocking BillO when his tactics are getting closer and closer are beyond me.
Anyway, He used to have a wonderful Constitutional Scholar on his program who was a republican, conservative and who was vehement about Impeachment of the idiot king and his handler regent. (He was also in favor of the impeachment of Clinton but that is another story and while I don't agree with that there is no reason to throw him out with the bathwater.­) Now this is something Olbermann is in favor of I believe but for some reason this guy hasn't been in on quite some time and I have no idea why.
His name is Bruce Fein and his analysis and logic was a real pleasure to listen to.

Olbermann has another Constitutional guy on now who is OK but too snide and his attempts at using "humor" always comes off just mean.

As I said I haven't watched Olbermann in a couple of months so he may have had him on since then.

[ohmercy]

Oh Hell, sorry, I digressed kira.
(nothing new there.)

re:Gore. He should have fought and we should have protested aggressively. The media had their collective mancrush on the idiot king and pushed Gore under the bus constantly belittlingand diminishing him on stupid trivia rather than focusing on his ideas and aggressively investigating the Bush mythology . (same thing with Kerry/Swiftboaters. disgusting) So called "progressives" were no better with snide belittling remarks. just as we see today with ObamaCons. (and then if their candidate loses they blame the victim of their hatred.) Rather than protesting in huge numbers they sat on the internet either hating the idiot king and Rove or hating Gore for not running a better campaign, or hating the media. These are the same people who were begging Gore to come save them this election many of whom voted for Nader.
If people would channel their hate and step up to the plate by becoming the government/change they have been waiting for we would have had very different outcomes in 2000, 2004, or if they had just learned from those two debacles we could have at least had an impeachment.
I have no hopes of change despite Obama's platform because those who are responsible for change are us and those I see here are more interested in continuing the status quo of hate and destruction.

[Azjhutch]

Thanks for this post. Otherwise, it's the "Obama Post."

[ohmercy]

Huffbamarama!
LOL

I've been trying to avoid it but like a train wreck I can't help looking again and again.
I've been seaqrching out other venues. Salon is pretty even in their articles and Taylor Marsh... not even at all but thoroughly enjoyable!
She is a trip.

[F825HP]

The Tide Is Turning. Six weeks later and the Obama supporters have ranted on and on only to find themselves repeating the same tired arguments. Only now, Hillary still has the big-mo, the mojo, momentum on her side. ObamaPost has raged against the Clinton Machine and it keeps going. You can't stop HRC now-she is remarkably strong. McCain is next. C'mon Obamaphiles you can feel it. Accept the inevitable, it was a good ride, he peaked on March 4, and its time for hom to go learn how to be an effective Senator. btw, don't you all get sick and tired of blowing sunshine up each other's hineys?

[PensacolaTiger]

The tide may be turning, but Hillary's ship has sailed, and she's not on it. Sorry.

[TurnThePageGA]

She can't win. Obama or Al Gore. Pick one.

[DRPike]

And what will you post on May 6th after he has won another state and wiped out the ultimately meaningless gains of yesterday?

[fcadmus]

If Hillary likes the heat in the kitchen, I wish she would address a question from the media about her husband and the risk of distraction he represents, just like his second term. We need a president who is focused like a laser the next four years...wh­en will Hillary give the voters her assurance that she will fight our fight and not that of their precious legacy should there be another bimbo eruption (and you know there will be, even if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have to manufacture it)? If Hillary wants to fight on even terms with Obama, then she needs to address all the secrecy and conflicts related to their presidential library and foundation. Obama won't go there, but the republicans will. Obama and the MSM won't currently vett Hillary because they would prefer to do it in the fall, when McCain needs the distraction to win. Burkle? Rich? the Weathermen? Kazakhstan?

[SkimaskBob]

agreed with the post, but Super Delegates need to decide in June and wrap up this race ... if it goes to August, no matter who the nominee is, it will hurt the party.

[ohmercy]

Yes, mostly I agree with you skimaskBob. Except that in a way I think it would be great to see how the whole convention thing works out.

Say what you will about Clinton but you cannot take away her toughness, her refusal to back down in spite of the odds and the attacks and the neocon playbook being thrown at her. She also has a commitment to the democratic party and I believe she will concede and throw the full weight of the so called "Clinton Machine" behind Obama (or if the Super delegates decide to choose someone completely different whoever it is) despite the tricks and attacks, the passive aggressive manipulations and reframing everything she says and does by his campaign.

While she is a centrist in many ways she is also more liberal than Obama in others. In fact Obama is also a centrist if you bother to actually look at the facts objectively.

[DWX]

I was a big time Hillary’s fan until January of this year. I was cheering for her during the California Primary. But the more I get to know her, the less I like about her. With Obama, it is the completely opposite effect. The more I know about Obama, the more I like about him. I guess the critics are right about Hillary being a polarizing figure. She is a power hungry ruthless selfish person with no self integrity. Her values are more conservative than McCain’s. I wasn’t surprised to hear Hillary used to be a Republican.

[jusme]

Well I sort of think that had Sen. Obama had been down in the way Hillary has been he would have backed out of the race by now, like all the other candidates who fell short, both Republican and Democratic. However, I think that his integrity and overall character would have suggested that he bow out.

another character trait, Arrogance, is what has gotten us to the point where the year we would take the white house and congress easily has become the year the Demcratic Party will be torn asunder for years to come. The shame is that proving someone is a fighter will not get us healthcare, it will not get us out of the war, it will not allow us to take back education, it will not allow the economy to be righted, It will just prove that a candidate knew how to play politics.

The most disappointing thing with all of this is that we now have a house divided within our selves. If you like Hillary you HAVE TO HATE Barak, and if you like Barak you have COME TO HATE Hillary. The problem with such a turn of events is that divided we fall in the fall. Four more years will be the battle cry at the Republican Convention and they will probably get it at this point. What the campaign tactics that came with the kitchen sink has shown is that anyone can be made to be unelectable if you try hard enough.

[kizzie]

I used to be a fan of CNN. Last night was so depressing I couldn't stand it.. You would have thought we had just heard news that WWIII had been declared!
I am sick of the media spinning their opinion as that of facts. I don't feel one way or the other about either candidate, but it is obvious the media is trying to decide for us who we need as president, and it sure isn't Clinton. This makes me want to root for her ..
I think the media needs to stop the bull, stick to the facts, let the people decide. Most of us do have minds, and can see we are being manipulated. Wake up and use your mind and see what is going on.
The media decided our choices in the primaries when they gave all the airtime to Clinton and Obama---not to other qualified people like Biden, Dodd, ect.
Either way I feel we are doomed. The political system in our country has been trashed, bought and paid for by big business and news companies. We have been sold out. Most people realize the last two elections were fixed (voting machine fraud). It will happen again. I"m sure the powers that be will give Mc Cain the election. They cannot afford to lose the oil in Iraq, or the huge profits to Halliburton, Blackwater, ect. We will be at war with Iran before it is over and the fat lady sings. Mark my words.

[Rowena]

Um, I think Clinton discredited herself. No help necessary.

[basilfomenter]

Yes, Obama vastly outspent the Clinton campaign in Pennsylvania. At the same time, Clinton had huge inherent advantages to work with, such as 1) Pennsylvania is a border state with New York; 2) almost 100% name recognition; 3) a vast political infrastructure built in the state over a period of over 25 years; 4) the active support of the state's governor and the mayors of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. If I was a candidate and had to make a choice between that kind of institutional advantage and having a lot of money to spend, I'd go with the institutional advantage, particularly since free media will end up carrying your message a lot anyway and also because after a certain point, saturation ad campaigns lose their effectiveness.

Again, Clinton won decisively; congratulations go to her and her campaign. But political victories don't result in the suspension of the rules of logic or reality.

[ohmercy]

basilfomenter:
1) Pennsylvania is a border state with New York;
Not entirely, small portion I think and mostly rural. New Jersey too for that matter.

2) almost 100% name recognition;
This is stretching. Is there anyone left on the planet that doesn't know who Barack Obama is? Certainly anyone who watches TV or listens to the radio or recieves mail delivery has heard of him.

3) a vast political infrastructure built in the state over a period of over 25 years;

Obama has many old guard Washington insiders with their own machines working for him I see no disparity.
After all he has Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Richardson, and on and on... these are all people who have vast political machinery built up over decades.

If Machinery was so important then the machinery behind Obama would have been much more effective everywhere, particularly in places like Massachusetts.

4) the active support of the state's governor and the mayors of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Again, Obama has other institutional supporters throughout PA. Casey comes to mind, along with the "machine" of his supporters.

Again Obama has huge institutional advantage, perhaps more than Clinton when you look at his backers and supporters. About half of his campaign chest comes from corporate and law firm bundler's. While not lobbyists themselves they hire lobbyists and spend a lot of money on them, They have a lot riding on Senator Obama's winning.

Again, if institutional support was that daunting then Obama should have won Massachusetts.

[basilfomenter]

I'm always astonished to see ostensibly intelligent people sacrifice their intellectual credibility at the altar of some sort of team loyalty or bias. Yes, Sen. Clinton won a very solid victory. At the same time, she didn't alter the metrics by which the contest is being decided to a significant extent. Both of these things are true, and reporting both of these realities is not an example of raining on Clinton's parade. And when Schlesinger then goes into the whole "big states" meme, he completely loses me. The idea that Obama couldn't win New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California in a general election is, ahem, novel. Last time I checked, Missouri was a big state, and Obama won it (although barely). In terms of Texas, is Schlesinger actually saying that Hillary's popular vote success in that primary in an indicator that she'd win that state in a general election? That seems like another doubtful idea. I agree with a previous poster that the only states where the Clinton campaign's "big states" narrative has any salience is in Pennsylvania and Ohio, both of which would represent a challenge for Obama in a general election.

[Seral]

I am imagining you will get a lot of "you are wrong" comments from hardcore Obama supporters (or all Obama supporters, cause among them there is no non-hardcore ones, that is why they are considered as a political sect, and you know the main characteristic of a sect, right?).

After all, according to them, democracy means erasing the votes of Clinton, ignoring her voters, the people who continue to support her despite being outspent by her opponent in the media, ignoring her other uncounted voters in Florida and Michigan, and handing Obama the Prince the crown of leader by his racial, who-cares-­about-the-­poor liberal, live-on-others' money youngster, bath-me-with-money richer supporters. Yes, according to them, that is democracy. Oh, and of course, forcing their opinion onto the Superdelegates who have the same right as the voters who vote for either candidates to make their own decision for the candidate they believe to win the general election.

Way to go Obama supporters. Yes, you can....

[MaureenSharkey]

Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

You are right on!

And Hillary will most likely win.

[TurnThePageGA]

She can't win. Get over it. Al Gore or Obama. Pick one.

[Calinative]

In case you haven't seen, or don't understand "the math" here's a link to Slate's delegate counter. You'll see she needs almost 70% of the vote in all remaining contests, and that just ain't gonna happen.

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

[tompoe]

Are we talking about the Hillary Clinton that declared she'll bomb Iran with a nuclear weapon and "obliterate" the population, if Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, bombs Israel? Is this the same Hillary that has yet to answer the question as to what she would do if Iran declared, "Mess with us, and we will invoke terrorism against you.". Hillary's leadership skills are showing. Enjoy!

[BardEric]

Has everyone conviently forgotten that BHO said in a debate last fall that he wouldnt rule out the use of Nukes in Pakistan?!?

[ohmercy]

oh! I so enjoy the distortions, mischaract­erization'­s and manipulations of everything Clinton says by the ObamaCon faction of Obamaites.­.

So inspiring to see how much you take after your fearless leader and his campaign manager.
And of course the neocon tactics they emulate to such stunning effect.

[Weasie16]

It would be nice to come to a Democratic blog and be able to rejoice a victory for a change :( Whatever the argument is....If Sen. Obama wins the nod...the states he will need to win, and those states chose Hillary!! I have NO IDEA why this blog, the liberal media, fellow Democrats etc. would want to slap Hillary at every corner when you're going to need her supporters votes. Arrogance is going to lose this election.

[Calinative]

You make a fair point. But doesn't it go both ways? Why is she trying to alienate Obama supporters by referring to them as the "activist wing" of the party. Didn't her campaign refer to them as "Prius driving, latte sipping elitists"?? That sort of talk won't win them over.

[way out left in san francisco]

I'll give Hillary "Pit Bull" Clinton credit for tearing apart the Democrat party, using Karl Rove tactics against a fellow democrat and a delusional elitist notion that she is entitled to the nomination because the MSM said so. Give credit where credit is due. How you doing?

[BardEric]

CNN rports that 11,000 negative campaign ads aired in PENN in the weeks before the primary..O­f that total they estimate that 2/3 were Obama's..W­ho exactly is tearing the party and a fellow dem apart?

[shep1900]

That is absolutely true--and yet, Senator Obama and his campaign never get criticized for it. What a dreadful double-standard. I'll take the transparent and aggressive Clintons any day.

[way out left in san francisco]

Obama ads never went after Hillary on a personal level. His negative ads were focused on the Republicans. He doesn't practice the same disgusting politics of blame, shame, shape shifting and lies branded by the Clintons. afterall it takes a Clinton to get Bush or McCain elected.