George Stephanopoulos of ABC News has broken the news that when Bill Richardson called Hillary Clinton to tell her he'd be endorsing Barack Obama, Hillary emphatically said "Barack Obama cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.".
So, Hillary's case is no longer just that she's the best person to be president. It's that she has seen the future and knows with absolute certainty that Barack Obama will lose to John McCain, no matter what he and the Democratic Party does.
I say "he" because I'm referring to what Barack might do. It's now clear to me what Hillary would do during this general election scenario. She would be the "He's going to lose" voice in the Democratic Party. Really attractive, huh?
I wish I could draw well enough to create an editorial cartoon showing Hillary as a 5-year-old child saying "He's going to lose," over and over again, in a sing-song kind of voice. Because that's how she's behaving.
Since Obama's defeat is an unshakable reality in Hillary's mind, if Barack gets the nomination I hope Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean arrange for Hillary to spend the period between the convention and the general election in some far away place (Russia? China?) where her negativity will not drag down the efforts of the rest of us to prevent the Republicans from maintaining control over the White House.
Stepping back for a moment, I suggest you all consider the following: Hillary's "I know he's going to lose" statement is further proof that her mind works in ways that are VERY similar to how George Bush's mind works. We've seen various Hillary / George Bush parallels before.
(1) Hillary is a congenital liar (to borrow a phrase from William Safire), and so is George Bush.
(2) Hillary prefers to work in a secret (her Health Care Task Force) and keep secrets (many of her records are still kept from the public), and George Bush is that way too.
(3) Hillary has an almost cult-like fixation on thinking she will absolutely win the nomination and, then, the presidency. And George Bush has the same kind of fixation on his version of reality, as if God told him this is how it is... and how it will be. They are both just too sure they are always right.
So, listen up my friends. And open your eyes as well. Hilary is giving us a tremendous gift: the opportunity to see how her mind works... up close and personal... and not just at 3 A.M. but all the time. However, you have to stop thinking in horse race mode to receive this gift.
Progressives may say the most important thing is to elect a Democrat as president in November. But I say no... that's not good enough.
The psychological profile of who becomes our next president is just as important as the party to which they belong. We need a president who lives in the "real world"... who practices reality-based politics. If that president is going to think and talk about realities that don't currently exist, then those should be optimistic realities... like when President Kennedy said we would put a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s. Hopeful visions like that are great.
But a negative vision of Barack losing to John McCain... That has no place in the mind of a major leader of the Democratic Party. That's not like worry about Greenland melting. There's a scientific consensus that that will happen if we don't change what we're doing.
Even if there's a poll out today showing McCain beating Obama, the election results cannot be accurately predicted this far in advance.
If some of you think I'm being too hard on Hillary, then I'll tell you what. Let's give her a test. Let's find out which reality she lives in. Her own? One based on how she wishes the world would be? Or one that is based on the facts. The subject of our test: Who won the Texas primary.
That's a major news story that also broke this week. The final results of the Texas primary, as reported by the Associated Press, are that Barack Obama won. He got 99 delegates to Hillary's 94. The Baltimore Sun ran a great story on this in which Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat, is quoted as saying "It appears the Clinton campaign declared victory at half time."
What a great metaphor... and how true. Hillary tried to fool us into thinking the half time results were the final results. Another example of Bush-like ("Mission accomplished") thinking.
So, Hillary, the Texas Democratic Party has now told us what the true results are. Are you going to keep saying you won Texas or not? Acknowledging the real, final results -- publicly -- would begin to knock down my theory that your mind works a lot like George Bush's.
Bush's psychology -- which I see as more a product of family dynamics than political party affiliation -- has proven to be a danger to the Constitution of the United States. The way Bush's mind works led him to pursue the "unitary executive" theory, because it fit his need to control reality and operate in secret.
Does Hillary Clinton's need to control reality and operate in secret mean she would also follow the unitary executive theory? Her answer to the question "Who won Texas?" will help us begin to answer that critical question.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If the democratic party pulled together, Obama would win handily over McCain.
It's pretty hypocritical to accuse Clinton of shadiness in claiming a win of Texas when you make an equally specious claim that Texas Democrats chose Obama over Clinton. While there is no disputing Obama won more delegates, that doesn't change the fact that more Texans voted for Clinton than Obama when you combine the votes from both the primary and the caucus.
According to the NY Times, Clinton got 1,459,814 votes in the Texas primary to Obama's 1,358,785, while Obama got 23,918 votes in the Texas caucus to Clinton's 18,620. Ignoring the fact that many people in the caucus probably voted in both contests, Clinton still received 1,478,434 votes total to Obama's 1,382,703. So while Obama "won" Texas in terms of delegates, Clinton won Texas in terms of votes. When arguing about one's chances in a general election where the popular vote is the only one that matters, Clinton is totally justified in using the popular vote totals to claim a victory in Texas and support her argument that she has a better chance of getting elected in the general election. If Clinton were arguing that she won Texas solely in the context of the race for the nomination she would be absolutely wrong, but in the context that she was claiming victory it was totally appropriate.
Chasgoose writes,"According to the NY Times, Clinton got 1,459,814 votes in the Texas primary to Obama's 1,358,785, while Obama got 23,918 votes in the Texas caucus to Clinton's 18,620."
If the NYTimes reported that, it's wrong. An estimated million people voted in the March 4th Texas Democratic precinct caucuses, according to Wikipedia and the Texas Democratic Party.
Obama won the caucuses by around 55.5% to 44.5%
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5484
So, If the raw numbers are proportional to his win, he got around 555,000 votes in the caucuses, to her 445,000. Roughly 1,905,000 to 1,914,000 is more like it, in favor of Obama.
More to the point, Bill Clinton didn't think Hillary could get the nomination unless she won Texas, and he meant the combined delegate vote, including the caucuses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVIfkuWt3E8
it is unfortunate that the Clintons are still in shock since Iowa. They don't know how to lose fairly and gracefully. This is gutter politics and the super delegates can put an end to this.
The stakes are too high. The war is costing us dearly in lives, money and respect in the world.
Americans' need jobs. Our children's education system is broken, we need to fix it. Americans cannot afford health care, our seniors cannot afford their medication.
Democrats should unite and lets have McCain and Bush retire together.
Texas isn't over. The delegate selection process is multi-stages. We just had state senatorial district conventions March 29th. There, delegates were chosen to attend the state convention in Austin in June. At that time, the delegates to the national convention in Denver in August will be selected. Only after the state convention will the actual delegate count be known.
I was a delegate to the March 29 convention, and our precinct chose a delegate to back Obama in Austin. At this point Obama is ahead.
It's not yet decided.
I'm rooting for Obama.
Clinton's win in the popular vote in Texas was assisted by the Limbaugh republicans crossing over to reek havoc with the democratic election process. I have seen estimates that more than 100,000 repubs voted in the Texas democratic primary for HRC. I am assuming that officials came up with that estimate based on their voter registration rolls.
We can pretty much predict that those repubs won't be voting for her next fall, in that all important "...general election where the popular vote is the only one that matters,...." according to you. That was Rush's whole purpose in sending out his minions to do the dirty deed. As a matter of fact, the cross-over voting causes many democrats to question whether Clinton in actuality did win the popular vote in Texas.
It makes me smile to see how many people, such as you, redefine what "winning the Texas primary" means to suite your purpose.
Obama won not by my definition, but by the definition of the Texas Democratic Party. That's the organization that said "Here's the two-part process by which we will select our delegates to the national convention." And, as we all know, at the convention it's the number of delegates that determines who gets the nomination.
I'm reporting who won based on how the contest organizers define winning. Those who can't see that are letting their emotions get in the way of the truth... the same problem President Bush has.
Ok - according to many prominent newspapers, the Boston globe among them (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/), over 119,000 Republicans reported they voted for Hillary in the TX primary. Subtract that out and the lead you describe goes bye-bye and Obama comes out 23,269 votes on Top of Hillary in the Popular vote.
How many of those repubs will vote for HRC over McCain in the General? I would think Zero.
If you think Hillary is justified in claiming victory, I think it's equally rational for Obama to claim victory as well. Anyways - the margin you describe (
I agree that Obama has just as much of a right to claim victory than Clinton, if not more, but I am just pointing out that Clinton's claims to victory in Texas aren't simply the result of her refusing to acknowledge the truth. The race was so close and it is so absurdly structured (both in the way that people can get TWO votes and the way the delegates are awarded) that there really was no definitive winner. If one candidate had won both the popular vote AND the delegates it would be easier to make a sole claim to victory, in this case it depends on what context you put it in.
Also did that article about the Republicans were voting for Clinton mention how many voted for Obama? I find it hard to believe that out of almost 3 million votes cast that no Republicans voted for Obama or that there weren't even 24,000 votes out of about the 1.4 million votes Obama recieved cast by registered Republicans who will not vote for McCain in the general election.
I think that the Republicans voting for Obama are doing so because they are likely to vote for him in the fall if he is the candidate. I am one such person, albeit in Washington State not Texas. Perhaps I've had too much "kool-aid" as I've been accused of repeatedly, but it is my firm belief that R's voting for Clinton are specious, and R's voting for Obama are crossover.
That's a good question. So far, I have only seen estimates of republicans who supposedly voted for Clinton. The reasoning seems to be, that the GOP thinks (or thought early in the primary season) that HRC would be easier to defeat in the general election than Obama. Therefore, they plotted to cross-over whenever there was an opportunity to increase Hillary's numbers, and try to insure her nomination. However, if exit polls or other verification methods showed repubs voting for Obama, too, I'm sure that that salacious tidbit would also have been big news.
great article - thanks!
And how is Hillary saying to Bill Richardson that Barack Obama cannot win the general election any different than Barack Obama back in December saying the very same thing about Hillary Clinton? Barack stated that she is too divisive to win the general election, among other things.
Moreover, Obama's campaign has certainly replayed and reinforced the old Republican lines about Hillary being - well, just name the word. Whether it's a reference to the blue dress, or that her time as first lady was "taking tea", or that her very existence in the campaign itself is proof that she only cares about herself and that she will do anything to win, the Obama campaign has stooped at nothing to paint Hillary as the Terminator, a souless collection of amoral destruction.
The Republicans didn't seem to think Hillary was just "taking tea" as First Lady. It drove Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and other Republican harpies nuts that Hillary didn't confine herself to tea cups and shoes. How dare she be anything more than an ornament or a skirt to take up a chair.
If you listen long enough to some of the whining out of the Obama campaign you'd think that in comparison to Hillary, Stalin is a saint, and purged nowhere near as many folks.
I know Stalin used to be called "Uncle Joe" during the Second World War. Just another "crazy uncle" in our great big happy global family.
Well, in Hillary's defence, at least she is "likeable enough".
Thanks for pointing me to the AP report (from January 30, 2008, excerpt below). Yes, Obama apparently spoke in "she can't win" terms there. My research shows that this was a strategy he quickly abandoned when he was told he had gone against his pledge to run a positive campaign. If I can find similar evidence regarding Hillary changing her tactics, I'll blog about that.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/768042,obhill013008.article
DENVER " Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.
Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida"s crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.
""Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change,"" Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.
You do know that whining about whining is still whining.
You're doing it too.
Of course you'll probably argue you're not. You're practicing civil discourse, buts it whining about whining. Thus whining.
And in pointing it out, I'm whining about whining about whining.
Best not to go down that neverending path...
What does Stalin have to do with any of this?
Every day I am more stunned by the Clinton's increasingly negative, angry and devisive approach. What a way to sell a candidate.
Actually, this stated view of hers is completely consistent with her actions. She has been Actively trying to Ensure that, if (when?) Barack wins the Democratic nomination, he will lose the national. That is why she has been providing ammunition to McShame to use against BO, and why she, and Bill, have been publicly Endorsing McSame. This is most shameful and disgusting.
More than that; it's becoming clear that she has a two part strategy:
Plan A) Slime him enough with the "race card" and "patriotism" (e.g. Bill saying how wonderful a Hill/Mccan't race would be - between two people who love their country), etc. etc. so that he will drop in the polls nationally, and she will then be ablee to co-erce the super-delegates into giving her the nod.
Plan B) Failing the above, succeed in sliming him enough that McSame will "win". That then re-opens the door for her in 2012. So having engineered the intended result, she will gleefully say "I told you so" - hoping that she will then get the nod in 2012.
So, it's not just wishful thinking on her part. She and her family are actively trying to engineer this outcome.
Now: that raises the question. If she somehow manages to steal the nomination, which is worse - a vote for her or for Mcsame? What would be the difference? McShame may be the less bad choice - to at least re-open the door in 2012 for a true Democrat!
Obama supporters often come off like smug little inside-baseball gamers on the subject of caucuses, because, well, that's all they are.
Self-employed dot-commers, students on a mission, retirees who want to make a difference, activists, etc, who can spare the time to attend these endless, self-congratulatory, droning affairs designed to dampen the enthusiasm of normal people, and to discourage their attendance, especially when they are being held when regular folks are working, and in places where you have to drive to attend, which leaves out the carless, who are often also poor. That's when the disciples get together, and in the case of Texas,in smaller numbers by far than the number of folks who voted in the primary, and that's when they rejigger the outcome to the benefit of the anointed one.
And then they crow on and on about the victory they manufactured, which is all in the rules of course, but signifying nothing for the general election, wherein votes and only votes will count.
Do you think Obama wins Texas in the Fall? Yes or no? Want to bet your paycheck?
Why did you not crusade to end these horrible, droning affairs prior to the beginning of this primary season? You have had 4 years to stamp out these unfair election events. Better yet, why didn't you eradicate them years ago so that Bill Clinton would not have had to endure all of his horrific caucus wins? I never heard about how godawful these caucuses were until Hillary started losing in them. Prior to that, they were just dandy. But-- do not despair. You and like-minded others will have unlimited opportunities to rid the earth of caucuses AFTER the conventions. BUT NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ELECTION. Toodles!
Yes - insulting fellow Dems because they disagree with you is classy. It's a great way to engender party unity....oh wait... that's what your candidate and her proxies have done consistently. Remember her mocking Barack's speechmaking style? Classless....
She is a Joe Lieberman democrat....which is to say - not a democrat.
Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont. Google it yourself if you think I'm trolling or lying or drinking kool-aid or whatever.
"Obama campaigned for Lieberman against Ned Lamont. Google it yourself if you think I'm trolling or lying or drinking kool-aid or whatever."
He did, when Lieberman was still a Democrat. But he campaigned for Lamont when Lamont was the Democrat:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/27/ap/politics/mainD8L0MB280.shtml
Why don't you add the birkenstock wearing, latte sipping trust fund babies comment as well.
I've seen the spectrum of Obama supporters, and it's amazing. From the unemployed, the healthcare worker, stay at home moms, working moms, social workers, students, and yes even the dot commer, the little old lady from pasadena, black, white, hispanic, asian, and everything in-between.
Our caucus was civil and a great place for debate and certainly did not lack enthusiasm from either side. People carpooled, people helped the elderly by providing rides, those who could not attend, were afforded the opportunity to sign affidavits to submit their votes. Most notably absent, however, were the Rush Limbaugh Chaos voters who are attempting to subvert the democratic process as evidenced in TEXAS, OHIO, and MISSISSIPPI Primaries. As it would turn out....the caucus is fast becoming our only protection AGAINST these type of low class, grotesque tactics from the Right.
This whole, the "caucus is un-democratic" b.s. certainly was not uttered by Bill Clinton in 92' or 96'...in 2000 and 2002, again, the caucus was not attacked, they were actually hailed as proof our democratic process in the party was alive and thriving. Ask yourself, be honest....if it was your candidate winning...would you be decrying the caucus? Wouldn't it just be another democratic process by which to measure the success of your candidate?
My sister was a delegate for Clinton at a Texas county caucus. She said it was bedlam, with no organization and overrun with very loud, very abrasive, mostly college-age Obama supporters. She had not come up against the unfortunate Obamabot stereotype at all until the caucuses and she was shocked by how impossible it was for Clinton supporters to figure out how to register, much less make their voices heard. I don't believe that all Obama supporters are like these very obnoxious few. (I've also seen some pretty nasty Clinton supporters -- though online, and certainly fewer in number and never in person.)
Clearly, the caucus process is broken. I'm a former Edwards supporter. I moved support to Hillary because I thought she was the most electable in the general. As a populist, I feel that caucuses do not represent all democrats and aren't, in my opinion, a good guage of whether or not a candidate would do well in a general election. Incidentally, I'd feel this way if Edwards were still in the race and winning caucuses. Just because my candidate does well doesn't change the basic fact that the system is rigged for one niche's interests to prevail.
The reports from around the country was that this was the tenor of the caucuses. Obama supporters shouted people down, pulled dirty tricks, even locked people out.
It was awful. It's shocked a lot of Democrats.
The real story here is that Obama has stolen this election away from people.
I never read or saw any of these reports. Where can I access them, please?
Hey AnninCA - please source your claims. Otherwise don't make them.
In what world is having more votes stealing an election. I was at the NV caucus and the Hillary supporters made any one not there for her stand outside. One of my employees was helping out another district and they ran out of ballots - when he went to retrieve more ballots from another district they had already been filled out for Hillary - these were left over ballots that were filled out for her. If you say this is all Obama supporters then you are "misspeaking".
That was a dumb question. This was a Democratic primary. This was NOT a general election. You are comparing a primary to an election. Normal Texas thinking. You must be the wrangler on Bush's property. By the way, that area stinks to high heaven. WHEW!
Obama will win the general election when he is our nominee. Wanna bet your paycheck? John McCain will be swamped into concession by the amount of democrats that are going to vote this fall. You have no friggin idea. Of course, you guys in Texas think you know everything.....That's a joke. That's why this guy from North Carolina went down there for five years and took care of most of your women in a man's way.....:0
Get off your horse wrangler and get the facts. Bill Clinton won caucuses during his election cycle. I didn't hear them bitching about that. All of a sudden, a black man comes down and wins the caucuses, with white people behind him and your rednecks are upset and willing to bet your $10.83 weekly paycheck on a bet.....LOL
If all that idiocy was directed at me, you missed. I know what just took place in TX was part of the primary process. I also know that Obama winning the most delegates there thanks to the easily-gamed caucus system in place guarantees him nothing by way of a victory IN TEXAS in November. But I don't doubt he can win the general election if he's nominated.
I truly appreciate the space allotted here for manly displays of conquest by North Carolinians who disport themselves in Texas 'with most of your women', as I am a New Yorker, and feel better just knowing that you and your penis are busy elsewhere.
The FINAL results are not what is being reported by the media. Hillary will win the most delegates at the state convention because they add the delegates from the primary, the caucus and also add in super delegates from the state which Hillary is winning at about 2 to 1. The FINAL delegate numbers for Texas is Hillary with 143 delegates and Obama with 126 delegates out of the total 228 delegates. Everyone out there saying that Hillary didn't win Texas doesn't know the facts. Here are the facts on how the TX delegates are allocated:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877
WHEN and IF that happens, so be it. Until then, we are where we are. By the way, knock out the cross-over republicans making mischief in Texas at Limbaugh's bidding, and the popular vote results might have been very different. It certainly would not be the same in November. But-- we are where we are, in relation to that count, also.
That's funny. I didn't realize this.
Toooooo darn priceless!
Posted April 3, 2008 | 09:18 AM (EST)