"Obama Played to Win, and Lost" - Hillary Campaign

Hillary's campaign just put out a statement which shows the direction the campaign's going with the Pennsylvania win.

To:  Interested Parties

From:  The Clinton Campaign
Date:  April 23, 2008
RE: The Tide Is Turning

The voters in Pennsylvania have spoken. America is listening. And the tide is turning.

By providing fresh evidence that Hillary is the candidate best positioned to beat John McCain in the fall, the Pennsylvania primary is a turning point in the nominating contest.  

Despite making an unprecedented financial investment in his Pennsylvania campaign, including millions on negative ads in the closing days of the race, Sen. Obama again failed to win a state that will be vital to a Democratic victory in November and spurred new questions about his ability to beat John McCain.  No candidate has ever had more resources or enjoyed the kind of momentum that Sen. Obama had in Pennsylvania.

With concerns about the economy paramount, voters decided that Sen. Clinton was the candidate they trusted most to deal with job loss, the housing crisis and health care.

And with both candidates under the microscope at the same time for the first time, Hillary took more than a few punches and came out stronger while Sen. Obama emerged weaker as voters learned more about him.   The exit polls clearly show that Sen. Clinton gained strength in the final days when the campaign was most engaged.  

The Pennsylvania primary was the high water mark of the Obama campaign - they threw everything they had at Hillary, and when the smoke cleared, the coalition which had formed the basis of the marked the Democratic Party since the days of Jefferson and Jackson held firm. America's place in history is largely attributable to its workforce, which has taken some hits lately, but still has the strength to come through when it counts. Blue-collar workers and their families responded to Hillary's common sense approach to fixing the problems created by the Bush years.

We have seen Obama's best shot. That's all he's got.

The Hillary campaign went on to spell out the reasons why Hillary prevailed:


The reason for the Clinton comeback is clear: voters want a candidate who will stand strong for them and work to create a better future.

STRONG ON ECONOMY: Pennsylvania turned on which candidate made the better case for fixing the economy.  Exit polls show voters viewed Hillary more favorably on the economy - her leadership resonated across the heartland of Pennsylvania.  Those who want change in the economy voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.  

A DECISIVE VICTORY: According to exit polls, Hillary won voters most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42) and union households by 18 points (59-41).  She won those with incomes between 100K and 150K by 20 points (60-40); white women by 32 points (66-34) and Catholics by 38 points (69-31).  She won those who decided on the last day (59-41), the last three days (58-42) and the last week (54-46).

SEN. OBAMA PLAYED TO WIN & LOST: Sen. Obama played to win Pennsylvania outright, outspending the Clinton camp by a 3 to 1 margin while sharply attacking Sen. Clinton on the stump and in television, radio, and direct mail pieces.  He understood what was at stake for him in Pennsylvania, had six full weeks to make his case, went for a knockout at the end and came up short.  Sen. Obama's failure to do well raises questions about his ability to win the large, swing states that Democrats need to win in November.

HRC WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER:  Democrats must win the large swing states to beat John McCain in the fall, but Sen. Obama has struggled in states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  In addition, Hillary's voters form the coalition needed for Democratic success in the fall battleground states: women, Hispanics, older voters, working class voters and Catholics. Sen. McCain is stronger than a typical Republican normally is among these groups while Sen. Obama has proven weaker among them. Hillary is also most likely to hold traditionally Democratic states and is poised to expand the electoral map in the Southwest while also flipping a few traditionally GOP states like Arkansas.

OUR VICTORY HAS RE-ENERGIZED OUR CAMPAIGN & OUR GRASSROOTS:  Sen. Obama may have outspent us 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania, but Hillary's strong supporters kept her in it. As news of Sen. Clinton's victory spread, we received more donations at www.hillaryclinton.com and more new online contributors than after our wins in Ohio and Texas.  In fact, this was our best night ever for online fundraising

Donations are rolling in. I haven't checked the numbers this morning, but Hillary raised $500,000 in the first hour after the polls closed (BEFORE they called the race), and $2.5 MILLION by the time I went to bed.

HELP HILLARY BY CONTRIBUTING!



Display:


Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (1.37 / 8)

Well, skunk, I'd have to say this plays to your namesake. Clinton's got to spin the race this way if she wants to have any chance of winning yet; luckily, it seems to only be entertaining people who were already in her camp.

Sorry, buddy, but changing the metrics, which states are important, the goalposts, etc, all you want, but it ain't happening. It's about as genuine as demanding Clinton drop out of the race; but wait, it's okay to demand Obama can't win and ought to drop out, but not Clinton, eh? Hey, when things were looking down for your candidate, you were more than happy to scream "UNTIL PUERTO RICO!", and now you're "YOU'RE UNELECTABLE, GET LOST!" In two weeks, we'll see if Clinton can firewall this anymore.

But, hey, you're having your fun, after 3-10% margins; we had ours after we won eleven in a row by 20-30 percent margins. Don't let me begrudge you that.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:12 AM EST

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (2.00 / 8)

don't worry. tomorrow is another day. obama just didn't do well in PA, that's all. it's not the end of the world.


by campskunk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (2.00 / 4)

Nuh uh. You get back here right now and have an attitude; Clinton supporters and a positive and balanced outlook doesn't fit my stereotypes. Get with it.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

3:1 (2.00 / 7)

Maybe 4:1. That's how much Obama overspends to lose.

I will gladly go to Oregon knowing each one of my volunteers is worth five or ten of yours.


by Pacific John on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3:1 (1.33 / 3)

Heh. Actually, that's true, since that's about the ratio of regular people you can find who actually want to volunteer for Clinton.

;)


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I like your attitude (2.00 / 5)

I hope it's universal to your campaign.


by Pacific John on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3:1 (1.50 / 6)

I'll be going to Oregon to help to crush Hillary.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am going to destroy Obama (none / 0)

with my magic!  He's not the only one with magic... just you wait and see!


by linc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3:1 (none / 0)

I am an Obama supporter, but i will be going to Oregon to campaign for Hillary.She has been the quintessence of integrity and besides, I just kind of feel sorry for Her and Her pathetic supporters.


by tommy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3:1 (none / 0)

I dunno about that, the only candidate that's proved he can actually improve his numbers by campaigning in a state is Obama. How come people always forget things like, Hillary's initial 22% margin in PA? Her 90% margin within the african american vote at the start of the primary?


by Djo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we need more than "improvement" (1.50 / 4)

Ahh, another Obama = Bush/Caucuses are cheating go. You didn't mention Florida or Michigan, so I'll only give you a 6/10. Try better next time.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

concealing damaging info is less significant than (2.00 / 4)

trying to spin important differences into insignificance, which the press has been doing with Obama and healthcare and public safety/workplace safety.

Hillary has a stellar record of protecting the people's interests, even if it means asking big corporations to be responsible. Obama has tried to portray himself as a reformer, but time after time he's been shown to be a sellout to those same interests when the public eye has shifted elsewhere.

Thats one of the reasons I think Obama is a closet Bush.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stellar record of protecting supporters interests (none / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wil son/clinton-by-far-worst-abus_b_84102.ht ml

Interesting that Pastor Butts was so vocal in his support of Clinton after his church and projects got $1.5 million from her earmarks.  He was later seen on Fox News continuing to discuss Reverend Wright after the issue had been mostly diffuesd.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: concealing damaging info is less significant t (none / 0)

Good analysis!  That's why Obama voted to support the Iraq war, against the Levin amendment, against the cluster-bomb ban, for the flag-burning amendment and for Kyl-Lieberman authorization to wage another war against Iran.  I'm surprised you aren't blogging down at the National Review, calling Obama a fascist.

I know we could go back and forth for hours... so just answer me this.  How does Hillary Clinton earn the nomination realistically, without cleaving the party in two?  One scenario, thats all I ask.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wtf mate (none / 0)

Wait, Obama selling to corporate interests? Now you're just talking out your ass. Hillary has accepted more donations from lobbiests than McCain. Obama has accepted none.


by Djo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (2.00 / 3)

Hey ya dumb Corpsman ;)

Hillary's argument for staying in is intellectual almost to the point of speciousness, but only almost.  She is pointing to geography, demographics, and other things relating to GE electability.  She is appealing to SD's to perform their intended function, which is specifically NOT to rubber stamp the pledged delegate vote, rather to override the popular will when they feel that the popular will is elevating an unelectable demogogue (not your opinion I know).  In addition to the blue collar base. Hillary is winning back Reagan Democrats, who are required for either party to win.

Obama's argument is far more clear and understandable to most people.  He is ahead by every measurable metric, yet his base of support, Clinton supporters argue, is insufficient to overcome McCain's natural advantages.  His base is enough to win the nomination, I readily concede, but it is the job of the SD's to look at the bigger picture.

Most of us Clintonistas really feel in our hears that Obama cannot defeat McCain, while Hillary has a shot, but not a lock.  Once this is over, we will have to put our heads together and figure out how once again we were handed the WH on a platter, yet managed to piss it away...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (2.00 / 1)

Most of us Clintonistas really feel in our hears that Obama cannot defeat McCain, while Hillary has a shot, but not a lock.  Once this is over, we will have to put our heads together and figure out how once again we were handed the WH on a platter, yet managed to piss it away...

I think many of us Obama supporters feel the same way (though of course with the names swapped).  The nomination is an insignificant prize if it means a loss in the general election.  The policies of our two candidates are similar enough - especially compared with McCain - that either of them would be a good president.

I believe Obama has a better chance of defeating McCain because Hillary has always had high negatives, which have only increased during the recent fray.  People have had eighteen years to get to know her, and she has always been under 50 % favorable.

Obama, however, is a powerful speaker, and people like him more and more after they've had a chance to hear him.  A year ago, he was generally unknown outside his home state, but he's rocketed to superstardom on charisma - charisma that Hillary simply doesn't have.  As Obama's exposure increases, as he's not being attacked by members of his own party over stupid shit like flag pins and what Bill Ayers did when Obama was eight years old, Obama will draw in more and more people who hear his message.

As the young Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus remarked to the aged general Lucius Cornelius Sulla, more people worship the rising than the setting sun.  

Clinton has peaked; Obama is still rising.


Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
by MattHucke on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (none / 0)

Rec'd, if only for the Republican Rome reference.  Watch and learn, younglings...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:33:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I do not think Obama would make a better POTUS (1.16 / 6)

than McCain because Obama stooped to racial divisiveness in order to garner 90%+ of the AA voters.  Notice, I am not saying because he attacked Bill or Hillary Clinton.  IMHO, he is a mere horsefly compared to the kinds of negative attacks they have both withstood and have surmounted.  My contention is that Obama is dangerous to the future of this country because he has been willing to USE race to win an election.  I have fought against racists all my life and until Obama, all of them have been white.  But his behavior is the same as a white racist in this case in that he has been willing to use that pain of mistreatment that all AAs know and is most salient to them in order to obtain votes because of the color of his skin.  It is unforgivable.  Hillary must be the candidate because only she can heal the gash that Obama inflected on this country.


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do not think Obama would make a better POTUS (none / 0)

As a White supporter of Obama, I don't feel wounded by anything Obama said or did, and see no "gash" whatsoever.  

What exactly did he do or say that you find "unforgivable"?


Graveyards of Illinois - http://www.graveyards.com/
by MattHucke on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do not think Obama would make a better POTUS (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, Obama stooped to racial divisiveness when he forced Bill to stick his foot in his mouth.


by Djo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do not think Obama would make a better POTUS (none / 0)

Yeah, Obama stooped to racial divisiveness when he forced Bill to stick his foot in his mouth.


by Djo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do not think Obama would make a better POTUS (2.00 / 2)

ok as a African American supporter of OBAMA

I strongly Urge you to provide proof that Obama "stooped to racial divisiveness in order to garner 90%+ of the AA voters"  I am offended and I think you are full of shit I do not  repeat DO NOT beleive the GARBAGE  that you Fought against racsist all your life and if you did  how DARE you compare  OBAMA to one of those peices of garbage!!! if you think Obama is comparable to a Klan member or David duke you have a sick twisted view of the world my Friend  again I am a Black man that is HIGHLY offended of your comments  


President-elect Barack Obama spent the day thanking the people who helped him win the election. Obama's first phone call was to Sarah Palin.
by wellinformed on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (1.60 / 5)

Hey, jarhead. Charged any machine gun fire head-on recently?

I think at this point, all this has gotten us is that both Obama and Clinton are tied to the hip in some fashion until this thing is over. I suppose that means, if Obama wins both IN and NC in a big enough way, that it's an Obama/Clinton ticket, but I cannot fathom how she'd want to do that. Hmm.

We both have different feelings about how and why our candidate is the best; and I guess we really don't know what's what, and won't, until it happens.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Troll-rated because of: (2.00 / 1)

"Hey, jarhead. Charged any machine gun fire head-on recently?"


by macmcd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll-rated because of: (2.00 / 0)

I fail to see the offense here.  You really ought to remove the TR.  Clearly you haven't spent any time around military people...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey ragekage, it's time to stop this crap! (2.00 / 0)

You try to play so morally superior with this:

Sorry, my friend, but I'm afraid you get a troll rating for contributing further to opening the chasm between Obama and Clinton supporters with ignorance of this magnitude. Apparently, we don't approve of electing Democrats to any office, unless their name is Hillary Clinton and the office is President.

because I said this:

Good lord. Why would Obama donate (1.28 / 7)

to Murphy such an odd amount, unless it was for something specific. No quid pro quo here, right?

in this diary.

Now you're crapping on jarhead and opening that chasm you speak of with this:

Hey, jarhead. Charged any machine gun fire head-on recently?

If your're going to act as "concern monitor," please try to be consistent as regards your own posts.

Full disclosure: You did uprate your troll rating with this:

Hmm. I guess I feel like you're badmouthing a Democratic candidate purposefully and belligerently. But alright, I can go with a simple disagreement. I'll change the rate.

after I called you on it. Please try to heed your own admonishments.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey ragekage, it's time to stop this crap! (2.00 / 1)

Lighten up, okay?  ragekage and I are good - we simply have a gentlemen's disagreement.  He has not offended me in any way (at least not yet today!).


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey ragekage, it's time to stop this crap! (none / 0)

Thanks for goin' to bat for me, Marine. Semper Fi.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see jarhead has no problem with (none / 0)

ragekage's quip. I withdraw my previous post - begrudingly. I was in the Marine Corps, and I still found a problem with the post, but I will accept jarhead's request and witdraw my TR.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:16:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Improve, and did" (none / 0)

I loved what Gloria Borger said on CNN last night about the "arranged marriage" that may be necessary to forestall open rebellion in the party, whether the candidates themselves like it or not.  Dean, Pelosi, Reid, etc., are looking at the bigger picture (Congressional majorities, state legislatures, school boards even), and deciding that there are worse things than losing the WH...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (1.84 / 19)

Thanks for the up-date! I was at the polls all day yesterday and NW PA went solid for Hillary! The tide has turned- people want the candidate who can win in November, they want Hillary!


by ProudMilitaryMom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:22:04 AM EST

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (2.00 / 8)

WTF?  Troll rated a military mom's positive comment?  Beyond the pale.  


by Caldonia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (2.00 / 5)

Thanks for helping me out- don't know what caused th troll rate- the numbers are there on the Commonwealth of PA page- Hillary took some of the NW PA counties in the I-79 Erie to Pittsburgh corridor by close to 70%, with record turnout!
Truth upsetting to some people???
by ProudMilitaryMom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well Said Camper - RECd!!!! (2.00 / 10)

If that was the best he could do after outspending her by $7 million intv advertising, it doesn't speak well of his chances if he makes it to the general election!!!!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:22:09 AM EST

He closed the gap from 25% to 8.6%. (1.75 / 4)

I know spin is your MO, but Hillary is down by triple digits in the delegate count. This race is over, whether you are willing to admit it to yourself or not.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't use 25% Use 19% (2.00 / 1)

Obama has every right to use that PPP poll, but it's an outlier.  SurveyUSA is a better one to use, and had this one within the margin for error, I believe (they said 6% this week).

Survey USA had him at 19% on March 10.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, Obama only cut Hillary's lead in half. (2.00 / 1)

and made gains in demographics across the board.  Is that better?


by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0)

Much better, thank you.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Luckily for him (2.00 / 0)

Your candidate will fight like hell to secure her base for him once he's the nominee.  She's a fighter, after all, and she knows he'll be better than McCain.  

It truly is the best of both worlds.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Luckily for him (2.00 / 4)

I seriously wonder if Obama would/could do the same for her.  Will he be able to bring outraged AA's back into the fold, if they think this was somehow stolen from "their" candidate?  I am black, and alone in my family in supporting Clinton.  To a man/woman, they all say that if Obama is not the nominee, they are staying home in November.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He will try. (2.00 / 1)

I guarantee you that he will get out the vote like nobody's business.  He plans on implementing his Organizing Fellowship of new community organizers this summer regardless of who wins the nomination.

I don't know how successful he'll be, but we all know that he's incredibly persuasive when talking on a lot of issues, including civil rights stuff that's very important to black voters.  McCain is a disaster for the African American community: more war and more poverty are what he's running on, fer chrissakes.

I don't think it will come to this, however.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Luckily for him (none / 0)

I've no doubt Obama would campaign strongly for her. As to whether he could bring the black vote around, that's a tough one, and I think it all depends on her route to the nomination. If Obama leads in SDs and they give it to Hillary, it's not going to look legitimate in the eyes of many Obama supporters, especially in his strongest demographics of black voters and the college age voters. I'd say that he's got the charisma etc. that if anyone can, Obama can, just like I feel both Hillary and Bill can if things go the other way. That said, disillusionment can be very hard to overcome.
by Huck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Luckily for him (none / 0)

I'm a white Obama supporter and I'll stay home in November if he's not the nominee too.  Why?  Because the only way Clinton can win at this point is "coup by Superdelegates and the stripped delegates of Michigan and Florida.  You can complain about "Undemocaratic Caucuses (TM)" all you want, but the real injustice will be when Hillary tries to overthrow the real primary with 11th hour backroom politics.  If that happens, I'm going to be done with the Democratic party, because they will have proven that they do not support my ideals.


by brathor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Luckily for him (2.00 / 1)

Agreed, while I'm going to vote for whoever the D is in Nov (but I am reserving the right to change my mind and vote Nader), to take the nomination out of the hands of the guy who played by the rules and brought an entire generation into the realm of political awareness would be a mistake. I'm sure Obama will do all he can to turn out the vote and create reconcilliation, but he doesn't have godlike power over his supporters who will be rightfully enfuriated by having the popular vote overturned.

Does anyone think Hillary could win without Barak's support? I think it could be a HUGE year for a third party candidate if Hillary steals the nomination at the convention.


by Djo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Coup by superdelegates, huh? (2.00 / 1)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's the reason they exist.  If the party bosses, party elders, at large delegates, superdelegates, whatever they are being called this year decide that the popular will is elevating an unelectable demogogue, they are in place precisely to prevent it from happening.  They do not, repeat, do not, exist to rubber stamp the pledged delegates. Otherwise, why are they even there?

Superdelegates represent the best interests of the Democratic Party as a corporate entity, not necessarily individual Democratic voters.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Said Camper - RECd!!!! (1.00 / 2)

He bled her dry and ate into her base. She didn't make a dent in his delegate lead despite having the state machine behind her and having even more favorable demographics than Ohio. 8.6


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (2.00 / 1)

"...he still lost in a state with a huge Dem base and organization."

A huge base and organization that was all for Clinton in the first place?


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Said Camper - RECd!!!! (2.00 / 1)

I think this has been my favorite anti-Obama argument.  Of COURSE he outspent Clinton, he has triple the amount of money she has!  You're telling me that if Clinton had an extra $40 million dollars lying around, earmarked just for primaries, she wouldn't use it?  

It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!  This is probably the first time in  their careers the Clintons have lost the fundraising battle, and now its "unfair" for him to spend more money?  Give me a break.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Said Camper - RECd!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Very true.  The Clinton team wants to spin us into thinking that this investment in PA was solely to win the primary.  Not true at all.  Obama knew he was not going to win and admitted as such.

Here was the strategy, in a nutshell:  
With his investment in the PA ground game, Obama bought himself some serious name recognition and as a result, most of the PA voters have really taken well to him, saying that they would be happy with either candidate in the GE.   Watch how this pays off big when he wins PA in the General Election and confirms what Governor Rendell has already said.  


by haystax calhoun on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Said Camper - RECd!!!! (2.00 / 1)

A major reason Obama struggles against Hillary in the big states IS the existing Democratic infrastructure.

Hillary pretty much has a lock on the Dem machinery that's in place. That's what being a long-established national figure plus being married to a former President will get you, not to mention favours owed.

If you've ever worked an election against the local machinery, you'll know just how strong it can be. If not, then take my word for it, it's a huge advantage to have the machine at your back.

Hillary has essentially assumed incumbent status as a result.

The fact that Obama is getting as close as he is in these races is a sign of just how strong he is -- go back and look at the state of play as of Dec 31st 2007. He shouldn't have had a prayer of winning this, yet despite that he currently leads.


by Huck on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Said Camper - RECd!!!! (none / 0)

Yeah while the media was promoting Wright and Bitter for weeks. Great example of the MSM jumping on the Obama gravy train. And you could tell her husband's former employee was really looking to get down to issues in the debate.

BTW, do you think the established Democratic organization is going to support the new guy, or the wife of the former president?


by Djo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama leads Hillary by triple digits. (2.00 / 0)

Does she honestly believe she can win all remaining contests by 69% points.  I think she is just trying to hold on long enough to let he supporters pay down her debt.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM EST

God I hope so (1.66 / 3)

I will be proud of her if she uses her money surge to pay off her small vendors.  Those families need to eat.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She got more corporate money than McCain. (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jiminy crickets (2.00 / 1)

...because Obama's supporters are really living the high life with their $25 or $100 per donation?


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama gets most of his MONEY from big donors (2.00 / 3)

so why does he keep implying that those many small donors are giving him more than they are?

To conceal the truth?


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's never hidden anything (none / 0)

Approximately 90% of his donors give $200 or less, that's factual enough.  He gets about 41% of his money from those small donors.  41% of about $200 million is a huge amout of money.  Clinton's scoring 42% in the Gallup daily; are you saying that she doesn't have a huge amount of support?

I'm not sure what you're implying.  Everything he's said on the subject has had a factual basis.  The same can't be said about some of your posts.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The tide is not turning. (1.33 / 6)

The tide is out.  You're still on the island.  I would argue that Hillary's situation is comperable to another great traveller...

---

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip
That started from this tropic port
Aboard this tiny ship.

The mate was a mighty sailing man,
The skipper brave and sure.
Five passengers set sail that day
For a three hour tour, a three hour tour.

The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ship was tossed,
If not for the courage of the fearless crew
The Minnow would be lost, the Minnow would be lost.

The ship set ground on the shore of this uncharted desert isle
With Gilligan
The Skipper too,
The millionaire and his wife,
The movie star
The professor and Mary Ann,
Here on Gilligans Isle.

So this is the tale of the castways,
They're here for a long, long time,
They'll have to make the best of things,
It's an uphill climb.

The first mate and the Skipper too,
Will do their very best,
To make the others comfortable,
In the tropic island nest.

No phone, no lights no motor cars,
Not a single luxury,
Like Robinson Crusoe,
As primative as can be.

So join us here each week my freinds,
You're sure to get a smile,
From seven stranded castways,
Here on "Gilligan's Isle!"


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:12 AM EST

Re: The tide is not turning. (2.00 / 4)

we're glad you're paying attention ;-)


by campskunk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess it was inevitable (2.00 / 1)

I suppose that was begging for a troll rating, but the comparison was just too choice.  How many times did Gilligan expect to get off the island, only to have his hopes crushed?

I feel bad for Clinton's supporters.  It would take something unheard of in modern politics for her to get the nomination.  The probabilities lined up against her are staggering.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess it was inevitable (none / 0)

I don't think it was begging for a troll-rating, but I'm not surprised it got one anyway....


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is not turning. (2.00 / 4)

Hey Camp -

Lighten up!
Take your finger off the troll-rate button.
Let them have their fun.
'Cause it is all the solace they have.


by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.00 / 1)

I appreciate it.

It's important to have fun and be able to joke around even with people you disagree with.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is not turning. (2.00 / 3)

well, i 'm feeling sorry for them, given the circumstances, and since he begged... i'd hate for him to feel neglected.


by campskunk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is not turning. (2.00 / 1)

Would you care to explain why you troll rated my image of Clear Creek at the end of my diary?


by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is not turning. (2.00 / 1)

i do that once or twice a day by accident - i'm saving up for a new mouse.


by campskunk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is not turning. (2.00 / 1)

Thanks Camp - -


by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Beat the B?" (2.00 / 2)

What does that mean?  Is that some sort of breakdancing lingo?


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:08 AM EST

Aw. That's sad. (1.75 / 4)

She doesn't see what happened. He bled her dry. She had to spend all her money just to stay the same as when she started campaigning. He made sure she didn't make a dent in his delegate lead despite having the state machinery behind her. That's all he needed to do. But he did even more. He reduced her margin of victory to a single digit in a state that  favored her demographically even more than Ohio (less black folks, less young voters) by eating into her support with older voters and white  men. She's fighting Roy Jones and unfortunately for her she isn't Antonio Tarver.  


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST

Re: Aw. That's sad. (2.00 / 7)

you're right - all she did was get more votes. ANYBODY can do that ;-)


by campskunk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (1.50 / 2)

And she was expected to. It's a delegate race so pop vote is meaningless.  


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (2.00 / 6)

spoken like a true democrat ;-)


by campskunk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (1.50 / 2)

Or someone who pays attention to the rules.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (2.00 / 3)

The rules that say that this is not a pledged delegate contest.  The "rules" argument was an exercise in moral cowardice to begin with, and has now been debunked anyway.

It's no wonder Obama has frequently creditted Reagan with his ability to get folks to vote against their own self-interest.  After spending millions of dollars to convince Democrats that a mandate for universal healthcare is bad, and that counting every vote in Florida is wrong, he has truly one-up'd his role model in this regard.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0)

It's no wonder Obama has frequently creditted Reagan with his ability to get folks to vote against their own self-interest.  After spending millions of dollars to convince Democrats that a mandate for universal healthcare is bad, and that counting every vote in Florida is wrong, he has truly one-up'd his role model in this regard.

By getting rich people to vote for him?


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (none / 0)

"The rules that say that this is not a pledged delegate contest."

If you want to talk about the rules, they say 80% of it is indeed a pledged delegate contest. 20% is about the superdelegates. And about 0% of it is about the popular vote.

As for Florida, didn't Clinton sign a certain pledge? Or am I misremembering?


by Aris Katsaris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (none / 0)

I believe Obama is the only one who violated that pledge in Florida.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw. That's sad. (none / 0)

Why would he care enough to do that, if none of the candidates ever expected the votes there to count, as Clinton herself said?


by Aris Katsaris on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (2.00 / 7)

Hillary won voters most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42) and union households by 18 points (59-41).  She won those with incomes between 100K and 150K by 20 points (60-40); white women by 32 points (66-34) and Catholics by 38 points (69-31).

Nightline also reported last night that she had a 60-40 lead over church goers and gun owners.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (2.00 / 7)

Obama can speechify alright, but he just can't seem to close the sale with Democratic voters.  Supers are seeing that very clearly now.  He should drop out now for the good of the party.

Psst, Obama...remember, money can't buy you love and it seems also, a nomination.


by Caldonia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:26:16 AM EST

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (none / 0)

Yeah, Obama should drop out, since he's ahead in delegates, states won and popular vote.
What a loser.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (none / 0)

He can't win.


by Caldonia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (none / 0)

Most democrats disagree with you.

From Washington Post/ABC News poll of polls (4/14/08):
(ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) Regardless of who you may support, who do you think has the better chance of getting elected president in November 2008?      

Clinton= 31%        
Obama= 62%


by haystax calhoun on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (2.00 / 1)

That's fair enough.  Even Obama said yesterday, that anything over 50% for her was a loss for him.


This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!
by venavena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST

True enough (none / 0)

We always like to have our candidate win.

Luckily Obama padded a nice buffer in February, so we can absorb small setbacks.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" - (2.00 / 1)

What a comical spin.

Spinners seem to eventually lose the ability to identify the boundary of the ridiculous.


by wrb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST

Right now (2.00 / 1)

Obama is regressing as a candidate.  His feel-good message has attracted everyone that it's going to.  He needs to retool his campaign so he looks more like a leader and less like a cheerleader. In this effort he's greatly hindered by his lack of accomplishments and by Hillary's far superior command of the issues, both of which are becoming evident to voters. With the help of his lapdog media friends he can get the momentum back, but first he needs to get his people to stop whining.  He can't build support by looking like a loser.


by Upstate Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST

Luckily for him (none / 0)

He looks like a winner when you don't look at him through Clinton-shaded lenses.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Luckily for him (2.00 / 1)

Obama looks like a winner when you are high on his kool aid.


by JoeySky18 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's kool-aid? (none / 0)

Nobody informed me.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right now (none / 0)

"Obama is regressing as a candidate".

Are you joking? How many supers has Hill picked up in the last sixty days, hmmm?

HRC supporters are the ones salivating over this much anticipated win. She won by 8.6 points. Big deal. Not exactly earth shattering or unexpected.

Nothing has really changed much here.


"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale
by april34fff on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stay tuned for the super delegates (2.00 / 1)

and she ate in to all his demographics except African Americans.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pittsburgh (2.00 / 4)

In Pittsburgh, he spent $1.9 million.  She spent $700k.  His signs & button were every where.  His ads showed up at every commercial break.

But he lost Pittsburgh.  If he's the stronger nominee, why can't he win it.


by JoeySky18 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:40 PM EST

Re: Pittsburgh (none / 0)

If she's the stronger candidate, why can't she raise $1.9 million the way Obama can?


ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pittsburgh (2.00 / 2)

Check out the front page:

On MSNBC a few minutes ago Terry McCauliffe announced the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $10 million online "with 50,000 brand new donors" since the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night. "The biggest day we've ever had."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pittsburgh (none / 0)

It would be interesting to know how much of that is reserved for the general (large parts have been so in the past when they've announced big total fund raising numbers).  Remember the push last night was for as many donors as possible to give 5$.


by moreperfectunion on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama Played to Win, and Lost" (none / 0)

If Hillary can win both NC and IN by 10, she's back in this thing.


by BlueGAinDC on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST

So... (2.00 / 1)

If Clinton is such a hot candidate, why can't she "close the deal"? She had her chance in Iowa. She had it in South Carolina. Both states were states, by the way, where she began with a lead and then lost it. She had her chance in, oh, let's see, off the top of my head, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Minnesota, Idaho, Wyoming, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Washington State, Washington, D.C., Missouri... (I didn't list Illinois because that's his home state, and thus "doesn't count", and I didn't list Hawaii, since he was born there, and also "doesn't count".) I know I've forgotten some. Seems kind of funny that I've forgotten almost as many states Obama has won as Clinton has won altogether.
Yes, I know, South Carolina doesn't count because it has "too many" black people. The same, of course, holds for Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisisana. Those damned black people, it's like they don't care that Bill Clinton was the first "Black President". Ingrates.
Washington and Oregon don't count because too many people there drink white wine and eat French cheese. Everybody knows Oregon, especially, is effete.
Minnesota doesn't count because...well, for all I know, because it went for Walter Mondale in 1984, so that proves they're elitist.
Why doesn't Missouri count? I don't know, but it sure as hell doesn't.
Maryland doesn't count twice as much as many other states: they have "too many" black people, and they're elitist: did you know that Montgomery County, Maryland has the highest per capita French cheese and white wine consumption in the western world? Only small enclaves in Mozambique have higher!
Wyoming, Iowa, and a few other states--I forget which, but don't think that lets them off the hook--don't count because caucuses are bad, and against the rules, even though they're not against the rules, and are undemocratic, and an Obama voter once said something mean and dismissive to a Clinton voter.
Wisconsin doesn't count since it's next to Minnesota.
Delaware doesn't count since it's small, it has a longer border with effete Maryland than with Pennsylvania & New Jersey put together, and it's full--I mean FULL--of DuPonts, with their fox hunts and estates and morning frocks and such. Also, the only television station in Wilmington, Delaware is a public television station! The horror!
Really, you people look ridiculous. Why don't you deal with the world as it is, instead of as you'd like it to be? Is it that hard?
I know you have every right to fight on, and I don't begrudge you that, but, seriously, the rest of us have been looking upon you and your candidate with pity for a month now. It's never good when you have to go out and count on a big pity vote to win a primary.
It's time to move on.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST

Re: So... (2.00 / 1)

We don't have time for your facts Mumphrey.  She just won Pennsylvania!  Haven't you seen the news?  It's important because its a BIG state.  Like California or New York, you know, states that Barack Obama has no chance to win since he lost the primary.  

You see, the results of the Democratic primary translate directly into the general election.  Don't you remember when Walter Mondale won Pennsylvania and New York in the 1984 primaries?  That's how he managed to win them in the general election!  Make sense now?  It's this kind of rock-solid logic that helped us keep Ronald Reagan out of the White House.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

Wow, man, I can't believe I was so mixed up.
I never looked at it that way before, but now that I have, I see that Clinton's backers have it all right.
Ahh, I look back so fondly upon the Mondale administration...
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She has never had match point (none / 0)

she never had the chance to close it.  Your comment is not logical.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She has never had match point (none / 0)

Jeez, come on.
She led in Iowa for the last half of 2007. If she'd won there, and then gone on to win New Hampshire, she could have pretty much wrapped it up right there. John Kerry did that in 2004.
She led for 6 months or something and then choked.
So I think it's fair to ask: why couldn't she close the deal?
Of course, my main point was to make a joke: this state doesn't count, since it went for Obama, that state does count, since it went for Clinton. Clinton people are great at pulling reasons out of their asses to say why one state "doesn't" count after choosing Obama: Too many black people, Obama lives there, Obama was born there, Obama once spent the night there, it was a caucus, it's too small, blah blah blah...
I really want to know, and you guys just don't seem to have an answer, or at least you don't have one you want to give: If she's such a great candidate, if she's sooooo much better than Obama, if she'd wipe the floor with McCain, while Obama would lose to him, then why has she been behind ever since the voters first began to vote back in January?
Seriously. Why is that? Is it magic? Is Obama some kind of sorcerer who can make people vote for him even though he sucks? Is this all just a big dream and I'm going to wake up and find out Clinton really is the nominee?
I think it's maybe that Clinton is a far worse candidate, and has run a far worse campaign--I mean execrably awful--than Obama.
I just can't see what you Clinton people are so jazzed about. I've tried and I really can't.
All I see is a sad, ever more desperate and delusional person whose whole public career, it seems, has been building inexorably in her mind toward the presidency. And now that she's losing, she's flailing and thrashing about, reaching for any little excuse to hang on, even though it's all but over.
She feels no compunction about tarring and smearing another Democrat, in the feeble hope that if she can beat him down badly enough, she can get party bigshots to overturn the will of the people and make her the nominee even though she will have lost electorally.
That's not something I want to see in either a president or a Democratic nominee for president. She can't fade away soon enough for me.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She has never had match point (none / 0)

If Obama is so good, why can't he beat her?
As for Clinton's campaign, well, all primaries are ugly- Kerry's people ran an ad against Howard Dean in 2004 that morphed his face into Osama Bin Laden's.
She certainly hasn't brought up anything he isn't going to be dealing with against the Republicans, if he wins the nomination, and if anything running against her and debating with her have made him a stronger candidate.
He's allowed his surrogates to make the nasty attacks while he stays above the fray, but that doesn't mean he hasn't run a negative campaign.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She has never had match point (none / 0)

He can beat her, and he has beaten her many times so far--more often than she has beaten him.
The reason he hasn't put her campaign out of our misery is that she came into this campaign with an overwhelming advantage:
She is married to the last Democratic president. There are a whole lot of people in the Democratic Party who owe a lot to the Clintons, and they have been invaluable to her campaign--raising money, getting others officeholders and functionaries lower on the pole to help her as well.
She came into this campaign almost as an kind of incumbent, with high name recognition, and she has run her campaign almost as an incumbent might have in many ways. It's why she was caught so flat-footed when she didn't just run away with it from the beginning. She never thought there would be much of a cam