Pennsylvania: Clinton Is Alive and Kicking - And Threatening To Tear the Party Apart?
| Tue Apr. 22, 2008 9:42 PM PDT
The Democratic contest has been a 50-50 proposition for months now--more precisely, a 51-49 percent endeavor or maybe a 52-48-percent face-off in Barack Obama's favor, according to the pledged delegate count and the popular vote. Hillary Clinton's 9-point win in the Keystone State (which apparently did not net her a significant pickup in pledged delegates) does not change this. In fact, her Pennsylvania triumph does not change the fundamentals of the race. Obama is still on track to end the primaries with a slight edge in pledged delegates. And Clinton is still in the race, clinging tightly to her candidacy and reiterating rationales to stay in the hunt: I have more experience; I'm better prepared to be commander-in-chief; I've withstood the worst of the GOP attack machine; I've won the big states.
Bottom line: It's not over, and the contest is not likely to end anytime soon. At HRC HQ in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign manager, ebulliently declared, "She is taking this all the way to Denver." But many Democratic superdelegates and insiders are hardly enthusiastic about a bitterly fought campaign that trudges through the next nine primaries (which conclude in early June) and then continues, as a media-driven contest of Democrat-on-Democrat sniping, for three months until the convention in Denver at the end of August. The question is, will these Democrats be able to do anything about it?
If Clinton is committed to going the distance, she cannot be stopped. No one--not even those mighty superdelegates--can literally force her out. She cannot win the final primaries by margins large enough to erase Obama's lead in voter-determined delegates. Everyone knows that. But she can keep on challenging Obama, doing well enough--winning some contests or placing a strong second--to justify, at least to herself and her supporters, her continued presence in the race. During that time, she can hope something happens that does alter the landscape (look, evidence that Obama is indeed a secret Muslim!), and she can also lay the groundwork for a post-primaries effort to persuade superdelegates to overturn Obama's narrow victory among pledged delegates. Yet that project can only succeed with successful assaults on Obama. Her path to the nomination depends on one fuel: fierce attacks. She can win the nomination only by tearing down Obama after the voting is done and by threatening party unity.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Clinton is obviously fine with that--at this stage. But how far is she willing to go? Her shots at Obama may have helped her win in Pennsylvania. But they were not cost-free. According to the exit polls, 42 percent of the Pennsylvania Democratic voters consider Clinton untrustworthy. (Thirty percent said the same about Obama.) Sixty-seven percent said they believed she had attacked Obama unfairly. Only 49 percent said Obama had thrown low-blows. And Clinton did not redefine her standing among Democrats. Two-thirds of Pennsylvania's Democratic voters said Clinton was "in touch with people" like them. Yet two-thirds had the same assessment of Obama. Despite all the fuss about Obama's "bitter" remark, Clinton had no edge in the candidate-of-the-people category. And 51 percent of the voters said the candidate quality they consider most important was the ability to implement change. Among these voters, Obama attracted 70 percent.
With her Pennsylvania win, Clinton can raise funds--her campaign claimed millions of dollars poured in on Tuesday night--and she can proceed to Indiana and North Carolina (which hold primaries on May 6), staying alive because she insists she is alive. Remember the Monty Python "dead parrot" bit? As long as Clinton refuses to concede she cannot win, she remains a contender--or at least a force Obama and the Democratic Party must contend with. After all, the party has no official coroner who can pronounce her gone. And--no small matter--Democratic voters do keep turning out for her. In her victory speech in Philadelphia, she depicted herself as a politician who fights damn hard on the campaign trail for you and who will fight damn hard in the White House for you. Clearly, she was trying to turn what some superdelegates might perceive as an irritant or problem--her stubborn determination--into a reason why superdelegates ought to dump Obama for her.
During the Monica Lewinsky scandal--when many pundits and Clinton foes predicted Bill Clinton's demise--the Clintons learned a valuable lesson: sometimes you just have to put one foot in front of the other and keep moving ahead, paying no heed to those who say you have no choice but to quit. They had their party--most of it--behind them during those days. And now Hillary Clinton, with significant voter support, is plodding ahead, stuck with a strategy that at this point leaves her only the nuclear option of nullifying Obama's primary and caucus victories. But, she can reason, if I am not dead, then I'm still alive--and still have a chance. Politically speaking, she is somewhere between dead and alive. The undead? The next primaries may nudge her closer to one of those poles. And, once again, they may not be decisive. But as of now, amid the glow of her Pennsylvania victory, it's up to Hillary Clinton to decide at what point might rest the bitter end.
(Photo of Senator Clinton by flickr user alexanderwrege used under a Creative Commons license.)
Comments
This is a copy of a comment I posted on the Maddow blogsite 4/21/08 about Hillary.
"Thoughts of a Forever Feminist on our 'Warrior' Female Candidate"
by libbyliberal
We live in a patriarchal world. A world in which masculine principles prevail. Separation, competition, domination, power? power? power.
We live in a world that is a mess. The rape of the environment, the madness of war, the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the population.
We live in a world starved for the "feminine" principles. Some sacred, nurturing, healing, classically "feminine" attributes. Inclusion, harmony, altruism, empathy, communication.
I listen to my progressive sisters expound on the importance of having a woman president and I look at Hillary, especially at this point in her "kitchen sink" campaigning. The early pluckiness now turned "down and dirty DEADLY", unrebuked by the patriarchal mainstream press. Their about face on Obama, for today anyway, in viewing him as less than leader-like-aggressive compared to Senator Clinton. (Not to mention their kneel-down worship of John McCain, who stretches patriarchal aggressiveness to the edge of the dial). But, keeping the focus on our Hillary's M.O. just now ... I despair.
As a woman, it would be truly exciting to have a woman president. But only if she is a symbol of true womanhood. Not a woman in DNA mainly, who, even while sporting a pretty, pastel yellow jacket, has overcompensated for and sold out the "feminine" principles within herself as a ticket to the office of president. To the boys' club of leadership.
Maybe some of my fellow feminists consider her campaign choices "ends justifies the means" pragmatic. She has to fight like a man to get the job to rule like a wise, enlightened woman. But true character is not picked up and put down when convenient. It is sustained during adversity, not postponed.
My first choice of a candidate was John Edwards. He revealed a deep level of empathy for the struggles of the American citizenry. He saw the ever eroding avarice of amoral corporations. The mind-numbing destructiveness of an illegal war. The corporate media's focus on gamesmanship rather than the profound issues in dire need of attention.
John Edwards represented the "feminine" principles to me. I saw a leader strong enough to recognize the need for yin in this yang-addicted world. If attributing a "feminine" consciousness to Mr. Edwards confuses or inspires contempt in hyper "non-girlie" men, let's call his an "altruistic" sensibility.
And the pundits of mainstream media analyze any Obama slippage in momentum and declare that it is one more opportunity for Obama to prove himself by taking off the gloves. To not only show he can take a punch, but do some punching himself.
Hold back, Barack!
Gandhi said it is not enough to make change. One must BE the change.
This world, this country is in desperate need of a paradigm shift to the "feminine" principles. It is long past time. It is ironic that the biological female candidate for the U.S. presidency may not be woman enough for the job.
This is a copy of a comment I posted on the Maddow blogsite 4/21/08 about Hillary.
"Thoughts of a Forever Feminist on our 'Warrior' Female Candidate"
by libbyliberal
We live in a patriarchal world. A world in which masculine principles prevail. Separation, competition, domination, power? power? power.
We live in a world that is a mess. The rape of the environment, the madness of war, the impoverishment and disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the population.
We live in a world starved for the "feminine" principles. Some sacred, nurturing, healing, classically "feminine" attributes. Inclusion, harmony, altruism, empathy, communication.
I listen to my progressive sisters expound on the importance of having a woman president and I look at Hillary, especially at this point in her "kitchen sink" campaigning. The early pluckiness now turned "down and dirty DEADLY", unrebuked by the patriarchal mainstream press. Their about face on Obama, for today anyway, in viewing him as less than leader-like-aggressive compared to Senator Clinton. (Not to mention their kneel-down worship of John McCain, who stretches patriarchal aggressiveness to the edge of the dial). But, keeping the focus on our Hillary's M.O. just now ... I despair.
As a woman, it would be truly exciting to have a woman president. But only if she is a symbol of true womanhood. Not a woman in DNA mainly, who, even while sporting a pretty, pastel yellow jacket, has overcompensated for and sold out the "feminine" principles within herself as a ticket to the office of president. To the boys' club of leadership.
Maybe some of my fellow feminists consider her campaign choices "ends justifies the means" pragmatic. She has to fight like a man to get the job to rule like a wise, enlightened woman. But true character is not picked up and put down when convenient. It is sustained during adversity, not postponed.
My first choice of a candidate was John Edwards. He revealed a deep level of empathy for the struggles of the American citizenry. He saw the ever eroding avarice of amoral corporations. The mind-numbing destructiveness of an illegal war. The corporate media's focus on gamesmanship rather than the profound issues in dire need of attention.
John Edwards represented the "feminine" principles to me. I saw a leader strong enough to recognize the need for yin in this yang-addicted world. If attributing a "feminine" consciousness to Mr. Edwards confuses or inspires contempt in hyper "non-girlie" men, let's call his an "altruistic" sensibility.
And the pundits of mainstream media analyze any Obama slippage in momentum and declare that it is one more opportunity for Obama to prove himself by taking off the gloves. To not only show he can take a punch, but do some punching himself.
Hold back, Barack!
Gandhi said it is not enough to make change. One must BE the change.
This world, this country is in desperate need of a paradigm shift to the "feminine" principles. It is long past time. It is ironic that the biological female candidate for the U.S. presidency may not be woman enough for the job.
Bill Clinton put it well a few years ago:
"Clinton's Laws of Politics"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB_M&eurl=
One has to ask oneself:
If not for the Republican voters registering in the Democratic Party to vote in, or simply showing up during the Democratic Party primary in their state to vote, caucus, or vote and caucus for Obama strictly to prevent Clinton from winning the Democratic Party nomination, how many delegates would Obama actually have?
Additionally, one has to ask oneself:
If the Democratic Party nomination process awarded delgates in a way that resembled the national election, who would be in Obama's corner now, despite the huge number of Republicans that voted for him in Democratic primaries (who will instead vote for Mc Cain in the general election), arguing that Obama has more ability to win actual general election electoral college votes?
Lastly, I ask:
How long will it take for Clinton to ask the general public and the Democratic Party super delegates these questions, and will they take the Republican stance when these questions are asked?
Thanks.
I will tell you what is threatening the party: indiscriminate voters.
I am livid at self-identified "black" voters who are voting on the perception of race alone. 92%, 92% of black voters voted for Obama! That is statistically significant and goes to show that at least a third of "black" voters are not making decisions based on issues (Clinton and Obama are similar enough to warrant about 60/40 splits). Following black voters is a finding that white women are voting 66% for Clinton. This is not nearly as high and indiscriminate, but it is of concern still! In fact, the most "fair" groups now voting are perhaps white males and Jewish voters which have swung both ways across many states. Mind you, I understand the plight of both women and minorities: forced to see yourselves through the lens of a majority, you begin to accept the label placed upon you and now find no place out but through that lens. However, has anyone thought of the long-term implications of a failed minority presidency using the same mindset? It would be devastating to "race" relations and/or sexual discrimination in the workforce. This is where my concern shoots up. I don't believe in the modern concept of race, but I know that as long as enough Americans believe it exists, then it becomes real. So in their minds, what happens if Mr. Obama who is we behind the ears fails? I doubt many people would ever vote for an "black" presidential candidate ever again. To make things more interesting, Mr. Obama may look "black" but his heritage is not all black. I've been tempted to compare my face to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to determine who I look like most so I can make my choice for president, but I'm registered as Republican - too much of a segue here. So my message to voters is this: stop, read, educate yourselves. Project Vote Smart. Look at Clinton/Obama's voting records while in Congress. Are they different? No! Their plans are barely except on healthcare, relationship with the Muslim world and rogue regimes, and a handful, only a handful of others. So, before you go playing the race or race/sex card at the voting booth, ask yourself who has the most political courage, is more likely to follow through with what he or she says, and has been consistent on voting record to promises now made. We don't need a "token" of any sort in the White House. We need a guarantee of honest, not two-faced hope, of American patriotism not anti-American sentiment or overly zealous behavior. We need to be careful because the next president is going to face several challenges which may create a backlash that won't be written off the history books for over a hundred years. I support Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama, but given better choices than Clinton, Obama, or McCain, I would vote for Kucinich, Nader, or Powell anyway - people who recognize when they are wrong and don't just lip service but actually act on new information.
Rex you beat me to it.
I'm curious why I keep seeing this allegation when we all know that the right-wing pundits have been telling their listeners to go vote for Hillary. And why is it that I see far more Clinton "supporters" stating that they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination than I see Obama supporters saying that *they* will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination?
I don't care for this comparison because it conjures Clinton as stolid, undeadness as a strategy by which to persevere. That is too positive a spin, I think. One foot after the other, in this case, seems bit like stalking. There seems something abusive about it. Persistence morphs into insistence. Persuasion loses touch with principle; it becomes obsessive, abusive.
In this sense, Hillary seems the perfect spawn of the last two administrations. No, thanks! I'll take my chances with the constitutional scholar.
Republicans are crossing over to vote for Obama... BECAUSE THEY LIKE OBAMA. But they are crossing over to vote for Hillary BECAUSE THEY HATE HILLARY -- that is, they believe McCain (a problematic candidate in many ways) would have a better chance against her than against Obama. This is the meaning of Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos."
The Clintons are playing to these voters because they don't care WHY they would be supporting Hillary, just that they are, making her look less bad against Obama. This is one reason why her campaign looks so much like a Republican campaign.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Apr. 23, 2008 4:59 AM PDT.
By any reasonable account, Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination. She picked up a mere 13 delegates last night. She is expected (and, I believe will) lose handily in NC. Obama is expected to win or tie Indiana.
The issue that Hillary's campaign is raising is that somehow, despite her high negatives, despite the fact that the GOP prefers her to run against over Obama, despite all the baggage and dirty Clinton laundry that will resurface and take over the election campaign, she is somehow more "electable" than Obama. That is pure nonsense.
It's not only nonsense, it's a non-issue. It's not up to the Clintons to tell the Democratic electorate who is electable or not. She's a candidate, not an authority. The authority to chose the winner lies with the voters, who so far have given Obama more votes. If she's so "electable", why is she going to lose the nomination contest?
If the race continues to the projected conclusion, Obama will lead the popular vote and delegate count when the smoke clears. The mere suggestion by Hillary that the superdelegates should overturn the will of the electorate should be a red flag. It tells us that she will do anything to win, including destroying the Democratic party and subjecting this nation to 4 more years of Bush policies.
Is that what you want? I don't.
Time to quit, Hill.
-Wexler
If you look at what reporters were saying on the day of the PA primary before the polls closed, there was uncertainty of whether Clinton would win at all. She ended up winning by 10 points despite an enormous barrage of tv advertising by Obama. Yet few of you comment on the fact that HE didn't deliver.
In the fall, he would not be facing a financially inferior candidate. And -- as is evidenced by the 2004 victory of Bush, the Republicans have advisors every bit as good at marketing as Obama's Axelrod.
I think the showing by Obama was poor indeed and the showing of Clinton surprisingly good. That will create waves and I don't think that it's sound journalism to pretend that nothing has happened.
William, please...Even Obama said, if he was in Hillary's shoes there's no way he would drop out...Let's play this thing out...I don't think Hillary can run the table, but stranger things have happened...If Hillary makes a great showing in these final primary states, and if you were a superdelagate, wouldn't you give her a second thought??...After all, that's what superdelagates are there for...Personally I think either candidate will bury McCain...I'm a Hillary supporter and there's no doubt I'll be voting for Obama in the fall if he wins...And when the dust settles, which ever candidate runs against McCain will have a total Democrat support...
Curious,
How do you explain the fact that you don't even understand your own parties dirty trick that you seem to be so proud of. Obama polls better against McCain and the neo-cons like Limbaugh have called for all the biggots and tax evaders to go and vote for Hillary. Maybe you should stick to neo-nonsense blogs.
CNN and other news sources continue to report that Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania's primary by 10 percentage points of "about 10 percentage points." The State of Pennsylvania election returns webpage says that with 9,179 out of 9,263 districts (99.09%) reporting statewide, the percentages are 54.3% for Sen. Clinton and 45.7% for Sen. Obama. Is my math wrong, or is that an 8.6% margin of victory?
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Wed Apr. 23, 2008 7:03 AM PDT.
The fact that Obama leads in delegates is the product of manipulation of the voters by the media, Mother Jones, is a good example of that manipulation and how they always paint a negative spin on Hillary; ACORN, widely noted for voter fraud, has been registering black voters and dragging them to the voting booth in huge numbers; and just where is all the money coming from into Obama's campaign where the average donation is supposedly around $96.00 from a huge base that does not have the 'change' in their pocket for much more than the next Big Mac? I personally know people who perceived they were bullied by Obama supporters, in the caucus they attended which may account for why he racks up more delegates in a caucus setting than in the popular vote, and I have heard his campaign being described as being run by a bunch of thugs. No surprise he would have those kinds of connections coming out of the Chicago election environment. But, in spite of spending about three time as much as Hillary's campaign did in PA, he still lost and lost soundly. If he is the party's nominee, he will get trounced in a general election.
The latest spin from the Left: Hillary is destroying the party! Excuse me? Mother Jones, AlterNet, and Nation have declared open season on Hillary, Bill, the Clinton legacy, and anyone who shows them the slightest support since January 1st, but Hillary is destroying the party. Say what you like about the Clintons, they've never backed down from a political battle to date. To paraphrase Charlton Heston, "Obama can have the nomination when he pries it from Hillary's cold dead hands."
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Apr. 23, 2008 7:46 AM PDT.
BillMar...
It's the New Math. If Hillary can rewrite the rules of the Democratic party, why can't she change the laws of the universe?
-Wexler
Jim,
"they've never backed down from a political battle to date."
What do you call allowing Mr. Star to use a hundred million dollars of tax payer money to impeach a President with a 70% approval rating? What do you call allowing the supreme court to stop the count in Florida while still the sitting President? Seems like they are battling for the other team.
Lieberman!!!!
Convert each states Democratic Primary into an all or nothing electoral vote, just as the general election will, and you shall find that thus far Obama is trailing Clinton:
Clinton 246 Obama 165
Yet, according to CBS, Obama leads Clinton in Democratic Party delegates:
Obama 1710 Clinton 1584
If anything, this is a compelling criticism of the Democratic Party's Primary system, and an excellent explanation for why that party produces so many losing candidates for president.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Apr. 23, 2008 8:12 AM PDT.
Curious...
In other words, if you could rewrite the rules of the Democratic party, you'd rewrite them so Clinton would win.
Why is she losing the popular vote?
By more than half a million?
Why is she in financial trouble?
Why has Obama set an all time record for number of donors to a political campaign?
If she's so electable, why is she losing?
-Wexler
In the general we will be facing a Republican who had to marry himself to Bush's insane failed policies to get his parties nomination. Remember way back in '06 when the republicans gained zero democratically held seats and we took half of the available Republican seats. Better get your hackers ready to steal some votes.
Florida and Ohio. 25 and 20 electoral votes that will count during the general election, but are irrelevant in the Democratic Party primary system in 2008.
That would be another 45 all or nothing electoral college votes in the general election.
Count those states using an all or nothing system, such as the general election will, and perhaps the numbers look more like this:
Clinton 291 Obama 165
Lastly, I offered a truthful criticism of the Democratic Party primary system.
It stands as truth.
If you disagree, then try disputing that criticism with facts.
DavidD, come to Philadelphia. You've talked to two people, and now you feel justified in saying "I see far more Clinton 'supporters' stating that they will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination than I see Obama supporters saying that *they* will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination?" Most of the people I've spoken to who are Obama supporters are terribly anti-Clinton. They almost seem to forget that they're in the same party and have near identical politics. I (gasp) am a Hillary supporter and from PA and was more than ready to get behind Obama, had he defeated Clinton. But she won folks! Let the people speak. This race is close. You wouldn't tell the Lakers to "concede defeat" after they win game three. Or would you? Or have Americans become so boring and superficial that we would rather the whole thing just be over and decided for us by one or the other quitting? Can we all remember the fury on which this country was founded?
I did no event read the article but just the title and man, you go and get a live!!!!!!!!! Why do you think the party rules stablish primaries in ALL the States!!!!!!! So that they have the opportunity to choose. Let the people from every State VOTE!!!!! And hope that Obama has a better answeer for his flawn comments and associations because they DO MATTER for the election!!!!!!!
In Texas, Clinton won by 100,000 votes. She received 100,000 votes from Rush Limbaugh Republicans who were publically encouraged to vote for her to create chaos in democratic primary.
The same republicans gave Clinton 78% of their vote in Mississippi.
Fox news and all Clinton former enemies who used to call her a murderer 12 years ago are now endorsing her.
I think it is clear that republicans are supporting Clinton because they think she is easier to beat.
Curious1
The Fact is that a primary is not a general election. It is also a fact that the general election is a less representative one then the Democratic primary. It frankly makes me sick when Clinton supporters discount the voters of small states. Do their voices count? Should it matter at all in our system what the overall popular vote is? If the answer to these questions is No then your analysis is correct. If as a democratic party we belive that our govenment should be a representative one, then the answers should be yes. The democrats primary system currently reflects these values.
I also take significant issue with your sugesstion that republican voters have been crossing over to vote for Obama because they feel he is a weaker candidate and will vote for Mcain in the general. I belive this statementto be compleatly unsupported by emperical evidence, and frankly calls into question your overall veracity and motivation.
Lastly, the reason democrats have been loosing has little to do with our primary system, and much more to do with how we have been communicating our positions, and conducting our politics. I dont think you can question the Fact that Obama has a differnt approch to communication and politics then we have seen in quite some time. I also do not think that you can dispute the fact that Hillary's campain has sounded and acted a lot like a republican one. Will she try to out republican the repulicans in the general? Do you honestly belive that is a good strategy? We have been loosing elections because of this falicy.
Obama offers a new direction away from this type of politics and a majority of voters have recognized this. Why havent you?
Ashley,
"Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: If their favored candidate is not the Democratic nominee, a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November, while only 10 percent of Barack Obama's supporters would do the same." This quote taken from an article by Alex Koppelman. Last time I heard about this the it had increased from 25% to over 30%. I could not find that poll however.
I wish you were right on this one. Also, Hillary and Obama are not the same on one very important aspect. Hillary has a history of making things very easy for these neo-cons by trying to find the middle ground. Unfortunately these republicans are so far right that Hillary's middle ends up way right of where the Democratic message should be. Obama won his seat by opposing the war and by promoting a new vision of Washington politics. Granted they have voted the same on most issues but his message has been consistent and strongly opposed to any message the Neo-cons offer up. It's time we stick to a message opposing that opposes the Republicans.
Thank you.It is about time the media started talking straight. Penn. was not a turning point for Clinton. It was however a turning point for Obama. He kept her margin relatively small and she is now in debt. She is going to have to close up shop soon.
I look for evidence when I make conclusions. Obama has given me no evidence that he can do what he says he will do. Clinton has evidence in HIPPA, in CHIPS and in her bi-partisan work in the Senate (most notably on health care for veterans). Clinton also brings a set of interests and experience to the White House that befits a very different kind of president - one in which children, women, health care, education at all levels, and middle class issues are the general theme of her life. If you think that Hillay Clinton will not change the emphasis of this country for the better, you are fools.
But, of course, fools have elected our president before.
Well said dont you think?
Look at the Obama attack timline. It is fact that he and his campaign work behind the scenes. Your journalistic integrity is in question. Do the research.
Are we missing the obvious - that it IS possible that the suspicion is accurate that Hillary wants a floor fight at the convention, and would be willing to permanently destroy Obama, lose the election in November to McCain, to come back in four years???? To overturn the nomination of a decent man, the majority of the votes of the people, the rules, etc., is simply a staggering consideration for any democrat to entertain, and rather unforgivable.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Apr. 23, 2008 10:01 AM PDT.
Pat in Ca...
That's exactly right. There has been a concerted effort for GOP fringers to get Hillary nominated. For what reason? Have they suddenly developed a fondness for her personality and politics?
We understand... it's because they think they can beat her while they don't think they can beat Obama.
That ought to be a clue about the "electability" issue.
-Wexler
"Count the delegates and let us go home." John James
At last count, Obama does not have enough delegates to secure the Democratic Party nomination for president, and it is impossible for him to add enough to his present total during the Democratic Party primary process to reach that milestone.
According to the rules of the Democratic Party primary system, both Clinton or Obama failed to earn a sufficient number Democratic Party primary delegates to merit winning outright the nomination of the Democratic Party to be that party's candidate for president of the United States.
After the remaining Democratic Party primaries, a Democratic Party convention will occur.
There, both Clinton and Obama will need to make their cases to the delegates in order to persuade those delegates to leave candidates they are presently committed to so that either Clinton or Obama may become the Democratic Party nominee.
Based on the electoral college map, and Obama's strong hold on small states, and his huge popular vote tallies in those small states, and Clintons stronghold on the popular vote in the most populous and electoral-college-vote-rich-states, it is clear that between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is more likely to win a majority of the nationwide electoral votes between the two.
No matter how you slice it, Clinton's primaries results translate into far more general election electoral college votes than Obama's.
All the punditry in the world cannot change that fact!
All the Republicans that participated in the Democratic Primary process did not change that!
Obama has failed to make a persuasive argument for the convention that he is entitled to be the Democratic Party nominee based on winning a sufficient number of delegates via Democratic Party primary process, as the party rules outline
AND
via state-by-state popular votes and state-by-state primary wins that translate into a majority of the nationwide electoral college votes at stake in the general election.
Clinton at least can make a very persuasive and fact based argument that demonstrates that her state-by-state popular votes and state-by-state primary wins translate into a landslide over Obama using the standards of the general election: winner takes all electoral college votes of each state.
Don't let these facts stand in your way on your way home.
P.S. JP, I stand corrected. Thanks for the correction. Michigan, not Ohio. That is 18, and not 20 electoral college votes.
Richard and others approve of Clinton's experience, but... She voted for Bush's war in Iraq, voted to keep using cluster bombs in civilian areas (estimated to have killed and maimed upwards of a thousand Iraqis), voted for a bankruptcy bill largely authored by the credit card companies, and lays claim to her husband's legacy, a legacy which includes the egregious Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, selling presidential pardons (look up Mark Rich if you like research), and the use of Extraordinary Rendition whereby terror suspects were sent to Egypt for torture.
Hmmm, war, torture, letting corporations writing the rules that regulate them, maybe the Clintons are in the wrong party.
One thing should be abundantly clear by now is that Democrats are not coalescing around Obama. Whither Hillary stays or goes, Obama clearly has serious problems "uniting" Democrats. He is perhaps the weakest nominee since Mondale.
Perhaps John Edwards should have hung in there a little longer, he's seems like the only Candidate that might have been able to bring us together.
First off....unidiotic, you are automatically disqualified for calling Rush Limbaugh a "neo-con" and in the process simultaneously insulting Mr. Limbaugh and showing your limited command of the political landscape.
Secondly, the goal of Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is NOT to get Hillary Clinton the Dem nomination. The goal is to flush the Democratic Party out of it's media-protected PC lair and into the glaring spotlight of public scrutiny where in all probability it will melt like the witch in the Wizard of Oz (my apology to any Hillary supporters offended by the analogy.)
So far, so good.
"And--no small matter--Democratic voters do keep turning out for her". David Corn's grudging acknowledgment really sums up the PA results. Despite the fact that Senator Obama vastly outspent Senator Clinton, PA Democrats didn't want Obama at any price. Despite a media that has clamored for Senator Clinton's departure from the race virtually non-stop since the last primaries in March, PA Democrats didn't want Senator Obama. Obama supporters need to stop blaming Senator Clinton for their candidate's inability to draw key Democratic Party voting demographics...Jews, Catholics, and blue-collar whites. Senator Obama's 20 year stint in the pews of Trinity absorbing the anti-white, anti-semitic, and frankly, anti-American rants of self-described "spiritual mentor" and "moral compass" Jeremiah Wright, as well as the Senator's remarks about rural America, clearly did not go unnoticed in PA. Until he resolves questions regarding his character and core beliefs to the many Democrats, like those in PA, that have serious reservations about him, Senator Clinton isn't going anywhere.
"that it IS possible that the suspicion is accurate that Hillary wants a floor fight at the convention, and would be willing to permanently destroy Obama, lose the election in November to McCain, to come back in four years????"
She may be thinking that, but after this Hillary Clinton will be a pariah to the Democratic party. She won't get another chance in four years. Barack Obama is one of those once in a generation political figures a party can build itself around, and the Democrats desperately needed that. They had high hpes for him. If the Clintons destroy their star (which is what they're attempting to do) they will have no home left for themselves in the Democratic party.
To be honest, the 2012 strategy might be better for Obama. The Clintons have poisoned the well as far as this election goes. If Obama were to drop out he would be welcomed as a hero in four years.
Ashley -
I can't speak as to where David D got his facts and I don't doubt you have encountered supporters from both camps who vow not to support the other candidate, however, the polls as cited on CNN & MSNBC support David's assertion.
Additionally, can we all agree that using sports metaphors to rationalize the election is a futile exercise? Every sports metaphor used to support an argument can be countered by just as persuasive a counter metaphor.
For example, I would counter your "Lakers" argument by saying there is a reason QB's wear red "no contact" jerseys when scrimmaging against their teammates; it's the reason linebackers don't use the same tactics in that scrimmage as they will in a game: so that no one is irrevocably injured by their own teammate. If players did use the same tactics in a scrimmage as they do in a game, the coaches would step in and stop the scrimmage - regardless of score - to make sure that everyone on the team is ready to play in the real game - against the other team.
So while we may not be able to reach consensus on a Dem. Nominee - at this point, let us find consensus in abolishment of sports metaphors. Let us also insist each candidate run a respectable campaign focused on uplifting the American people rather than tearing down their party brethren.
Submitted by Wlliam W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Apr. 23, 2008 10:40 AM PDT.
"Based on the electoral college map, and Obama's strong hold on small states, and his huge popular vote tallies in those small states, and Clintons stronghold on the popular vote in the most populous and electoral-college-vote-rich-states, it is clear that between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is more likely to win a majority of the nationwide electoral votes between the two."
That's a fallacy.
-Wexler
Typical to accuse HRC of tearing the party apart. The Clintons have done more for the democratic party than almost anyone else. One thing that they have done is actually WIN elections. Statring with Carter we have lost 5 presidential election and only one 2 and who won those 2 THE Clintons. As to unidiotic's comments about Obama being further left than HRC, I agree he probably is. I am further left than either one of them. I support abolishing the death penalty I support gay marriage (neither Obama nor Clinton do). However in a general election being far left of center is not an advantage. The Clintons do well because they know where the middle is and just how far left you can lean without loosing those middle voters. The large percentage of HRC supporters that say they would vote Mccain over Obama can be ascribed to a several factors. First some voters wont go that far left. Second some women are voting for her because she is a woman, but whith her out of the mix they go to Mccain. Many older voters identify with the Clintons, but don't with Obama. Finally some are outright racist and wouldn't vote for a black man no matter how good he is.
