The Comeback Kid: Hillary Clinton Does a McCain

-

hillary-clinton.jpg
Everyone is trying to scramble to explain Hillary Clinton’s turnaround tonight. Negative campaigning. Aggressivness. Elbow grease. NAFTA. Rezko. Saturday Night Live. Lots of stuff.
But the bottom line is that Barack Obama’s campaign had some air let out of the balloon this week by a media that began to feel guilty for imbalanced coverage of the two. And Obama’s folks lost control of the agenda-setting function that a frontrunner usually has.
After the Wisconsin debate, I thought that Clinton had begun to acquiesce to Obama’s surge. Many on her campaign — at high levels — thought this was the case as well. And what I thought was taking place after was a “negotiation” for what the role of the Clinton franchise would be.
That is now a dead narrative. Clinton is back and wants to win. Obama still has a magic aura, but it is a bit more tarnished this week than last.
And the bottom line tonight — despite the fact that Obama won Vermont and that Texas is so close and the caucus process so mismanaged that it’s hard not to believe that a recount won’t be demanded — is that Hillary Clinton “did a McCain” tonight — and she’s back in the race. . .big time.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

100 comments on “The Comeback Kid: Hillary Clinton Does a McCain

  1. Dennis Tedder says:

    You can’t agree that Hillary wasn’t behind? Are you high? Consider the gazillions she spent “only” to beat him by really a small margin, relatively speaking. He has been beating her by large margins. She has been beating him by … appreciable margins; she ‘should’ have been hammering him by large margins in these states.
    Rich…
    Hillary was and ‘is’ behind, and will obviously lose to the guy that is smarter ‘and’ does not have to use a teleprompter to speak extemporaneously for more than 10 seconds. Ya know. Oh, speaking of ya know, anyone ever count how many times Hillary says ya know? Like, ya know…a million times.
    Hard core republican here; I just love seeing Hillary finally get smacked. It is time for this legacy to end. She is such a putz.

    Reply

  2. Will Bower says:

    Ps — That’s from The Economist of London

    Reply

  3. Will Bower says:

    Here’s an article that gave me an opportunity to take a breath and reflect on all this. It’s neither (pro/anti)-(Clinton/Obama).
    Obamaworld versus Hillaryland
    JOHN EDWARDS has been saying since 2004 that there are two Americas—the America of the rich and privileged and the America of the poor and put-upon. The results of March 4th proved that there are also two Democratic Parties.
    A famous political distinction exists between “wine-track” and “beer-track” Democrats. Wine-track Democrats have traditionally supported reform-minded liberals such as Gary Hart and Paul Tsongas. Beer-track Democrats have preferred more practical-minded pols. Walter Mondale famously hammered the nail into Gary Hart’s coffin when he stole a line from a hamburger advertisement and asked “Where’s the beef?”
    Part of Bill Clinton’s genius was to bring the wine-drinkers and beer-drinkers together. This was, after all, a man who went to Yale and Oxford but who grew up the child of a widow in the backwoods of Arkansas. Yet this year’s Democratic primaries have burst the party asunder once again.
    Obamaworld is a universe of liberal professionals and young people—plus blacks from all economic segments. Hillaryland, by contrast, is a place of working-class voters, particularly working-class women, and the old. These are people who occupy not just different economies but also different cultures. How many white Obama voters eat in Cracker Barrel or Bob Evans? And how many Clinton voters have a taste for sushi?
    These groups could hardly have a more different view of politics. Mr Obama’s supporters are, mostly, the liberal version of “values voters”. They are intensely worried about America’s past sins and its current woeful image in the world. They regard Mr Obama as a “transformational” leader—a man who can, with one sweep of his hand, wipe away the sins of the Bush years and summon up the best in their country.
    Mrs Clinton’s supporters, by contrast, are kitchen-table voters. They wear jackets emblazoned with the logos of their unions. They work with their hands or stand on their feet all day. They have seen their living standards stagnate for years, and they are worried about paying their bills rather than saving their political souls.
    This helps to explain one of the biggest puzzles in the campaign—the fact that momentum is so fleeting. During Mr Obama’s 11-state winning streak it looked as though he was eating into Mrs Clinton’s core support in the white working class. He did reasonably well with that group in the Potomac states (Maryland and Virginia) and extraordinarily well with them in Wisconsin. He also secured endorsements from important unions. But Ohio has reversed that. White working-class voters are simply not quite comfortable with what Mr Obama is selling.
    The battle for the Democratic Party is so bitter because it is a battle over culture. Mrs Clinton’s supporters look at Mr Obama’s and see latte-drinking elitists. Mr Obama’s supporters look at Mrs Clinton’s and smell all sorts of ancestral sins, not least racism. The two groups neither like nor respect each other.
    There are actually good reasons for irritation on both sides. The Obamaites are not just otherworldly. They are also weirdly cultish. All the vague talk of “hope” and “change” is grating enough. But many Obamamaniacs want something even vaguer than this—they want political redemption.
    It is certainly impressive to see 20,000 people queuing for hours to see a politician. But should they worship their man with such wide-eyed intensity? And should they shout “Yes we can” with such unbridled enthusiasm? The slogan, after all, reminds any parent of “Bob the Builder”, a cartoon for toddlers, and Mr Obama himself rejected it as naff when it was first suggested to him. His supporters are rather like high-school nerds who surround the coolest kid in the class in the hope of looking cool themselves.
    But there are also good reasons to be irritated with Mrs Clinton’s beer-track Democrats. Blue-collar workers have certainly had a hard time of it. The Cleveland rustbelt is a decaying monument to good jobs that have been shipped abroad or mechanised out of existence. But one of the tragedies of this campaign is that both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have decided to ignore Bill Clinton’s message—that the only way that America can remain competitive is to prepare people for new jobs rather than cling on to old ones—and instead engage in a silly competition to see who can bash NAFTA hardest.
    Brains, not brawn
    The final reason why the battle between the rival supporters will tear the Democratic Party apart is that the balance of power within the party is shifting. Mrs Clinton’s Democrats have dominated the party since Franklin Roosevelt’s time. They have hired a few eggheads to do the maths. But they have never let them get the upper hand. And they have repeatedly seen off challenges by “new class” Democrats. This year’s election is arguably their last stand.
    Economic change is relentlessly shrinking their base: manufacturing jobs are in decline at a time when brain-working jobs are expanding. And Mr Obama has shifted an important proportion of the old Democratic alliance—black Americans—to his column. He is also bringing large numbers of college-educated young people into the party who have little in common with old-style Democrats. One of the ironies of the current campaign is that Mrs Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, has been one of the loudest voices on the left arguing that the party’s future lies with brain rather than brawn. He must now be fervently hoping that he is wrong.
    The great challenge for the Democratic Party in November will be to put this coalition back together. But the bitter fight in the months to come will widen the already gaping divide. John McCain could not be better positioned to pick up the pieces.

    Reply

  4. Matt says:

    Ironically, what it decided I was wrong about was a comment I posted last night that was deleted in the switchover to this new design. Maybe it was too anti-Senator Clinton? I also mentioned that I thought the new design is a little bland…
    Anyway, it went something like this:
    Maybe it would be better to let the former first lady go first. It’s entirely feasible that she’ll lose the election to McCain, especially without Obama on the ticket. McCain actually wouldn’t be that horrible of a president–just a little annoying, my friends. Plus, he’ll be too old to run again in 2012, and then Obama came come in with his reputation still intact (if he’s smart and careful) and take advantage of widespread dissatisfaction with 12 years of Republican rule .

    Reply

  5. Matt says:

    Steve,
    Your new blog design just decided that my “text was wrong.” Ahh, modern life. Since when were computers given this knowledge of right and wrong?

    Reply

  6. Will Bower says:

    I am starting to see where our semantic disconnect is happening,
    Rich.
    I’ve not -once- used the word -experience-… and that seems
    increasingly to be -your-argument.
    I have been talking about such things as stature, renown, history,
    presence, etc. Hillary has been a much bigger figure for a much
    longer period of time.
    Personally, yes, I -do- consider that to be greater experience…
    but, even if I -were- to except your argument that they are equal
    players in the “experience game”, I still say that all these other
    factors make her the preferred Head of the Ticket.

    Reply

  7. rich says:

    Today Josh Marshall @ TPM makes the same point about Hillary Clinton’s ‘experience.’
    Recall that by definition, the Commander-in-Chief is a civilian with command and control over the military.
    begin TPM post:
    >>
    Warlord
    I think Hillary Clinton is definitely qualified to be commender-in-chief of the US military. . .
    But just what on earth is Hillary Clinton talking about when she says she’s crossed the “commander in chief threshold” ..?
    Hillary Clinton seems to think she’s a strong contender in this latter category. But that’s a joke. She’s starting her second term in the US senate, where, yes, she serves on the Armed Services committee. Beside that she’s never held elective office and she has little executive experience.
    … she’s pushing a metric by which she’s little distinguishable from Barack Obama. I’m honestly surprised she’s not drawing chuckles on this one. <<end quote.
    The Constitution explicitly provides that the President is open to virtually all comers. It requires good judgment–and recognizes that leadership can be drawn from all walks of life.
    Obviously we need a qualified individual–but that hardly limits us to warhawks or military men or establishment figures who use specious standards to reject the qualified citizens that the Constition explicitly recognizes as possible Presidents–no matter how grassroots-up their career path and how much an outsider their political outlook.
    That’s what this country is all about.
    Josh Marshall at TPM lays out the conventional/ recognized with which we select Presidents (relating specifically to Caommander-in-Chief)–and it differs markedly from Hillary Clinton’s militaristic and dangerous position. It’s worth checking out at:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181960.php

    Reply

  8. Will Bower says:

    By all mean, Obama People. Go ahead and campaign on the numbers-game. See how well that serves you in the weeks and months to come.

    Reply

  9. Tahoe Editor says:

    Somehow Kos & MoveOn don’t move me, and Keith has been about 100 miles to the left of my radar screen for months.
    It’s tedious asking repeatedly, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: Please tell me SPECIFICALLY how the Clintons “went hate.” Quotes would help your argument. Forget Kos & Keith — what does jim miller have to say?
    The notion that Obama has hordes of millions chanting “Yes we can” while the Clintons are out there on their own is another notch on the fairy-tale bedpost. Again, of course, that’s another imagined reality.
    A Cliffhanger for Democrats | By David S. Broder
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030502890.html

    Reply

  10. jim miller says:

    Tahoe editor….
    1. I voted for bill twice and would have been satisfied with hrc until the beginning of last week when she and her surrogates went hate…case closed…ABC lives—go to kos…
    2. The numbers–Jonathan alter has a great article posted which explains the math…please read…at the end of the primary season obama will only need 50-100 of the remaing 300 sd’s…reread my previous post for compelling reasons why obama will get at least that….
    3. examples of hate politics—go to kos/TPM or any other progressive site..heck watch keith…even your friends at fox did a piece…
    4. interesting that you attempted to blame me for clinton’s tactics…as they did with nafta and rezsko…who got more money from all the defendants—the clintons…facts..not name calling or back handed put downs just simple facts.
    5. you can call me names, be little my opinions, dismiss the facts. It doesnt matter b/c the numbers are simply the numbers. Destroy the party…your canidate wont win the general without netroots/progressives/african americans…the majority of which are ABC…keep yelling it’s very attractive.

    Reply

  11. Tahoe Editor says:

    @ Jim Miller:
    Re: “The Clintons have lost the nomination.”
    We all know that 1) Obama has 64% of the delegates needed to nominate; 2) Clinton has 60% of the delegates needed to nominate; and therefore 3) neither candidate has “lost” or “won” the nomination.
    You’re addicted to living in your imagined future. Come back to early March so we can meet in reality.
    As far as the ABC vote, we know the media, hard as it may try, is eventually powerless in shoving its candidate down the throats of the American people. You’re trapped in the Clintons-are-evil-party-destroying-politicians narrative if you can only parrot such vague aspersions you absorb from the media without referencing SPECIFIC incidents and YOUR OWN personal reaction to them.
    The ABC vote won’t succeed — It Takes An Agenda.
    http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/cover.html

    Reply

  12. Carroll says:

    Reading your own posts, Arthur, I see that you too are an Obama zealot.
    I’ll let someone a little less biased do the policing, thank you.
    Posted by Will Bower at March 6, 2008 07:00 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I will be the policewoman since I hate all politicans…and some more than others.
    As for Obama vrs Hillary…as a former fan of Hillary I am now tired of her ludicrous hypocrisy, her pandering to the Lukid Israeli zealots, her tough “manly” act on the “terrier wur”, her “oh we had nothing to do with that” dirty tricks. She’s a “politican” and I mean that in the dirtest sense of the term.
    As for Obama, who the hell knows how he might turn out. But by his number you just have to know you are seeing multitudes of Americans who fed up to hell with the DNC and the old establishment and “bizness’ as usual. Anyway I have gravitated toward Obama becuase it’s time for a throw of the dice and we have nothing left to lose in this country that the DNC and the GOP haven’t already destroyed between them with their old boy twin corruptions.
    All that said I will vote for Hillary if she is nominated, if for no other reason that putting the dems in the WH will exposed and ruin them the same way the GOP has ruined itself…probably even faster since they have a head start on ruining themselves ever since we gave them congress.

    Reply

  13. jim miller says:

    will,
    read the alter article…the numbers only work for obama…he only needs 70 supers out of the remaining 300 or so undeicded…his pledged supers are not floppy…if you want to argue to destroy the party…thats great. Obama has the delegate majority coupled with a majority of states…game over…plus all sd saw the electoral surveyusa map toda…which has done a great job with predicating elections this primary and they think wow…if he can get out and focus his connection with voters he could get to 400 in electoral college…incredible upside compared to 55% of country hating hrc….
    P.s.
    TNR is reporting michigan will caucus…
    P.S.S. jesse carried the michigan primary in 88…i wanted to beat bill to the punch.
    P.S.S.S. mich has 7 million muslims…i wanted to beat hillary to the punch

    Reply

  14. Will Bower says:

    Jim. How can you claim Obama has won this?
    When Florida and Michigan’s tallies are included, Obama and Clinton are only a few thousand votes apart. Yes, Florida and Michigan still need to be settled, but the popular vote is almost neck-and-neck.
    Hillary could still easily win the popular vote. If she does so, would you suggest that the nominations should go to the delegate winner? …and not the popular vote winner? Can you imagine the Democratic party doing that after it and the country had suffered the exact same thing in 2000?
    I’ve said this before, but…With Hillary winning Texas & Ohio, she’ll go on to win Pennsylvania.
    When she goes on to win Pennsylvania, it will be viable for Michigan and Florida to each have a new primary.
    When Michigan and Florida each have a new primary, Hillary will win both.
    Once Hillary has won Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania — and especially if she then has the popular vote behind her — then a majority of the Super Delegates will be justified in breaking for her.
    The combination of all these things would give her the nomination… and fairly.

    Reply

  15. jim miller says:

    rich,
    1. I will not attempt to reexplain the statistical analysis of the impact of hate politics…my point was based on pew’s exits and hate politcs impact on the RECENT cycle…slow down friend.
    2.Someone said electing a dem to beat mccain is all that matters…not true…the numbers of abc voters are significantly growing in the progressive and the netroot community….abc=anyone but clinton. As the recent examples of her untrue smears and politcs of hate are being illuminated the anticlinton coalition is significantly expanding….
    3.Tahoe editor—I dont expect her or her surrogates to admit it…that would be unclinton.
    4.I will concede that hrc has been in washington circles for most of her adult life…Senator obama has not…yes she does have more gravitas with lobbyist where as he does with everyday americans…the clintons were not connecting until they started hating….so if you want to call her and mccain the elder statespeople, by all means have at it….
    5. the role of the superdelegates will to be reinforce the will of the people…who won a majority of the contest?(obama) who won a majority of the pledged delegates?(obama) who won a moajority of the popular vote in certified elections(pending)SD’s will weigh these 3 factors coupled what is in the best interest of the democratic party from the top to the bottom of the ticket and join together to put that person over the top…..out of the 300 or so of the undecided supers obama only needs about 90 to seal the deal….in the real world…not the fairy tale world!
    6. Common sense: Why do the clintons and their supporters insist on destroying the party…they have lost the nomination…its decided by delegates…case closed…wouldnt it be nice to rally around a canidate that can rewrite an electoal map while raising hundreds of millions from small citizen donors rather than kowtowing to special intersts like the other 2 canidates? wouldnt it be nice to have a united democratic party that focuses on keeping the increased turnout and welcoming independents and republicans back home while uniting to rebuild our country. No one person can or should solve our problems but a united democratic party should at least try….Senator obama is not a perfect leader, he has many opportunities for improvement:connecting with the elder, consistently and enthusiastically presenting and implementing a strong jobs and economic plan to name a few. Perhaps it would be wiser for democrats to support him in these efforts as he reintroduces himself as the democratic nominee rather than clinging to false electoral hopes that will only result in bitter and chaotic democratic party.

    Reply

  16. Will Bower says:

    Arthur — Part Two
    For the sake of argument, I’ve just read some more of those posts by Rick that I had earlier chosen -not- to read…
    Sure, I could have gotten into the “Legislator is a Legislator” debate with him… or the “One-Termer vs. Part-Termer” debate…
    …but, again, I think both those points (and a few of the others as well) are weak attempts at placing Obama on the same level as Hillary when it comes to their respective places in political history and on the global stage.
    You can call it a “floor cleaning” on his part. For my own part, I call it “skimming for substance”.

    Reply

  17. Will Bower says:

    Reading your own posts, Arthur, I see that you too are an Obama zealot.
    I’ll let someone a little less biased do the policing, thank you.

    Reply

  18. arthurdecco says:

    I hope this post doesn’t end up with me looking like a cop in the middle of a domestic dispute – getting kicked in the crotch by both the husband and wife for taking sides while trying to break things up….
    Will Bower, in my opinion, rich swept the floor with you.
    Now, don’t pout or shout. Instead, why not re-read what he typed? The second time through could clear up some of the confusion.
    It often works for me.

    Reply

  19. Tahoe Editor says:

    I agree with HRC that talking about national security issues doesn’t warrant a knee-jerk “fear-mongering” label. But if you believe HRC’s “3 a.m.” ad was fear-mongering (I don’t), then you’re bound to acknowledge that BO’s identical, plagiarized “3 a.m.” ad — same images, same “dangeous world” narrative but with different talking points (the astounding “judgment” if his 6-year-old speech, a speech he betrayed with every war-funding vote) — doubled down on the fear-mongering, as he outspent her 2-to-1.
    For anyone trapped in the media narrative that the Clintons are dirty racist political kneecappers, there is another way to look through this prism. This New Republic article is worth reading word-for-word, even if it does overstate the case. But watch the Bill Moyers link and you might — just might — find some lightbulbs turn on that make you rethink why you believe the Clintons are such awful racist dirty fear-mongers.
    TNR| Race Man | How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton | by Sean Wilentz
    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
    MOYERS ON CLINTON, OBAMA, KING AND JOHNSON: A Bill Moyers Essay
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch4.html
    In 2000, Rove & Co. told the great good people of South Carolina that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child. Now W & McCain are the best of chums. When this Democratic primary is over, BO & HRC will be puffing up each other’s skirts like there’s no tomorrow.
    CLINTON-OBAMA ’08

    Reply

  20. Will Bower says:

    “Grasping at straws” wasn’t in reference to Obama being in desperate straights…
    …as I’ve said a few times now, it was in reference to you trying to frame him as the “elder statesman”.
    I’ve not once described either candidate as being superior or inferior. Rather, I’m describing the shape of the ticket as a whole.
    If I seem discourteous, it’s because I find it annoying that you’re using this blog as a ground to do your campaiging. Yes, we all have our prefered candidates… but it doesn’t seem as if you are here to have intellectual discourse, but, rather, to insult your opponents and blindly bolster your own.
    And I would add that — aside from my “grasping at straws” comment, at which you overly took offence — I feel that it is -you- who has been more negative and attacking in tone.
    Do you have any questions for me that you’d like me to answer directly? If so, I’ll do so.

    Reply

  21. rich says:

    Will.
    I responded b/c you leapt to apply pejoratives, without any basis. There’s no need to ‘grasp at straws,’ as Obama isn’t in desperate straights. Get it now?
    Not surprised that you “only read the first few lines of [my] comment,” as your prior careless reading was just an excuse to slip in another insult. As was this: “.. the rest seems to be the diatribe of an overly zealous campaigner.” That discourteousness reflects on you.
    I had a point to make, and it didn’t necessitate a diatribe. The facts speak for themselves; why would I stoop to that level? But it’s no wonder you end up with the short end of the stick in basic exchange; combining insults with refusal to read clearly or even engage at all must cost you plenty.
    Hillary Clinton is certainly older, that much is true, and has been in public life longer. That does not indicate she is the more capable candidate.
    Kindly stay civil.

    Reply

  22. karenk says:

    Doesn’t matter whether Hillary or Obama get in, the main thing is to beat McCain for the White House. How to do it? I think the best way is to make the election about one thing-the War in Iraq. Keep telling America that McCain wants to continue to waste our soldiers blood and taxpayers treasure while the Democrats want to end the craziness,fight the real war on terror, and spend our money on American’s needs. Keep saying it over and over again because the average American is sick of this war and wants out. And if Democrats want the White House they better keep telling Americans they are gonna get us out of there because that’s what will win over the swing voters.

    Reply

  23. xh says:

    People don’t seem remember things in this country. Everything else beside, there is one thing Obama can do but Clinton can’t, that is, to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House. Clintons can’t because they lost it the first time around. I can’t believe Dems could total forget the humiliation the people and this country had endured for the Monica gate. And I can’t believe the people of this country want Clintons back to the White House.

    Reply

  24. Thomas Hussein Jefferson says:

    SLIME & IDENTITY POLITICS WORK when used by the “experienced” and familiar:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-coryell/racism-and-clintons-vict_b_90219.html

    Reply

  25. Will Bower says:

    Rich.
    I only read the first few lines of your last comment, as the rest seems to be the diatribe of an overly zealous campaigner.
    I’m not here to campaign for Hillary, as it seems you are here to do for Obama.
    I’m simply stating that an Obama-Clinton seems to me to be an inverted one. That to me — and I would wager to a majority of Americans — that Hillary seems the “elder statesman” of the two, and in more ways than one.

    Reply

  26. rich says:

    Will Bower:
    “I didn’t claim that -Obama- is grasping at straws… I claimed that -you- are grasping at straws.”
    I did not ID only Obama–but included myself. What part of:
    “I take exception to your use of “grasping at straws.” Neither I nor Sen. Obama” are in such a position?? “Neither I nor.”
    Will:
    “And I could sit here and make an itemized list as to why Hillary Clinton has more gravitas . . ”
    And you would prove nothing, since it’d fall short of what we need as a country, and well short of Sen. Obama’s list.
    Virtually the entirety of Clinton’s campaign strategy, tactics and all, fail to address that supposed ‘readiness’ and ‘gravitas,’ opting instead to largely misrepresent relative experience, CLAIM but not display that status, and continually play gotcha on a tactical level.
    Even the NAFTA fraud fell flat–as TPM learned, it was a Clinton advisor who spoke with Canadian officials and told ’em to take Clinton’s ‘re-negotiate’ NAFTA rhetoric “with a grain of salt.”
    That’s not gravitas. That’s just smearing her opponent with her own weaknesses. Same as with Clinton’s gravitas and experience memes–just talk that show her to be an ’empty suit’ offering ‘nice speeches’.
    Most people know Sen. Clinton held no elected office prior to parachuting into New York–where she’d never lived.
    It’s a simple matter of common sense that Sen. Clinton accomlished little in the Senate, and displayed great naivete in getting suckered into Bush’s war. Clinton’s AUMF vote shows no fealty to her oath to uphold the Constitution–sophistry that pretends otherwise notwithstanding.
    Most “unbiased people would agree” that goes straight to Hillary Clinton’s extraordinary lack of judgment. When I can pick up a newspaper and know Bush is lying, so can she.
    That’s not gravitas. That’s open capitulation of her mandated Power to declare war–and damn close to betraying everything this country stands for. So let’s get it clear: Hillary Clinton is in no position to question the gravitas, mettle, or judgment of her opponent.
    Neither are you. She’s guilty of the NAFTA ‘gotcha’ aimed at Obama; she took Rezko campaign contributions; she has less experience as an elected official. Deal with it.

    Reply

  27. Will Bower says:

    Carroll.
    What if there is a split between who wins the most delegates and who wins the popular vote?
    Would that not free up the SuperDelegates to vote as each sees fit?

    Reply

  28. Carroll says:

    Maybe the Dems will self destruct before the election comes around.
    If the super delegates give the nomination to any one except the one that actually got the most delegates in the voting..then expect the Dem party to implode.
    Everything that is going on just shows you how f*****- up “politican” and “party” designed elections are anyway.

    Reply

  29. Will Bower says:

    Rich.
    I didn’t claim that -Obama- is grasping at straws… I claimed that -you- are grasping at straws.
    And I could sit here and make an itemized list as to why Hillary Clinton has more gravitas than Barack Obama…
    …but I think that that’s a simple matter of common sense.
    And I think most unbiased people would agree.

    Reply

  30. rich says:

    jim miller,
    What ’emotional investment’? Get serious.
    “mr gilbert is neither a political scientist nor a sociologist.”
    I’m guessing he’s a reporter. for a newspaper. That he’s not a political ‘scientist’ is off-point.
    ” . . in your first post you claim the polling shows my point is false…wrong again…there is no statistical correlation between population segregation and final result….my point is understanding the relationship of hate politics and racial assimilation…and then finally their statistical performance.”
    Your point isn’t clear and you seem to be undermining your own position. Overwhelmingly white states voted for Sen. Obama. Hate politics is a concern–but that’s discredited by vote results in ‘white’ states and key battleground red-swing states.
    Other than that, please try to clarify. My point was that Sen. Obama won in states that contradict your claims about race and about Wisconsin; and on two counts: Obama won Missouri-Virginia and Iowa-Wisconsin. You raise correlation, but it’s causation at issue. Don’t mistake ethnic composition for malign hate politics; using segregation as a proxy obviously doesn’t work–as the poll results indicate. What you’re saying and why just isnt’ clear.

    Reply

  31. leo says:

    Win-Dirty Clinton is simply in the dying days of a pathetically failed campaign, she started out with 50% of the country feeling negative about her and she’s now dependent upon this desperate “kitchen sink” strategy of producing daily cheap and empty attacks on Obama. She’s lost to McCain for weeks in national polls and Obama’s beaten McCain for weeks.

    Reply

  32. george washington says:

    thomas frank…well said!!!!

    Reply

  33. Thomas Frank says:

    Steve,
    There is one metric that escapes discussion and that is the impact recent campaign tactics will have on maintaining and fostering “Newbie Democrat Supporters” who have come out in record numbers for the Democrats in this primary season.
    As one of the many millions who have invested themselves in turning America around after 911 and seven horrendous years under bush, I am excited at the prospect of resetting the course of our Federal Government. During such low times, I realized that I have tremendous hope and aspirations for America in the world today. Not being a seasoned politico whose aspirations go beyond the party politics of the republicans and democrats.
    The Democratic Party ought not take lightly the number of new voters that participated in the primary this season. As quickly as they came, they could disappear. If I am any measure, the Democratic Party is in serious crisis.
    Until recently, I would have easily accepted either Obama or Hillary as the nominee, but that has now changed. My NEWBIE SENSITIVITIES cringe at the brutal political tactics employed by the Clinton Campaign these past weeks. I realize the final analysis of Tuesdays results by seasoned politicos is that Obama did not respond well enough and that he needs to learn to fight better. All of which I agree, but as a voter I have a serious problem supporting a party which does not denounce or reject, but accepts the tactics of the Clinton campaign these past weeks. She has
    1) come out in praise of McCain over Obama on National Security
    2) employed Foreign Power in negative campaign strategy against Democratic opponent
    3) and then broadcasted fake Breaking News on its fall out
    4) fanned the flames of religious intolerance with the release of the turban photos and response to question of opponents religious faith
    5) Fear-mongering with 3 am ad
    6) not to mention the racist overtones of the previous weeks and much much more.
    This is not the America I want to participate in.
    AT THIS MOMENT, I can not see supporting the Democrats with Hillary on the ticket.

    Reply

  34. jim miller says:

    Rich,
    I will gladly concede the point based on your emotional investment but not understanding how the hate politics affected ohio is a serious mistake that obama adviserd and supporters alike need not make or it will repeat….I have a milwaukee journal subscription, mr gilbert is neither a political scientist nor a sociologist. in your first post you claim the polling shows my point is false…wrong again…there is no statistical correlation between population segregation and final result…look at the ethic numbers, now return to the 10 day cycle b4 ohio and texas and view the bile the clinton’s dumped in the water…now look at the ohio numbers…the ethnic blocks…my point is understanding the relationship of hate politics and racial assimilation…and then finally their statistical performance…as a milwaukee resident…racial segregation certainly would be short sighted if only viewed thru black/white glasses.
    Mr. Will,
    You make a valid point, though the difference is minimal…if anything the open primary in wisconsin is more analogous to the overrall general election…alas the national swing voter/reagan democrat/obamacan if you will will be able to vote for either canidate without ballot reference….some statistical purists would argue that wisconsin is a better bellweather than ohio…..

    Reply

  35. rich says:

    Will Bower,
    I did not say Sen. Obama is a “senior statesman.” I said he had more experience, on the literal, objective level, than Sen. Clinton.
    I take exception to your use of “grasping at straws.” Neither I nor Sen. Obama are in desperate straights, and your willingness to stoop to sophistry highlights the weakness of your original mischaracterization.
    Note that you’re continuing to move the goalposts in redefining ‘senior statesman’ as ‘Elder Statesman,’ compounding the error intrinisic to the ‘experience’ gambit that you repeated in moving on to ‘senior statesman.’
    As it happens, Sen. Clinton is the JUNIOR Senator from New York. She’s only completed one term in that office. That is her ONLY experience as an elected official.
    Not only does she fall far short as a ‘senior statesman,’ her experience is nil by conventional standards.
    You can argue–with some validity–that First Lady is both a figurehead position and one that contains some statesman-like properties, but adhering to reality requires recognition that it only bears some resemblance to the office of a statesman, contains no official responsibilities of state, and is accountable to no one.
    There is no Constitutional requirement that candidates have ANY experience to be President. Her ‘point’ carries no weight whatsoever. Further, the conventional resumes we’ve been using to measure qualifications have failed us, and badly. That has to change, or the whole point of America is dead in the water.
    Her status derives from the political blocs (Steve’s point) she’s assembled, and the interests they represent (rightly or wrongly).
    If her policies have so much to be recommend them, why isn’t she campaigning on those merits?
    Instead of breaking every rule in sight to seat illegitimate delegates from Michigan and Florida? Or Reassuring the Canadians about NAFTA–and then putting her actions off on Obama? (See TPM.)

    Reply

  36. Will Bower says:

    Jim. Wisconsin’s primary was open in a way that Ohio’s was not. In Ohio, you are forced to choose a Democratic ballot or a Republican one. In Wisconsin, you can pick and choose from each one one single ballot.
    Rich. I still say that you’re grasping at straws in your attempt to paint Obama as the senior statesman. I would wager a whole paycheck that — were you to conduct a national poll which asked the question “Which candidate do you consider to be the “Elder Statesman” — Hillary would win by almost 2 to 1.

    Reply

  37. rich says:

    Will Bower @ 10:54 PM–
    “I think you’re grasping a wee bit to make arguments for Obama’s “seniority”.”
    Hillary Clinton has been a known player on the global stage for years now.”
    I disagree. Based on the facts, you are plainly incorrect.
    There’s a big difference between being a ‘personality’ on the national stage and the experience that comes from holding elected office.
    Clinton’s makes her argument about experience. By her own measure, she’s a one-term Senator, with no previous experience when she ran for THAT position. By her own metric, she’s less experienced, eight years to Sen. Obama’s eleven.
    Sure, she’s involved politically. Sure, she’s got policy. But as a leader, where’s the beef? What specifically are her accomlishments?
    When she says “I’ve been there”–she hasn’t. She had no security clearance. First Lady is a figurehead position. Watching is not the same as Doing, and most people fail to make that critical transition. She did not hold elected office until parachuting into New York.
    Further, her record of accomplishment in the Senate is miniscule. She betrayed very poor judgment on pivotal issues–and failed to stand up to Bush and uphold the Constitution.
    The experience issue is key. And I don’t believe a rational or realistic argument can be made that Hillary has much experience. Personality does not translate to office-holding experience. Neither influence nor smarts can equate to, or pass as, on-the-job experience as an elected official. It’s resume padding. Sen. Obama exceeds her experience in that and other respects–by any objective measure.
    Sorry, Will Bower–you’ll have to at least TRY to come up with an opposing argument.
    es not equate to And that very

    Reply

  38. rich says:

    Great article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel addresses this very subject.
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=725093
    Wisconsin, Ohio muddy waters
    Midwestern swing states send inconsistent signals on senators’ electability
    By CRAIG GILBERT March 5, 2008
    Read the whole thing. One piece:
    >>
    “Ultimately, I think the argument comes down to the suburban independent versus the blue-collar voter,” Maslin said. “Is it more likely if we don’t nominate Barack we lose suburban independents that he might have won? Or if we don’t nominate Hillary, do we lose working-class Reagan Democrats to McCain?”
    If primaries do offer clues about the fall, then Clinton’s performance in Wisconsin raises flags about her appeal to independents and male voters.
    Obama’s performance in Ohio raises flags about his appeal to white women, white seniors and working-class whites.
    But why their performances were so dramatically different in two Midwestern battlegrounds with many common political characteristics isn’t entirely clear.
    “I think Wisconsin and Ohio have a whole lot more in common than differences,” said longtime Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal, who grew up in Ohio and is editor and publisher of Pollster.com.
    But in their voting patterns, they bore little resemblance to each other.
    Obama’s 5-point edge in Wisconsin among white voters without college degrees is his best showing with those voters anywhere in the country this year.
    “That was a clear breakthrough in Wisconsin” for Obama, Blumenthal said.
    He won white men by 29 points, his best performance anywhere outside of Utah. He largely neutralized Clinton’s big edge with white women and seniors.
    Only two weeks later in Ohio, Obama lost white seniors by almost 50 points, white women by almost 40, whites without college degrees by more than 40, and white men by almost 20.
    <<

    Reply

  39. rich says:

    jim miller,
    Milwaukee is hypersegregated–but so is Cleveland, and Ohio voted the other way. Your point, then is what?
    If the argument is that an overwhelmingly white state won’t vote for a black candidate, Wisconsin disproves that. And so does Iowa. And Minnesota, which went Obama over Clinton, 66% to 32%
    jim, you write:
    “wisconsin is one of the most segregated states…believe brewtown has been in the top 3 of segregated cities for the last 30 consecutive years…”
    Big distinction between “segregated” and overwhelmingly white. Wisconsin’s diversity and mix is lost on those who see race, identity, and diversity strictly in black & white terms. If anything, the polling results disprove the stereotype you’re pushing. Doesn’t mean race isn’t an issue.
    Just that everytime someone substitutes ‘white’ for non-diverse or racist, they’re committing the same stereotyping they claim to be against. Consider Wisc & Minn–largely German, Polish, Scandinavian (i.e., highly diverse ethnic gumbo)–sent 5 Jewish Senators to D.C. for how long now? (Franken is 6) Paul Wellstone had a great story about that.
    “my point was that obama does better in more intergrated areas with hillary’s so called base”
    Voting results in non-diverse state disprove that. Obama had a 34% margin in Minn., and a 17% margin in Wisc.
    Many disparaged Iowa this year for a series of illegitimate reasons. It was said white people wouldn’t vote for Obama.
    Either a) those ‘pundits’ didn’t know what the hell they were talking about (re Iowa’s tolerance, good judgment, & political savvy), or b) Clinton’s camp knew they couldn’t compete with Obama’s regional reputation or ground game—and settled on a strategy of sliming Iowa and marginalizing its importance.
    So Clinton’s camp pushed a dual strategy:
    1. Cry, cry, whine that Iowa had ‘disproportionate influence.’
    2. Simultaneously push w/Florida and Michigan to break the rules; then campaign in those states anyway.
    The FL & MI complaints are an outright lie that does not hold up under even minimal scrutiny. But note the result: Hillary took all the delegates, breaking her word and the rules to do it. It canceled Iowa out.
    She may get away with it. But you won’t succeed in smearing Midwestern voters as white and therefore problematic to the Democratic party.
    Note that Obama’s also winning red states and swing ‘purple’ states. He has a wider appeal than Hillary in the middle.
    It’s pretty clear Republicans are crossing the aisle to vote for the weaker candidate–which accounts for Hillary Clinton’s surge in Texas and Ohio. Rush Limbaugh is pushing that tactic hard.

    Reply

  40. Cee says:

    Matt,
    Clinton is pretending to reach out to portray Obama as the spoiler who won’t unify the party.
    Some people will buy it too like they bought the story about NAFTA.
    ————————————————-
    “He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”
    Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
    But others said the content of Mr. Brodie’s remarks was passed on to CTV’s Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton’s apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
    Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

    Reply

  41. jim miller says:

    will,
    ohio and texas were also open…more about racial pandering…the politcs of hate were used in full effect last week…see the dailykos for more…the line has been drawn….you are either for hate or against…at least the press is covering it…now progressives/netroots and dems can decide which side they are on….

    Reply

  42. Will Bower says:

    And as for Wisconsin, Rich. Can you not see the problems involved in having a party’s election process 100%-open to the opposition party? …especially when that opposition party has already all but decided their candidate?

    Reply

  43. jim miller says:

    rich,
    I am not sure what you mean but for the sake of gentlemanly clarity…I was inferring that wisconsin is one of the most segregated states…believe brewtown has been in the top 3 of segregated cities for the last 30 consecutive years….my point was that obama does better in more intergrated areas with hillary’s so called base, especially with the wind of hate politics blowing in his face….I do believe obama will do with whites in michigan….not sure what your reality is that you refer?

    Reply

  44. Will Bower says:

    Rich, I think you’re grasping a wee bit to make arguments for Obama’s “seniority”.
    Hillary Clinton has been a known player on the global stage for years now. Hardly anyone had ever even -heard- of Barack Obama before his keynote speech in 2004.

    Reply

  45. rich says:

    @ Will Bower
    “Hillary is the elder and the one with experience.”
    Gotta disagree with you there. By any objective measure, Sen. Obama has more experience as an elected official. That eight of his eleven years was in the Illinois State Senate–beating Clinton’s current seven, mind you–is irrelevant.
    A legislator is a legislator. And last I looked, nothing in the Constitution sets any requirement about blood or money or experience. Seems to me a) we’ve all borne the cost of too much experience; b) no one’s had real experience as Prznt, so the job’ll be new to all of them; c) and we’d all be better off looking among rank-&-file Americans for legitimate candidates–as was intended when teh Constitution was written.
    Frankly, a one-term Senator has no substantive edge over a part-termer, and falsely hinging a candidate’s legitimacy on such specious grounds sets Sen. Clinton up for a loss on that same metric–to McCain’s interminable tenure in the Senate.
    Clinton was a newbie as a U.S. Senator, and–at least according to her own campaign–that didn’t hurt her performance. Others disagree b/c they see or bear the cost of Hillary’s inexperience–for which she was given a free pass.
    I say, just can it; can the ‘experience’ fraud and start performing. Because riding this famed policy wizardry and the shaky ‘ready to lead’ refrain isn’t cutting it.
    Talking about it isn’t actually DOing it–and yes, Sen. Clinton’s gotten a free ride on ‘experience, and she’ll go home later if not sooner.
    jim miller:
    “besides Wisconsin”?? You’re mistaken both about Wisconsin, and about other states Obama’s won with similar demographics. At least dismiss Obama’s electoral performance by playing on the cold hard ground of reality.

    Reply

  46. Matt says:

    That’s an effective quote but it was always pretty obvious that they’d both run for President in 2008, and you’d have to be a total sucker to take a quote like that at face value in 2004, as he was just entering the Senate.
    And for some context:
    “Someone asked why he had already ruled out running on a national ticket with Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. His answer was crisp and immediate.”
    >>Your Quote<<
    “But he is one of those people. He is. And wherever he is going, he has been one of them for a long, long time.”
    –Vanity Fair, March 2008
    More and more I am feeling like this whole thing is just being drummed up for the benefit of the media…It looks like this talk about the double ticket has been going on for a while.

    Reply

  47. Tahoe Editor says:

    @ Matt
    “And they both knew from day one in the Senate that they’d be running for President in ‘08.”
    “You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”
    — Barack Obama, November 2004

    Reply

  48. Matt says:

    I don’t think that article will have any effect on one who hasn’t made up his or her mind about who to vote for, or otherwise switch someone’s allegiance. She’s been in the Senate for 7 years, he’s been in the Senate for 3. Many of their qualitative differences–which I’d say are pretty minor–can be attributed to that difference in the amount of time they’ve spent there. And they both knew from day one in the Senate that they’d be running for President in ‘08. Obama’s Senate record is just fine. Also, I’d say that the lead on that story was more telling than the second page, which is what you linked to.

    Reply

  49. Tahoe Editor says:

    I’m so glad you asked.
    LA Times: Senate careers branch differently for Clinton, Obama
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senatedems26feb26,0,4046334.story?page=2

    Reply

  50. Matt says:

    And how does he differ from Senator Clinton in that respect?

    Reply

  51. Tahoe Editor says:

    All I’m sayin’ is, he doesn’t seem to be too interested in being a U.S. Senator …

    Reply

  52. Matt says:

    @ Tahoe Editor
    You’ve phrased that very cleverly but I don’t think the comment about my depression needs to be acknowledged too seriously.
    I agree that we should expect Obama to make his own choice, but I think it’s important to think about the implications of that choice and what it means for the different interests involved. Anyway, you root for that side and I’ll root for this side. 010101.

    Reply

  53. Tahoe Editor says:

    If either candidate gets on the ticket as Vice President, it’s because he or she wants to be there.
    Barack ought to do a walk-through of No. 1 Observatory Circle and imagine his gorgeous family playing and growing up in THAT back yard while he does an eight-year independent interdisciplinary post-graduate study of the world. Harvard will love it. And he won’t need to annex any neighboring land.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_One_Observatory_Circle

    Reply

  54. Matt says:

    @Will Bower
    Maybe not, but again I don’t think there is the same possibility of Senator Clinton being compelled into the Vice Presidency as there would be for Senator Obama. If she got on the ticket as Vice President, it would be because she wants to be there. Think about it. She would be much more able to ride into the Presidency on his coattails than he would on hers. That would ensure longer democratic control of the White House. Furthermore, if she is not ashamed of earning her current spot in the political hierarchy by way of being Bill Clinton’s First Lady, then secretary to the President should be not be a big deal, as long as it clears her path to the Oval Office.

    Reply

  55. Tahoe Editor says:

    Matt,
    The depression you project is your own.
    We should all expect Obama to make his own choice.

    Reply

  56. jim miller says:

    will bower,
    please look at the demographics of liberals in mich….african americans/colleges/latte drinkers/muslims/integrated whites…look at the states where obama does well with the white vote, besides wisconsin, and these areas have strong intergration unlike penn and florida….but please believe what you want…either way even if she sweeps….wouldnt she still be done by 30 delegates…thank god harold ickes did such a good job with fair rules….30 states and pledged delegate leads means the nomination…

    Reply

  57. Matt says:

    @Tahoe Editor
    I think in fact that if things go as depressingly as you are implying, then Obama will be made to feel guilty for “betraying the party” if he doesn’t accept a Vice Presidency that is compelled upon him. That’s why Senator Clinton is floating these ideas early. In other words, he “has to” accept such an offer for the sake of bringing in people who have been inspired by his message and policies. Senator Clinton would just need to hold a press conference at some fortuitous stage in her campaign, publicly offering him the Vice Presidency before talking to him in private. This sounds like a slimy enough way of backing him into a corner and sounding a death knell on his political future–it effectively destroys those qualities which make him compelling. Accepting such an offer would probably neuter his idealism and seemingly “expose” his rhetoric as empty. Rejecting it would possibly marginalize him in a way similar to Ralph Nader. It’s very pleasing to tear down an honorable person, isn’t it?

    Reply

  58. Will Bower says:

    @ Matt
    Would Hillary as Obama’s administrative-assistant (a.k.a. secretary) be any less insulting?

    Reply

  59. Tahoe Editor says:

    No one is saying he has to accept the vice presidency, though I’d be surprised if he didn’t, considering how anxious he is not to do his job in the Senate.
    Obama as VP would be seen as putting a presidential hopeful in a position to know a little more what he’s talking about before he makes a more credible run a few years down the road.
    “You know, I am a believer in knowing what you’re doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I’m not one of those people.”
    — Barack Obama, November 2004

    Reply

  60. Matt says:

    @Will Bower
    I think those are pretty arbitrary qualifications. Obama as VP would clearly be seen for what it is: neutralizing him as a threat to the contemporary political establishment while at the same time grabbing him for what he’s worth–his votes. I doubt Obama would even go for it if it was offered. With Hillary as President and Bill as “First Gentleman,” it’s hard to see how Obama himself would have any sense of agency. Plus, I think it’s a little insulting to deal with the first viable black candidate for the Presidency in this manner.

    Reply

  61. Will Bower says:

    Hillary is the elder and the one with experience. Obama in the younger and in need of the education. It doesn’t make too much sense to have an age-inverted ticket… at least not in this case.

    Reply

  62. Matt says:

    The only way that a Clinton-Obama ticket would work is if it were Obama-Clinton, with Hillary and Bill left to strategize how best to take advantage of the Vice-Presidency.

    Reply

  63. Tahoe Editor says:

    Hillary is the big-state heavyweight Democratic powerhouse; Barack is the rally-the-troops small-state lightweight who repeatedly gets ahead of himself in his quest to use one higher office to get to the next without building himself up first.
    Add one more interim higher office to his ambitions (VP) and I think the general electorate will get behind the D ticket whole hog.

    Reply

  64. Tahoe Editor says:

    Statement from Governor Ed Rendell on Yesterday’s Election Results
    “Last night made clear that there has been a momentum shift in this race. Despite being outspent two-to-one, despite Sen. Obama benefiting from outside political funds, and despite all of the glowing press coverage he received leading up to March 4th, voters ultimately chose Senator Clinton. I am confident that Hillary is heading into Pennsylvania with momentum and a new energy.
    “The people of Pennsylvania are focused on the two largest issues facing our nation – the state of our economy and national security. On both counts, Pennsylvanians understand how important it is to elect someone who is truly ready to become President and Commander-in-Chief. Hillary is ready to lead our nation, returning us to both prosperity and peace.
    “We look forward to making our voice heard in the coming days and playing our part in determining the Democratic nominee. And when we do, the people of Pennsylvania will send a clear message – we want a President who is ready, not one we hope will one day be ready.”

    Reply

  65. Will Bower says:

    And one other observation: Should Hillary win Pennsyltucky — as I believe she will — a person could drive from Atlantic to Pacific without ever leaving Clinton Country.
    Obama will not be able to claim the same.

    Reply

  66. Will Bower says:

    Jim. I have to strongly disagree with your assessment that Michigan would go for Obama. He’d get the African-Americans of Detroit, and that’s about it. The rest of the state is rather sympatico with the demographic in Ohio that won it for Hillary.

    Reply

  67. Tahoe Editor says:

    If you think the Kos-MoveOn-Kerry-Kennedy wing is going to convince a general electorate, you’ve gotta love that head-in-the-sand feeling …

    Reply

  68. jim miller says:

    wyoming and mississippi first…if they redid florida and michigan…it would split. fl-clinton. mich-obama
    the wind hrc has is from smearing her opponent…not from any leadership qualities…hopefully the balance of voters will demand more of our president than more of the same style of politics that we have had for the last 8 years and the last week by clinton.
    The clintons are formidable power politicians…very formidable…the more powerful the harder to fall…
    her style of politics has been outed by kos using her own words and website….if all the hrc supporters think this is the type of we need to improve our country than so be it….but dont fool yourselves as to the reasons of her victory…it was all about the power of hate filled smear….is this the solution we need for the 7 weeks? 3 months? 4 years? no thanks I have had my fill in the last 12 years. the so called solution people are really the problem….very disappointing.

    Reply

  69. Mr.Murder says:

    Hillary faced people who had good positions or were great campaigners.
    McCain’s really had an affinity for neither trait.
    The Ohio win is important because a lot of people flipped from the blue collar to working class red base of their voters, and she’s already had good results in rural sectors.
    Pennsyltucky’s belly will probably flip her way.
    Hate to remind you folks where this is headed.
    Churchill once envisaged a Soft White Underbelly fit for invasion that was nothing but. True, it was a distraction from advance on other fronts, but its strategic effort was to stay ahead of the coming Iron Curtain by asserting enough a presence in South and Central Europe for the coming decades.
    Losing battles to win wars, only the battles were technically won.
    One candidate decided to campaign more narrow a voting reflex on the Democratic side and those same trends are now coming back with a bite, with less than audacious results.

    Reply

  70. Mr.Murder says:

    Hillary didn’t pull a McCain. There were no good candidates to oppose McCain, for a variety of reasons. Each similar in that they trended to campaign for small portions of the GOP constituency.
    Fundies, Moromons, billionaire media moguls, nationalist sympathizers, immigrant detention camps.
    McCain was simply the last bigot standing.

    Reply

  71. rich says:

    lectric lady:
    “Just a small point. There was no debate in Wisconsin.”
    So true. All those white, supposedly non-diverse heartlanders voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Obama. Unaccountably, in the minds of some who went out of their way to patronize Iowa as unrepresentative and and Obama as unelectable.
    Obama 58.1%
    Clinton 40.7%
    For the math-impaired, that’s a 17.4% margin of victory.
    More persuasive than the less-convincing sliver-thin margin of Clinton’s Texas ‘victory’–so very highly touted as significant.
    Couple things to keep in mind:
    Which demographic benefited most from Affirmative Action? That’d be white women.
    Does the Natalie-Holloway ‘Where da white wimmin at?’ ethos of CNN, cableTV, etc., carry over into campaign coverage?
    Yes and no. Some schizophrenic coverage there. Sen. Clinton gets unbelievably unfair criticism as a right-wing lightning rod—but much undue credit for experience she just doesn’t have (one term + one year as an elected official). Her experience comes only in her potential to, in Steve’s terminology, cobble together the same ‘political blocs’ Gov. Clinton did in ’92.
    Who would Republicans rather face in November?
    The judgment question arises, in both when Sen. Clinton was due a shot at the Oval Office, but how she ran this campaign.

    Reply

  72. lectric lady says:

    Just a small point. There was no debate in Wisconsin.

    Reply

  73. Tahoe Editor says:

    She’ll offer him VP, he’ll accept, and the Obama wing will fall in line and keep their eternal Hope®s alive for Obama in 2016.
    CLINTON-OBAMA ’08

    Reply

  74. Will Bower says:

    With Hillary winning Texas & Ohio, she’ll go on to win Pennsylvania.
    When she goes on to win Pennsylvania, it will be viable for Michigan and Florida each to have a new primary.
    When Michigan and Florida each have a new primary, Hillary will win both.
    Once Hillary has won Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania, then a majority of the Super Delegates will be justified in breaking for her.
    The combination of all these things would give her the nomination.
    The *next* question would be… what will the Obama supporters do? If Hillary *does* get the nomination, she’ll have to treat Obama (and his supporters) like royalty to keep them from abstaining. But if that’s what it takes, I think she’ll do exactly that.

    Reply

  75. David N says:

    “The latter approach worked for G. W. Bush. He couldn’t win, apparently, on his merits, so his approach was to use fear-and-smear politics; to belittle his opponent. This is Hillary’s latest strategy.”
    That Clinton and her campaign are using both Republican talking points and Republican strategies is the single thing pushing me to support Obama.
    The question is, if they get away with it, and the general election becomes a contest between two camps that are mirror images of each other, what will our choice in November become?
    The horror is that Nadir might then be vindicated, as the election devolves into no choice at all, and Democrats who most effectively imitate the Republicans become more successful.
    And the real issues, the real solutions, the real dangers, the real questions, are completely ignored.

    Reply

  76. Tahoe Editor says:

    on to the KEYSTONE STATE!

    Reply

  77. Matt says:

    @Tahoe Editor
    Yea I think it was a mistake for Obama to buy into that hype. He should have just ignored it. But the media kept on talking about it so much that it would have seemed like he was ignoring something important and had no legitimate response. I don’t think it actually was something important but it got magnified unexpectedly, even appearing on the Nightly News…anyway…

    Reply

  78. Tahoe Editor says:

    Obama plagiarized the “dangerous world”/”red phone” ad (in which there is no red phone) as soon as Hillary started running hers — and he flooded the airwaves with it. That it sunk says a lot.
    HILLARY
    2-term U.S. Senator
    Senate Armed Services Committee
    8 years in the White House
    Already knows the world’s leaders
    Knows the military
    OBAMA
    Had the “judgment” to give his anti-war constituency a quasi-anti-war speech that he betrayed upon gaining higher office — an office he neglected as soon as he got it because … he wanted a still-higher office.
    He may yet get the presidency — in fact, I Hope® he does — but he needs to add one more stepping stone: VP.
    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/1/183011/9628

    Reply

  79. judec says:

    This is depressing.
    It isn’t a comeback, it is Hillary winning in states where she had huge leads just 3 weeks ago. It is the Clinton’s flexing their considerable muscle, showing us that they can TAKE this nomination for Hillary, if they choose to use rough politics.
    Yes, they can.
    If they want to bloody Barack enough to take him down. We’ve seen politicians use different approaches: they can win based on their own leadership ability and experience, or they can win by taking the other guy down. The latter approach worked for G. W. Bush. He couldn’t win, apparently, on his merits, so his approach was to use fear-and-smear politics; to belittle his opponent. This is Hillary’s latest strategy.
    Of course, Barack could bloody her in return… there’s plenty of material out there for him to use. But we are at risk, here, of fighting a long bloody battle that could kill all of the energy and excitement and chase off all of the new voters our party is attracting. Some of us won’t vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins it in this way.
    Is Hillary worth it to us?
    There is some merit to the argument that Barack has to show us he can fight… on the other hand, we may see some of our new voters flee back over to McCain.
    I think it might be best for the super delegates to help end this sooner rather than later.

    Reply

  80. Matt says:

    I think also that maybe the media just wants to have this play out for as long as possible because it will be good for their ratings. The primary coverage is starting to go a little over the top.

    Reply

  81. George Hussein Washington says:

    SLIME WORKS IN POLITICS.

    Reply

  82. Matt says:

    What’s ironic about that first Saturday Night Live skit is that precisely as SNL presented the NBC announcers as “totally in the tank for Obama,” the entire news media reverted to “totally in the tank for Hillary Clinton.” It was truly shocking and disheartening to see the amount of cancerous rhetoric she was allowed to get away with, as if that would somehow even the playing field. The whole contrived fuss over the 3AM ad was a little sickening too, and probably worked to her advantage. I’m estimating that I saw that ad 50 times in 3 days, and clearly there was nothing offensive about it–it didn’t make anyone “scared”. It was a good publicity job though… all for the sake of tearing down a fresh candidate with a clean record whom the whole world could look to and respect.

    Reply

  83. Carroll says:

    “There’s a reason they didn’t design the process so the delegate leader automatically wins.”
    Uh hu…the “they” process is the problem. It’s time for the politicans to quit “processing” our elections.

    Reply

  84. jim miller says:

    the politics of smear and hate work in american electoral cycles…in the short term. The clinton machine was great last week playing with fire yet never getting burned…mostly b/c the msm and progressive press were shamed into giving them a pass. We will see if it works for the next 3 months…doubt it will work until november…but last week it certainly did…much to my disappointment. Not disappointed in my canidate losing, quite the opposite…disappointed in how he was beaten…he lost with honor…no matter who you support.

    Reply

  85. Cee says:

    Bye Hillary.
    “This election will come down to delegates…. Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived ‘momentum.'” – Mark Penn, chief strategist for Hillary’s campaign, Feb. 13, 2008

    Reply

  86. David N says:

    We have two choices to explain what’s going on, and as usual, I pick both.
    1) The conspiracy theories that many so love. The Republicans have always hoped that they would be going against Clinton this year, so they could trot out all their old attacks instead of having to think up new ones. Also, never underestimate the ability of the American people to be stupid, bigoted, misogynistic cretins. I was listening (briefly) last night to Rachael Maddow making the entirely sensible point that Republicans are bad at keeping us safe, so voting for Republicans out of fear is a bad — and common — idea. The RNC representatives on the MSNBC panel (Scarborough, mainly) shouted her down (after all, volume is the standard methodology of Republican debaters), but she was right. One hates to believe arthurdeco and liz, but unfortunately the evidence points that way.
    2) Incompetence. As bad as the Republicans are at governing, the Democrats are worse at politics. Just who came up with the Texas system of mixing a primary and caucuses? Who picked the idiots who then seem to have been trying to game the system, or at the very least providing excuses for the worst imaginable scenario, lawsuits stretching into the period of the convention (by Republican judges (are there any other kind in Texas?)).
    I look at the way this is going, and cannot imagine Clinton’s ego or Obama’s pride allowing either one to accept the second spot on the ticket. I see that if Clinton snatches the nomination, all those young people who inflated the primary numbers for the Democrats will stay home on election day. I see that if Obama is the nominee, Clinton will have provided all the quotes and talking points the Republicans need to swift-boat him over the fall.
    Clinton’s people say that her husband didn’t lock up the nomination until June. The nomination campaign, at that time, had not been going on for over a year already, as it now is.
    At this point, I don’t really care who the nominee is (I prefer Obama) as much as I care that the Democrats are once again doing their best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Crap, crap, crap, and double crap.
    It seems that the American people are tightly wedded to their assumptions, and determined to follow a flawed paradigm to the gates of hell. They will obey their stupid ideologies until they kill thousands, destroy the economy, and run American power into the ground. All because everything the Republican Propaganda Machine says is exactly, constantly, backwards.

    Reply

  87. arthurdecco says:

    Sorry for jumping on your idea, Liz. Your comment wasn’t there when I started to type. LOL

    Reply

  88. arthurdecco says:

    No one has mentioned the fact that Ms. Clinton won Ohio, the state that has dealt with more voting machine fraud/irregularities during the last two election cycles than most.
    Do you think that criminal interference in the electoral process stopped on it’s own – or do you believe the state of Ohio has torn out all the corrupted machinery and eradicated the mindsets that led to the original corruption and now everything’s just hunky dory?
    What a peculiar state of denial American citizens are in these days! Surely you’re not all utter fools with the attention spans of gnats, are you?
    What gives?

    Reply

  89. liz says:

    Call me stupid enough to think Voting machine fraud….. and here is why: It would prolong the season.
    And while the season is prolonged, we the people are distracted .
    This long campaign season is purely a distraction…. think about it.

    Reply

  90. rich says:

    As much as I agree with you, Steve, about the ‘feel’ of the campaign after New Hampshire and again tonight, I cannot agree that Hillary Clinton pulled a “comeback” at either point.
    You can’t be ‘the comeback kid’ when you were never behind. Clinton led in delegates in NH when she was supposedly behind: the notion Obama was leading was plainly false. No comeback there.
    Yes–Obama leads in delegates, and tonight’s results likely do little to change that–Sen. Clinton stayed alive. No comeback there, either.
    This is a highly competitive race, and that’s good. But Obama has never been unstoppable, and Clinton has never been out of it. As the Establishment candidate, she’s never been set back on her heels or lost support–even in the way a strong candidate like Edwards was.
    If some (the MSM, Dem pols) are manipulating the storyline to bestow victory or defeat when none are in evidence, it ill-serves the country.
    You may say I’m mixing vote returns and delegates. But that’s precisely what political pros & consultants just love to do when more populist-leaning citizens object to electoral process gamesmanship (which is getting more attention this time round) or are unhappy delegate counts do not reflect vote returns.
    So my point is not vulnerable to hair-splitting on that count. The campaign ebbs and flows; the race remains the same.
    Could be Repubs are crossing the aisle to deliver a weaker Dem nominee in the general election.
    Could be the MSM is painting false expectations on Obama The Challenger, the better to see an upstart fall hard.
    But we all know Obama’s no juggernaut. Nor was Clinton ever out of the race entirely. Eleven straight wins is nice, but it’s just empty rhetoric, just pretty words, when his delegate lead is slim. When we all know Clinton’s going after every superdelegate, Florida and Michigan’s unseated delegates, already pledged delegates, and playing hardball on the campaign trail.
    Clinton is not so much back in the game, as she maintains the position she previously held. She’ll be viewed as more viable, more competitive–but that’s different.

    Reply

  91. Tahoe Editor says:

    Bill didn’t have the nomination wrapped up until June. Conventions USED to be a place where the nominee was actually CHOSEN. Anyone who’s afraid of Pennsylvania voters doesn’t have a pair big enough to sit in the Oval Office. Deal with the new narrative like adults and see what happens and what you can do about it.
    John King just likened the Obama campaign to somebody ahead at the 400-mile mark at the Indy 500 saying, “Why don’t we just stop the race now before someone gets hurt?” Finally someone recognizes the absurdity of calling for Hillary to drop out!
    CALIFORNIA
    NEW YORK
    NEW JERSEY
    OHIO
    TEXAS
    MASSACHUSETTS
    ARIZONA
    NEW MEXICO
    FLORIDA
    MICHIGAN
    TENNESSEE
    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    NEW MEXICO
    OKLAHOMA
    ARKANSAS
    RHODE ISLAND
    CLINTON-OBAMA ’08!

    Reply

  92. Linda says:

    I never underesitmate the Democrats’ ability to self-destruct. What this is going to be about is very much in this article, i.e., whether we get more of the DLC v. Dean’s DNC.
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/berman
    No matter who is the Democratic candidate, the rest of the primary race will be very destructive and ugly, and the campaign this fall will be even more ugly.

    Reply

  93. Tahoe Editor says:

    I think it’s HILARIOUS that the Obamaniacs have been SCREAMING to stop the voting the minute he eked out his TINY delegate lead at halftime! Have some RESPECT FOR THE VOTERS, grow a pair and let’s GET WARMED UP!
    Joe Scarborough yesterday:
    This is exactly why Hillary Clinton should hold on as long as she can during this election. I think Hillary Clinton wins Ohio, barely loses Texas; I think she needs to hold on, because the longer this campaign goes on, the more Barack Obama is going to look like, well, what he is: a real politician. If you have him coming out strongly against NAFTA when there may have been some conflict with what he said earlier, and then you have his chief economic adviser whispering to the Canadians, “Don’t worry, he may be saying this in Ohio, but he doesn’t mean it, we’re not gonna turn back on NAFTA” — which everybody knows that’s the case anyway, then that looks bad for him. He looks more like a politician. You can say the same thing about how he’s going to finance his campaign. So again, the longer Hillary can stay in this race, the more opportunities she has to paint him as a run-of-the-mill politician, somebody that sort of hedges just like every other politician.
    When you consider how much Barack Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton now, 4 to 1, if Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, this race is reset.

    Reply

  94. ChrisO says:

    Obama supporters like to keep talking about the math, but they’re refusing to recognize one thing. Obama needs 2,025 delegates for the nomination, and he won’t have that going into the convention. He doesn’t get the nom for getting close. You’ll have two candidates who are very close to each other, and I don’t think the delegate selection process is so perfect that a 100 delegate difference can fairly be said to represent “the will of the people.” The convention may go to more than one ballot, and delegates will start looking at things other than who came in with a narow lead. If Hillary is on a major roll, has significant wins in major states, and Obama’s polling numbers are very soft, she’ll have a good argument.
    There’s a reason they didn’t design the process so the delegate leader automatically wins. Trying to stop the process now may be an understandable tactic for Obama, but the issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as his supporters would like to think.

    Reply

  95. Jason says:

    Steve, by “she’s back in the race…big time”, did you mean to say “she’s almost mathematically impossible to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and her only hope is to practice a scorched earth policy of tarnishing Obama to the point that enough super delegates believe he’s no longer the best candidate and decide to switch to her”?
    Clinton did very well in Ohio, and deserves to be congratulated. But the delegate math hasn’t changed much. She can’t win at this point by running a positive campaign. If she decides to continue once the euphoria fades, the next few months will be harsh, brutal, and nasty. If Obama still wins the nomination, he’ll be so bruised that it will probably cost him the election in November. If Clinton ekes out a win, she’ll cause so much bad blood from her trashing of Obama that it will probably cost her the election in November.
    People remark about Obama’s good political fortune, but the truly blessed one here is McCain. In what other year could two conservative Republicans split the base down the middle and allow McCain to squeak through with the support of independents? Then the two strongest Democratic primary candidates in ages get deadlocked in a struggle, allowing him to gather resources, consolidate his base, and attack both democrats while they are focused on attacking each other?

    Reply

  96. shazbat says:

    Steve, how does this put Hillary “back in the game”? She didn’t achieve the blowout numbers she needed to move enough delegates to her side for this night to actually matter for her. Obama will still be ahead with an insurmountable lead at the end of the night. It’s over for Clinton. She needs to cut a deal with Obama now and end this process so they can concentrate on McCain.

    Reply

  97. Steve Clemons says:

    ihatesyrup — i have to respectfully disagree with you. I have had lots of interaction with all of the campaigns — including Barack Obama’s senior team and the Senator himself — and I have not experienced this arrogance. I have seen prickliness — but that’s evident on both sides.
    Just want to be fair and clear about my own views.
    best, Steve Clemons

    Reply

  98. ihatesyrup says:

    Anybody who has met Obama or has worked with people on his campaign has felt his arrogance and entitlement to this nomination.

    Reply

  99. Zathras says:

    What happened over the last two weeks is that the media allowed itself to be spun by the Clinton campaign’s complaining that their candidate was being treated unfairly. Obama’s campaign may also have been too ready to look on Wisconsin two weeks ago as a knockout punch. His organization needs to understand what it means to be running against a candidate who believes the nomination, and the White House, is something she’s entitled to, and who won’t give it up as long as there is the slightest chance she might win.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *