- ‹ previous
- 3119 of 8795
- next ›
With the Media Seemingly Decided, Clinton Faces Three Options
It took a long time for the results from Lake County, Indiana, to be filed on Tuesday night. Was it long enough for the conventional wisdom to be cemented?
As the hours passed into the night yesterday, Hillary Clinton's chances dimmed. By mid-evening, she had lost North Carolina by 14 points and was clinging to a diminishing lead in Indiana. By 10 pm, the political world was all staring at the same situation: Clinton, up on Obama by an unexpectedly low 30,000-40,000 votes in Indiana, endangered by the still-absent results from the northwestern county known as Lake County, home of Gary and just outside of Chicago.
As the pundit class waited for Lake County to tabulate, Clinton's precarious position became the only topic of conversation. On MSNBC, Tim Russert declared the race over, saying that Clinton had no realistic path to the nomination after the events of the day. Chuck Todd, normally beholden to the numbers and unaccustomed to bold proclamations, conceded that Russert may have been correct. On CNN, David Gergen said that Clinton's ability, seen repeatedly in the campaign, to respond with a victory when her campaign was on the precipice had finally failed her. Democratic superdelegate and CNN contributor Donna Brazile stated that it was in the best interests of the Democratic Party to unify around one candidate. In fact, the entire broadcasting team at CNN, seemingly over a dozen people, was so dismissive of the New York Senator's chances that Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis complained about the coverage on air.
But then, after midnight, Lake County finally submitted its result and Clinton won Indiana by two points, momentarily jeopardizing the media narrative already in the making. But it appeared that Obama's miserable two weeks leading up to election day Tuesday set the bar for him so low that his 14-point victory in North Carolina and his two-point loss in Indiana were effectively a victory in the media's eye, which, jaundiced by the expectations game, doesn't see a win as a win and a loss as a loss. Adam Nagourney, the New York Times's lead political reporter, published a news analysis Wednesday morning that began, "In this case, a split was not a draw." The Drudge Report ran a simple headline under a picture of Obama: "The Nominee."
And maybe rightfully so. Clinton won Indiana by 23,000 votes. That means if 12,000 late-deciding Indianans had woken up on the other side of the bed, or seen one fewer Clinton ad, or had one more conversation with their Obama-loving granddaughter, the election would be, for all practical purposes, completely over. And besides, Obama's lead in the delegate count grew because of a split decision in Indiana and a significant delegate pickup in North Carolina. Moreover, Clinton now has fewer pledged delegates with which to close the gap. She must now win a staggering percentage of the superdelegates to overturn Obama's lead in the pledged delegate count.
That that leaves her with three options.
First, keep fighting like nothing has changed. When their candidate is challenged, Clinton supporters respond with huge monetary shows of support. And when their careers are challenged, the Clintons themselves kick it into another gear. Hillary Clinton can double down on the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky (where she leads by large margins), ratchet up the calls to seat Michigan and Florida, make a zillion phone calls to superdelegates every day, and hope that Obama gets caught in another Reverend Wright-esque sandstorm. (It wouldn't hurt to drop the gas tax pander.) Rumors persist about one last piece of truly nuclear opposition research the Clinton campaign has held back about Obama. It could release some such thing; the only danger is that if Clinton does not win the nomination, the Democratic nominee may be fatally wounded. But wounding the nominee is obviously not a concern if the Clinton campaign chooses this option, anyway.
Second, she can drop out immediately. Despite the calls for this that are certain to ring through Obama-friendly parts of the blogosphere today, this may not be the best option for Obama. If Clinton drops out this week, Obama may lose the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky to someone who is not on the ballot.
Third, lay the groundwork for a graceful exit in a few weeks. Assuming that Clinton sees the end of the road on the horizon, this choice has several advantages over option number two. First, the Clintons have donated a lot of their own money to the campaign; staying in and continuing to raise funds allows them to retire some of that debt. Second, the last two weeks of the campaign can take a conciliatory tone, attempting to convince Democratic voters who have cast their lot with Clinton that Obama ain't so bad after all. This would go a long way in rehabilitating Bill and Hillary Clinton's reputations within the Democratic Party, and position Hillary for a vice presidential selection, should she be interested. If she hopes to be a future Senate Majority Leader or a candidate in 2012, this route may be the necessary one.
At this point, the race is all about Hillary Clinton's psychology. She and she alone has to choose one of these three options. Bill Clinton will likely be part of the conversation, and Chelsea may be too. But ultimately, the person who has put in the most work perhaps of anyone in America over the last year has to either accept that she has lost the fight of her life, or decide that she is willing to continue down what becomes an increasingly untenable road. The media's collective mind seems to be made up, meaning that if Clinton continues on, she will have to do so under a chorus of calls for her to euthanize her campaign.
Kathy ? Since you may not have been paying attention to this election, I will summarize for you:
Evil ? Pro war. That was till it played out not to be pro war.
Manipulating ? "I feel your pain", "Florida and Michigan should have their voice heard"
Spiteful ? From "Vast right wing conspiracy" to smearing Obama with less-than-half truths.
Egomaniacal Psychopath ? Superficial, habitual lying, does not accept any sort of responsibility?Classic narcissist.
I can go on and on...
Once Hillary wasn't anointed, the Clintons went low brow throughout the entire election to smear Obama (Drugs, Rev White etc).
When that didn't work, they pointed to Hillary's experience (like her duck and cover in Kosovo and her involvement in Northern Ireland).
When that didn't work, she took on Edward's persona as fighting for the working person (like riding to work in a 12mpg pick up and half sipping a shot).
That is not working, so they are going to make up crap about MI and FL. You know Abny, changing the rules that everyone agreed to and that she didn't have a problem with till it was obvious that she would loose. She had her fair shake. It's over. Done and done.
So, they can choose to finally get some class and start to back off or they can try to dig up more dirt on Obama and do McCain a solid.
Kirkbrew, I don't mean to question your superiority, but let's go through your post. My comments in parentheses.
Kathy ? Since you may not have been paying attention to this election, I will summarize for you:
(Yeah, let's talk down to the "little lady".)
Evil ? Pro war. That was till it played out not to be pro war.
(Yeah, like the majority of Congress who also voted for the RESOLUTION, not war.)
Manipulating ? "I feel your pain", "Florida and Michigan should have their voice heard"
(Yes, they should. It's not the people's fault that their "leaders" chose badly. And she is feeling the pain, since she has lost delegates.)
Spiteful ? From "Vast right wing conspiracy" to smearing Obama with less-than-half truths.
(The term refers to the "smearing" of her reputation because of what her husband did, which is why people hate her, but can't explain why without resorting to insults, like you. And a "smear" is spreading falsehoods about people, not credible facts such as Obama's Pastor and his previous drug use.)
Egomaniacal Psychopath ? Superficial, habitual lying, does not accept any sort of responsibility?Classic narcissist.
(Do you know her personally? I bet not. Nor do I, but I'm not judging her. So narcissists are Egomaniacal Psychopaths ? Superficial, habitual liars? You seem to know a lot about this type of person...)
I can go on and on...
(Bet you could, most arrogant people can.)
Once Hillary wasn't anointed, the Clintons went low brow throughout the entire election to smear Obama (Drugs, Rev White etc).
(See "Spiteful" above, you repeat yourself.)
When that didn't work, they pointed to Hillary's experience (like her duck and cover in Kosovo and her involvement in Northern Ireland).
(Kosovo, yes a lie. However, she was only the second First Lady to enter a war zone. People involved in the Good Friday agreement have differing opinions on her contribution.)
When that didn't work, she took on Edward's persona as fighting for the working person (like riding to work in a 12mpg pick up and half sipping a shot).
(Edwards asked her to take up his cause - do your research.)
You Kirkbrew, like so many other Clinton haters, are never satisfied. Obama is going to win, we all know it. So what will you do when Clinton drops out? You'll have to find someone else to burn in effigy. People like you are only happy when you're vilifying someone else.
Hillman,
Nor do I mean to question your superiority, but let's go through YOUR post.
(Yeah, let's talk down to the "little lady".)
Kirkbrew never mentioned gender. You're the only one who brought it up; making the implication the "little lady" can't defend herself... bravo.
(Yeah, like the majority of Congress who also voted for the RESOLUTION, not war.)
Is there any particular reason you left off the important part: resolution TO USE MILITARY FORCE? That other Congressmen failed to actually read the NIE and failed us as a nation isn't what I would call a strong defense of her actions. It's the, "well, everyone else was doing it too" defense, which isn't actually a defense.
(Yes, they should. It's not the people's fault that their "leaders" chose badly. And she is feeling the pain, since she has lost delegates.)
She's playing on the same field as everyone else. If she had an issue with the way it was handled, she should have mentioned it before now, but she didn't seem too concerned with people being disenfranchised when she was the front runner, now did she?
(The term refers to the "smearing" of her reputation because of what her husband did, which is why people hate her, but can't explain why without resorting to insults, like you. And a "smear" is spreading falsehoods about people, not credible facts such as Obama's Pastor and his previous drug use.)
*roll eyes* ... "for all I know Obama isn't a Muslim". Ring a bell? I'm not sure who's smearing Obama more, Hillary or you? Drug use, Wright... are you kidding me? Like Hillary wasn't right along side Bill not inhaling... lol.
(Do you know her personally? I bet not. Nor do I, but I'm not judging her. So narcissists are Egomaniacal Psychopaths ? Superficial, habitual liars? You seem to know a lot about this type of person...)
One does not need to know her personally (i like how high you set the bar). There is ample evidence of her deceit. It's not anyone's fault you choose to look the other way; that's what apologists do.
(Bet you could, most arrogant people can.)
Or... perhaps he could go on and on because Hillary has given us a lot of ammunition? Unless of course this is another conspiracy?
(Kosovo, yes a lie. However, she was only the second First Lady to enter a war zone. People involved in the Good Friday agreement have differing opinions on her contribution.)
Spin it baby!!
Perhaps, like a lot of people, the way Hillary has run her campaign disgusts him? I know I'm disgusted... and I liked Bill and Hillary before this all got underway. Vilifying is Hillary's only weapon at this point and she's been using it regularly. Only an apologist would complain she's getting a small taste of her own medicine.
Kathy ? Since you may not have been paying attention to this election, I will summarize for you:
Evil ? Pro war. That was till it played out not to be pro war.
Manipulating ? "I feel your pain", "Florida and Michigan should have their voice heard"
Spiteful ? From "Vast right wing conspiracy" to smearing Obama with less-than-half truths.
Egomaniacal Psychopath ? Superficial, habitual lying, does not accept any sort of responsibility?Classic narcissist.
I can go on and on...
Once Hillary wasn't anointed, the Clintons went low brow throughout the entire election to smear Obama (Drugs, Rev White etc).
When that didn't work, they pointed to Hillary's experience (like her duck and cover in Kosovo and her involvement in Northern Ireland).
When that didn't work, she took on Edward's persona as fighting for the working person (like riding to work in a 12mpg pick up and half sipping a shot).
That is not working, so they are going to make up crap about MI and FL. You know Abny, changing the rules that everyone agreed to and that she didn't have a problem with till it was obvious that she would loose. She had her fair shake. It's over. Done and done.
So, they can choose to finally get some class and start to back off or they can try to dig up more dirt on Obama and do McCain a solid.
Kirkbrew, I don't mean to question your superiority, but let's go through your post. My comments in parentheses.
Kathy ? Since you may not have been paying attention to this election, I will summarize for you:
(Yeah, let's talk down to the "little lady".)
Evil ? Pro war. That was till it played out not to be pro war.
(Yeah, like the majority of Congress who also voted for the RESOLUTION, not war.)
Manipulating ? "I feel your pain", "Florida and Michigan should have their voice heard"
(Yes, they should. It's not the people's fault that their "leaders" chose badly. And she is feeling the pain, since she has lost delegates.)
Spiteful ? From "Vast right wing conspiracy" to smearing Obama with less-than-half truths.
(The term refers to the "smearing" of her reputation because of what her husband did, which is why people hate her, but can't explain why without resorting to insults, like you. And a "smear" is spreading falsehoods about people, not credible facts such as Obama's Pastor and his previous drug use.)
Egomaniacal Psychopath ? Superficial, habitual lying, does not accept any sort of responsibility?Classic narcissist.
(Do you know her personally? I bet not. Nor do I, but I'm not judging her. So narcissists are Egomaniacal Psychopaths ? Superficial, habitual liars? You seem to know a lot about this type of person...)
I can go on and on...
(Bet you could, most arrogant people can.)
Once Hillary wasn't anointed, the Clintons went low brow throughout the entire election to smear Obama (Drugs, Rev White etc).
(See "Spiteful" above, you repeat yourself.)
When that didn't work, they pointed to Hillary's experience (like her duck and cover in Kosovo and her involvement in Northern Ireland).
(Kosovo, yes a lie. However, she was only the second First Lady to enter a war zone. People involved in the Good Friday agreement have differing opinions on her contribution.)
When that didn't work, she took on Edward's persona as fighting for the working person (like riding to work in a 12mpg pick up and half sipping a shot).
(Edwards asked her to take up his cause - do your research.)
You Kirkbrew, like so many other Clinton haters, are never satisfied. Obama is going to win, we all know it. So what will you do when Clinton drops out? You'll have to find someone else to burn in effigy. People like you are only happy when you're vilifying someone else.
Hillman,
Nor do I mean to question your superiority, but let's go through YOUR post.
(Yeah, let's talk down to the "little lady".)
Kirkbrew never mentioned gender. You're the only one who brought it up; making the implication the "little lady" can't defend herself... bravo.
(Yeah, like the majority of Congress who also voted for the RESOLUTION, not war.)
Is there any particular reason you left off the important part: resolution TO USE MILITARY FORCE? That other Congressmen failed to actually read the NIE and failed us as a nation isn't what I would call a strong defense of her actions. It's the, "well, everyone else was doing it too" defense, which isn't actually a defense.
(Yes, they should. It's not the people's fault that their "leaders" chose badly. And she is feeling the pain, since she has lost delegates.)
She's playing on the same field as everyone else. If she had an issue with the way it was handled, she should have mentioned it before now, but she didn't seem too concerned with people being disenfranchised when she was the front runner, now did she?
(The term refers to the "smearing" of her reputation because of what her husband did, which is why people hate her, but can't explain why without resorting to insults, like you. And a "smear" is spreading falsehoods about people, not credible facts such as Obama's Pastor and his previous drug use.)
*roll eyes* ... "for all I know Obama isn't a Muslim". Ring a bell? I'm not sure who's smearing Obama more, Hillary or you? Drug use, Wright... are you kidding me? Like Hillary wasn't right along side Bill not inhaling... lol.
(Do you know her personally? I bet not. Nor do I, but I'm not judging her. So narcissists are Egomaniacal Psychopaths ? Superficial, habitual liars? You seem to know a lot about this type of person...)
One does not need to know her personally (i like how high you set the bar). There is ample evidence of her deceit. It's not anyone's fault you choose to look the other way; that's what apologists do.
(Bet you could, most arrogant people can.)
Or... perhaps he could go on and on because Hillary has given us a lot of ammunition? Unless of course this is another conspiracy?
(Kosovo, yes a lie. However, she was only the second First Lady to enter a war zone. People involved in the Good Friday agreement have differing opinions on her contribution.)
Spin it baby!!
Perhaps, like a lot of people, the way Hillary has run her campaign disgusts him? I know I'm disgusted... and I liked Bill and Hillary before this all got underway. Vilifying is Hillary's only weapon at this point and she's been using it regularly. Only an apologist would complain she's getting a small taste of her own medicine.
Speaking of retiring campaign debt...
A question. One of the topics that came up last night on MSNBC was that somehow the Obama campaign might take over Clinton's campaign debt as part of some withdrawal deal.
I have never heard of this before in this campaign or any others. Is this a "standard" practice?
I have sent money to the Obama campaign which I can ill afford to send. If some of that ends up in the Clinton's pockets to pay for what can only be characterized as their version of a Karl Rove campaign, I will be extremely disturbed.
Regarding the outcome, the piece lays it out well. The option that would be best, IMO, is that Hillary and Obama would make a deal to seat the delegates of Florida and Michigan after which she announces that she is dropping out of the race.
The point about Obama losing to someone not on the ballot is well taken; however, it's time that the Clinton campaign act like adults and accept that they have lost. They HAVE lost.
-Wexler
Your article is the most balanced, fairest, and unbiased one that I have read in months. As a Clinton supporter, I appreciate that very much. Without sounding like sour grapes, I do believe that the mass media has given Clinton a hard way to go over the last few months. Sadly, the options you have outlined seem to be the reality of the situation.
Even sader has been our choice of final candidates. Clinton has had her own troubled past; Obama suffers from questionable past associations; and McCain's past leads us to a prolonged war and more conservative view points. With so many good American leaders, it is a shame that we could not have had better candidates from whom to choose. It seems unfair to have to choose from the "lesser of evils" for our president.
Now we must face reality, and trust that the new president will be a leader who can protect us and lead us into happier days.
"At this point, the race is all about Hillary Clinton's psychology"
Yep - and I got a bad feeling that we will see what an evil, manipulating, spiteful, egomaniacal, psychopath she really is. I hope she proves me wrong and shows some class. Unfortunately, she and Bill have had a long history of being really classless jack asses.
I think the more important way of looking at this though is that Obama hasn't WON. Not in the overwhelming way that we want the Democratic nominee to, to carry our hopes of a victory in the fall. That's the point. The real story here -- the one everyone's missing cause all they can talk about is what will Hillary do -- is what does it mean that Obama hasn't been able to take hold of this party. I mean, are people suggesting that the only way Obama could have taken hold of the party is if noone (Hillary) was running against him in the primary? That doesn't sound like a win in November to me.
No, I think that what this race has proven -- and quiet your whining and calls for the race to end, media; what else would you be doing if not covering this anyway -- is that in order to win in the fall they both need each other.
That's the way to victory.
When people are manipulated by a campaign which pushes rhetoric over past results, their own statement are content-less. "evil" "manipulating" "spiteful" "egomaniacal" "psychopath". There are no ideas, no political analysis.
But we're in a democracy. And this kind a mindset also contributes to an election.
speaking of classless jack asses...
The void seems to be contagious.
Hillary is "evil, manipulating, spiteful, egomaniacal, psychopath" because she wants her fair shake at the nomination?
Kathy Since you may not have been paying attention to this election, I will summarize for you:
Evil Pro war. That was till it played out not to be pro war.
Manipulating "I feel your pain", "Florida and Michigan should have their voice heard"
Spiteful From "Vast right wing conspiracy" to smearing Obama with less-than-half truths.
Egomaniacal Psychopath Superficial, habitual lying, does not accept any sort of responsibility Classic narcissist.
I can go on and on...
Once Hillary wasn't anointed, the Clintons went low brow throughout the entire election to smear Obama (Drugs, Rev White etc).
When that didn't work, they pointed to Hillary's experience (like her duck and cover in Kosovo and her involvement in Northern Ireland).
When that didn't work, she took on Edward's persona as fighting for the working person (like riding to work in a 12mpg pick up and half sipping a shot).
That is not working, so they are going to make up crap about MI and FL. You know Abny, changing the rules that everyone agreed to and that she didn't have a problem with till it was obvious that she would loose. She had her fair shake. It's over. Done and done.
So, they can choose to finally get some class and start to back off or they can try to dig up more dirt on Obama and do McCain a solid.
kirkbrew
your holier than thou attitude is what: (1) we Democrats have been accusing the religious right of doing for 2 decades; (2) Obama's message is shouting against; and (3) perptuates the media's labeling of our positions as liberal elitism. please stop.
I hope Hillary slips and breaks her neck especially after saying she would "obliterate" Iran. That's exactly what we need right now, another war! Her smear campaign is just another example of how she'll say anything to get the vote.
Oh please people, get thicker skins! The Hillary campaign against Obama has hardly been evil, smear tactics but just good campaigning, a fight for the best Leader. She is showing us that she is tough! The Rightwings will be harder on him and do so much more and if you put it into perspective, the previous Presidential Campaigns were alot Uglier than this by FAR!
Kirkbrew, I don't mean to question your superiority, but let's go through your post. My comments in parentheses.
Kathy Since you may not have been paying attention to this election, I will summarize for you:
(Yeah, let's talk down to the "little lady".)
Evil Pro war. That was till it played out not to be pro war.
(Yeah, like the majority of Congress who also voted for the RESOLUTION, not war.)
Manipulating "I feel your pain", "Florida and Michigan should have their voice heard"
(Yes, they should. It's not the people's fault that their "leaders" chose badly. And she is feeling the pain, since she has lost delegates.)
Spiteful From "Vast right wing conspiracy" to smearing Obama with less-than-half truths.
(The term refers to the "smearing" of her reputation because of what her husband did, which is why people hate her, but can't explain why without resorting to insults, like you. And a "smear" is spreading falsehoods about people, not credible facts such as Obama's Pastor and his previous drug use.)
Egomaniacal Psychopath Superficial, habitual lying, does not accept any sort of responsibility Classic narcissist.
(Do you know her personally? I bet not. Nor do I, but I'm not judging her. So narcissists are Egomaniacal Psychopaths Superficial, habitual liars? You seem to know a lot about this type of person...)
I can go on and on...
(Bet you could, most arrogant people can.)
Once Hillary wasn't anointed, the Clintons went low brow throughout the entire election to smear Obama (Drugs, Rev White etc).
(See "Spiteful" above, you repeat yourself.)
When that didn't work, they pointed to Hillary's experience (like her duck and cover in Kosovo and her involvement in Northern Ireland).
(Kosovo, yes a lie. However, she was only the second First Lady to enter a war zone. People involved in the Good Friday agreement have differing opinions on her contribution.)
When that didn't work, she took on Edward's persona as fighting for the working person (like riding to work in a 12mpg pick up and half sipping a shot).
(Edwards asked her to take up his cause - do your research.)
You Kirkbrew, like so many other Clinton haters, are never satisfied. Obama is going to win, we all know it. So what will you do when Clinton drops out? You'll have to find someone else to burn in effigy. People like you are only happy when you're vilifying someone else.
Kirkbrew's comments are truly on target.
Obama has taken the high road the entire campaign, and has not brought up Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, lying under oath, ransacking Vince Fosters office, stealing from the White House and being asked to return the items, making 100,000 in options under the guidance of Tyson Chickens, discovering billing records in the White House two days after expiration of the Statute of Limitations, ad nauseum, while all of these things are part of the Republican Party playbook They would resurface with a vengence if she were the nominee, and we would relive them over and over.
During the same time that she has two or three closets full of skeletons, she encouraged everyone to call Obama a Moslem while decrying what his Christian pastor was saying (Hillary.....you are a smart person. You can't have it both ways.), accused him of playing the race card (Hillary.........you didn't muzzle Bill........he started it), tried to sell herself as being "Blue collar" swigging shots of whiskey with the boys while lending her campaign fund ten million dollars out of her own pocket (again Hillary..........you can't have it both ways..........and by the way, how many blue collar workers are invited to your mansion as guests?), playing up relief for the gas tax and saving each person less than 40 dollars over the cost of the summer, but not offending the petroleum giants who are currently making 34 dollar profit on every barrel of oil. Obama didn't take any cheap shots at Hillary when she got caught lying about "Ducking and running" or brokering peace in Ireland, but she has taken every cheap shot she can. Now, she has the opportunity to be gracious and withdraw, but she would rather join McCain in every shot against her opponent, making him respond to two rather than one, in her passion to further her own ambition. She has no care about the destructive divisive nature of her tactics, perhaps subconsciously wanting to wound her opponent so that he can't win in the general election (if she can't be the winner, neither will he) and being the most destructive candidate the party has ever had.
Get a clue Hillary.........do something decent for a change.
Great article, but I have one major gripe with this:
"But it appeared that Obama's miserable two weeks leading up to election day Tuesday set the bar for him so low that his 14-point victory in North Carolina and his two-point loss in Indiana were effectively a victory in the media's eye, which, jaundiced by the expectations game, doesn't see a win as a win and a loss as a loss."
When you are ahead in the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, and then you increase your advantage in both categories on the same night, that is a win, period. Winning states means nothing in this race, and if it did it wouldn't work out very well for Clinton right now anyway.
As for media bias, while it is true that the media often seems to show a bias towards one candidate or the other, its imposable to make broad generalizations about which candidate has an advantage. As much as MSNBC is said to have an Obama bias, they loved on those Jeremiah Wright clips as much as anyone else. The bottom line is that the media is what it is, and it is the job of the candidates campaigns to manipulate the media as best they can and make the coverage favorable to their candidate. Remember, Clinton was the front runner with the favorable advantage for months before a single vote was cast!
I think its clear that Hillary has overcompensated for the usual criticism of women candidates..(not strong enough) and she has shown how tough she is. Unfortunately, being tough and persistent is no longer admirable when it becomes negative against the presumptive nominee. Yes, Obama will be the nominee.She is now embarassingly tone deaf. She is also proving that she is divisive. ..Divisive within the Democratic party even. She needs to quit. I am a feminist Democrat and a white woman over 60 and I am supporting Obama.
Ah...another nearsighted Obamite. Actually, Hillary said the U.S. COULD obliterate Iran...a factual statement simply intended to remind terrorist psychopaths that nukes might not be a winning strategy. I suppose she might have used Obama's verbiage instead and stated that we would seriously consider the correct response if Iran were to obliterate Israel. Uh huh. THAT would make a big impression.
The real turn-off to Hillary
is her combativeness; and,
even when she's ahead...she
doesn't seem to know when to
be quiet. I am in agreement
with the article...if she
continues to attack Obama & he
is the nominee; she has laid the groundwork for doubt in his abilities. Of the two, he has shown more graciousness, calm and stability. Important for a President. Obama gets
ridiculed for defending himself and Hillary continues
to provoke! She's like a child
having a tantrum.
I have voted for "lesser than evils" all of my voting life. I now feel that I will be voting for the best candidate, who is Barack Obama.
An "insignificant" 23,000 votes. If the sum total of that many votes had gone Hillary's way in the caucuses Obama hijacked, the bulk of those caucuses could have gone to Clinton and there wouldn't even be a discussion over whether Obama should bow out. He'd be already be focusing on another try eight years from now.
Hillary haters can say what they will, and spin the facts any way it makes them feel good, but the fact remains that over half of the Democrats in this country want Hillary Clinton as our nominee and next president. We will continue to buoy her rise to the top and trust in the prevailing of sanity. In the meantime, I may just have to reconsider my support of this heretofore valued liberal-cum-self-righteous rag.
I am in the same situation as William and concur with his concerns. My donation to Obama was to help him repel Hillary's attack ads, not pay for them.
Maybe it doesn't make a big impression to you, but it makes the right impression to the rest of the world. That comment caused quite a stir among the foreign press, and frankly painted Clinton as a buffoon.
Threatening to obliterate a country like some kind of comic book character and raising the specter of nuclear waris not what this country needs right now, especially not to answer a hypothetical questions about a country that doesn't even have nuclear weapons attacking a country that does.
The ONLY issues with which we should and MUST concern ourselves RIGHT NOW, not just after the election (because Bush isn't paying any attention), are (1) finding a SUSTAINABLE alternative to the present energy source (oil); and (2) cleaning up our air, water, and soil, so that homosapiens doesn't vanish from the earth as we are doing to so many other species.
Which candidate is concerned with the REAL ISSUES we are facing? These issues are so urgent that every other question pales in comparison... What do I care what Hillary or Barrack did or said when I can't drink the water; have to stay inside because of pollution and exposure to harmful rays; my food is poisoned with chemicals in the ground and intentionally sprayed on them; and thousands of species of plants and animals are dying out at this very moment because of our carelessness and selfishness... Where did the caretakers of the earth go? No, I don't care about quibbling over this and that political candidate... the only one who means anything to us is the one who will make sure we turn this situation around NOW.
I don't think Sen. Clinton should withdraw. First of all, it will be history-making when a woman's name is put into nomination for the presidency for the first time. We've waited for that a long time.
Second, it seemed to me that her speech last night stopped just short of a withdrawal, with her assurance that whoever is the Democrat nominee will have her support. I would be most interested to see both Democrats campaign from here on against the Republican agenda. Don't forget--without a Democratic decision, McCain and the Republican ax men have no clear target at whom to aim their venom. I would also like Hillary to put Obama's feet to the fire on exactly what is the nature of the change over which he intends to preside. HOW MANY JOBS will he keep in America? HOW AND WHEN will he end the war in Iraq honorably?
Third, I suspect the media is petulant at not knowing which candidate is going to be the source of the big ad buys, and they are also eager to stop paying double for reporters to cover both campaigns. It also must eat at them that this election, unlike many in recent memory, seems still to depend on the decision of voters, not on-air pundits.
Is it to be tough to be a good president? Or is it to have an idea of where we want to go and how to achieve it?
Bush looks tough enough, and is he a good presiden?
Interesting article. However, I do not think we should allow the media to decide who the winner shall be before it is all said and done.
I support Sen. Clinton 100% and think she should stay until the end. The men have had 232 years to mess up this country, so it's about time a woman had an "at bat."
Of course, if Sen, Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I will support him on election day.
I am embarassed for Hillary. Chugging a shot of whiskey and the gas tsx pandering shows that she has the neither judgment nor quality of leadership, restraint, courage, self-understanding, of even the dignity to be President of the United States. This saddens me deeply,
an old Clinton fan.
Lets see,a third world country has a crumbling economy, deeply indebt, starting to have food riots, have a shortage of food, fighting wars and have a black President. Bring it on Obama!
Same!!! It's the first time in my life I've voted for someone as opposed to against someone else!
Wow Chet, talk about racist. You don't think a black president can run a country? We are already deeply indebt as it is with white presidents running the show not to mention a recession and meaningless dragged out war. If anything it is a breath of fresh air.
blahblahblahblahblahblah
I bet that if it was required for all you people to leave your phone numbers and home addresses you would all be a little more polite with each other. Go ahead and hide behind the Internet. . .cowards.
I don't think it is true that Hillary said we "could" obliterate Iran. She said this several times and reiterated it when quizzed on news programs. It is not a question of our military might (who doubts that?); it is a question of intention to retaliate with massive force. Obliterate is a strong word and brings to mind lots of civilian dead. The world hears obliterate and thinks Hiroshima. This is simply irresponsible language. What happened to "walk softly and carry a big stick"?
DC, adios, bye-bye, and Godspeed.
While I appreciate your calm tone, I disagree strongly as far as our selection of candidates go. Just a month or two ago, the democrats were considered two of the best potential people to lead our country. However, with Clinton's tenacity and Obama's past controversies, they have slid down the inevitable muddy hill that leaves every candidate nowadays battered and bruised. They were both spectacular candidates, and still are, but it is a fact of the culture of modern campaigns that the perception of each grossly underestimates their worth as leaders.
Both honestly would do an excellent job. I can't think of any other figure that I'd like in this race.
Actually I think the argument can be made for just the opposite. Obama has had tremendous turnout even with Hillary going after him, in a traditionally racist country, and with Rush Limbaugh and his cronnies mucking up the campaign. If anything I can't help but wonder why Hillary isn't further ahead. And that is why she should drop out now. If after all that has happened this is the best she could do, and with a Ex President campaigning for her then she really can't get the job done.
Oops, shoot. The above was intended as a response to Richard, the second comment. Assumed "Respond" was a direct-reply feature.
Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the issue isn't about whether or not Hillary or Obama are more electable, etc? You know, on the one hand we democrats have Hillary Clinton, who, depsite all of her nasty tricks and obvious pandering, wasn't a bad choice for the democrats to make as a potential presidential candidate. On the other hand, we democrats have Obama, who is the obvious favorite. Now, instead of complaining about the fact that Hillary is tearing the party apart, why not stop to realize that for the first time in years the democrats have actually put forth a couple of really good, electable nominees? I think the fact that the party is split so evenly in regards to these two is actually a good thing - it means that we have put forth two individuals (or rather, they have put themselves forth), who are electable and who both have a wide base of supporters. Good for us.
I for one am tired of watching my party put forth people who have absolutely no chance of winning in the general election. Micheal Dukakis? John Kerry? Al Gore? C'mon, they were all about as personable and exciting as watching grass grow. And the American electorate being what it is, image is at least as important as substance. For proof of this, i would point out that while Bush was appointed president once, America actually voted him into office the second time. Un-friggin'-believable.
Now that Gore is seen as a senior party statesman his star has risen, but still, does anyone remember the complete lack of charisma the man possesed when he was running for president? I am not saying that he isn't intelligent, and he obviously would have been a much better choice than the idiot who is in office now, but still, if you want to be elected you need to be able to connect with and speak to the electorate, and he just couldn't. Nor could Kerry or Dukakis. And say what you want to about Bill Clinton, the man was probably one of the most popular, and i daresay effective presidents the U.S. has had in a long time.
All that being said, i return to my original point: i am excited and happy about the fact that we democrats have finally put forth a couple of people who could actually win.
Abny - Maybe HRC brings out these adjectives because because of the way she's run her campaign over the past year or more. Maybe a lot of folks are just sick of that kind of politics.
Hillman,
Nor do I mean to question your superiority, but let's go through YOUR post.
(Yeah, let's talk down to the "little lady".)
Kirkbrew never mentioned gender. You're the only one who brought it up; making the implication the "little lady" can't defend herself... bravo.
(Yeah, like the majority of Congress who also voted for the RESOLUTION, not war.)
Is there any particular reason you left off the important part: resolution TO USE MILITARY FORCE? That other Congressmen failed to actually read the NIE and failed us as a nation isn't what I would call a strong defense of her actions. It's the, "well, everyone else was doing it too" defense, which isn't actually a defense.
(Yes, they should. It's not the people's fault that their "leaders" chose badly. And she is feeling the pain, since she has lost delegates.)
She's playing on the same field as everyone else. If she had an issue with the way it was handled, she should have mentioned it before now, but she didn't seem too concerned with people being disenfranchised when she was the front runner, now did she?
(The term refers to the "smearing" of her reputation because of what her husband did, which is why people hate her, but can't explain why without resorting to insults, like you. And a "smear" is spreading falsehoods about people, not credible facts such as Obama's Pastor and his previous drug use.)
*roll eyes* ... "for all I know Obama isn't a Muslim". Ring a bell? I'm not sure who's smearing Obama more, Hillary or you? Drug use, Wright... are you kidding me? Like Hillary wasn't right along side Bill not inhaling... lol.
(Do you know her personally? I bet not. Nor do I, but I'm not judging her. So narcissists are Egomaniacal Psychopaths Superficial, habitual liars? You seem to know a lot about this type of person...)
One does not need to know her personally (i like how high you set the bar). There is ample evidence of her deceit. It's not anyone's fault you choose to look the other way; that's what apologists do.
(Bet you could, most arrogant people can.)
Or... perhaps he could go on and on because Hillary has given us a lot of ammunition? Unless of course this is another conspiracy?
(Kosovo, yes a lie. However, she was only the second First Lady to enter a war zone. People involved in the Good Friday agreement have differing opinions on her contribution.)
Spin it baby!!
Perhaps, like a lot of people, the way Hillary has run her campaign disgusts him? I know I'm disgusted... and I liked Bill and Hillary before this all got underway. Vilifying is Hillary's only weapon at this point and she's been using it regularly. Only an apologist would complain she's getting a small taste of her own medicine.
To Hillman: very well argued/spoken.
To MJ: why is America allowing male political talking heads (the cable pundits) to "call" this election? Why can't the press "REPORT"? I'm so tired of reading front-page "news" that is hardly one step removed from the editorial page.
And why does no one (it seems) talk about NC? It is unlikely to vote D in November (based on past three elections); one/third of those voting were black (9-in-10 voted for Obama) where nationally the % is one/seventh. Can you win a general election with 90% of a 13% voting block?
It is difficult to give up on ones dream. Mrs. Clinton has given her all for at least 15 months now and is looking for any glimmer of hope to hold on to.
Reality will set in, in form of pressure from here own party, and she will bow out.
At some point she will run out of her own money and stop throwing good $ after bad and the game will be officially over.
If she hangs on too long, and we are alrady at that point, she will ruin her chances of ever being elected for anything ever again.
If you are close to her, please tell her she is losing more points with more folks everyday by carrying on this selfish and divisive campaign.
She underperformed in two states yesterday.
The ball game has been over months.
Her misdirected efforts are futile.
Barack Obama is the person we Democrats have chosen to represent us.
Game Over.
I would have to say that given that Obama wasn't a well known candidate prior to this election and everyone thought hillary would just walk away with a victory that Obama has "won" this nomination. Hillary has a lot more cash and has run one of the most vicious primary campaigns ever and Obama has weathered it based solely on his own merits. Sure, david only just beat goliath but no-one even expected him to show up. This is a huge win, these were not evenly matched candidates.
"Even sader has been our choice of final candidates. Clinton has had her own troubled past; Obama suffers from questionable past associations"
Can't argue with that, but the sad reality is that just about every American, when exposed to the relentless media scrutiny candidates today must endure, has something unsavory waiting in their past. I do. Everyone I know does. If we could only chose from the saints amongst us, the pool of eligible candidates would be tiny indeed. I doubt that any of the founding fathers would have emerged unscathed from the horrible media tests exacted today. Face it, we've become a nation of hypocrites.
jimbo...
I think you've nailed it.
Hillary keeps claiming to be "vetted" (another made-up word. She's been to the veterinarian?)
She's NOT "vetted" in any sense of the word. The reason why the controversy over the Clintons went away is because they were out of the White House. Al Gore wouldn't even ask Clinton to campaign for him.
If she won the nomination it would be a replay of the 90s. Rush Limbaugh and others would have a field day. All we would hear about for 3 months would be the old stuff plus the millions they've made since leaving the White House... the Bill Clinton trade deals, Hillary's own religion-gate, Monica Lewinsky, it would go on ad nauseum.
-Wexler