home

What Now For Hillary?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:38:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for me only)

The final number looks like a double digit win (the spread is currently 11 points and the current delegate split is 13-8, and likely to be around 42-32 at the end) win for Obama. That is bad for Clinton. But the bad news comes from two other results. For the first time in a primary outside of Illinois and African-American dominated states, Hillary Clinton lost Democrats to Barack Obama by 51-48.

She lost her base tonight, even though she narrowly defeated Obama among women voters. If this is a real change, then Clinton will be defeated on March 4 in Texas and Ohio and Obama will secure the nomination fairly, decisively and squarely.

The Last Stand is upon the Clinton campaign. It is the Lone Star state of Texas and in the Buckeye state of Ohio. She must win both. Or it is over.

Update (TL): Comments now closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

< CNN Projects Obama Wins Wisconsin | Late Night: A Medley >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Now For Hillary? | 286 comments (286 topical)
    I want you to... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    ... start voting tomorrow in Texas.  That's some confidence :P.

    Kuebler-Ross five states of grief: (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST
      1. Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
       2. Anger: "Why me? It's not fair."
       3. Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my children graduate."
       4. Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
       5. Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."
    Even (none / 0) (#278)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:11:14 PM EST
    if McCain is president.....

    [ Parent ]
    What now? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by rdandrea on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:55:31 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign (I'm not holding Hillary 100 percent responsible) will go even more negative in desperation, and will make things even worse for themselves.

    The harder they push, the more the electorate seems to push back.  It's like being behind 3 touchdowns in the last quarter and having to throw the ball on every play.  It's risky to start with; even riskier when the other side knows it's coming.

    Some Truths (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    Okay, here are some hard truths.

    1. Hillary must not only win Ohio and Texas, but she must win them BIG. This is not going to happen, unless Obama implodes utterly. Doubtful.

    2. The so-called "plagiarism" scandal is no scandal. It is ridiculous to speak of plagiarism in the context of political campaigns. No candidate is totally original: they borrow from speechwriters, other politicians (i.e. Hillary co-opting "yes we can"), the press, the web, etc.

    3. Obama is not unvetted. This is a pure myth. He has been scrutinized by the Clinton campaign closer than any candidate this election season. So, give it a rest on this "unvetted" line.


    4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH (McCain) (none / 0) (#227)
    by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:24:35 PM EST
    Unless people wake up.  This is not a popularity contest.

    If you vote for an empty suit with a smile the war hero with the experience destroys him and you end up with 4 more years of Bush.

    At least put up a fight with the warrior with the experience, Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Done (none / 0) (#269)
    by sumac on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:05:30 PM EST
    I donated money and bought my Hillary shirt and bumper sticker today. I may be the only person in Austin supporting her, but I am gonna try.

    [ Parent ]
    Bless you! So did my daughter (none / 0) (#273)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:00 PM EST
    with her hard-earned pay, minus having to pay her own health insurance, too, in the job market these days for your generation.  That's the number-one issue for me as well as for her in voting for Hillary.

    (p.s. Did you see the gorgeous brown t-shirt on hillarygear.com?:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Did you notice McCain hinted at that? (none / 0) (#280)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    I watched 2 minutes but he got the biggest applaud when he said to the effect that a person speaking eloquently of change but empty promises. I do not have the exact words but at the time hearing this, people knew who he was talking about. I was thinking, It has already started and they are going to keep hammering their point home. This is not going to be fun.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, sure (none / 0) (#286)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:16:13 PM EST
    he was speaking in front of the Elks lodge. Sneering about false hope to a group of ancient rich white men isn't a very appealing tactic.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, the exact same point (none / 0) (#288)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    that has proven to be such a winner for hillary.

    Dont let people like John get you down. Obama can win this thing, and he will do so far easier than Hillary would have.

    [ Parent ]

    Good God I hope he can't win (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    the last thing this country needs is another inexperienced empty suit like Bush.


    [ Parent ]
    Encouraging sign (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:21:07 PM EST
    Did you notice that in McCain's speech that he basically telegraphed the lines he intends to take against Obama?

    I'm the experienced one.
    False hopes.
    Empty rhetoric.

    I.e. all the negative stuff that Hillary has tried and has totally flopped.

    McCain has an immense (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    advantage compared to HRC.  He's male.  

    [ Parent ]
    The media hasn't picked it up when (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:52:57 PM EST
    Hillary said it.  My sister had a long standing problem with her ex-husband.  She would tell him something and he wouldn't believe her.  Then some man would tell him the exact same thing and suddenly it became believable.  

    The media loves McCain.  They won't unless there's some real change go after him.  So Obama will have to live with the same things HRC has had too.  He will try and get the media to go after McCain and he will find them not amplifying it for him as they were when he was up against HRC.  

    Will the media still love Obama?  We've heard how Obama has been standoffish to the media.  One thing the media loves about McCain is how he is very open to them.  They protect him.  Which side do you think the media will fall on?  I think Obama will have to also get used to the media also picking on every little thing he does and says just like HRC has had to live with.  

    I really hope this starts up now because we need to know if he can handle this now before he becomes irrevocably our candidate.  If he's going to fall apart better now then in the GE.  So let's all hope the media gives him the real treatment they give Democrats because he needs to learn that the treatment he's been through is nothing no matter how much he thinks he's been vetted.  

    [ Parent ]

    sorry, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    Yes, some of the negative media coverage is deserved, but much of it is not deserved.  And some of it is despicable sexism.  See Chris Tweety Matthews for exhibit A, and if you think he's an anamoly, go to MediaMatters.

    You might think Obama is the better candidate, that's fine.  You might think that he's managed the campaign better (that's probably correct).

    But it's quite possible for the above to be true and that Clinton has gotten an unfair shake in the media.

    Interesting - from WA (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    Looks like about 800K turnout in the utterly meaningless WA Dem primary (I didn't even realize they were having one - delegates were chosen from already held caucuses).

    500K turnout for GOP. Wasn't really competitive either, but still, it was their official delegate selecting event.

    Also... (5.00 / 2) (#289)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST
    Just emailed this to BTD:

    There's a huge disparity in the caucus results, and the primary results on the democrat side here in Washington...

    WA Primary: (62% counted)
    Obama:   50%   214,250
    Clinton: 47%   197,980

    WA Caucus:
    Obama:   68%
    Clinton: 31%

    More evidence we need to get rid of caucuses?  A 37% spread as opposed to a 3%?  And this wasn't due to early voting, the absentee ballots were sent out only a few days before the Caucus.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, why all the negativity? (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:11 PM EST
    I have seen more than one post on this site tonight along the lines of "ding dong, the witch is dead."

    Great summary (4.80 / 5) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    The way I look at it (as a Clinton supporter) at this point is this:

    Either Sen Clinton will put her base together and manage to pull two solid wins to stay in the game, or honestly Sen Obama would have won the nomination on his own terms and deserves it. Obviously (and hopefully) we will all support the nominee.

    My only fear (and I hope I am wrong) is that Sen Obama will lose to Sen McCain. I am not a fan of Sen McCain, but I thought his speech tonight made some very effective attacks against Sen Obama. And I don't even think he has begun.

    Think of it this way (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:27:45 PM EST
    You Hillary supporters are helping the future nominee (if it is Obama) by working the refs.  You're basically getting the message out there that the media will be biased against Obama and be favorable to McCain.  I know you're doing this to help your candidate--Hillary--but it also has the added benefit to making the press aware of the bias.  You guys will be champing at the bit to say "I told you so" so you will hopefully watch the media like hawks and get on their case if this does come to pass.

    So thanks for helping the Democratic team out.  You are setting the goalposts at a very favorable position for the future Democratic nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:29:57 PM EST
    The message we're getting out is that the media adores Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope you are right, (none / 0) (#134)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:34:41 PM EST
    but this is getting tiresome, and I don't think I have the where·with·al to continue being this vigilant through november.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#216)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:17:52 PM EST
    you're probably right that the ardent Hillary supporter will not be as motivated to defend Obama from unfair media treatment.  

    But Obama and the Democrats can certainly fall back on the meme that is taking shape: that the media treats McCain as a saint and is generally hostile to the Democrats.  The media is especially unfair to Hillary but will do the same to Gore or Obama or Kerry.  And it happens to be true--the media does treat Democrats unfairly--especially Hillary.

    To me--this media bias is best exemplified when the New York Times ran an investigative story last year on page A-1 about how many times Senator Clinton and the former president had shared a bed in the recent past.

    Democrats need to start sticking up for one another and fighting the media together.

    [ Parent ]

    Should have told Obama ace (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:50:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    McCain vs Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    I think a lot of McCain's stuff against Obama can be rebutted.

    For starters, here is a great YouTube on how to rebut the "experience" attack.  (Note: it's Bill Clinton rebutting the "lack of experience" charge against Bush).

    And, yes, Obama has (and will have) more gaffes.  But McCain's is racking up quite a few, too (in Iraq for 100 years; don't know much about economics; voted for the tax cuts before he was against them; etc etc)

    Obama has a hard time in debates against Hillary, because she's so darn smart, a total policy wonk (and so right on so many issues).  This is most decidedly not the case with McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    I trust (none / 0) (#38)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:02:13 PM EST
    that McCain would have substantially more gaffes than Obama.  The question is whether the MSM picks them up. Not everyone hangs out on talk left as the election results roll in.  As much as I like to be right, I hope I am wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, I have a question (none / 0) (#108)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:23:45 PM EST
    Why do you call yourself "Practically Lactating?"


    [ Parent ]
    I have a question (none / 0) (#114)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    Care to share why you call yourself "Practically Lactating?"


    [ Parent ]
    It's in reference (none / 0) (#124)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    to Maureen Dowd, specifically, and in general, the media's lack of intellectual curiosity.

    I'm not pregnant, thought Obama's pauses during debates...

    [ Parent ]

    what? (none / 0) (#282)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:12:54 PM EST
    not everyone hangs out on talk left as the election results roll in

    they don't?

    [ Parent ]

    Great (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    When McCain sees that on YouTube, he will be toast!

    [ Parent ]
    You mean... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
    When McCain finds out what YouTube is.

    [ Parent ]
    Lets hope he asks Ted Stevens (none / 0) (#162)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    about the intertubes.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's a bad sign for McCain (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    that he thinks he has to go negative so early.  He has no message.  He's beatable.

    [ Parent ]
    it's never too early (none / 0) (#61)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:11:36 PM EST
    The Republican attack machine knows how to make their characterizations stick. What comes to mind when you think of John Kerry?

    [ Parent ]
    He was for (none / 0) (#166)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    the Iraq war before he was against it.

    [ Parent ]
    what comes to mind? (none / 0) (#284)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    what comes to mind when you think of john kerry?

    my closeted uncle that everyone ignores.

    [ Parent ]

    Hunting expedition. (none / 0) (#285)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    interesting (none / 0) (#39)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    Found the video on CNN.
    I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.
    This is exactly what I was afraid of. We continue fighting amongst ourselves, while McCain polishes his message for the general.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama won't even know what hit him. (none / 0) (#234)
    by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    The GOP machine, the SwiftBoaters, and McCain will attack him from so many sides he will go down like a ton of bricks.

    Hillary should stop being so soft on Obama.  She should give him a taste of what he faces if he wins the nomination.

    I'm still hoping Hillary wins TX and OH and we don't have to suffer under 4 more years of Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    I think he would know what hit him (none / 0) (#262)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:56:54 PM EST
    Do you really think it will be effective for either McCain or Clinton to get more negative right now?  They both have the same argument.  Obama has no experience.  False hope.  Fancy speeches.  Can't lead right away like them.  

    What else can they do though?  What would a dirty trick entail, exactly?  Because I really can't think of anything that would work.  What nefarious politicking could they do?  Go around telling people he's black?  Say Mrs. Obama hates America.  His middle name is Hussein?  His father is from Africa and his grandma has a pet chicken?

    Really.  Just seems like a loser to even do those attacks.  Certainly won't work on the younger voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Right and a Vietnam veteran (none / 0) (#277)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    with medals for his heroism wasn't going to have to worry about attacks on him from a virtual deserter.  Just because you can't think of how they can do it doesn't mean they can't.

    [ Parent ]
    That was terrible (none / 0) (#293)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    It was unbelievable how Republicans were able to beat their chests and claim to be tougher than the Democrats around 2004.  It was particularly offensive, as you note, to have war avoiders lecturing those that actually served, like John Kerry.  But the Democrats have themselves to blame.  The Democrats encouraged this abuse by not standing up to the Republicans.  The Democrats did not have the courage of their convictions, if they did have convictions, and they always looked weak when they backed down from the Republicans.  And the Democrats haven't learned.  There's a reason the current Senate censured MoveOn.org on the Senate floor but failed to censure Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld or even Bush.  The Democrats need to get better at fighting.

    Once again, what dirty trick do you imagine hurting Obama?  What constituency will be susceptible to these attacks?  You haven't given a concrete example of how a "dirty trick" would hurt Obama.  

    Nothing Hillary has done has worked.

    [ Parent ]

    HRC has had the media working against her (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    Don't assume that BO will continue to have the media working for him like he has so far.  HRC has had to work against the media while BO has had the media working for him.  If he gets the nomination he more than likely will end up in HRC's position.  He will not have the media amplifying his attacks while ridiculing hers.  It will then be the opposite.  He will have to learn very quickly to deal with a media amplifying the right wing attacks while ridiculing him.  One of the danger signs I've seen is that he is standoffish to the media.  Who do you think the media will pick?  Obama who is standoffish to them or McCain who is open with them?  McCain is a long time favorite of theirs.  Obama is a new fad.  

    I can think of lots of attacks.  Rezco is one.  Whitewater was nothing more than a losing land deal for the Clintons and it was turned into a huge scandal that never went away.  Major reporters kept that alive in our most respected papers.  Do you really think that an issue like Rezco can't be made into something?  That's an easy one for the sleaze masters on the right to build on.  When they go there Obama won't be able to just try and blow it off as he has been able to now.  

    We can run this election on hope that BO will get the same treatment he has against HRC.  I'm really hoping that's not how we're going to do it though.  That's why I want to know before we're stuck with him if he can handle it.  Because while I don't want him elected if he's on the ballot I'll hold my nose and vote for him but I don't want to see another election lost because he runs another Kerry like election and I can see that coming with his rhetoric and unrealistic talk about how he's already been vetted.  He either doesn't have a clue or he's really just hoping he can con his way through.  

    [ Parent ]

    Google for (none / 0) (#294)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:02 PM EST
    Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn.  Don't know if it will be something that brings him down -- but Kerry was swiftboated on no evidence.

    [ Parent ]
    is Dohm the professor occupying the (none / 0) (#297)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    Edward Said chair at present?

    [ Parent ]
    Yawn (none / 0) (#306)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    So Obama served on a charity board along with this Ayers guy.  Big deal.  Didn't Hillary serve on the board of Wal-Mart?  I don't know about this Ayers guy but he's not in prison so his "domestic terrorism" can't be too much worse than the acts of economic warfare Wal-Mart has committed against the American people.  So I don't think Hillary supporters want to start evaluating the worth of the boards they served on.

    And any Republican that uses the Board argument will likely fail as well.  How many Republicans have served on boards with criminals?  Ken Lay was one of George Bush's top supporters!  At least Obama was serving on a board to give grants to children.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that (4.66 / 3) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:32 PM EST
    nothing has really changed from what we were saying last week, which is that Clinton needs to lock up TX, OH and PA.  We all expected her to lose WI and HI.

    I, for one, am hoping that Obama has a gaffe or starts to show some cracks.  I still firmly support Clinton and she's still got my money and my time.  This is certainly not a point to give up.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    the only new thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that some of the demographics in the exit polls don't look great for Clinton -- but I also, while I think that demographic data is useful, think that demographics interact heavily with more local political lines, which can vary a lot state to state even in the same region. So it's hard to say whether the demographics in this poll are about the demographic groups, or whether they're about WI.

    Otherwise, I also figured it was likely that TX and OH would be Clinton's next wins, and she does need them. If she loses one of them, she's done. If she wins both, she's got a shot still if she takes PA. Her path is narrowing heavily, but it's not entirely blocked yet.

    It'll be interesting to see where the narrative goes now. Obama was having his first really, genuinely bad couple of news cycles right before this, so will the WI win end that, or will it continue? Hard to say.

    [ Parent ]

    don't forget that (none / 0) (#117)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    according to Cream, our embedded poster (haha!) lots of republicans were openly encouraged to cross over for Obama to make sure that Hillary did not win.  If this is what happened, then we might see the exiting polls skewed as a result of this gerrymandering.  This is one of the reasons I haven't called it quits.  I think that what was said last week is still correct: TX, OH and PA are the big ones.  

    I wonder--do those states have closed dem primaries?

    [ Parent ]

    The Texas Primary... (none / 0) (#128)
    by sweetthings on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:53 PM EST
    Is open. Given that the Republican race will essentially be over, look for lots of Republican participation in the primaries, though I don't know which way that will break. I doubt very many Republicans will bother with the caucuses. (which are in theory closed anyway)

    I'm not sure about the other two.

    [ Parent ]

    I think OH is open (none / 0) (#143)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    but am not sure on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Note that only 9% in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    exit polls said they were Republicans.  That is so preposterous that I had to clean my computer screen.  This was the closest state in 2004, this state had GOP governors for two decades until a couple of years ago, this state is so red outside of the large urban areas that there are Confederate flags.

    This was significant GOP crossover tonight, encouraged on the front page of the largest paper in the state and on conservative talk radio shows.  

    The important question is whether Obama has won them over and would they stay Dem in November.  Probably enough of them to make Wisconsin not as close as in 2004, probably it will stay blue -- but not enough to create much coattail effect here.  That will hurt where it counts, in our economy which is suffering so seriously here . . . in Milwaukee, anyway.  And when we don't have a Dem legislature, Milwaukee suffers even more.

    But not that the Milwaukeeans who turned out for him will figure that out, while they live on "hope" of "change."

    [ Parent ]

    9% in the Democratic primary (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:03:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thanks, Cream (none / 0) (#191)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:04:44 PM EST
    good to get your perspective.

    Don't give up on Clinton.  She is not giving up on us.

    [ Parent ]

    A couple (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    of weeks ago, she was leading in HI. I just think she can't win without the support of her party. They've all but come out and endorsed Obama. I think people start thinking, how can she work with Congress if the Democrats don't want her. It's one of the dirtiest things I've ever seen in politics. Certainly give me a new perspective on the Democratic Party. I can see the history books now.

    [ Parent ]
    he won hawaii (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    because he blasted the airwaves with ads reminding them he's a favorite son and grew up there and his sister, who still lives there, campaigned huge for him.

    Senator Innouye endorsed Hillary. He's a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    I expected her to pull of (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:33 PM EST
    one February state. Just one.

    Nada.

    [ Parent ]

    She did: New Mexico (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:13 PM EST
    not that it got covered by the media.

    [ Parent ]
    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#186)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    That was a 2/5 state.

    [ Parent ]
    And the "2" (none / 0) (#237)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:38:44 PM EST
    means it was in February.  Per your comment about . . . February.

    [ Parent ]
    My implication was post-Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#258)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:33 PM EST
    I'm well aware that Hillary won big on 2/5.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD and I (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    both predicted she wouldn't win any in Feb. It's always been all about March for her.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#160)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    but my concern was always that she would collapse for lack of a win--like Giuliani. Different campaign, but same principle.

    [ Parent ]
    Giuliani (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    Didn't go into Florida having won CA, NY, NJ and MA.  I don't know why that comparison keeps getting made. He had NOTHING but Florida.   Clinton goes into March as a close second and-currently, at least-polling very well.

    [ Parent ]
    Being starved for a win (none / 0) (#190)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:04:31 PM EST
    is being starved for a win.

    [ Parent ]
    the comparison isn't perfect (none / 0) (#203)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    but it's not completely unfounded either.  The similarity is this: they both seemed to cede a few weeks of primaries to their opponents.

    It's possible, as I wrote above, that Clinton didn't have much of a choice.  Nevertheless, it's a bit risky.

    [ Parent ]

    It's more than risky (none / 0) (#211)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    I don't think it's a grand scheme, by any means. It's her only choice.  

    [ Parent ]
    "hoping that Obama has a gaffe" ?? (none / 0) (#148)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    You are "hoping that Obama has a gaffe" ??  Is that how you hope Hillary Clinton wins?

    Yowza!

    [ Parent ]

    yes, I am hoping that he has a gaffe (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
    What do you not understand when I say that I want Clinton to win the nomination?  Is that somehow not clear to you?  I will state it again: I hope that Obama has a gaffe because I think that he is a bad candidate and that McCain will pulverize him in the ge.  I also am an ardent Clinton supporter and believe that she is the best choice for our party to lead us forward.  

    Honestly, don't you get tired up there on your high horse?  I have seen you make many, many snide, personal comments about Clinton before, then turn around when someone like me says something that in any way can be construed as not pro-Obama.  This is politics, plain and simple.  We all want our candidate to win.  Voicing that opinion is not wrong.  It's actually DEMOCRATIC.

    [ Parent ]

    excuse me (none / 0) (#187)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST
    I have seen you make many, many snide, personal comments about Clinton before

    No you have not, because I have not made them.  I have been respectful towards her because I think she is awesome, and I have defended her -- even on this blog, including today -- against unwarranted attacks.  That's called playing fairly.

    Wishing ill against another Dem candidate -- when both candidates are against the war -- is, in my book, going too far.  I would think that you would want to win on your candidate's own merits, rather than trashing the other.

    But then, what do I know?  I try to err on the side of civility.

    Nevertheless, your characterization of my posts is simply incorrect, and speaks volumes.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not going to get into a contest with you (none / 0) (#197)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:59 PM EST
    you have your opinions and I have mine.  

    [ Parent ]
    yes, we each have our own opinions (none / 0) (#217)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:18:34 PM EST
    but please don't assert stuff about me that's not correct.  I have tried my best to be respectful amidst a crowd that doesn't seem to friendly to me; and I have always, on this blog, been respectful towards Clinton.  I meant what I said: I think she's an awesome candidate.  And, fwiw, I truly think she's been a awesome Senator, terrific campaigner, and that it's blindingly obvious that she's qualified to be president on the first day.    I think even most Obama supporters believe that last point.

    (And that's exactly why I have not made snide comments about her).

    I think what's happened to her is a combination of appallingly unfair media treatment (which I have stated many places here) and a confluence of circumstances (and, perhaps, lousy campaign senior staff).

    [ Parent ]

    Pfft (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    like every gaffe made by the Clinton campaign hasn't been jumped all over by Obama supporters on the internet.

    This is politics, of course people hope their opponents mess up.

    I'm actually fine with Obama as nominee -- I really don't care one way or the other all that much and find both stunningly mediocre -- but some of his supporters online are almost enough to push me far over the edge with their vitriol. So watching a few of y'all every now and then pull the Shocked! Shocked, I say! thing is pretty funny.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh this is so exciting. (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM EST
    I cannot wait to start the General

    We'll need to see two things (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    out of OH and TX in the next week to ten days. a) does Obama get a bounce to even or ahead; and b) will that bounce last until election day?

    The trends are for him, but now he gets to face a super tuesday as a frontrunner. That should be fun.

    the problem... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    with Clinton's strategy (which is not too unlike Rudy's strategy) is that by declaring an "ultimate battle" a full four weeks after Super Tuesday, is that she's lost enough states in a row that the perception of "loser" starts to creep in.

    Perhaps she made the best decision she could, given her finances at the time, or the demographics.  But, in any event, ceding four weeks worth of losses is tough for any candidate to overcome.

    I don't think this is over.  Plenty of time for unexpected events, gaffes, etc.  But the momentum is genuine, and the trend lines are going in his direction.  It's going to be tough for her to win both Texas and Ohio -- those are expensive markets (especially Texas).

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with Clinton's strategy (none / 0) (#163)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    is that she didn't fire Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes too.  If there were a an unexpected event, one of these three would find a way to reverse any positive from it for Hillary.  I have never seen such an inept group when it comes to the press.  

    It isn't over yet but it does not look good.    

    [ Parent ]

    Harold Ickes? (none / 0) (#189)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:04:11 PM EST
    Harold Ickes?  You mean the guy who, as a member of the DNC, actually voted to strip Michigan of his delegates?

    (Does anyone see why this looks pretty bad for Clinton to now argue that MI results should count)?

    [ Parent ]

    I agree, it's a problem (none / 0) (#167)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    and Obama is clearly the likely winner.  But here comes the but.

    Hillary strikes me as the type of person, as are many of her supporters, that is at her best when she is down.  Any other person, I would count her out.

    [ Parent ]

    The One and Only Good Thing (4.50 / 6) (#44)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    It is always better to win than to lose and I agree the exit polls hold definite warning signs for Clinton.  

    The one and only good thing that might come out of tonight is a media belief that she is through.  Why is that good?  If you believe, as I have come to believe, that the MSM is never going to let Clinton win the nomination, then that means Obama has to lose it.  He has to fall.  

    I think there is a feeling that Obama is due to come down, that he's gone too high, too fast with little media criticism.  He isn't the second coming no matter how many times Chris Matthews says he is.  Yet the media is likely to delay the inevitable backlash, the inevitable questioning so long as they think Clinton is still in the race.

    With her loss in Wisconsin, it makes it more likely that the media will focus more on Obama - because they think Clinton is done.  They might feel freer to tear down what they have built up.  I suspect the Deval Patrick stuff will continue.  I don't think it was just one or two instances.

    Now the media might play it safe and wait until after March 4 before really going after Obama.  And if that's the case, she really is dead meat.  She might be able to beat Barack Obama, but she has no chance at beating Jesus Christ.  

    You have such great posts. I've been hoping the (none / 0) (#57)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    Deval stuff would become an issue. So many people think Obama is a total phony, and this stuff brings credence to the fact that he is just another run of the mill politician.  I'm wondering if the stuff Michelle Obama said will get any traction from the media, not just the McCains.  

    [ Parent ]
    well, clearly (none / 0) (#67)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    whatever you think of obama - he's not run of the mill.

    by the way, can someone PLEASE tell me what the deal with the Michelle Obama thing is?  I have no idea what you're talking about.

    [ Parent ]

    She made a statement (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by spit on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    to the effect of for the first time in her life, really being proud of America (there was more context -- look at the CNN political ticker, I think they had it earlier today).

    This was jumped all over by McCain's wife (can't remember her name at the moment, apologies) as unpatriotic. It's become a thing, though frankly I think it's pretty dumb. Dumb never stopped anything from being damaging in politics, though.

    [ Parent ]

    She's finally proud to be an American, for the (none / 0) (#69)
    by Angel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:00 PM EST
    first time in her adult life.  And we all have broken souls and Obama knows how to fix everything.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess he forgot to bring (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    "hope" to Michelle Obama during those years she was not proud to be an American and felt like she had a broken soul.

    Apparently, Change does not start in the home?

    [ Parent ]

    If the hope sceptor (none / 0) (#113)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    didn't work with Michelle, why should we think it will work with the GOP?

    [ Parent ]
    Nevermind (none / 0) (#115)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You obviously read the Newsweek (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    profile too quickly.  He invited her to a community org. mtg., he spoke, and she was converted on the spot.  

    [ Parent ]
    Is that necessary? (none / 0) (#161)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    Michelle Obama is a smart, classy woman who is not a politician and has been on the road campaigning for most of a year. She's doing her best to echo Barack's themes. She obviously has been proud of her country before and was trying to find a way to say that she's especially proud now. That it came out imperfectly is hardly surprising considering that (a) she's not a practiced politician and (b) anybody who has to do so much of this is bound to have a few tongue-tied moments.

    It's not surprising that Fox News and Cindy McCain are pumping this thing hard, but there's really no call for nasty remarks about the Obama family.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I am sorry (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:47 PM EST
    I have a problem with her statements over the past few weeks.  She has been the wife of a politician for many years now.  If she is not ready for prime-time, I think it's valid to point that out.  Theresa Heinz-Kerry had an enormous amount of crap thrown at her for the same sort of political naivete and no one cried foul at the time.

    This is politics, guys.  You can't keep your candidate in a bubble and expect the other side to play by the rules.  Our country is at stake here-literally.  People are being tortured in our name.  People are being executed in our name.  Our soldiers are dying for nothing but an enormous pis*sing contest started by an inexperienced, cocky young guy whom everyone wanted to have over for supper.

    I don't want a best friend.  I already have one.  I want a president.

    [ Parent ]

    Understood (none / 0) (#209)
    by dmk47 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    That's gracious of you, thanks. There's certainly no doubt that the Republicans will say nasty things about Michelle Obama and she and the campaign will have to prepare for it, but I don't see any reason to think she's anything other than a decent,  impressive, smart professional woman.

    "People are being tortured in our name."

    That's the most important point. Wherever you started in the primary, the GE will between a Democrat who will stop the crimes against humanity and a Republican who just voted not to.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't tell if your post was directed (none / 0) (#179)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:56:07 PM EST
    at me, but if so, my joke was directed at the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    amen (none / 0) (#195)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I told you in the other thread. Check my (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    comments.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    i missed it.  thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    You're welcome andreww. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    Congratulations on a big night for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:40:39 PM EST
    I have to admit - I'm getting really excited - and I could now officially have my heart broken.  My wife and our daughter went to springfield to watch him announce his candidacy.  I can't believe this might actually happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Which thing? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:39 PM EST
    1. Yesterday she said "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

    2. Today she said: "That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."


    [ Parent ]
    NO (none / 0) (#141)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:36:41 PM EST
    The average American will not care about Mrs. Obama's comments.  You will lose by trying to attack her.  McCain will most likely lose by attacking her so I doubt he goes there.  Mrs. Obama will simply stand there and look pretty and have a reasonable explanation for her comments.  I mean, c'mon, what do you intend on proving?  That Mrs. Obama hates America?  That's just silly and anyone making such an argument will look like a fool.  It will only help Obama if you attack Mrs. Obama.  Same with Mrs. McCain.  The only way to attack her is by association--by saying that Mr. McCain is somehow morally suspect because he has been married multiple times.  I'm sorry.  An attack on these candidate's wives simply will not work politically.

    I know this is infuriating and not fair to you Hillary supporters.  It's a double standard.  But that's the reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Want to revise your first sentence? (none / 0) (#223)
    by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    Being ashamed of America and telling us we all have broken souls seems a little more intense than comments about "Stand By Your Man" and chocolate chip cookies. Attacking Hillary for those trivialities didn't seem to hurt anybody doing the attacking.

    You may recall the latter two have something to do with how we got to where we are tonight.


    [ Parent ]

    First Sentence Stays (unless edited by TL) (none / 0) (#238)
    by SFHawkguy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:38:59 PM EST
    One would think that Hillary's comment about a chocolate chip cookie (or her recipe choices, whatever) would be fairly innocuous.  Any reasonable person at least.  But people were not reasonable in the 90s.  For some reason people treat Bill and Hillary differently and make a big deal out of stupid comments like this.  It's crazy.  But they went nutso on Hillary unlike any other candidate's spouse.  It's not fair.  But Mrs. Obama or Mrs. McCain or Mrs. Bush do get the same rise out of people.  

    If you go around making a serious argument that Mrs. Obama somehow hates America you will look like a fool--deservedly so.  It's a double standard but I welcome a little bit of decorum and rationality back into the selection process.  So I guess this is one good change that the Obamas will bring.  Politics may not be as politicized as it is with the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]

    Encourage Tweety (none / 0) (#74)
    by Practically Lactating on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:16:28 PM EST
    Now the media might play it safe and wait until after March 4 before really going after Obama.  And if that's the case, she really is dead meat.

    I am considering sending some encouraging words to Tweety et al. I previously sent an email in hopes that they could be reigned in, but after careful consideration, perhaps I should be more supportive of Tweety's cause. He really does have some good points and is very incisive in the way that he makes them.

    [ Parent ]

    Have to ask, BDB (none / 0) (#110)
    by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    especially after the Deval Patrick kerfuffle, do you mind if I lift your post wholesale from this site and bring it over to another HRC-supporting site? (with attribution of course!)

    I think the people there would be cheered by your analysis.

    [ Parent ]

    Feel Free (none / 0) (#139)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    I'm flattered.  And generally speaking, I believe that once you put stuff out on the inter tubes, it's out there, although I do appreciate attribution (or blame).

    [ Parent ]
    In other words, if Obama's 26 yr. (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    old speechwriter watches YouTube of Deval Patrick's speeches, no problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'm Not Using My Words (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    to claim some sort of unique vision that qualifies me to be president.  

    And I know it's ridiculous to hold Obama to a higher standard than random strangers quoting anonymous internet posts.  Whatever would make anyone think that a man who decries cynicism in politics should be above recycling campaign speeches while taking credit for being a world-class orator?  

    [ Parent ]

    I Don't Think I've Been Especially Negative (4.33 / 6) (#259)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    at least in my posts, but I feel very negative towards Obama.  I believe he's run a Bill Bradley campaign against Clinton, using rightwing talking points and MSM misogyny to beat her.  

    But more than that, quite honestly, the more I've seen of Obama, the less I've liked him.  His rightwing framing (especially on UHC), his messianic language and imagery, and his sexist dogwhistles might win him white males and independent voters, but they are terrible for liberal causes, which is what I care mostly about, and they also don't make me like him very much personally.  I'd think a guy in my office who said that crap about a competitor who criticized his work "periodically" when she was "feeling down" was a sexist jerk and I feel exactly the same way about Obama.  And it's kind of hard for me to get excited about voting for a sexist jerk, especially one who has signaled a lack of commitment on many of the issues I care most about.

    So if trends hold, November is shaping up to be a choice between two candidates I don't much like.  I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama, but I'm not going to be all smiles about it.  In fact, I'm downright angry because I started this campaign season feeling good about all of the leading Democratic candidates.  Obama could've won the nomination in a way that I would be proud to vote for him, but he chose not to do that.

    well obviously i dont know you (none / 0) (#295)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:50 PM EST
    or your concerns. But I am a liberal democrat, and Obama has addressed all of my concerns, and has given evidence of having appropriate solutions to them. Given the small difference in their platforms, (aside from the fact that he has a more politically viable HC proposal), I can't imagine what you are talking about.

    I think the misogyny and dogwhistle charges against him are a complete crock, but we need not revist that argument.

    He has won the nomination in the best possible way - by actually exciting not only our base, but independents too. By raising hopes and expectations he is insuring that absolutely necessary ingredient that has long been missing - namely pressure from underneath, pressure from the people to keep him honest and on point while in office, and toward the elected officials in Congress, from both parties. In other words, real democratic (note the small d) involvement. It is remarkable, almost unheard of, for a presidential candidate to invite that pressure onto himself. The usual approach, as Hillary has done, is to simply claim that "I am the best", "vote for me", "see ya in four years".

    By raising hopes he is raising the bar for himself. It will not be some heartbreaking bubble burst if he disappoints - it will be focused angry pressure on him to deliver. A