SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Keep It Clean

POLITICS MARCH 26, 2008

Keep It Clean

BY THE EDITORS

To the already too long list of Hillary Clinton’s enemies and foes, it is time to add another entry: math. Simply put, it is almost mathematically impossible that, between now and the final Democratic presidential contest—the Puerto Rico caucus on June 7—she will be able to overcome Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates. Even the most pro-Hillary scenarios of how the next three months play out—with her sweeping the remaining 12 contests, including a 20-point blowout win in delegate-rich Pennsylvania—still result in her trailing Obama by more than 50 pledged delegates. (Throw in large wins for her in hypothetical revotes in Michigan and Florida, and Obama’s lead gets smaller, but it’s still there.) And realistic scenarios—does anyone really think Obama will lose Mississippi and North Carolina?—show Obama’s delegate lead to be even more insurmountable. As Clinton’s chief strategist cum outside message adviser Mark Penn put it bluntly in a memo last month, before math had revealed itself to be Hillary’s bitter rival: “This election will come down to delegates.”

But, like so many of Hillary’s foes, the mathematical case against her candidacy has a glaring—and perhaps fatal—weakness: According to the rules of how the Democratic Party picks its presidential nominee, pledged delegates aren’t all that count. In addition to the 3,253 delegates awarded through primaries and caucuses, there are 795 superdelegates up for grabs. And, while some, including the Obama campaign, argue that these superdelegates should honor the will of the voters—and thus back the candidate who won the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses—there is nothing in the rules stipulating that they must. Indeed, on the contrary, superdelegates were created, in part, to serve as the Democratic establishment’s check on the will of the voters; they can back whomever they choose.

Which is why calls for Hillary to withdraw—calls that invariably rest on the mathematical case against her candidacy—are premature. By winning Ohio and Texas, Hillary won the right to continue in this race. And, as she and Obama campaign in the days and weeks ahead, their battle over pledged delegates will almost be something of a sideshow, since at this point neither one will be able to win enough pledged delegates to give them the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Instead, both Clinton and Obama will be using the contests in North Carolina and Oregon, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico as vehicles to make their case to superdelegates, who, because of the tightness of this contest, will ultimately decide its winner.

Of course, the odds of Hillary winning enough superdelegates to her side to win the nomination are long. Although there’s no rule saying they must obey the will of the voters, many superdelegates likely will do just that—meaning that, if Obama can maintain his lead in pledged delegates, he’ll likely hold an edge in superdelegates. Hillary’s only hope is that her performance in the coming weeks is convincing enough—and Obama’s unconvincing enough—that she can create a sense of momentum that, in turn, causes a groundswell of superdelegates to move in her direction.

But, again, that is a long shot—which is why it’s imperative that, as Hillary Clinton continues her campaign, she conduct it in a certain manner: She can’t run the type of campaign she ran in the lead-up to Ohio and Texas. For weeks, Clinton attacked Obama with a relish not previously seen in this race. But it wasn’t the fact she was attacking Obama that was problematic, it was how she was attacking him—namely, in a way that will make it more difficult for Obama should he, as is still likely, be the Democratic nominee in November. For instance, it would have been fine for Hillary to argue that she’d make a better commander-in-chief than Obama; but it was wrong for her to essentially argue, as she did on more than one occasion, that she and John McCain would make better commanders-in-chief than Obama. Similarly, her strange hedging on”60 Minutes" about whether she believes Obama isn’t a Muslim only added fuel to the unfounded rumors that are already circulating about his faith. Frankly, Clinton’s chances are slim enough that a win-at-all-costs mentality from her campaign is not worth the risk of doing irreparable damage to the candidate who will likely be her party’s nominee.

But how to ensure that Clinton runs the right sort of campaign from here on out? As the results in Ohio and Texas proved, the voters won’t punish her for these sorts of attacks on Obama; in fact, they seem willing to reward her for them. But there is one group who can enforce this new set of rules, the people Hillary will need if she has any chance of realizing her slim hopes of winning the nomination: the superdelegates. Superdelegates are free to support whichever candidate they choose; the only requirement they labor under is to act in a way that they believe is for the good of the Democratic Party. And it’s clearly in the party’s best interest that the rest of its nomination fight be conducted in a manner that doesn’t benefit the Republicans. That’s why superdelegates must watch the Clinton campaign closely in the coming weeks, and, should she continue to attack Obama in a fashion that’s no different from the way McCain would, these superdelegates should begin committing to Obama. At this late date, the odds are so slim that Clinton can win that it’s far too risky for her to try to achieve victory by tearing Obama down. Fortunately, the very people who are Hillary’s last best hope can make certain that she doesn’t go that route.

This article appeared in the March 26, 2012.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 49 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

49 comments

Are you saying that Obama has not been aatacking Clinton in a way that will make it more difficult for Clinton should she be the Democratic nominee in November or are you sayng that it's OK for Obama to attack Clinton anyway he wants? Are you editors that blind and bias so that you are unable to see reality?

- tt

March 20, 2008 at 12:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just my two cents, but I think Obama has as much chance of winning Mississippi as keeping that "crazy uncle" pastor story tamped down. How 'bout them Houston Rockets?

- mugamack

March 20, 2008 at 2:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's increasingly obvious ties to black racist anti-Semitic, anti-white, anti-American preachers and politicians have damaged his candidacy to the point where either Hillary will win the nomination or in any case there will be a convention along the lines of the Democratic convention in 1968. John McCain will be the next president of the USA. Anybody care to disagree with my prediction? If so why?

- bulbman1066

March 20, 2008 at 2:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow -- I am SO relieved that Hillary is on double-secret probation! I was almost afraid that she was getting a pass on her despicable behavior because the Democratic Party can't decide whether it wants a George W. Bush of its own. (And, hey -- maybe cronyism, viciousness, secrecy, entitlement, partisanship and self-absorption ARE just what we'll need to fix up this dump!) But, if not, I am relieved that the decisive leadership of the tight-knit superdelegate community may be relied upon to keep Hillary from playing kissy-face with McCain until August. No doubt TNR's clarion call to wait ONLY SOMEWHAT LONGER BEFORE ACTING will steel their resolve.... Yes, I shall sleep well tonight.

- bdgreen

March 20, 2008 at 3:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm very tired of these long editorials detailing how hard it will be for Hillary to win the nomination (there have been hundreds of them since Ohio and Texas) and how evil she has been to poor ole Obama. It would be nice to read a column/editorial/blog simply claiming what a fantastic comeback she made in Texas and Ohio, how resilient she is to regroup her campign after some upsets, how doing so indicates she is a great leader/decision-maker, how nice it is that she can take a joke about herself (SNL) and that maybe the public might want to laugh with her (not at her), and how nice it is for her to our fighter in DC and the world. But this narrative not only is absent in the media, it seems buried beneath the earth and I'm sure would be ridiculed by many. Yet, my sense is that this is one thing that really distrubs Clinton's supporters. Few pundits, columnists etc simply congratulate her for turning this thing around and keeping it a contest. J. Carville said that if Hillary did this, which she has, it would be the comeback of the year. Yet, the media sees her success as a thorn in the side of the Democratic party and Barack Obama. I hope those of you who see Hillary as a nusiance realize that you too are being divisive and are doing your share to "tear" the party apart. BTW, Obama and his peeps do loads to "tear" the party apart as well. Let's be real.

- tammy

March 20, 2008 at 8:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your editorial board continues to perpetuate the nonsense about Hillary's "hedging" on Obama's religion on 60 Minutes! How can I take anything else you write in this seriously, or honestly. This is plain nonsense. I expect better from TNR. Maybe my trust is misplaced.

- Nonsense

March 20, 2008 at 8:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mississippi already happened. He won.

- Will Allensworth

March 20, 2008 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm curious on what grounds do you claim Clinton won Texas. The usual standard has been that the candidate who wins the most delegates is the "winner". Thus, Obama actually won Texas. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/dems.delegates/

- Robert

March 20, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is time for Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race. Her frontline "experience" has been seriously called into question. The recent release of her appointments schedules during her time as First Lady in the Clinton Administration indicates that contrary to her claim that she was instrumental in solving the Northern Ireland crisis, her role seems to have been limited to attending women's teas and giving a talk or two to womens groups. On the basis of that "experience" she should appoint Barbara Bush as her Vice President who also had a lot of frontline experience during the first Gulf War. She should also appoint Amy Carter, President Carter's daughter, as her Secretary of State. Amy Carter obtained a lot of frontline experience as a teenager watching her dad negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. In terms of frontline experience beside (or in front of) the most powerful man in the western world, no one can compete with Monica Lewinsky, though I suspect Hillary would not want her in her cabinet.

- Mitchell Wolfe

March 20, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Character is destiny. There is nothing in Hillary's character that would lead me to believe that losing gracefully would be in her repertoire. From her win-at-any- cost POV, she needs a knockout punch that destroys Obama's candidacy (as the Wright videos almost did), and if it's ugly, well, that's politics in the big leagues. The super delegates ain't super enough to counter character.

-

March 20, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another truly hilarious editorial from TNR. Last time you told Clinton that she could not use superdelegates to win the nomination. Now you are telling her that she cannot attack or criticize Obama except in terms that don't hurt his levels of support. But, it is clearly fine with you if the Obama campaign does everything it can to impugn Clinton's character and drive up her negatives. You are failing to appreciate how truly angry Clinton supporters are about her treatment by the media, and about the very soft ride given to Obama.

- chiron

March 20, 2008 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could not agree more. And I believe the Super Delegates see it the same way. Many are furious with Clinton already for her absurd "Commander in Chief" attack on Obama, and then for suggesting he could be her VP!! Her offensive sense of entitlement is turning off all the party regulars. At this point she can't win, the math is impossible for her to overcome, but she insists on tearing down the likely nominee...putting herself above the party, and basically saying "if I can't win, I will make sure Obama loses the general election, to enhance my argument for 2012". I know so many Democrats who are angry with her that I just can't see how she could get any super-delegate support.

- Sensible Centrist

March 20, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm quite sure Clinton will take campaign advice from the editors of a magazine that want Obama to win. And by the way, surely the Republicans were going to notice that Obama is inexperienced, untested, and a crypto-Muslim turned radical anti-American and anti-semitic Christian. Do you really think they would have failed to notice that McCain is better prepared and better able to run the country than Obama?

- 3mjesus

March 20, 2008 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for your article and viewpoint that were it hearalded from the rooftops would no more change the direction or catastrophy of the coming train wreck than capitulation today of the democratic party to John McCain's victory. Party rules mean nothing if they are not enforced. I believe the Clinton campaign has been banking on their abilty to intimidate and the party's lack of backbone to stand on principle to use FL and Michigan if they needed the votes at the end of their campaign. They campaigned in FL and left her name on the ballot in Michigan in spite of the DNC saying well ahead of the primary that the delegates would not be seated. What did Hillary know and when did she know it? The only fair way to procede is the true Jeffersonian solution of majority rule. If it is a mathimatical certainty that Obama is the statistical winner then stop this charade and get behind your canidate, dems! Why have a super delegate system if they do not act out of the interest of the party? Their inability to select a course, keep to that course and act when called to support that course shows a lack of leadership.

- David Paine

March 20, 2008 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"does anyone really think Obama will lose Mississippi and North Carolina?" Hasn't Mississippi already voted? Was there a recount I haven't heard about? But no, there's little or no chance Obama won't win NC or KY, and OR's demographics are closer to WA than CA or NV, so likely to vote for Obama. IN and WV may be in play depending on the traction of the race issue. As for a MI revote, could Clinton still win with 55% or more of the vote? I wonder how the Arab Americans (a sizable ethnic group in MI) split between Obama and Clinton? Then again, maybe they're mostly Republicans.

- hrlngrv

March 20, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mississippi has already voted. Indiana is still up for grabs. A recent North Carolina poll shows a toss up. I am an Obama supporter but if the pledged-delegate lead diminishes to under 50, then I think the superdelegates will be voting based on who is more likely to win in November. Obama has to make a comeback among working class white males to limit any pledged delegate losses and to look strong nationally and in purple states going into the convention.

- Jeff Ball

March 20, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although I voted twice for Bill Clinton in his presidential runs, I would never vote for another Clinton again. Machiavelli said that 'The Prince' (or Princess) must present a moral and humble face to the public, never revealing the private ruthlessness required to maintain power. The Clinton's have failed to heed this advice. During this election season I have seen that both Clinton's can hardly conceal their lust for power This lust has warped their judgment and, from my perspective, weakened their 'competence' argument. When Hillary Clinton stated her preference for John McCain over Barack Obama as a candidate for president, I cringe at the thought that this woman will be the one to remove us from the quagmire in Iraq. The Clinton's have failed to heed this advice

- Eugene Voce

March 20, 2008 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps we could ask the same of the Obama campaign. Obama himself uses words such as disingenous (liar?) to describe not Hillary Clinton's position even but her directly. He claims she exaggerates or is less than forth coming, she's conventional (a woman for president is conventional?) which is clearly meant as a slight. And when one looks into the facts (news reports, testimonials, etc.), one finds that what she has said is true and consistent. Her positions on things are not black and white, they're gray and practical and real and thank goodness. That's change I can believe in.

- Anu Krishnaswamy

March 20, 2008 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your argument is stunning. We must protect Obama from the big bad Hillary, cocoon him in a protective sleeve in order to preserve the viability of his candidacy. Hmmm…what do you think the Republican 6th Fleet is doing just off the coast of Obamaland? They will come at him with everything they have; they will go above and below ground and make Hillary’s somewhat mild attacks look like an energized game of patty-cake. We now see Obama’s candidacy already sinking against Hillary, especially among swing voters, and polls now show McCain running ahead of Barack in crucial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania in the fall. Your argument appears to be supported by the notion that Obama is the inevitable nominee, but is this really true? Let’s consider the Super Delegates for a moment: In a strange twist of fate, the Super Delegates may turn out to be a life preserver for the Democratic Party instead of the often criticized component that must be quickly disposed of after the election. Let Hillary continue going after Obama, and if she begins to close the gap in pledged delegates and equals or bests Obama in the popular vote, it will be time for the Super Delegates to save the election for the Democrats. By swinging their votes to Hillary they can use the only real currency in politics – momentum, and push for a narrow victory over McCain in the fall. Some say the Super Delegates will not consider this option, but I disagree. It would behoove us to remember that a significant portion of the Super Delegates are elected officials that want the strongest candidate to lead the ticket, because they have to fight for their own political lives at the polls, too. Their worst nightmare would be an untested Obama wrapped in a protective sleeve then dropped into the general election like a new born lamb cast into the sea. So I conclude by saying: have at it Hillary, give it everything you have and let’s see if another shoe drops, another strange Obama skeleton topples out of the closet and shatters his candidacy, turning him into canon fodder for the Republican war ships ebbing ever closer to the shoreline.

- Mark W.

March 20, 2008 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary is running for 2012.

- Kristen

March 20, 2008 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What dismays me, as a lifelong Democrat, is that the elders of the party have remained silent as Hllary Clinton has conducted a campaign filled with racism, rumors, innunendo's, outright lies, and mudslinging to destroy Obama. It's long past the time to hear that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter contacted both Clinton's directly and informed them that if they do change their tactics they will publicly declare their support for Barack Obama. Such a move would mean mass defections of superdelegates to Obama. They have sat by quietly while the Clinton's have tried to smear Obama and a party without any principles does not deserve to return to the White House. Ted Kennedy appears to be the only senior Democrat who called the Clinton's privately and told them to end their win at all costs, nasty campaign tactics. If the senior party members do not take care of this soon it will President McCain in the White House one year from today, and the Democrats will have only themselves to blame. Irregardless of whether or not you are for Obama, Clinton's campaign, in demeaning and debasing Obama, has demeaned and debased us all.

- Mark Jeffery Koch

March 20, 2008 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is some real straight talk. We need to stop repeating the mantra that Sen. Clinton "won Texas." She did not. Sen. Obama won the caucus votes and the greatest number of delegates from Texas. Sen. Clinton received more primary votes. In the odds game that is "two out of three" for Obama and that's a win anywhere the game is not crooked.

- Paul

March 20, 2008 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You write: "between now and the final Democratic presidential contest--the Puerto Rico caucus on June 7--she will be able to overcome Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates." Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but Puerto Rico is now running a primary on June 1. The final presidential contests will be on June 3 in Montana and South Dakota.

- bacquesne

March 20, 2008 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

its not possible. the clintons have been rewriting progessive history now for a long time. they have completely rewritten the codes for women and their men with their situational ethics. the lying is beginning to add up too with the release of her record in the white house. it turns out she was in charge of cookies and teas after all. the nafta situation too so easily rewritten and who among us is going to read the entire article on this in todays paper. but it has gone way beyond the clintons now to the disgrace of the democratic party and thier total unconcern with obama and his so called vetting process by the clintons. to have him stand there and explain himself with such power and so little comment and support from the party later infuriated me. the dems will pay for their support of a shaky and shady establishment candidate. some of us are counting and watching. the dems are in more trouble than they can even imagine.

- base

March 20, 2008 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Personally I think that the Party elders should sit the two of them down sometime soon and hash it out. Hillary screwed up: her campaign was not very well executed though admissably Obama came at her from an unexpected angle. Obama screwed up: His message has been excellent in a general sense but he hasn't been able to produce enough of a sense of solidity to convince voters to seal the deal with him. Neither candidate is going to win without super delegates. Is it too late to hope for a dream team? Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would instantly erase the divide in the party and refocus all our considerable electoral energy against Mccain. Sure neither is the ideal Veep pick for the other but the divisions in the party are starting to get dangerous. It's time to patch things up and move forward.

- Minnesota

March 20, 2008 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary's hope is poll numbers. Obama was damaged by Wright, whatever the legitimacy of the taint. If she is polling 10 points higher than Obama in a few weeks (not impossible), she will have a good claim to be the better nominee. Superdelegates, even those lookng for a reason to vote for Obama, will have to py attention to the polls if a wide margin persists.

- Michael S

March 20, 2008 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a Hillary supporter. I want her to keep it clean, to give direct answers, to avoid parsing, etc. But, I truly believe the media has outrageously privileged Obama in this primary season. And, why hasn't Obama been taken to task for his parsing concerning Rezco and his pastor. He has changed his answers over time. What really frustrates me as an observer is that Hillary has sterling qualifications for the presidency and Obama does not. When he ran for the Senate, he admitted he wouldn't be ready for a presidential race in 2007-2008. Is he so arrogant to believe that many in the field of candidates this past year weren't qualified the presidency? I am a liberal, but we liberals need to recognize that the country is pretty middle of the road. Hillary is more centrist than Obama -- and that is not a bad thing. Her positions on the war, on health insurance, on education, on the environment -- they will all get us where we need to go. I would like to see the New Republic express some strong enthusiasm about her candidacy. And it is her candidacy. Not the Clintons' candidacy. Hillary will be a better president than Bill. She has focus and discipline.

- dissertator08

March 20, 2008 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a Hillary supporter. I want her to keep it clean, to give direct answers, to avoid parsing, etc. But, I truly believe the media has outrageously privileged Obama in this primary season. And, why hasn't Obama been taken to task for his parsing concerning Rezco and his pastor. He has changed his answers over time. What really frustrates me as an observer is that Hillary has sterling qualifications for the presidency and Obama does not. When he ran for the Senate, he admitted he wouldn't be ready for a presidential race in 2007-2008. Is he so arrogant to believe that many in the field of candidates this past year weren't qualified the presidency? I am a liberal, but we liberals need to recognize that the country is pretty middle of the road. Hillary is more centrist than Obama -- and that is not a bad thing. Her positions on the war, on health insurance, on education, on the environment -- they will all get us where we need to go. I would like to see the New Republic express some strong enthusiasm about her candidacy. And it is her candidacy. Not the Clintons' candidacy. Hillary will be a better president than Bill. She has focus and discipline.

- dissertator08

March 20, 2008 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is method to Hillary Clinton's ambitious madness. The purpose is indeed to weaken Obama, the all but inevitable Democratic nominee so that he will lose in November to McCain and so that Hillary can run again in 2012 saying "I told you so! Here I am. You can now get a chance to elect me." Why is it that everyone doesn't see the obvious? And this is a woman Democrats and Americans can trust?

- Edna Epstein

March 20, 2008 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really wish you would stop repeating the claim that "as far as I know" was some kind of attempt to suggest Obama is a Muslim. It was ridiculous to expect Senator Clinton to vouch for someone else's personal, private religious beliefs. Indeed, "as far as I know" is really all she can know and all that she can say. It seems that the anti-Clinton (I won't dignify people like Marty Peretz as "pro-Obama" or suggest that his periodic diatribes accomplish any useful purpose other than to anger and alienate Clinton supporters and fellow Democrats) people have nothing better to do than seize on out-of-context phrases and blow them up into paranoid delusions that feed into their fantasies of Senator Clinton as some kind of monomanical evil genius bent on destroying the country.

- AB

March 20, 2008 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul wrote: "Here is some real straight talk. We need to stop repeating the mantra that Sen. Clinton "won Texas." She did not. Sen. Obama won the caucus votes and the greatest number of delegates from Texas. Sen. Clinton received more primary votes. In the odds game that is "two out of three" for Obama and that's a win anywhere the game is not crooked." I find the crowing from Obama supporters about the way Texas illustrates the undemocraticness of caucuses amazing for followers of the Saint. My parents, 88 and 86, both voted in TX for Clinton but could not possibly attended caucuses. I somehow cannot join in the jubilation of Obama supporters at the disenfranchisement of my parents, which Obama and his supporters seemingly think is a good thing, given their age. Let's kick a little dirt on them while we're at it.

- MereMortal

March 20, 2008 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Paul's right... the whole "won Texas and Ohio" thing is misleading. Time for a new lexicon. I'm against Hillary for her bratty entitlement and win-at-all-cost strategy. It makes me wonder when we'll see photos of Turd Blossom sneaking out of the Clinton house at 3am. Obama is no messiah... but he's the closest of the 3!

- lyleg

March 20, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes...YES!!!....OF COURSE...I SEE IT NOW!!! evil genius Hillary Clinton will do ANYTHING to amass personal power, no matter how silly or self-destructive!!! This is a stupid slander. It is made all the more pathetic by coming straight from Republicans' 1990's talking points. Evil genius Hillary, trying to make sure children have health care. How vicious of her!

- AB

March 20, 2008 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yahoo website headliine: Dems leaning toward Clinton

- magnetrak

March 20, 2008 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice to know that the Clintons had their friend the Rev. Wright many times in the Whitehouse as a guest.

- jan

March 20, 2008 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MereMortal, caucuses are part of the rules. Both candidates KNEW and AGREED to that going in, so, why the complaints now? Also, Bill Clinton won the White house largely on his strength with caucuses, and with black folks voting for him as a bloc. In my book, if it is legal and within the rules that was laid out well ahead of the process, it's fair. I bet if the situation were reversed, you wouldn't complain.

- Rainbow Democrat

March 20, 2008 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll get out the violin MereMortal. Bill Clinton destroyed his opposition in the caucuses and the primaries because he was an outstanding, exciting candidate who inspired both party activists and regular voters - and more importantly, who was willing to do the work to build field operations on the ground, to convince the activists that he was their man. Hillary doesn't get a sympathy pass because she was unwilling to do this - because she chose to run her campaign as a coronation - it was an incompetent, offensive strategy and she's paying for it - only in Hillaryland is it undemocratic to have to pay the price for incompetence and a candidate with 50% disapproval ratings. Her sense of entitlement is breathtaking. Why else would she not even bother with setting up a ground operation in caucus states, like her husband did and only rely on top down big shot donors? WITH NO PLAN POST FEB 5? Why don't her supporters acknowledge how offensive that was? Why do her supporters - with a straight face - suddenly become outraged at a process that has been in place for decades and whose rules their poor oppressed candidate was presumably familiar with? Why didn't you drive your parents to a caucus site if it mattered so much to you? Or pay for a driver? Or protest the undemocratic nature of it a year ago? Suddenly, an army of true democracy experts all co-oincidentally for the one candidate who is losing - I'd be embarrassed to be so transparent, how can you not be? Unbelievable. No one is responsible for anything in that campaign, from the very top down to the lowest supporter.

- Wandrey@mAC.COM

March 20, 2008 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ditto meremortal on the veracity of caucus votes. Has anyone considered what it means that one candidate took the primary in Texas (the most democratic method- equal represemntation without influence or duress) while another took the caucus? Shoudln't they match? It implies that people who cast a viote for Hillary were persuaded to change their votes to Obama. That is lame and just plain wrong! Texas and other big state wins show that Hillary can win primaries, which is what we'll have in November. Obama wins where his supporters can exert their influence. His entire success can be attributed to the caucus format where older people (like meremortal's parents and mine as well), single mothers, etc. are silenced becuase they couldn't be around to participate. BTW, the Texas caucuses ran very late. Who in the hell could stay up that long?

- tammy

March 20, 2008 at 10:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems like to you and Obama everyone counts except the voters. Especially voters in Florida or Michigan

- Andy O'Donnell

March 21, 2008 at 7:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you Robert. The media is often too interested in twisting the facts to create the dynamic that increases their relevance.

- Calvincito

March 21, 2008 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You in turn are underestimating the anger within the coalition of Obama supporters, especially the black vote, at the veiled racial attacks from the Clintons. How about this, the Democratic nominee can't win withhout the black vote - whether you'd like to believe that or not. And the anger in the black community is just as great as that in the Clinton camp.

- Edwardo Colon

March 21, 2008 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Totally. Let's add Mondale,Kerry and Gore. I am tired of lossing because of candidates that are too lberal and progressive.

- Debra Foster

March 21, 2008 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The delusional HILLBILL fairy-tale campaign should have been a recent memory by now, yet, like some chronic desease it lingers and threathens the Democratic party. Bill and Hillary Clinton are by nature republicans, so they would be content to see themselves or the overt republican become president. Neither of the two, McCain or Clinton, cares about the plight of the American people. Their interest is power and money through influence peddling. These are neocons have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the "typical" American: the ones who haven't the time nor the inclination to pay close attention to what is really happening. I was formerly a strong Bill Clinton supporter, I stood in line to vote him into office, twice. I defended him during the scurrilous impeachment he had to suffer at the baying of the republican mob. But this campaign has really opened my eyes to what in essence he is, or has become. I have no allegiance to Hillary, I saw her as an opportunist from the get-go. She stepped out of the White House and was immediately a Senator. Her term plus duration in the US Senate has been unremarkable. She has sided with this illegal administration in their quest for the neocon dream of world domination. She has voted to give the chimp all the tools he needed to destroy our democracy. Bill has become very close friends with the Bush family, and no-doubt that friendship comes with a price--secrecy. I have my suspicions that the Clintons would countenance the destrucction of the Democratic party if it does not provide them with the path back to the White House.

- sicnarfe

March 22, 2008 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The delusional HILLBILL fairy-tale campaign should have been a recent memory by now, yet, like some chronic desease it lingers and threathens the Democratic party. Bill and Hillary Clinton are by nature republicans, so they would be content to see themselves or the overt republican become president. Neither of the two, McCain or Clinton, cares about the plight of the American people. Their interest is power and money through influence peddling. These are neocons have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the "typical" American: the ones who haven't the time nor the inclination to pay close attention to what is really happening. I was formerly a strong Bill Clinton supporter, I stood in line to vote him into office, twice. I defended him during the scurrilous impeachment he had to suffer at the baying of the republican mob. But this campaign has really opened my eyes to what in essence he is, or has become. I have no allegiance to Hillary, I saw her as an opportunist from the get-go. She stepped out of the White House and was immediately a Senator. Her term plus duration in the US Senate has been unremarkable. She has sided with this illegal administration in their quest for the neocon dream of world domination. She has voted to give the chimp all the tools he needed to destroy our democracy. Bill has become very close friends with the Bush family, and no-doubt that friendship comes with a price--secrecy. I have my suspicions that the Clintons would countenance the destrucction of the Democratic party if it does not provide them with the path back to the White House.

- sicnarfe

March 22, 2008 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I must agree with Robert. If winning delegates is the key to winning a state (and we have all been told that only delegates matter), then Obama won Texas handily. The fact that the results of the Precinct Conventions (caucuses) were not available the night of the election while the vote count was does not make Clinton the winner of Texas. Obama emerged with 9 more delegates than Clinton.

- HazyLady

March 22, 2008 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obviously, if some see an 'open lust for power' on the Clintons' part--or not--depends upon whether said person is pro- or anti-Clinton. But speaking as a totally unbiased Clinton supporter, I, too, find it galling that Hillary is still being bashed for (after being harassed three successive times about Obama's religious beliefs, and replying 'He's Christian' twice) finally saying in exasperation, 'As far as I know he's Christian!'. I mean, how much time of her limited TV interview must she spend dissecting her opponent's religion? Almost as bad is the media's attack on Bill Clinton's unforgivable mentioning that, as a Black candidate, Obama might get more support from South (or North, I forget which) Carolina's Afro-American voters. Gevalt!! Bill Clinton told everyone that Obama's Black!! What a miserable racist he is! Look, the race card in the South is played the way Bush did to McCain: start a rumor that the candidate is Black, or has a Black lover, or kid, when everybody thinks he's 'lily White'. In contrast, what Bill said was an honest appraisal that Barack will get more Black support than Hillary (just as she will generally be stronger with women)--sure, he said it to 'lower expectations' in a primary, but it was perfectly justified, not racist. Similarly, Hillary's pointing out Barack's glaring weakness in foreign affairs experience (notwithstanding her own less-than-comprehensive CV) is NOT something that any reasonable, unbiased critic would assume will not independently be trotted out and emphasized by Republicans in the general election. Do you REALLY think they wouldn't notice without Hillary saying it first? (Of course, she COULD 'cross the line' by repeating Obama's admission of cocaine use. I'd say it's even-money, however, that the Republicans will invent some group willing to accuse him of SELLING the stuff, a la the 'Swiftboat' job they did on Kerry.) All this is 'politics as usual'. The Clintons want to win? Of course they do: so does Obama. Clintons willing to attack their opponent constantly? So does Obama. But it is only Obama who is claiming (and brilliantly manipulating people to believe him) that he is not practising the same old politics as usual, of which the first rule is: you gotta get elected to do anything. He is ingenuous at best; but enough Americans in the general election could see through his BS to defeat him handily, despite this administration's horrible record. That is one big reason why Hillary Clinton SHOULD get the Democratic Party nomination as their candidate for President of the United States.

- JBerkowicz

March 22, 2008 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>Are you saying that Obama has not been aatacking Clinton in a way that will make it more difficult for Clinton should she be the Democratic nominee in November PROTIP: She won't be the nominee. Do the Math. She knows it too. She's only staying in this to hurt Obama's chances and set herself up as the nominee in 2012. If she cared about the party she would have called it quits in Wisconsin. Since then she's hurled one kitchen sink attack after another and now they're both losing to McCain on RCP's tracking polls. Suprise suprise, Hillary has become a political suicide bomber.

- sasha_k

March 24, 2008 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is it about underdogs that causes myopia in people? When John Edwards was still in the race, he outlined the fact that if people want the status quo, Hillary is the candidate. If you want the one who has raised more money from special interests, rep or dem, she's your candidate. Say what you will about Obama, but he doesn't really have to attack Hillary. Given rope, she continually proves that in her desperation, she will hang herself. If Obama isn't getting the same kind of scrutiny Hillary gets, it's because of the nature and tone of the campaigns. The media is attracted by the hint of scandal. She's lied already. What else is she lying about? Focus on the facts about your candidate without whining about the other guy.

- JayInDallas

April 7, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama won in texas, more delegates due to their stupid rules guys. Hillary won by vote by people but they have some crazy party thing at night to decide who gets delegates they need to go by vote. I imigane that will hurt obama when texas comes up for election for president not talking about democratic primaries. I also think democrates better do something for florida voters and that other state our it will respond by voting republican in presidential election. The more hillary and obama go after each other the better it will make enemies of the party. Somebody might like hillary but heard obama or his followers say to many bad things about her that they will swing republican. I already know several die hard democrates that said they were going republicans for their first time in election and both over 70.

- Obama won texas please

April 7, 2008 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close