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 Go Already!

POLITICS MARCH 26, 2008

Go Already!

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The morning after Tuesday’s primaries, Hillary Clinton’s campaign released a memo titled “The Path to the Presidency.” I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain—i.e., “Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done”—but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

The reason it doesn’t say is that Clinton’s path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn’t going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton’s Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn’t going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama’s. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama’s general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim (“not as far as I know”), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.

Clinton’s justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election—if he can’t handle her attacks, he’ll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, “Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy.” So Clinton’s offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring—or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012—that she would destroy Obama’s chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton’s trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he’d endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one’s own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He’s inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly’s Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama’s the nominee, he won’t have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain’s message every day.

Second, Obama can’t “test” Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it’s more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can’t associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

What’s more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won’t exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton’s claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn’t qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won’t quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn’t be so reluctant. 

Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim’s popularity drops farther than the perpetrator’s, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn’t work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.

Clinton’s path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama’s elected delegates might break off and support her. I don’t think she’d be in a position to defeat Hitler’s dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn’t necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton’s kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost—to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months—uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn’t create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

 

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush’s chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic. This article appeared in the March 26, 2012 issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 382 comments

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

382 comments

Great article. In particular, I like how you point out that the makeup of the Democratic primary electorate artificially protectes Hillary by shielding her from the criticisms she will face in a general election. Chief amongst these is the "experience" issue. She has legitimized it as the determinative factor in selecting a President, and even now, when no one has really gone after her, I can't think of any realistic person who would suggest that her experience trumps McCains. Now imagine once people start going after her for her disingenuous approach to her White House years. She wasn't the one who had to make the tough decisions in a crisis - Her husband was. That ability doesn't just transfer itself to her by osmosis. Plus, (a) there were apparently a lot of things going on in the Oval Office, at 3:00 a.m. and otherwise, that Hillary knew nothing about, and (b) she can't have it both ways, and as it stands every foreign policy blunder the Clinton administration made can now be hung around her neck. Obama hasn't made all these arguments, for the reasons your article points out, but believe me, Republicans will certainly be making them in the general election.

- legitprop

March 7, 2008 at 12:14am

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

Brilliant. I hope everybody in the party reads it.

- ralphnelle

March 7, 2008 at 12:23am

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

Obama has unwittingly doomed us all. He was supposed to slay Clinton by now. But she survives, and now the civil war will destroy the Democratic party. Loyal Democrats will continue to support Clinton, we'll never forgive Obama for splitting our party. It is Obama who has proved to be the divisive and polarizing figure. Even if he wins now, he'll be damaged goods by the time he meets McCain.

- Jack

March 7, 2008 at 12:36am

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

I agree with all you said. One more thing: If Hillary wins this by cheating and rough tactics, then a very large number of democrats will not vote for her. They may or may not vote for McCain but they will sit out the election. On the other hand, if she had done things fairly, these people would have voted for her. I used to be a big fan of her but I am completely disillusioned by her activities. I hear many of my friends talking that way. WOuld you be able to take an Internet poll about this issue? Thanks!

- sg

March 7, 2008 at 12:38am

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

This was a welcome respite from the generally insane coverage of this primary race. Thank you!

- Ed

March 7, 2008 at 12:40am

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

Apparently the lefties can cry and lose. Kennedy was a sore, a really sore loser in 1980. He pouted and he sulked and could not muster 30 seconds of being gracious. Only the Democrats could figure out how to lose in 2008!!! Obama will win but there will be an electoral landslide for McCain. So much of the upcoming leader. The loss will make sure he is never in a position to challenge again. How stupid can you get?

- Simple joe

March 7, 2008 at 12:45am

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

A brave,truthful column.

- Charles

March 7, 2008 at 12:46am

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

If it is true that Hillary did not have security clearance while in the White House, how does she get away with pretending that she is more qualified to be commander in chief and not be reminded again and again of this stark reality? What crisis event tested her mettle? I think we have a case of resume-padding here which is no great surprise given the naked ambition and recklessness of the Clintons as exemplified in Monica-gate, Whitewater-gate and cattlefutures-gate!

- allen

March 7, 2008 at 12:46am

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

The only way to sort through this fiasco of the Democrats is Clinton as VP. I personally am glad that Clinton is attacking him because it puts everything out there so McCain wont be able to bring out new talking points, regarding in less media spins in the general election against Obama, while Bill and Hillary draw distinctions to McCain and his Bush policies.

- Joey D

March 7, 2008 at 12:47am

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

Hillary's path to the nomination is very clear. First and foremost she must continue the race and win the popular vote going into the convention. This will give her an edge with the Super delegates to argue that they should vote for her both because she is the most electable and because it is the will of the democratic voters. Next, she must continue to vet Obama at every opportunity. Up until recently he has been given a free pass. Obama is a lying politican like most. Examples abound: At the AFL CIO convention he says he is for single payer, in the debates he claimed NEVER to be for single payer; He claimed in the debates to only have worked four hours for his indicted patron Tony Rezcko, but he purchased land adjacent to his house for the Rezcko's and has been unresponsive to media questions about his involvement with them. While portraying himself as the politics of new hope and change, vetting him portrays him as a politician on the fringes of corruption. Let the games begin and let the voters decide at the convention.

- Belle Linda

March 7, 2008 at 12:56am

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

Beautiful article. It is very pleasant to see the light thru so much [news] darkenss...

- Lino Quagliariello

March 7, 2008 at 1:00am

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

As a Canadian and a global citizen, I rather hope Mrs. Clinton succeeds in her attack on Mr. Obama. The self-immolation of America's international image in the Bush years has entirely rebalanced the axes of global power. India and China are rampant, Russia re-emerges, Brazil is beginning to make a mark on the global stage, and of course the European Union is once again the beacon of pluralism and prosperity in the western world. For this rebalancing to continue, and to abet the development of a multi-polar world, it is necessary that the American self-immolation continue for at least four more years. By destroying Mr. Obama, and thus handing Mr. McCain the easiest of victories in the November presidential election, Mrs. Clinton will do her best to ensure that the destruction of American prestige, power and influence continues in the sands of Iraq amid Mr. McCain's plans for a century-long occupation. However, that is a selfish thought, because one does not want to see one's American neighbours and cousins suffer ignominy for another presidential term. The revived idealist in me fervently hopes that Mrs. Clinton's calculations, so bereft of ethics and morality, and her unctuous cohort of reptilian agents (Ickes, Penn, Wolfson and the like)fail utterly in dragging Mr. Obama into the mire. Mr. Obama rekindles the light extinguished by Dr. King's assassination, and the world needs him more urgently than another half decade of American self-destruction.

- Chanakya

March 7, 2008 at 1:03am

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

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Cry some more, you leftist shill.

- Dubya

March 7, 2008 at 1:04am

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

Hillary has realized that she can't make it to the White House in 2008. So she is going to help McCain get into the White House. He is old--and therefore a one term president and she will then run in 2012. She wins in 2012 (what the heck she can wait 4 years). McCain gets to clean up after GWB or fail in Iraq for another 4 years and then Clinton runs as the 'change' candidate in 2012. Obama evaporates, unfortunately.

- tnr neutral

March 7, 2008 at 1:08am

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

Polls reflected the affect of the clinton's fear mongering and I must say timely divulging of pictures and new news. They were neck and neck in the polls until Fear was used. She is playing on the less educated mindset, Therefore, uneducated people vote according to "what my mom or sister say do" or what their friends say do. Obama won Texas!!!!!, why don't people understand that, wow, yes he did indeed LOOSE by 99,000 popular votes which is a high number, however not that high when over 2.75 million people vote (please keep in mind this is a state with a heavy inundation of illegal immigrants even from 3-4 generations ago who now have passes to vote because theyve been naturalized by longevity of residence or by the mere fact that they were born on "our" soil) NAFTA helped Mexicans, if not catapulted them...whats your take on that? If being here so long then attributes them to being american then why are they referred to as mexican? aa....ma?... hmmmm, if a colored candidated in-forced that deal, who do you think they'd support then?. If Clinton supporters were so passionate and adamant about getting her elected they would have caucused for her knowing how important the caucus is in allocating 67 delegates which amount to 100,000 people each. DUH! Obama won the caucus by double digits. This is a part of the Texas voting system and cannot all of a sudden be thrown away today, because its confusing...Texans had a whole month to prepare for caucusing, knowing how important it was, if they messed it up thats their problem. Americans have a huge problem with procrastination. Don't blame it on the system, blame it on your moral actions. My whole point is that race, I don't believe is an issue, but FEAR is. Of course poor white people will be afraid if they think they'll be disenfranchised by a President of any color or ethnic group, if you have no education, how do you know that there's is yet opportunity and not complacency? With education comes intelligence and wealth (not just monetarily) and with all of those virtues you become astonishingly less Fearful............ (point) This is where institutional preconceptions and misconceptions come into play, and will not be erased until the baby boomer generation's negative influences on their juniors are slowly dwindled away by their passing and humility to age. Keep in mind that people of tomorrow are part of generation X and generation Y, We, yes I said we, will be the leaders of tomorrow, most of us will have to take care of someone in 8 years from now DOES AMERICA THINK ABOUT THAT!, we all have beloved elders. This country is ready to MOVE on from the past, please believe that in your heart and not spew hate, through institutions. Look at what Obama represents: youth 46, mixed heritage, (of the two dominate racial institutions of America). a like abroad and at home. Highly educated and yes he is still honest and likable. How can we say he has no experience, he's won 13 million votes! this is history being written in front of us, right in our faces. The human mind can barely think up to 100. (Try it, try it right now, think of a sea of 100 people and change to a hundred thousand people, now count them and remember your count.... impossible) He already inhabits one of the most highly "elected" official offices in the world. He's a United States Senator, that's something we should all be proud of as he and many others represent our country in congress; I mean, if you have any patriotism. Can you, become senator or president some day, would you be able to write the task? This is extremly difficult for any candidate right now considering the current way of the world. Would you be able to run a campaign? There's obvious experience DUH!, you don't get on the winning team unless you've practiced. They've all practiced, Hillary, John, Barack...that's why they are where they are now.....They all have "experience" they all have closets and skeletons, none would have made it thus far being malignantly corrupt, well I could think of one person but.... Anyway I hope the young people think about this and get out and vote, a lot of us in generation Y and the upcoming Ipod generation really harbor no institutions, and will embark on our late 20’s and early 30’s in the next 8 years… (baby boomer….. y.o.b ….40-60, gen_ x 55-80, gen_ y 79-91, ipod_gen 90-00+) A black person does not hate Hillary, if you were black you would understand, as vague and ambiguous as that sounds, but it’s the truth. The media can try to tell us how white voters think or how black voters think, most who cast their opinions about how one race group thinks opposed to the other is –media wise- normally older and White and primarily has no relation to speak on such things. Way more research on both ethnic groups would provide answers. A black person didn’t leak “is he black enough” , white media insiders did, because he’s not old like Al or Jesse. Any person of color, can see he’s certainly not fuscia? The media has honestly made a joke of this whole nomination, laughing at Hillary and Barack and John. Can America see past the media, PLEASE!!!! Why do you think MI and FL were moved up? Hmmm to give Hillary the nom immediately. If you’ve been following this since Dec. 06 you’d know what I’m talking about, There’ve already been backroom deals way before Sup Tues, almost a year before Sup. Tues, DUH!, they knew, moving huge states up, like even California would seemingly ensure a “win” for Clinton. Dems ***ckd up. Didn’t work. Now everybody see’s Barack, everybody gets to know him…., I believe had California, MI and FL stayed in their respective places, he’d have way more delegates to boot this hoe out of the dirt and weeds. You cannot count FLA and MICH, not right now at least, his name wasn’t on the MI ballot and neither of them rallied or campained in either state, to give the voters their just opportunity to meet, greet and decide. Those states contests would have to be done over, and the FED government should pay, for their states weak decisions. Both need new primaries in May to not disenfranchise voters. And a huge part of the American electorate. Hillary is not lickable, she is a great candidate and “can” do the job but will not win the support of the nation as a whole and democrats and anyone with a subtle mind know that. Barack Obama bridges the gap and gets us to thinking…and wanting to get informed. I must say he must do more in the coming weeks, to show his adoration of this country and his supporters. He must also become way more convincing to the United States and the world that he is tough enough. He must now become offensive to get people to thinking, more detail, more fight, more strength is what we all need to see in this candidate to make him win the support of the majority of the democratic party.

- EKW7

March 7, 2008 at 1:09am

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

An excellent job, Mr. Chait. I've been talking the ears off everyone I know about the dynamics of the rest of this primary season, and here I find the overall tenets of what I've been saying in print. It's good to find a friendly, well reason voice. Well done, indeed.

- Joe

March 7, 2008 at 1:20am

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

Enough already. There is merit in Clinton's argument. Seriously, if Obama cannot close the deal yet a third time there is a major problem with him as a candidate. He does not appeal well in democratic states and is not going to turn Idaho and Kansas and North Dakota blue. The is where superdelegates make sense. If Obama regains the momentum then they should go with him, but if the democratic electorate starts to go cold on him and doubts his preparedness for office and votes for Hillary as I believe the trend will show, then the superdelegates know exactly who will compete best against McCain. It's unfortunate that the media didn't vet Obama earlier in the process.

- Eric

March 7, 2008 at 1:22am

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

Here we go again, with the same inevitability argument: First of all I don't think she is repulsive. I think you and your article are repulsive. I think as a journalist you should remain neutral and objective, instead of campaigning for Obama. What is she saying in this documents is to reason the voters and superdelegates about her electibility in November. It is obvious Obama has zero chance against Mccain in November. Let's not kid ourselves. He is not a fighter. He is not a strong person. He was knocked out by some criticism already. I think you are wasting your time. People have spoken, they have returned to Hillary!

-

March 7, 2008 at 1:23am

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

"Does she think Obama is going to die? Vince Foster did

- Possum

March 7, 2008 at 1:25am

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

We saw this happen here in central Texas about four years ago when Chet Edwards (for those smug few out there, remember that we have ensured that W. has had a Democratic representative during his entire presidency) was running for reelection. W. et al backed a schnauzer named Dot Snyder. The Club for Growth backed Arlene Wolgumuth in a move designed to snub W. for not being conservative enough. Now, Edwards was much more qualified than his opponents, plus he was a well respected and popular incumbent. In the primary race, Snyder and Wolgumuth saturated the airwaves and the papers with blistering attacks. By the time Snyder won the nomination, Edwards was able to go positive because there had already been so much blood spilled between the Republicans. This is precisely what Clinton's attacks will do to both Obama and to the Democrat's chances in November. McCain will be able to take the high road as Clinton will be making his attacks for him. The Clinton campaign claim, as Chait quotes, "Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy", is comic gold that sounds like it came straight from John Stewart. They are either trying to make the claim before Obama does (then they could call it plagiarism, clever devils) or else they have taken Clinton's appearance on SLN a little to seriously. Chait's tagline of 'fratricidal' maniac does not go far enough to describe Clinton; it neglects the word megalomaniac. At this point, she most reminds me of Nader running in 2000, and throwing the race to Bush. Hence, as I have said in previous posting, Clinton 2008 is the perfect rhyme for Nader 2000.

- hepneck

March 7, 2008 at 1:25am

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

What about the popular vote and its influence on the superdelegates? Clinton will end up with the popular vote after Florida is counted or they re-vote and then PR comes into play. Obama will of course still have the delegate lead. So what do the superdelegates do? Vote for the delegate leader or popular vote leader? An interesting question that will more or less rip the Democratic Party in two. Neither candidate is going anywhere. You can beg and plead for one to bow out and take the VP spot, but that won't happen. Both are too proud and also well deserving. Without this fight, either would win in 2008. Sadly, this fight will go on and on...

- ShannonL

March 7, 2008 at 1:26am

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

This is a great piece that articulates a lot of what I feel Clinton has been trying to accomplish. You however forgot to to mention her using democracy as a way to seat Florida and Michigan delegates now that she appears to have the "big mo". The one snag in her plan is that the Republican nominee is not objectionable to most swing voters. As a democrat who currently supports Obama, I will certainly vote for John McCain if Hillary uses dirty tactics to "win" the nomination.

- Bo

March 7, 2008 at 1:30am

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

So what would you suggest, Jonathan? That Clinton just drop out and hand Obama the nomination before everyone has had a chance to vote? That's ridiculous. It's better that the Democrats find out now that Obama can't even withstand a week of bad press, than find out in the general election. http://seatourdelegates.com

- Cultfree

March 7, 2008 at 1:36am

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

An excellent piece. It's clear that what we are really watching is the opening salvos of Clinton's campaign for the nomination in 2012, which is, of course, predicated on an Obama defeat next November. Forget Karl Rove. Machiavelli himself would be proud.

- Daniel James Brown

March 7, 2008 at 1:37am

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

An excellent piece. It's clear that what we are really watching is the opening salvos of Clinton's campaign for the nomination in 2012, which is, of course, predicated on an Obama defeat next November. Forget Karl Rove. Machiavelli himself would be proud.

- Daniel James Brown

March 7, 2008 at 1:37am

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

Hillary can win the nomination by getting enough super delegates to vote for her so that, in the end, she beats Obama. That’s democratic: the candidate getting the sufficient numbers of delegates according to the rules of the system wins. What's unfair about that? Obama’s argument from arithmetic is that the candidate with the highest number of pledged delegates should get the vote of the super delegates. But that conveniently misses the point that the super delegates, short of criminal bribery, are free to exercise their judgment as to who to vote for. If on that basis, Obama wins, then he wins and good for him. Same for Hillary. But his argument—and yours in your post— amounts to whining. If Obama is perceived as a weak general election candidate who cannot close, who is finally a neophyte, who cannot take a hit, who has a paper thin resume, who burns with ambition, a match for his presumption, who plays his own race cards—see Sean Wilentz in these very cyber pages—who is an amateur at this level of politics, who stalks out of press conferences now that honey moon is over, who, despite all the fancy talk, is just another mug in the mugs’ game of politics, who has some very weird advisors, and is therefore and for other reasons rejected by the super delegates, then so be it. He will have lost fair and square. Clinton's justification for her strategy, attacking him at every turn on all of his weaknesses, is that she fighting to be the leader of the free world. He, you, as I say, should stop whining about it. He should fight back, not fight back, stay ethereal and spiritual, whatever he wants to do. But for God’s sake stop the whining. It is a common wisdom that whatever Hillary’s attacks amount to, they are pale in comparison to what Obama will face in your general election. And if her getting in his face is hard for him to deal with, woe betide him as a general election candidate. There need be no let up in what Obama has tried and will try to level against Hillary. Do your worst, I’d say to him, if you are so inclined. But don’t forget your posing as doing a new kind of post partisan politics with all that good faith bargaining and all that other new agey drivel. Hillary’s fighting spirit in this campaign, her refusal to, as you say, “just go” is the objective correlative of the toughness you’d want in a president, a commander in chief. She by dint of her resilience, her steely inner resolve, her ability to pick her campaign up at times from its own lassitude are living and personal proofs of her qualifications. One needs no preachments from you on the negative consequences of negative campaigning. Either Obama can take some heat or he can’t. Hillary can; she can give as good as she takes. This we already know. But the way you canonize Obama, “an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate”, patronizes him. By you, implicitly, he is something too pure and beautiful to be tarnished or mussed up. I say bullshit. If Hillary steps over lines in trying to beat him, then let her get knocked back and suffer the consequences. But she is hardly “kneecapping” him. Again, if he can’t stand up to her knocks on him, to the press’s going after him for his own self-inflicted wounds, then he needs to spend more time in more kitchens. Hillary is going to try her best to win Pennsylvania—odds are she will; she is going to take the fight to Obama there and elsewhere like nobody’s business—as she certainly should; she is going to try to augment the political case for her candidacy to the super delegates; she will wheel and deal with every fiber of tough, willful being, call in every favour, ply every pressure, do what ever she can. And if she wins good on her. If she loses, well I, for one, will admire her for giving it a hell of a shot. But in your post, I can between the lines read your panic and virtually see your flop sweat at the not improbable proposition that Hillary will win the nomination by emerging at the end of the day with the necessary amount of delegates.

- basman

March 7, 2008 at 1:40am

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

This is worth a read: ______________________________________________________ Tough Math on the Democratic Side By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall. The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton's victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival's lead in "pledged" delegates -- that is, those won in primaries and caucuses -- and therefore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The arithmetic conveniently leaves out an essential part of the equation: Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates. And Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus. Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply "red" Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate's transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton's victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes. Of course, some states in Clinton's column -- Texas comes most readily to mind -- that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven't been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia. In a new memo, Clinton strategists Mark Penn and Harold Ickes point out that the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, lost these states and several others in which Obama has won primaries by 15 points or more. In Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas and Alaska -- all states the Obama forces point to with pride as evidence of an emerging "50-state strategy" -- no Democrat has won the general election since 1964. So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall. There is a reason some states are called general election "battlegrounds." It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said. There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually. This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22. The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.

- basman

March 7, 2008 at 1:42am

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

She rather take it to the courts then come infront the American people like she is an angel.

- Mr cook

March 7, 2008 at 1:46am

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

.."a lightening rod of controversy"? Really? Come on, how am I supposed to take anything you write seriously now?

- The Real Jehl

March 7, 2008 at 1:47am

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

Neither candidate will have 2025 delegates. Your supposition that because Barack has a 2% edge entitles him to the nomination b/c he can carry "Idaho" is silly. Hillary never pretended to be anything other than tough. Obama may win the nomination - but it's hard to get excited about someone who couldn't beat Hillary in NY, CA, OH, TX, MA, etc etc. What do you think would have happened in FL even if they would have campaigned there? BO would have been crushed. He's a weak candidate, pure and simple. A 1-term Senator who gets college kids and idealists mesmerized into an emotional attachment. He didn't win my vote, and if he's the nominee I'm voting for McCain.

- Hillary 08

March 7, 2008 at 1:52am

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

I have to agree with you Jonathan. A very well written article. I can understand that she wants to be president, and even that she is continuing the campaign, but the constant spinning of reality and negative messages coming out of her campaign really hurts her party.

- Curt

March 7, 2008 at 1:56am

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

"There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt." Well, maybe he should try. Hillary ain't holding back, so why should he? How about starting with "totally botching the health reform task force does not constitute health care expertise", "selling pardons = not cool" and "Hillary is either the greatest futures trader on earth or something very fishy went on." I doubt most partisan democrats even remember those things, they are not witch hunts, and it would be good to be reminded.

- WillPastor

March 7, 2008 at 2:06am

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

The Texas primary has not been completed yet. Why has a winner been declared ? It appears that Senatotr Obama will win the two-step overall. Please help correct this misperception.

- eddie22

March 7, 2008 at 2:07am

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

Well, I would have voted for HRC when this whole process began, and I certainly won't now, if she turns out to be the nominee. She has reminded of why Clintonism had, by the end of his second term, become a synonym for cynicism.

- libertarius

March 7, 2008 at 2:11am

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

Go write for Pravda, Chait. You wrote an insane piece of propaganda.

- sleepyavl

March 7, 2008 at 2:14am

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

Lucid analysis, very good article.

-

March 7, 2008 at 2:19am

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

The results on Tuesday have convinced me that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. She may not overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but that's only because caucuses clearly helps Obama's demographic, and silly rules such as one delegate awarded per 12,000 in CA, but one delegate was awarded per 2,000 votes in WI. She will at least get the FL delegates reinstated, and she will win the popular vote when this is all over. I expect her to win PA, which will mean that she has won every large critical state for the Democratic Party in November, while Obama would have won only IL. To win in red states and caucuses is not enough, and I'm sure the superdelegates are aware of this and will support Clinton in large numbers. Despite this, you suggest that Clinton should "go already?!?!?" Unbelievable.

- Stephanie

March 7, 2008 at 2:34am

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

The results on Tuesday have convinced me that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. She may not overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but that's only because caucuses clearly helps Obama's demographic, and silly rules such as one delegate awarded per 12,000 in CA, but one delegate was awarded per 2,000 votes in WI. She will at least get the FL delegates reinstated, and she will win the popular vote when this is all over. I expect her to win PA, which will mean that she has won every large critical state for the Democratic Party in November, while Obama would have won only IL. To win in red states and caucuses is not enough, and I'm sure the superdelegates are aware of this and will support Clinton in large numbers. Despite this, you suggest that Clinton should "go already?!?!?" Unbelievable.

- Stephanie

March 7, 2008 at 2:35am

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

hi, I guess it is bad for Sen. Clinton to do negative campaigning but OK for you to do negative articles! Please explain to your readers why this is so! Also say Sen. Obama falters and loses Pennsylvania say 75% - 25%, and several other remaining states such as Kentucky and Indiana by similar margins. That would give Sen. Clinton the lead in pledged delegates. Why do you want her to leave already! You do not believe in every voter counts! Also, what about Florida, or Michigan. Oh they broke the rules! Well what about states like Nebraska were caucus rules were borken left and right. By that principle those results should also be tossed out! Oh but of course, this is not about any principles, it is just about stopping Sen. Clinton from being president. And of course anyone who would vote for her does not deserve to have their votes counted, since in fact this will pose a problem to the underlying premise that Hillary should not be president because you hate her.

- vinnyp

March 7, 2008 at 2:35am

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

I think you have hit the nail here - Hillary knows she is not going to win the nomination. Thus, to run in 2012, she must obliterate Obama today and ruin his chances in the general election (she surely would not be able to run in a primary against the sitting president). The way she's behaving of late (strongly, strongly implying that she'd prefer McCain over Obama), she strikes me more of a petulant child fighting others for attention that she does a true, sincere presidential candidate running on a meaningful message that she truly believes in.

- Chris A

March 7, 2008 at 2:47am

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

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this article! IF only Hillary Clinton cared about the good of the country even 1/10 of the amount that she cares about herself.

- jarod

March 7, 2008 at 2:56am

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

Absolutely, unbelievable. I would've thought it would've taken at least a week for Obama surrogates to return to their regularly scheduled cries for Clinton to drop out but alas you've surprised me. Like it or not, neither candidate can win through pledged delegates without the race changing dramatically. Calling for either one to drop out "for the good of the party" belies not only an ignorance of history (even with blood on the streets of Chicago and all of the events leading up to it like the forgotten factors like LBJ's withdrawal, the Vietnam War and Draft, RFK's assassination, etc. Humphrey only lost to Nixon by less than 1%) but also an ignorance of the tactics the Obama campaign has used and continues to use. Obama has and continues to question her experience as First Lady and has been smacked down on the facts. Guess what? She was confirmed present and involved in one of the major meetings on how to disarm the IRA. Even among Obama supporters the exit polls show she is viewed as the most experienced and her experience claims aren't based solely on roles as first lady despite the fact that Obama supporters like to try and frame it that way. Any McCain attack on experience can be met and rebutted. More importantly, she can redirect the conversation to the economy where Obama cannot. Obama has and continues to try and pick at the bones and bring out the ghosts of Clinton's past. How did you miss the "she'll say or do anything to win" slogan? How did you miss the incessant harping on tax returns and implication that there were ties the GOP would exploit? How did you miss Michelle Obama's comment about taking care of her own house? As to the gender dynamic, please explain how on earth you can justify your assertion. If anything female support has risen and will continue to rise if Clinton is the nominee against McCain. Women outnumber men in the general population and will rally behind an historic candidacy even more without a competing historic candidacy. This line of defense that boils down to "please, don't hurt him he's fragile" is absurd and undermines him as a candidate for the general. Further, reducing yourself and your candidate to begging his or her opponent to leave the race gives the perception that you don't believe your candidate can win any other way. It also speaks volumes about your fears that maybe --just maybe -- Americans would rather have Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee and President.

- JL

March 7, 2008 at 3:15am

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

An unfortunately brilliant and clairvoyant piece of commentary. If only it all weren't so true. As she has agreed to destroy him, so has she agreed to destroy us.

- fl

March 7, 2008 at 3:17am

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

Have a Martini you are becoming irrational and enraged! Just because there are a lot of women democrats doesn't mean they will vote for Obama in November. Many of us are behind Hillary Clinton and will not get behind Obama in November. Many Catholics like my parents -in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania-will go for McCain in November. Nothing in the Obama message is pragmatic enough to attract my vote or the vote of so-called "Reagan democrats". He needs a few "battle scars" like McCain or Clinton. If he wins the nomination, he will not win in November because he will not win among traditional democrats. It's not a coincidence that he has a hard time carrying the democrat vote in most of the large states. We are not sold on him. Without the Independent vote he would not be ahead in delegates. If he can't hold his base what chance does he have?

- Sarah

March 7, 2008 at 3:28am

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

That was a phenominal article. You just wrote every single thing I was feeling and everything I have been thinking. I guess that's why you're a journalist and I'm a bartender. Thank you for that brilliant piece of journalism.

- Eric

March 7, 2008 at 3:32am

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

Oh, boo me a big ol' hoo. Really, TNR is becoming unreadable. The pity parties are pathetic. There's nothing "repulsive" about winning the nomination through the superdelegates. That's what the rules--the rules that you Obamabots keep on harping on--allow. Cope. And until then, please, knock off the whining.

- jmkerr

March 7, 2008 at 3:34am

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

You Cbama fanatics are so deluded! Firstly, the Al Caponish Rezko owns some of Obama's backyard, and there are probably dead bodies down there, considering how nicely the flowers are growing. Secondly, he has not been vetted, tested and readymade, like Hillary has by Bill singing, "My Ding-a-ling", at the top of his lungs in the shower. Thirdly, the little boy Barack is 46, the same age as Bill Clinton when he became President, and we all know how that turned out! Fourthly, the scared child has not shown the proper appetite for destruction befitting a commander-in-chief. Does he know the victorious taste of Republican blood trickling from his lips? Fifthly, he is a terrible Muslim. He commits a deep sin by denying his faith in Islam, he has not performed the customary pilgrimage to Mecca, he eats meat not prepared according to religious guidelines, he does not pray towards Mecca five times daily, and he never attends mosque. I suspect he is really a Christian. Sixthly, he does not have a lifetime of experience like McCain and Clinton. Get real, Obamafreakaziods: he's not a Baby Boomer, and he's not exactly W-H-I-T-E. Blacks are good voters, musicians, and preachers, hut not leaders outside of the ghetto. The Clintons know the ghetto, and they'll rule it again once they get the natives back under control. "I was a fiend before I became a teen I melted microphone instead of cones of ice cream Music orientated so when hip-hop was originated Fitted like pieces of puzzles, complicated 'Cause I grabbed the mic and try to say, " Yes y'all!" They tried to take it, and say that I'm too small Cool, 'Cause I don't get upset I kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet" --Eric B And Rakim - Microphone Fiend

- The Magic Spinning Costello

March 7, 2008 at 3:52am

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

so what are you saying? she should just step aside for your guy...you are supposed to be a journalist/columnist not a cheerleader..

- lawmag

March 7, 2008 at 3:57am

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

This should be required reading at the DNC.

- BL

March 7, 2008 at 4:00am

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

Since most polls and most of what pundits predict never ends up coming true, this story is what I believe Obama calls, fearmongering. Let the voters vote, for goodness sakes, and let's see if Hillary does all these things you say she's going to do. Maybe reporters need to take a chill pill. On the flip flop, if, for some reason, Barack Obama's fans turn out to be fickle and latch on to the next fad, maybe Hillary will win by the large margins she needs, but Barack will be the one to have damaged her by fanning the flames of racism with Bill, or convincing voters in places like Mississippi that Hillary hates people in small states by fanning flames once again. Obama's attacks damage her as well, but that seems to be okay, since all you psychics are so sure she can't be the nominee. I say, everyone relax, wait and see.

- M.B.

March 7, 2008 at 4:05am

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

Imagine that the process had been designed to end early and indeed ended early -- we could have ended up with an unvetted loser like John Kerry. Hard to imagine. If Obama can't cope with a real campaign, he shouldn't run.

- jjtalk

March 7, 2008 at 4:25am

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

I actually laughed out loud when I read in your piece that Hillary Clinton said Obama might be a "lightening rod of controversy." If you had to name one political name that has caused the most controversy in the last 20 years, who would you pick? Hmmmm... that's a tough one! I wonder why no one else is calling out Clinton for expressly saying that she will seek to ignore the will of the people to achieve this nomination. It doesn't matter that Obama has the lead in the popular vote, the pledged delegates and the number of contests. It doesn't matter that Obama will still have the lead in the pledged delegates when the voting is over. Her argument is absurd and I can't believe more people aren't seeing through it.

- Tanya M.

March 7, 2008 at 4:41am

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

I find this article a bit odd. I have been mulling over the whole question of 'negative' tactics in my head for a while now and am unsure that the debate is properly defined in the public mind. The author writes, "While she [Clinton] likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage." This goes to the core of what I have been thinking about. A few questions: 1. Why is Hillary described as being 'polarising' because she was the subject of a tough, no-holds barred, dirty campaign to smear her name? It was right wing donors/thinkers/writers (David Brock for instance) who systematically attempted to degrade, defame and ruin her reputation. She has never been charged with any serious ethical breaches whilst First Lady or afterwards, just continued innuendo and denigration. Why is SHE held responsible for this? 2. Why do Obama supporters think that the right wing will be any less harsh in their dealings with Obama? There is no reason on earth for them to go light on him, particular with past drug use, association with Rezko, ?ties to nuclear industry in Illinois (Exelon)and a very liberal voting record, and his relative inexperience to boot. He's an easy target! Even if there weren't these soft spots, it just takes innuendo or half truths to set the cat amongst the pigeons. This IS the reality of politics, whether he wishes it were so or not. 3. What is going 'negative' really about? Surely criticism regarding one's opponent's personal integrity, character record, political history cannot be construed as going 'negative'. The whole point of the contest is to prove to people that you are better than your opponent, and you need to give good reasons why this is the case. Obviously, lying about someone's record or personal life is a totally different ball game. Isn't Clinton allowed to criticise Obama? Obama's whole campaign presmise is that past politics has been morally questionable (is this going negative? why not?) A fascinating period in American history, however, and one I am glad to be a spectator at. AD

- Alice Dwyer

March 7, 2008 at 4:52am

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

I could not have put it better myself. Make no mistake about it, if hillary "steals" this normination, I will not sit out the general election, I will vote for Mccain

- wale ala.o

March 7, 2008 at 4:59am

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

The same rule-makers everyone is supposed to honor when it comes to disqualifying Florida and Michigan delegates, also created a super-delegate system which clearly invites the overturning of popular sentiment - if a majority of super-delegates are convinced it is in the best interest of the party.

- C. Parker

March 7, 2008 at 5:31am

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

Word for word correct. Hillary can't 'go out on a win', but she could go gracefully after Wyoming and Mississippi. Instead, she'll try and destroy Obama in Pennsylvania and probably bring down the party in the process.

- Simon

March 7, 2008 at 5:49am

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

The woman just won Texas and Ohio and I suppose you would have her quit. You're very unfairly assuming that she will undertake all these ruthless, nefarious and underhanded means to steal the election from poor Obama, and in so doing are assailing her character. Hillary will blow Obama out of the water in PA by more than 300,000 votes and things will continue to come her way in a very legitimate and orderly way. You'll see.

- DDF3

March 7, 2008 at 5:50am

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

All Clinton can do is to find out a way to steal victory from Obama. She cannot win the delegate race. She has now coopted SNL and the media by playing the victim card. She wants us to thin the election in Pennsylvania is the only that matters. That if she wins a State primary, it follows that Obama cannot win it. That there should be no consequence for Florida and Michigan (in much the same way as we bail out folks from their sub prime mess). This is politics at its worst

- John James

March 7, 2008 at 5:58am

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

Hillary's logic is really odd... The nominee shouldnt be a) That with more pledged delegates; b) that with more states won; c) that with a higher popular vote; d) that with better performance in polls against McCain... but that who won Ohio!!!!! OK, Hillary, Ohio is important, but give us a break. Shame on you, you're destroying the party cos your unlimited ambition. About the experience: If so-called experience (beign a partner shouldnt really count in a CV, but anyway) is really more important than judgement and vision, then if she gets the ticket she would have absolutely nothing to do against McCain.

- Daniel Millan

March 7, 2008 at 6:05am

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

This article ought to be forwarded to the DNC (Go to www.democrats.org and click on "Contact") early and often along with the message that Independents and true Democrats do not support Clinton's scorched earth tactics, fear-mongering, race/religion baiting, misdirection, or flat out lies (see NAFTA). The time to rally around Obama in NOW.

- Steve

March 7, 2008 at 6:12am

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

Really excellent article, Jonathan. Thanks very much.

- Tim in Ann Arbor

March 7, 2008 at 6:17am

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

I have a lifetime of experience, Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama has a speech that he did in 2002. This is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking and not Sen. John McCain, and this is the mildest form of her Kitchen Sink Strategy; the strategy which mimics or echoes Machiavelli. CAN YOU IMAGINE A FELLOW PARTY MEMBER MAKING THIS SORT OF REMARK IN THE NAME OF POLITICS. I AM BEGINNING TO GET IRRITATED WITH THE CLINTON KIND OF CAMPAIGN, INFACT I WANTED HER TO WIN, BUT WITH HER NEW SYSTEM I DON'T THINK THAT SUCH A WOMAN DESERVES TO LEAD AMERICA AND SHE MUST BE STOPPED. SHE IS TOO NAIVE AND HAS SHOWN THAT SHE WAS JUST BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION BY THE PRESS AND REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER.

- kelly DOUGLAS

March 7, 2008 at 6:21am

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

7 reasons why Obama should strongly court John Edwards now and seriously consider him as a potential VP, in the near future: 1. Both are perceived to be anti-establishment, which fits in nicely with Obama's "change" message. 2. Edwards has broad appeal among blue-collar democrats. 3. Edwards' populist message should resonate with Latinos/Hispanics. 4. Edwards would strengthen Obama's connection with whites, in general, and white men, in particular. 5. Edwards would help Obama deflect concerns about his religious affiliation. 6. Both being men, Obama and Edwards would portray strength in some voter's minds with respect to national security. 7. Edwards could help tip the electoral balance with respect to southern states.

- john smith

March 7, 2008 at 6:25am

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

You pretty much summed it up. I agree with everything you wrote in this article. But at the end of the day, it is up to Dem voters, and they seem inclined to let the bloodletting continue.

- mgp

March 7, 2008 at 6:33am

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

EACH WEEK WE HEAR ANOTHER CORRUPT BACKER WITH HUSSEN OBAMA!!! OBAMA IS CONSTANLY SURROUNDED BY CORRUPTION, ESPECIALLY WHERE CAMPAGINE FUNDS ARE CONCERNED WHERES CNN? MSNBC? FOX/ ROLAND MARTIN? IDIOT TUCKER CARLSON? BILL KRISTOL? TIM RUSSETT? AND ANYOTHER SO-CALLED TABLOID ENQUIRER TYPE ANTI FEMALE JOURALIST We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! Another indictment former Dallas Mayor Hill, Obama camp financial contributor and supporter charged with federal bribery, extortion and conspiracy. Again has their hand full with other publically indicted bankrollers like Rezko. A company related to Another Obama “financial friend” Rep. Rick Renzi indicted Friday on multiple federal charges, law enforcement sources tell CNN. In a 35-count indictment handed up by a grand jury in Arizona, Renzi is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering extortion and insurance fraud. The indictment stem from Renzi's efforts to use his position in Congress to promote “land deals” Again more corrupt camp donations for Obama. Now two information leaks from the Canadian government rocked Barack Obama's campaign for the U.S. presidency showing he has been caught in a public lie again. The Government of Canada says it will only investigate one of them. Obama and his team have ducked "legitimate questions" about Rezko, who faces federal corruption charges most centrally involved with Gov. Blagojevich's administration. "Now the trial is beginning, it will be more difficult for him to avoid these various serious questions. I can guarantee you that. Obama's Relationship with Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions from Accused Fixer's (REZKO) Wife and Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows. Obama opportuned Rezko to obtain jobs in the Blagojevich administration for Obama allies. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced it SO-CALLED shedding more donations According to court documents, Mr Rezko's lawyer said his client had "longstanding indebtedness" to Mr Auchi's GMH. By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million. ATTENTION: OBAMA FINANCIAL BACKER REZKO TRIAL STARTS TODAY MUST READ BEFORE YOU CAST THAT IMPORTANT VOTE!!! NOT ONLY DID HE GO BEHIND VOTERS BACKS AND MEET WITH CANADA AND PUBLICALLY LIED ABOUT IT! SEE OBAMAS CONNECTION WITH SADDAM HUSSEN AND REZKO! Land deal 'mistake' piles the pressure on Obama Mr Auchi, leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime and convicted for corruption in France, the British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions and millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fund just weeks before an imprudent land deal investigation. In addition money transfer from Nadhmi Auchi, Obama used to buy his Georgian mansion in Chicago. Mr. Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million!!!. Mr. Auchi's money was made doing business with the regime of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Auchi was a leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime. A former Belgian ambassador to Luxembourg charged that a bank in Luxembourg owned principally by Mr. Auchi laundered funds -- including oil for food money -- for Saddam and other Islamic dictators. Auchi helped French and Italian firms win a huge oil pipeline contract in Iraq, chiefly by paying off Iraqi officials, according to testimony given by an Italian banker to prosecutors in Milan. In 2003, he was convicted for his role in what was then the largest scandal in French history, involving payoffs from executives of the oil company now known as Total to political figures in Spain, Germany and Africa.. The connection between Mr. Auchi and Sen. Obama is cause for great concern in the U.S. The national news media have been remarkably incurious about Sen. Obama's relationship with Mr. Rezko, and his with Mr. Auchi. The Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price -- perhaps because Mr. Rezko's wife purchased from the owner an adjacent garden plot for $625,000. (The sellers deny they offered the Obamas a discount.) The Times of London wondered where Mrs. Rezko got the money to buy the garden plot. At the time, she had a salary of $37,000 and assets of only $35,000, the Times learned.

- mali

March 7, 2008 at 6:52am

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

The reality is... Hillary can't win the nomination without stealing it... without splitting the party... without proving the Republicans right about the Clintons.

- rinosaurusrex

March 7, 2008 at 6:52am

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

As Richard Cohen put it : "In many ways, Clinton's a remarkable woman but she is not proving to be a remarkable politician.", ... and "The fact remains that as a politician, Hillary Clinton is a creature of her husband." She has no real political experience and never exercised real leadership, except the (very diluted) one you can attribute to the spouse of a president. Still quoting Richard Cohen : "When Clinton announced an interest in running (as a senator), every other Democratic candidate - “Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, - ...took it as an order to vanish." "Back then, I wrote that there was "something wacky" about what was happening. ”Clinton, you might recall, was hardly a New Yorker. No matter. ”She had never won an election in her adult life. No matter. ”She was virtually inexperienced on her own. No matter. “She was first and foremost the wife of Bill and for party leaders ... she just had to be The One." "Six years later, Clinton ran for re-election. Once again, she had no Democratic opponent ..." The private life of Hillary Clinton is her own business, but using your husband as a campaign tool, she exposes yourself to criticism as far as that privacy is concerned. Had she been a woman of character, she would have divorced Bill after his many extra marital affairs, which led to an impeachment procedure and weakened the Democratic party. She could, then, have started her own political career in New York, ... or wherever she would stand a chance to be elected on her own merits. She didn't.

- CORTO MALTESE

March 7, 2008 at 6:55am

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

Let's just do away with the primary process and let name-calling "senior editors" choose the candidates.

-

March 7, 2008 at 7:03am

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

Very insightful, especially your observation that she has nothing to lose and everything to win from destroying Obama's image. Either she wins the nomination now or she damages him so much that he loses to McCain so she can try again in 2012. That IS what she's thinking and planning. Horribly true, truly horrible. Keep spreading your sharp spirit.

- Jaw Dropper

March 7, 2008 at 7:08am

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

Thank you for the brilliant analysis. Where indeed is the party leadership? AWOL!

- Floridavoter

March 7, 2008 at 7:15am

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

This is the most important piece by far that I have read on the primaries. I've emailed it to everyone I know and if you agree, I suggest that you do the same.

- Laurence Leamer

March 7, 2008 at 7:15am

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

we get so tired of hearing people like"you" try to sway this race. all of the Obama in your face....Mccain will win the race....bah humbug! let them run a real race and let the media stay out of it! SHAME ON YOU! let the voters decide...on their own! same thing goes for Shawn Hannity! your a nutjob!

- Charles Boyte

March 7, 2008 at 7:17am

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

Sounds fine to me, but then I'm a Republican. I've been considering crossing over in the general to vote for Obama, so a Clinton win would make my life a lot easier.

- Viejita del Oeste

March 7, 2008 at 7:29am

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

First of all, Obama will not have enough delegates to win the nomination, same as HRC. Secondly, he has not won any BIG state other then his home state of IL; while HRC has won all the huge states.....Including CALIFORNIA. If the Democratic party didn't split delegates proportionally, HRC would clobber mr Purple Lips, empty suit Hussein Obama, 3 to 1! Why don't you just GO ALREADY! HRC will win. YES SHE WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- danny

March 7, 2008 at 7:33am

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

You are right. She cannot win in November mainly because she has now lost any good will she might have had from African Americans, antiwar liberals, and all kinds of other folks Dems need to win. In the last few days, I have heard a half dozen friends make the case for voting for McCain if she wins the nomination. She can't win the Presidency but if Obama does, Bill and Hill are no longer titular heads of the party. If McCain wins, they still are. So she has nothing to lose. Either she wins or Obama loses. Six of one. Half dozen of another.

- MJ Rosenberg

March 7, 2008 at 7:33am

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

Excellent piece. Your assumption that Clinton's Ohio and Texas wins, despite her high negatives, reflect her popularity about "core Democratic voters," though, assumes that's who elected her. Both of those were crossover contests. Both of those happened in states where right-wing talk radio show hosts were advocating that Republicans enter the race, vote for Clinton, both because she would be easier to beat and to leave the Dems to bloody themselves a bit longer. Why hasn't that story been adequately covered? The number of right-wing voters tactically switching to vote Dem would have been enough to tip Texas, for sure.

- CBP

March 7, 2008 at 8:02am

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

Excellent comment. One, thing: The President is not the so-called "Commander in Chief" to the American people, but only to the US military. For the citizens, he/she is only our President. Nowhere in the US Constitution is the Pres. the Commander in chief. It was Bill Clinton who first started using this rather fascist description of himself in reference and relation to the American people. Sadly the media picked it up and started referring to the POTUS as OUR Commander in Chief. He/She is not. Let's stop using this awful language as it feeds right into the slim message machine of fear and control.

- Ellen

March 7, 2008 at 8:03am

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

What I do not understand is why Obama is always considered by pundits to be the default candidate and why because of that, people are forever calling for Clinton to step down, for Clinton to think of the "good of the party." What about the huge chunk of the Democratic electorate that wants Hillary Clinton as its candidate? It seems to me that at this moment in time people favor handing Obama the nomination on a silver platter because he's won more delegates and more states. However, a great many these victories are dubious, as many know, because of where they occurred: red states. Neither can Obama clinch the nomination without clawing his way to it. He will not be able to generate the required number of pledged delegates by the time of the convention and would also have to broker his way to the nomination. So why doesn't HE drop out (for the good of the party, of course...)?

- NCDem

March 7, 2008 at 8:06am

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

You are a moron!

- RT

March 7, 2008 at 8:11am

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

Jonathan what a great piece, all Hillary is doing is knee capping Obama so super delegates would over ride the will of people. Her negatives are 50% and she is trying to bring Obama negatives just close enough to her own, this way super delegates would go with most experienced negative. I don't if anybody watched Jon Stewart last night, he had Tom Daschel on the show. Tom said that even though he is supporting Obama, he would switch to Clinton if she had more delegates. I hope super delegates go with the will of people and chose the person with more delegates and I am betting Obama will have more delegates at the end.

- Bob

March 7, 2008 at 8:19am

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

If Obama is to defeat Hillary he must have McCain attacking Hillary. Obams and Hillary have virtually the same political goals. Unfortunately for Obama McCain has been a friend of Hillary's. So, Obama is on his own in the Democrat primary fight.

- Al Barrs

March 7, 2008 at 8:20am

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

If Hillary's only chance requires an unending sequence of dishonest negative attacks on Obama, followed by an anti-democratic superdelegate overturn of the primary results, then that is a chance she should forgo. She may still be able to retain some goodwill among Democrats if she bows out now, but she seems as incapable of doing the right thing as her philandering husband. I have lost a lot of respect for Hillary over the past month, but if she stays on this path, in another month she will have earned a permanent place on my shit list. Neil

- Neil

March 7, 2008 at 8:22am

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

Jonathan, You were hoping that Obama would deliver a knock-out blow last Tuesday. Now you're ranting about what a meanie Hillary is. She will win, because she is tougher and her views on national defense, Israel, the economy, and free trade are much closer to mainstream Democratic positions than Obama's are. Sincerely, Michael Aronson

- Michael Aronson

March 7, 2008 at 8:25am

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

I am just sick at what is about to happen. But I think it is inevitable. Nothing about Hillary Clinton suggests belief in anything other than their own right to ascend. I expect from what I've seen inthe last month, she'll probably succeed in knocking Obama down as Chait describes. If she does, I'm afraid I'm likely to sit 2008 out. I have said for over a year, that I'd happily and actively support any of the major Democratic candidates, once one is chosen as the nominee - and that included always Clinton. But if she gets it this way, I don't think I will. I have never hated Hillary Clinton - just didn't think she was the best candidate in the bunch. But if Chait's scenario plays out, she goes permanently on my sh** list. I have voted for the lesser of two lousy choices in way too many national elections in my time. I think it's time to join the legions of the resigned.

- sdemuth

March 7, 2008 at 8:37am

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

The Democratic Party created this monster. Their political correctness kept Hillary from even the slightest hint of criticism of Obama for fear she would fan the flames of racism. The race card has been so politicized by the Jesses Jacksons and Al Sharptons that the democrates have painted themselves into a corner. They have lost the ability to lead.

- Terry

March 7, 2008 at 8:40am

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

Jonathan, You write: "Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves. . .kneecap[ing her opponent]. . .(meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness). . ." I would argue that HRC's ruthlessness is not exactly Nixonian (her campaign hasn't, as far as we know, engineered a break-in of her opponent's offices), but Rovian, in that her campaign has repeatedly employed the kind of big-lie smear tactics we have seen the Bushies employ over the past seven or eight years, smears that have no basis whatsoever in reality, smears that are more apt descriptions of the candidate (Hillary, Bush) whose campaign has manufactured them, smears that--in their overheated language, their ad hominem attacks, their hyperventilating irrationality--seem to have originated with a drunk, or a psychopath, or the Mad Hatter's tea party. In short, listening to Hillary or her surrogates--Ickes or Wolfson or Mark Penn--is like accidentally tuning into a segment on the Fox News Channel.

- JosephCuomo

March 7, 2008 at 8:44am

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

You nailed it on the head, Jonathan. I despised her before, but after what I saw in the last several weeks, it's just pure antipathy. If she steals the nomination, either by personal destruction or legal manuevering (or both), as a lifelong Democrat, I will quit the party and vote for John McCain in protest. And I hate John McCain.

- Sharon Duncan

March 7, 2008 at 8:50am

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

Excellent analysis. Clear and to the point. Hillary will sooner take out the last best hope of a young electorate than work in the interest of the people who support her. Her doublespeak and Jekyll/Hyde routine may well work in tandem with McCain to crush Obama, but wait till fall when the red states will not go purple.

- K C

March 7, 2008 at 8:51am

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

This is the most realistic assessment of the Democratic struggle as I have seen. It is also a scenario that the Republican party should view with delight: HRC loses the nomination but badly damages a candidate who is already looking a lot more problemmatic than he did a few weeks ago. As the tag line goes "Priceless!"

- bostonbornandbred

March 7, 2008 at 8:52am

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

From RCP, this article was accessed. Obama had better show everyone he can win this fair and square, with majority of pledged delegates and popular votes. Let Hillary do her bit, whatever it takes to show this guy has more than dreamy feelings for a better future, so do we all. If he can't sustain or attain the commitment of moderately educated white people living in depressed rural areas (more than 20 miles from major cities) of the northern states from Indiana to Massachusetts, he certainly won't win the election,because sun belt states won't go his way either. The collapse of the dollar, the credit crisis, the oil crisis, the sub-prime crisis, the foreign military entanglements and expenditure for same, are all problems neither Obama nor Clinton are capable of addressing without bomb proof majorities in Congress, and a national emergency. Ain't gonna happen, so this is theatre costing billions and making the media feel important for an instant.

- leo regan Irish Republic

March 7, 2008 at 8:52am

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

Jonathan, The problem with your analysis, aside from the fact that it is biased, is that it's too linear and incremental. The environment is dynamic and changing very rapidly. The financial world right now is descending into a chaos that hasn't been seen in the lifetimes of most voters. The U.S. economy today reported a one-month loss of 60,000 jobs, the largest loss in years. Ironically, only one of the three candidates left in the race has real economic background experience and "street cred." You'll see everything shift in the weeks ahead as economic darkness falls over the land. Ultimately, several other very important issues will fall under the economic umbrella, including withdrawing from Iraq, univeral health care, and comprehensive immigration reform. From here on, it's all about economics and voters will be looking mainly for a tried-and-true economic savior. You know who she is, right?

- dusty12

March 7, 2008 at 8:59am

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

Hillary Clinton is not claiming her years as first lady are the qualification for commander-in-chief. Her 8 years of service on the Senate Armed Services committee, intimate knowledge of military affairs and mutually respectful working relationship with military brass are what would make her a better commander-in-chief than Obama. At least 2 dozen active and retired generals have endorsed her candidacy.

- nmlhats

March 7, 2008 at 9:02am

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

Mr Chait- The reason that 144 delegates "doesn't sound like a lot in a 4000 delegate race" is because it isn't! Realclearpolitics estimates that 344 superdelegates remain uncommitted...and all the superdelegates are able to switch allegiances anyway, as we've seen in recent days. With regard to the situation with the FLA and MI delegates, most party leaders willing to go on the record insist that the current disenfranchisement of voters in those states is unacceptable. Lastly, in a race so close, why should Clinton, and not Obama, bite the bullet for party unity?

- H-Dog

March 7, 2008 at 9:05am

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

Obama has the media, 90% of the blacks, rich and young people and the ability to raise an enormous amount of money. His supporters are electrified at his presence. He is competing against Hillary with a high negative and tons of political baggage. Yet he managed to lose every big blue state except his home. And we expect that he would win the general election against a war hero with unquestionable integrity with a "liberal tilt. Not a chance!

- KS

March 7, 2008 at 9:09am

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

Neither Obama or Clinton has given this registered Democrat a reason to vote for them in November. Experience- Neither has nearly as much life experience, military experience, or character building experience. Health care- Does any intelligent person think either Clinton's or Obama's plan is going to become policy. We are not a country willing to try revolutionary changes. The medical lobby will block those plans before either takes the oath. Economics- While McCain admitted that was not his strong point, both Democrats have been talking recklessly. Curtail NAFTA, force mortgage holders to change the terms of loans. The adults in the Democratic Party, if there are any, need to think through this nomination game to the end. Will a scorched campaign position either Obama or Clinton to take on McCain? Or should a group of party leaders have a conversation with the candidates and work this out so the eventual nominee will be a strong position to win the general election?

- Ron

March 7, 2008 at 9:15am

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

The democrats adopted their current rules after Jesse Jackson lost the primary and cried racism (what else would you expect). So now you have a system where losers and winners of state split delegates 52% - 48% which is similar to your socialist economic platform. I love it! Basically, Jesse Jackson is going to keep the first legitimate black candidate from getting a shot at the White House.

- Andrew

March 7, 2008 at 9:16am

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

Alright, this is probably the best article I´ve read on the election in the last two weeks. It´s really great to see some straight talk. I read many articles every day covering the primary (what can I say, I´m not a big basketball fan), and only a few articles (this one, Newsweek) have came out and said, "Hillary really can´t win this one." Meanwhile, there are articles popping up talking about how ironic it is that inspirational Obama is now talking about math . . . well hell, he´s talking about math because it´s an election, folks, an election that he has a 99.999% chance of winning! Besides, since when did inspiration and math not get along? There is something missing from your story, though, Jonathan, and that´s the part where you took numerous lines of cocaine and glasses of beer and ran ten miles before writing up the report, and then woke up in the morning and smoked some cigarettes and swam 30 laps while waiting for HRC to drop out of the race . . . but really, you call it like it is, and now if you could just get more exciting, you could be the next Hunter S. Thompson. Just a little encouragement for you.

- Robert

March 7, 2008 at 9:17am

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

Hillary Clinton = Joe Lieberman. She is a traitor to the Democratic party. If she steals the nomination, she will go down in flames in November, in a year that should have been a Democratic gimme. The only cold comfort available is that the dismal showing she would make against McCain (and the disastrous effect she'll have on downticket races) should finally achieve for the Clintons the pariah status in the party that they have long richly deserved. I hope there will be a stiff primary challenge to her in New York. She IS a monster. Samantha Power had nothing to apologize for. Oh, by the way, commenters in the tank for Hillary who will reply to this: osculate my posterior. YOU are a big part of the problem in what is clearly a very sick party.

- Steve LaBonne

March 7, 2008 at 9:18am

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

To the editor: I am a 49 year old lifelong Democratic voter. I was thrilled by the 1990s economy and most of the policies. In general, I like both of the Clintons. What I question is this end run for a third term. We have term limits in place for a reason. The US should not go down the path of electing the spouses of former term limited presidents, regardless of performance or party. It is a very bad precedent to set. Imagine a White House with a Mrs. Bush or a Mrs. Reagan !! For this reason, rather than being a feather in the cap of women in general, a Clinton presidency demeans the feminist movement by suggesting that a female cannnot obtain highest office without having initially been a "First Lady". For these reasons I will not support Mrs Clinton. If Mrs Clinton gains the nomination, I will vote for Mr McCain. Mrs. Clinton, please do what is right for the country and step aside. We will all be better off: historically speaking, now, and in the long run. Sincerely, Christopher S. Turner Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois

- Chrisopther Turner

March 7, 2008 at 9:25am

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

I agree. Her odds are so low, the negative consequences of victory are so large, she needs to show some judgment and pack it in. She reminds me of a drunk guy at bar time trying to talk to every woman he sees. Sure, dude, you might, against all odds, find someone who leave with you, but isn't it better for everyone if you just go home and go to sleep?

- Sirhc

March 7, 2008 at 9:25am

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

The best insight into the threat posed by ego-centered Clintons. It is time for party leaders to have a private chat with them and for previously uncommitted superdelegates to commit to Obama en masse. Let's get the future underway.

- Dale in Los Angeles

March 7, 2008 at 9:28am

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

Very well stated. I'm not a Democrat nor would I ever vote for one; however, this has been a fascinating race on both sides. I agree that Senator Clinton is on a slippery slope. I'm sure that she is driven by two factors: (1) She still thinks that she "deserves" the nomination outright and (2) this is probably her only shot at it. From my perspective, she is coming off as desperate and power hungry.

- C Peters

March 7, 2008 at 9:28am

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

It is inconceivable to me that the DNC and the party leadership is allowing this kind of conduct to go forward. There is absolutely no way that I would ever vote for her in the general were she to be the nominee, and I am a democrat. This is madness. Would she rather that McCain win than Obama?! Where is the party leadership on this? As for FL and MI, they knew the rules and they broke them. Their delegates should not count as the election was not sanctioned. By going back and allowing the seating of these delegates, there would be nothing stopping any other state from doing the same thing at the next presidential election and claiming that their delegates should be seated because a precedent was started with FL and MI. Finally, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh is urging his listeners to vote for Clinton... not because he likes her but because she is easier to beat. Since the republicans already have a nominee, their vote in the republican primaries yet to be held would be a waste of time so what's to stop them from corrupting the democratic primary by sabotaging it with votes for the weakest, most unappealing candidate? The republicans that vote for Obama are doing so because they most likely believe him to be someone who this country needs right now. The republicans voting for Hillary are more than likely doing so to sabotage the democratic primary process. Why can't the party leadership see this?

- Marina

March 7, 2008 at 9:31am

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

One of the basic premises of the article is false. That premise is that Clinton can not win at the polls against Obama. That is not at all clear at this point. The total vote counts between Clinton and Obama through all primaries are very close at this point. Leadership depends on whether Florida and Michagin are included in the totals. The delegates awarded by the caucus system do not represent the will of the masses of the electorate. They are more like the superdelagates in that they represent the will of a small highly engaged subset of the electorate. For example, just take a look at what is happening to the delagate totals in Texas as the delagates being awarded by the caucus system are added to those awarded by the popular vote of the electorate. We may have to wait until June to know whether Clinton or Obama wind up being ahead in the popular vote of the people.

- David Force

March 7, 2008 at 9:36am

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

This is spot-on. Media bias has been *for* HRC in the past month--if Obama was as far behind as HRC after WI, he'd have been written off instantly. But Hillary is "in it to win it," and the media wouldn't have it any other way. Now, she is intent to destroy the party--and perhaps the republic--to capture the nomination by Rovian means. Hillary supporters--realize your candidate is a lost cause, support your party's nominee with the most delegates, and prepare for the fall. PLEASE!

- Alex

March 7, 2008 at 9:37am

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

As a Clinton supporter I am, myself, a bit weary and concerned about the length of the primary battle. I feel that Chait is whitewashing Obama's deficiencies a bit though. Senator Clinton has every right to stay in the race so long as it is possible that she can win it. Obama and his supporters have not been stepping up to the ball. The only way to get her out of the race entirely is to MAKE HER LEAVE. Obama's aloofness and his unwillingness to hit back and his disasterous fumbling of this NAFTA nonsense is reinforcing my own worries that he is not going to be able to close the deal with voters in November. If he can't secure his own party then why should I expect him to secure the electorate at large? I have no interest in his high soaring rhetoric or his vacouse promises to change politics. I want a politician for my parties nomination, not a pastor. The other way to secure the nomination, of course, would be for Obama to offer the Veep spot to Hillary. If he's such a rise above it politician then maybe he should rise above the current fight and recruit her onto his team. Sure there'd be problems, but what political team doesn't have those? For the record I am utterly flabergasted that Hillary hasn't already publicly offered him the veep slot on her ticket. I suspect that which ever one of them would do it would be able to get a lot of undecideds to their side with the have your cake and eat it mentality. I'm rambling. In summary Obama has to either get serious and political and drive Clinton out or get very high minded and recruit her. This bobbling around in the middle isn't going to cut it. I'm personally not interested in sending him against Mccain just because he can lift his chin and chant Yes we can.

- Minnesota

March 7, 2008 at 9:39am

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

She is truly betraying both the values and the long-term viability of the Democratic Party.

- Gavriel Meir-Levi

March 7, 2008 at 9:41am

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

Americans deserve to be represented by the candidate who has demonstrated the most integrity and positivity as this will be our representation to the rest of the world. Hillary Clinton has clearly set the example for our children that when faced with challenges, go negative... beat up your opponent with un-substantiated rumors. Senator McCain and Senator Obama are the two remaining candidates who embody there is still integrity left in America, and this is the attitude and approach we want to bring to the International arena. It is now up to America to determine that this is what we deserve.

- nerakami

March 7, 2008 at 9:43am

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

Nobody seems to be making the obvious argument yet (but my guess is that Hillary soon will): The superdelegates should do exactly what Obama is urging them to do, namely, vote as the people have voted. Except, Hillary will say that they should vote the way the people have voted on a state-by-state basis, mirroring the Electoral College process, i.e., all California superdelegates should vote for her, all Wisconsin superdelegates should vote for him, etc. Even assuming that MI and FL will not count, if Hillary takes Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, she will have won in states representing 264 electoral votes, and Obama will have won in states representing 230 electoral votes.

- Mike

March 7, 2008 at 9:44am

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

After reading some of the comments posted here by Hillary supporters, now I understand why she gets most of the uneducated, beer drinking, low income voters (no offense intended). People who are able to think for themselves are not easily sway by Hillary's tactics of desperation. In addition, we are able to read, research, and question things in order to make an intelligent decision based on facts when picking a candidate. Hillary is a disgrace to all women who worked hard to achieve success with pride and honor, not by following their husbands' footsteps and then claiming them to be yours. For that matter, I should just go to the NFL and demand to get a position as a quarterback considering that I am married to one. Ridiculous, isn't it?

- eve

March 7, 2008 at 9:47am

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

After reading some of the comments posted here by Hillary supporters, now I understand why she gets most of the uneducated, beer drinking, low income voters (no offense intended). People who are able to think for themselves are not easily sway by Hillary's tactics of desperation. In addition, we are able to read, research, and question things in order to make an intelligent decision based on facts when picking a candidate. Hillary is a disgrace to all women who worked hard to achieve success with pride and honor, not by following their husbands' footsteps and then claiming them to be yours. For that matter, I should just go to the NFL and demand to get a position as a quarterback considering that I am married to one. Ridiculous, isn't it?

- eve

March 7, 2008 at 9:47am

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

Dear Sir: Your article leads me to one conclusion: You must be clinically insane. It is your type of mindset that fits exactly into the Obama cult--that of the "young" generation--the most narcisstic, borderline personality, everything-must-go-exactly-how-I-want-it-or-everyone-is-a-Horrible-Monster mentality of a generation that has ever walked the Internet-enabled, isolated Earth. What a group of overly-entitled, selfish, and immature people. I would suggest that you, and your hippy-mentality, sunshine-and-lollipops ilk wake up to a little something called Reality. Your precious Obama is not perfect (nor is Mrs. Clinton; her supporters are well aware of that fact.) Being a leading candidate for Leader of the Free World will come with many, many costs. Mrs. Clinton is brilliant, a pragmatic thinker, a hard worker, and she knows she's got what it "takes" to be the next President. She will fight tooth-and-nail for the Worst Job in the World. You and your like should stop whining, bunker down, and get used to it. Stop painting her as the most Vicious Monster to Walk the Face of the Earth, start debating her on actual issues that matter in normal people's everyday lives, or call it a day.

- mdl, MD

March 7, 2008 at 9:47am

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

Dear Sir: Your article leads me to one conclusion: You must be clinically insane. It is your type of mindset that fits exactly into the Obama cult--that of the "young" generation--the most narcisstic, borderline personality, everything-must-go-exactly-how-I-want-it-or-everyone-is-a-Horrible-Monster mentality of a generation that has ever walked the Internet-enabled, isolated Earth. What a group of overly-entitled, selfish, and immature people. I would suggest that you, and your hippy-mentality, sunshine-and-lollipops ilk wake up to a little something called Reality. Your precious Obama is not perfect (nor is Mrs. Clinton; her supporters are well aware of that fact.) Being a leading candidate for Leader of the Free World will come with many, many costs. Mrs. Clinton is brilliant, a pragmatic thinker, a hard worker, and she knows she's got what it "takes" to be the next President. She will fight tooth-and-nail for the Worst Job in the World. You and your like should stop whining, bunker down, and get used to it. Stop painting her as the most Vicious Monster to Walk the Face of the Earth, start debating her on actual issues that matter in normal people's everyday lives, or call it a day.

- mdl, MD

March 7, 2008 at 9:47am

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

Mr. Chait, cool it. You might end up choking on all that bile.

- ofelia

March 7, 2008 at 9:49am

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

Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan. The caucuses, which Obama won, are undemocratic because of the number of people who work during those hours or can't afford child care. He has won a lot of red states where the will of the majority is not in evidence, again, because of the inherent unfairness of the caucus system. Primaries in big blue and wing states are what Hillary wins. If you add MIchigan and Florida, she leads in the popular vote. Obama is well-known in Illinois for aggressive signature challenging to eliminate his opponents, and the Texas caucuses were fraught with Obama people trying to confuse and get rid of Clinton people. Obama is a dirty fiighter too, and if you say that I want to vhange "the rules" now because my candidate is behind, I'll tell you that Superdelegate freedom of decision is also a rule. Please check out this link for more on Obama's dirty tricks. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-are-results-so-different-in-primary.html

- Jay Adams-Feuer

March 7, 2008 at 9:54am

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

Obama needs to win with superdelegates also. They both do. This is the way the process was designed to work. The superdelegates haven't decided yet. They have a legitimate role. Unless you are completely in the tank for Obama, it is absurd to suggest that she should drop out because he has a slight lead when there are so many delegates who are not yet committed. Consider this: Obama has so far won in states that account for 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Clinton has won in states that account for 263 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Who has the more legitimate claim to the support of the superdelegates?

- chiron

March 7, 2008 at 9:57am

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

Is Hillary Clinton running as John McCain's running mate? Is she on the Republican ticket? It's unclear. Why are the stalwart Dems supporting this pseudo-Republican candidate? Good deal for McCain.

- Anne

March 7, 2008 at 10:03am

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

Oh ye of little faith. Hillary "Mondale" Clinton will surely beat John "Reagan" McCain.

- blackton

March 7, 2008 at 10:05am

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

A-MEN! This has happened before. Power-hungry Democrats who amass a personal base that is stronger than the party's and they take the party down in their own narcissistic cling to power. She is pulling a Lieberman. Howard Dean needs to take sides. Force MI and FL to do-over on April 22 with NC and PA and give Hillary a mandate: make up the delegate deficit on that date or get the hell out. Even that would be generous to her and damaging to the Party.

- stgla

March 7, 2008 at 10:07am

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

Hillary Clinton is a disingenuous fraud who is nothing more than a malignant tumor on the political landscape and the sooner the Democratic Party eradicates that tumor, the better. Isn't it obvious that this sleazy opportunist couldn't care less about the Party; she knows that Obama is the inevitable nominee and is already working behind the scenes to try and insure McCain's election. Why you ask? So she can run again in 2012. Take your philandering spouse and go back to the woods of Arkansas from whence you came!

- Chester Catling

March 7, 2008 at 10:08am

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

This is the best article I've read yet on the primaries. Few journalists have been brave enough to call the Clinton campaign what it is: a power-starved war machine. At this point, I don't see much difference between Clinton and Bush (it's no wonder that the latter seems to prefer the former over Obama). Clinton was an eloquent supporter of the war in Iraq (read her speeches), a beneficiary and enabler of a horrifically lopsided economy, and a champion, apparently, of anti-democratic tactics. All of Obama's language is about getting society to take charge of itself; all of Clinton's language is about getting Clinton to take care of herself. There lies the difference.

- alex

March 7, 2008 at 10:12am

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

Hmmm, I take it you're a Obama supporter. It is clear that 1/2 of this country also likes Hillary Clinton. It is also true that Obama has lost most of the BIG states required in a General Election. But, the biggest sign is what happened in Ohio and Texas. Despite Obama's great "message", he could not close the deal. That's because people are slowly getting to know Obama and realizing he is just like any other politician. Obama will get slaughtered by McCain and the Republican Swiftboat troops. Hillary has a better chance, and a Hillary/Obama ticket has an even better chance. Unless, of course, McCain chooses Condaleeza Rice as his running mate, then Democrats are just plain screwed no matter what.

- Randy

March 7, 2008 at 10:14am

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

Hmmm, I take it you're a Obama supporter. It is clear that 1/2 of this country also likes Hillary Clinton. It is also true that Obama has lost most of the BIG states required in a General Election. But, the biggest sign is what happened in Ohio and Texas. Despite Obama's great "message", he could not close the deal. That's because people are slowly getting to know Obama and realizing he is just like any other politician. Obama will get slaughtered by McCain and the Republican Swiftboat troops. Hillary has a better chance, and a Hillary/Obama ticket has an even better chance. Unless, of course, McCain chooses Condaleeza Rice as his running mate, then Democrats are just plain screwed no matter what.

- Randy

March 7, 2008 at 10:15am

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

Grow up!!! Just because the nomination is not being handed to your candidate doesn't mean you have to use such petulant language.

- Kabindra

March 7, 2008 at 10:15am

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

She would rather give this election to McCain than to lose to Obama. She loses to Obama, she's finished in terms of ever becoming president. If McCain wins she can run against him in 4 years.

- Adam

March 7, 2008 at 10:16am

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

Oh God thank you for this!! It appears noone wants to state what is so obviously true.

- Misa

March 7, 2008 at 10:20am

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

What is clear is that Hillary Clinton desires to be president of the 15 states that matter. Not the United States of America. Her only path now is as #2 on the republican ticket, the ultimate dividers.

- paul94611

March 7, 2008 at 10:21am

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

From my comfortable position over here just right of center, McCain's position in the political spectrum, this picture you're painting is downright beautiful when I look at it through my partisan eyes. But nobody's partisan these days, right?

- Vincent

March 7, 2008 at 10:22am

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

"Jack" represents what is loathesome about party politics. He think "he" owns the Democratic Party and that Obama stole it from him. It's that "Jack-ass" thinking that drives people toward the golf course and away from the voting booth.

- W. Baird Blackstone

March 7, 2008 at 10:23am

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

I find it funny that Obama doomed the party. I think Clinton is the one who has doomed the party, or her supporters who somehow continue to vote for her thinking that continuing the political polarization and fighting 50/50 is somehow going to improve things. Lightning rod to the opposition? How can the Hillary camp even suggest that Obama is more of a lightning rod than she is? Look, I'm a crossover voter, the Dems nominate Hillary, you'll lose millions of new democratic voters like myself. Then again, I don't think they really care, I happen to live in one of those little states that isn't in Hillary's win column, so I don't matter, despite the fact that my state has elected the President in every election since Truman...but I digress. You need perspective, asking a conservative independent or a republican voter to support Senator Clinton is like asking a democrat - liberal independent to unite behind Bush. It just isn't going to happen. The democratic party is doing more damage to itself than the republican party could have ever dreamed of doing. It's their election to lose.

- Jim

March 7, 2008 at 10:23am

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

The most distressing part is my begrudging realization that Obama's "new politics" of transcending negativity and ruthlessness that so many of us crave will never actually work. Too much of America is like Hillary. They believe in the status quo. In Ohio and Texas, I'm stunned at how the majority of the population looked at her and decided to embrace her negativity and polarity. Hillary supporters go on and on to insist that she isn't negative, she is just more "seasoned", and a "fighter". Great. More fighting in Washington. More experience. Just what we need. No wonder she voted for the Iraq war. In the end, Hillary has insisted that hope is empty, that change is unrealistic, that togetherness is cliche, that words mean nothing. That things are fine as is. And the majority of people in 14 states have agreed. Let's aspire to be uninspired. It's depressing. As long as there is a two-party system, change will not happen. There are two many Hillary's in the world to ensure the petty rules of Washington are never broken (unless of course you are Florida and Michigan, in which case, according to Hillary, breaking the rules is perfectly fine). Fight on, Hillary. Fight for this election. Fight for the superdelegates. Fight for women. Fight for Michigan. Fight for Florida. Fight against hope. Fight against change. Fight for yourself. Fighting is the only hope, right?

- workmonkey

March 7, 2008 at 10:25am

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

Chait does it again--one of the best political writers in the country. Jon, you should mail this to every Superdelegate.

- Madorsky

March 7, 2008 at 10:26am

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

Whether you agree or not, the fact is Hillary will win toss-up states (such as Ohio, Penn, and NJ, may be Florida) in General election while Obama can not win a one of them. He might have more delegates but you how he got them. Mostly thorugh causes and Red states (such as SC, Alabama) which will never be BLUE. In Alaska caucus, total number of people = 200 In Idaho, less than 1% voted. You have to understand that PURE Mathematics (more precise Arithmetic) of delegates works only in theory & books. In practice, you have to consider lot of other factors. JFYI: IN NJ poll (as per Rasmussen): Mccain vs Obama : Mccain wins by 3% Mccain Vs. Clinton: Clinton wins by 11%

- Jake

March 7, 2008 at 10:40am

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

Whether you agree or not, the fact is Hillary will win toss-up states (such as Ohio, Penn, and NJ, may be Florida) in General election while Obama can not win a one of them. He might have more delegates but you how he got them. Mostly thorugh causes and Red states (such as SC, Alabama) which will never be BLUE. In Alaska caucus, total number of people = 200 In Idaho, less than 1% voted. You have to understand that PURE Mathematics (more precise Arithmetic) of delegates works only in theory & books. In practice, you have to consider lot of other factors. JFYI: IN NJ poll (as per Rasmussen): Mccain vs Obama : Mccain wins by 3% Mccain Vs. Clinton: Clinton wins by 11%

- Jake

March 7, 2008 at 10:41am

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

I totally agree with you, it's a shame how she's doing the bad job for Maccain. it's a real Hara-Kiri for the Dems.

- alfakiwi

March 7, 2008 at 10:42am

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

Look: Hillary Clinton-haters are as unreasonable as Bush-haters. For a Canadian to preach to Americans about politics after Canadians have embraced almost all of Hillary Clinton's positions on international and domestic issues is laughable. As a result, the writer loses all credibility. Either candidate, Clinton or Obama, will be far superior to more of the same of Bush-McCain.

- pammiekin

March 7, 2008 at 10:43am

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

Dems divided = McCain '08. Up until last Tuesday, at least supporters on both sides could be civil to each other. How could we have possibly screwed this one up? (Sigh)

- Rube

March 7, 2008 at 10:45am

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

This is a very astute article pointing out how dangerous this protracted fight for the nomination will be when you have someone like HRC engaging in low, ugly politics. Unlike what you hear from some of the high-ranking democrats, this fight will not be good for the party; it will be devastating. I am white, in my fifties, and female. And like so many of my friends, I will never under any circumstance vote for Hillary Clinton. So I just cannot understand why the party allows HRC to continue with this scorched earth strategy. She cannot win, but she can burn down the Democratic party. Superdelegates should start rallying around Obama. And if they do not, then Obama does need to start reminding people of how and why HRC is so politically poison. As you pointed out, McCain and the Republicans will have a field day with her.

- Jane thomas

March 7, 2008 at 10:51am

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

Simon: Get a grip. The party will not dissolve. This is not the somnolent Democratic party that ushered in George Bush. Come on. If your guy doesn't win, are you going to sit in the corner and pout? You cannot possibly think that John McCain is a better choice. And Democrat who would vote for McCain in a fit of spite isn't a real Democrat. Look at the bigger picture and stop focusing on the politics which are being shoved down our throats by the media.

- pammiekin

March 7, 2008 at 10:51am

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

If this is how Clinton wants to play the game, then it is time for Obama to start hitting back hard. I thought Obama was from Chicago -- he needs to start campaigning like somebody from Chicago. I'm reminded of the one scene in the movie "The Untouchables" where Sean Connery's character is talking about how to get Al Capone. He states that when one of Capone's men draws a knife, you draw a gun and when Capone puts one of your men in the hospital, you put one of Capone's men in the morgue. That's how you get Capone, that's the Chicago way. It appears that Clinton is willing to do anything that it takes to try to win this nomination (and if not, permanently cripple Obama in the general election); Obama has to have the guts, and has to pray for the strength, to tear this woman from limb to limb.

- cappyintern

March 7, 2008 at 10:53am

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

biased hateful, unobjective anti-Cinton reporting. Don't finger your prayer beads too too much!

- Greg

March 7, 2008 at 10:54am

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

Do you really think that Billary could tolerate being VP? They'd be undermining or taking unearned credit every chance they got. On the other side, I can't see Obama as her VP because whoever gets that job will only have the name. Bill will be her operative VP, they've pretty much made that clear already.

- Chris

March 7, 2008 at 10:56am

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

The posts on this site show why Ms Clinton will not win the presidency, regardless of whether she manages to win the nomination. Mr. Chait hit the nail on the head, she is divisive as hell and 50% of americans cant stand the woman (or her husband). Mr Obama and Mr McCain are much better candidates and will allow the election to be run on issues rather then on personalities. The clintonistas, the bushes, the roves and the rest of the slime need to go away and leave us alone.

- Chet Brewer

March 7, 2008 at 10:59am

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

What if the phone rings at 3am and the big questinon is CAN I SEE YOUR TAX RETURNS?

- Bungalow

March 7, 2008 at 11:00am

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

I find the thesis of this article fundamentally flawed. Neither Clinton nor Obama will win the nomination with pledged delegates alone, and there is no real justification for insisting that JUST BECAUSE Obama leads by a few percentage points in pledged delegates that superdelegates should fall behind him. The job of superdelegates is to exercise wisdom and polical good sense. If Clinton can convince that she has the better chance to carry the key large states in November, then she deserves superdelegate support. Superdelegates may rightly be unimpressed by Obama's string of caucus victories, as irrelevant to the real world of a general election. And then there is the issue of Florida and Michigan, which Chait conveniently ignores. This is yet another article designed to create pressure for Clinton to bow out. Chait, maybe it's time for you to bow out!

- Walt44

March 7, 2008 at 11:00am

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

Now, wait a second. If Hillary can't possibly win the nomination, that means neither she or Bill are in any way titular heads of the party anymore. So, all the old rules are off. Obama can attack the Clintons with impunity for all their scandals. It doesn't matter, because they're both as dead politically as Jimmy Carter.

- ChanRobt

March 7, 2008 at 11:00am

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

So Hillary "can't even beat Hitler's dog in November let alone a war hero?" So proclaims Jonathan Chait, the great supporter of Obama the Man of Peace. I have news for you, Chait: recent polls showed Hillary ahead of McCain by 6 points. Sue Obama was ahead by 12 points, but that was before the Ohio defeat. McCain has boasted he konws nothing of economis - in a year when Americans' jobs and houses are on the line. Mccain has said he is ready for 100 years of US war in Iraq. That's his other big boast. Some candidate. Obam won't beat him: he is obviously just a talker. But Hillary will massacre McCain.

-

March 7, 2008 at 11:01am

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

The ticket is Clinton/Obama for 16 years of sanity.

- pammiekin

March 7, 2008 at 11:03am

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

Just like I thought. It's only a matter of time before the real America shows up. The world is watching, and our so called world leader status, which has already been diminished incredibly,will continue to slide in that direction. How can anyone, American or other, support someone who will obviously use unethical tactics to try to win an election? How can the Clintons who played on " the first black president " thing, send so many undertones of racism and bigotry to discredit Obama? Wow! I'll just keep watching with the rest of the world, and hope the real issues become the deciding factors in this election. Hillary just reminds me of why someone with a 100% white mother and a 100% black father, is deemed black in America. These mixed people accept this as if any measure of blackness is a taint. McCain may get my vote, Obama may get my vote, but after her campaign, I would prefer to move to the North pole than to vote for Hillary

- zato

March 7, 2008 at 11:05am

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

A very acurate and concise report. I thank you for your impartial analysis of the situation. At the moment of writing it would seem that Obama is continuing to gain super delegate support at the rate of 5:2 ahead of Clinton, at this rate Obama will overtake Clinton well before the Pennsylvania primary. However of course Wyoming and Mississippi hold their primaries. Clinton may win Wyoming (12 delegates) whilst Mississippi will undoubtedly heavily go to Obama (33 delegates), so this time next week it would seem that Clinton's position will be even worse than it is now.

- Bill

March 7, 2008 at 11:08am

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

I'm an Obama supporter, but the concern put forth by Hillary people that he isn't winning big states and hispanics is a valid one, as is the concern about his ability to effectively fight back sleaze thrown at him. Chait's piece is a needed one - brutal and fair. But continuing down this path of hatred between the campaigns and their supporters is a gift to Republicans. It looks like we will have to create a bizarre cyborg of a ticket with the two of them for any hope of moving forward. I think the sooner we all accept that, the better.

- WandreyCer1

March 7, 2008 at 11:11am

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

Hillary will NOT win any close states. At this point, she's alienated millions of progressive and/or African-American voters who will stay home in November, AND has given millions of independent voters all the arguments they need to choose McCain over McCain Lite. She would be THRASHED by McCain. It sickens me that her claque refuses to see this, and puts loyalty to their unworthy champion above loyalty to party and, yes, country. For shame. By the way, I am NOT particularly an Obama supporter except by default, so don't give me any "Obamabot" crap. I supported John Edwards, and maybe one good solution to this mess would be for him to ultimately get the nomination as a compromise dark horse if the first ballot fails to produce a winner.

- Steve LaBonne

March 7, 2008 at 11:13am

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

Some apropos advice for HRC from a source she may remember: Your old road is rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand

- Tim

March 7, 2008 at 11:15am

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

explain to me again why, with most things being mostly equal and with the delegate math dooming this contest to convention brokerage in august, that it's incumbent upon Hillary to drop out of the race? Especially when the vast majority of people agree that she's most prepared to be the President? And especially given that she's winning by wide margins states that will actually go blue in the General? Hate to break it to you, but Barack's victories in Idaho and North Dakota and Utah don't mean he appeals to Republicans. Idaho's 24,000 registered Democrats aren't going to give him the state's handful of EC votes in November. Hillary is winning big where it counts--working class men and women, Hispanic voters, and women 50+. These are the groups that vote democrat and vote consistently, and Barack doesn't pull them like Hillary does. This isn't to say they won't vote Democrat if Barack is the nominee, but it does point to a fundamental deficit in Barack's ability to appeal to core Democratic constituencies. Hillary isn't the one tearing the party apart, if that's the argument you're making. She's got the most and strongest support among the core constituencies of the party. Why should she drop out when rank and file, card-carrying, capital-D Democrats support her overwhelmingly?

- matt

March 7, 2008 at 11:17am

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

I do not want to hear for one second that Hillary is not actually the winner in Texas. If Obama eeks out a couple more delegates bc a few of you got together in your caucus and gave it to him, that means nothing to me. Have a primary that is representative of the state's population as opposed to a caucus. She won the primary, screw the caucus!

- William82

March 7, 2008 at 11:18am

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

I just don't understand why, in a race this close, that Hilary Clinton should concede the race to Barak Obama? He clearly has weaknesses for the Republicans to exploit in November...Will Obama really get Clinton's Catholic blue-collar working class voters in the fall? How about her female support? Like it or not, these are exactly the kind of voters likely to defect to McCain...they've done it before when the party's candidate has been too left-of-center. If party unity is really so important to Obama voters, then they should be more than happy for Obama to throw his support to Clinton. Obama supporters, you are ready to do what you're asking Hillary's people to do, aren't you?

- H-Dog

March 7, 2008 at 11:19am

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

Shorter version of Chait's latest attempt at finally realizing his "Clinton is toast" prediction that's proved elusive time and again: Hillary should just get out of the way of the "eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate..." Pathetic. This is the sorriest in Chait's series of pieces on this theme. Why should Hillary just get out of the way when neither she nor Obama can mathematically get the required number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright? The notion that because Obama is leading Hillary by just 2% in pledged delegates binds the superdelegates to support Obama makes a mockery of the whole rationale for the superdelegates. Why do they exist if their role would simply be that of rubber-stamping the candidate with the slimmest of pledged delegates edge? The superdelegates' job is to weigh each candidate's strength in the general election and then to support the one whom they think has the best chance at beating the GOP candidate in November. Therefore, Clinton is doing precisely what she needs to do: To raise doubts about her opponent's qualification to be POTUS. If he cannot offer a counter argument, then he definitely does not deserve the party's nomination because he would have proven himself unable to articulate how he could be trusted to prevail against his GOP opponent. The democratic thing for you do to, Chait, is to just button it up and butt out once for all and let the process play itself out. Obama had the opportunity to put this thing away on March 4 and failed, yet again. And the reason he failed this time is because, for the first time in the contest, the press turned sharply negative on him and he was found lacking, which greatly diminished his artificial shine. Obama is under pressure to prove that his purported strength as a candidate is not owed simply to the fact that the press has given him a pass, while pillorying Hillary. Obama needs to show that he has cojones big enough to take on challenges. Neither Chait's nor the Obama camp's whining that Hillary is trying to "steal" the nomination makes sense in view of the fact the superdelegates would not exist if the rules were that the candidate who is leading in pledged delegate count by the slimmest of margins should automatically get the nomination. That is not the rule, so the notion that Clinton is not playing the "rules" is as bogus any argument that Chait has offered this election cycle against Hillary's candidacy.

- dcshungu

March 7, 2008 at 11:22am

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

Monica Lewinsky is set to endorse Bill in PA, she is still hoping to get an internship.

- Bungalow

March 7, 2008 at 11:22am

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

I suggest everyone goes out and buys a copy of the excellent 1999 book "Hell to Pay" by Barbara Olson who was congressional investigator in the Dept. of Justice and general counsel in the US Senate. It not only makes riveting reading, but also has predicted what is going on now. THEN readers should come back with their comments.

- S Tait

March 7, 2008 at 11:24am

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

Obama only wins red states full of Hillary-haters; I don't think that qualifies you to win the Democratic nomination. If he wins a big blue state or any of the swing states, every superdelegates will switch to him. Winning Alaska with 400 single votes or American Abroad with 150 votes don't make you the winner. He is the loser in this election! Time to go for him.

- Jesable

March 7, 2008 at 11:29am

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

Yup, that's about how it is going to play out, she's going to scorch the earth for what is becoming an impossible shot at the nomination and she doesn't care that in so doing she is essentially handing the keys over to McCain. And it's all through this kitchen sink strategy she's using. Problem is Obama can't throw it back at her but only so much, so it's up to us to do it. The opening salvos begin now: http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-here

- Kyle E.Moore

March 7, 2008 at 11:29am

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

Thank you Jonathan for this piece. I totally agree with your points, but also appreciated your writing & research skill. When the Clintons were in the White House, I didn't dislike them; didn't object to him saying "two for the price of one." Now, "shocked" and "angry" is what I am. Even if I supported Hillary's run I would still be disturbed. I am able to separate out my heart allegiances from my thinking process. It is my perception that Ex-Pres.Clinton is hoping for a 3rd presidential term for himself through his "ever trusting & faithful Hillary." There is no way this is not going to be a co-presidency. The phone ringing at 3 am will be answered by Bill Clinton. I feel Obama should bring this up, but know he cannot do it without it backfiring upon him. There are too many Clinton supporters who because they are rather dense (or should I say short sighted and naval watchers) who see nothing wrong with a co-presidency or a 3rd term for Bill Clinton or any other trespass upon our laws and Constitution. I am disheartened by our "civics & government" misinformation and downright stupidity (i.e. separation of church and state for one). Even after hidden agendas/motives and non ethical actions are well exposed, the public does a collective sigh, shrug and cynical laugh. People are fond of saying "That's politics and it has been going on since 6,000 B.C." Perhaps I am naive, but at my advanced age, but I reserve the right to remain "shocked & ashamed" by these events...I am ashamed for Gov. Crist, Sen. Bill Nelson and yes, Hillary and Bill Clinton. We will have to see if they are successful.

- jane davis

March 7, 2008 at 11:29am

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

If Hillary succeeds in electing McCain,he will appoint Justice Stevens' successor on the Supreme Court and given that McCain is strongly pro life, this new Justice will be the fifth vote to overturn roe V. Wade and a women's right to choose. How ironic and how horrible that a strong feminist like Hillary Rodham Clinton will have been the reason why Roe will be overturned

- political realist

March 7, 2008 at 11:35am

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

All due respect Jack, loyal Democrats don't engage in what Senator Clinton is engaged in. I won't vote for her if she manages to smear and slime her way into the nomination. This is wrong and its incredibly destructive.

- Seth

March 7, 2008 at 11:37am

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

The rest of the world is watching, and we are aghast that Clinton could even be thought of as a candidate by so many Americans. But it is your country and we have no say, rightly so, but we live in dread of Clinton becomming President. By the way this is from the UK, perhaps your closest real ally!

- Bill Roy

March 7, 2008 at 11:38am

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

Jack, You say "we'll never forgive Obama for splitting our party." Seriously? Really? Are you kidding me? Obviously, you have partaken in the Clinton Kool-aid, if you can make that statement with a straight face. The twisted logic astounds. So, anyone who dared to challenge Hillary's presumed march to the nomination is to be accused of being the one to split the party? Honestly, the arrogance you, she and the entire Clinton campaign have shown, and continue to show boggles the mind. If this party is torn apart, I think all rationale beings will know exactly where to place the responsibility mantle. Here's a mirror...use it.

- Fai

March 7, 2008 at 11:40am

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

I agree with you as long as the supporters of Hillary don't whine when Obama starts attacking Hillary back and bringing up the same issues that the republicans will be attacking her on after the primary season. Un-electability, issues during the clinton years. If you are really OK with Obama taking off the gloves and not whining yourself. The I agree with your point. I still think at this point, unfortunately, the dems will lose a race that was an easy one to win because of how this primary season is turning out.

- daniel

March 7, 2008 at 11:41am

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

Superb article. Crisp and dead-on right.

- Andy

March 7, 2008 at 11:42am

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

Obama has closed the deal. It is Clinton who selfishly refuses to accept reality.

- Dahveed

March 7, 2008 at 11:43am

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

Obama's advisor was 100% correct in her depiction of Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton has run a campaign of incessant lies about her opponent, mud slinging, and the politics of personal destruction and character assassination. Her win-at-all-costs behaviour is vile and insidious and she is determined to destroy Obama in order to win the White House which she somehow thinks she is entitled to. Clinton most resembles Richard Nixon in her secretiveness, her enjoyment of tearing her opponents apart with lies, rumors and innuendos, and her belief in revenge and enemies she must destroy. Next November a new president will be elected and we are not going to solve the problems of health care, immigration, the economy, foreign relations, and the environment if we make our opponents in America our enemies as Hillary Clinton does. Republicans, and Democrats who disagree with her, are not Al Queda. Electing Clinton will ensure polarization and divisiveness in our country beyond anything we have ever seen before.

- Mark Jeffery Koch

March 7, 2008 at 11:46am

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

#141 reveals religious bigotry. Clintonista? May oui!

-

March 7, 2008 at 11:47am

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

Jonathan, I understand that you support Senator Obama. But you need to recognize that your advocacy is not in line with the wishes of the vast majority of registered Democrats, who prior to Tuesday's contests wished to see Senator Clinton remain in the race even if she lost either Texas or Ohio. Most Democrats -- not you, and not the most extreme supporters of Senator Obama -- want to see this play out. I'd venture to guess that most of them want MI and FL to have their delegates seated as well. Much of the media clearly wants to short-circuit the electoral process, but that's not in step with what the majority of American Democrats want. And I read Tuesday's results not only as a victory for Ms. Clinton, but as a rebuke for much of the press. If we reach the end of the primary cycle with Senator Obama having won only a single large state (Illinois), with a close popular vote and close pledged delegate count, the only solution that will please both candidates' supporters is a joint ticket. And as a woman I am frankly tired of hearing that African Americans will feel "cheated" and will stay home in November. If Democratic women feel cheated and stay home, the party will be in even more trouble.

- ez

March 7, 2008 at 11:49am

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

Sheesh. From this discussion, you would think the two candidates in the primaries were ideological opposites or something. They're not, and I don't know how the party has gotten so divided. That being said, Clinton can't get the pledged delegates, and the superdelegate thing is nonsense; people won't support her if she doesn't win on pledged delegates, and I think the superdelegates know that. Heck, I won't vote for ANY Democrat-for House, Senate, Governor or even Alderman-if the party smacks down my primary vote like that. This article is correct, and she needs to drop out.

- Danny

March 7, 2008 at 11:50am

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

Idiotic argument. First, does anyone believe that if the situation were reversed that Obama would gracefully back out now? No friggin' way: his fanatical supporters, of which Chait it seems is one, would start hurling themselves off buildings and chanting in the dark with candles of hope, weeping Oh! Zion for their great deliverance. Not to mention that his wife has already stated that if the great one doesn't get what he wants now he's just gonna take his ball and go home - that's a pretty arrogant/messianic attitude to take and certainly suggests that he would be doing exactly what Hillary's doing if positions were reversed. Secondly, how is 155 delegates such a daunting total, especially when one considers that the way delegates are apportioned is bullshit, Hillary's won almost all of the big, important states, if she takes Penn decisively the momentum will be decidedly hers and if makeup primaries are held in Mich and Florida she could very well surpass Obama in popular vote? A winning margin of 100 or so out of thousands seems rather puny when all things are considered. Thirdly, if you just hand Obama the nomination now when he clearly hasn't as yet earned it doesn't that in fact make him look weak, doesn't it confirm doubters suspicions of him and become a talking point for republicans? And finally, since McCain is going to attack Obama much more harshly than Hillary has how really do Hillary's criticisms complicate things? Are those voters likely to be influenced by McCain's pending attacks on Obama going to be swayed because Hillary attacked first? Where's the logic in this? It's at least as spurious an argument as the one suggesting that Hillary's attacks are toughening up Obama - more so as far as I'm concerned. The only credible argument against Hillary staying in the race is that prolonged nomination process benefits McCain - but that's just consequence of having two appealing candidates and if you need to lay blame for this at someones feet then blame Obama who in all honestly should have spent several more years as a work in progress. I mean think about it, if Obama wasn't such an arrogant whelp Hillary would be the nominee, almost certainly the next president and the Democrats would be looking at possibly controlling the White House for the next 12 to 16 years. Regardless of what ifs, trying to circumvent the present reality with specious arguments as the ones Chait makes will only make difficult situation worse.

- Carl C

March 7, 2008 at 11:50am

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

The scenario from hell for the Dems., and from heaven for the Reps. Heres the one factor that may influence a landslide surge for Hillary in the primary's because it's so subtle and yet obvious. Bill is gone. It genuinely is now a Hillary for President campaign. Bill can now be used in a completely different way to deflect away from Hillary any (all)negative attacks from Obama effecting her durring the White house years...she allready has gained stature by asserting she is in control. It's what you don't see from the Clintons that gives Hillary an advantage.

- sjspring

March 7, 2008 at 11:53am

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

I would never vote for Billary and the reason is simple: Rwanda. She wants to claim foreign policy experience from the Clinton years, let her answer why she couldn't convince her hubby to allow UN action as 800,000 people were butchered in yet another genocide. Til then it's Obama all the way. If she beats him, it's McCain. This article is dead on! If she wants to help the US, drop out. If she wants to preserve any positive legacy for Chelsae to run on, Hillary needs to get out now!

- Scott

March 7, 2008 at 11:54am

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

Obviously the writer is an avid Obama supporter. I don't see why you guys like Obama. He is a good speaker but a lot of empty suits are good orators. If Obama becomes the nominee of the democrats they will have to kiss their chance for the presidency good bye. He will be totally demolished by the credentials of McCain.

- monster lover

March 7, 2008 at 11:56am

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

The Democrats have been trying to be all things to all people without any true message on where they want to lead the country. This is what you get when you can't differentiate yourself. A Democrate votes on emotion beause that is all he/she has. A Republican votes on issues and facts because that is what we rely on. The Democrate Party is a ship without a rudder.

- Terry

March 7, 2008 at 11:56am

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

Saying Obama hasn't won any big states in intellectually dishonest. He has won crucial states including Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, and Georgia. And when the counts are finished, he will emerge in TX.

- redstatedem

March 7, 2008 at 11:57am

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

In 1996 the Democrats made a Faustian bargain, and now the bill has come due. They knew that the Clintons were taking bribes - through Indonesian cut-outs - from the Red Chinese Army, but they averted their gaze in eager anticipation of the sugar plums they expected to receive. Instead they were forced to spend the next four years belittling themselves publicly defending the Clinton's appalling behavior. Any sensible person would have washed their hands of them - literally and figuratively - and hope that the stains would fade. Now they are shocked that the Clintons would once again dare to put their personal ambitions ahead of the interests of their party. But nothing has changed - witness their gamesmanship over their tax returns - and anyone who finds their behavior surprising is still in willful denial. The time has come for the Democrats to pay for shielding and enabling the Clintons, and the price will be the undying hatred of an entire generation of new voters.

- Paul

March 7, 2008 at 11:58am

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

So, by implication, Obama should quit because he is ahead and Clinton is being unethical and using "win at any cost" even if the Democratic party loses" tactics. I know she won't leave the race until she's blown any chances for the Democrats to pick up the large number of senators & representatives we could get by her shutting up and leaving. She cannot win without "under the table" manipulation; and a LOT of Democrats will not vote for her. Some Republicans would vote for Obama; but I don't know any who would even THINK about supporting Clinton.

- Mike M

March 7, 2008 at 12:00pm

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

Saying Obama hasn't won any big states is intellectually dishonest. He has won Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Georgia. And when the final tally is in, he will emerge the winner in Texas.

- redstatedem

March 7, 2008 at 12:00pm

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

Saying Obama hasn't won any big states is intellectually dishonest. He has won Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Georgia. And when the final tally is in, he will emerge the winner in Texas.

- redstatedem

March 7, 2008 at 12:00pm

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

Funny, I read nearly all polls giving Obama a healthy lead over McCain. Imagine how much better he will do when he has one Republican opponent instead two (HRC).

- John in Brooklyn

March 7, 2008 at 12:02pm

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

Thank you. It's so wrong. Someone needed to say it.

- Still Hopeful

March 7, 2008 at 12:07pm

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

If McCain becomes president everyone will have BILLARY to thank for it. Does she want it that way? It is looking like she does. Obama can't attack that kind of evil without himself taking on and becoming tinged with that type of inborn DNA driven evil like the Clintons. So it is best that he trot out her non record on everything from non foreign policy to non bills passed. It is all online. If he does not win top of the ticket and McCain goes for the jugular on Clinton and independents vote for McCain or stay home we will have four more years of the same GOP crap. Heloise

- Heloise

March 7, 2008 at 12:08pm

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

I often wondered why the republicans didn't like them but now I see why.. they would rather split their own party to win than unite them to win. Clintons embody a life long practice of division. There model is to divide then conquer. Win at all cost. They are vetting him for the republican machine which you don't need any vetting for because it should be easy to dimmiss a lie unless one of your party members say I think he isn't a muslim as if hard to jusy say he isn't and leave it at that. She is the republican hatchet man Obama might as well say 4 more years of the clinton mccain and bush sgenda will be costly. Nafta hurt americans because it took away manfacturing jobs, which allowed businesses to profit from cheap labor elsewhere and replace those jobs with lower paying jobs service jobs like cashier, delivery guy and etc.I find it troubling how she aligns herself with the republican nominee Mccain now thats a new low that I have never saw before.

- pm

March 7, 2008 at 12:10pm

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

I often wondered why the republicans didn't like them but now I see why.. they would rather split their own party to win than unite them to win. Clintons embody a life long practice of division. There model is to divide then conquer. Win at all cost. They are vetting him for the republican machine which you don't need any vetting for because it should be easy to dimmiss a lie unless one of your party members say I think he isn't a muslim as if hard to jusy say he isn't and leave it at that. She is the republican hatchet man Obama might as well say 4 more years of the clinton mccain and bush sgenda will be costly. Nafta hurt americans because it took away manfacturing jobs, which allowed businesses to profit from cheap labor elsewhere and replace those jobs with lower paying jobs service jobs like cashier, delivery guy and etc.I find it troubling how she aligns herself with the republican nominee Mccain now thats a new low that I have never saw before.

- pm

March 7, 2008 at 12:10pm

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

Jack, please explain your rationale for asserting that somehow because Barack Obama choose not sling mud makees him responsible for the destruction that will be inflicted upon the Democrats.

- James

March 7, 2008 at 12:14pm

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

Jack, Let me get this straight. Because Obama entered the race and has won an insurmountable majority of elected delegates in the primaries and is facing a candidate who can't except defeat (Clinton) and who is willing to destroy her party's and opponent's chance at winning in the general election out of spite, OBAMA is dooming the party? If she persists on trying to steal the nomination... R.I.P. Democratic Party for some election cycles ahead. And the party can kiss their hopes of winning a greater majority in the 2009 Congress goodbye too. Let's get real Jack!

- bolt

March 7, 2008 at 12:18pm

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

Chanakya, you are both eloquent and brilliant. You would be a fine debating partner for Senator Obama. Pity we don't let our Canadian friends serve as Vice Presidential candidates. :-)

- James McBride

March 7, 2008 at 12:21pm

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

Simply put, the Clintons rebuilt the Democratic Party and not they are going to destroy the Democratic Party.

- Sid

March 7, 2008 at 12:23pm

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

Being a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy” I must admit Jonathan has figured it out. The conservative faction have been saying this about the Clinton's for years - it is a shame that the TNR is just now discovering what vile creatures these two are... where were you in the 90's? Neither Bill nor Hillary has a speck of a moral compass - just narcissism and megalomania. I’ll never vote for anyone as liberal as Obama but I hope he keeps his cool and doesn’t fall into “their” world, because I’d rather have him as POTUS than these nut jobs.

- Doug

March 7, 2008 at 12:25pm

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

fyi...there are no rebublicans running this november. the democrats already won the election. the choice is which democrat do you dislike the least (mccain, clinton, obama). my pick is obama.

- right wing conspiracy

March 7, 2008 at 12:26pm

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

I am a democrat who has had great admiration for the Clintons for years. Six months ago, I would have been ready to vote for Hillary if she was the nominee. Her slimy campaign and dirty tricks are just plain disgusting. I for one will not vote for her if she is the nominee.....and I don't think I'm the only democrat that feels this way.

- Bill S.

March 7, 2008 at 12:35pm

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

So Obama's foreign policy advisor can call Hillary a monster (off the record, of course) & that's the politics of hope & unity?

- PW from Chicago

March 7, 2008 at 12:36pm

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

Maybe I can't do math because I'm a woman but how is Obama going to win the nomination without superdelegates?

- chigal

March 7, 2008 at 12:37pm

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

The Clinton line that "she can win the big states" --my question is this: for whom is that message designed? Uneducated people who have never studied elections? People who don't know about the Electoral College? Her argument boils down to this: the DEMS should consider nominating Hillary because she can win all the states DEMS have won every election for the past 16-24 years. I'd like to hear from people who 1. Have university degrees, and 2. who have studied US elections for the past 30 years what they think about this. For those of you who see through the dismal stupidity of the assertion I offer this analysis: Obama's threat to the GOP is that he arbitrages the loss of some lunch bucket DEMS in the big Blue States that will vote for him anyway, and replaces them with new voters in Purple (Red going to Blue) states that could force McCain to compete in places he'd not otherwise have to.

- Jared

March 7, 2008 at 12:40pm

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

I completely agree and join you in voting for McCain if HRC doesn't get the nomination.

- cbenya

March 7, 2008 at 12:44pm

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

Perhaps the better headline would be, "Take Your Voters and Go," which is what would occur now if Hillary were to leave the race.

- Angie Iglesia Martell

March 7, 2008 at 12:53pm

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

This article is a MUST READ for all democrats. It summarizes exactly the damage that Hillary is doing to her party - all because she believes that she has a "right" to the presidency. Although I would hate to do it, if she somehow manages to steal the nomination through these tactics, I will donate money and time to McCain to defeat her. I disagree with Republicans on almost every issue, but given the horrible state of our country, we cannot afford to elect a President who puts their own personal gains above those of the country. Obama is a fine, upstanding person who has campaigned with integrity. Although he is a bit more inexperienced, he has the potential for greatness. Our country needs a President who can rise to enormous challenges. Hillary only has the capacity to create enormous fights and conflict in our country.

- Lawrence Smith

March 7, 2008 at 12:56pm

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

There are still some things that Hillary can do to go ahead of Barack Obama in delegates BEFORE going after the super-delegates: 1. She will offer John Edwards the Vice-Presidency to gain his 26 delegates, 2. She will go after Florida and Michigan's 178 pleged delegates, and 3. She will go after Michigan's 55 uncommitted delegates. If she can accomplish these grabs, she will be ahead by 89 delegates instead of down 144. Don't count her out just yet -- She is that devious!

- Moose

March 7, 2008 at 12:56pm

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

Obama's been piling on Hillary for the last year with the other Dems & the Republican candidates - being criticized by Hillary & McCain is what he gets for being the front-runner.

- Hyde Parker for Hillary

March 7, 2008 at 12:57pm

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

I think HRC's support of the 2006 Kyl-Lieberman amendment is relevant to her attacks on Obama and implicit endorsement of McCain. This measure designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization", and was widely seen as a precursor to a military strike. Seymore Hersh and others have reported on the "war faction" on both sides of the aisle that favor a strike on Iran. HRC did indeed "reach across the aisle" when she supported the KL amendment. I think that's what she's talking about when she invokes her qualifications to "answer the red phone". In this, she follows her husband as eager to triangulate and compromise with powerful military extremist factions in our country: Big Bill supported the resolution calling for "regime change" in Iraq in 1998 that eased the way for the infamous war authorization in 2002. He also authorized the "space shield" nuclear defense system, despite abundant evidence that it can never work as devised. I don't think the Clinton's "rebuilt" the Democratic party. They triangulated, compromised, appropriated Republican messanges - as HRC is doing again now with her attacks on Obama. A central tenet of Republican faith is that the War in Iraq was a necessary choice, and that more "tough decisions" will be needed. Meanwhile, military contractors line up for the gravy train, and the US grows weaker internationally. I am an Obama supporter, and I used to feel that HRC would be a reasonable second-choice for President. I'm much less sure of that now. My HRC-supporting friends are in my opinion deluding themselves, seeing an empowered woman, a kind of Gloria Steinem who's learned to work the system. Think about Kyl-Lieberman, I tell them. Think about what it means.

- al75

March 7, 2008 at 12:58pm

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

Certainly concur with your description of Hillary and her ilk but otherwise, you are as misguided as it is possible to be. It is world citizen Canada-think like this that is so imbecilic. If all world citizens thought like you, we'd all be under Nazi, Soviet or Sharia law.Perhaps that, especially the Sharia law, is what you really desire. Go spend some time in Riyadh and cool off.

- vonclausewitz

March 7, 2008 at 1:03pm

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

There are a total of 2642 democratic party delegates up for grabs in the primary/caucuses, but you need 2025 to win. That means you would need to win nearly 77% of the available delegates during the primaries to win the nomination by popular voting alone. The Republicans with their winner take all primaries are, ironically, actually much more democratic. So, this notion that "If Obama couldn't seal the deal, then there must be something wrong with him" is absurd. And it is a very strange argument for Clinton supporters to make, since it works against Hillary Clinton even more strongly. Hillary was the clear front runner for nearly 12 months of campaigning and is the one that couldn't seal the deal even with the support of a great many party insiders. What was looking like a strong Democratic field in 2007 is looking more and more like neither remaining candidate is going to be in any shape to face John McCain, a true American hero with more experience and integrity than Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama combined.

- Pat O

March 7, 2008 at 1:04pm

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

Hillary early on tried to gently warn about Obama not being "vetted." But no one paid attention. The media ignored it. Now we learn about Tony Rezko's Syrian background and his links to Saddam Hussein's French money-launderer and how Obama met with the two of them. Now she's being blamed?

- Mark Wright

March 7, 2008 at 1:06pm

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

good point there are no republicans running clinton is mccain two of the same. Mccain is a little stronger of the two. Barack Obama is idealist democrat and the other two are realest.. The times presents a chance for the idealest to win because the game has gotten foul for the american people and needs to change. I mean just look at how much division clinton has created in her own party its ridiculous. To me she discredits the feminist movement because she depended and still depends on a man to make it to the top. She has no eye popping accomplishments on her own, Obama is running on his own merits and not by mentioning the positive ethnic symbol he would representing for the United States & around the world.Thats honorable why of making history not a person who mentions the fact that she is history because she is a women to rally women around her. He would be politically hung if he said such things like Vote for me because I am a black man and they deserve it. But she gets away with it. Any ways If Barack is beating the Hillary machince the republicans can't beat him either. Just look where he started when the campaign begun to where he is now.It true testament to his life story. He is an odds breaker. Only way Barack loses if the democratic party divides and it wouldn't be his fault becuase all he talks about is unity and speaks out against tatics of divisions. Were so use to and acceptantof division that unity looks scary when it stares us in the face.

- pm

March 7, 2008 at 1:16pm

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

Well said. The "kamikaze" metaphor says it all. But will collatoral damage be a President McCain? What are Democratic Party risk in coddling the Clintons as they play out their bizarre psychodrama on our National Election stage? Surely there must be some useful purposes their ample talents could be applied towards actually benefitting Democrats at this vital moment?

- thenest

March 7, 2008 at 1:16pm

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

If the Democrat superdelegates were interested in an electoral win, they'd start looking at the race the way the general election will actually be won. All but a couple states are winner-take-all and there are no caucuses. And Obama is failing in the swing states any Democrat will need to win to achieve the Presidency. So while you may think it's time for Hillary to go, in fact it's time for the superdelegates to think and save the party from itself. The Democrats on are the verge of nominating a Junior Varsity Senator. It's time for the grown-ups to take control of the party and put Senator Clinton over the top.

- A3K

March 7, 2008 at 1:17pm

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

Preaching to choir brother! I think Hillary's ruthlessness is pretty common knowledge at this point. Obama can only counter by going extremely positive. Draw a contrast to her scorched earth style. Don't give up on Hope.

- Adam SC

March 7, 2008 at 1:20pm

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

Completely accurate. A cool analysis of the facts involved lead to only one sensible conclusion, and a disturbing one, at that. That the only way for Hillary to win, would be to, in a nasty, offensive manner, kneecap Obama. And in the process, offend and put off millions of Democrats, new and old. Hillary cannot win in November. A mobilized, Hillary hating GOP, plus millions of angry Democrats and independents, amounts to a perfect scenario for McCain. I've voted for the Democrats all my life, and if the choice is Hillary vs McCain, McCain has my vote. McCain and the GOP must be praying, something they do quite well, for Hillary to march ahead with her 'roadmap' to the White House. Irony at its sourest best - if she defeats Obama, she will not only loose in November, but in the process become one of the most hated, polarizing political figures of her time.

- John

March 7, 2008 at 1:23pm

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

Seriously, if Obama cannot close the deal yet a third time there is a major problem with him as a candidate. Uh, Hillary hasn't closed the deal either. SO HIllary is the "default" candidate unless she is utterly destroyed by her opponent? Since Obama is actually winning, maybe it is Hillary who has something wrong as a candidate. Lack of experience, for one thing. First Lady? Yeah! Laura Bush 2012!

- Brian

March 7, 2008 at 1:25pm

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

Jack, do you consider yourself a purveyor of intelligent commentary. We see you and your weakness.

- Martin Bartlet

March 7, 2008 at 1:26pm

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

at least the republicans can accept their frontrunner while democrats smear their front runner and threathen to leave because hillary couldn't beat Obama fair and square and now has to throw the kitchen sink just characterize him as semi intelligent and unexperienced. And his supporters as ignorant becuase they like this guy better than her. Her supporters embody her sense of entitlement and that is keeping her alive thats it, there are democrats who actually think you have to wait in line. Even if your time is now. Her supporters are cult like. They turn blind eye to all her flaws and her negative energy. They are just like the bush supporters.

- pm

March 7, 2008 at 1:29pm

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

"Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" Not one poll says that.

- Michael castle

March 7, 2008 at 1:30pm

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

"Obama has unwittingly doomed us all. He was supposed to slay Clinton by now. But she survives, and now the civil war will destroy the Democratic party. Loyal Democrats will continue to support Clinton, we'll never forgive Obama for splitting our party. It is Obama who has proved to be the divisive and polarizing figure. Even if he wins now, he'll be damaged goods by the time he meets McCain." Only in your world would anyone believe that Obama is the one splitting the party. Puhlease. I'm tired of her and her husbands scorched earth, triangulating politics. When Bill took office the dems lost the house and senate. If Hillary gets the nomination, the dems will lost all the momentum to finally gain a majority in both houses. she needs to change party affiliations and run as a republican.

- DJShay

March 7, 2008 at 1:34pm

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

So, make up your mind, Chanakya. You spent the first 2/3 of your comment explaining how the US needs to be knocked down a peg, and then you say of Obama, "the world needs him more urgently than another half decade of American self-destruction." Are all Socialists this scatterbrained?

- sprhd

March 7, 2008 at 1:35pm

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

The Clintons. They are waking up millions of people in America and around the world to the fact that they are vicious fascita like people, to be found at the forefront of American politics, that many of their like minded are followers and are actually in a position to be elected as President. Just a reminder - the Germans eleted Adolph... GO ALREADY!

- GlennO

March 7, 2008 at 1:37pm

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

Oh please. If Obama wants to be President, he's gonna have to learn to play with the big boys (or girls). I am so tired of journalists insisting everyone needs to treat him with kid gloves and be nice or What? He'll implode? If he is the the second coming of the secular Christ as all of you are trying to promote, he can withstand and win the fight. My hunch is that many of you are afraid that he really is a paper tiger. Wake up - McCain has led Obama for the past few weeks in the Rasmussen polls (the only polls that are consistently accurate), even with the disastrous Bush adminisration, a bad economy and an unpopular war. If Obama doesn't toughen up now, McCain will eat him for lunch.

- Voter in Ohio

March 7, 2008 at 1:42pm

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

Boys, boys, boys...Get used to it and stop crying! You will have a WOMAN President.

- Manolete

March 7, 2008 at 1:47pm

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

I agreee. Obama needs to name Edwards as his Veep right now, much as Reagan did in 1976. Edwards can carry all the bottom of the electorate that is Hillary's base.

- edward north

March 7, 2008 at 1:51pm

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

What I want to know from all these Hillary supporters is why didn't you support Joe Biden if experience is so important to you? The absolutely obvious fact is that Hillary has little more experience than Obama does. I am not saying it in any way disqualifies her from being a good President, but she is the one making an issue of it. The attacks she is making on Obama could easily have been made against Bill.

- Brian

March 7, 2008 at 1:51pm

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

Are you serious? That is the dirt you have on Obama? My God that is like point at a mouse while hiding Hillary's elephant in the closet. There isn't enough space on this website to air out all of Hillary's dirty laundry, and that is just counting the stuff we do know. Give me a break.

- Mark M

March 7, 2008 at 1:54pm

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

How delicious. Chait's analysis is good, but the purpose of such prose is to stop the infighting that Chait knows will destroy (or reshape) the democratic party in the future. Truly, had Chait written this article 8 weeks ago, change "Hillary" to "Obama", it would be about as accurate. The democrats want someone - anyone - to be in the white house sooo bad. Character, courage, experience, none of that matters. Just as long as the (D) follows the name.

- AintSkeered

March 7, 2008 at 1:54pm

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

EXACTLY!!! Obama had a great chance to put Clinton away in Ohio and Texas. He failed to close the deal. Now he wants the party bigs to come along and lower the standard for him so that he can avoid getting SPANKED by Hillary again in PA. Sorry, Barak; but the electorial process does not include any minority set-asides for you to take advantage of this time. Earn her defeat through your own superior performance, or forget it!

- Duece

March 7, 2008 at 1:55pm

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

Let me give some piece of free advice. Nothing personal, just a mathematical matter. The "the kitchen sink" is only part of the game. The real game is the losers game. She knows she is going to loose on the delegate count no matter what. So she is going to loose by killing his opponent in the hope that a rational gambler will settle before dying. Now the question is what does she expect in exchange. The Vice presidency? I don't think it is enough for her to be just the president of the Senate and unprobable heir to the presidency. Most likely she wants to get a major role in defence and foreign policy, and that is something a President can not allow.

- Michael Castle

March 7, 2008 at 1:56pm

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

Let me give some piece of free advice to Gerard Baker. Nothing personal, just a mathematical matter. The "the kitchen sink" is only part of the game. The real game is the losers game. She knows she is going to loose on the delegate count no matter what. So she is going to loose by killing his opponent in the hope that a rational gambler will settle before dying. Now the question is what does she expect in exchange. The Vice presidency? I don't think it is enough for her to be just the president of the Senate and unprobable heir to the presidency. Most likely she wants to get a major role in defence and foreign policy, and that is something a President can not allow.

- Michael Castle

March 7, 2008 at 1:57pm

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

Chait, just for the sake of curiosity: Would you have advised Obama to quit had he been in Hillary's present position? Do you advise Marathon runners to quit and go home if someone has an "insurmountable" lead on them in a rce?

- Ganpat Ram

March 7, 2008 at 2:03pm

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

Deuce - Fixed Your Post: EXACTLY! Hillary had a great chance to put Obama away in Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Louisiana, etc. etc. etc. Now she wants the party to come along and lower the standard for her so she can avoid getting SPANKED by Obama again in Wyoming and Mississippi and North Carolina, etc. etc. etc. Sorry, Hillary; but the electoral process does not include any gender based set-asides for you to take advantage of this time. Earn his defeat through your own superior performance, or forget it! ----------- Oh, wait, I forgot. Only PA matters. Never mind.

- dirkleisure

March 7, 2008 at 2:11pm

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

SUPER DELEGATES wake up: The only way Hillary will go away is if all Super Delegates state for the record that they are prepared to follow the wishes of the American people and vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the convention. Since it is nearly impossible for Hillary to prevail in the pledgeed delegates count, even with the help of the conservative Republicans, she will be unable to draw in contributions and be forced to pull out. This may save the party...if not it is time for a 3rd party.

- Gary

March 7, 2008 at 2:14pm

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

...truth has a very powerful endurance. It wants to be heard. It persists. It is not weak or threatening. It will not be pushed aside. It grows stronger with each denial of its' existence. It looms in front of eyes which may only begin to see it in a new light.

- Truth Search

March 7, 2008 at 2:16pm

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

I haven't had time to read all 228 comments---I promise I'll try!---so forgive me if someone had already said this, but . . . What the hell is the "experience" that Hillary Clinton has had that allows us to sleep easier at 3 a.m.? In one of the debates, the question of who has been better "tested" came up, and Hillary simply stated flatly that she had been very "tested" with tough moments in life, and then smiled slyly as the audience applauded wildly. They knew to what she was referring: her husband's impeachment. The only other time in her husband's administration when she was prominent was her dramatic failure at reforming health care. So what does this mean for being "tested"? As far as I can tell, we are supposed to believe that she's been "tested" because a) she messed up health care, and b) her husband behaved disgracefully with a younger woman. Sorry, but this is pretty sorry-assed s**t to use as the basis of "experience" that lets us sleep easy at 3 a.m. The Obama people have been too polite to bring this up so far, but now they have the perfect excuse: Howard Wolfson has invoked Ken Starr. I just hope that some bold journalist will do the job for them, and ask pointedly the next time Hillary vaunts her "testing" and "experience" how it is that either her screwing up health care or his screwing an intern with a cigar makes her more qualified than Obama.

- timteeter

March 7, 2008 at 2:19pm

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

The "failure to put away" argument is bogus. Either side can say the same thing. The voters failed to put anyone away yet, because it's simply a close race. Why is there not an uproar that Hillary agreed that Florida and Michigan delegates would not be counted, and now they should? Isn't reneging on a promise a serious character flaw for one who is making a case for being president based on a stack of "promises". The win-at-all-cost mentality must be rejected.

- JTS

March 7, 2008 at 2:20pm

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

If Clinton's memo really says that Obama would be a "lightening rod of controversy," is there again a subliminal racial content? As the correct expression would be "lightning rod," the substitution of "lightening," at a time when there's discussion of (alleged) manipulation of a video image to darken the complexion, is curious.

- Gerard Lobosco

March 7, 2008 at 2:22pm

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

Your article is simply brilliant. It's so disappointing to see how some very very few journalists can pretend to fit that standard in country like the US. For an american who's spent more than 20 years abroad I can tell you that we are one of the less sophisticated people on hearth, politically speaking. It's not because we want to but because of the symbiotic relationship between corrupt politicians and ignorant journalists who evolve in an abject cretinism like the Jake Tapper from ABC, the Jessica Yellin or Wolff Blitzer from CNN just to name the few. It's all about ratings. That leads us straight to a Jerry Springer format and it will get there sooner than we think. Well I think Americans will have to watch less

- Robert

March 7, 2008 at 2:23pm

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

I agree with this article. I would add that if the Democrat Party wants to stop this, the Party has the ability to do this at any time. Enought super delegates can announce for Obama that he clinches the nomination. Then Team Clinton will have to decide whether they really want to continue with this strategy. Essentially, the Clintons are telling the party to side with them or they will bring down the party. At some point the party has to stand up to these types of threats. If the party does not want to see Obama dragged through the ditch, it can stop it. The question is does the party have the backbone to do it? Probably not.

- Ken W. Good

March 7, 2008 at 2:24pm

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

She may be a fratricidal maniac, but don't call her a monster or she will eat you alive.

- Paul T

March 7, 2008 at 2:26pm

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

I am beyond amusement to see that the very dirty, and UN-AMERICAN, tactical maneuvering by Karl Rove to push the Bush Creature to the White House has now been adopted by the Clinton Campaign; but I think the tactic has been dislexically twisted. Karl Rove was known to attack an opponent's STRENGTH with disgusting smear campaigns, right? Well, Hillary, it appears, is attacking Obama using HER OWN WEAKNESSES (Ken Starr, NAFTA, Secrecy). Is it me? Or is that tactic something from Monty Python's Flying Circus?

- David Sincavage

March 7, 2008 at 2:28pm

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

Great article. I agree that her smears are designed to wound Obama enough that he ends up looking as bad or worse than she will in the general election. But the biggest problem with what she's doing is that she's hitting Obama on issues like readiness to be commander-in-chief and experience which McCain will clearly crush her on in November. www.podger.net

- Podger

March 7, 2008 at 2:30pm

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

Hillary is right on for exposing the flaws of Obama. He is unelectable at the end of the day and all you dreamers who think he is the next messiah who is going to change the tone in Washington (just like George Bush claimed he would do when he was campaigning) are smoking something illegal. Obama is an empty suit with no track record, no unique agenda and I believe we will see a red election map if he is nominated. Wake up DEMS. A vote for Obama is a recipe for disaster.

- Ed

March 7, 2008 at 2:33pm

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

Excellent points. I support Obama, but I had planned on supporting Clinton if she got the nomination, that is until she started making Rovian attacks (and then have the nerve to compare Obama to Rove). She didn't have to stoop to this level. Obama could make the case that the GOP will make an issue of Bill Clinton's affairs, and he could make all sorts of indirect references, as the Clinton's to when they go on the attack. However, he has the decency to keep the election about the issues, and Clinton will stop at nothing to gain power because her and Bill are both so self-obsessed that they want to win even if it means tearing the country apart. I didn't support Kerry or Gore in the primary, but I still went door to door in the general election. Not this time. I've never seen anyone make such unfair attacks IN A PRIMARY. Shame on them. As a lifelong Democrat, I am deeply disappointed in them.

- Jim

March 7, 2008 at 2:35pm

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

Hi there, I'm a Clinton supporter and I also happen to be fluent in five languages and am probably more educated than any of the Obama supporters on this site who are constantly talking about how Clinton attracts "uneducated" voters. So, quite simply put, if all you can engage in is negative characterizations, then it shows how truly pathetic your cause is. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Let the adults do the talking here and all of you Obama supporters can go daydream while playing in the sandbox.

- William Huff

March 7, 2008 at 2:36pm

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

It becomes daily more difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the Clintons' are knowingly, willfully, poisoning the well to ensure that Obama, if he is the nominee, cannot prevail in the fall. This is maddening and infuriating if you are a partisan Democrat (which I am not), and just plain repellent if you’re an independent taking the measure of the parties (which I am), but sadly, not in the least surprising given what we have learned about the Clintons’ and their courtiers over the years. What truly perplexes me are the complacent and unexamined assumptions of many of the rank-and-file Democrats who enable this duo, and it’s to them I’d address a couple of questions: I keep hearing a lot of you offer up some variation of “Oh,-he’s-wonderful-and-won’t-he-be-terrific-in-2016” or “He should wait his turn”; I take note of increasing numbers of you who are banging the drums for a “dream” ticket (headlined, of course, by a Clinton)/anticipatory liberal wet dream of 16 years of White House dominance; to all of you, please answer the following: 1) When was the last time when the Democrats managed to control the White House for sixteen years straight?…..exactly….(not since Roosevelt and Truman, and let’s just admit the circumstance were pretty remarkable); 2) When was the last time that one Democrat managed to follow another Democrat directly into the presidency?...yes, that’s right, same answer as the last time, in other words the middle of the last century -- or to put it in some concrete perspective the last time it happened my 80-yr old father-in-law and his now mostly dead comrade in arms were busy occupying Japan. So, I ask, are you actually seriously trying to argue that an epoch of extended Democratic dominance is about to begin? What Harry Turtledove novel is this happening in? 2) For those of you who tell us how grand you think Obama is, who express such deep admiration, even awe, for the grassroots movement that has come to coalesce around his candidacy, can one of you please tell me how you plan to bottle, cork, and store Obama – or rather what he merely represents or makes possible – for the desultory 4 to 8 years of a Clinton presidency? Historical moments are not fungible, and the fact of the matter is Obama – even without the hits he’s taking - will not be what he is now in 4 to 8 years time, the nation will not be where it is now by then, and the window that’s open now will not necessarily be open then, or any time again in our lifetimes. 3) To HRC’s African American political allies, please identify who among you, or who do you know of, is poised to emerge as the next African American candidate with a serious chance of winning the presidency? It’s possible that there will be answer for this question by 2016, but consider this it’s taken 44 years (my entire lifetime and then some) since the passage of the Civil Rights Act for one Obama to emerge; assuming relatively little change in basic trends, torpedoing Obama now means deferring the possibility of an African American President well into the middle of this century, if not beyond. If not Obama, then who? If not Obama now, then when? Can you answer that? The possibilities represented by Obama’s candidacy are both rare and fleeting in nature; history is stinting with these sort of opportunities – and, merciless with those who choose to pass them up.

- syh

March 7, 2008 at 2:40pm

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

WHY did Hillary Clinton, with her brains and Bill's mega-Rolodex of Democrats all over the country, NOT contest the caucuses? WHY did Hillary not even try to organize her supporters to attend and win the Idaho and Nebraska and all other caucuses? Even extreme hubris is not a workable explanation; wouldn’t the 'inevitable' candidate want to roll up big wins everywhere, to show her strength? Instead of running a campaign designed to achieve a big, clean victory, she has run a campaign so incompetently that the only win available to her now is an ugly, divisive, guaranteed-to-lead-to Democratic-loss-in-the-fall, split-the-Democratic-party-for-a-generation bloody win. Now, in the last couple of weeks, her strategy has become more obvious; she's running a campaign to elect McCain! Her below-the-belt comments praising McCain's experience over Obama's and her disingenuous answer to the question about Obama's faith on 60 minutes now make sense. A very smart woman like Hillary should have been able to give a straightforward answer to a simple question about whether Obama is a Muslim; but instead, she weasled on the question and then whined about her own difficulties. Hillary has been around long enough to know that respectable Democrats do not provide sound bites for the Republicans; it is fine to criticize Obama, but it is NOT acceptable to denigrate a Democrat in comparison to a Republican. Not amongst mature professionals, at least. The only reasonable explanation remaining is that Hillary is working to elect McCain. She's just not honest enough to join the Republican Party and work openly toward her goal. Hillary Clinton: Working for McCain's election since Day One!

- Womanist

March 7, 2008 at 2:45pm

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

What's so funny about people with the kind of ignorance is the way you'll refute without any base any argumentation. So your only response, like the Limbaugh and al, is "leftists, socialists, american haters,

- Robert

March 7, 2008 at 2:48pm

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

Only the Democrats could lose this election. Bwahahaha

- JT

March 7, 2008 at 2:52pm

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

Obviously you're not good at crunching numbers because there is no way in this world HRC would have had an edge in delegates. Please get yourself educated before you write anything stupid.

- Robert

March 7, 2008 at 2:52pm

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

Can I point out for those talking about popular vote as an influence on superdelegates. Clinton is still behind in the popular vote, even if you include the 300,000 more votes than Obama she got in the Florida straw poll.

- liamvt

March 7, 2008 at 2:59pm

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

We can actually see your brain fried with imbecility to extend that you definitely smell like the lowest and worst living form on hearth

- Robert

March 7, 2008 at 3:00pm

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

Wonderful article, how can we get more people to see it?

- Ben

March 7, 2008 at 3:03pm

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

Finally. Someone who is willing to state the obvious. If Hillary's supporters could just stop for a second and see that Hillary is ruining both her chances and Obama's for this years election, maybe we can start making some sense. Hillary is not stupid. She could indeed be campaigning for 2012 already. I can't watch the news anymore because I'm absolutely sick of seeing Hillary and her staffers explain how some delegates should count more than others. In their view, all delegates outside of New York and California are like second class citizens. Here is an analogy that I think explains why Hillary's arguments are so ridiculous. Imagine trying to argue that your son, a "C" avergage student, should be admitted to a university ahead of a "B" avergage student. When the admissons board asks you why, you say "Well my kid gets straight A's in math and science and clearly those are the most important subjects." Hillary's argument is no different to me.

- Quinn

March 7, 2008 at 3:07pm

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

America and Democracy are defined by equal opportunity and competition. This is what makes America great. If Hillary has a chance to win, and she has a great chance at that, why should she throw in the towel? In fact people should be commending her on how well she has hung in and not given up. Barrack Obama may be a great speaker, but truly he does lack in experience, compared to Clinton and Mccain. He talks about change and a new America, but what will he change and how? In the past, the press has eaten up his message. Only now, when he is the favorite are they delving into deeper questioning - and Obama has not fared well. And if you want to compare records, while Bill Clinton was in office, the country as a whole enjoyed its best decade of growth, prosperity and respect. I would request readers to reflect on this.

- Rikhav P. Shah

March 7, 2008 at 3:15pm

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

William Huff, your education must not have included any classes on statistics or logic. The position of one person proves nothing. The statistics are irrefutable: our less educated citizens tend to support Hillary. You are in the _statistical minority_ of people having certain education levels who support for Hillary. Personally, I don't see how a candidate's supporter's education has any significance to that candidate's merits. But as far as the debates taking place, if education can be equated with intelligence exhibited in commentaries, the pro-Hillary commentary on the Internet bears out the statistics.

- JTS

March 7, 2008 at 3:26pm

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

"It's time for the grown-ups to take control of the party and put Senator Clinton over the top."... "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Let the adults do the talking here and all of you Obama supporters can go daydream while playing in the sandbox." ---- Yeah, you guys are just SO much different than the Republicans that told us "they were the adults" and would "restore honor and integrity to the WH". Says SO much for your candidate. Author was SPOT ON with this article.

- S117

March 7, 2008 at 3:26pm

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

Dear Mr. Huff, I too am functional (if not always fluent) in several languages, and have a PhD in history from an Ivy League university. I make my living teaching history both here and abroad. And I think you're full of it.

- timteeter

March 7, 2008 at 3:26pm

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

Dusty 12--When you first said only one candidate had "economic street cred" I thought for sure you were talking about Obama. After all, the guy grew up on the South Side of Chicago and was a community organizer when he first started work, whereas Hillary grew up in Park Ridge and has never had to worry about paying a bill in her life. But I guess you are talking about the great Clinton economy, the one that collapsed (or rather burst, because it was a bubble) as Bill exited stage left. None of the major structural issues that affected the economy then and now were addressed--reliance on foreign oil, growing inequality, lack of portable health care, crumbling infrastructure, growing imbalances in trade, growing job insecurity, a failing educational system, etc.--and yet you say Hillary has more "economic street cred" because she was married to a man who did nothing about any of those problems for eight years? To be fair, the Clintons did balance the budget, but that isn't exactly going to be the top priority facing the next president in terms of dealing with the economic mess we're in.

- Tom

March 7, 2008 at 3:28pm

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

Obama should raise the question of why Hillary was in Vince Foster’s office when he reportedly committed suicide. She knew too much too quick.??????? ____________________________________________________________________________ All of the evidence showed that he was murdered and it was not a suicide. Exactly 1 day after Bill Clinton fired the Head of the FBI from office. The FBI would have been in charge of the investigation instead it was in disarray. Which coincidently was 1 day after Vince Foster’s wife was coming forward about Bill sexual advances toward her. There is much out there that needs to be exposed. But, none of the media will touch it with a 10 foot poll. America we are in trouble! Even though i am a rabid Obama supporter it is becoming painstakingly obvious that Obama will not win the nominaton. The deck is stacked too much against him. Hillary is allowed to use the gender card, but Obama has to run away from his blackness. She can lose eleven straight contest and remain relevant, he cant lose three out of four. She can be a sore loser and not even give him credit during her stretch of eleven straight losses, he cant say "hillary you are likeable enough" at a debate without incurring the wrath of the media. She can align herself with John Mccain by praising him and putting down Obama and not face the ire of fellow Democrats. She can go nuclear on him, he cant do the same to her. His advisor called her a monster and has to resign. Her spokesman compares him to Ken Starr and nothing is done. They both give the Canadians the "wink wink" regarding their comments on Nafta at the debate and he is the only one that feels the backlash. I do believe that the majority of America will vote for a African American. The sad thing is that i dont believe the media and the rest of the powers that be are ready for one.

- semajh

March 7, 2008 at 3:28pm

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

HRC's comments that McCain is better suited to be President than her fellow Democrat (4 separate times and counting) should be enough evidence for anyone that she doesn't care about the party.

- Thor

March 7, 2008 at 3:33pm

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

HRC has unwittingly exposed herself and Obama as the vapid,vacuous empty suits most of us already knew them to be. The sooner the great unwashed begin to get used to that reality the easier it will be to accept the predestined and forseeable loss in November.

- Carl Palm

March 7, 2008 at 3:38pm

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

I agree 100%. Before she started her Rove-like tactics, I would have supported her IF she won the nomination by the rules, but not now. If she gets the nomination by hook or crook, I will sit out this November, and I have NEVER not voted for the Democrat since 1976.

-

March 7, 2008 at 3:40pm

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

This column explodes a lot of myths, and then in the comments I see Hillary supporters running around trying to glue the pieces back together. The press has not failed to scrutinize Obama. The press, by and large, has not wasted a lot of time exploring irrelevant or misleading sidetracks. They have spent time on irrelevant and misleading sidetracks in their coverage of Hillary, but that's a different set of criticisms. Hillary has gotten, for the reasons stated in the article, a very smooth ride. The keystone of her entire campaign is "35 years of experience" -- basically everything she's done since the day she graduated law school. Yet her campaign -- and not reporter I know of -- has documented, "vetted" these 35 years. It's a gloss by Hillary an she sticks with it. The article was also kind, for it didn't go into the final, global conclusions -- Hillary is a master of media manipulation who led the U.S. press to report that she was the unstoppable candidate. They did this for about a year. The truth is, her campaign never got off the ground in a meaningful, decisive way. She stretches and distorts words: "Won" -- How did she "win" a state in which she tied with Obama on delegates? How did she "win" in two states where delegates will not be awarded. The media has used her definition of "win" rather than Websters. "Vetted" -- This is her at her Rovian best. Clearly where she, and Hillary supporters use the word "vetted" they mean "irrationally attacked." They don't want Obama's background checked, they want him to be subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous cable TV coverage she got in the White House. She's for media reform like Bush is for Social Security reform.

- Hil' Mythology

March 7, 2008 at 3:44pm

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

I am a white Republican feminist from Chicago who supports Obama. I was so upset with the results from Tuesday's election and it was incredulous to me that he didn't pull out TX and at least get within a few points in OH. My husband and I have a lot of family and friends in OH (my husband grew up as a conservative Republican in Cleveland and I grew up in western PA). While campaigning for Obama in OH, my siblings told us not to get our hopes up. Since we knew they were supporting Obama, we didn't get their pessimism. Bottom line, they told us to expect racism. We didn't believe them, especially with all the whites that had already voted for Obama this year. Well, they were right. Several editorials in realclearpolitics.com also agreed and these weren't black, radical, or liberal writers. With all Ohio's colleges and universities, OH has a populace with only 30% college graduates, ranking # 38th in the US. After graduating from college, many leave the state. The bad economy in OH and loss of jobs is such an old issue. It's been spiraling down for 25 years. The unemployed there are waiting for the "return". With or without jobs, most in the industrial areas stay and it's easier to blame than retrain or get an education. The southern areas of OH border many of the "good old boy" Southern states. They went for Clinton by 65%. Clinton picked up the majority of the white male vote and union vote in OH, where Obama had been leading in most other states. These same men in OH were for John Edwards before. A coinicidence they didn't swing to Obama? Obama won only three counties in all of OH.... Dayton, Cleveland, and Columbus thanks to the young college voters and African Americans. It depresses me. It angers me. It propels me to fight even harder for Obama. Shame on OH!! Their racism drew them to vote for a woman who was born into an upper middle class Republican family in an all white conservative suburb of IL. Her parents could pay for her East Coast Ivy League education. She won her Senate election and may be elected President because she was married to a former President who handed her the total support of the Democratic organization, his influence, money, prestige and staff. She didn't have to do it on her own merits. Her rise to power is as old as Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. So much for feminism! By contrast, the average OH voter has much more in common with Barack Obama's story; born to a teenage mother, a father who left him when he was 2, raised by his mother and grandparents in lower middle class surroundings. He made it to Columbia and Harvard with his intelligence, strength, and talents; and no, he wasn't accepted into college because of affirmative action. The Clintons are desperate to return to the WH for two main reasons: Hillary feels she's entitiled. She wants the power Bill had and she wants to change America to her ideal, not ours. She'll become Nixonian in the process as she continues her devisive, exclusive rule. Thus the battles with Congress will continue and little will be accomplished. Bill is beyond desperate to recreate his legacy because his narcissism still won't allow him to take responsibility for his actions. If he had spent as much time responding to the international and terrorist threats and the bombing at the WTC and overseas embassies during his reign, as he did in fundraising and planning his 1996 reelection and defending his sexual scandals and Hillary's financial/secrecy scandals, 9/11 may never have happened. George W Bush inherited a more dangerous world from the Clintons because they weren't taking care of the country's business, only defending their own abuse of power, citizens be damned. It saddens me that Americans will reward and return such flawed, power hungry politicans to Washington when we're all exhausted by the infighting and "gotcha" Clinonese style of politics of the last 16 years. Their dramas, scandals, legal problems, lies, manipulations don't advance Americas goals and responsibilities. If America really wants to create a new tomorrow, they'll change their hearts and heads and elect Obama; a candidate who's brilliant, has integrity, honor, wisdom beyond his years, lives family values, has emotional intelligence, a born leader. He sees his goals as "we" not "me". The experience issue is laughable. In 1992, when Bill Clinton ran for President, he had no foreign policy experience and his only elected experience had been as governor to the 35th state in size in the US with a population of only 2.3M (smaller than Chicago!). He beat George H Bush, who had more experience than anyone ever running for President, who's resume consisted of one term as President, two terms as VP, UN ambassador, head of the CIA, Ambassador to China, etc etc. Experience obviously wasn't an issue for the Clintons or the American people in 1992, but Hillary feels it's paramount now. Her experience consists of 18 years as First Lady (10 in Arkansas, 8 in the WH); many years as a Corporate attorney; 8 years in the Senate which was a job given,not earned, and she's produced no major legislation. Also, upper New York's dismal job loss is worse than when she was elected. Of course, she blames Bush for that. What is her actual experience and accomplishments? President Obama is the face of America now and in the future. Obama's election would be a symbol to all Americans and the world that America is changing for the better, we can be the hope we profess, we can live as MLK stirred us to dream. We need to be the example we preach. When Bill Clinton kept saying Obama wasn't ready and that he was a kid, he failed to mention Obama's the same age he was in 1992 when he ran. Bill Clinton says Obama should wait until he's ready in 8 years. How convenient for the Clintons! How much longer should we ask blacks to wait? Isn't 400 years enough? Obama has been in elected office longer than Abraham Lincoln and no President in our history ever served under such peril or left a legacy as great as his. JFK was in elected office for 10 years and the same age as Obama when he ran. When Bobby Kennedy ran, he had even less experience. Obama is the right person at the right time to lead our country for all Americans. His judgment, temperament, and inclusiveness will trump his lack of Washington experience. What saddens me the most is I thought as Americans we were better than what we showed in OH and TX. That we had truly became color blind. I hope I'm proven wrong in the future primaries and the general election. I hope Americans have the courage to be an example to their children and grandchildren and for children throughout the world.

- Mindy

March 7, 2008 at 3:55pm

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

Your post is very negative. Also, it's the media which keeps restating the demographics.

- Marina

March 7, 2008 at 3:58pm

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

The Dems push the "Entitlement" Society. The Republicans push the "Earn It" Society Rules, Smules. Damn the rules and the morals, the delegate counts, the ruling we agreed to in FL etc.: I am a (minority) (woman) (whatever) and am MORE equal as such and therefore "Entitled" and outside the rules. The people? Let the Grown Ups (and damn the people) make the decision who wins. (Mussolini parapharased) The Dems are eating their own tails. What a fiasco. McCain will stroll into the White House. Surprised?

- GlennO

March 7, 2008 at 3:58pm

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

I've said it before and I'll say it again: William Huff diddled me in the sandbox.

- Big baby

March 7, 2008 at 4:10pm

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

Why not compare HRC years in elected office to Obama's? Obama has 3 more years in office (IL senate '97-2004, US Senate 2004-present). than Clinton (US Senate 2000-present). No need to get into disrespect for the first spouse. Just compare years of service in elected office.

- elleRust

March 7, 2008 at 4:12pm

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

Monster...Go Already!

- Toddy-houston

March 7, 2008 at 4:16pm

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

As a New Yorker who voted for Clinton in the primary, would do it again tomorrow, who thinks she has been a good Senator, and would make a good Presdient. This is Hillary's only shot at the Presidency. So she has to do what she needs to do to win. If she doesn't win this time, she moves into Ralph Nader land. In the face of that, Obama has consistently pulled his punches -- even at the level that he professes he wants to play at. You can't fire someone for calling Hillary a "monster." As a supporter of Clinton, I agree she is a "monster" The debate is not whether the Clintons are monsters --but whether you need a monster to beat a Republican at this time and place, or if, as Obama likes to claim, the world has changed. I say the world is the same, and you need monsters on your side. Vote Clinton.

- B-

March 7, 2008 at 4:19pm

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

if Obama can't handle a 3am phone ad, which doesn't even mention his name or his candidacy, i'm not so sure if he can handle the hard-core swift-boating come Fall '08. People can put labels on the phone ad and call it "negative," but the point is, if it doesn't mention your name or show your image, it's not smearing. The obama people really cannot accept a major loss of OH and TX without giving themselves laundry lists of excuses.

- Tanya

March 7, 2008 at 4:21pm

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

This article is the most lucid that I've read this week. Hillary's campaign is a trainwreck. He "victories" on Tuesday, were actually simply evidence that attempting to kneecap the eventual and inevitable nominee, could bring her back - just a bit - from the brink of blowing double-digit leads. What about her shrill, scold of a personality and sociopathic desire to "almost win" at any costs, doesn't come across to the fools who support her. She is old news and a joke. She will do everything she can to bring down the party and Obama, just so that she can get her what she believes has been due since she was valedictorian at Wellesley. Howard Dean and whomever runs the party ought to sit her down behind closed doors and tell her that Edwards, Richardson, Gore and all other party elders with whom she's not sharing separate beds, will endorse Obama the day after PA if she doesn't a) stop the despicable campaign tactics, b) dragging a resurgent party into mud from which it won't be able to remove itself and c) get the hell out of this race with some bit of grace. I'll write in Obama or vote for McCain if she cheats her way into the nomination. The rules apply to everyone. Including the Clinton's. Somebody ought to tell her that. And if that fails tell Bill, who at least appears to have a working brain most days and can form a thought that hasn't been spun 46 ways to Sunday. She is not tough. She is gutless and an embarassment to the party.

- Bing Crosby

March 7, 2008 at 4:21pm

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

This may be the only time in her worthless life inveterate scheming for political power that Clinton has a chance to perform a real service for the country, i.e., drag out the nominating process, expose the Democratic machine for the criminal conspiracy it is, and let McCain, an otherwise unelectable RINO, slip into office effectively unimpeded. Go Hillary!

- Corlyss

March 7, 2008 at 4:22pm

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

Oh, for the good ole days pre-October 2006, when an article like this would have provoked an actual conversation online instead of 245--er, 246--incoherent, repetative paragraphs of mostly noise. What's the hold-up, Foer? Months ago you acknowledged the problems with Talkback, why isn't it fixed? Maybe I'd feel better if you just acknowledged that we're stuck with this shit because your CanWest overlords want it this way.

- aeromonas

March 7, 2008 at 4:27pm

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

As a moderate republican, both Obama and Clinton seem beatable at this point. It's like watching a couple of football teams square off that have certain strengths but real obvious weaknesses. I definitely have to say it's a entertaining game.

- Reality

March 7, 2008 at 4:29pm

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

Has anyone considered that for Sen. Clinton to withdraw after having won all the major states but Illinois could disenfranchise millions of those voters who view her as their spokesperson? To read many of the comments here you would not think those voters are a needed part of the equation in a November victory (perhaps being so wrapped up in their "delegate math" they forget the only math that matters in presidential politics--electoral college math). Is this a Democratic Party or has it now become an elitist party? The comming weeks will be telling. The conundra of Michigan and Florida were never the creation of Sen. Clinton (or "the Clintons" as we are now supposed to call them), but pre-exist the current phase of this campaign. They were brought to us under the leadership of that most enlightened of Democratic political strategic experts: Howard Dean. Perhaps, given his great political acumen, he will now resolve this problem without alienating core party constituencies in all the major states and pushing two of the Party's biggest electoral vote pools into the arms of Senator McCain, who will be happy to claim them.

- TULLIUS

March 7, 2008 at 4:30pm

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

"Hillary is not lickable, she is a great candidate and "can" do the job...." No wonder Bill's roving eye looked for greener pastures.

- JohnEMack

March 7, 2008 at 4:34pm

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

To Hillary-"Have you no decency or shame?"Statement brought down McCarthy.Her schismatic self-serving tactics are a disgrace to the Democratic Party, New York State,yes,women,and the United States.Her multiple personalities are unstable,arrogant and dangerous that she has shown us in this campaign-qualities that are not SAFE as Commander in Chief.

- Kathleen Murtha

March 7, 2008 at 4:41pm

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

Excellent analysis. Appreciated the use of the adjective "Nixonian," which Hillary truly is, her cheerful combination of ambition and paranoia.

- Yankee

March 7, 2008 at 4:49pm

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

Clinton's slime-slinging behavior is repulsive and unethical. As someone who has always supported the Democratic presidential candidate (sometimes while holding my nose), this time I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election under any circumstances. There are limits to what one can tolerate, and there should be consequences for candidates who engage in this kind of outrageous destructive slander.

- Maquisard

March 7, 2008 at 4:53pm

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

Chait's a retarded loser with a misplaced sense of loyalty to his idol, wet dream, and god, Obama. He wouldn't let a little thing like the greater glory of America get in the way of annihilating the "Repugs. " It's a sick symptom of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Well, perhaps half your ilk don't buy into this obama the saint thing. Perhaps they like billary. But we shouldn't let a little thing called the democratic process get in the way of that now should we?

- JWL2672

March 7, 2008 at 5:01pm

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

aeromas -- agreed. Give us back our Talkback! Or at least the option.

- jhildner

March 7, 2008 at 5:18pm

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

I wonder how many Democrats like me are out there - who can not bring themselves to vote for Hillary? I can count at least 15 to 20 who I know personally, who are committed Ds and who will not vote for her. Good lord, she is awful for our party.

- paddyrollingstone

March 7, 2008 at 5:18pm

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

Chait, You are unashamedly stumping for Obama. I sometimes I get confused if I am on TNR website or at Obama's campaign website. You are the embodiment of an SNL parody. What happened to an open-minded perspective or objectivity? You apparently have Hillary issues and should consider seeing a good psychoanalyst to sort our your mommy issues. Who can take you seriously any more?

- AZ INTP

March 7, 2008 at 5:18pm

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

Obama locked down this Nomination on Crucial Tuesday (04 March 2008) when he held her to a net +4 delegate advance, after totalling all four states. Hillary won the headline. But headlines (like "winning" New Hampshire) don't mean much. In NH Obama and Hillary took the same number of pledged delegates from the race. So too with NV. In fact, until Tuesday, Hillary had not won a single Primary/Caucus day in pledged delegates. Let me repeat that--whether it was Saturday elections, or Tuesday elections--Hillary has not won a single day in pledged delegates. She even lost Super Tuesday, in pledged delegates. But it gets worse, this week, for Hillary. Because it's just been announced that Obama has just benefited from a corrected shift of pledged delegates as CA certified the final vote. Obama has just enjoyed a +8 delegate swing. I know that this is really difficult for those who don't support Obama. You thought that Hillary probably had a wonderful victory on Tuesday. Let me explain to you what happened, however. Obama came into this week with a lead of 160 PDs (pledged delegates). Hillary took 3 PDs from RI. Obama took 3 PDs from RI. So that's a wash. Hillary then took 9 PDs from OH. Well done. There is no question that Hillary resoundingly won OH. But, she and Obama very nearly tied TX in PDs. And then, Obama trounced her in the Caucuses. The result is that Obama has won the race for PDs in TX. He will gain a net +5 PDs from TX. So at the end of Crucial Tuesday, Hillary gained +4 PDS. Hillary finally won an election day, in PDs! Her first of the race! Wow! Well done Senator Clinton. You knocked Obama's PD lead from 160 to.... 156. Ouch. Now let's add in California, shall we? The corrected shift gives Obama +8 PDs. So Obama's lead over Hillary is now 164. Oh my. Obama gained more PDs from a corrected result in California this week, then Hilary gained from 4 states on Tuesday. Tell me again why Hillary should stay in the race when she CANNNOT beat Obama in PDs by the Convention?

- Jared

March 7, 2008 at 5:21pm

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

Can't see African Americans turning out in droves to vote for Clinton if she is seen to have screwed Obama out of the nomination by underhanded tactics and appealing to 'good ole boy' superdelegates. Black votes break 90+% vofor Democrats. And, independents, who wants to support a spoiled child who throws her toys, cries and has a temper tantrum to get back at their adversaries. Then again. Why didn't Bill just admit he had an affair with Monica? Would have cost him some approval ratings, but would have ended the whole problem rapidly. The Clintons may seem smart in many ways, but boy do they do some stupid things. One is going after Obama about Rezko when the Clintons associations in Arkansas and with convicted sleazebag Hong Kong campaign fundraisers Norman Hsu and Johnny Cheung are a hell of a lot worse and involve campaign funds. The sleazy attack politics of the Clintons and his taking the high-road 'politics of change' doesn't enable him to get in the gutter with the sewer-rats from Arkansas

- KRitt from WA

March 7, 2008 at 5:27pm

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

I am amused at how the same people who defended Hillary and her corrupt and calculating husband when they occupied the White House now are "shocked, shocked!" to find out that the Clinton's are ruthless and detestable power mongers. The Republicans were right about them all along, and now the Left will pay the price for it's disingenuous, hypocritical defense of these vile people.

- Richard

March 7, 2008 at 5:43pm

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

Very good article. I am persuaded. Hillary's comments that Obama is Christian "as far as I know" was the final straw for me. Go Barack. I only regret I did not vote for you in the primary

-

March 7, 2008 at 5:44pm

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

Great insightful article. She's a conniver and a whiner and yes, it would be better for her to go now before she drags the party and the nation into the mud with her. Hillary's insistance at seating FL delegates is especially disingenuous. The Repugnican governor and legislature moved the FL primary date up and thumbed their noses at Dem party rules; now that Hillary is the "winner" they're gleefully insisting that "FL voters' must not be disenfranchised." Funny, disenfranchisement didn't bother any of them in 2000, did it? It comes down to this. Hillary is a polarizing figure who will inspire cross-over voters to go for McCain in droves if she's the nominee in Nov. Obama is an inspirational, once-in-a-generation figure: our best chance to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court, restore America's reputation abroad, reclaim our eroding Bill of Rights and bring back properly balanced branches of government lost during the Bush years. Bravo to you for exposing her megalomanical tactics -- Obama needs to call her on it.

- Chouette

March 7, 2008 at 5:48pm

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

So Ken Starr was right after all eh?

- Hayek

March 7, 2008 at 5:49pm

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

You would rather have a "monster" for a President than a Republican? How narrow-minded, ignorant and biased can you be? And you wonder why a majority of Americans don't trust the Left to govern and protect this country?

- Richard

March 7, 2008 at 5:52pm

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

Actually, the nomination is about delegates and not the popular vote. The popular vote is more for the general election. So as much as one would want to argue that HRC will have the popular vote on her side, which she is trailing Obama as well, the true nominee will be the one who garners the most delegates.

- James

March 7, 2008 at 6:10pm

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

Tanya...the HRC people cannot handle the 12 in a row defeats to their campaign. Get over it. Obama was never expected to win OH or Tx. But he definitely closed the gap she thought she would have had with both states. And for the record, with the delegate count of the Texas caucus and the Texas Primary, HRC may not have won a darn thing!

- James

March 7, 2008 at 6:12pm

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

Hilary, your 15 minutes are up. Slink back to your hole. Calling Hilary a monster is an insult to monsters everywhere. Hilary, you claim 35 years of experience in public life. You claim credit for being a co-president or being an honorary Cabinet member in the Clinton Administration. Then you should claim responsibility for being complicit in your husband's numerous bimbo eruptions. Hilary, who are you fooling? You knew all about Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, and the busloads of women who did not have sexual relations with Bill. Remember, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!". You were complicit with the stained blue dress. You were complicit with the cigar in the vagina. You were complicit when Bill was getting blown in the Oval Office. You were complicit when Bill pardoned international criminals like Marc Rich. You are no victimized Desdemona. You are Lady MacBeth, unbound. Your campaign is not about the poor woman in Ohio. It has always been about Hilary. Not the US. Not the welfare of the country. Not the international reputation of the US. It is and will always be about Hilary. I call on all Americans to unite and turf this venal woman out of this race and send her back to wallow in the suburbs of New York with Slick Willie. You deserve each other. We have all had enought of the Clintons and their psychotic psycho-sexual relationship. It is time the Clintons walked off the political stage, and let the country flourish and prosper without their cancerous political participation. Good riddance, woman.

- Sam Spade

March 7, 2008 at 6:15pm

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

He hasn't won a single electorally delegate rich state yet, has he?

- Sheryl

March 7, 2008 at 6:29pm

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

It’s 3:00 o’clock and the red phone rings. A crisis is brewing in some part of the world. Who’s going to protect your sleeping kids? “Hello, it’s Bill” “Yea, I just got in, now that was some experience, I’ll tell you about it some time.” “No she’s sleeping, can I help you?” “Wait a second, I need some Advil.” “No, I don’t want to get her up and have her see me like this, let’s let her sleep.” “I’m the night person here.”

- Max Weber

March 7, 2008 at 6:34pm

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

Hillary has not been vetted during this primary. Not by the press, not by Obama. I hope you realize that.

- JF

March 7, 2008 at 6:44pm

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

What qualifies Obama to be president? He is a do nothing Senator from Illinois. Could somebody please tell me an Obama accomplishment? GO McCAIN!!!

- Ricky Bobby

March 7, 2008 at 6:50pm

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

Clinton is getting negative and nasty and you think OBAMA is the one who is dividing the party??? What are you smoking?

- Z

March 7, 2008 at 6:55pm

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

You want a lying politician, why don't you look a little closer at the Hillary contributors on trial with Rezco? Or about the quit pro quo arrangement with the criminal Clinton supporters he pardoned on the way out the door. You want corruption and dishonesty, look no further than the Clintons. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why Hillary supporters insist on criticizing the speck in Obama's eye, while totally ignoring the huge plank in Hillary's eye. And how about those tax returns? Or the creepy folks Bill has been business with over the last couple of years?

- Z

March 7, 2008 at 7:01pm

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

And it is equally unfortunate that they stopped vetting Hillary in the 90's.

- Z

March 7, 2008 at 7:03pm

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

I usually end up screaming in frustration after reading Chait, but I've got to hand it to him on this article: Jonathan, you hit that ball 450 feet into deep center field! Absolutely breathtaking. It's nice to see that many Democrats are finally awakening to reality when it comes to the Clintons: It's all about them. Yes, Hillary must be president. It is ordained. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination in 2008, then Obama must be sacrificed so Hillary can run against McCain in 2012. (Besides, in the Clinton world, we've already had our first black president, so it's now the woman's turn.) The Party? The Country? Who cares? Hail, Hillary!

- dlrocdoc

March 7, 2008 at 7:10pm

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

She doesn't have to drop out but save the smear campaign for the Republicans. I never believed I would see a member of party stating that a member of the opposing party would make a better candidate!!! I can't believe my family and I actually one supported this megalomaniac!

- wendy

March 7, 2008 at 7:22pm

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

Umm, Ellen, re: who invented the term "commander in chief": US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

- buffaloboy

March 7, 2008 at 7:27pm

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

re: Belle Linda -- Obama is a lying politician like most. He still has a lot to learn about LYING from Hilary. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU -- WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIMITED GENIUS AND GENUINE STUPIDITY????? UNLIKE YOU, GENIUS IS LIMITED!!! ALL I KNOW IS: Because Senator Clinton CAN NOT WIN the nomination is that Senator Clinton WILL NOT BE READY on DAY 1 or DAY 2 or DAY 3 . . . or ANY OTHER DAY!

- BillForObama

March 7, 2008 at 7:36pm

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

As the Republicans demonstrated, they would not go head-to-head in war with their own party. They would step down to the successor if necessary. I believe Barack Obama expected this sort of diplomacy within the Democratic party. Therefore, we could actually change our image as not being warmongers all the time! Clinton chose to do things the "old fashion" political way; the "experience" that doesn't need to see the White House. If it is damaging to the nomination, imagine how damaging this can be to our nation. Even though Barack isn't fighting Clinton back, I think it is out of respect for the Democratic party! At least I know he respects himself and all the rest of us. I am now beginning to strongly question Hillary; she seems like she doesn't care if this is damaging to the Democratic party...

- GW

March 7, 2008 at 7:37pm

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

People, instead of being critics, why not realize that Barack is trying to win without sacraficing the dignity of the Democratic party. The best we can do is help him do this. I think it will be a double win on the end; he can win the nomination and it doesn't have to be at the sacrifice of Democratic dignity. Then, he can go forward in the center ring with McCain with no hesitations! People may think he isn't the best candidate for McCain but I beg to differ. If you all of us have been keeping up with the events of the campaign, then you should be able to recall when McCain and Hillary tried to double-team Barack on the "experience" issue. Boy didn't he come out swinging! There was a more aggressive, dominant side of Barack that he isn't demonstrating in the fight with Hillary alone. He actually shown little mercy to swing back; especially at McCain! I think he does have a good chance to beat McCain but, he needs get beyond the inner party combat. Over the years, we have established a slight reputation of being a little combative with our own party members. I think Barack is trying to revive a little bit of that image as to the reason why he isn't swinging knockout blows at Hillary.... Share this article and understand that there is still enough time to revive our party's dignity, soar over the Clinton campaign and be prepared for McCain.. Join the movement that made a difference!

- GW

March 7, 2008 at 7:44pm

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

As the Republicans demonstrated, they would not go head-to-head in war with their own party. They would step down to the successor if necessary. I believe Barack Obama expected this sort of diplomacy within the Democratic party. Therefore, we could actually change our image as not being warmongers all the time! Clinton chose to do things the "old fashion" political way; the "experience" that doesn't need to see the White House. If it is damaging to the nomination, imagine how damaging this can be to our nation. Even though Barack isn't fighting Clinton back, I think it is out of respect for the Democratic party! At least I know he respects himself and all the rest of us. I am now beginning to strongly question Hillary; she seems like she doesn't care if this is damaging to the Democratic party...

- GW

March 7, 2008 at 7:44pm

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

Mr Chait shows the courage, intelligence, intergity and patriotism I wish more Americans had. I'm sure I could speak for millions who haven't yet read this magnificent column when I say: Give Chait great kudos, a beer, and a Pulitzer for honest, intelligent, bold analysis !!

- Abraham L.

March 7, 2008 at 7:54pm

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

Just a little fact to muddy your argument. Obama is ahead in the popular vote as of right now (with Florida counted)

-

March 7, 2008 at 7:58pm

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

I don't see how you can say Obama has been the damager in this ordeal. Clinton only holds on because she's too bull-headed to understand the consequences of what she's doing. It's not HIS fault that negative ads actually work, thats the fault of the idiot listeners who actually play into that kind of trash. Obama could lead this party and this country into a new era of hope and pride, but it would appear Clinton only cares about her name on the ballot. She will lose the nomination, and if God forbid she doesn't..this guy tells the truth about how crudely John McCain will rip her ambiguous resume to shreds

- Mark

March 7, 2008 at 8:18pm

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

The best part about your article is the comparison you draw between "Billary" and Nixon, one that I have been making for myself for years. I am an American currently living abroad. Whenever I am asked to explain my antipathy for "Billary", my standard short answer is: "Bill and Hillary are Democratic versions of Richard Nixon". If "Billary" actually make it back to the White House for their co-inhabited third term, they will be bringing with them an "enemies list" a mile long. It may very well be out of a concern to pre-empt the anticipated purge (e.g. Ted Kennedy) that so many senior party officials are currently opting for Obama.

- ERIC

March 7, 2008 at 8:19pm

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

Jonathan: in the tank for Obama. We still know less than nothing about how this guy will react when he picks up the 3:00 am call, because he has gotten the same free ride from you guys that he has had so far his entire life. He has never been tested in any way. All you and the rest of the Hillary-haters want is to keep him from being tested, until he's in the Oval Office. Thanks, but no thanks.

- zenwick

March 7, 2008 at 8:20pm

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

It's not Obama's manifest lack of national security credentials that's going to do him in. In case Mr. Chait hasn't noticed, the economy is deteriorating by the second. Obama's gauzy rhetoric about change and hope isn't going to cut it anymore. He needs to throw some of those inspiring speeches back in Deval Patrick's trash can and completely retool his message to sound like he can fix the problem. I don't see him pulling it off.

-

March 7, 2008 at 8:35pm

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

It's silly to say Obama has an "enormous lead" in delegates. He has a modest lead that could be easily overwhelmed by superdelegates. Furthermore, much of Obama's "enormous lead" has been "won" in patently unfair caucuses, which disenfranchise elderly, disabled, overseas voters, among many other problems, and are clearly not as reflective of true voter preferences as a secret ballot. Obama supporters have an immature sense of entitlement. This primary season is not over. If Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, then she will surely have the people's-choice arguement on her side, and she will likely also have demonstrated that she is the best candidate for battleground states. We'll then see if Obama supporters are as immature as they seem or if they will stand by the Democratic nominee.

- David

March 7, 2008 at 8:40pm

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

B - your is the most honorable response from a Clinton supporter I have ever read and I respect you a great deal for it. Thank you for not attempting to insult anyone's intelligence and for being honest. Even as an Obama supporter, I have to admit you may be right. Thanks again.

- WandreyCer1

March 7, 2008 at 8:41pm

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

For all of the Clinton supporters, please bear with me and consider the following. Even if Michigan & Florida's delegates are seated it is essentially impossible for Hillary to catch up in either pledged delegates or popular vote totals. Given this, her only realistic path to the nomination is through the superdelegates. Before anyone assumes this means I'm making an argument against superdelegates voting any which way they please, I'm not. What I am arguing is that it makes no difference what rationale is presented. Fair or not the clear media narrative will be disenfranchisement and the damage to the party would be catastrophic.

- postmodernprimate

March 7, 2008 at 8:46pm

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

I can't believe that Obama supporters don't recognize he has problems in the general. He has problems with low income white rank and file democrats, hispanics and as soon as Clinton leaves the race - white women. These are all group McCain will appeal to.

- AJ

March 7, 2008 at 8:52pm

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

I believe the author has forgotten that politics is a contact sport. All of this seemingly high mindedness in support of Obama is a crutch. If the man can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. At some point the airy rhetoric is going to hit the wall so it might as well be now against Hillary rather than McCain or some other seriously tough world leader. Get serious Obama supporters. When all is said and done it will still be the same old political game not some new world order as Obama would have us believe.

- rbrown207

March 7, 2008 at 9:15pm

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

Mr. Chait, What happened to your opinion in the TRB of the March 12 issue that Obama only ever lost where he didn't have time to campaign, "Obama has done better with working-class voters in states where he has had time to campaign extensively." Well in Texas and Ohio he had plenty and a lot more money. And don't give me some pap about closing the gap from polls done a month ago, the weekend before he a six point in Texas. But blame Hillary for exposing his weakness if you knuckleheads and your ilk hadn't fallen head over heels for him maybe this train wreck may have been averted one way or the other.

- hannini

March 7, 2008 at 9:48pm

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

Mr. Chait, What happened to your opinion in the TRB of the March 12 issue that Obama only ever lost where he didn't have time to campaign, "Obama has done better with working-class voters in states where he has had time to campaign extensively." Well in Texas and Ohio he had plenty and a lot more money. And don't give me some pap about closing the gap from polls done a month ago, the weekend before he a six point in Texas. But blame Hillary for exposing his weakness if you knuckleheads and your ilk hadn't fallen head over heels for him maybe this train wreck may have been averted one way or the other.

- hannini

March 7, 2008 at 9:54pm

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

Mr. Chait, What happened to your opinion in the TRB of the March 12 issue that Obama only ever lost where he didn't have time to campaign, "Obama has done better with working-class voters in states where he has had time to campaign extensively." Well in Texas and Ohio he had plenty and a lot more money. And don't give me some pap about closing the gap from polls done a month ago, the weekend before he a six point in Texas. But blame Hillary for exposing his weakness if you knuckleheads and your ilk hadn't fallen head over heels for him maybe this train wreck may have been averted one way or the other.

- hannini

March 7, 2008 at 9:55pm

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

Thanks a lot !! I'll copy what Obama said in many debates with Sen. Clinton: "I agree with Sen. Clinton....". I agree with you 100%

- Clara Salinas

March 7, 2008 at 9:58pm

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

Hillary Clinton has won essential states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arkansas and Oklahoma (almost a third of the sates she won). Every Democratic presidental candidate in the past 50 years that has lost a general election also lost the state of Oklahoma. It is a bellweather. How can Obama win if he can't win Oklahoma? Clinton has won the states that matter. Obama has only won small states like Illinois, Wisconson, Iowa, Minnesota, Conneticut, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, Washinton and Missouri- you know states that do clearly do not matter at all in a general election.

- RyanW

March 7, 2008 at 10:07pm

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

"Nixonian ruthlessness" says it all about Hillary. It's a shame, and a real missed opportunity, that Obama and Co. didn't stand behind Samantha Power today, instead of firing her. Given Samantha Power's ethical, intellectual, and academic prestige garnered from her Pulitzer-winning book on genocide and American foreign policy, the smart thing would have been to call Clinton's bluff by having a news conference WITH Power in which Obama himself became a "fighter" by explaining that loyal members of his staff, and good friends, like Power, had become angry, understandably, over Hillary's scorched-earth, Karl Rove smear tactics used against him. Tactics which DID make it appear, as Power said, that Clinton would "stop at nothing" to win, like Rove. Then, he could have turned the mike over to Power and let her explain WHY she'd become so upset by Clinton's Nixonian tactics. This was the golden opportunity, now sadly lost, for Obama to start showing the Archie Bunker white guys of PA what he failed to show them in Ohio--namely, that he, too, is a "fighter." Far from losing support among the younger women and others who support him, Obama would have elicited lusty cheers from his supporters and started getting some respect from the Archie Bunkers he could use to win PA. Who cares if the ancient Gloria Steinems of the world have been "outraged." He's got no chance with them anyway. Hillary's clearly not worried about offending the black voters anymore, now that they are all for Obama. Obama needs to take the same realpolitik attitude towards Hillary's hardcore amazons.

- Fred White

March 7, 2008 at 10:25pm

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

Is that you Bill?

- daneayers

March 7, 2008 at 10:34pm

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

why must we as democrats keep sending forth these weak canidates. Obama has a glass jaw that liberal media outlets can not hide forever. The kid can not take a punch ... I hop the wealthy journalist drinking the cab sav can muse about the Hope campaign after McCain wins ... while the rest of us go fight wars and go without health care. See the thing is ... you guys do not care about the folks ... never have ... probably never will ... must be nice to be in your position.

- christopher

March 7, 2008 at 10:58pm

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

What about the popular vote? Democrats were outraged at how Gore won more votes, but lost out in the electoral college. How come the current delegate tallies are suddenly so much more important in calling the 'deserving winner' than the popular vote? If Clinton wins the popular Dem vote, doesn't she have some right to try and stay in and win the delegate vote as well? And this article only works if you assume Obama is already assured of being the nominee. But what if he isn't? The arguments about how Clinton is damaging Obama's chances could be flipped around. Isn't Obama hurting Clinton's chances by saying it will be more of the same with her? Or by running those Harry and Louise-like ads? And why are the early contests more important than the later ones? What if Hillary pulls to within , say 40 delegates? Is Obama really so clear cut and deserving a winner? I also assume that Chait will be just as angry at those delegates who have flipped for Obama as he is at the idea that Clinton is trying to get delegates to flip for her. Seems to me that many commentators can't get past a) how they prematurely predicted Clinton's demise after Iowa and b) a rather misty-eyed view of Obama's campaign, and this idea that he has some sort of divine right to the nomination just because they prefer his candidacy.

- David Martin

March 7, 2008 at 11:05pm

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

Some of these posts read like they are being typed directly from the Clintons' faxes. If Obama is a crook for the Rezcko association, what are the Clintons for all their Arkansas cronies, Chinese fundraisers, etc.? The truth is the Clintons were and are two of the biggest crooks in politics, but the Dems spent years defending them and now can't backtrack on it without looking like hypocrites. So now Hillary is allowed to paint the comparatively clean Obama as a crook! Oh, the irony! But mere irony never stopped ruthless thugs like the Clintons.

- CJ

March 7, 2008 at 11:13pm

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

Belle, I think you need to re read the article or get out a calculator. If Hillary won every remaining contests by 26 points (63% to 37%) She would only tie. That is not going to happen, and she will end up at convention time ( if she's selfish enough to continue to stay in it) with at least a 100 delegate deficit. The only way she could win the nomination would be if the super delegates overthrew the will of the voters. It is "Of the people by the people and for the people..." not "Of the superdelegates by the superdelegates and for the superdelegates..."

- Daniel Smith

March 7, 2008 at 11:19pm

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

Inane article...well, not really! Now I am 100% convinced I'll vote for her. THANK YOU!

- Pennsylvania voter

March 7, 2008 at 11:21pm

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

Based on this article, I think the New Republic has officially sunken lower than Fox news. At least everyone knows they're disgustingly biased. Perhaps the author should look at the ways that he is helping to further divide the democratic party, rather than laying the blame squarely on others. The comments only serve to reinforce what is truly becoming the cult of Obama.

- Disappointed

March 7, 2008 at 11:34pm

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

The argument your making is ridiculous. Somehow in this imaginary world you bring up where Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee even though she doesn't have the delegates or the popular vote, she does better against Mc Cain? Please explain why every single national poll shows Obama doing better against Mc Cain than Clinton? It is not just an error of what you think but also of how. You still think in terms of a state by state war, and the whole point here is that this is an election not between red states and blue states, and not between Obama states, but rather an election for the President of the UNITED STATES. In this country Obama again leads Mc cain by more than HRC in every single poll, so your attempt at compartmentalization is in herently flawed. It's like giving someone with cancer something that will cure their arm...Ummm, great, but the point is we are trying to heal the country not an arm.

- Daniel Smith

March 7, 2008 at 11:35pm

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

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've been waiting for this article!

- Liz McDowell

March 7, 2008 at 11:47pm

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

You said it all, Thank You. If it were any other rival than "the Clintons" they would recognize that Barack Obama has won the contest and would cede. They have had their chance, it is now time for Barack Obama.

- lr21

March 7, 2008 at 11:49pm

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

I love the idea someone brought up of having Obama name Edwards as his running mate, although John might reject it as "been there, done that." Perhaps a promise of the attorney general job would be sufficient to gain Edwards' support...though I fear Obama would probably prefer to appoint one of his Harvard Law School buddies (sigh). But Edwards -- who probably has little love for the Clintons, based upon their relative lack of support during the 2004 campaign -- could tip the scales to Obama at this crucial time.

- Vincent P.

March 7, 2008 at 11:59pm

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

I became a citizen in 1991 and I registered as a democrant on the same day. I then worked on the 1992 presidential campaign to help elect Clinton. I thought the Clintons are a couple who thinks the party comes first. The interest of millions of democrats is more important that their self interest. I am very sorry to find out that they think of themselves first. Hillary acts as if she is entitled to the nomination and the presidency. Get out now Hillary you are damaging the party and we will never forgive you and your husband. You are using worst tactics than the republicans. You will not make up the gap, GET OUT NOW.

- Elhindi

March 8, 2008 at 12:27am

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

Good article. But it is the media that is going to give the nomination to Hillary. I am sick of hearing Obama has the press...where have you been since Miss Hillary started whining about the press...now its all Hillary...nothing is said bad of Hillary only Obama. Its so evident. The media can make or break one...and I firmly believe the press coverage that Hillary got is what got her the wins in Ohio and Texas. But I like others here, if Hillary gets the nomination I will not vote this election. And I am sure she will never get the votes of Obama people...so she will lose the election. I mean all this junk about a ticket with Obama is just trying to get Obamas peoples votes during the election because she knows she cant do it without his votes. And she needs to shut her mouth since Obama didnt give her the permission to even suggest that he would do that.

- Linda

March 8, 2008 at 1:11am

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

Stephanie, you just buy into everything you hear, don't you? Try going beyond being spoonfed.

- Michelle

March 8, 2008 at 1:14am

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

I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers Can't even run a primary properly. If HRC gets the nomination she is unelectable. The ultra-liberal dems will be very weak support because of her stance on the war. The black vote will be demoralized (she would have to have BO on the ticket to try to salvage). At best she splits the crucial Independents with McCain. The reps dislike her so much they will turn out in record numbers.

- Texas Dem

March 8, 2008 at 1:26am

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

The recent WashPost article about chaos within the Clinton campaign ends by quoting an unnamed Clinton adviser: "There was an arrogant attitude on the part of teh campaign for many months. And now we're in the fight for our lives." The incompetence and arrogance of one person, Hillary Clinton, threatens to tear the Democratic Party asunder and lead to certain defeat in the fall. Because she couldn't even be bothered to fire up Bill's enormous database of democrats and supporters and TRY to organize and contest the caucuses, she now whines that such contests are unfair and unimportant, and she is ENTITLED to win the nomination anyway. What a selfish child. She is most certainly NOT ready to be president.

- Ol_Lady

March 8, 2008 at 1:33am

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

We all have passions that later we drum up reasons for our alignment, then we rouse the passions again because of the reasons and thus the case is made...it is not predestined that progressives win in November no matter who the candidate is...The democratic party has always been about herding cats...

- druidforest

March 8, 2008 at 1:46am

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

I'd thought this mag had a heavy left-wing slant?? Despite my prejudices, going into this article, I actually found it a brilliant analysis of the current situation. The scorched earth policy Clinton seems hell-bent on pursuing is going to rip the party apart. As a good republican, who will most likely vote for McCain, this is a wonderful thing. McCain can just sit on his hands for six months & watch these guys wrestle around in the mud. And as for the posters on this board who claim to be republicans supporting Obama... Forget what's coming out of his mouth, but look at his voting record. The fellow is somewhere politically to the left of HRC. I don't understand how any "republican" of any ilk could pull the lever for Obama after actually going back & looking at how he's actually voted. I just don't get it.

- Aaron

March 8, 2008 at 1:49am

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

Great Article! As an independent voter my position would be to vote for Obama over McCain over just about anybody but Clinton. I say that not because i don't think her husband was a good president (he was) or because she is a woman (maybe one of her only good attributes), but because she, like Bill, is just to much of a politician. I and a lot of the rest of the counter are done with that. Finally, regarding the Clintons push for a Fl and Mi do-over, doesn't anyone else get sick over the whole ordeal? The party Dem officials of those states knew they were violating the rules (read "bad teenager"), but so badly wanted to have major influence , disobeyed their parent (democratic national commitee) and ran they primaries early. Keep in mind what they wanted was INFLUENCE, not an early primary (which was a guess of a correlation between timing and influence). Now, were talking about placating the bad teenager, giving them what they want in the first place, i.e. having bigtime influence on the final outcome. Total double talke. Shame on you Fl and Mi.

- Jill Crawford

March 8, 2008 at 2:15am

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

A well-thought out estimate of HRC's thinking and,unfortunately, on the mark. Her win-at-any-cost approach, which has way too much in common with the scorched-earth tactics practiced by Karl Rove and company over the last twelve years, is what leads people like me - voters hungering for principled, visionary leadership - to support Mr. Obama in the first place. And as depressed as I get imagining an extension of the Bush administration agenda for another four years, I can't (and at this point won't) vote for Ms.Clinton just because she is the last Democrat left standing in November. I hope that the American people - and the Democratic Party - will bring an end to the destructive tactics you describe by refusing to reward Ms. Clinton for practicing them.

- wch

March 8, 2008 at 2:26am

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

How dare you attack Hitler's dog! Canine-Americans unite against this vicious breedism.

- Jack Russell

March 8, 2008 at 2:31am

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

Actually, Obama will prove to have won more Texas delegates than Clinton; the Texas Democratic Party is a bit of a private club and extremely partisan, with Hillary the beneficiary. Nonetheless, he won. When the TDP gets around to announcing that bit of news is anyone's guess, and probably Hillary's to control.

- Mare

March 8, 2008 at 2:36am

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

Obama will NEVER fade away!

- Anne

March 8, 2008 at 3:37am

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

Mindy, I can sum your comment up in one paragraph, "You are a female who has a lot of anger built up inside you, you are afraid of a woman with more power than you and it is obvious that you are extremely jealous and envious of the Clinton's success." I'm sorry that you are not happy in your marriage!!!

- Tim J.

March 8, 2008 at 3:41am

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

The idea that Hillary can win the popular vote (even if there are redos in MI and FL) is ridoculous. Look at the tallys on www.realclearpolitics.com if you don't believe me. Obama is up almost 300,000 votes in the popular vote even if you include the results in FL where neither campaigned, or almost 600,000 votes if you don't. Current polls show them even in MI if they do a redo there. I started this primary season a Clinton supporter, but c'mon people, the writing is on the wall that if we want to win in November we need to close ranks behind Obama fast with Hillary as VP. The Democracts dedication to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory every 4 years is sickening.

- Doug

March 8, 2008 at 3:52am

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

Hillary and the Clinton legacy is FINISHED!! She and her followersjust dont realize it yet. There is no way she will get independent or black voters EVER again, and she will NEVER win without them. The only thing she can do now is destroy Obama. Hillary's supporters are not in touch with reality. It only takes commonsense to realize there is only a fraction of a chance that its even possible to get the nomination without stealing it. I voted for Bill Clinton both times, and I always used to stick up for the clintons against those right wing finatics. But the way Hillary has conducted herself as a democrat is DISGRACEFUL!!!! She WILL get whats comming to her sooner or later, mark my words!!! And you disrespectful Hillary supporters are in for real heartache, unfortunately, I will not feel sorry for you one bit!

- Frantz

March 8, 2008 at 4:59am

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

you are clearly paying attention. learn how to spell the names of the people you know so much about.

-

March 8, 2008 at 5:03am

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

#233 - I must agree that I haven't time to read them all either but tomorrow is another day. Seems like Hillary is digging deeper every day! And this is for #243 also. What being fluent in pig latin has to do with intelligence I know not. Hillary doesn't even need to know simple aritmetic. If the battery in her calculater dies she certainly has an advisor who can run to the corner for a new one. Why don't we concentrate on IMPORTANT things like knowing how to answer a telephone? I'm afraid I got lost somewhere - didn't realize we were applying for a teaching or secretarial position. The election IS for THE CEO of our country isn't it? I, for one, will NOT vote for history. All the experience talk is meaningless! As a mother I had quite a bit of experience in changing diapers but my kids grew up! Doesn't the public realize current situations can't be compared to history? Times have changed! I married an Airman who "did his time" on Okinawa but I don't pretend to have any knowledge of the morse code (do they still use it?) and even HE didn't haven't experience in a plane. The Navy took him. Being a veteran is honorable - is every veteran qualified for this position? I happen to go with the younger crowd and must advise y'all that I'm 74, Caucasian and female. GO O

- Anne

March 8, 2008 at 5:10am

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

elleRust: You are comparing apples to oranges when you are putting a state senator up against a US Senator! If I am correct, state senators don't have the experience or records as opposed to a US Senator! State senators deal only with state issues. In your case, Sen. Obama would only have state experiences. And if I am correct, he voted approximately "166" times present, failing in his duties that his constituencies elected him for! Whatever happened to an up and down vote, yay or nae? You know why, because he knew they were controversial votes and did n't want to be on record for his foes to use against him in his run for the Presidency. Well, there was one bill that he voted for twice, even though he said that he didn't keep his state records. Baloney! Here is the bill and source so you don't have to look it up and I don't want to take you away from your "Obamanite" time. Obama Supports Infanticide - February 22nd, 2008, 10:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barack Hussein Obama voted multiple times to allow abortionists to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion. Why would we allow such a cruel person to run our country? The Born Alive Infant Protection Act stated that a baby born alive after an abortion should be protected under the law. The Illinois act stated "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." Obama voted no multiple times, and was in fact the main opposition to the bill. "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term." - Obama, Illinois Senate Floor, March 30, 2001 Guess what? That bill finally passed in the Illinois senate after Sen. Obama left. Discusting & outrageous! You see, Sen. Clinton couldn't bring this up against a fellow campaigner! She knew this would be ammunition for the Rupublican's to use in the General Election and like a true Democrat, even though it would help her in the Primary and possibly be a winner for her by now, she chose not to go negative. Now I hope that you don't know the Republicans already know this and his entire voting record while he was in the state senate? Yes, there are records, but Sen. Obama "lied" and said he didn't keep the thousands of records and votes he accumalated while in the state senate. Top that off with the 17 year old relationship that he had with Tony Rezko that he has already lied about by saying his only dealing with him was a 5 hour deal when he represented him in a matter. Wow, huge difference: 5 hrs. to 17 yrs. And yes, Mr. Rezko is a crooked criminal and his trial started this week. Sen. Clinton has "old" baggage but Sen. Obama is going to bring a lot of "new" baggage for the Republicans to go after. Her old news is irrevelant! They want fresh blood. Now a US Senator not only has to represent their home constituites but also the American electorate. Sen. Clinton has been in the US Senate now for 8 years and in those 8 years she has a proven record to get bills passed, voted on thousands of bills and reached across party lines to accomplish goals. Like working with Sen. Lindsey Graham(SC) to get National Guardsmen the same benefits as afforded to the regular Army. She pushed and co-sponsererd the SCHIP childrens bill that allows children, our most prescious asset, to have access to free health care! She has also pushed for better health care and armor for our military since she is a member of The Senate Armed Services Committee and has privilege to "classified" documents! She has also been endorsed by 30 retired generals and flag officers! The list can go on an on about her short stint in the US Senate and that is not including her time working on behalf of the children in the state of Arkansas. Now does the state senate of any state have this kind of experience and records to back up senators, especially Obama, while he was in the Illinois senate? According to Obama, no. One more thing and I will let you go. You do know that America is mainstream and has very moderate views and ideas for the most part? Sen. Obama is ranked(95.5), the highest liberal in the US Senate, ranking higher than Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Joseph Biden! (http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm), You know, if he happens, just happens to be the Democratic nominee of our party running against a decorated moderate war hero, Sen. John McCain, the Republicans will shred him to pieces and we will lose the WH again because Sen. Obama will not win against him! Sen. Obama's entire campaign has been ran around a single speech he gave in 2002 against the war. He was in the Illinois senate at the time and since that speech he has said that if he was in the US Senate at the time, he doesn't know how he would vote. He has also voted repeatedly since his arrival in the Senate to keep funding the Iraq war, the same as Sen. Clinton. Humm, rationnaly thinking, I wonder who would win the White House when everything is exposed on Sen. Obama? According to the latest poll, Sen. Clinton is up 6% and has overtaken Obama: BO HC Rasmussen Tracking 03/03 - 03/06 900 LV 43 49 Clinton +6.0 The same could be said for McCain vs. Obama: JM BO LA Times/Bloomberg 02/21 - 02/25 RV 44 42 9 McCain +2.0

- Tim J.

March 8, 2008 at 6:11am

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

What Obama hasn't done is attack Clintonism, 1992-2000. The thin record of "solutions," (the questionable NAFTA and welfare revision, the top domestic achievements), the endless campaigning and triangulation, the unwillingness to try and transcend Reaganism. This is not negative campaigning,and it fits with his sensibility.

- David Raphael Smith

March 8, 2008 at 6:27am

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

This article has more contortions than a game of Twister. You are being willfully obtuse when you say that Hillary is being a kamikaze agent. The voters seem not to agree with you. Secondly, it is Obama himself rather than Clinton who is at fault here. If he couldn't put a stake through Hillary with more money, more momentum, more eloquence and -- dare I say it? -- more Hope, what will he do in the Fall against the Republicans. His serious weaknesses have been exposed, and rather gently at that, so I say that is a good thing for the Party. Frankly, you're also wrong about Obama's difficulty in taking on Hillary. He is hamstrung because of his lofty approach and claim to be the prophet of New Politics, not because Hillary is a sacred cow in the Party and can't be sullied. You and other journalists have seen to that already.

- Will

March 8, 2008 at 7:03am

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

Hillary Clinton is tough, tenacious leader. She'll fight for you. Put her down she'll come back up. That's the virtue I want for my leader not a weak. You could say all the negativity against her at least they're all out in the open; the other side is the one we should be concerned about, he has slim record to account to. I'll vote for Hillary any day!

-

March 8, 2008 at 8:11am

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

Obama didn't grow up in the south side of Chicago his wife is, he went to the Chicago and work as an intern under his then wife Michelle. He grow up in Indonesia and Hawaii.

- Femme

March 8, 2008 at 8:23am

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

Why when Hillary whines does the Washinton Post favor her. Obama is the change we need. Do you really want to see the Clintons in the White HOuse again. Disgrace and more. Marc Rich, White Water,. We need to find out and read about where all their money is from. The Clintons have always lied. Remember foks. Don't forget when they left the last time.

- Audrey Marie

March 8, 2008 at 9:04am

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

Schadenfreude is a meal best served cold. It's very clear that HRC would be the better President. She's tough, she's resilient, and she doesn't give up. Her candidacy proves this. BHO is a fine orator, but he will be chum in the water if he's elected. You think the world will somehow pull its punches because Barry is in the White House? Puh-leeze - they'll walk all over him. He thinks he can sweet-talk his way out of trouble. But he can't even take it when four reporters put some heat on him in a press conference. How's he gonna do when a real crises turns up? He's gonna get his homeys on YouTube to post a music video? Democrats will probably go with BHO because he's so charming. They'll be fools if they do. HRC is just a much more competent political leader.

- Steve Miller

March 8, 2008 at 9:29am

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

I have to say as an independent voter, I support Obama first. McCain second and I will never vote for Hillary. Hillary has proven how divisive she can be and that is all I need to know about her to never want her to win.

- Robyn

March 8, 2008 at 3:27pm

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

Sadness and melodies. Usually, when the sound of a pine-wood touches a care and a beautiful darkness, I hear a picture and a fallen desire, and here, in my childhood, a flower escapes... Francesco Sinibaldi

- Francesco Sinibaldi

March 8, 2008 at 3:36pm

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

Traitor Hillary should be barred for life from the DNC She can join her running mate, John McCain: http://wonkette.com/364318/hillary-clinton-endorses-john-mccain-80-million-times http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-clinton.html?cid=106352094#comment-106352094

- Joan

March 8, 2008 at 3:44pm

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

This debate and division within the Democrat party is excellent theater. It is akin to watching two scorpions fight to the death in a jar. Great entertainment! Neither of these candidates are qualified to be president of the United States. John McCain - the veteran's choice, is going to get my vote.

- Cato The Censor

March 8, 2008 at 4:52pm

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

to ellen 77 of 273 Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ....

- Leannan

March 8, 2008 at 5:39pm

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

I agree with you. But Hillary's momentum willbe short-lived. She is giving herself credit for things she did not do. At the sametime she has a lot of big failures in her 35 years experience. For example, the Rwandan genocide: It occured in 1994 while the Clintons were in the White House. The phone rang at 3 am but the Clintons hang up the phone. We must point out that she made a bad judgement not to help the people of Rwanda. As a result, more than a million people died because she hang up on the people of Rwanda.

- May

March 8, 2008 at 8:45pm

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

One of the things I really respect about Obama's campaign is that he has managed to stay away from the typical smear tactics so common in politics these days. After some of the incidents last week, some are suggesting that Obama has to start fighting back, that he need to show some backbone. In some ways I agree with this sentiment, but he should not waste his time discrediting Clinton, he needs to start going after McCain. I know, it may sound premature, but think about it for a minute. The only way Clinton can win is to get the support of the super delegates as there is no way she can win enough delegates in the primaries at this point to take the lead in delegates. As we saw last week before the vote in OH and TX, she is starting to get nasty including going so far as to say she would rather have McCain in the White House than Obama. Most people would agree that kind of argument is not going to help the party when the general election roles around. Up to this point, I think Obama has resisted the urge to get suckered into her game which is good, a lot of people respect him for exacatly this kind of restraint. The problem is that the next big primary is in six weeks which gives Clinton a lot of time to do serious damage to Obama's reputation. If Obama were to claim victory and simply ignore Clinton's slime politics, he can start working on his battle against McCain. If Clinton tries to go more negative against Obama, he can claim that she has switched sides, that she has basically joined forces with McCain. By doing this, any hope she may have had of securing super delegate votes will begin to disappear as the super delegates will not want to support someone that does not have the best interests of the party to be the nominee. As more super delegates pledge their support of Obama, Clinton will fall further behind making the rest of the primaries academic. The beauty of this strategy is that Obama avoids stooping to her level which means he will keep and gain more respect from his supporters.

- wyllie

March 8, 2008 at 11:06pm

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

The people attacking Hillary result to petty insults and character assassination, viz. 'monster,' 'repulsive,' 'shrill,' 'fratricidal,' etc ad nauseum. I know of no one on the Clinton side accusing Obama of being 'repulsive,' though he has been plainly misleading about Clinton (re: NAFTA) and *has himself appeared to endorse Republicans over Democrats* (remember the whole 'party of ideas' brouhaha?). The truth is, the insults were hurled at Clinton as soon as she announced her candidacy, by the likes of Andrew ('she just gives me the cooties') Sullivan -- and really don't have much to do with her actual campaign. Grasping at straws (the 'as far as I know' statement taken out of context), people accuse her of Rovian tactics, suggesting that the term 'Rovian' now simply means campaigning to win, rather than campaigning to make people feel happy about themselves. All of this suggests to me that Obama supporters are incredibly naive about what faces Obama and that they (perhaps like their candidate) have incredibly thin skins. Obama is an appealing candidate who has run a strong campaign; same with Hillary. Stop the accusations and innuendos and inferences, and just get about campaigning and winning votes. Hillary wants to win because she believes in herself and her ability to lead the country: where's the sin in that?

- Grasping

March 9, 2008 at 1:12am

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

Here is how I see it. Obama has sometimes believed his own press. That is why he hasn't put her away for good. I confess that I'm a little dissapointed at his inability to fight back. I was a supporter last summer, at a time when Clinton was inevitable, and I wanted Obama to take her down. Obama cautioned patience, and we waited. He took her out in Iowa. He has taken her out in the delegate hunt. The score is now 26-14 in the 4th quarter. Obama has run a flawless campaign, on message, on money, on hope and change. Obama has read the electorate perfectly. But she still survives. Why? To say that she is a craven, lusting, power-grabing fraud is an understatment. But her political skills cannot be denied. The SNL, Daily Show, NAFTA-gate, Shame on you, photo-ops with Generals, red-phone, McCain-loving, Obama as VP, etc. stunts have been very effective and have played into the press' need for a competitive race. I don't know how she did it, but Obama is Kerry now. His responses are as lame as Kerry's were against the swift-boat ads. When he said that he thinks that the voters are too smart to fall for that crap, I groaned. No, Barack, they fall for this stuff all the time. However, unlike Kerry, Obama can still win the nomination because he still has time. I saw a really good message by supporters on the Obama blog that he still could make that lays the fiasco of the Bush Administration at those who aided and abetted it: Hillary Clinton and John McCain: >The War and the Economy We've now spent over $2 Trillion dollars on the Iraq war. That works out to $17,485 for every household in America. McCain and Hillary both voted spend your money on George W's war in Iraq. What have you gotten for your money? What has the country gotten for your money? Can you think of better uses for that money? Oil prices skyrocketing, the dollar is falling, our roads and bridges are a mess or falling down, we're losing jobs at record rates, and the economy is going the wrong direction. We need a change in Washington. We can't afford any more of these mistakes. It's time to turn things around and get back on track. Do it Barack. Take her down.

- Ellen Hamm

March 9, 2008 at 2:16pm

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

you don't sound very neutral to me, are you staff on this magazine. I thought reporters were supposed to be impartial.

- marysiebs,

March 9, 2008 at 5:28pm

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

if the superdelegates throw this thing to HRC, here's what happens: African-Americans, once again screwed over in the land of the free and the home of the brave, stay home; young voters, who have never known a day in their lives when the country wasn't run by someone named Bush or Clinton, stay home; the anti-war left, despondent that the only candidate who was truly right on Iraq from the start has been kicked to the curb, stays home; McCain peels off independents; and the far right of the GOP, who are undeniably less than thrilled with McCain's candidacy, are given all the inspiration they need to throw their support (and their considerable dollars) to their nominee. Sorry to play the elitist, folks, but after reading a lot of these posts from the pro-Hillary crowd, it doesn't surprise me in the least that she gets most of her support from voters without college degrees. Some of these "she wins all the big states!" claims set new standards for intellectual bankruptcy. Please turn off "American Idol" and try reading a book sometime. In January of 2009, America will still be at war on two fronts. The GOP can only hope that the nation gets to choose between a genuine war hero and a woman who nearly broke down in a New Hampshire diner due to campaign "stress." Roger Ailes' friends just can't wait to frame this one for Joe and Jane America...

- Sean

March 9, 2008 at 7:58pm

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

I agree with aeromonas. The "new" format is crap. I'd rather regular readers but non-subscribers such as myself not even be able to post at all if the alternative is to have to wade through this garbage. I know these newbie blitzes have happened before, but it was okay when I before because I wasn't reading articles about Ron Paul. AND FIX THE FUCKING PARAGRAPH BREAK PROBLEM ALREADY, FRANKLIN.

- hewstino

March 10, 2008 at 8:53am

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

To: "Grasping": What do you mean when you say Obama supporters are - "Grasping at straws (the 'as far as I know' statement taken out of context)"... Hillary answered that Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know." It was absolutely clear, in context, that she was saying that he could very well indeed be a Muslim, alas, she just didn't know for sure. That is what "as far as I know" as a qualifier, means. Look at the clip. It is easy to find on YouTube and it is clear, in context, that she is keeping the rumor alive.

- AB

March 13, 2008 at 10:10pm

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

The damask rose and the martin. Here, in the deep and intense atmosphere of the first morning, the rising sun appears in a magical sky and always, like the light of my mind, a pleasure returns. Francesco Sinibaldi

- Francesco Sinibaldi

March 15, 2008 at 4:34pm

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

Gee - I thought representational government was what the Democrat party was about. It is sad that you, Jack, feel the democratic elections are an "inconvenient process" that has gotten in the way of your socialistic values. If you don't like the process of candidates seeking to win elections, perhaps the Peoples Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), or the Peoples Republic of Cuba would be much more to your liking...

- Tony

March 20, 2008 at 4:50pm

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

Gee - I thought representational government was what the Democrat party was about. It is sad that you, Jack, feel the democratic elections are an "inconvenient process" that has gotten in the way of your socialistic values. If you don't like the process of candidates seeking to win elections, perhaps the Peoples Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), or the Peoples Republic of Cuba would be much more to your liking...

- Tony

March 20, 2008 at 4:53pm

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

Are you serious? It is Senator Obama's fault that he ran a better campaign and has won more delegates? If this were reversed, what would you expect Senator Obama to do? You must be joking and I just cannot see the humor.

- Kim

March 20, 2008 at 10:06pm

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

Are you serious? I have never so blindly supported any candidate in my life. Reading these posts that spout inneundo and untruth as fast and furious as any vast right wing conspiracy is depressing.

- Kim

March 20, 2008 at 10:08pm

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

I am amazed by the grasp of your failure to set forth anything of substance. Senator Clinton had the most name recognition, the best fundraising machine, the political machinery behind her and you wonder why Senator Obama had some difficulty closing the deal? If this were reversed, you might have a point. One does expect the establishment figure to destroy the insurgency. This is the pattern of our past. It didn't happen this year. Have you thought of the effect of this logic of yours? Have you thought about what is best for this Country? I feel like I am surrounded by Republican operatives parading as Democrats.

- Kim

March 20, 2008 at 10:12pm

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

No, the people have not spoken and returned to Senator Clinton. Most of us have rejected her. Please try and realize this. I am a woman and I am not young. I lose more respect for Senator Clinton with each passing day. I don't know what issues you find important, but hoping for another 4 years of Republican executive power seems exceedingly strange to me when it comes from a so-called Democrat.

- Kim

March 20, 2008 at 10:16pm

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

Senator Clinton by my calculations will need 76% of the superdelegates to overcome Senator Obama's lead. Hmmm, why did we bother to vote at all? Next time why not just avoid the cost and pretense of voting and move straight to that smoke-filled room. Please get a grip on yourself! This is depressing.

- Kim

March 20, 2008 at 10:18pm

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

Do you speak with or know many Republicans? I do. I can tell you that although even they did not like Ken Starr or his tactics, they have no love for Senator Clinton. Many of the Republicans I know are so saddened by the last 7+ years that they are not planning to vote in the Fall. If Senator Clinton is the nominee, they will vote and they will donate. It may not be her fault, but Senator Clinton is a lightning rod of controversy.

- Kim

March 20, 2008 at 10:20pm

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

"If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day." Really? Do you expect Hillary or Joe Lieberman to die?

- Peter Maranci

March 21, 2008 at 12:44pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close