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 The Autopsy Report

POLITICS MAY 21, 2008

The Autopsy Report

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

Tuesday's results replicated much of the Democratic race during the last two months. Hillary Clinton once more showed her strength and Barack Obama's weakness among white working class voters in Midwestern swing states, while Obama proved his hold on young and college-educated voters in states where a new post-industrial economy has developed, and where college-educated voters make up about half of the Democratic electorate.



For Obama, the question will be how to capture enough of these white working class voters in November to defeat Republican John McCain. For Hillary Clinton, the remaining question is retrospective. Her success in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky only puts into relief the question of why--after having been the prohibitive favorite to capture the nomination--she had already lost the nomination to Obama by the time she had begun to articulate her own message of change.



A big part of the reason, extensively reported by my colleague Michelle Cottle, is that she and her campaign made glaring organizational errors. Clinton wasn't prepared for a protracted nomination battle; and when it became apparent that her staff wasn't either, she didn't act quickly enough to replace them (as Ronald Reagan did in 1980). But another part of the reason for Clinton's failure is political: how she ran initially, and how she ran against Obama.



Critics within the campaign have singled out Clinton's decision to run in 2007 as the heir apparent. That was important, but nothing compared to the way she handled the issue of the Iraq war and the possibility of war with Iran. During the campaign's first year--before the Iowa caucus in January--the principal, and perhaps only, way that her opponents (particularly Obama) could undercut her candidacy was through criticizing her support of the resolution authorizing the Bush administration to use force against Iraq.



At the time, the issue of the war overshadowed all other concerns. This was especially true among the party activists who would staff the campaigns and go to the caucuses, and among the Internet donors who would, as it turned out, fund Obama's effort. John Edwards, who had actually been a member in absentia of the Intelligence Committee and had acted far more irresponsibly than Clinton, cut off criticism of himself by apologizing for his vote in favor of the resolution. But Clinton--looking ahead, perhaps, to the general election--refused to apologize. That reinforced an impression that, on an issue as central as the war, she was willing to put politics before principle, and, in so doing, she sustained Obama's campaign at a time when he was making little headway in national polls.



Still, Clinton, who regularly voted in 2007 for resolutions to set a deadline on the war, looked poised to put the issue behind her--until September, when she backed a resolution introduced by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Jon Kyl directed at Iran's "destabilizing influence" in Iraq and at its Revolutionary Guard. The sponsors watered down the original resolution, which had supported using armed force to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranians, but what was important was not the specific wording, but the political context of the resolution. At the time, Vice President Dick Cheney, with Lieberman's support, was beating war drums against Iran; and the resolution, like the infamous Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, seemed to be the kind of measure that could eventually serve as a justification, however tenuous, for another preventive war. Of all the Democratic candidates, Clinton alone voted for it.



Like her refusal to apologize for the October 2002 war resolution, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman may have stemmed from her ignoring the primary and thinking about the general election, or--as Helene Cooper suggested in The New York Times--it might have been an attempt to win support from "the pro-Israel lobby," which strongly backed the resolution. Whatever the case, her vote was a political disaster. It confirmed the worst fears of anti-war Democrats about her foreign policy inclinations. Her rivals denounced her vote, and she had to answer for it in ads, mailings, and debates through early January. It gave Obama an enormous push at a time when he seemed to be floundering and laid the groundwork for his success in fund-raising and in the Iowa caucuses.



Clinton's inability to put her Iraq vote behind her was also a key factor in Obama's pick-up of the important Moveon.org endorsement and in his continued success among young and upscale white voters who believed the war in Iraq was the most important issue. In the Connecticut primary on February 5, for instance, the 31 percent of voters who said Iraq was the most important issue went 63 to 35 percent for Obama. He might still have had an edge among these voters, but it almost assuredly wouldn't have been as great if Clinton had quickly apologized for her vote and rejected the Kyl-Lieberman resolution.



Clinton's second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama's challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a "transformative politician"); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting "present" in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama's connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).


John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other--and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain's doing it to Romney--a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. "I was just a fighter," Patterson had said, "but he was history." Obama, too, was, and is, history--the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.



In New Hampshire, Clinton didn't pay a price a price for her tactics. But that was because Obama and Edwards turned their guns on her, thereby pushing white women in the state to cast sympathy votes in her favor. And, in truth, she might have been able to parlay that surprise victory into the nomination. But after New Hampshire--in those weeks leading up to the South Carolina primary and then to Super Tuesday--Clinton's campaign against Obama became more negative (eg. Bill Clinton's comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson), and it provoked a backlash that would ultimately cost her the nomination.



The backlash took several forms. First of all, Clinton had actually enjoyed considerable black support in 2007. In a December Pew poll, Clinton trailed Obama among black voters in South Carolina by only one percentage point--44 to 43. Even as late as the post-New Hampshire primary Pew poll, Obama was ahead of Clinton nationally by 52 to 33 percent among black voters. But after Clinton turned negative, Obama regularly won 90 percent or more of the black vote. That virtually sewed up the Deep South for him. Secondly, Clinton suffered defections among college-educated white voters. That was clear in South Carolina where the white vote gravitated away from Clinton and towards Edwards and Obama. In the December Pew poll, Clinton had led Edwards and Obama among white voters by a score of 49 to 20 to 16 percent. In the final tally, Edwards got 40 percent, Clinton got 36 percent, and Obama 24 percent. That trend would persist until the Pennsylvania primary and re-emerged again clearly in Oregon. In Oregon, Obama won college-educated voters, who made up 46 percent of the primary electorate, by roughly 30 points. Obama's advantage among these voters would be reflected, too, in his continuing success in raising money on the Internet.



Finally, Clinton lost the opinion-making class's vote during those fateful early weeks of the primary season. This included her fellow politicians, who would serve as superdelegates, and the media. Even though Obama appeared to be on the skids after losing New Hampshire, he won a bunch of endorsements leading up to the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday, most notably from Senator Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, and Maria Shriver; Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill (who helped Obama win Missouri) and former Senator Jean Carnahan; Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson; Vermont Senator Pat Leahy; Massachusetts Senator John Kerry; and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. Some of these endorsements might have come anyway, but several of the most important were provoked by Clinton's campaign.



There was a similar turn in the media. It showed up in newspaper endorsements. In backing Obama, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch admitted "to a certain 'Clinton fatigue,'" before launching into this: "The emergence of the former president as the Luca Brasi of the campaign trail reminds us of the worst of the Clinton years; the divisiveness and the bickering; the too-casual, if artful, blend of truth and half-truth. We're not eager for the replay." I heard the same refrain from journalists and bloggers who had been either pro-Hillary or on the fence. They used the same two words to explain their disenchantment with the Clinton campaign: "South Carolina." Indeed, I went from being pro-Hillary (because of her experience and comparative electability in a general election) to a fence-sitter during this period, and when primary day in Maryland came along, I left the booth without casting a vote.



None of this is to say that Hillary Clinton should have refrained from criticizing Obama. They had genuine disagreements, for instance, on healthcare. But if Clinton had stuck to these kind of differences, while making a case for herself as the only challenge-ready candidate in the field and without treating Obama disrespectfully, she might have been able to sustain the lead that she gained after New Hampshire. Instead, her political errors, compounded by her organizational failures, knocked her campaign off balance. By the time, it began to right itself in Ohio in March, it was already too late.



John Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 141 comments

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

141 comments

Excellent piece. I would only add that it treats the original Iraq War vote, and indeed everything that happened before the campaign, as a fait accompli. But she could have voted against the Iraq War in the beginning. A number of Democrats did. That would have inoculated her. Or, if we believe her story that she tells now that she voted only for a threat of force (and not to actually authorize war), she could have denounced Bush the moment it became clear that he was actually going to war whether or not the inspectors were let in. Or, she could have realized the war was going bad sometime in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006, as the rest of America did. And then she could have lent her credibility to the anti-war movement by leading street protests instead of leaving those protests to the folks from International ANSWER, who are leftists with far less credibility in mainstream America than Senator Clinton had. Robert Kennedy supported the Vietnam War both as a member of the Kennedy Administration and the Senate, but he atoned by protesting the war. She could have followed this course. Or she could have done what John Murtha did. I.e., once the war was clear to her to have been the wrong thing, she could have become the focal point of opposition to the war in the Senate, pushing her colleagues to deny funding to the war and using her power and influence to reassert congressional prerogatives over warmaking. But, you see, she did none of these things. All of which she should have done. The apology Judis references is actually so little to ask of her, and she couldn't even bring herself to do that. So the base of the party, which, by the way, turned out to be far wiser on the issue of going to war with Iraq than Hillary Clinton was, decided they wanted a candidate who actually opposed the war. Not so surprising, when you think about it. It isn't like Hillary went out there and did anything to earn their votes.

- Dilan Esper

May 21, 2008 at 3:10am

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

For this former supporter of Mrs. Clinton, the two words were dead on: "South Carolina."

- icarusr

May 21, 2008 at 5:07am

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

What nonsense, Judis. Just more navel gazing. Nothing better to write about. My god, get over it. She's said she regretted it. She's said "knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have done it." Short of self-flaggelation, what precisely is an apology? This is pure idiocy.

- BaldingEagle

May 21, 2008 at 6:05am

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

Perceptive article. It captures the essential points driving the primary electorate. I know many who made their choice based on one of the first two "mistakes" cited.

- Paul Arnest

May 21, 2008 at 6:56am

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

I'm curious as to whom Clinton is supposed to apologize to, This seems to be a recurring theme. Is there some sort of tallyman out there or are we talking the frame by which Dems who want to be In Charge demand the ratification of their views as part of an overall discrediting of the Republican party as a whole? While this may be an unpopular war ( if there is such a thing as a popular war) the basis by which it was initially engaged is a defensible one. A large portion of the populace was willing according to what information was available at the time. If the Dems are determined to extract Confessions of the Dunces as a litmus test for proper citizenship they will hurt themselves in the Fall. I think there is more to this demand for apology than meets the eye. Pull out that sanctimony on a daily basis if you want to do McCain a big favor. He may be floundering somewhat right now but expect that to change. Especially if Moveon and its ilk are perceived as major players.

- boxo

May 21, 2008 at 8:16am

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

You know there were many others who voted for the war.I was out of the country when this happened, and I remember watching on the news "George Bush isn't acting fast enough." "George Bush doesn't care about our families". While the administration was deciding what to do a year later, they went in, and the American people "loved" GWB. As soon as we suffered casualties, they began to turn on him. I saw this happen during Desert Storm as well. War is terrible, I have a son who served in that war, I was almost deployed myself, but our deployment was cancelled. It's always easy to find the negative things in people, you should try to focus on the positive, the MEDIA is dividing this country not the primaries. She has the right to go on as long as she wants, and that's her decision to make. So, just let her be. I haven't met a perfect human being yet.

- ROCK

May 21, 2008 at 8:41am

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

You got Oregon totally wrong. According to the exit polls, Obama won every age group except 60+. He won every income group except 15,000-30,000. Furthermore, you need to define what you mean by "post-industrial" economy. Oregon has 200,000 manufacturing jobs, which is the largest employer in the state by sector, followed by retail and then health care. In Pennsylvania, the largest employer by sector is manufacturing, followed closely by health care and then professional, scientific and technical services. You see the problem here? Pennsylvania has a far larger share of their employees in professional occupations than Oregon and yet you label Oregon as a "post-industrial economy". Have you been to Oregon? Your article follows the formulaic narrative that we have been accustomed to in this campaign. Unfortunately, in this instance, the facts on the group do not replicate that. You seriously need to do more research and correct this problem. Instead of writing based on "conventional wisdom", you should try writing based on facts and evidence. First try reading the exit polls: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226003/ Next, try checking census data: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/pa/PA000.HTM Finally, you need to write a correction, because the premise of your article is absolutely wrong.

- Brandon

May 21, 2008 at 8:48am

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

You got Oregon totally wrong. According to the exit polls, Obama won every age group except 60+. He won every income group except 15,000-30,000. Furthermore, you need to define what you mean by "post-industrial" economy. Oregon has 200,000 manufacturing jobs, which is the largest employer in the state by sector, followed by retail and then health care. In Pennsylvania, the largest employer by sector is manufacturing, followed closely by health care and then professional, scientific and technical services. You see the problem here? Pennsylvania has a far larger share of their employees in professional occupations than Oregon and yet you label Oregon as a "post-industrial economy". Have you been to Oregon? Your article follows the formulaic narrative that we have been accustomed to in this campaign. Unfortunately, in this instance, the facts on the group do not replicate that. You seriously need to do more research and correct this problem. Instead of writing based on "conventional wisdom", you should try writing based on facts and evidence. First try reading the exit polls: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226003/ Next, try checking census data: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/pa/PA000.HTM Finally, you need to write a correction, because the premise of your article is absolutely wrong.

- Brandon

May 21, 2008 at 8:49am

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

John, I think you may have mis-spoken in your lead paragraph. Barack Obama has no trouble with white working-class voters in Midwestern swing states. His problem lies in Appalachia, where it's plainly obvious why people aren't voting for him. The Clinton campaign should be ashamed of itself for using racism as an excuse to superdelegates. This is why she lost, because not only is she perceived as willing to play any card to win, she will play any card, including racism in Appalachia, to win.

- JTfromMT

May 21, 2008 at 8:52am

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

I have never voted Republican in my life. I am a left-of-center guy. The only reason I will vote McCain in 2008 is that I distrust Obama's anti-American background (Wright etc) and am sure that after him we will get a far-right Republican presidency - even worse that Ronald Reagan following Carter. My double slogan : VOTE MCCAIN IN 2008 TO GET HILLARY IN 2012, VOTE OBAMA IN 2008 TO GET A FAR-RIGHT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN 2012, is going to come up in many people's minds. ALL my friends, life-long Democrats, say they will vote McCain just in 2008 to keep out Obama. Laughable that viciously anti-Clinton Obamites, who abused Hillary with obscene fervor, now talk about others opposing party unity !!!! What a joke !!! These people are absolute crooks.

- Ganpat Ram

May 21, 2008 at 8:57am

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

So, you think she treated him disrespectfully. Oh, like when he gave her the finger at 3 of his rallies; when he and MO walked into one of their venues and one of JZ's songs about the bitch was playing, ok. I get it. You are absolutely right. He is completely above reproach, and should be the next President. I can only hope the IRS finishes its investigation into his church, the Rezko investigator connects all the dots that right now merely show that EVERY name in that investigation has donated to BO, that maybe there is a bit of truth to the BO is on the DL rumor that apparently has been circulating in the Chicago area for years, not to mention his total lack of understanding of the middle east situation. Yep, he is one classy guy/gal.

- Debbie

May 21, 2008 at 9:01am

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

Absolutely correct article, but you didn't bring up the underlying cause of her not apologizing for that vote, and her early entitled attitude - the Clinton ego.

- WaltB

May 21, 2008 at 9:06am

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

Arrogance did this campaign in. Clinton's belief that she was somehow entitled, and that there was no other person that could possibly defeat her resulted in a campaign startegy so feeble that it was doomed from the beginning. She ignored and mistreated the Press, apparently thinking that their love of her husband would trasnfer to her. She packed and stacked events with her supporters in order to ask her loaded questions and make her look good, but she did it so clumsily that they were exposed early and often. Her campaign of inevitability went so far as to start running a general election campaign against the entire field of Republican candidates (Remember the CNN debate and the Clinton Campaign General with the Gays in the military question.) She ignored caucus States and planned to have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday in Februrary was shortsighted at best. I find it hard to stomach Clinton's arghuments that every voice must be heard when her original plan was to wrap up the nomination before most states voted. It's hard to understand how someone can place so much weight on every voice being heard, and yet still argue that the voices that matter most are the voices in the BIG states. The truth is that her campaign has been all about excuses and plausible arguments. She argues that she's tough as any man who wants to be president, but whines about people "piling on" when she screwed up a major question on immigration. She then turns around and says she doesn't worry about people not liking her....then on TV she coyly batts her eyes and says it hurts her feelings. Obama reassures her and she calls him sexist. The idea that she was entitled now leads her to claim that the only reason she's not going to get the nomination is because she's a woman. Is it impossible to believe that most Democrats were turned off by her race-baiting and negative attacks? Is it too much to believe that people were turned off by her assault on Obama as a kindergartner and not because of her gender? She started with arrogance and apparently is ending in ignorance.

- Cam's Dad

May 21, 2008 at 9:07am

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

Thank you for the fine analysis, Mr. Judis. Hillary's campaign has been a train-wreck but as you also mention, the tactics employed by her and her husband were jarring and counterproductive. The war isssue was huge, no doubt about it. I recall wincing at the time of her Iran vote. I told a friend of mine last year that Hillary seemed to be positioning herself to run in the general election before the primary season had even started. I think that she expected something akin to a coronation but she recieved quite the surprise.

- liberal reformer

May 21, 2008 at 9:10am

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

I agree that sticking by her war votes was a mistake, but Hillary seems to suffer from the same malady as George Bush, the unwillingness ever to back down or admit error even when events have proven you wrong. I don't know whether it is her continued backing for the war or her stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality that offends more. I was also unaware that PA, WV, and KY were Midwestern states at all, let alone Midwestern swing states. The NY Times published just a few days ago a beautiful map of the Appalachian region that runs from Alabama into New York, including WV, KY, and large swaths of PA. Note please, that this is not the Midwest which includes states such as Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, all of which Obama won. Of 410 counties in the Appalachian region, Obama has won only 48, but then Kerry won only 48 in this region and Gore, from Tennesee, won only 66. This is, in the current era, solid Republican turf, poorer, older, less-educated, insular. The beauty of this map is that we all tend to think of elections according to political boundaries, ignoring regional and ethnic boundaries that have nothing to do with borders. It shows us that Hillary's strength in the east has largely been here, in this ethnic and geographic region. But these counties were never going to be in the Democratic column in November. There are probably a lot of people who are still registered as Democrats who long ago began voting Republican (even in areas with a highly mobile population, such as my town, at any time up to 10% of the population will either not know or misstate its party affiliation when asked in tracking polls). It is also likely that, even if somewhat left of their Republican neighbors, the Democrats in these regions are much closer in attitude to the regional norm than they are to, say, Democrats in California or New York. Thus, as the more "Republican" candidate in the Democratic primary, Hillary wins these voters. But she was never going to get them in the general. So, what really do the results in KY and WV say about the general election? Not much. It is a tick, Mr. Judis, that you have yet to give us any insight into the demographics that will drive the general election. Instead, you give us inappropriate extrapolations from the primaries. Indeed, you report that after New Hampshire, Obama's campaign was "on the ropes." Why should that have been? He had just won Iowa, Hillary answered in New Hampshire. There are demographic factors in both places that at the very least determine in which places particular candidates have opportunity and in which places they don't. You ignore ALL of this and treat the whole thing as a boxing match in which whoever won the last victory has a spurious "momentum" and whoever lost the last race is "on the ropes." Within a couple of weeks of New Hampshire, Obama won Nevada and South Carolina. How did he "come off the ropes" so fast? The answer, of course, is that he didn't. The calendar just turned to races in the two regions where Obama has shown the greatest strength, and from there he has always been ahead. While many of the things you say were missteps by Hillary surely were, I wonder that you make no mention of the basic premise of her campaign, which was all about her. "I am tested, vetted, ready day one." Was there some other important theme that I missed? I think that any campaign that is about the candidate's supposed virtues rather than explicitly about the future of the country is on very shaky ground. But in this case, Hillary's campaign was especially fragile because this theme actually highlights her weaknesses. She was not in any relevant sense "tested, vetted, ready day one" to be president and the false claim that she was set her up for a big fall. She was a short-term senator whose very first political office had been the US Senate, courtesy of her marriage to Bill Clinton and Charlie Rangel who handed her the nomination. Of course, Obama was as or more vulnerable on the thinness of his resume. But he had the good sense not to try and make a virtue of it, directing attention instead to his aspirations for the country. One should also consider whether Hillary's inability to articulate any sort of vision for the future (you know, what Bush I called "the vision thing") reflects the fact that she really has none other than a nip here and a tuck there on a set of policies that are clearly no longer serving the nation, at home or abroad, if indeed they ever did. Finally, I take note of what seems to be a reflection of your particular biases. According to you, Hillary's victories show her "strength" and Obama's "weakness," but his reveal no weakness on her part nor strength on his part, only his "hold" over certain voters. You attribute the entire outcome of this race to tactical steps and missteps without illuminating the symbolic content of political speech shapes perception and public sentiment. Politicians use policy positions, biography, aspirations to convey to the public who they are and where they want to lead the country. What did Hillary tell us? What did Obama tell us? Was it irrelevant?

- roidubouloi

May 21, 2008 at 9:13am

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

John Judis (an apt name for a person who writes these kinds of "pieces") has neglected to inform his readers that Clinton was tied with Obama with college-educated voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and won BOTH the young and college-educated voters in Kentucky. As for HER dirty campaigning, it's Barack's playing the race card (along with his supporters, surrogates and flaks who call themselves journalists) that will have long-term repercussions (watch those chickens coming home to roost in November)by calling anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton a racist and "uneducated," while remaining silent about the fact that 92% of blacks voted for Barry/Barack. I have been a Democrat all of my life yet I will work hard and write checks to ensure that John McCain is our 44th President of the United States. Call me whatever you want!

- Maureen Rehg

May 21, 2008 at 9:15am

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

This analysis is precisely ass-backwards. It's exactly because she stuck to principle that Hillary wouldn't "apologize" for doing what in 2002 was clearly the right thing; and because of this she held on to a lot of white working-class support among people old enough and/or aware enough to remember that by 2002 we'd already been at war with Iraq for over a decade. She might have kept more of it if she hadn't caved and started tap-dancing around the issue of what to do in Iraq like Obama. The Democrats who saw the 2002 authorization vote by their leadership as just pandering have never really understood the issue, and clearly still don't.

- Robert Powell

May 21, 2008 at 9:26am

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

Barack Obama... Man Up and Close the Deal!!! To find a credible conclusion to any perplexing problem, conventional wisdom dictates finding practical answers to the following questions: WHAT... WHERE... WHEN... WHY... and HOW. What Mr. Senator Obama is your next move to close this? Wait for the Super Delegates to anoint you in August? Endure another shameful blow-out in Puerto Rico? Let the Clintons drag this on, and on, and on... culminating in a blood bath on the Convention floor? WHAT?!? Mr. Obama... if you want Americans to believe you to be a leader, one who can meet with Chevez, Putin, Ahmadinejad, Castro and the likes, to close global deals which will keep Americans safe...then demonstrate my brother. Close this deal! www.vberryhill-soulvoice.blogspot.com

- vberryhill

May 21, 2008 at 9:34am

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

To be fair to Obama, he won white voters, voters who make under $50,000 and voters who did not go to college in Oregon. Oregon also has a heavily white demographic, and average income is similar to that of Kentucky. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/oregon_exit_polls_obama_handil.php Obama's problem is very clear if you look at a map. Appalachia doesn't like him. 20% of voters said race was a factor in their vote in Kentucky. 80% of those voters went to Clinton. He can probably do without it. The "working class" pattern doesn't hold elsewhere in the country. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194870.php

- BCdem

May 21, 2008 at 9:48am

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

First

- Vman

May 21, 2008 at 9:49am

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

The one thing Hillary's campaign could have done to ensure victory would have been to get the Jeremiah Wright story out in December. Had that happened, Obama would not have won a single state. Why didn't it happen? Either the Hillary campaign had the worst opposition researchers in history, or the campaign knew about Wright and failed to use this deadly weapon. Truly bizarre.

- Brian

May 21, 2008 at 10:02am

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

Excellent dissection. South Carolina is where I went from 'meh' to 'no way' on Hillary. And contributed to a Presidential campaign and canvassed for the first time in my 32 years of voting. Her 2008 campaign will produce volumes of analysis of how a sure-thing could go so wrong so quickly.

- Dave M.

May 21, 2008 at 10:12am

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

Perhaps this primary battle can find its analogue in micro-form in Chicago politics of the 80s. Harold Washington was able to stitch together a coalition of Afican Americans, other non-whites and "lakefront" liberals to first win the mayor's office (though Council Wars ensued due to a gerrymandered ward map that gave white ethnics control of 29 council seats) and then a governing coalition (after a successful redraw of the map in 1987). What is so striking to me is the degree to which Hillary Clinton's tactics, themes and tenor resemble Ed Vrdolyak's

- Andrew Foster

May 21, 2008 at 10:24am

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

And if she's the most able and ready to lead at the first moment after inauguration, why couldn't she run her own campaign? Things change, and a President has to be ready to deal with those changes at a moment's notice. It's also about money. Her campaign blew through millions and millions and millions of dollars. There was not leadership where it should have been and if it comes out of her savings account, I don't have a bit of sympathy. That's where she lost it for me, and I'm her demographic--an older white woman.

- PH in Houston

May 21, 2008 at 10:37am

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

As a republican without a dog in the fight does it ever occur to anybody that she cast her Iraq vote and Iran vote becasue having been near the White House for eight years she understands that there are real threats out there. I might have actually thought about voting for Clinton because I think she would ultimately do the right thing when it comes to foriegn policy but Obama's foriegn policy is just downright scary "give up run away and then talk nice to everyone then they will like us"

- David

May 21, 2008 at 10:57am

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

baldingeagle: That vote is not just a "I regret my decision." I actually cannot in good faith electorally reward ANYONE who voted for that travesty, regardless of their post facto heging. For me, the Iraq vote is decisive for my support of Obama. And Debbie: Your sentiments are despicable. Please attack Obama on the issues rather than on the mindless hearsay and innuendo circling around the cesspools of our public sphere.

- chichi

May 21, 2008 at 11:03am

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

I am another person who supported Hillary Clinton and donated to her campaign until South Carolina. The negative campaigning and clear use of race in an attempt to sway voters really turned me off. I am a Democrat because I believe in a compassionate politics. No, I don't expect perfection, but I do not expect to see one Democrat using every means possible--including means taken right from Karl Rove's playbook--to bring down a fellow Dem. The more negative and dirty Hillary has played--and every poll and exit poll shows that by a 2-to-1 majority people think she has been more negative than Obama--the less I have been willing to forgive her. I am a long time and proud feminist. But in the context of a national election, I place the good of the nation over any other identification.

- sabatia

May 21, 2008 at 11:16am

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

Gee that wouldn't be because Oregon is like one big liberal college campus full of people consumed by white guilt would it? Hillary is the brightest candidate out there. Too bad the dems can't ever get it right. Now we just have to find the right V.P. candidate to run with Hillary as an independent.

- erik Small

May 21, 2008 at 11:27am

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

yes entitled because she is the brightest light in the democratic party who has been working for it since the late 1960s. But dems don't seem to know what is best for them and the country, so we shall fail again to get our "best' into the White House.

- erik

May 21, 2008 at 11:33am

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

This an excellent piece.It defies logic that she remains in this race even though the math works against her .She's not counting on math.She's counting on a "big " surprise that would take Obama out of the race.It has been reported that Michelle Obama was filmed while making comments about "whitey"(not Whitey Ford)from Rev Wright's own pulpit.....When this hits the news,BO is toast !

- Max

May 21, 2008 at 11:38am

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

Agreed. And aren't democrats supposed to be for the poor and uneducated. Not just the liberal, elitist professors et al. And hey, I am college educated and I support Hillary. I am educated enough to be an independent thinker and to not swoon for whatever the far left branch of the party pushes my way.

- erik

May 21, 2008 at 11:38am

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

Wow this is incredible news for HRC supportors and came out today and I do trust SurveyUSA more than Zobgy : McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 43, Clinton 49 Clinton +6.0 North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama SurveyUSA McCain 51, Obama 43 McCain Folks something is going on here which the MSM is not willing to report

- Tom Nichols

May 21, 2008 at 11:41am

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

I will tell you how a sure thing went to no way. The media (Matthews, Olberman, CNN) distorted/slanted everything in Obama's favor. That she has lasted so long is a testament to the fact that she is the better candidate. It was the Obama camp who planned on playing the race card all along and leaked memos have proven that, but you blind Obamaites and writers like Judis continue to conveniently ingonre this fact. As usual, the dems will pay the price come November.

- erik

May 21, 2008 at 11:45am

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

Ganpat Ram, you don't fool me. you're no "left of center guy" if you're trying to squander the political gains that the left have been handed by the over-the-top Bush administration. Most of us were against Hillary to begin with (in the nomination process, i would vote for her in the general) because, even though we expected her to be the nominee, we knew that she, by herself and by her association with Bill, would be a hated and polarizing figure with people who *might* vote Democrat in November, but would easily vote for a perceived moderate Republican like McCain over a polarizing figure like Hillary. That's why I didn't even want her to run, but knew she would by how she was setting herself up in New York (and I was actually pleased with her election to the Senate in 2000 and 2006, even though I feared where she would be taking it). For Hillary to run for the Oval Office with such baggage (Travelgate, inside trading and spectacular profits from cattle futures, Filegate, the magical appearance after two years of subpoenaed legal billing records in the First Lady's White House book room, association with Bill and his philandering and verbal and legal dishonesty), I mean HILLARY HAS BAGGAGE. She is *less* likely to be elected in the general than Barack or someone else with a clean background. Even though their Senate experience is roughly the same very short quantity, Obama can credibly claim he has not been there long enough to be tainted, but Hillary was tainted even BEFORE becoming a U.S. Senator. Hillary lost the nomination simply because she should have and there was a credible alternative candidate with far less baggage (and a helluva lot of charisma to boot).

-

May 21, 2008 at 11:49am

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

Ganpat Ram, you don't fool me. you're no "left of center guy" if you're trying to squander the political gains that the left have been handed by the over-the-top Bush administration. Most of us were against Hillary to begin with (in the nomination process, i would vote for her in the general) because, even though we expected her to be the nominee, we knew that she, by herself and by her association with Bill, would be a hated and polarizing figure with people who *might* vote Democrat in November, but would easily vote for a perceived moderate Republican like McCain over a polarizing figure like Hillary. That's why I didn't even want her to run, but knew she would by how she was setting herself up in New York (and I was actually pleased with her election to the Senate in 2000 and 2006, even though I feared where she would be taking it). For Hillary to run for the Oval Office with such baggage (Travelgate, inside trading and spectacular profits from cattle futures, Filegate, the magical appearance after two years of subpoenaed legal billing records in the First Lady's White House book room, association with Bill and his philandering and verbal and legal dishonesty), I mean HILLARY HAS BAGGAGE. She is *less* likely to be elected in the general than Barack or someone else with a clean background. Even though their Senate experience is roughly the same very short quantity, Obama can credibly claim he has not been there long enough to be tainted, but Hillary was tainted even BEFORE becoming a U.S. Senator. Hillary lost the nomination simply because she should have and there was a credible alternative candidate with far less baggage (and a helluva lot of charisma to boot).

- r b-j

May 21, 2008 at 11:49am

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

Oh right, then we would have heard the cries of racism a lot earlier. Please, the media was in the tank for Obama. Speaking of racism, Michelle Bernard on MSNBC said two nights ago that if the super delegates give it to HIllary there will be race riots. Real responsible journalism. And again, the african-american community is threatening violence if things don't go there way. Bernard chases away more potential voters for Obama. Change, huh. That's the way to ease tension in America. Who is really driving the hatred in this country?

- erik

May 21, 2008 at 11:51am

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

Obama MISSED the vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Surprise surprise. It passed overwhelmingly, and was a vote for pressure on Iran. Should we never pass resolutions to show other countries that we demand that they do not threaten us? Good luck with that. In any case, OB will get the ticket, will be clobbered by McCain and have so many skeletons unearthed that even his followers won't be able to vote for him. So HRC will step in as an indie, show that she got equal or more popular vote in the primaries, and hopefully save us from McCain. That's my prediction.

- susan k. (NYC)

May 21, 2008 at 11:51am

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

Oh yea right. You were a former Clinton supporter. Sure. Does anyone really fall for that B.S. It's clear who played the race card. The Obama campaign in conjunction with the media.

- erik

May 21, 2008 at 11:53am

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

I never ever agree with Robert Powell, but I do (mostly) this time. Clinton's refusal to apologize for her Iraq vote WAS 'putting principal over politics,' not the reverse. As a staunch war opponent, I actually found Clinton's handling of it here LESS annoying than Edwards'. Of course, Obama as an original Iraq war opponent got my vote.

- mmathog

May 21, 2008 at 12:01pm

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

The article (as all others) fails to recognize the Obama organization and team planned a brilliant campaign and responded to the rise and fall of fortunes immediately and appropriately. Analysis and hindsight aside, she simply was beaten by a better politico with a better campaign machine. He was smarter and better skilled and equipped than Mrs. Clinton. His assumptions were generally correct and his continued ability to make slight and simple modifications along the way proved deceive. He understood precisely the playing field and again beat her much more resoundingly that the Democratic Primary contests reveals. He beat her against all odds and in the face of relentless efforts to out maneuver and outsmart him at ever step and every moment. There is every reason to believe that had she addresses the outlined oversights, mistakes either strategic or tactical that Mr. Obama would have won regardless. During the entire campaign and relentless analysis no pundit or political operative said anything along the lines that Obama is playing the system with extraordinary skill and grace regardless of events and happenstance. He is decidedly more skilled, adaptive and tougher than the Clinton machine. Like it or not she got beat daily over the entire campaign. The Obama group never got rattled or lost sight of the prize or how to get there. He won this contest and like it or not he knew he was going to win this thing when he decided to run.

- Terry Brady

May 21, 2008 at 12:07pm

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

Kentucky isn't midwest - though only separated a hundred miles or so, the rural culture in KY and the culture in northern and western Illinois and Iowa are universes apart (you won't find many confederate flags in IL, Wis, or Iowa - those states and their cultures are on the other side of that cultural divide). I'd agree with a previous poster that Obama's taking the Harold Washington route in terms of stitching together his coalition - and Clinton, unfortunately, has decided to run as Bernie Epton (all that's missing is a copy of Epton's campaign poster that said "Before it's Too Late..."). Obama's strategy is difficult, but eminently do-able, especially if Bush continues to try to inject himself into the race. While I don't hold much hope that KY and WV can be brought into the 21st century by November, PA and OH are good possibilities for him, especially if he can bring along a VP nominee who brings some brawn to the ticket (Webb is the obvious first choice there). As for Clinton, all the analysis misses the primary factor working against her; she simply can't come across as genuine to most of the voters. Every time you see her crazily exaggerated "HI!!!!!!!!!" smile when she sees someone in the greeting line (notice how dead her eyes are while she's pushing the eyes and mouth so wide open to grotesque extremes), you're reminded that this woman's life is one big act. She's playing a role that she's decided is "Hillary Clinton." But the character she's designed is so one-dimensional that it reads as necessarily false. No one is like that. To paraphrase Parker, with Mrs Clinton, "there's no 'there' there."

- Marcus

May 21, 2008 at 12:19pm

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

I have also thought that her Iraq vote gave the people an uneasy feeling that she would ACTUALLY perform on ending the war, since we turned out in the droves in 2006 to have exactly that done by the congress, to seemingly no avail. I knew we were in trouble when Pelosi was running arounds saying "impeachment's off the table". People listen to Hillary talk about ending the war, but she's got 2006 to deal with. Barack's campaign was more to point, a two-puncher of sorts - - "I will get us out of the war" (re: McCain) and the "mindset that got us there in the first place" (re: Clinton). She gave the most renegade president in recent history the blank check he needed and was supposedly surprised when he cashed it....several times over, I might add.

- James

May 21, 2008 at 12:24pm

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

Amen, Savatia, I am one of those over-sixty feminists sending money to Obama. We have had enough of Clintons in the White House. Those who are resentful enough of Obama to vote for McCain in November should keep in mind the possibilities of Supreme Court nominees in the coming years. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

- Daphne

May 21, 2008 at 12:38pm

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

Face it: black men could vote in this country 55 years before ANY women could vote. This country has yet to move into even the 20th century when it comes to choosing unproven males over competent females.

- stonehenge

May 21, 2008 at 12:40pm

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

I think that in your analysis, you neglect to consider other factors such as this: Republican interference in the race eg this email and flyer: Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!! On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all! Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House! Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side. After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes. I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!! You think maybe this had something to do with Obama's caucus gains in Texas? This race is very close. I am tired of Obama's supporters moaning on about Clinton's racism. It is far too easy to sistematically smear your political rivals so, by using your surrogates and keeping to the high ground yourself. I am very tired of underhand tactics saying everywhere that she should pull out gracefully. Of course it's much easier for you if your opponent just caves in and gives up. That's what Al Gore did and look where that got the country. I have serious doubts about Obama's team, in particular about Samantha Power. She seems to me (a graduate in Politics, but of an older generation) to be a typical representative of the terrible political science that was taught in college during the eighties. Just another Condee Rice . Much of this mess has been caused by Howard Dean, and his prissy insistence on rules. Did you ever hear of two States arbitrarily being denied the vote in that way. Voters having their votes cancelled in a cutting edge, swing state like Florida. Hillary made a lot of mistakes, for sure, and those were paying too little attention to the caucuses, accepting the DNC's arbitrary maxims, and paying too little attention to what Axelrod was cooking up. That said, neither will win in November unless they form the dream team. Perhaps they could both become a little bit more intelligent and place the good of the nation first. Wake up Howard Dean, what everyone wants is a FAIR fight and a CLEAR result, not a bitter mess because the system is too BACKWARD. They should hold flash primaries in both Michigan and Florida. That should clear the air a bit.

- Laurie Ann

May 21, 2008 at 12:40pm

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

Mr. Judis, Kudos for your article. All told, I view it as a masterpiece.

- YardoKnowsBest

May 21, 2008 at 12:43pm

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

Mr. Judis, Kudos for your article. All told, I view it as a masterpiece.

- YardoKnowsBest

May 21, 2008 at 12:44pm

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

Article mostly wrong - especially on apologizing for war which probably would not have helped in the primaries, would not have mollified the left wing which had their knives out for Hillary from the get go, would not have forestalled accusations of being political since she had been tacking right on military matters for awhile, and finally would have absolutely doomed any general election hopes. So basically your premise is entirely wrong. As a Canadian it has been interesting watching the Democrats self destruct over the war the same way Liberals here did - ie the best candidate lost the nomination because he supported the war and so was punished by the ultra left wing of the party but now they're stuck with a huge case of buyers remorse and a candidate who can't win a general election - and Canada is a left wing country! Anger over the war has blinded democrats to Obama's many flaws and Hillary's many virtues - this article doesn't help.

- Arvn

May 21, 2008 at 12:56pm

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

Isn't it more likely that Hillary won New Hampshire because crossover voters, one of Obama's core constituencies, voted in the GOP primary to defeat Romney? Isn't it odd that white voiters only became an issue when it became obvious that Obama was going to take the nomination that much of the (white) media recoiled in concert with Hillary? As for Hillary's refusal to acknolwedge her mistaken votes: quite true, but, as all of us would know if literature were still taught, character is destiny.

- Miande

May 21, 2008 at 1:04pm

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

WestVirginia is a "midwestern swing state" ? what about: Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Minnesota ? did not Sen. Obama win those states? and white folks live and vote in those states, yes? if facts don't fit your political narrative, maybe you should abandon the narrative rather than the facts ?

- jackson

May 21, 2008 at 1:35pm

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

"Get over it"? What vote did she have as a Senator that could possibly have been more important than the vote on the Iraq war? Compounding it was the Iran vote. By not admitting mistakes, she implicitly said she did the right thing. And, you know what? She didn't and the voters have spoken on that.

- schnell540

May 21, 2008 at 1:36pm

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

Clinton race-baiting did them in. It is inexplicable how they had 40% + of the AA vote and huge national poll leads leading up to to Iowa, but could not maintain at least 25% of the AA vote, which would have probably won her the nomination. AA women were very supportive of HRC before South Carolina. After Bill and Clinton surrogates ran their mouth, that was it. The Clintons could not win Virginia (tailor-made for them)? Come on. And talking about "hard-working white americans" RIGHT BEFORE WA VA and Kentucky wasn't by chance. If you play racial politics in 2008, you'll get burned. This is not 1968. America has come a long way. The old tricks won't work.

- Kevin

May 21, 2008 at 1:40pm

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

Everything and anything could have been forgiven if she had not been perceived as dishonest, disrespectful, selfish, and mean. E.g., "McCain and I have a lifetime of experience, [pause] Barack Obama has a speech."

- Donny

May 21, 2008 at 1:45pm

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

I think that in your analysis, you neglect to consider other factors such as this: Republican interference in the race eg this email and flyer: Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!! On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all! Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House! Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side. After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes. I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!! You think maybe this had something to do with Obama's caucus gains in Texas? This race is very close. I am tired of Obama's supporters moaning on about Clinton's racism. It is far too easy to sistematically smear your political rivals so, by using your surrogates and keeping to the high ground yourself. I am very tired of underhand tactics saying everywhere that she should pull out gracefully. Of course it's much easier for you if your opponent just caves in and gives up. That's what Al Gore did and look where that got the country. I have serious doubts about Obama's team, in particular about Samantha Power. She seems to me (a graduate in Politics, but of an older generation) to be a typical representative of the terrible political science that was taught in college during the eighties. Just another Condee Rice . Much of this mess has been caused by Howard Dean, and his prissy insistence on rules. Did you ever hear of two States arbitrarily being denied the vote in that way. Voters having their votes cancelled in a cutting edge, swing state like Florida. Hillary made a lot of mistakes, for sure, and those were paying too little attention to the caucuses, accepting the DNC's arbitrary maxims, and paying too little attention to what Axelrod was cooking up. That said, neither will win in November unless they form the dream team. Perhaps they could both become a little bit more intelligent and place the good of the nation first. Wake up Howard Dean, what everyone wants is a FAIR fight and a CLEAR result, not a bitter mess because the system is too BACKWARD. They should hold flash primaries in both Michigan and Florida. That should clear the air a bit.

- Laurie Ann

May 21, 2008 at 1:46pm

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

This is the typical bias attitude that caused Clinton to go under. Find way after way to ask the woman to apologize, and capitulate, in a way you'd never ask the man to. (Iraq, race tiptoeing) Why not hold Obama responsible for being the very clever policitian he is "that is your above it all politican." He slyly played that race card so that no one could criticise him. She missed the change with Iraq to critique Obama for his "present" vote and say "he's a typical politician" and "he DID'T vote against the war". Instead you ask her to apologize for her vote? She made mistakes, but you've tilted every issue to be "her fault" for not being the demure "woman" in handling it. There's sexism in here. Loud and clear. It's that same sexism that made it impossible for her to get any traction with the media. Even last night CNN was babbling on about how she should tell voters she doesn't want their vote if they won't vote for a black man. How demeaning is that to go on and on about how she should through votes away. And make this problem HER problem. The women should make peace, fix domestic problems, not run for power. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but this article demonstrates a major problem for women.

- Sheri

May 21, 2008 at 1:47pm

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

Mr. Judis, You lost me in your first paragraph. You lazily repeated the "white working class voter" trope about Obama. It's a geographic problem (Applachia). Please revise or join William Kristol's Lazy and Often Wrong Columnist club.

- stgla

May 21, 2008 at 1:50pm

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

Don't be bitter. Hey, I've got shirt that need ironing...

- Kerwin

May 21, 2008 at 2:00pm

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

she didn't lose for tactical reasons. she lost because she is hillary.

- happy in hanoi

May 21, 2008 at 2:03pm

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

I guess when you are involved in sending 4,000 young Americans to their death an apology is not inconcievable. If Clinton had run a grass-roots campaign without Bill she could have won, but instead she put some retreads on the 92 machine with all it's baggage. The specter of having Bill hanging around the WH is just too creapy.

- aaron

May 21, 2008 at 2:05pm

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

put another way, hillary didn't lose the race. obama won it. and thank god he did, because he has the charisma to triumph a national election, and she doesn't.

- happy in hanoi

May 21, 2008 at 2:08pm

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

This is wrongheaded. Hillary's main error was overconfidence at the beginning and so not planning for a post-Super Tuesday campaign. Once the Obama-rock-star phenomenon became apparent, the MSM chose him and did everything they could to elbow Clinton out of the way. The young Obamamaniacs created big momentum on the internet. Sexist slurs on Hillary were everywhere. Hillary was middle-aged, white, female and cold. Obama was "young," "black" (what happened to his white half?), male and hot. (Racial stereotyping here?) The special "historic" nature of O's candidacy insulated him from criticism and prevented Hillary from even mentioning such egregious O-issues as Jeremiah Wright. She was hamstrung. And now the Democrats are almost stuck with a candidate who is unqualified, racist, elitist, dishonest, and unelectable. Will they get back on track in time or sacrifice the White House to political correctness?

- Jerseygirrl

May 21, 2008 at 2:10pm

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

REASONS HILLARY IS LOSING?? She and her husband are sleazy liars who have no political or ethical principles. They run dirty political campaigns, they try to slime and trash their opponents. They have criminal connections for many years now. They have more investigations and malfeasences than any other couple in Washington. They literally trashed the White House when they left it, and they stole White House property, which they later were made to return. The American public may be somewhat gullible and trusting, but WE ARE NOT THAT DUMB. People eventually recognized that Hillary is all about. THAT'S WHY SHE'S LOST TO OBAMA. SIMPLE AS THAT !!

- Sandra Perkins

May 21, 2008 at 2:12pm

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

Confused by sexism? "Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, not one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon." (Marilyn Frye)

- gaypastor

May 21, 2008 at 2:19pm

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

WHY IS RACE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SEX...AND WHY IS IT CONSIDERED LONGER FOUGHT...WOMEN WON THE VOTE AFTER AA MEN AND THEY STILL MAKE LESS THAN AA MEN WITH THE SAME EDUCATION.

- PJ

May 21, 2008 at 2:20pm

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

I supported Edwards early, then Obama after Edwards dropped out. Hillary lost me when she started negative ads. I keep hoping that our nation can rise above the Karl Rove tactics of divide and conquer, and I see in Obama that he wants that, too. I see in Clinton that she's perfectly happy to pull pages from the Karl Rove playbook when she gets behind. And that's my bottom line - I want an election that focuses on issues, solutions, and progress. If Obama loses, it will be because people are focusing on personality, lies, and innuendo.

- Chredon

May 21, 2008 at 2:21pm

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

I would just like to say that some of the comments here are anti productive, divisive and prejudice…and all of this is coming from people who are supposed to be supporting the agent for change and inclusiveness. I don’t know how your candidate is going to do that, if given the chance and I don’t think you all represent him well, if indeed that is the goal. If all you want is an opportunity to make yourself feel grand by some jr. high display of put downs, then you are making good choices. If you want your candidate to win in November, than you are continually choosing poorly. There are a great deal of patriots who want the best for this country and our children, parents and grandparents who are supporting with all of their heart a different candidate than you. This has nothing to do with you. It is not personal that they disagree with you decision. I remember turning 18 in time to vote for the first time. We were told that we were the 1st generation expected not to live as well as our parents. We were told we look like a third world country and the middle class was disappearing, my friends had been scared they would have to go to war…this was the last Bush administration. I worked hard to get “our agent for change” in office…someone who sounded a good deal like yours, I think anyway. But Mr. Clinton was careful to remind us that there were patriots on both sides of the ideological divide and it did us no good to gloat or loose our respect for fellow Americans who wanted to participate in a process our ancestors had fought hard to be a part of. There are some tremendous patriots working their tail off for Hillary, because they believe they are doing the right thing for their family and country. They have donated when it hurt and sacrificed time with their children to make calls and knock on doors and travel because they love America and they want to fix the issues they are concerned about. I have spoken to a lot of people in SD who want a say and believe they are entitled to vote as the nomination is not secured. These are people supporting both Democratic runners and you are isolating these democrats. Also, I really do believe that if you win, you will loose in November if you keep this up. The belief that a not too experienced democratic candidate can win in November without the Democratic base is silly. Talking trash about Reagan Democrats is ignorant and will do you harm. Bill Clinton would have lost to Bush without them…even with a strong new youth support. I will continue to work for Hillary until it is over and then I may work for the Democratic Nominee. But I will not be part of this silliness. It gives the Democratic Party a bad name. Both Clintons have done great things for our country and that should not be forgotten. The fact that almost all of my favorite presidents had affairs has little to do with the good things they give our country and some believe we were better off not caring about the presidents personal life. Those of you who are actually doing something I congratulate you, and hope you are as inspirited by the effects of your actions as I have been. Good luck and God Bless America. All the best

- pjbardon

May 21, 2008 at 2:26pm

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

An incorrect statement was made regarding the cause of the Civil War. The main cause was not slavery, it was the dispute over any state's right to secede from the Union. President Abraham Lincoln used this cause to abolish slavery, although his initial and continuous goals were to contain it, not to abolish. Get your facts straight!

- Ken

May 21, 2008 at 2:29pm

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

Interesting piece. One might add to this the sexism of the media and its wild-eyed and harebrained support for Obama. You guys in the media are those who regularly go for the candidate with charisma. That's why you always support demagogues over people of real substance - you supported Bush instead of Gore, you complained that Kerry was "wooden" and other such garbage. Invariably your references are pop culture - like now, when you brought Muhammad Ali and Floyd Patterson. The reality is that we have seen this kind of media behavior for years and we will continue to see it: you will ALWAYS go for the demagogue without substance rather than for the candidate with substance. This is who you are: capable of judging the appearance, demeanor and hairdo of a candidate, never his or her proposals. He makes a little joke - oh, how charming! The other candidate makes a proposal? Boring. Her real error? Allowing the press to talk to her or members of her campaign. Campaigning against the press is something she never understood she had to do. The press is the one obsessing about Bill Clinton's adulter rather than about Bush lying in the State of the Union address. You guys are irretrievably stupide and servile to any demagogue. Trying to apppease you, a pack of hyenas was her mistake. When you appease, you cannot complain against the bastards you try appease. Instead, she should have campaigned against you too as the special interest you are. You don't represent anyone but yourself - certainly not the public.

- sleepyavl

May 21, 2008 at 2:34pm

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

You may think race runs deep, and it does, but gender runs even deeper. Until this is acknowledged, none of these analyses matter.

- Linda

May 21, 2008 at 2:42pm

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

When brave Americans die because of a mistake, the words "I'm sorry" are in order. Anything else is just triangulating. I know Clinton may have believed some larger principle, such as "supporting the troops" may have prompted the refusal to apologize, but it seems like pride overruling decency.

- arbite

May 21, 2008 at 2:46pm

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

I have read several pieces on why Clinton's campaign failed and in none of them, including this one was not recorded either intentionally or maybe just an oversight. Her credibility went way down after the Bosnia "Lie". People like myself all over the country were asking themselves, if she'd lie about that, what else would she or has she lied about. Then it became quite widespread that she would do anything and say anything to win. People just don't want a president of that character in the White House, no matter all her other campaign failures, I think this one was detrimental

- Debra Moore

May 21, 2008 at 2:49pm

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

I guess she wasn't ready on day one to run a political campaign.

- Phil

May 21, 2008 at 2:54pm

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

One of the things that turned me off with the Clinton camapign was the display of arrogance accompanied by an almost "divine right" to the nomination. A second one was the display of divisivenessn that seemed to permeate everything that was determined or manufactured as an issue. I do not know whether Obama can pull it off or not, but I could just not see HRC being what is needed in Washington at this moment in time. This article is perceptive and is most telling in the lack of attention that was required to the organization of the campaign. HRC was simply outplayed. Hubrus does that to you sometimes.

- CLG

May 21, 2008 at 2:56pm

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

Hillary thought it was a done deal that she would get the nomination. She ran as an incumbent when she should've been running the race. There was nothing wrong with her attacking Obama-on the issues-we expect that in American campaigning/politics. It's the WAY she did it-she was dirty and lacked class. When you say HE used the race card, that's BS--she used it in the same subtle ways that allow racism to permeate this country. Obama is continually blamed for even being associated with a church where his pastor spoke the truth about America. That's right the TRUTH!! Catholic priests continually looked the other way when sexual abuse was occuring right under their noses...should all those people leave their church? Other ministers in this country have nothing negative to say about the war, racism, or anything else derogatory about the history of this country, right? Wrong. It's the same ol' double standard-what's okay for me is not okay for you. If everyone left their church over what their Pastor has said we, as a country, would never attend church. In the beginning, to be honest, I, a black woman, was NOT on board with Obama. Some people are so small minded they think that we will vote for him just because he's Black; which is not true. We wanted him to prove to us that he could handle the BS that was going to inevitably come with running for President AND prove that he had real solutions to our problems; that's right problems because America is not perfect. But, after the way Hillary showed her true colors (pardon the pun) I realized that maybe she is not the best candidate for the job. It's that simple.

- Donniel

May 21, 2008 at 2:59pm

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

You seem to forget the anchor Ms Clinton pulls with regard to her lack of effectiveness during her husband's tenure, her lies with regard to Vince Foster, overnight commodity riches, lost meeting notes, and her perceived hostility towards people who desire to serve Jesus Christ. Obama comes in clean on these to every primary, and to the general election. The word "change" coming from Ms Clinton's mouth cannot and has not been as believable as the word "change" coming from Obama. When it comes to the issue of electability democrats see the baggage of Ms Clinton compared to the freshness of Obama. - It's the same reason why Ted Kennedy has never been truly viable.

- Chris

May 21, 2008 at 2:59pm

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

It is people such as yourself who put such lies out there to confuse people. He did not give her the finger three times---I was there.

- pro-obama

May 21, 2008 at 3:00pm

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

Hoe I can't believe you just said some dumb sh** like this "VOTE FOR McCAIN". So you are clearly saying you want a third term bush? Hoe go kill yourself.

- Ms. Cocoa Butter

May 21, 2008 at 3:02pm

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

Hellary is DONE...stick a fork in her, and Bill for a side dish. We have had enough lying and sex mentors for a while...

- Al Barrs

May 21, 2008 at 3:09pm

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

Why does Obama want to CHANGE the greatest nation in the history of the world.... 1. A nation that has routinely fought dictators and fascism. 2. A nation that has invented some of the most useful and important devices/gadgets in history 3. A nation that protects muslims after 9/11. Think if 9/11 has been perpetrated in a muslim country by white men. Every white person in that country would have been beheaded. 4. A nation that rushes to the aid of every country hit by a natural disaster any where in the world and gets criticized for not doing enough. 5. A nation that is the least racist among all major nations in the world. Believe me, I am an immigrant American. WHY WOULD BARACK OBAMA WANT TO CHANGE THIS NATION AND TO WHAT? An appeasing, scared, politically correct, crime infested, rapper ruled, drug fueled nation?

- perry

May 21, 2008 at 3:14pm

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

yes, i believe she lost because Democrats were able to discern her true inner character soon after the campaign began - absolutely Machiavellian. she stops at nothing to attain her end. to her all means are fair in a campaign much as in war. having said that, i still believe she stood a much better chance of defeating McCain in November than does Obama. what strategy will Obama adopt? continously harping on the Iraq war may not do the trick.

- Lawan

May 21, 2008 at 3:25pm

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

The long and short of the HRC story is that like a race horse she came out to soon, stayed too long expended her wind and didn't have enough raz mataz to finish. She had become a caricature of herself, and was seen as part of the problem not the solution, notwhithstanding her husband's baggage. Obama was the difference between fresh bananas and rotting ones. The American public needs a new American Idol about every six months and HRC stayed at the ball too long only to find the slipper didn't fit.

- Alan Hoxie

May 21, 2008 at 3:35pm

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

Yes, the comments re: "South Carolina" by Bill and the follow-ups to this event where they failed to genuinely and effectively apologize for the nonsense of South Carolina instead they said that Obama was playing the race card. They insulted the intelligence of many Americans by trying to be very sly, yet stooping to the gutter in their attempts to 'damage' Obama they left all decent people with no choice but to be disgusted by them.

- Plabo

May 21, 2008 at 3:36pm

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

Nonsense. With regards to her vote on Iraq, she should have said that her vote, along with all the others, was based on the belief that the President and his Administration were providing truthful information. Then she should have turned to Obama and asked him why he did NOT vote to go in? It is easy to criticize now that we know the truth but no one outside the administration knew then. I am concerned about what Obama's thought's were. How would he have resolved the issue, with an ice cream social? He is an excellent orator, but it takes more than rhetoric to command the worlds number one super power. Clinton's biggest mistake was not facing this issue head on.

- Just Wondering

May 21, 2008 at 3:36pm

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

It's interesting that the American public is so terrified of having a woman in the White House that they'd rather put a black man in it.

- JGC1010

May 21, 2008 at 3:38pm

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

Clinton's "mistakes" originate from her exposing who she is. Frankly, it's a blessing that she reinforced our thoughts even if most of us already know enough about her to conclude she's not fit to be an elected official...let alone President of the United States. Clinton is an ugly person...and I'm not speaking of her looks.

- tmpt

May 21, 2008 at 3:38pm

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

Kentucky and West Virginia...you'd be hard pressed to distinguish which better defines them...racists...or misogynists... Reinstate Michigan and Florida...and let KY and WV secede...

- tmpt

May 21, 2008 at 3:42pm

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

Posted by BaldingEagle 3 of 86 | warn tnr | respond What nonsense, Judis. Just more navel gazing. Nothing better to write about. My god, get over it. She's said she regretted it. She's said "knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have done it." Short of self-flaggelation, what precisely is an apology? This is pure idiocy. "Isn't this what we've been saying about Obama and Wright, and haven't everyone been saying it's not enough...well neither was it for her on that vote

- amtaylor

May 21, 2008 at 4:07pm

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

I disagree respectfully...gender absolutely does NOT run deeper than race. Not in this country. Much more hate, discrimination and bigotry is generated by the racial divide than is generated by the gender divide. The gender divide isn't clearly tied to the class divide...the racial divide is. It's still glaring, after all these years.

- Emily

May 21, 2008 at 4:08pm

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

Obama is the man to vote for if you value your nation and your families well being. Hillary did not lose be cause she is the best candidate. She lost because she is not the best candidate.She is the problem not the solution she is a republican just like J. Lieberman and she has never in her life voted the peoples side of the bill.She deserves to lose and it is unbelieveable that people are still sending her money and voteing for her in primaries.For you folks that think you are smarter than the Malority and say you will vote for Mcbush are not smart. You are ignorant and deserve what you have been voting on yourselves for the last fourty years. Keep it up and you will find yourself on the outside looking in.You will not find that to be a fun life.Where have you been the last eight years , while the republican's have been killing seniors, children and soldiers for profit and tax breaks?You are not so dumb that you do not know the difference between lying crooks and justice.You have no leg to stand on in your argument because you have cowarded for seven years and never once offered to try and help fix things.Gees, sign up for Iraq and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

- smoke

May 21, 2008 at 4:10pm

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

Also, perry? Who said Obama would change this nation into a place that was 'rapper-ruled' and 'drug-feuled'? Is this based on fact, or based on the fact that he's black? You want to see a true bigot, man, go look in a mirror. You must live in WV...and also be related to that monkey we have in office right now if you think this nation is perfect the way it is. Just because you want something to change for the better doesn't mean you don't think it's great - if anything, you care MORE about it. I'm sick of this distorted view of patriotism that's rampant.

- Emily

May 21, 2008 at 4:13pm

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

I remain amazed by the level of hostility toward HRC and her husband expressed by many of the Obama supporters on the internet. I support Hillary as the better choice for president but I certainly do not see her as perfect. Neither do I see Obama as some kind of evil person. He too is an imperfect candidate but I will campaign for him in November if, as appears likely, he wins the Democratic nomination. Why are you people so hostile to a couple that has committed their lives to being of service the country and its people? This nastiness does not contribute to your candidate's prospects for victory.

- hugo

May 21, 2008 at 4:17pm

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

OBAMA and his supporters can do fine without vote of a Fear Monger like you, and your GOP cronies. Our next president should win office not with votes based on race or ignorance, but because of being the best candidate (that he is!!) for the job.

- CyrsVnc

May 21, 2008 at 4:25pm

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

It's so interesting that the Clinton campaign keeps drawing attention to Obama's supposed weakness among uneducated, working class white voters. A BETTER QUESTION IS: why can't Hillary win educated, or affluent, or black, or young, or male, or independent, or cross-over Republican voters????

- Tom B.

May 21, 2008 at 4:50pm

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

What negative campaigning by Clinton in SC? Do you mean the "I can't afford to actually talk to black people directly but I need their votes so I'll make it look like those racist Clintons are picking on me because I'm black and then black people will wake up and get it like my wife told them to?" That negative, race baiting campaigning?

- johndoe

May 21, 2008 at 4:54pm

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

Dear "John Doe" ... you got it backward. For months now the Clinton's (Hillie and red-nosed, ranting and raving Billie) have been drawing attention to Barack Obama's racial heritage every chance they've gotten. Why? Because they have wanted to create a white, backlash vote AGAINST Obama. Pure and simple. They have known who to aim their remarks toward.... bigoted, uneducated, white LOSERS, who are their base. I am a 60 year old white woman, and I support Barack Obama 100%. I think it's absolutely slimey and sleazy what the Clintons think they can get away with. But voters have had their say. Obama has won... more states, more popular votes, more elected delegates and more superdelegates. There is justice in the world !!!

- HRC - B - GONE

May 21, 2008 at 5:06pm

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

Ken: Your historiography is about 50 years out of date. The Civil War was all about how the slave economy in the south generated a whole series of divergent preferences over tariffs, government intervention in the economy, cultural policy etc. "States rights" is shorthand for "haven't read my Stampp yet." And THAT stuff is basically out of date.

- chichi

May 21, 2008 at 5:49pm

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

JGC1010 expresses an interest: "It's interesting that the American public is so terrified of having a woman in the White House that they'd rather put a black man in it." WTF?!? This is just about as obtuse a statement as I've read anywhere in Talkback. Wow!

- tomeg

May 21, 2008 at 5:53pm

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

I think it was Bill. I can't imagine nobody had the courage to tell him to stop the bullying and finger waving. From the Chris Wallace interview forward they looked like reruns. A vaguely drunk or non compos mentis Bill seemingly on the verge of an actual assault on a smaller, cringing journalist. Don't they know the information is beside the point even if it is spurious?

- Jacknyc

May 21, 2008 at 6:12pm

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

I think it was Bill. I can't imagine nobody had the courage to tell him to stop the bullying and finger waving. From the Chris Wallace interview forward they looked like reruns. A vaguely drunk or non compos mentis Bill seemingly on the verge of an actual assault on a smaller, cringing journalist. Don't they know the information is beside the point even if it is spurious?

- Jacknyc

May 21, 2008 at 6:12pm

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

How about her "obliterate Iran" comments, "misspoken" Bosnia snipe fire? gas tax pandering? She is who she is. Voters just got a real chance to know her real identity in the process.

- leighg1

May 21, 2008 at 6:19pm

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

I think Judis, who I have serious disagreements with sometimes, nails exactly with the fatal words: South Carolina. At that moment we saw a crassness that was petty, callous, destructive and self-serving. We also saw the elephant in the room: Bill Clinton--and all that entails, and whether this could be a co-presidency and hereditary thing, which is against the anti-monarchical American spirit. And it was using the Civil Rights struggle and the dis-spiriting Black leadership (Jesse and Al) to advance their personal ends. Today we see Hillary talking about the DNC depriving people of their Civil Rights, being some kind of evil oppressor trying to steal peoples' votes in Mich and Fla. Today its the DNC getting thrown under the bus. Last week it was "eggheads and experts"(none of those here I'm sure!), the week before that it was evil "San Francisco liberals", and a constant undertone of "Black! He's Black! and throwing the Black community under the bus to get a few white unashamedly racist votes. Until South Carolina, I was a Clinton donor of long-standing--Bill as well as Hill--now they disgust me with their self-serving and destructive little power games.

- sabatia

May 21, 2008 at 6:39pm

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

Until this year I have been an independent. This is the first time in as long as I can remember that there was a candidate I actually wanted to vote for. I registered as a Democrat specifically to support Obama against Clinton. I am glad he is going to win the nomination so I won't have to feel like I'm being asked to choose between Syphilis or Gonorrhea like the last 5 presidential elections. Senator Clinton is a capable and honorable patriot. So is President Bush. They will both rot in hell for similar reasons. GWB used other people's children (my child) to settle his family's vendetta against Saddam and then made up excuses like WMD. Hillary (and other Democrats including Edwards) used other people's children (my child) to give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves and then made excuses that it was only a threat. The Republicans took that rope and have been absolutely amazing at how spectacularly they hanged themselves. But, I have not been able to discern which is worse. Sending other people's children to die to settle a feud or sending other people's children to die to score political points. McCain also voted for the war, but he believed it to be the right thing to do. He was wrong, but his vote was not calculated political maneuvering. His own children are in Iraq. I'm glad that I am not going to be forced to choose between McCain and Clinton. I'm tired of voting for the least worst. GWB took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and has not kept his word. Hillary took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and has not kept her word. My son (and hundreds of thousands of other sons and daughters) took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and have kept their word. I am extremely proud of my son and all the other sons and daughters doing things they would rather not be doing. They deserve better than GWB (who I can't do anything about) and Hillary (who I can). Obama is the only one w/o blood on his hands in this mess and deserves the opportunity to see if he can do better. I will do my best to make sure he gets that opportunity.

- Proud and angry dad

May 21, 2008 at 6:51pm

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

This is a good article but it lacks the clarity of having walked in the shoes of women throughout history. I take exception to your statement: "Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s." If women possessed the violent and warring tendencies of men there most certainly would have been a 'civil war' started by women against men at some point in our history. It is because of the gentler nature of women that no such war has taken place. We prefer the diplomatic avenue. Gender issues are far older and more complicated than race issues and the fact that you blow right past this shows that you truly do not understand the plight of women in America and the world.

- EDC

May 21, 2008 at 7:25pm

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

In-depth analysis of the politics, Mr. Judis. I would add Clinton's negative characterization of Obama's oratory. While millions were being captivated by Obama's idealistic, inspirational speeches, Clinton derided Obama as a big talker who couldn't deliver. Her response missed the mark, and also backfired.

- Thom C

May 21, 2008 at 7:40pm

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

HRC-B-GON, MO started with the wake-up-and-get-it stuff in Nov. Obama camp started whining about racism in Jan before SC. Before Bill Clinton said winning SC didn't mean BO would win. He, BO, certainly did circulate a memo about it. I don't care how old you are, you shouldn't accept everything the spin doctors push. Look it up.

- johndoe

May 21, 2008 at 8:14pm

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

JGC1010: I don't care what race or gender someone is when it comes to voting--I'm voting for the PERSON that I think can do the best job. But Hillary has definitely sewn up the bigot vote in this country.

- PH in Houston

May 21, 2008 at 8:17pm

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

know one scared of having a women as president,but not the clintons. she say and do anything to win this race but to late. Mr Obama is person who u can trust,and another he does have exprience because if he didn't he would not be the democrate runner up

- geno g

May 21, 2008 at 8:51pm

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

I can sum up Hillary's campaign woes in one word...fear. As intelligent, experienced, and charismatic as Hillary is, when she changed tactics in South Carolina she showed a small amount of fear. When you are trying to become the leader of the most powerful country in the world, you can't show fear...at all! I know a lot of people will disagree with my analisis, but I can deal with crappy government. That is nothing new. But I don't want to be afraid that some enemy of our great country will see even the slightest amount of fear and weakness in our leader and feel the need to strike. 9/11...Nuff said.

- deepthought

May 21, 2008 at 9:31pm

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

It's possible that the woman stood on principlel and didn't recant a vote she thought was right. And, in fact, her vote was right. That George Bush did not execute well does not make the invasion wrong. Saddam needed to be removed. Iraq needed to be pacified. History will bear this out. Unless Obama f**ks up history and retreats soon after he gets into office. THAT will be the disaster. And if you think the GOP is paying now for Iraq, wait till you see how the Democrats pay for surrender.

- ChanRobt

May 21, 2008 at 9:38pm

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

At least Hillary didnt walk arm-in-arm with a person for 20 year that had so little respect for our country as to publicly say god- damned America instead of god bless.Also Obama has less than 2 yr.experiance in office of government,And if he thinks he can sit down and have a pow-wow with the likes of Osama bin laden,Chavez or The leaders of Iran then he is not only fooling himself but all the Americans that believe in his New Hope politics. He also says he is all American man,but he doesnt like advertising it to much by wearing our emblem on his lapel.Doesnt have to much to say against muslims killing our all volunteer soldiers that are dying in thier country to offer them a free democracy.I personally dont think he has a very good chance of beating McCain come Nov.to bad all the delegates and super delegates are wasting thier votes backing Mr.Obama trying to repay a debt they feel is owed the Afro-American race for the sins of our Forefathers,This is only my opinion of what is happening.

- chas per

May 22, 2008 at 12:10am

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

"Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s." Sorry, dumba**, but I don't think anyone doubts that men oppressing women goes back to prehistory. You're just wrong.

- NomNomNom

May 22, 2008 at 12:23am

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

"I have been a Democrat all of my life yet I will work hard and write checks to ensure that John McCain is our 44th President of the United States. Call me whatever you want!" ====================================================== How about we call you a Republican?

- hypnosis

May 22, 2008 at 2:17am

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

JGC1010 says: "It's interesting that the American public is so terrified of having a woman in the White House that they'd rather put a black man in it." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but it does seem to be pretty retrograde thinking. Is there some implied hierarchy here? Most of us just want the best candidate. As a woman who is a republican for Obama, I am willing to cross party lines - I don't care about gender or race or any other aspect of identity politics that we tie ourselves up with.

- paltmaie

May 22, 2008 at 2:23am

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

Robert ... "... aware enough to remember that by 2002 we'd already been at war with Iraq for over a decade."?????? Uhhhh Did I MISS this war? Who fought it? You ... by any chance ... were not with Hillary in Bosnia? We've been looking for a witness ... could you be that person???

- Gerald

May 22, 2008 at 4:29am

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

imho, specious logic for your slogan. Firstly, you are basing your perception of Obama based on sound-bites. There is not one single proof to indicate that Obama believes any of the absurd ideas spouted by Wright. Secondly, Obama's approach of listening to all sides will quell any reason for Republicans to go extreme right. As it is, the McCain of 2000 has already shifted hard right to during his campaign. Hence, what is more scary is that a McCain presidency will enable McCain to appoint Justices like the ilk of Alito, who represent extreme far-right views regarding judiciary matters. As it is, the Justices are at a critical balance with Kennedy being a center right viewpoint. Just imagine what the Supreme Court can do if Scanlia became the balance point!!!!

- hektor

May 22, 2008 at 5:17am

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

I have learnt a big lesson which everyon need to learn from H. Clinton. Bickering never help anyone in life especialy in this era where almost everyone is well informed. You don need to disrespect anyone to be respected in fact it works the otherway.

- Tomsanga

May 22, 2008 at 6:18am

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

Just a commemt: "Like her refusal to apologize for the October 2002 war resolution, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman may have stemmed from her ignoring the primary and thinking about the general election, or--as Helene Cooper suggested in The New York Times--it might have been an attempt to win support from "the pro-Israel lobby," which strongly backed the resolution" Well, this may be the case. Hillary may have voted for the Iraq war on purely political grounds. And she may have done the same with Iran. But stepping back, that sort of political calculus is pretty screwed up. This is war, after all, not the colors of balloons at prom. I'm tired of journalists attributing really important measures that politicians takeentirely to politics, and then pretending like its entirely ok.

- Nate

May 22, 2008 at 10:19am

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

Even as a winner, Hillary seems to be grasping on to the past of the Democratic Party. I'd like to hear more from her as the race winds down about what the Dems have done for those women who are threatening to vote for McCain. It's not enough to say, "I'll fight for you." I think she needs to spell out what that means, and why these voters need to vote Democratic in the fall. The last thing we need from the Clintons is a third Bush term.

- politicod

May 22, 2008 at 12:33pm

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

In neither this article nor Michelle Cottle's earlier article is there any mention of the singlemost important omission and failure by Senator Clinton, her husband, or her campaign. She began the campaign on the theme of inevitability, and to a certain extent entitlement, without recognition that she was and is the most polarizing, yet serious, political figure in the country -- perhaps more so than former President Clinton. That polarizing effect is not unique among Republicans (where it is also incredibly energizing) but also exists within the Democratic faithful and even among women. It seems no one was willing to be brutally frank with Senator Clinton and tell her there are a significant number of voters who just didn't like her and a good many who could not be persuaded to do so. Voters already in search of an alternative to Hillary (and Bill) were fertile territory for another equally historic candidate. Early recognition of the negatives instead of an automatic assumption that all was positive could have knocked that inevitability and entitlement chip off her shoulder and helped her see that she had a fight on her hands. As an Obama convert from Edwards and one who has never been a Hillary fan because of her ambition and slash and burn style, I have to give her her due for tenacity and I have to admit that Obama might not have been as successful had he been campaigning in January and February against the Hillary Clinton of April and May.

- ChagoFuentes

May 22, 2008 at 1:03pm

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

The supreme confidence the Clintons had that she would be the nominee, and even the President, has not only cost her that nomination but is also keeping her in the race after she has lost. And this refusal to accept the inevitable is going to perhaps cost her party the best chance to capture the White House they could ever want. The Clinton legacy will be permanently tarnished.

- T Williams

May 22, 2008 at 1:49pm

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

The Clintons are fighters...for themselves and each other only. Not for African Americans, not for gays and lesbians, not for labor, not for universal healthcare. I'm not writing here of proposals and words; I'm writing of fight and follow through. They are willing to damage the Democratic Party on their own behalf (Bill lost both houses of the legislature), but on the issues, they cave in when they are faced with the least bit of resistence. The party deserved better than Bill; Hillary's female supporters deserve better than she.

- Mickey Weinber

May 22, 2008 at 1:50pm

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

And in Obama's two years of experience he has drafted 3 or 4 times as much legislation as clinton in 6 years. Experience does not mean TIME SERVED. It means THINGS ACCOMPLISHED. Hillary has accomplished nothing in the Senate except voting the wrong way. As far as Wright.... Who really cares? We are not casting our vote for his pastor. We are not casting our vote for his dog, cat, mom, dad, or some other imaginary creature you attempt to think up. We are judging him the best choice and casting our vote for him. Please keep making up ridiculous excuses on why he is not fit for president. I will expect the next argument to be along the lines of "He ties his shoes with two loops instead of using the classic "bunny" method so he must be an animal hater"

- TimL

May 22, 2008 at 2:32pm

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

I have been, for so long, variously puzzled, confused, troubled and angry at the blatant "in the bagdom" of so called neutral "journalists" for Senator Obama. You have, in this glorious piece, explained it clearly and I thank you. The journalists, talking heads, DNC and politicians, all neutral, "threw" their support to Obama, because they all saw what we, the voters and Senator Clinton, were all too stupid to see, it was THE HISTORY! How awful of Mrs Clinton to treat Mr. Obama like an ordinary politician, well, she should absolutely be berated, hung out to dry....oh, sorry, you did that already. Now can we talk about the continous barrage of attacks on Gore when all you "threw" your support to Bradley - was that history too?

- Phylise Covard

May 22, 2008 at 3:50pm

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

He just said that journalists threw their support to Obama. Is it a good thing for JOURNALISTS to throw their support to a candidate?

- lillianjane

May 22, 2008 at 5:04pm

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

I think the domestic pro-Israel lobby was caught flat-footed and shocked at how much support Sen. Obama generated. They and the MSM are still pushing the viabilty of Team Clinton though this will most likely result in a scorched earth policy that could potentially provide cover for yet another stolen election for the GOP.

- LanceThruster

May 22, 2008 at 5:47pm

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

I think the domestic pro-Israel lobby was caught flat-footed and shocked at how much support Sen. Obama generated. They and the MSM are still pushing the viabilty of Team Clinton though this will most likely result in a scorched earth policy that could potentially provide cover for yet another stolen election for the GOP.

- LanceThruster

May 22, 2008 at 6:09pm

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

I was amazed to see the post by #48. This is exactly what I was thinking and wanting to write in a NY Times Caucus blog a month ago. We in Canada had an opportunity to choose a substantial new leader for our venerable Liberal Party (Canada's Democratic party). We rejected him because he supported the Kurds in Norther Iraq and therefore supported the invasion of Iraq. He was accused of being "too American" and was a target of the left of our already left-leaning party. In every category he stoodm out as superior - even though he did make some stupid mistakes during the leadership campaign. Did we elcet him Liberal leader. No, instead we chose the guy who came into the race in fifth place. We elected our own Barack Obama and I cannot tell you enough what a terrible mistake that has been. Our "new face, different, reforming" leader has been an unmitigated disaster. Those who voted for him are indeed suffering buyers remorse.Now we will have to wait for his very likely defeat in the national election by the right-wing Conservatives before we can get a new leader in. Word to the wise: think carefully about what you wish for.

- Paul

May 22, 2008 at 6:22pm

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

I don't know where TimL gets his information, but like most Obama supporters, he's full of crap. Instead of getting your information from some Obamablast sent out to fool people like you, try doing some actual research. It's people like John Judis who who exemplify the horrific state of journalism (and I use that word advisedly)today. This piece is horrific, but standard fare from the MSM today.

- ruthinor

May 22, 2008 at 7:32pm

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

If you want to see what real journalism looks like, read this: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052208.shtml

- ruthinor

May 22, 2008 at 8:20pm

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

I would emphasize that the mistake of the campaign was the original 2002 pro-war vote. It was calculated on the assumption (even back then) that she could win the nomination. She didn't want to run against a Republican who would vilify her for an anti war vote. She was always looking to the general and she and her advisors were so inside their own bubble that the prospect of not winning the nomination never entered their mind until the morning they woke up after Super Tuesday. As far as South Carolina, I still don't get it. How could two liberal children of the sixties not see that Bill's comments would not be racially divisive. Not only did she lose her African American constituency, she lost hundreds of thousands of educated white voters like me. When Clinton made his remarks in South Carolina, I had a visceral gut reaction that reminded me of Richard Nixon and George Wallace. And it was over. But how two smart politicians didn't calculate that reaction among their base shall remain the great mystery. It has utterly tarnished her legacy. It caused her to lose. It tarnished Bill Clinton's legacy and I have no doubt that South Carolina gave tens of thousands of blue collar whites the permission they were seeking to vote against Obama, thereby opening up a racial seem that could cause the democrats to lose in what should be a 'slam dunk' year.

- Bruce C

May 22, 2008 at 9:17pm

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

How Not to Win a Primary: 1) Start with a candidate who's already disliked by much of the country, and whose husband was recently President and was impeached. 2) Decide that her "experience" should be the main theme of the campaign, when she had never held a public office until she moved to NY after her husband's presidency to run there, AND when her main contributions have been ruining the health care cause during the 90's and voting for the Iraq War. 3) Transition from "experience" theme to a bizarre right-wing populist campaign based mostly on the idea that a black man should not be elected before a white woman, during which you accuse your rival of plagiarism, cry on the night before the New Hampshire primary, make strange racial comments right before the South Carolina primary (a state with one of the largest black populations), leak a picture of him in African garb from a Senate trip to Africa to the Drudge Report, and then complain about sexism constantly.

- Will

May 22, 2008 at 11:01pm

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

The Daily Howler takes this ridiculous article apart.

- former obamabot

May 22, 2008 at 11:33pm

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

-

May 23, 2008 at 8:34pm

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

I, too, highly recommend the Daily Howler's piece where Bob S omerby criticizes Judis' double standard, inexplicably deeming blacks more important than women when it comes to being first to run for office. The Howler also examines Judis' weird claim that it was ok for McCain and R omney to go negative on each other, while it's not ok for Hillary to go negative on Obama, and it's more permissible for Obama to go negative on Hillary: http://dailyhowler.com/dh052308.shtml

- Andrew

May 23, 2008 at 8:36pm

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

Before 2002, I adored Hillary. I hated when republicans vilified her. But that changed after her vote for Iraq war. Then came her Iran vote. If she had apologized (and repented) to the electorates, whose votes she was seeking, things could have been different. She may have been able to convince people like me that we could trust her, and even like her again. Instead, her being behind a neophyte in a race for nomination that was supposed to be hers to lose, brought out the worst in her. We saw South Carolina and Bosnia. Is her RFK comment an innocent mistake, may be, but I can't say so for sure. Should we chose some one like her to lead us through this very difficult time - I find it very difficult to say yes.

- Robert Smith

May 24, 2008 at 12:55am

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

-

May 24, 2008 at 12:58am

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

Hillary lost simply because she's not a good enough politician - she's tin-eared. The vote for Iraq was evidence of her insensitivity to the people she represents. I remember a bitter cold day in February just before the vote - hundreds of thousands of us marched to protest Bush's war. We all knew it was no good. But Hillary turned around and voted FOR the war. When disappointed constituents showed up at her office, she had them threatened with arrest. And then she refused to apologize. Unforgiveable! All of it. I knew nothing at all about Obama when I voted for him in the New York primary. All I knew is that she was NOT getting my vote, not EVER. We've had our share of jerks running for president on the Democratic ticket, and Hillary looked to be the worst of all. I am so glad she's discredited. I am happy, happy, happy! Ding dong the witch is dead.

- Dennis Quaranta

May 24, 2008 at 2:18am

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

Hillary lost simply because she's not a good enough politician - she's tin-eared. The vote for Iraq was evidence of her insensitivity to the people she represents. I remember a bitter cold day in February just before the vote - hundreds of thousands of us marched to protest Bush's war. We all knew it was no good. But Hillary turned around and voted FOR the war. When disappointed constituents showed up at her office, she had them threatened with arrest. And then she refused to apologize. Unforgiveable! All of it. I knew nothing at all about Obama when I voted for him in the New York primary. All I knew is that she was NOT getting my vote, not EVER. We've had our share of jerks running for president on the Democratic ticket, and Hillary looked to be the worst of all. I am so glad she's discredited. I am happy, happy, happy! Ding dong the witch is dead.

- Dennis Quaranta

May 24, 2008 at 2:19am

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

Obama's weakness comes from the lack of solid ethics as well as his penchant to count on misogyny to carry the day. As this excerpt from Adolph Reed Jr. is Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia's article in 'The Progressive' underscores: Obama's 'compromise speech--a string of well-crafted and coordinated platitudes and hollow images worthy of an SUV commercial, grounded with the reassuring "acknowledgment" of blacks' behavioral inadequacies--has gained him breathing room by holding out a vague promise of racial "reconciliation" that has appealed to centrist liberals ever since Booker T. Washington's comparably eloquent 1895 accommodation to Southern white supremacy. Obama gets credit for "opening a conversation" on race, for "taking the matter on squarely." But he doesn't really speak to what we ought to be doing to address the injustices, past and present, that he mentions. Despite all the babble about Obama's transcendence, Obama persists in portraying black Americans as a stereotypical monolith: blacks feel x; whites feel y. And the trope of black "anger" is a tired chestnut that neither explains nor characterizes political grievances or aspirations. (By the way, Obama's casting Wright's alleged "anger" as generational is entirely consistent with his earlier praise of Ronald Reagan for sensing Americans' desire to undo the "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s.) Because he's tried carefully to say enough of whatever the audiences he's been speaking to at the time want to hear while leaving himself enough space later on to deny his intentions to leave that impression, his record represents precisely the "character" weakness the Republicans have exploited in every Democratic candidate since Dukakis: Another Dem trying to put things over on the American people. Obama's campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction --built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November--that will fall apart under Republican pressure. And then where will we be?' Clearly Obama's followers, keen on vilifying Clinton rather than putting together a cohesive presentation of their guys' virtues, will have put on squarely into a third term Bush-lite. Grownups often make compromises - Obama has depended on the group that gets it's information from YouTube.

- Susan

May 24, 2008 at 5:51pm

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

It does not make sense! If that is the case why is Obama bending backwards to please the Israel Lobby in Florida?

- Samy

May 25, 2008 at 3:50am

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

We need real journalism. Real analysis. Real investigation. Obama is the most corrupt plot in our history. He shipped voters into Iowa. He got money to organize cult like cells in all States from corrupting mutual funds and oversees Rezko linked sources. Where did we hear it from Judis?

- s3000

June 2, 2008 at 8:15pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close