The day Hillary Clinton knew she had lost

[ingi]

Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was back in Michigan, a full two months after its "primary," pleading with the state legislature to allow a revote in the state. As she stood in downtown Detroit, it was becoming increasingly clear that there would be no do-over and she looked for the first time as if she realized she had lost, in that typically defiant "I'll-drag-you-all-down-with-me" Clinton way. After all, she had staked whatever little she had left on a revote in a state in which fully 40% of the Democratic voters showed up on a cold January day to vote Uncommitted (ie, anyone but Clinton, the only name on the ballot), in which the most recent public polling shows her in a dead heat with Barack Obama, and where she had firmly backed the "disenfranchisement" she was now decrying. And even this slender straw of a revote was denied her: the extent of the despair is plain.
Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee because she will not be able to erase Obama's delegate lead. And she will not be able to gain enough delegates because Democratic primary voters nationwide have decided that they prefer Obama as their candidate in the general election. It isn't more complicated than that, despite the Clintons' grotesque attempts at changing the rules, masking the truth and comfortably living up to their reputation for lacking trustworthiness.

• Email
• Print
• omments

Even in the worst week of his campaign, Obama has actually increased his lead over Clinton in national polls, according to Real Clear Politics, the standard in the matter. There are states in which the Clintons' relentless baiting of race, gender and, now, patriotism has taken its toll, at least in the short term: Ohio and Missouri, for instance, are less likely to vote for Obama now than they were a couple of weeks ago. It won't be clear until November if this is a short-term effect, or a more in depth problem; either way, that is the Clintons' legacy, once again: making it harder for Democrats other than themselves to gain power, whether in the Congress in the 1990s, or in this year's presidential election. There are other states in which Clinton's assault has made no difference whatsoever, or even hurt her more than him: in California and in New York, for instance, where in the latter Obama now leads McCain by a larger margin than she does (despite the fact she is a Senator from the state).
Since February 5, 62 superdelegates have endorsed Obama, and only a handful have endorsed Clinton (more have switched to him than have newly endorsed her): it's safe to say that superdelegates are not the path to victory for Clinton, despite her campaign's best efforts to spook them with the specter of GOP religious and racial warfare against Obama in November.
Despite a core group of financial backers who stepped in to try to buy a Michigan revote, Clinton cannot be rolling in cash right now and she is weeks away from her likely next victory, in Pennsylvania, the only event that could prompt any significant money bump. Any day now, she may have to reach into her family's deepening pockets, probably right around the time when they are set to release their presumably cloudy tax returns. It all feels very moot.
In retrospect, it is amazing that New Hampshire, which Clinton won by one of the narrowest margins of any state in this year's primaries, was the highlight of her campaign. Certainly it was an improvement on her dismal third place in Iowa, but after Jan 8, it was downhill, with a trouncing in South Carolina and the 21 other states that Obama won by 20+% margins. That she has been able to stay in the race at all is a testament to the power of the Clinton name, the Democratic Party's ludicrous electoral system, and her hold over a petrified media and the party's bureaucratic elite.
Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama this week was more than another blow, as he ignored his history with the Clintons, as well as reminders of past favors owed. How long before John Edwards, Al Gore, et al, follow suit, or risk being blamed for the further disintegration of the party they owe so much to? Nancy Pelosi has all but thrown her lot in with Obama, but a formal endorsement would be appropriate at this time.

Not being a politician, let alone a Clinton, it's hard to see what makes her stay in the race at this point. She appears somewhat less willing than her husband to alienate entire segments of the party, including many of the Congressional colleagues whose collegiality and support she will need soon enough. Perhaps like Bill, though, she has something to prove to her spouse: he needs to show he cares, and she needs to show that she can win. But shouldn't that be something for them to work out alone, without the future of the Democratic Party, of the U.S. government, and of the country itself at stake? Paul Jenkins: The Day Hillary Clinton Knew She Had Lost - Politics on The Huffington Post

[ingi]

On today's Meet The Press, Peggy Noonan got ears burning when she suggested that there was some matter of dissension in the ranks of the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton is "surrounded by people who would adore the chance to be for Obama." She added, mysteriously, "One of her top aides, who kind of privately makes it clear that he knows that he himself is an insurgent character and that it would be wonderful to be a part of Obama's insurgency but that he is backing Ms. Clinton."

Noonan otherwise made her animus for the Clinton's fairly readily apparent, which was just one of the factors that made me think she was worth dismissing. Others included the fact that last week, Clinton's surrogates weren't working the Reverend Wright angle particularly hard - Charles Schumer and Nita Lowey both backed off of hammering Obama on his association with Wright. Additionally, Clinton's position in the race for the nomination - while obviously hampered by the math - is nevertheless very strong where perceptions are concerned: she's had a pretty good couple of weeks (outside of perhaps the whole Bosnia matter) and is well-poised for a win in Pennsylvania, which is sure to give her some momentum. Additionally, and perhaps critically, the superdelegate flood to Obama has, in the past fortnight, subsided.

On Chris Matthews' show, panelists Norah O'Donnell, Clarence Page, and Elisabeth Bumiller all basically agreed that Clinton was nowhere near the point where she'd be thinking about leaving the race. But there was one outlier: New York Magazine's John Heilemann, who echoed some of the things Noonan would say on Meet The Press:

HEILEMANN: I think that one thing that's happening internally is that some of her top people are starting to say to her, "We won't stick with you. We won't keep working for this campaign if it's going to destroy Barack Obama." She's starting to hear that from her people and she's starting to kind of see it.

MATTHEWS: How do you know that?

HEILEMANN: How do I know that? Reporting.
Heilemann, Like Noonan, Suggests That Clinton Camp May Be Fracturing - Politics on The Huffington Post

[LastLook]

it was becoming increasingly clear that there would be no do-over and she looked for the first time as if she realized she had lost, in that typically defiant "I'll-drag-you-all-down-with-me" Clinton way.

This piece lost all credibility right there. It's full of emotionally-charged words and not-even-thinly-veiled bitterness, which actually smacks a bit of fear.

I find this last bit particularly striking:

he needs to show he cares, and she needs to show that she can win. But shouldn't that be something for them to work out alone, without the future of the Democratic Party, of the U.S. government, and of the country itself at stake?

Since when did Clinton-haters become psycho-analysts? And moreover, since when did they begin to care so much about the so-called "unity" of the country? To imply that one woman has the power to rip apart not only a political party, but damn near tear apart a nation as well just by having the nerve not to give in when someone else decides she should, or puts her under pressure...well, if that's not a testament to her leadership and resolve, I really don't know what is.

(Hopefully I needn't point out the testament to the media's bent for hyperbole, as well).

As for the other article, politicians jump on bandwagons, it's how they survive. Most of them do whatever polls tell them to do, unfortunately. Politics is a lonely, empty business in the end.

[Allie]

I'm fairly certain this woman is Hitler's love-child. I'll withhold any harsher opinions (although where do you go from there?). I'm glad she's not going to win, but I don't really care who wins at this point. It's turned into a high school melodrama IMO.

[witchcurlgirl]

"On today's Meet The Press, Peggy Noonan got ears burning when she suggested that there was some matter of dissension in the ranks of the Clinton campaign"

This would be Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan and Bush speechwriter and apperatchik, correct?

As to the first article, I think a lot of people fail to see that about 1/2 the democratic voters have voted for and support HRC. It's clearly there in the first paragraph where she shows to be in a "dead heat" with BO in polling. If people who support BO choose to ignore that fact then perhaps they should stop accusing HRC of dividing the party. Does anyone understand the meaning of hypocrisy?

[purewine]

She's been accused of damaging the Dem party more for her "kitchen sink" strategy than anything else. Everything I've read indicates Hillary catch up in the pledged delegates. Obama is now 171 pledged delegates ahead. She'll stay in for now (her husband didn't shore up the nomination until June), but she really needs to clean up her act.

[Calimoonchild]

Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl

As to the first article, I think a lot of people fail to see that about 1/2 the democratic voters have voted for and support HRC. It's clearly there in the first paragraph where she shows to be in a "dead heat" with BO in polling.

In polling perhaps. But thats not what the votes reflect. Out of 40 contests, Obama has won 28 states, tied with Hillary on 3. She's only won 9 states. That's not 50% or 1/2 of voters by anyone's count.

[MrsMarsters]

I find it hard to believe that 50% of democrats support her, from my understanding, it was a low percentage.

[sluce]

The number of states won is very different from the popular vote. They are very close there. Had states all had primary elections instead of caucases things may be very different. I am glad my states has a primary election. I would not be able to get to a caucas at night and stand around and argue for hours. That process eliminates many voices from being heard.

[kingcap72]

Hillary isn't going to drop out because she still has a slight superdelegate lead. But if Obama keeps his delegate lead and continues to siphon off those superdelegates from Hillary, and she loses that slight lead, then she has no choice but to drop out. Because, at that point, Obama will essentially become the nominee.

[purewine]

At caucuses, although it can take several hours, you don't spend the whole time arguing. In fact, at my caucus (I'm in Texas) there was no "arguing" (convincing others to support your candidate) since both sides met the threshold. There was a lot of waiting around though.

Hillary didn't have a problem with caucuses or the allocation of delegates when her husband ran, but now allofasudden it's undemocratic and unfair. I'm getting sick of that whiny talking point.

Looking back over the article again, the poll in which they are in a dead heat was for Michigan (if they had had a re-vote). The latest national polls show Obama at 46% and Clinton at 43.7%. (source: RealClearPolitics - Polls)

[pacific breeze]

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. Period.

[Grimmlok]

or until the rules get changed and the fat lady turns into some dude off the street holding a Hillary sign.

[kingcap72]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

or until the rules get changed and the fat lady turns into some dude off the street holding a Hillary sign.

[SSDiva]

Originally Posted by pacific breeze

It ain't over until the fat lady sings. Period.

YouTube Video

Is this fat lady good enough ..