Hillary Clinton: won some battles, but lost the war

[Grimmlok]

Okay, read one more analysis of the current state of play in the Democratic nomination process. This one is from Charlie Cook, who is pretty much the sage for conventional wisdom -- in more of a measured, thoughtful, research-driven and fact-based way than say, Mark Halperin or the other hysterical pundits. When Charlie Cook speaks, a lot of people listen and learn:

The good news for Hillary Rodham Clinton is that she’s winning a lot of battles. The bad news is that the war is pretty much lost. Sure, she won Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary by a strong 9 points in the face of being outspent on television ads by Barack Obama 2-to-1. She also won Ohio, Rhode Island, and at least the primary part of the bizarre “Texas two-step” primary-and-caucus combination on March 4. But today, she is 133 delegates behind Obama, 1,728 to 1,595, according to NBC News. At this point last week, she trailed by 136 delegates. Since then Clinton has scored a net gain of 10 delegates in Pennsylvania, according to NBC, but has lost a few more superdelegates, so she has made little headway.

If this contest were still at the point where momentum, symbolism, and reading tea leaves mattered, Clinton would be in pretty good shape. Everything she has needed to happen is happening now. Obama is getting tougher press coverage and critical examination. He’s also getting rattled a bit, and he didn’t perform well in the recent debate in Philadelphia. Clinton is winning in big, important places, but it’s happening about three months too late.

At the end of the day, the popular vote for the Democratic nomination means nothing. I doubt that having won the popular vote in the 2000 general election is of much solace to Al Gore. Many a football team gains more yards than its opponent in a game yet loses on that important technicality called points.


Also, this paragraph says so much:


But you can’t change how the game is played once it has begun. The Democrats have decided that the nominee will be determined by the number of delegates won, not by the popular vote, and that primaries held in direct violation of party rules (in this case, Florida’s and Michigan’s) don’t count. [End of discussion.


Yes. So, let's end this discussion.

AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

for realz

[Sasha]

I said it in another thread: Hillary is trying to mortally wound Obama so he loses in the general. That way, she can come back and run in 2012. She doesn't care about the country, the party, or, apparently her and Bill's reputation. All that matters to her is getting into the WH by any means necessary.

[louiswinthorpe111]

^^Agreed.

[ingi]

too little, too late for Hilly!

[january]

We all know this. Hillary is at this point, working on damaging Obama's reputation as much as possible. This is the WORST thing for the Democratic party. If she truly cared about her party, she would have realized this long ago. She is staying in this solely for EGO and PRIDE. I think that she may singlehandedly be the reason why McCain will win come November. The more they put all of their negative focus on Obama, the more McCain is pulling free. The Democratic party is, essentially, shooting themselves in the foot. Is it more important to them that only Hillary wins or a Republican, not Obama? Why aren't they trying to garner support for their front-runner who will inevitably clinch the nomination? Why kill of your chances of a Democrat come November? And all of these dipshits talking about how Hillary "won big" in PA - look at the numbers!!! This is ridiculous.

[LastLook]

I think you guys have it wrong. To me, Hillary isn't just trying to bring Obama down come hell or high water. She's trying to make sure a democrat wins in November. She knows he can't do that. She thinks she can. Everyone has been trying to sell not only his inevitability as the nominee but the inevitability of her downfall for months and technically the nomination is still up in the air. People need to stop buying the media's bias and realize this.

[january]

I'm not buying into the media's bias at all. I'm looking at cold hard facts, which are the numbers. I don't care if Hillary THINKS Obama can't win. Its a democracy, and obviously many others think that he can in their own party. She doesn't have the numbers and she's damaging her own party because, as you say, she THINKS that she is the only one who can win come November. Yet she continues to damage his reputation, pretty much guaranteeing a Republican will win come November. So in other words, since she doesn't think he can win, she's pretty much going to make sure he doesn't. Seems pretty smart to me. If the Democrats had thrown all their weight behind Obama at this point, they would be gaining in strength and momentum. As it stands now, they've shot themselves in the foot.

[LastLook]

There's another thing about this that I don't get: if Hillary were out of the picture, what would be happening then? Would it be a free ride to the White House for Obama? What would the republicans be doing? Do you not think he would be under scrutiny right now, regardless?

Hillary is not, and cannot always be, responsible for this man's problems. She's a handy, tailor-made scapegoat. People readily accept it, probably because words like "selfish", "ruthless" and "ambitious" apparently poll well in focus groups as words that resonate when it comes to her thanks to heavily loaded media coverage.

If you pay attention, Obama complains that Hillary is negative but he has run a negative campaign as well. People are just more willing to accept HRC as a negative person.

[Grimmlok]

Obama has not even responded with any negativity to all her attacks. He also doesn't stump for MCCain like she does.

All he does is basically shrug it off, point out how ridiculous she's being and forget about it.

People accept HRC as a negative person because her campaign has been nothing BUT negativity. That's just a fact.

[LastLook]

Obama has been negative. He's just slicker about it in the wording he chooses, and people are more forgiving of him in general. His tone was often negative toward HRC in their last debate, which was interesting considering he ended up blaming much of it on Clinton. If you listen to any of his stump speeches he gets in snide remarks, then plays them off. He's a politician. And HRC's campaign has been far more than negativity. But you wouldn't know that from the media.

No matter how you slice it she has won the big swing states that will matter in the general election. The superdelegates can't ignore that. This thing is really not over.

[Grimmlok]

Yes it is. She can't win. The math is the math. Period.

What's not over is her campaigning for McCain, that'll continue till she's finally told to piss off.

[Sasha]

What's not over is her campaigning for McCain, that'll continue till she's finally told to piss off.

It's all part of her evil plot to make sure Obama can't win, and none of the party hacks will tell her to piss off because the Clinton's are notoriously vindictive. And I used to love Bill.

[sluce]

I think it is bullshit that she is trying to damage him so he will lose. She has treated him with kid gloves compared to what he will face against the republicans. The popular vote with Florida and Michigan show there is great interest in her campaign. Pbama has failed to close the deal by not being able to win the big states and primaries vs. caucauses. I do believe he will get the nomination and will support him fully. However, I also support her right to continue her fight since she does have a lot of support behind her.

[witchcurlgirl]

She really looms like a superhero's evil nemesis in the minds of some people. It's hilarious.

Pundits offer insights into her innermost thoughts, as if they had some special insight......She will stop at nothing, she wants to ruin his chances, blah, blah , blah....

Meanwhile, they ascribe the most noble motives to her opponent.....he's motivated by his heart, he's not interested in the power aspects, blah, blah, blah....

It's so transparent.....

Politicians are all motivated by the same things....no one has purer motives than another...

[ManxMouse]

Hillary would make a much better Pres. than Obama.