The morning after Tuesday’s primaries, Hillary Clinton’s campaign released a memo titled “The Path to the Presidency.” I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain--i.e., “Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done”--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.
The reason it doesn’t say is that Clinton’s path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn’t going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton’s Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn’t going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama’s. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama’s general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim (“not as far as I know”), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
Clinton’s justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election—if he can’t handle her attacks, he’ll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, “Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy.” So Clinton’s offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring--or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012—that she would destroy Obama’s chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.
Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton’s trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he’d endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one’s own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He’s inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly’s Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama’s the nominee, he won’t have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain’s message every day.
Second, Obama can’t “test” Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it’s more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can’t associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.
What’s more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won’t exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton’s claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn’t qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won’t quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn’t be so reluctant.
Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim’s popularity drops farther than the perpetrator’s, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn’t work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.
Clinton’s path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama’s elected delegates might break off and support her. I don’t think she’d be in a position to defeat Hitler’s dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn’t necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton’s kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn’t create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush’s chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (382)
Great article. In particular, I like how you point out that the makeup of the Democratic primary electorate artificially protectes Hillary by shielding her from the criticisms she will face in a general election. Chief amongst these is the "experience" issue. She has legitimized it as the determinative factor in selecting a President, and even now, when no one has really gone after her, I can't think of any realistic person who would suggest that her experience trumps McCains. Now imagine once people start going after her for her disingenuous approach to her White House years. She wasn't the one who had to make the tough decisions in a crisis - Her husband was. That ability doesn't jus ... view full comment
Great article. In particular, I like how you point out that the makeup of the Democratic primary electorate artificially protectes Hillary by shielding her from the criticisms she will face in a general election. Chief amongst these is the "experience" issue. She has legitimized it as the determinative factor in selecting a President, and even now, when no one has really gone after her, I can't think of any realistic person who would suggest that her experience trumps McCains. Now imagine once people start going after her for her disingenuous approach to her White House years. She wasn't the one who had to make the tough decisions in a crisis - Her husband was. That ability doesn't just transfer itself to her by osmosis. Plus, (a) there were apparently a lot of things going on in the Oval Office, at 3:00 a.m. and otherwise, that Hillary knew nothing about, and (b) she can't have it both ways, and as it stands every foreign policy blunder the Clinton administration made can now be hung around her neck. Obama hasn't made all these arguments, for the reasons your article points out, but believe me, Republicans will certainly be making them in the general election.
Brilliant. I hope everybody in the party reads it.
Brilliant. I hope everybody in the party reads it.
Obama has unwittingly doomed us all. He was supposed to slay Clinton by now. But she survives, and now the civil war will destroy the Democratic party. Loyal Democrats will continue to support Clinton, we'll never forgive Obama for splitting our party. It is Obama who has proved to be the divisive and polarizing figure. Even if he wins now, he'll be damaged goods by the time he meets McCain.
Obama has unwittingly doomed us all. He was supposed to slay Clinton by now. But she survives, and now the civil war will destroy the Democratic party. Loyal Democrats will continue to support Clinton, we'll never forgive Obama for splitting our party. It is Obama who has proved to be the divisive and polarizing figure. Even if he wins now, he'll be damaged goods by the time he meets McCain.
I agree with all you said. One more thing: If Hillary wins this by cheating and rough tactics, then a very large number of democrats will not vote for her. They may or may not vote for McCain but they will sit out the election. On the other hand, if she had done things fairly, these people would have voted for her. I used to be a big fan of her but I am completely disillusioned by her activities. I hear many of my friends talking that way. WOuld you be able to take an Internet poll about this issue?
Thanks!
I agree with all you said. One more thing: If Hillary wins this by cheating and rough tactics, then a very large number of democrats will not vote for her. They may or may not vote for McCain but they will sit out the election. On the other hand, if she had done things fairly, these people would have voted for her. I used to be a big fan of her but I am completely disillusioned by her activities. I hear many of my friends talking that way. WOuld you be able to take an Internet poll about this issue?
Thanks!
This was a welcome respite from the generally insane coverage of this primary race. Thank you!
This was a welcome respite from the generally insane coverage of this primary race. Thank you!
Apparently the lefties can cry and lose. Kennedy was a sore, a really sore loser in 1980. He pouted and he sulked and could not muster 30 seconds of being gracious. Only the Democrats could figure out how to lose in 2008!!! Obama will win but there will be an electoral landslide for McCain. So much of the upcoming leader. The loss will make sure he is never in a position to challenge again. How stupid can you get?
Apparently the lefties can cry and lose. Kennedy was a sore, a really sore loser in 1980. He pouted and he sulked and could not muster 30 seconds of being gracious. Only the Democrats could figure out how to lose in 2008!!! Obama will win but there will be an electoral landslide for McCain. So much of the upcoming leader. The loss will make sure he is never in a position to challenge again. How stupid can you get?
A brave,truthful column.
A brave,truthful column.
If it is true that Hillary did not have security clearance while in the White House, how does she get away with pretending that she is more qualified to be commander in chief and not be reminded again and again of this stark reality? What crisis event tested her mettle? I think we have a case of resume-padding here which is no great surprise given the naked ambition and recklessness of the Clintons as exemplified in Monica-gate, Whitewater-gate and cattlefutures-gate!
If it is true that Hillary did not have security clearance while in the White House, how does she get away with pretending that she is more qualified to be commander in chief and not be reminded again and again of this stark reality? What crisis event tested her mettle? I think we have a case of resume-padding here which is no great surprise given the naked ambition and recklessness of the Clintons as exemplified in Monica-gate, Whitewater-gate and cattlefutures-gate!
The only way to sort through this fiasco of the Democrats is Clinton as VP. I personally am glad that Clinton is attacking him because it puts everything out there so McCain wont be able to bring out new talking points, regarding in less media spins in the general election against Obama, while Bill and Hillary draw distinctions to McCain and his Bush policies.
The only way to sort through this fiasco of the Democrats is Clinton as VP. I personally am glad that Clinton is attacking him because it puts everything out there so McCain wont be able to bring out new talking points, regarding in less media spins in the general election against Obama, while Bill and Hillary draw distinctions to McCain and his Bush policies.
Hillary's path to the nomination is very clear. First and foremost she must continue the race and win the popular vote going into the convention. This will give her an edge with the Super delegates to argue that they should vote for her both because she is the most electable and because it is the will of the democratic voters. Next, she must continue to vet Obama at every opportunity. Up until recently he has been given a free pass. Obama is a lying politican like most. Examples abound: At the AFL CIO convention he says he is for single payer, in the debates he claimed NEVER to be for single payer; He claimed in the debates to only have worked four hours for his indicted patron Tony Rezck ... view full comment
Hillary's path to the nomination is very clear. First and foremost she must continue the race and win the popular vote going into the convention. This will give her an edge with the Super delegates to argue that they should vote for her both because she is the most electable and because it is the will of the democratic voters. Next, she must continue to vet Obama at every opportunity. Up until recently he has been given a free pass. Obama is a lying politican like most. Examples abound: At the AFL CIO convention he says he is for single payer, in the debates he claimed NEVER to be for single payer; He claimed in the debates to only have worked four hours for his indicted patron Tony Rezcko, but he purchased land adjacent to his house for the Rezcko's and has been unresponsive to media questions about his involvement with them. While portraying himself as the politics of new hope and change, vetting him portrays him as a politician on the fringes of corruption. Let the games begin and let the voters decide at the convention.
Beautiful article. It is very pleasant to see the light thru so much [news] darkenss...
Beautiful article. It is very pleasant to see the light thru so much [news] darkenss...
As a Canadian and a global citizen, I rather hope Mrs. Clinton succeeds in her attack on Mr. Obama. The self-immolation of America's international image in the Bush years has entirely rebalanced the axes of global power. India and China are rampant, Russia re-emerges, Brazil is beginning to make a mark on the global stage, and of course the European Union is once again the beacon of pluralism and prosperity in the western world.
For this rebalancing to continue, and to abet the development of a multi-polar world, it is necessary that the American self-immolation continue for at least four more years.
By destroying Mr. Obama, and thus handing Mr. McCain the easiest of victories in t ... view full comment
As a Canadian and a global citizen, I rather hope Mrs. Clinton succeeds in her attack on Mr. Obama. The self-immolation of America's international image in the Bush years has entirely rebalanced the axes of global power. India and China are rampant, Russia re-emerges, Brazil is beginning to make a mark on the global stage, and of course the European Union is once again the beacon of pluralism and prosperity in the western world.
For this rebalancing to continue, and to abet the development of a multi-polar world, it is necessary that the American self-immolation continue for at least four more years.
By destroying Mr. Obama, and thus handing Mr. McCain the easiest of victories in the November presidential election, Mrs. Clinton will do her best to ensure that the destruction of American prestige, power and influence continues in the sands of Iraq amid Mr. McCain's plans for a century-long occupation.
However, that is a selfish thought, because one does not want to see one's American neighbours and cousins suffer ignominy for another presidential term.
The revived idealist in me fervently hopes that Mrs. Clinton's calculations, so bereft of ethics and morality, and her unctuous cohort of reptilian agents (Ickes, Penn, Wolfson and the like)fail utterly in dragging Mr. Obama into the mire.
Mr. Obama rekindles the light extinguished by Dr. King's assassination, and the world needs him more urgently than another half decade of American self-destruction.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Cry some more, you leftist shill.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Cry some more, you leftist shill.
Hillary has realized that she can't make it to the White House in 2008.
So she is going to help McCain get into the White House. He is
old--and therefore a one term president and she will then run in 2012.
She wins in 2012 (what the heck she can wait 4 years). McCain gets to
clean up after GWB or fail in Iraq for another 4 years and then
Clinton runs as the 'change' candidate in 2012.
Obama evaporates, unfortunately.
Hillary has realized that she can't make it to the White House in 2008.
So she is going to help McCain get into the White House. He is
old--and therefore a one term president and she will then run in 2012.
She wins in 2012 (what the heck she can wait 4 years). McCain gets to
clean up after GWB or fail in Iraq for another 4 years and then
Clinton runs as the 'change' candidate in 2012.
Obama evaporates, unfortunately.
Polls reflected the affect of the clinton's fear mongering and I must say timely divulging of pictures and new news. They were neck and neck in the polls until Fear was used. She is playing on the less educated mindset, Therefore, uneducated people vote according to "what my mom or sister say do" or what their friends say do. Obama won Texas!!!!!, why don't people understand that, wow, yes he did indeed LOOSE by 99,000 popular votes which is a high number, however not that high when over 2.75 million people vote (please keep in mind this is a state with a heavy inundation of illegal immigrants even from 3-4 generations ago who now have passes to vote because theyve been naturalized by long ... view full comment
Polls reflected the affect of the clinton's fear mongering and I must say timely divulging of pictures and new news. They were neck and neck in the polls until Fear was used. She is playing on the less educated mindset, Therefore, uneducated people vote according to "what my mom or sister say do" or what their friends say do. Obama won Texas!!!!!, why don't people understand that, wow, yes he did indeed LOOSE by 99,000 popular votes which is a high number, however not that high when over 2.75 million people vote (please keep in mind this is a state with a heavy inundation of illegal immigrants even from 3-4 generations ago who now have passes to vote because theyve been naturalized by longevity of residence or by the mere fact that they were born on "our" soil) NAFTA helped Mexicans, if not catapulted them...whats your take on that? If being here so long then attributes them to being american then why are they referred to as mexican? aa....ma?... hmmmm, if a colored candidated in-forced that deal, who do you think they'd support then?.
If Clinton supporters were so passionate and adamant about getting her elected they would have caucused for her knowing how important the caucus is in allocating 67 delegates which amount to 100,000 people each. DUH! Obama won the caucus by double digits. This is a part of the Texas voting system and cannot all of a sudden be thrown away today, because its confusing...Texans had a whole month to prepare for caucusing, knowing how important it was, if they messed it up thats their problem. Americans have a huge problem with procrastination. Don't blame it on the system, blame it on your moral actions.
My whole point is that race, I don't believe is an issue, but FEAR is. Of course poor white people will be afraid if they think they'll be disenfranchised by a President of any color or ethnic group, if you have no education, how do you know that there's is yet opportunity and not complacency? With education comes intelligence and wealth (not just monetarily) and with all of those virtues you become astonishingly less Fearful............ (point) This is where institutional preconceptions and misconceptions come into play, and will not be erased until the baby boomer generation's negative influences on their juniors are slowly dwindled away by their passing and humility to age. Keep in mind that people of tomorrow are part of generation X and generation Y, We, yes I said we, will be the leaders of tomorrow, most of us will have to take care of someone in 8 years from now DOES AMERICA THINK ABOUT THAT!, we all have beloved elders. This country is ready to MOVE on from the past, please believe that in your heart and not spew hate, through institutions.
Look at what Obama represents: youth 46, mixed heritage, (of the two dominate racial institutions of America). a like abroad and at home. Highly educated and yes he is still honest and likable. How can we say he has no experience, he's won 13 million votes! this is history being written in front of us, right in our faces. The human mind can barely think up to 100. (Try it, try it right now, think of a sea of 100 people and change to a hundred thousand people, now count them and remember your count.... impossible) He already inhabits one of the most highly "elected" official offices in the world. He's a United States Senator, that's something we should all be proud of as he and many others represent our country in congress; I mean, if you have any patriotism. Can you, become senator or president some day, would you be able to write the task? This is extremly difficult for any candidate right now considering the current way of the world. Would you be able to run a campaign? There's obvious experience DUH!, you don't get on the winning team unless you've practiced. They've all practiced, Hillary, John, Barack...that's why they are where they are now.....They all have "experience" they all have closets and skeletons, none would have made it thus far being malignantly corrupt, well I could think of one person but....
Anyway I hope the young people think about this and get out and vote, a lot of us in generation Y and the upcoming Ipod generation really harbor no institutions, and will embark on our late 20’s and early 30’s in the next 8 years… (baby boomer….. y.o.b ….40-60, gen_ x 55-80, gen_ y 79-91, ipod_gen 90-00+)
A black person does not hate Hillary, if you were black you would understand, as vague and ambiguous as that sounds, but it’s the truth. The media can try to tell us how white voters think or how black voters think, most who cast their opinions about how one race group thinks opposed to the other is –media wise- normally older and White and primarily has no relation to speak on such things. Way more research on both ethnic groups would provide answers. A black person didn’t leak “is he black enough” , white media insiders did, because he’s not old like Al or Jesse. Any person of color, can see he’s certainly not fuscia? The media has honestly made a joke of this whole nomination, laughing at Hillary and Barack and John. Can America see past the media, PLEASE!!!!
Why do you think MI and FL were moved up? Hmmm to give Hillary the nom immediately. If you’ve been following this since Dec. 06 you’d know what I’m talking about, There’ve already been backroom deals way before Sup Tues, almost a year before Sup. Tues, DUH!, they knew, moving huge states up, like even California would seemingly ensure a “win” for Clinton. Dems ***ckd up. Didn’t work. Now everybody see’s Barack, everybody gets to know him…., I believe had California, MI and FL stayed in their respective places, he’d have way more delegates to boot this hoe out of the dirt and weeds. You cannot count FLA and MICH, not right now at least, his name wasn’t on the MI ballot and neither of them rallied or campained in either state, to give the voters their just opportunity to meet, greet and decide. Those states contests would have to be done over, and the FED government should pay, for their states weak decisions. Both need new primaries in May to not disenfranchise voters. And a huge part of the American electorate.
Hillary is not lickable, she is a great candidate and “can” do the job but will not win the support of the nation as a whole and democrats and anyone with a subtle mind know that. Barack Obama bridges the gap and gets us to thinking…and wanting to get informed.
I must say he must do more in the coming weeks, to show his adoration of this country and his supporters. He must also become way more convincing to the United States and the world that he is tough enough. He must now become offensive to get people to thinking, more detail, more fight, more strength is what we all need to see in this candidate to make him win the support of the majority of the democratic party.
An excellent job, Mr. Chait. I've been talking the ears off everyone I know about the dynamics of the rest of this primary season, and here I find the overall tenets of what I've been saying in print. It's good to find a friendly, well reason voice. Well done, indeed.
An excellent job, Mr. Chait. I've been talking the ears off everyone I know about the dynamics of the rest of this primary season, and here I find the overall tenets of what I've been saying in print. It's good to find a friendly, well reason voice. Well done, indeed.
Enough already. There is merit in Clinton's argument. Seriously, if Obama cannot close the deal yet a third time there is a major problem with him as a candidate. He does not appeal well in democratic states and is not going to turn Idaho and Kansas and North Dakota blue. The is where superdelegates make sense. If Obama regains the momentum then they should go with him, but if the democratic electorate starts to go cold on him and doubts his preparedness for office and votes for Hillary as I believe the trend will show, then the superdelegates know exactly who will compete best against McCain. It's unfortunate that the media didn't vet Obama earlier in the process.
Enough already. There is merit in Clinton's argument. Seriously, if Obama cannot close the deal yet a third time there is a major problem with him as a candidate. He does not appeal well in democratic states and is not going to turn Idaho and Kansas and North Dakota blue. The is where superdelegates make sense. If Obama regains the momentum then they should go with him, but if the democratic electorate starts to go cold on him and doubts his preparedness for office and votes for Hillary as I believe the trend will show, then the superdelegates know exactly who will compete best against McCain. It's unfortunate that the media didn't vet Obama earlier in the process.
Here we go again, with the same inevitability argument:
First of all I don't think she is repulsive. I think you and your article are repulsive. I think as a journalist you should remain neutral and objective, instead of campaigning for Obama. What is she saying in this documents is to reason the voters and superdelegates about her electibility in November. It is obvious Obama has zero chance against Mccain in November. Let's not kid ourselves. He is not a fighter. He is not a strong person. He was knocked out by some criticism already. I think you are wasting your time. People have spoken, they have returned to Hillary!
Here we go again, with the same inevitability argument:
First of all I don't think she is repulsive. I think you and your article are repulsive. I think as a journalist you should remain neutral and objective, instead of campaigning for Obama. What is she saying in this documents is to reason the voters and superdelegates about her electibility in November. It is obvious Obama has zero chance against Mccain in November. Let's not kid ourselves. He is not a fighter. He is not a strong person. He was knocked out by some criticism already. I think you are wasting your time. People have spoken, they have returned to Hillary!
"Does she think Obama is going to die?
Vince Foster did
"Does she think Obama is going to die?
Vince Foster did
We saw this happen here in central Texas about four years ago when Chet Edwards (for those smug few out there, remember that we have ensured that W. has had a Democratic representative during his entire presidency) was running for reelection. W. et al backed a schnauzer named Dot Snyder. The Club for Growth backed Arlene Wolgumuth in a move designed to snub W. for not being conservative enough. Now, Edwards was much more qualified than his opponents, plus he was a well respected and popular incumbent. In the primary race, Snyder and Wolgumuth saturated the airwaves and the papers with blistering attacks. By the time Snyder won the nomination, Edwards was able to go positive because there had ... view full comment
We saw this happen here in central Texas about four years ago when Chet Edwards (for those smug few out there, remember that we have ensured that W. has had a Democratic representative during his entire presidency) was running for reelection. W. et al backed a schnauzer named Dot Snyder. The Club for Growth backed Arlene Wolgumuth in a move designed to snub W. for not being conservative enough. Now, Edwards was much more qualified than his opponents, plus he was a well respected and popular incumbent. In the primary race, Snyder and Wolgumuth saturated the airwaves and the papers with blistering attacks. By the time Snyder won the nomination, Edwards was able to go positive because there had already been so much blood spilled between the Republicans.
This is precisely what Clinton's attacks will do to both Obama and to the Democrat's chances in November. McCain will be able to take the high road as Clinton will be making his attacks for him. The Clinton campaign claim, as Chait quotes, "Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy", is comic gold that sounds like it came straight from John Stewart. They are either trying to make the claim before Obama does (then they could call it plagiarism, clever devils) or else they have taken Clinton's appearance on SLN a little to seriously. Chait's tagline of 'fratricidal' maniac does not go far enough to describe Clinton; it neglects the word megalomaniac. At this point, she most reminds me of Nader running in 2000, and throwing the race to Bush. Hence, as I have said in previous posting, Clinton 2008 is the perfect rhyme for Nader 2000.
What about the popular vote and its influence on the superdelegates?
Clinton will end up with the popular vote after Florida is counted or they re-vote and then PR comes into play. Obama will of course still have the delegate lead.
So what do the superdelegates do? Vote for the delegate leader or popular vote leader? An interesting question that will more or less rip the Democratic Party in two.
Neither candidate is going anywhere. You can beg and plead for one to bow out and take the VP spot, but that won't happen. Both are too proud and also well deserving. Without this fight, either would win in 2008. Sadly, this fight will go on and on...
What about the popular vote and its influence on the superdelegates?
Clinton will end up with the popular vote after Florida is counted or they re-vote and then PR comes into play. Obama will of course still have the delegate lead.
So what do the superdelegates do? Vote for the delegate leader or popular vote leader? An interesting question that will more or less rip the Democratic Party in two.
Neither candidate is going anywhere. You can beg and plead for one to bow out and take the VP spot, but that won't happen. Both are too proud and also well deserving. Without this fight, either would win in 2008. Sadly, this fight will go on and on...
This is a great piece that articulates a lot of what I feel Clinton has been trying to accomplish. You however forgot to to mention her using democracy as a way to seat Florida and Michigan delegates now that she appears to have the "big mo".
The one snag in her plan is that the Republican nominee is not objectionable to most swing voters. As a democrat who currently supports Obama, I will certainly vote for John McCain if Hillary uses dirty tactics to "win" the nomination.
This is a great piece that articulates a lot of what I feel Clinton has been trying to accomplish. You however forgot to to mention her using democracy as a way to seat Florida and Michigan delegates now that she appears to have the "big mo".
The one snag in her plan is that the Republican nominee is not objectionable to most swing voters. As a democrat who currently supports Obama, I will certainly vote for John McCain if Hillary uses dirty tactics to "win" the nomination.
So what would you suggest, Jonathan? That Clinton just drop out and hand Obama the nomination before everyone has had a chance to vote? That's ridiculous. It's better that the Democrats find out now that Obama can't even withstand a week of bad press, than find out in the general election.
http://seatourdelegates.com
So what would you suggest, Jonathan? That Clinton just drop out and hand Obama the nomination before everyone has had a chance to vote? That's ridiculous. It's better that the Democrats find out now that Obama can't even withstand a week of bad press, than find out in the general election.
http://seatourdelegates.com
An excellent piece. It's clear that what we are really watching is the opening salvos of Clinton's campaign for the nomination in 2012, which is, of course, predicated on an Obama defeat next November.
Forget Karl Rove. Machiavelli himself would be proud.
An excellent piece. It's clear that what we are really watching is the opening salvos of Clinton's campaign for the nomination in 2012, which is, of course, predicated on an Obama defeat next November.
Forget Karl Rove. Machiavelli himself would be proud.
An excellent piece. It's clear that what we are really watching is the opening salvos of Clinton's campaign for the nomination in 2012, which is, of course, predicated on an Obama defeat next November.
Forget Karl Rove. Machiavelli himself would be proud.
An excellent piece. It's clear that what we are really watching is the opening salvos of Clinton's campaign for the nomination in 2012, which is, of course, predicated on an Obama defeat next November.
Forget Karl Rove. Machiavelli himself would be proud.
Hillary can win the nomination by getting enough super delegates to vote for her so that, in the end, she beats Obama. That’s democratic: the candidate getting the sufficient numbers of delegates according to the rules of the system wins. What's unfair about that?
Obama’s argument from arithmetic is that the candidate with the highest number of pledged delegates should get the vote of the super delegates. But that conveniently misses the point that the super delegates, short of criminal bribery, are free to exercise their judgment as to who to vote for. If on that basis, Obama wins, then he wins and good for him. Same for Hillary. But his argument—and yours in your post— amounts to ... view full comment
Hillary can win the nomination by getting enough super delegates to vote for her so that, in the end, she beats Obama. That’s democratic: the candidate getting the sufficient numbers of delegates according to the rules of the system wins. What's unfair about that?
Obama’s argument from arithmetic is that the candidate with the highest number of pledged delegates should get the vote of the super delegates. But that conveniently misses the point that the super delegates, short of criminal bribery, are free to exercise their judgment as to who to vote for. If on that basis, Obama wins, then he wins and good for him. Same for Hillary. But his argument—and yours in your post— amounts to whining.
If Obama is perceived as a weak general election candidate who cannot close, who is finally a neophyte, who cannot take a hit, who has a paper thin resume, who burns with ambition, a match for his presumption, who plays his own race cards—see Sean Wilentz in these very cyber pages—who is an amateur at this level of politics, who stalks out of press conferences now that honey moon is over, who, despite all the fancy talk, is just another mug in the mugs’ game of politics, who has some very weird advisors, and is therefore and for other reasons rejected by the super delegates, then so be it. He will have lost fair and square.
Clinton's justification for her strategy, attacking him at every turn on all of his weaknesses, is that she fighting to be the leader of the free world. He, you, as I say, should stop whining about it. He should fight back, not fight back, stay ethereal and spiritual, whatever he wants to do. But for God’s sake stop the whining.
It is a common wisdom that whatever Hillary’s attacks amount to, they are pale in comparison to what Obama will face in your general election. And if her getting in his face is hard for him to deal with, woe betide him as a general election candidate. There need be no let up in what Obama has tried and will try to level against Hillary. Do your worst, I’d say to him, if you are so inclined. But don’t forget your posing as doing a new kind of post partisan politics with all that good faith bargaining and all that other new agey drivel.
Hillary’s fighting spirit in this campaign, her refusal to, as you say, “just go” is the objective correlative of the toughness you’d want in a president, a commander in chief. She by dint of her resilience, her steely inner resolve, her ability to pick her campaign up at times from its own lassitude are living and personal proofs of her qualifications. One needs no preachments from you on the negative consequences of negative campaigning.
Either Obama can take some heat or he can’t. Hillary can; she can give as good as she takes. This we already know. But the way you canonize Obama, “an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate”, patronizes him. By you, implicitly, he is something too pure and beautiful to be tarnished or mussed up. I say bullshit. If Hillary steps over lines in trying to beat him, then let her get knocked back and suffer the consequences. But she is hardly “kneecapping” him. Again, if he can’t stand up to her knocks on him, to the press’s going after him for his own self-inflicted wounds, then he needs to spend more time in more kitchens.
Hillary is going to try her best to win Pennsylvania—odds are she will; she is going to take the fight to Obama there and elsewhere like nobody’s business—as she certainly should; she is going to try to augment the political case for her candidacy to the super delegates; she will wheel and deal with every fiber of tough, willful being, call in every favour, ply every pressure, do what ever she can. And if she wins good on her. If she loses, well I, for one, will admire her for giving it a hell of a shot.
But in your post, I can between the lines read your panic and virtually see your flop sweat at the not improbable proposition that Hillary will win the nomination by emerging at the end of the day with the necessary amount of delegates.
This is worth a read:
______________________________________________________
Tough Math on the Democratic Side
By Marie Cocco
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.
The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton's victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival's lead in "pledged" delegat ... view full comment
This is worth a read:
______________________________________________________
Tough Math on the Democratic Side
By Marie Cocco
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.
The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton's victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival's lead in "pledged" delegates -- that is, those won in primaries and caucuses -- and therefore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
The arithmetic conveniently leaves out an essential part of the equation: Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates. And Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.
Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply "red" Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate's transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton's victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.
Of course, some states in Clinton's column -- Texas comes most readily to mind -- that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven't been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.
In a new memo, Clinton strategists Mark Penn and Harold Ickes point out that the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, lost these states and several others in which Obama has won primaries by 15 points or more. In Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas and Alaska -- all states the Obama forces point to with pride as evidence of an emerging "50-state strategy" -- no Democrat has won the general election since 1964.
So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall.
There is a reason some states are called general election "battlegrounds." It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.
There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.
This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.
The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.
She rather take it to the courts then come infront the American people like she is an angel.
She rather take it to the courts then come infront the American people like she is an angel.
.."a lightening rod of controversy"? Really? Come on, how am I supposed to take anything you write seriously now?
.."a lightening rod of controversy"? Really? Come on, how am I supposed to take anything you write seriously now?
Neither candidate will have 2025 delegates. Your supposition that because Barack has a 2% edge entitles him to the nomination b/c he can carry "Idaho" is silly. Hillary never pretended to be anything other than tough. Obama may win the nomination - but it's hard to get excited about someone who couldn't beat Hillary in NY, CA, OH, TX, MA, etc etc. What do you think would have happened in FL even if they would have campaigned there? BO would have been crushed. He's a weak candidate, pure and simple. A 1-term Senator who gets college kids and idealists mesmerized into an emotional attachment. He didn't win my vote, and if he's the nominee I'm voting for McCain.
Neither candidate will have 2025 delegates. Your supposition that because Barack has a 2% edge entitles him to the nomination b/c he can carry "Idaho" is silly. Hillary never pretended to be anything other than tough. Obama may win the nomination - but it's hard to get excited about someone who couldn't beat Hillary in NY, CA, OH, TX, MA, etc etc. What do you think would have happened in FL even if they would have campaigned there? BO would have been crushed. He's a weak candidate, pure and simple. A 1-term Senator who gets college kids and idealists mesmerized into an emotional attachment. He didn't win my vote, and if he's the nominee I'm voting for McCain.
I have to agree with you Jonathan. A very well written article. I can understand that she wants to be president, and even that she is continuing the campaign, but the constant spinning of reality and negative messages coming out of her campaign really hurts her party.
I have to agree with you Jonathan. A very well written article. I can understand that she wants to be president, and even that she is continuing the campaign, but the constant spinning of reality and negative messages coming out of her campaign really hurts her party.
"There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt."
Well, maybe he should try. Hillary ain't holding back, so why should he? How about starting with "totally botching the health reform task force does not constitute health care expertise", "selling pardons = not cool" and "Hillary is either the greatest futures trader on earth or something very fishy went on." I doubt most partisan democrats even remember those things, they are not witch hunts, and it would be good to be reminded.
"There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt."
Well, maybe he should try. Hillary ain't holding back, so why should he? How about starting with "totally botching the health reform task force does not constitute health care expertise", "selling pardons = not cool" and "Hillary is either the greatest futures trader on earth or something very fishy went on." I doubt most partisan democrats even remember those things, they are not witch hunts, and it would be good to be reminded.
The Texas primary has not been completed yet.
Why has a winner been declared ?
It appears that Senatotr Obama will win the two-step overall.
Please help correct this misperception.
The Texas primary has not been completed yet.
Why has a winner been declared ?
It appears that Senatotr Obama will win the two-step overall.
Please help correct this misperception.
Well, I would have voted for HRC when this whole process began, and I certainly won't now, if she turns out to be the nominee. She has reminded of why Clintonism had, by the end of his second term, become a synonym for cynicism.
Well, I would have voted for HRC when this whole process began, and I certainly won't now, if she turns out to be the nominee. She has reminded of why Clintonism had, by the end of his second term, become a synonym for cynicism.
Go write for Pravda, Chait. You wrote an insane piece of propaganda.
Go write for Pravda, Chait. You wrote an insane piece of propaganda.
Lucid analysis, very good article.
Lucid analysis, very good article.
The results on Tuesday have convinced me that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. She may not overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but that's only because caucuses clearly helps Obama's demographic, and silly rules such as one delegate awarded per 12,000 in CA, but one delegate was awarded per 2,000 votes in WI. She will at least get the FL delegates reinstated, and she will win the popular vote when this is all over. I expect her to win PA, which will mean that she has won every large critical state for the Democratic Party in November, while Obama would have won only IL. To win in red states and caucuses is not enough, and I'm sure the superdelegates ar ... view full comment
The results on Tuesday have convinced me that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. She may not overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but that's only because caucuses clearly helps Obama's demographic, and silly rules such as one delegate awarded per 12,000 in CA, but one delegate was awarded per 2,000 votes in WI. She will at least get the FL delegates reinstated, and she will win the popular vote when this is all over. I expect her to win PA, which will mean that she has won every large critical state for the Democratic Party in November, while Obama would have won only IL. To win in red states and caucuses is not enough, and I'm sure the superdelegates are aware of this and will support Clinton in large numbers. Despite this, you suggest that Clinton should "go already?!?!?" Unbelievable.
The results on Tuesday have convinced me that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. She may not overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but that's only because caucuses clearly helps Obama's demographic, and silly rules such as one delegate awarded per 12,000 in CA, but one delegate was awarded per 2,000 votes in WI. She will at least get the FL delegates reinstated, and she will win the popular vote when this is all over. I expect her to win PA, which will mean that she has won every large critical state for the Democratic Party in November, while Obama would have won only IL. To win in red states and caucuses is not enough, and I'm sure the superdelegates ar ... view full comment
The results on Tuesday have convinced me that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. She may not overtake Obama in pledged delegates, but that's only because caucuses clearly helps Obama's demographic, and silly rules such as one delegate awarded per 12,000 in CA, but one delegate was awarded per 2,000 votes in WI. She will at least get the FL delegates reinstated, and she will win the popular vote when this is all over. I expect her to win PA, which will mean that she has won every large critical state for the Democratic Party in November, while Obama would have won only IL. To win in red states and caucuses is not enough, and I'm sure the superdelegates are aware of this and will support Clinton in large numbers. Despite this, you suggest that Clinton should "go already?!?!?" Unbelievable.
hi,
I guess it is bad for Sen. Clinton to do negative campaigning but OK for you to do negative articles!
Please explain to your readers why this is so!
Also say Sen. Obama falters and loses Pennsylvania say 75% - 25%, and several other remaining states such as Kentucky and Indiana by similar margins. That would give Sen. Clinton the lead in pledged delegates. Why do you want her to leave already! You do not believe in every voter counts!
Also, what about Florida, or Michigan. Oh they broke the rules! Well what about states like Nebraska were caucus rules were borken left and right. By that principle those results should also be tossed out!
Oh but of course, t ... view full comment
hi,
I guess it is bad for Sen. Clinton to do negative campaigning but OK for you to do negative articles!
Please explain to your readers why this is so!
Also say Sen. Obama falters and loses Pennsylvania say 75% - 25%, and several other remaining states such as Kentucky and Indiana by similar margins. That would give Sen. Clinton the lead in pledged delegates. Why do you want her to leave already! You do not believe in every voter counts!
Also, what about Florida, or Michigan. Oh they broke the rules! Well what about states like Nebraska were caucus rules were borken left and right. By that principle those results should also be tossed out!
Oh but of course, this is not about any principles, it is just about stopping Sen. Clinton from being president. And of course anyone who would vote for her does not deserve to have their votes counted, since in fact this will pose a problem to the underlying premise that Hillary should not be president because you hate her.
I think you have hit the nail here - Hillary knows she is not going to win the nomination. Thus, to run in 2012, she must obliterate Obama today and ruin his chances in the general election (she surely would not be able to run in a primary against the sitting president). The way she's behaving of late (strongly, strongly implying that she'd prefer McCain over Obama), she strikes me more of a petulant child fighting others for attention that she does a true, sincere presidential candidate running on a meaningful message that she truly believes in.
I think you have hit the nail here - Hillary knows she is not going to win the nomination. Thus, to run in 2012, she must obliterate Obama today and ruin his chances in the general election (she surely would not be able to run in a primary against the sitting president). The way she's behaving of late (strongly, strongly implying that she'd prefer McCain over Obama), she strikes me more of a petulant child fighting others for attention that she does a true, sincere presidential candidate running on a meaningful message that she truly believes in.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this article! IF only Hillary Clinton cared about the good of the country even 1/10 of the amount that she cares about herself.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this article! IF only Hillary Clinton cared about the good of the country even 1/10 of the amount that she cares about herself.
Absolutely, unbelievable. I would've thought it would've taken at least a week for Obama surrogates to return to their regularly scheduled cries for Clinton to drop out but alas you've surprised me.
Like it or not, neither candidate can win through pledged delegates without the race changing dramatically. Calling for either one to drop out "for the good of the party" belies not only an ignorance of history (even with blood on the streets of Chicago and all of the events leading up to it like the forgotten factors like LBJ's withdrawal, the Vietnam War and Draft, RFK's assassination, etc. Humphrey only lost to Nixon by less than 1%) but also an ignorance of the tactics the Obama campaign has u ... view full comment
Absolutely, unbelievable. I would've thought it would've taken at least a week for Obama surrogates to return to their regularly scheduled cries for Clinton to drop out but alas you've surprised me.
Like it or not, neither candidate can win through pledged delegates without the race changing dramatically. Calling for either one to drop out "for the good of the party" belies not only an ignorance of history (even with blood on the streets of Chicago and all of the events leading up to it like the forgotten factors like LBJ's withdrawal, the Vietnam War and Draft, RFK's assassination, etc. Humphrey only lost to Nixon by less than 1%) but also an ignorance of the tactics the Obama campaign has used and continues to use.
Obama has and continues to question her experience as First Lady and has been smacked down on the facts. Guess what? She was confirmed present and involved in one of the major meetings on how to disarm the IRA. Even among Obama supporters the exit polls show she is viewed as the most experienced and her experience claims aren't based solely on roles as first lady despite the fact that Obama supporters like to try and frame it that way. Any McCain attack on experience can be met and rebutted. More importantly, she can redirect the conversation to the economy where Obama cannot.
Obama has and continues to try and pick at the bones and bring out the ghosts of Clinton's past. How did you miss the "she'll say or do anything to win" slogan? How did you miss the incessant harping on tax returns and implication that there were ties the GOP would exploit? How did you miss Michelle Obama's comment about taking care of her own house?
As to the gender dynamic, please explain how on earth you can justify your assertion. If anything female support has risen and will continue to rise if Clinton is the nominee against McCain. Women outnumber men in the general population and will rally behind an historic candidacy even more without a competing historic candidacy.
This line of defense that boils down to "please, don't hurt him he's fragile" is absurd and undermines him as a candidate for the general.
Further, reducing yourself and your candidate to begging his or her opponent to leave the race gives the perception that you don't believe your candidate can win any other way. It also speaks volumes about your fears that maybe --just maybe -- Americans would rather have Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee and President.
An unfortunately brilliant and clairvoyant piece of commentary. If only it all weren't so true. As she has agreed to destroy him, so has she agreed to destroy us.
An unfortunately brilliant and clairvoyant piece of commentary. If only it all weren't so true. As she has agreed to destroy him, so has she agreed to destroy us.
Have a Martini you are becoming irrational and enraged!
Just because there are a lot of women democrats doesn't mean they will vote for Obama in November. Many of us are behind Hillary Clinton and will not get behind Obama in November.
Many Catholics like my parents -in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania-will go for McCain in November. Nothing in the Obama message is pragmatic enough to attract my vote or the vote of so-called "Reagan democrats". He needs a few "battle scars" like McCain or Clinton.
If he wins the nomination, he will not win in November because he will not win among traditional democrats. It's not a coincidence that he has a hard time carrying the democrat vote ... view full comment
Have a Martini you are becoming irrational and enraged!
Just because there are a lot of women democrats doesn't mean they will vote for Obama in November. Many of us are behind Hillary Clinton and will not get behind Obama in November.
Many Catholics like my parents -in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania-will go for McCain in November. Nothing in the Obama message is pragmatic enough to attract my vote or the vote of so-called "Reagan democrats". He needs a few "battle scars" like McCain or Clinton.
If he wins the nomination, he will not win in November because he will not win among traditional democrats. It's not a coincidence that he has a hard time carrying the democrat vote in most of the large states. We are not sold on him.
Without the Independent vote he would not be ahead in delegates. If he can't hold his base what chance does he have?
That was a phenominal article. You just wrote every single thing I was feeling and everything I have been thinking. I guess that's why you're a journalist and I'm a bartender. Thank you for that brilliant piece of journalism.
That was a phenominal article. You just wrote every single thing I was feeling and everything I have been thinking. I guess that's why you're a journalist and I'm a bartender. Thank you for that brilliant piece of journalism.
Oh, boo me a big ol' hoo.
Really, TNR is becoming unreadable. The pity parties are pathetic.
There's nothing "repulsive" about winning the nomination through the superdelegates. That's what the rules--the rules that you Obamabots keep on harping on--allow.
Cope. And until then, please, knock off the whining.
Oh, boo me a big ol' hoo.
Really, TNR is becoming unreadable. The pity parties are pathetic.
There's nothing "repulsive" about winning the nomination through the superdelegates. That's what the rules--the rules that you Obamabots keep on harping on--allow.
Cope. And until then, please, knock off the whining.
You Cbama fanatics are so deluded! Firstly, the Al Caponish Rezko owns some of Obama's backyard, and there are probably dead bodies down there, considering how nicely the flowers are growing. Secondly, he has not been vetted, tested and readymade, like Hillary has by Bill singing, "My Ding-a-ling", at the top of his lungs in the shower. Thirdly, the little boy Barack is 46, the same age as Bill Clinton when he became President, and we all know how that turned out! Fourthly, the scared child has not shown the proper appetite for destruction befitting a commander-in-chief. Does he know the victorious taste of Republican blood trickling from his lips? Fifthly, he is a terrible Muslim. He commit ... view full comment
You Cbama fanatics are so deluded! Firstly, the Al Caponish Rezko owns some of Obama's backyard, and there are probably dead bodies down there, considering how nicely the flowers are growing. Secondly, he has not been vetted, tested and readymade, like Hillary has by Bill singing, "My Ding-a-ling", at the top of his lungs in the shower. Thirdly, the little boy Barack is 46, the same age as Bill Clinton when he became President, and we all know how that turned out! Fourthly, the scared child has not shown the proper appetite for destruction befitting a commander-in-chief. Does he know the victorious taste of Republican blood trickling from his lips? Fifthly, he is a terrible Muslim. He commits a deep sin by denying his faith in Islam, he has not performed the customary pilgrimage to Mecca, he eats meat not prepared according to religious guidelines, he does not pray towards Mecca five times daily, and he never attends mosque. I suspect he is really a Christian. Sixthly, he does not have a lifetime of experience like McCain and Clinton. Get real, Obamafreakaziods: he's not a Baby Boomer, and he's not exactly W-H-I-T-E. Blacks are good voters, musicians, and preachers, hut not leaders outside of the ghetto. The Clintons know the ghetto, and they'll rule it again once they get the natives back under control.
"I was a fiend before I became a teen
I melted microphone instead of cones of ice cream
Music orientated so when hip-hop was originated
Fitted like pieces of puzzles, complicated
'Cause I grabbed the mic and try to say, " Yes y'all!"
They tried to take it, and say that I'm too small
Cool, 'Cause I don't get upset
I kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet"
--Eric B And Rakim - Microphone Fiend
so what are you saying? she should just step aside for your guy...you are supposed to be a journalist/columnist not a cheerleader..
so what are you saying? she should just step aside for your guy...you are supposed to be a journalist/columnist not a cheerleader..
This should be required reading at the DNC.
This should be required reading at the DNC.
Since most polls and most of what pundits predict never ends up coming true, this story is what I believe Obama calls, fearmongering.
Let the voters vote, for goodness sakes, and let's see if Hillary does all these things you say she's going to do. Maybe reporters need to take a chill pill.
On the flip flop, if, for some reason, Barack Obama's fans turn out to be fickle and latch on to the next fad, maybe Hillary will win by the large margins she needs, but Barack will be the one to have damaged her by fanning the flames of racism with Bill, or convincing voters in places like Mississippi that Hillary hates people in small states by fanning flames once again.
Obama's attacks damage her as we ... view full comment
Since most polls and most of what pundits predict never ends up coming true, this story is what I believe Obama calls, fearmongering.
Let the voters vote, for goodness sakes, and let's see if Hillary does all these things you say she's going to do. Maybe reporters need to take a chill pill.
On the flip flop, if, for some reason, Barack Obama's fans turn out to be fickle and latch on to the next fad, maybe Hillary will win by the large margins she needs, but Barack will be the one to have damaged her by fanning the flames of racism with Bill, or convincing voters in places like Mississippi that Hillary hates people in small states by fanning flames once again.
Obama's attacks damage her as well, but that seems to be okay, since all you psychics are so sure she can't be the nominee.
I say, everyone relax, wait and see.