Buckle your seatbelt … Clinton takes three of four

There was a point, about a week ago, at which Barack Obama looked like an unstoppable force. Hillary Clinton’s double-digit leads in Ohio and Texas had evaporated; Obama, the winner of 11 consecutive contests was drawing the biggest primary crowds anyone had ever seen; superdelegates were lining up behind him in greater numbers, and all evidence pointed to a demoralized Clinton campaign staff, some of which was heading home early every night rather than endure additional frustration. Hell, Mark Penn was publicly distancing himself from the campaign he’s helping run.

The Democratic Party had begun to look at Barack Obama as the party’s presidential nominee. For that matter, so had the Republican Party and John McCain, who had begun to transition to a general-election style campaign.

But as has often been the case in this cycle, actual voters weren’t quite ready to embrace the narrative. The Clinton campaign circled March 4 on the calendar a month ago, and the firewall strategy paid dividends.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, ending a string of defeats and allowing her to soldier on in a Democratic presidential nomination race that now seems unlikely to end any time soon.

Mrs. Clinton also won Rhode Island, while Mr. Obama won in Vermont. But the results mean that Mrs. Clinton won the two states she most needed to keep her candidacy alive. Her victory in Texas was razor thin and came early Wednesday morning after most Americans had gone to bed.

With just about all the precincts reporting, Clinton beat Obama in Ohio, 54% to 44%. Her margin in Rhode Island was even bigger, 58% to 40%. In the Texas primary, the race was more competitive, with Clinton winning 51% to 47%, while in the Texas caucuses, with only about a third of the results available, Obama leads, 52% to 48%. Obama’s margin in Vermont, meanwhile, was pretty huge — 60% to 38%.

Clinton excelled in large part by winning back some of the constituencies that had begun to jump to Obama — exit polls showed Clinton winning big among women, Hispanic voters, white voters who don’t have a college education, and the elderly. Obama won blacks, more educated voters, younger voters, and those who consider the war in Iraq their top issue.

As decisive as Clinton’s impressive victories were, her campaign’s delegate problem remains a very awkward hurdle.

This is, of course, not a state-by-state race, but rather, a race for delegates. And on that score, Clinton made little progress yesterday.

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, brimmed with equal brio. “This was her last, best chance to significantly close the gap in pledged delegates,” Mr. Burton said of Mrs. Clinton, who began the night with about 50 fewer pledged delegates and 100 fewer over all. “They have failed.” […]

But for all the millions of votes Mrs. Clinton has now won, simple math is still her enemy.

That’s undoubtedly true. Clinton has changed the momentum of the race, and has clearly bought herself some more time on the campaign trail, but the cold, hard numbers haven’t changed much at all. Indeed, in some ways, they’re worse, given that Clinton is running out of time (and states) to catch Obama in the overall delegate count.

Obama started the day with a lead in pledged delegates of about 159. There were, however, 370 pledged delegates at stake yesterday. How did Clinton do at narrowing the gap? By one count, she may have won a net gain of one vote. By some estimations, she may not have even won that much.

Notwithstanding the shift in momentum and the P.R. victory tonight’s results hand Hillary, it’s possible that she’ll finish the night without cutting into Obama’s delegate lead at all….

[I]f Obama manages to win delegates out of Texas (thanks to the caucuses) that offset Hillary’s Ohio delegate gain, she could end the night in pretty much the same position as she was in yesterday, at least as far as the pledged delegate count is concerned.

She won big victories tonight, no question, but it’s unclear yet whether the shift in narrative she’ll enjoy will transform the race’s stubborn underlying dynamic in any significant way.

Given the complexities of the process, it’s even possible, hard as it may be to believe, that when the dust settles on the March 4 contests, Obama may have lost three out of four contests, and managed to gain delegates — proving, once again, that this is a very silly process in need of reform.

So, what’s the bottom line? Clinton did exactly what she had to do to keep the race going, and delivered big wins with her back against the wall. The road between her and the nomination, however, remains long and circuitous.

Obama, meanwhile, may have the numbers on his side, but he had a chance to end this contest yesterday, and he couldn’t close the deal. Can he fight back and retake control? We’re about to find out.

Does this mean Hillary’s not going to sue Texas for their voting procedures?

  • Clinton has found a formula for success in the primaries – so expect it to be repeated:

    – a little bit of truth here
    – a little bit of half-truth there
    – a lot of innuendo
    – stir in a portion of distortion & lies
    – & SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF THE WHITE FOLKS…

  • I was certainly hoping for it to end yesterday. Now, I’m afraid, the worst instincts of Penn will come to fore in the Clinton campaign. As kos said last night: “I can honestly say I really like Hillary Clinton. To bad she has so much scum floating around her.”

    In the meantime, here’s Matthews last night: “If you look at the box this year it came in, which is marked “change.” It is ironic that the man who represents the least change is in the solidest position to be the next president right now.” (via C&L)

  • I still don’t believe Clinton can win in a general election. Color me pessimistic. I just think that if she is the Democratic nomination Republicans will win the White House. If Obama wins then I just don’t know. On the basis of pure electability (not on personal preference) I personally would rather go with the better than average possibility of a win than a definite loss.

    Rush and others want her to win the nomination because they know the affect she has on right wing voters and they are perfectly aware that there are many disaffected Republicans that would vote for Obama just because but who in no way shape or form (even if the planet would blow up) vote for Clinton. Heck, I have to wonder how many Republicans in Ohio went out and voted for her to do their part in insuring the weakest candidate in their mind (read some of the comments from Andrew Sullivan) – just like Rush urged them to do.

    Then there is the thought of a general election with Clinton as the nominee, which makes me want to hide under the bed with my ears covered until it is all over.

  • The delegates haven’t voted yet, even though they have pledged. It is my understanding that they can change their minds?

    This election is going down to the wire. Which ever candidate is perceived at the convention as being the most popular and most able to defeat McCain is the candidate the delegates will choose.

  • No matter who we Democrats nominate, Clinton or Obama, the general election will be won by McCain. Why? The very heavy thumb of the media is on the scale: every tiny misstep by the Democratic candidate will be endlessly “analyzed,” dissected and bloviated for endless news cycles, until, like Whitewater, it becomes accepted wisdom that the Democratic candidate is corrupt, stupid or phony. McCain’s lobbyist-run campaign and his embrace of hatemongers like Hagee will be completely ignored or even defended. Yesterday, I heard an anchor on MSNBC say that McCain’s vow to stay in Iraq 100 years was “taken out of context.” Wake up, Democrats. The deck is stacked, the game is fixed and we’re all bozos on a bus driven by Karl Rove.

  • Is there any truth to this story about Obama having 50 “stealth” superdelegates that have agreed to support him but not annouced yet? That would be a hell of a counter punch to Hillary’s (rather tepid IMHO) victory…

  • your math doesn’t add up they have Hillary gaining 21 last night

    In which case Hillary is still behind by 140 delegates.

    The magical math that has Hillary winning this thing by delegates is what doesn’t add up.

  • I like the way the dynamics played out. Everyone piled on Barack last week. It was as if Canada, Clinton, McCain, and the MSM coordinated and machinated.

    It was well-played offensive. That’s good. Some fine lessons were handed out:
    He learned he has to play the media more. He learned that Goolsbee is a potential liability. He learned he needs to get a complete media fact sheet together on Rezko to hand out to all concerned.

    But more important: Last night takes some of the social pressure off of Barack.

    And by social pressure I mean at least three things:

    1) He has got his underdog edge back.
    2) He has a full holster of negative trump cards still to play.
    3) The loons with guns who like to assassinate political phenoms aren’t being blown forward into the mix with quite as much passion.

    Number 3 is the big one in my book. I was starting to worry that one. Given Clinton’s futile victories last night… I worry a little less. Which is to say on a deeper level: Clinton does have a role to fulfill, it’s just not the role she thinks. She is actually acting as a sort of firewall for Barack.

    Clinton getting all the limelight again is a good thing. Call her the Comeback Kid! Celebrate her! Ain’t she grand! All the stomping is great. All the bloviating against the math is wonderful too. Hopefully we will have more of the Bill and Hill freak show this week. It’s good blowback on some social forces that were brewing beneath the surface.

  • I worked the election yesterday in one of the most Republican counties in Texas. One person in line told me that she crossed over to vote for Hillary because she’s the one the Republicans would rather face in the general. Other poll workers said others told them the same. I wish someone had done exit polling for that phenomenon. Still, it was good seeing all these apartment residents who never voted before coming out to voice their choice.

    Another facet of yesterday’s election in Texas: election machines are allocated based on the previous governor’s election. In 2006, Kinky Friedman’s participation resulted in the Republicans getting way more votes that the Democrats, so for the ’08 primary, the Republicans got way more voting machines. My polling place yesterday processed over 800 voters on the Democratic side on 2 voting machines, while the Republicans processed half that number on 4 machines. Ugh.

  • One fact has stood out through all these ups and downs: Obama beats McCain, McCain beats Hillary.

    Obama brings new players to the game and appeals to independents and even cross-over Republicans. Hillary’s negatives are what they always have been, and she shows little evidence of attracting independents, while she is certain to galvanize what ought to be a dispirited Republican Party.

    So much for the logic of it. The fact is that for the last 30-40 years the Democratic Party has lost its way. We did that again this year by failing to attract Gore and by dumping Edwards.

    I’m convinced that the best explanation for this is from David Mamet: we’ve lost our courage. Maybe that’s because our leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Clinton, etc.) have become so filthy rich off the system as it is. I don’t know, Here’s Mamet (many sources on the ‘net; the whole original piece in the LA Times):

    One needs to know but three words to play poker: call, raise or fold.

    In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one’s convictions, one’s intuitions, one’s understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt.

    The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country.

    Committed Democrats watched while Al Gore frittered away the sure-thing election of 2000. They watched, passively, while the Bush administration concocted a phony war; they, in the main, voted for the war knowing it was purposeless, out of fear of being thought weak. They then ran a candidate who refused to stand up to accusations of lack of patriotism.

    The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.

    The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: “I served. He didn’t. I didn’t bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter.

    This would have been a raise. Here the initiative has been seized, and the opponent must now fume and bluster and scream unfair. In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail.

    One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one’s stake.

    The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.

    Be bold. Risk something. Tell Pelosi and Reid and the other wealthy cowards you’re through waiting for them to show leadership. It’s time we ignored our leaders and played our own game. Just as bloggers have told the MSM they’re irrelevant, so should we tell these clowns their days are over.

    As for the campaign being over, what’s wrong with a baseball game which goes nine innings? or thirteen innings? Enjoy it.

  • Just an FYI —

    This morning on the Today show, Hillary Clinton repeated the falsehood that “a Republican governor and a Republican Florida state legislature” was responsible for the early Florida primaries that led to sanctions against them.

    Of course, the truth does not matter to Senator Clinton, but in case it matters to others, every Democrat in the Florida legislature voted in favor of moving the primary date up before super-Tuesday. Moving their primary forward was an issue of state pride for all Florida legislators who wanted more say in the final outcome of the primary elections (of course, they succeeded in essentially deciding the Republican race). These Democratic legislators cast their votes to move their primary up while fully aware that they were violating DNC rules. Subsequently, the state Democratic party had an opportunity to move their primary back or run caucuses, but defiantly refused to do so. Florida voters got screwed…by their state Democratic party.

    I don’t like it any more than anybody else. But let’s not be influenced by lies. Unfortunately, like G.W. Bush, Hillary Clinton creates her own reality.

  • People can claim that last night was meant nothing but the facts don’t bare that out from the exit polls in OH for example 8 in 10 white voters voted for Hillary, 6 in 10 of voters in OH and TX that made up their minds in the last 3 days voted for Hillary.

    I know Obama supporters will discount these victories as just prolonging the enevitable but as you look closer Obama took a big whooping last night no matter how you spin it. His firewall caucuses in TX are about tied.

  • The common wisdom expressed here rings true to me; now the race will revert to a state-by-state slugfest, all the way to the convention. This gives the Republicans precious time to refine and sell their message, takes the heat (what there was of it) of media attention off any more Republican indiscretions – past or future – and enormously increases the chance of another close-fought general election. That’s just the sort of battle where a few rigged voting machines or a bit of clever voter suppression has a solid chance of tipping things the Republicans’ way – when it’s “too close to call”.

    It shouldn’t have been. My conviction that Obama is going to be the eventual nominee is unshaken, but now he’ll be hobbled by having to fight a different battle for months – against Hillary. He’ll have no sooner finished that than he’ll have to shift on the fly to take on an reenergized and well-organized John McCain.

    The Republicans should have gone into this one demoralized, confused, hanging their heads in shame. Instead, they’ll go into it united, chanting their war cry and carrying their champion shoulder-high. What should have been an insurmountable blue wave will be a bitter fight in which dirty tricks will be too easy to conceal, and have a much greater chance of paying dividends. A battle which, as of today, has an increased opportunity to end with another Republican in the White House.

    Poor Democrats, they just don’t seem to be able to help themselves.

  • Senator Clinton won the popular votes by going negative, but she didn’t win by enough of a margin to do anything significant to the pledged delegate column.

    As things stand now, Obama will win the nomination. However, Senator Obama’s campaign has to find an effective answer to the Clinton campaign’s tactics.

    As I see it, Obama has won the ‘anti-Iraq War’ democrats. He has to find a way to win over those democrats who want to see a President who will keep fighting for working families and who will be able to deal with the right wing smear machine. These democrats don’t buy his rhetoric about bridging differences. And he needs to find a way to do that with these democrats.

  • It sometimes amazes me that Obamas supporters believe this primary should be over when 2/3rd of the democrats polled think it should go on. Remember either one of them need 2025 delegates to win the nomination and neither one can make it without superdelegates.

  • @15: I agree that it was a set-back for Obama. No question.

    That said, last night was not a victory for Clinton–at least in terms of winning the delegate race.

    Clinton proved, again, that going negative works. Obama has to find an answer to that if he wants to knock her out of the race and win in November.

  • We’re looking at the beginnings of a political cargo cult. The crappier the economic news becomes, the less prominent the Iraq fiasco becomes, an the more earnestly people hope that the [relative] prosperity of the ’90’s can be retrieved by recreating the trappings of The Good Days.

    We’re going to see an attempt, over the next two months, to put John Frum at the top of the Democratic ticket.

  • Don’t forget that Florida went BIG for Hillary. You may not want this to mean anything if you are an Obama supporter, but it can and should mean something to the superdelegates. Expect the Florida delegates to be seated or else expect a new primary which WILL count.

    This one is for SmilingDixie.. Your Clinton strategy is flawed, but first here’s Obama’s strategy:

    1) let Clinton answer first, then agree with her
    2) if asked to answer first, don’t answer, instead start talking in circles back to your talking points from your speeches
    3) always come back with “I gave a speech in 2002”
    4) rely on threats to superdelegates
    5) for tough decisions, just don’t vote, that way they can’t say you were wrong!
    6) continue to NOT use your existing abilities in the Senate to do oversight for Afghanistan
    7) continue to make jokes when being called out for not rejecting support from racists

    Hillary is not just going to go away, and Obama is running out of steam because all he can do is stand behind a speech he made back when he didn’t have any responsibility and wasn’t privy to the intelligence reports given to Congress.

    Maybe Obama’s devoted followers can continue to threaten superdelegates backing Clinton, this seemed to work with a few of them so far. Better yet, maybe they should have a secret meeting with Canada to ask them what he should do, then deny it ever took place.

  • Congratulations to the American and Canadian Plutocrats!

    Of course, we all know that the far right prefers to run against Hillary in the fall as evidenced by Limbaugh’s instructions to his ditto-head followers to cross over in Texas to vote for Hillary. And, as further evidence, the Tory government (Canada’s Republican equivalent) interfered with the primary in Ohio by leaking a lie (I’m sure the Tory prime minister will get to the bottom of that in the same way that Bush got to the bottom of who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity).

    The Plutocrats do it again. Viva corporate power!

    (For the record, if the good people of Ohio oppose NAFTA, they just emboldened one of its staunchest long-time supporters).

  • “So, what’s the bottom line? Clinton did exactly what she had to do to keep the race going, and delivered big wins with her back against the wall. The road between her and the nomination, however, remains long and circuitous.”

    If Senator Clinton keeps up her efforts, and gets to the convention without a clear first ballot win for Senator Obama, then I think the Superdelegates will tend to peel back off in her direction. That is, in the end, what they are there to do.

    “Obama, meanwhile, may have the numbers on his side, but he had a chance to end this contest yesterday, and he couldn’t close the deal. Can he fight back and retake control? We’re about to find out.”

    Senator Obama needs to demonstrate he can rebuild momentum to demonstrate his general election bonifides.

    Take a deep breath and consider the possibility that Puerto Rico, with a winner take all primary, may decide the Democratic Nominee for the Presidency.

  • I don’t think it’s clear at all that the system is “silly.” Even if the tendency is to focus on winning whole states, there is no reason why Texas’ system of weighting districts differently — and letting candidates win on a district-by-district basis — makes any less sense. And there are reasons why weighting makes more sense. The State is not the only relevant political unit in the United States.

  • “Limbaugh has been actively urging his Texas listeners to cross over and vote for Clinton in that state’s open primary Tuesday, arguing it helps the Republicans if the Democratic race remains unsettled for weeks to come.” Crooks & Liars

    This is something that can not be overlooked.

    The math doesn’t lie, but I have a feeling if Florida and Michigan change the math, there is going to be an outright war pushing for those states. If Hillary has proved anything this last two weeks, it that she isn’t going away quietly and she will cross a line or two to reach the prize.

  • Greg @22 – Don’t be such a turd. All of that “Obama strategy” stuff is nothing but a cheap smear. If you don’t have anything of substance to say, don’t say anything at all. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.

    BTW, running on cherrypicked “intelligence” reports that we all know to be completely bogus doesn’t help your side at all.

  • I found this analysis particularly insightful, and, having a preference for Obama, encouraging.

    Clinton is behind on delegates, and state contests aren’t winner-take-all, so when Clinton whens big states with slim margins, those slim margins mean she only gains a few delegates. What she needs is a couple of blowouts to catch up. Maybe she can do that in Pennsylvania? But in all of the scenarios it looks like she won’t be able to catch up and gain a majority of delegates.

    That doesn’t take into account, however, the self-reinforcing image that “winning” states puts in the minds of voters, but I don’t think that victories in Texas and Ohio will produce the significant margins she needs in the remaining states. Maybe the massive numbers of GOP spoiler voters that Rush Limbaugh is encouraging will have some impact, but that will only really work in states with open primaries. I don’t know which of the remaining states have open primaries and which do not.

  • Can the pro-Clintion & pro-Obama people keep your posts to less then a novel type length. We get it, you want your horse to win, but believe me, there nothing you can type that hasn’t been typed a thousand times here.

    Give the rest of us a break and realize your mind numbing post is influencing no one.

  • Why HIllary would beat McCain:

    Women: They vote more then men do (even I’ll bet some Republican women)
    Young voters (even though they won’t come out in the same numbers, they still aren’t going to vote for McCain in general – he looks old to ME and according to most of the people who blog here … I’m old)
    Minorities: Hispanics will back her although he will get a fair share (I think the hispanic vote would go to McCain in a McCain:Obama race); African Americans -many will stay home because they lost Obama but of the ones who vote, the majority will vote for her)
    White men: they will go vor McCain in general but they won’t out-do the other groups.

    Put Hillary and McCain head-to-head in a debate and she will out-smart him, out-debate him and win.

    I know, start the insults.

  • Marian @30 – I’ve got to disagree with that analysis. What do you mean that white men “won’t out-do the other groups”. Is that a joke? You’ve completely written off a huge flaw with your analysis, I’m guessing because it undermines what you just wrote. Look, if we lose black votes and white male votes, that could be a HUGE drop. And because your numbers aren’t actually numbers, but rather vague guesses with no quantity or quality, the analysis is fairly meaningless. We can’t guess at how many women might make-up for the loss of black or white male voters. Nor can we guess at how many hispanics will refuse to vote for Obama (but with all the immigrant bashing McCain will have to engage in, I don’t really see that being too high).

    But the main thing is that this isn’t some clean slate we’re working with. Most people aren’t going to shift no matter which candidate wins. The big issue isn’t whether McCain takes these votes or if one of our two candidates can win them back. It’s about who can turn out the bigger numbers of the people who will vote. And I’m strongly of the opinion that Hillary will turn-out the Republican base BIGTIME. It’s not about us picking off a few Republican women (and honestly, how many Republican women aren’t self-loathing or anti-feminist, yet Bush won 48% of women voters in 2004). And losing black voters could be a HUGE loss, as they went for Kerry by 88%. They won’t vote for Republicans, but if they feel that Obama lost unfairly, it will depress their numbers on election day. But again, it’s impossible for us to say “gaining these people will compensate for losing these people” as there isn’t even a ballpark guess at how many of each side we’re talking about.

    BTW, if no one insults you, will you apologize for assuming we would? And even if they did, taunts like yours don’t help.

  • “proving, once again, that this is a very silly process in need of reform.”
    At time yes to be sure. However, the weighting of delegates in TX due to past Dem vote totals in last Gov race makes a lot of sense to me in an OPEN primary. This tends to dilute R cross over (or for that mater D cross over) votes. Shrillary may have one the pop vote, but Obama won the Dem vote I would be willing to bet.

  • If Obama leads in pledged delegates at the end of the primaries, and party insiders decide their judgment is worth more tan the voters, three things will happen:

    1. Clinton will get essentially 0% of the independent vote. We independents don’t like cronyism, and that reeks of cronyism.

    2. We will have the lowest turnout of the black vote ever recorded.

    3. 1 and 2 will cause Clinton to lose as badly as McGovern did in 1972. It will be a bloodbath.

    Let’s not even get into the redux of travelgate, the Mark Rich pardon, who WJC has been getting paid to do favors for, and the reams of oppo research the GOP is sitting on.

    The democrats would be fools to nominate HRC, we’ll see if they are fools.

  • Has anybody seen any sort of exit polling that might shed some light on how many Republicans voted for Hillary yesterday vs. Obama? It would be great to be able to put some numbers with that. I would have hoped that Obama’s campaign might even have had some exit pollsters asking just that question, the answer to which today could look very interesting in light of the close results in Texas.

    As for a protracted race, it would be fine if not for the fact that so much mud will be slung. Hillary has pretty much made it clear that this is her new strategy, that unfortunately seems to have worked, which should only encourage more of the same. Can Obama maintain his position without resorting to the same sort of tactics? How on earth can the Dems commit suicide election after election? It’s depressing.

  • Can you imagine the Obama supporters on the floor of the convention once the super delegates overturn the will of the people and give the nomination to Clinton…

    chanting….

    “Selected not Elected”

    “Selected not Elected”

    “Selected not Elected”

    While HRC gives her acceptance speech.

  • I have to disagree with many earlier posts. It is Hillary, not Obama, that is the only hope for the Dems in the general vs. McCain. The Reps will easily paint Obama as green and inexperienced; it’s almost too easy for them. Besides, Obama has already “lost” the general with his foolish answer in the last debate. He said that he would go back into Iraq if necessary – after withdrawing all of our troops – if ‘al Qaeda’ later forms a base there. Uhh, hello, that was the election. There’re going to pounce on that a beat him soundly after just the 1st debate! Same as Kerry in ’04 saying that, if he had the chance, he’d vote “the same” (for the war). Game, set, and match. Put your thinking caps on people. Hillary is the ONLY hope for the Dems in November… and the Reps know it.

  • I nominate “Look Closer” @36 as being the latest pro-Hillary spammer invading with absurd anti-Obama comments they don’t plan to back-up.

    Oh, and Hillary’s in a much better position of “I totally supported Bush getting into this mess because I was so naive,” which happens to be much closer to the position Kerry was stuck dealing with. Yeah, Obama’s so screwed for taking the no-brainer position on national defense. Right.

  • Dr. B., Those weren’t anti-Obama comments, those were facts. I like Obama very much, but he won’t win in November, my friend. Hillary may not win either, but she’s got a better shot at battling the Reps than he does. They fear the Clintons; they’ve already lost to the Clintons. And, to your prior post, if you don’t think an Obama nomination would mobilize the Republican base, then you just don’t know politics.

  • Ok, Look Closer, I apologize. I’ve been seeing so many pro-Hillary spammers around here that I wrongly assumed you were one of them. Particularly as your absurd comment sounded so much like theirs, which I’ve been increasingly trying to out, because I don’t think it’s right for spammers to pretend to be real people.

    But your follow-up comment fits the mold of the standard Hillary supporter: They’re so wrapped-up in spin that they see their attacks on Obama as Undeniable Truth that all rational people agree with. But it’s not. Hillary’s the one who’s weak on Iraq, while you attack Obama for stating standard national defense policy. But as I’ve said before, the main difference between Hillary’s attackers and Obama’s is that when Obama’s attackers insult Hillary, they know they’re doing so. Hillary’s people imagine they’re just telling the truth.

    Look, the Republicans have been gearing up for a Hillary presidential run since Bill’s first term. They are slobbering at the idea, which is why Hillary’s name came up more during their debates than Bush’s did. All those jerks wanted to run against her because “Hillary Clinton” is one of those words that makes the base go wild. The Clintons were GREAT for conservatives. They don’t want to win. They just want to act like jerks, and Bush has been such a disaster for them that they’re now suggesting he’s a liberal.

    They don’t even WANT to win this year. They want to bloody the Dem nominee before forcing them to clean up Bush’s mess. They no longer want to be responsible for fixing Iraq, the economy, or any of the other screw-ups Bush made. They just want to hurt the Democrat. Rush Limbaugh literally said that when he told his people to support Hillary. He knows Obama’s going to win. He just wants to cripple the guy first. And Hillary’s helping them all along the way.

  • Dr. B, You seem to have steered away from my main point (that the Reps will tear-up Obama in the general), but I’ll try to follow yours. First, everyone should consider Rush Limbaugh and “the Right” going against McCain as a complete farce, a ploy to get Independents & Undecideds to consider McCain (ie, hmm, if he’s so ‘liberal’, maybe I should vote for him instead of the two Dems I don’t like). You’re falling for the Reps’ games; they always have an ulterior motive. Now you’re believing that jive about them not wanting to win? …I heard that on Fox news. Again, you seem very politically green, yourself, so I’m going to let you be. We’re all on the same side of the ledger come November. PS- you don’t have to “out” me as a spammer; I’m openly supporting Hillary, but will be for “the team” when the time comes. Best wishes.

  • PS- you don’t have to “out” me as a spammer; I’m openly supporting Hillary, but will be for “the team” when the time comes. Best wishes.

    I guess you don’t understand. There are people who I believe are pretending to be real people, but who go around writing the same pro-Hillary spam at various websites. I don’t know if they’re paid or what, but they’re not here for discussion. I have no problem with people who support either side, as I obviously do so myself. I just don’t like to see ad campaigns posing as real people.

    As for what you said about Rush opposing McCain, you do realize that he’s hated McCain for years, right. YEARS. We’re to imagine this is all some sort of setup? In fact, if anything, he looks stupid for supporting McCain now after all he’s said in the past. But beyond that, this has nothing to do with anything they say. It’s a fact. Whoever takes over for Bush is in for a shitfight. They’re going to be expected to fix all his mistakes or become even less popular than he was. Clinton was great for conservatives and Bush has had them sucking wind for years. They don’t want to run the government; they want to tear it down. As they’ve discovered, that’s more easily done from the outside.

    Beyond that, you failed to address the fact that Hillary has been the obvious GOP target long before anyone had heard of Obama. She was the one they talked about during debates because it was an easy way to score points. And for as much as you assert as fact that Obama will be torn-apart, you haven’t actually said anything new. Yes, I know that’s what Hillary’s side says. Just as Obama’s side says that he stands a better chance against McCain. Assertions mean nothing. Again, you’re presenting opinion as fact. That’s not how this works. I’ve presented arguments on why I think Hillary is the one they’ve been wanting to fight.

    Merely re-asserting that Obama will lose doesn’t really mean much. Especially as he’s not supposed to lose. The Republican leadership intends to lose this one through a bruiser. Were McCain to win, they’re totally screwed. President Bush is the worst thing to happen to Republicans since Nixon.

  • Comments are closed.