Skip to content
Categories:

Obama notches 10th victory in a row, cruises to big wins in Wisconsin, Hawaii

Post date:
Author:

The good news for Hillary Clinton is, there are no more Democratic contests in the month of February. The bad news is, any additional good news at this point is pretty elusive.

For the past week or so, Barack Obama was expected to do fairly well in Wisconsin and Hawaii, and he entered yesterday as the favorite in both contests. He wasn’t, however, expected to do this well. With just about every precinct reporting:

* Wisconsin: Obama 58%, Clinton 41%, Edwards 1%

* Hawaii: Obama 76%, Clinton 24%

In the two weeks since Super Tuesday, Democrats have seen 10 contests (nine states and the Virgin Islands). Obama has won all of them — at or near landslide margins. Indeed, the closest race of the 10 turned out to be Wisconsin, which Obama obviously won by 17 points.

The margin has to be especially disappointing for the Clinton campaign, because none of the usual asterisks apply. Wisconsin isn’t a caucus state; it doesn’t have a large African-American population; and Clinton actually tried to compete here. What’s more, it has a large white, working-class population, which has generally leaned in Clinton’s direction in previous contests.

Given this, yesterday’s setback(s) are pretty tough spin. For that matter, the race for the Democratic nomination seems to be slowly slipping away from the senator from New York.

This is not to say that Clinton is finished; she’s too talented a candidate to just quietly fade away, going down without a fight. But the road ahead isn’t especially encouraging. Winning Texas and Ohio on March 4 will be challenging enough, but given Obama’s recent successes, Clinton is now in a position in which she’ll have to win big in two weeks.

Her latest losses narrowed even further Mrs. Clinton’s options and leaves her little, if any, room for error. Her road to victory is now a cliff walk.

By the calculation of her own aides, she now almost certainly will need to win the next two big contests, Texas and Ohio on March 4, as well as Pennsylvania on April 22 in order to maintain a viable claim to the nomination and stop so-called superdelegates from breaking for Mr. Obama. But there has been evidence this month that Mr. Obama is building momentum with each victory, and recent polls have suggested that Mrs. Clinton’s once-large lead in Ohio and Texas is shrinking.

What is more, it may not be enough at this point for Mrs. Clinton to simply win Ohio and Texas. She needs delegates to catch up with Mr. Obama; under the rules by which the Democratic Party allocates delegates, she will need to win double-digit victories to pick up enough delegates to close the gap.

Realistically, barring unforeseen events, this seems like a very high hurdle to clear.

Comments

  • TR

    says:

    Mark Penn told me that Wisconsin doesn’t count because he’s lactose intolerant, and Hawaii doesn’t count because he never liked that episode of the “Brady Bunch” where Bobby finds the evil tiki idol.

    Try again, Obama nuts!

  • Rich

    says:

    The longer this flaggelation goes on the more benefit the Rethugs get from it. Supposedly Gore is trying to broker a deal to end it. He has his work cut out for him.

  • Chris

    says:

    “…she’s too talented a candidate…”

    I’m not sure that I can accept this assessment.

    If Hillary Rodham was a 2nd term Senator from New York who had not been married to a former president, I believe that she would have been out of the race long ago. Her success to date is based on a combination of factors which include her last name and her proximity to the former president. That’s not to say that she doesn’t have other things going for her — obviously, she does. But there’s a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that her skills, talent, and dedication to progressive values might be overrated (e.g. her votes on Iraq, Kyl-Leiberman, cluster-bombs, bankruptcy bill, the quality of her campaign in SC, WI, her behavior regarding MI/FL and superdelegates,…)

    I’m looking forward to the day when we have our first woman Democratic nominee and our first woman president. But it will be so much sweeter, I feel, if she is elected entirely on her own merits.

  • Tom Bisson

    says:

    I’m not sure why the primary race has to end as Rich suggests. It’s been pretty civil, all things considered, and it drives many voters to Democratic primaries which I think is a good thing. Voting for a candidate in a primary can have an emotional “branding effect.” It’s like picking or rooting for a team early in March Madness – you tend to follow them and stay with them throughout the tournament. So the people who actually go to an Obama or Clinton event or vote for them develop an attachment and I think the attachment from Clinto to Obama (or vice-versa) can easily be transferred. So let the primaries roll on!

  • TR

    says:

    The longer this flaggelation goes on the more benefit the Rethugs get from it.

    Actually, I’d disagree. The excitement and competitiveness of the Democratic primary season is leading to record turnout — and record new part registration — across the country, and that’s only to the benefit of the Democratic nominee.

    In 2004, there was a flurry of early activity in three states, and then everyone else pretty much tuned out from early February until the general election. But this time, people everywhere are getting involved early — which practically, will ensure that more voter registrations are current and not subject to election-day scams, but more broadly speaking, will get people invested in and excited by the process now.

    That said, if the infighting and bickering continues, it certainly will help the GOP a little. I couldn’t believe Clinton was siding with McCain on the campaign financing pledge thing, for instance. That sort of stuff — and the petty character attacks — needs to be shelved now. But the Clintons have their backs to the wall, and the knives are going to come out unless someone can wise them up and call them off. It’d have to be someone outside the campaign, though, as her staffers are all batshit insane.

  • Mark

    says:

    Rich is right – this should be a cakewalk (if that term will ever be permitted again) for the Dems. Instead, they’re carrying the Republicans’ water for them by tearing at each other. It has to stop soon; the Hillary camp will be so filled with loathing for Obama and his supporters that they will not get behind him, or sooner or later he’s going to make some slip that will be dramatised as contempt for Hillary. Grampy McCain is getting a head start here, running virtually unopposed and firming up his message while the lopsided Democratic contest lurches on, afraid to hurt Mrs. Clinton’s feelings by suggesting the contest is now unwinnable.

    Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy was built on a foundation of overconfidence, and it simply shifted out from under her. While she must be held accountable for keeping Mark Penn on and continuing to listen to him, his reputation for strategery is obviously…umm… overrated. If it had to be isolated to a single person who lost it for her, he’d get my vote.

  • wvng

    says:

    I agree with Tom #4 that continuing the primaries is not necessarily a bad thing, for the reasons he suggests. But it is bad if the race produces attacks that reThugs can adopt and use (“even Dems think Obama is a plagiarizer”) in the fall. And it is bad if the DNC and related entities don’t get on the ball and keep forked tongue McCain from getting the free ride that the media will clearly give him if they don’t challenge him while the primaries continue.

    Also, what digby said: “And for those of you who are rending your garments over the horrible negative campaigning we’ve been subjected to, get a hold of yourselves. This has been one of the most positive campaigns in recent memory. You can look it up. Just wait until you see what Ari Fleischer and his quarter of a billion have in store for us.”
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamamentum-by-digby-congratulations-to.html

    And Steve, it’s good to have you back.

  • Racer X

    says:

    Here in Texas we have a lot of Republicans who intend to vote for Obama. think about that. Here in Dallas the Reuinion Arena is going to be packed today, and it’s even possible that the red state of George Bush is going to go blue.

    Today is the tipping point, and there is almost NO chance that she will win Texas by any significant margin. And with all her recent losses, the pressure on Hillary (and her pledged delegates) to stand aside and get with the program is about to become very strong. The crowds and the independent voter turnout tell the story. She hasn’t generated that kind of response from the people, and she never will. The strongest candidate needs to lead the charge, and Hillary Clinton needs to be honest with herself about who that is.

  • kevo

    says:

    In his speech last night, Obama effectively framed the need for change in the early 21st century if we are truly committed to bringing our children a better would throughout this century, Obama’s platform of hope is political genius because it shows cynicism’s darkness plainly for all to see. Anyone trying to make inroads into his growing, quite diverse, base will merely show themselves as the anti-hope candidate. And yes, the increase in voter registration and voter turn out can, I think, be directly linked to Obama’s campaign. Keep watching people! -Kevo

  • Michael

    says:

    I thought the Dem primary going on for a long time was good up until the GOP got a presumptive nominee. But now McCain is free to go around basically slamming Obama and stumping for the general, and Obama can’t get too “its me v McCain” without being “presumptuous” and still has to deal with Clinton, and nobody is really going hard after McCain (though Obama did add that to his stump speech, which is smart).

    For the most part, though, the Obama-McCain stuff is a sideshow on the Dem, where the oxygen is all taken up by Obama-Clinton. On the Repub said, though, it’s all McCain-Obama. Which means, just on media dynamics, advantage: McCain.

    Before, the Dems were going around from state-to-state positively defining themselves without worrying about attacks from the GOP or anything of that nature. Doing that in 30+ states is a good thing. But that opportunity no longer exists. Everywhere the Dems go, while they’re busy duking it out, McCain is going to be busy defining them as too liberal, too inexperienced, too whatever. And even when Obama does stand up to counter-balance that, it’ll never have the same stature precisely because he’s still stuck in this fight.

    She now trails by more than 160 pledged delegates. Even winning 60% of the delegates available in TX, OH, and PA would only take care of 60% of that margin…her winning the pledged delegate battle is now basically impossible. His lead is big enough also that it seems folly to suggest supers will abandon him too. Her path to the nomination, at this point, is unclear. I’m not even sure why she’s doing what she’s doing.

  • BuzzMon

    says:

    I feel quite the opposite of Rich @#2. As long as Hilary stay in, she’s splitting the invective from the wingnuts. There’s been so much Hilary-Hate & “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” out there that as long as she stays in, Obama is only in the line of fire of some of the feces thrown by these Republicans.

    That said, it sure looks like Obama has the momentum.

  • TR

    says:

    Everywhere the Dems go, while they’re busy duking it out

    True, but they’re also busying refining and polishing their message. As an Obama supporter, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that he has to spar with Hillary in another debate or two, keep his message discipline for another month or so, etc. etc.

    Meanwhile, McCain is coasting and cocky, with no need to fine-tune his message, even though large swaths of his own base didn’t like it. Fine by me.

  • Steve

    says:

    I spent a lot of time early this morning crunching the numbers—and the only road to the nomination for Clinton is to garner about 60% of the delegates in all remaining contests.

    Let me repeat that—60% of the delegates in all remaining contests. That would require a massive, 40-point swing in her favor, if you extrapolate from Obama’s 20-point blowout series to a Clinton 20-point blowout series.

    Anything less than that will send Clinton into the convention with a lower number of committed delegates than Obama. Granted, there will be some among the “supers” who will staunchly support her until the bitter end of all ends (Strickland, here in Ohio, is one of them; he’s starting to sound like an evil Taft “mini-me” clone on several of our more pressing issues), but the longer this thing runs, the more obvious it becomes that Clinton cannot win the nomination.

    If she bails now, as Rich noted @2, then her entire political career goes into lame-duck status; she’ll spend the remaining years of her current Senate term knowing that she’ll never serve a third term, because NY Dems will start writing her off as “the candidate who couldn’t go the distance.” That may happen anyway, since she’s already demonstrated the penchant for “writing off” anticipated losses. “Fighting only the fights we can win,” rather than “Fighting the fights worth fighting” is the archetypal hallmark of a status-quo politician—and America has outgrown its shallow desire for such a thing….

  • Honey Child

    says:

    I live in Ohio. The other day, I saw a white man in a pickup truck the other day with a faded half worn off confederate flag sticker on his bumper and a fresh Obama ’08 sticker in a corner of his rear windshield.

    Hilary doesn’t stand a chance here.

  • TR

    says:

    she’ll spend the remaining years of her current Senate term knowing that she’ll never serve a third term, because NY Dems will start writing her off as “the candidate who couldn’t go the distance.”

    Oh, I doubt that. I think she could very much follow the example of Ted Kennedy and become a reliable Democratic leader in the Senate. Losing the 1980 primary fight didn’t do Kennedy any harm; it only made him more beloved by certain segments of the party. Clinton is incredibly strong in NYS and has until 2012 before she’s up for re-election anyway.

  • Steve

    says:

    TR, I think Hillary’s “Smear-O-Matic” machine is going to haunt her in NY come the next election. It certainly didn’t do Ghoul any good….

  • Evergreen

    says:

    Chris @ 3 makes a point. Name recognition & the coattail connection were almost totally responsible for Hillary’s lift off… and some trajectory too. But I think she is also a solid politician, a good stumper and a mechanic of the trade as it were…despite some non progressive voting, which indicates poor judgement, coming from the progressive view. MR @ 12 has a few specifics.

    All this aside…the time has come to speak of “walruses & kings”, and with the next loss or equivical primary Clinton should abdicate the race. It will be time. She could say she came down with Obama fever.

  • beep52

    says:

    “…she’s too talented a candidate…” — CBI’m not sure that I can accept this assessment. — Chris @ 3

    A few weeks ago, I would have agreed with CB, but recently, her campaign seems to be self-destructing. Staff shakeups, funding issues, the loss of her once inevitable status are all factors, but more telling is that she’s sounding increasingly desperate. The last two speeches I heard were filled with shameless pandering and low-road charges against Obama. Even when she touts her own strengths, they sound increasingly hollow. Too many statements by her spokespeople border on the bizarre and have become running jokes.

    Bottom line, I think she’s tarnishing her own image, while going after a prize no longer within her reach. I wish she’d spend the next few weeks building the case for a Democratic victory in the fall, bow out after Texas and Ohio, and think about making a play for Senate Majority Leader. I think it’d play to her strengths and that she might be great at it. But president just isn’t in the cards.

  • frank

    says:

    Clinton keeps talking about who will be ready on day one. I’m more interested who will be the ready for day 2 – 1459 of the presidency. I don’t she is.

  • Scott

    says:

    When is the media going to give up on Hillary Clinton? The news media, and CNN, in particular, is making complete fools of themselves by running stories about how Hillary is going to make a comeback. The American people are speaking, and the loud and clear message is that we don’t want the embarrassment of another Clinton Administration in our White House.

    Unfortunately, the media was beaten into submission to Bill Clinton’s ‘smoke and mirrors’ with the threat of having their outlet’s access limited. These people are master manipulators, and the mass media outlets are their puppets. Whats about to happen is that the love affair between Clintons and media will come to an abrupt end, and we, the consumers of media will wonder why we were spoon fed optimism about Clinton’s chances while we were all out voting for Obama.

    Time for the media to wake up and serve its market consumers, not its political special interests.

  • Just can't understand it

    says:

    I just can’t understand why the media is so negative toward Se. Clinton. If she received as much press time and fanfare as Sen. Obama, she would still be the front runner. I’m wondering is the media just trying to prove the pint that the American people will do whatever they( the media) programs us to believe?
    For all the negative press Hillary Clinton recieves, although she is losing, many people are still voting for her. Obama is on television so much, his voice is beginning to give me a headache. Yes I support Hillary, mainly because the media has me Obama’d out!

  • KimK.

    says:

    Obama’s wins prove only that our country is:

    a) Infinitely more sexist than racist. (..eg, more white men are voting for BO than HRC).
    b) More superficial than substantial. (So what else is new. Our country would rather watch American Idol or the Superbowl than the presidential debates.
    Likewise, it is clear that Hillary Clinton- for any one who uses a scintilla of their brain- is vastly more intelligent and capable on the issues facing our country than Obama.
    c). Did the media “make up” the statistic that more “educated” people vote for Obama? (If so- where are they? I’m still waiting to hear an “intelligent” reason for why a vote for Obama would be anything but a disaster for our country. Most of the bloggers are hate-mongers, and avoid discussing the details, and specific issues facing our country- because they are not apparently not aware of any.)

    Our country has voted for GW Bush twice. This is who the “intelligent” citizens of our country chose. I am not surprised that the same people are choosing Obama.

  • Judy

    says:

    Hillary doesn’t appear to have any idea that she’s ‘just not liked!’ Her denial is the only real explanation of the crocodile tears she shed after Iowa. She’ll probably stay in denial until after the election. She is self-involved and feels an entitlement. Hillary is for Hillary, and the voters can feel it! Narcissism is like that…..

  • KimK.

    says:

    Judy,
    Get a grip. Stop the hate-mongering, and take a look in the mirror.

    If you were running for the most difficult and visible position in the country, do you hink that you could handle the non-stop venom and relentless judgement from people like you?

    Please. Like the rest of you Hillary bashers: Take a deep breath, and remember why you’re here.
    (hint* Its not to spread hatred. We’re all in this together, and what goes around, comes around. Try being kind for a change, and see what happens…)

  • sweet missy

    says:

    I live in France. I am no fan of any Americans, to be honest i think the average yank is full of shit, and that a good yank is a dead yank.

    I hope Obama wins, as if he wins most Africans will go to America, and that will get rid of the alot of finiacail problems for Europe.

    McCain is got the right idea, and Clinton apart from Elegance, shes the lady with brains. Yanks dont know a good deal when they see it, they only know war lies and deciet.

    But true to American reputation Americans have a lot of wind, and Obama has proven that, no politics just wind, so come on yankees vote in the man that will be the start of the Amrican decline, yeehaaaa, yabby dabby doo, and all the rest of your bullshit.

  • mary

    says:

    America has shown its greed in this election, so much money for alot of rubbish. Why dont the Americans be civilised and say to all, you are only allowed so much money and so much TV time and advert time, and everyone must have the same. Why dont the politicions say that they have to agree on 8 TV apperances where they all meet and have a shoot out, or those running for each party have 8 shootouts on live TV. This way the American public will not be brainwashed by telephone messages, have to sit day in and day out and listen to TV ads and so on.

    8 Shootouts would show who is best equipped for the job, and not being impressed by all the money one can raise, also not being impressed by TV hosts actore, who all have nothing to do with politics. Isnt it in the best intrests of the American people to be told the truth. And that must be at least 8 live TV shootouts.

    CNN should just stick to news and not be a biest political shit stirrer, thats not the truth, i do think that the way CNN has conducted itself throughout the election, is somewhat shamefull. and shame on you.

  • jinglebells

    says:

    Hello darlings, hows it all going, are you ready for that big change the United States Of America, will soon change to The United States Of Africa. Who will benifit? As Edwards pointed out to Obama, your policies will leave 15 Million in shit street, i never did hear Obama’s reply. Obama knows this election is about colour and not politics. America has been hoodwinked.

    McCain is a proud American at heart, good luck to this man, sadly CNN is already brainwahing people with a load of smut, let the person come forward and show proof of their story, if not the CNN should shut up and stick to politics.

    To Hilary you are a blessed person, as your life will be a happy one, you are a classy lady with alot of brains, something that most men in politics are scared of. America voted for Bush when they could have had Al Gore, another person who wanted the best for their country. Hilary you have CNN and the whole of the black community against you. Sadly the American woman, has also shown how weak they are, as deep in their hearts they know your the right person, only time will it show how they have voted.

    Whatever happens in America, remember H.Clinton, you are a very respected lady that the world listens to. Obama, it will take more than American election to win the respect of the world, Thats something you wont get for at least 20 years, and that will be the Americans achilles heel. MCain go forward as if Hilary is not elected you will win, the thought of a green horn with so much power in his hands is frightening. Hilary supportes if Hilary dosent make it then you owe it to yourselves to vote McCain for the secuity of your country.

  • Blue Collar

    says:

    The last time i had spare change in my pocket was under Clinton, since then i have struggled everyday to make ends meet. I dont believe in Obama. I will go back to Clinton. Under Clinton’s my family got 3 good meals a day. Im black im proud, but Obama you need to learn manners, respect, and most of all , you need to know what the hell you are talking about.

  • Judith

    says:

    I appreciate all your comments yet cannot agree with them all. I tend to agree most with #25.

    I do not feel that Hillary is riding on any coattail or feels any kind of entitlement. In fact her own husband almost messed up this campaign. She did not get to where she is without personal, emotional and difficult work and committment. She still had to do her job and keep her head together after the tragedy (and horror – due to all the details) of the Lewinsky scandal and how it must have affected she, her daughter, her marriage and her friends, and her position; who of us could do that?

    I remember, living in Arkansas at the time, a lot of blue collar workers saying things like, “Oh, hell, who cares about adultery – as long as he is doing a good job?” I agreed with that in the sense that the media overplayed it. And Bill did do a good job – for eight years if you remember.

    So, why are they turning on “her” now? As #25 said, most voters are not intelligent and do not follow politics, let alone real news. They read sensational news and know nothing about issues coming up any day in Congress to which they could have a voice by writing or e-mailing or even calling a congressman, if they really want change. A President cannot do it on their own; we have a bi-partisan White House in general which slows everything down while these big-wigs talk a lot, travel, have affairs (as we all know) and eat much nicer lunches than you and I can imagine; the “system” needs to be changed.

    I have 3 kids and we have all concluded that as per my living will (so to speak) a 2 out of 3 vote is good (of course considering – good faith, on everyone’s part) which again in politics is almost unheard of. Perhaps, still a third or even 4th party is necessary.

    Then it should be up to the American People to contact their reps to voice their opinion to get the largest votes. For anyone who thinks many people would be disadvantaged, I agree…so the parties and general voters should be responsible for educating those people.

    As per Obama, I can only say that as a white school teacher in a ghetto of Chicago, teaching “at risk – last chance at school in the system” students, getting off the bus, I happened to stumble across him on a band stand that occasionally played music outside Wallace’s Catfish House (a great place to eat) during his Senatorial campaign. So I stopped and listened. I was the only white person there out of about only 80 people who were mostly neighbors or people I was familiar with from the area.

    I found him charismatic as others do, and Michelle as well. I enjoyed the event but noticed that he only raised “black” issues. When it was over, he came out to mingle in the crowd, and I asked him about this, expecting only a short conversation and maybe raise a few of my concerns for my students and see where he stood on those, or what he or I could do, and he quickly shook my hand, brushed me by and said “That’s ok, I need your vote too.”

    It was obvious to me that he took me for a drug-user or prostitute in the neighborhood (because I was the only white). Yet, I led the Science department in one school of the very kids he wanted to lead and the crippling Chicago Public School System. And even had I been a drug user or prostitute, I was not high, I deserved more respect in an election he won that has now gotten him this far.

    I was dumfounded. So go fish! Politics is often seen as equated with winning. For as much as that is true, it is more about paying attention to constituents and getting them to get involved which is the hardest job in the world next to getting the attention of Social Services/doctors/nurses/assistants/families and others to agree on a care program for a disturbed child or an elderly person.

    That’s my voice and I’m sticking to it! Have a nice day. And re-look Hillary over…I honestly think she might have it!