There is no way the numbers can work out for her even under the best-case scenarios which just aren't happening...to make things worse, her biggest supporters are cross-over Republicans and too stay in now can only serve to sever feelings within the party, a party she claims to serve - it's time for Hillary to concede....
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Of no surprise, of course, is that in making the Sunday talk-show rounds Barack Obama's more prominent supporters called for -- begged for -- Hillary's withdrawal at the crack of sunlight, March 5. Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," Senator John Kerry said "Hillary Clinton has to win a big victory in both Ohio and Texas ... not just winning a little bit ... she’s got to win a very significant victory." Senator Durbin, on Fox, was a bit more specific, defining Hillary's challenge as the need to score "extraordinary percentages" in all the remaining primaries just to catch up. And by "extraordinary" he meant insurmountable, even fantastical...Then, revealing his and others' extraordinary frustration, Durbin said, simply, "I hope after Tuesday her decision is made on the basis of the unity of the party." ...Adding that "I just think that D-Day is Tuesday," unaligned Gov. Bill Richardson said on "Face the Nation": "The concern that I have is the bickering that took place between those two very fine senators is going on too long." So much for his non-alignment...But, Hillary's supporters say: Of course those guys would spew such unenlightened garbage, given that they're on the wrong side of "What-if?" history. What these Clintonites intentionally ignore, however, is that even their own guys have been out there, conceding the same. From chief Clinton supporter Bill, to past Clinton mouthpiece James Carville, to current co-chief Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, and most recently, the chiefest strategist of them all, Mark Penn, who now barely recalls having even visited the Clinton headquarters -- all have effectively bailed, pre-March 4. It seems they can add.
With no personal financial interest in extending the agony, however, was Hillary the next day, which would be yesterday. Speaking in Houston, she let loose a few words that surely horrified the true party faithful: "I think we’re going to do well tomorrow," she said. Well, that wasn't so bad. Whew. But then it came, the denial, the fantasy, the laughing against deadly mathematical odds: "Then it’s on to Pennsylvania and the states still ahead. I’m just getting warmed up."...One could almost hear Democratic hearts thudding on floors all across the land. She's kidding, right? Tell us she's kidding. Please...And who knows? Maybe she was. There's no sense in demotivating supporters on primary eve, even when those primaries are essentially meaningless. What we do know, however, is that the GOP is praying harder than anyone that she was not, in fact, kidding.
Hardcore Republicans are now her biggest supporters, her most devoted boosters. Echoing the likes of predatory opportunists such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove also spoke Sunday on Fox for the right-wing "You-go-girl" crowd: "I think it's a mistake for campaign to be calling for her to drop out," he said, with laughably feigned indifference. "It’s up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses." Them, and snickering GOP strategists, I guess...
Naturally the GOP understands as well as objective Democratic strategists that Hillary's odds of success now stand at near absolute zero. Numbers are numbers, and they're furiously stubborn. You can move them around, shift them sideways and yank them up and down, but they'll still total what they total. God didn't play dice with universal mathematics, and He hasn't exempted Hillary's crunchers
...She's lost. And today is but a manic exercise in party demolition. Mrs. Clinton may indeed still score some victories, but if so they'll remain far short of the needed "extraordinary percentages" to shift the balance of overwhelming power and momentum that is Obama's. It was over yesterday, is over this morning, and will be just as over on the morning of March 5. All Mrs. Clinton can accomplish now is the brutal strafing of party resources and desperately needed unity. That, and the provisioning of John McCain with the best of both worlds: providing him the resources he otherwise lacks to effectively diminish in the electorate's mind the Democratic Party's all-but-officially nominated nominee...Some might say, Well, that's a Democrat for you, always self-serving. But in this case, there's no longer any self or cause to realistically serve. It's just monstrously blind demolition. True, the theater of it all may be enjoyable, but its ultimate consequence might not be.
Hillary is the key. If she drags the battle into repulsive, negative, personal Rove-ian territory (she will, esp since knows she's losing the delegate count significantly and desperately), Obama will have to follow and counter. Complete ugliness.
but I read one take that said a "good fight" would keep both Dem camps highly energized, and ready to support whoever won, with the Dem turnout overwhelming the Repug turnout.
Perhaps if she can't win, she'll only be too happy to drag Obama down with her, so she can run against McCain in 2012.
Hillary will win the Nomination, thanks to the Super Delegates.
Indeed, Hillary Clinton is personally seeing to it that the Democratic Party is destroyed. And if for whatever reason the Dems again never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, I venture to say it (the party) will not recover from this.
Here's a little food for thought when considering Hillary's experience or lack there of.
http://barackthevote2008.com/btvblog...03051151am.php
Huckabee stayed in even though he was mathematically out of it for months, but Huckabee was hardly a threat to McCain, unless McCain stumbled to the finish line....and Huck didn't really attack McCain....given that Hillary was able to hold onto a 8 point lead in Ohio, the Hillary camp has shown that it can have some success with their kitchen sink strategy of attacking Obama, but this strategy can also backfire, as it almost did in Texas with her 3:00 a.m. ad....
What evidence do you have?
McCain can sit back and smile while they do his dirty work for him.
Brilliant.
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:
Huffington1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more compe ive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary....
Obama claims Hillary closed the delegate gap Tuesday by only 4 delegates.
Obama is set to unload a superdelegate time-bomb...
Clay Confirms Obama Has 50 New Superdelegates
PoliticoRep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama’s Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.
Said Clay: “She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over.”
clinton haters run rampant
, Obama won the delegate race in Texas by four or five. Now the delegate race is even tougher for Clinton.
The Obama campaign has denied this claim.
If 50 Superdelegates do come out for Obama and Hillary continues to see her lead among them shrink, you might see some folks inside the campaign urge her to get out or start thinking about it.
But IMO, those 50 Supers wouldn't be enough for her to back out before Pennsylvania. And when she wins Pennsylvania, it's not like MORE will defect or commit to Obama.
Obama has to pull out these 50 and BEG the Supers to come out for him after he takes Wyoming and Mississippi. If that happens, then I think you see her start to consider dropping out.
Personally though, I think it'll take her getting hit by a freight train to get her out of this race...
Ahhh, but there are TWO other BIG battleground states not represented:
Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Both will vote very similar to Ohio, IMO; and because PA hasn't happened yet, and Michigan's primary is nullified (so far), she doesn't get the benefit of that. Hillary would also cary Florida, if the Latino bias that has been EVERYWHERE else is any indicator.
The Dems, with their apportioned delegates, cancelled primaries (in two BIG states) and "Super" delegates are a complete joke. Were this a general election between Barrack and Hillary; she would have won in a LANDSLIDE!!! It would seem intelligent that you would pick your nominee is at least a similar fashion that they will do battle in November (the Spurs don't play "HORSE" to get into the palyoffs, do they - they play the same games that will be played in the playoffs!).
Not the Dems - they pick the strongest candidate in one type of election to run in a completely different type of (the more important) election!
Obviously logic, and far-sightedness aren't any stronger in their selction process, than they are in their policy choices.
Clinton wins by FOUR or FIVE % points, but Obama gets more delegates???
ing Hillarious!
Democrats are stupid.
She got two more delegates in the primary, but Obama received seven more delegates from the caucuses (+5 for Obama).
The funny thing is that, according to Glen Beck, the Texas caucuses were put in place to prevent Jesse Jackson from winning Texas and now they've given Obama the delegate victory.
I do agree that the Demos need to reevaluate the system after this election. No matter which candidate wins, their respective supporters will feel that they were cheated.
Just going off on a tangent here - I actually prefer the Demo primary apportioned delegate system to the general election winner take all system and I wish the Demo apportioned system would be adopted for the electoral college.
The reason I say that is that it would make the general election a true national election. The Democratic candidates would have to visit districts in Texas and Republican candidates would have to do the same in Florida. I just remember that in 2004, here in Texas, it felt as if the presidential campaign wasn't taking place in our state. It'd be nice for us to have an opportunity to have both candidates in our state trying to win votes.
You WANT national elections? "Flyover" states would become that for the politicians, as well.
I sure as don't want urban areas ALONE picking MY president.
She's going to have to crush to close the delegate gap. Its just NOT going to happen. She's not even going to win every state from here on out much less destroy Obama in each state.
If she's asking the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegate counts then she's asking to ruin the Party and disillusion a lot of people who are enegergized for this election. She's asking to hand it to the republicans.
I've lost a lot of respect for her recently. I never liked her before this race, I was starting to like her a lot more, but now this si ridiculous. She's putting her personal ambitions above everything else.
Welcome to the party, grab a beer and enjoy the show.
No, I'm not advocating for a purely majority wins election. I just think that instead of the winner takes all electoral college system here in Texas, the electoral college votes would be apportioned by the Congressional districts they represent. That way the candidates can't ignore states during the election.
You're going to hold this against a politician?
I thought that was the definition!
Got it.
Doesn't sound bad; gonna think about the downside of that (if there is one).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
