Somebody explain the Clinton dismissal, please.

[wivabef]

I honestly do not understand what is going on with the Democrat's primary.

Barack Obama is not screaming ahead. He is presently ahead by 1.5 percent according to the democratic popular election count on Real Clear Politics

That is not a clear win in my books.

As far as delegates go, he presently has 1658 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1500 pledged delegates... both are a considerable distance from the 2026 they need to secure the nomination.

As for the Superdelegates... he only leads by 35. And there are still 200 or so that need to commit.

It seems clear that this needs to run its course... and if I were one of the nearly 17,000,000 that voted for Hillary Clinton, I'd be a little bit more than peeved that leaders of my party and seemingly the media treat her like a mosquito they just can't seem to swat away.

Then, when the RFK comment came up, I knew exactly what she was talking about. It was a historical comparison to explain that historically, primaries have gone on a lot longer than this. I was shocked to see that it was turned into an insensitive comment and even more shocked that somehow, that was suggesting that Obama could be assassinated? WHAT????!!!

I find it odd that someone who has clearly paid her price to the party can be so summarily dismissed. Then I remember, it was less than a century ago that women got the vote, and they were summarily dismissed. Maybe it's time we donned the color purple again.

Ross Perot got more respect than this.

Quite frankly, it makes me sick.

[Prepoia[$]]

I agree. The party is making itself look bad again to many people just when it needed to look good. They are embarrassing Hillary and she hasn't done anything to earn the treatment they are giving her. There's been nothing to indicate to me that this is a "one man" race yet other than bilge coming from her party.

[brian_igo]

If you want to claim that Hillary Clinton is being forced out of this race by some sexist cabal, please show some evidence of it at work beyond "Then I remember, it was less than a century ago that women got the vote, and they were summarily dismissed."

(If it is the infamous "Iron my shirt" incident in New Hampshire, please note for context that the idiot who did that was plant from a Morning Zoo radio show in Boston. And a self-professed Republican, to boot. In that same, sick, vein - let's not forget it was GOP sleaze operative Roger Stone who took it upon himself to create the anti-Hillary group Citizens United Not Timid. (Do the acronym yourself.) Are Democratic voters and the Democratic party responsible for the slimy gruntings from some in the GOP?)

Why is Hillary Clinton being summarily dismissed? Elyzabeth - you know politics as well as anyone here. Show me one other example where a candidate lost eleven primaries in a row, many by more than thirty points, and was still considered a viable contender?

You know the answer. It's never happened. Same with the viability of a candidate who racked up $20 million in debts in the primaries. The cold, hard truth is that if her name was anything other than Hillary Clinton, her political obituary would have been written no later than February 29th, and that is the only double standard in this contest. The only reason she's still in this race is because the same media who created the myth of the Clinton's as modern-day Machiavelli's wasn't going to admit their sixteen year-long mistake just because Hillary Clinton's campaign was imploding.

I want to get back to that implosion in a minute. But we're not done with double standards yet. I want to know what is the statute of limitations for saying something like "Chelsea Clinton is so ugly because Janet Reno is her father." A candidate in this race right now said that, but you haven't heard even one word of righteous outrage from Hillary Clinton or anyone in her campaign to John McCain. To the contrary, she can't go far enough out of her way to kiss his ass. Same with Richard Mellon Scaife - who spent years and millions of dollars creating the most vile accusations against Hillary Clinton and her family. Or Bill Clinton going on Rush Limbaugh's show on the day of the Texas primary and he didn't come into the studio swinging a baseball bat.

No, everything was sweetness and light with Limbaugh just as it was with McCain and Scaife, because no matter what these horrible people did in the past, she needs them now. Anything can be forgiven - even the most heinous attacks on your children - if you can help deliver blue collar white males.

Look at this and tell me how Hillary Clinton is not just cynically using charges of sexism - and exploiting decades of real discrimination experienced by her supporters - to stay in an election?




**********



Now about the RFK remarks last Thursday. For starters, Clinton is being disingenuous to the point of lying out of her ass when she compares this election year to 1992 or 1968.

Here's a fact check on 1992:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has often responded to criticisms about the prolonged Democratic battle with a nod back to another Clinton campaign.

She did it again Wednesday. ''Remember, this is a long journey,'' she said on ''The Early Show'' on CBS. ''My husband didn't get the nomination until June of 1992, and I have every confidence that we're going to continue to pick up delegates as we go.''

That may be so. But ''long'' is a relative term.

The 1992 Democratic campaign to defeat President George Bush started much later than this year's campaign. Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, announced his candidacy on Oct. 3, 1991. Mrs. Clinton began her race last January, and her Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, entered the contest soon after.

The state-by-state primaries and caucuses started a month later in 1992 than they did in 2008. And the compact front-loaded schedule this year means that, unlike then, most of the country's Democrats have already been to the polls.

Yet by March 20, 1992, the list of Democrats seeking the nomination had dwindled to the point where Phil Angelides, then the chairman of the California Democratic Party, said, ''Today is really the day we start the general election campaign against George Bush.''

Less than two weeks later, on April 8, after winning the New York primary, Mr. Clinton's deputy campaign manager, George Stephanopoulos, declared the process complete.

''It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination, and it would take Tsongas about 90 percent of the remaining delegates to win,'' Mr. Stephanopoulos said, referring to Senator Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts, who had already suspended his campaign, and Jerry Brown, the former California governor. Though Mr. Brown competed until the Democratic convention, Mr. Clinton was the presumptive nominee.

But even if you take June 1992 as the month when Mr. Clinton had it ''wrapped up,'' as Mrs. Clinton now says, only nine months had passed since he had entered the race. By June, Mrs. Clinton's campaign would be in its 17th month.

And here's a look at what actually happened in 1968:

And that makes the 1968 analogy all the more inapt. Because the first contest that year, the New Hampshire primary, was on March 12, 1964.

Meaning, the fact that it was still going on in June then would be like this year's race still going on in March.

But that doesn't even really begin to explain how the 1968 comparison is ludicrous.

*****

Back then, only 13 states even held primaries -- the party bosses in most states controlled the delegates.

That's why it was possible for the 1968 Democratic presidential nominee -- then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey -- to have secured the nomination after having won exactly ZERO primaries.

To recap, then-President Lyndon Johnson won the New Hampshire primary in 1968 with 49 percent of the vote, with then-Sen. Eugene McCarthy, D-Minn, having secured a strong second place finish with 42 percent of the vote.

Then-Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., announced his candidacy on March 16. On March 31, Johnson gave his famous address to the nation, announcing, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

But delegates allocated by primary victory were not as important back then.

McCarthy won Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Kennedy won Indiana, Nebraska and South Dakota, and was assassinated on June 5, right after winning the California contest over McCarthy, 46 percent to 42 percent.

Meanwhile, Vice President Humphrey was focused on winning the delegates in states where they were in the pocket of party bosses (which was most of them). Though McCarthy won the Pennsylvania primary, for instance with 72 percent, the man who ran the Democratic Party at the time, Mayor James Tate of Philadelphia, made sure Humphrey – who was not even on the ballot -- got most of the delegates.

What might have been is open to debate, but there are plenty of historians who feel that Humphrey would have secured the nomination in 1968 even if RFK had walked out of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles that horrible night. He had the institutional control, and the support of people such as Mayor Tate of Philadelphia and Mayor Richard Daley Sr. in Chicago.

(snip)

But even beyond the clear inappropriateness of the 1968 timeline analogy is the context in which Clinton was citing it. That is, in a discussion about why the continued primary season would not hurt party unity. Because 1968, after all, was also the year of one of the most divisive and ugly Democratic conventions in history.

And needless to say, the victor that year was the Republican.

Clinton went on in that same editorial board meeting with the Argus Leader to say "I have, perhaps, a long enough memory that many people who finished a rather distant second behind nominees go all the way to the convention. I remember very well 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, where some who had contested in the primaries, you know, were determined to carry their case to the convention."

Let's review: 1980 -- Republican wins; 1984 -- Republican wins; 1988 -- Republican wins; 1992 -- Democrat wins; but doesn't reach 50 percent of the vote and is only victorious, in all likelihood, because of the third-party candidacy of H. Ross Perot.*

(snip)

(H)istory is history, and Sen. Clinton has been rather clumsily using it to justify her continued candidacy, a candidacy that should be able to rise or fall on its own merits.

All of this is forgetting the massive impropriety of using the example of an assassinated candidate as a reason to stay in the race. The Clinton campaign has done everything short of renting billboards to advertise that they think Obama will be felled by some cataclysmic event. After spending months openly implying there was some unknown political scandal that would fall him, you can hardly blame people for taking the candidate herself literally when she cited RFK's assassination as a historical reason to stay in the race.


*************

Now about why a lot of people think this is done.

No great offense intended, but you have gone out of your way to do a selective reading of where this race is in regard to delegates.

Here's one big thing you failed to mention: Obama is just 49 delegates away from winning the nomination as I write this. Clinton is 246 short. There are 373 delegates remaining.

(Come back later today or tomorrow and Obama's number will probably change - he's been picking up 2-5 super delegates per day. In the last two months he's been beating Clinton on super delegate endorsements by almost 10:1.)

Here's how the math works: There are three primaries left. Clinton is expected to well in Puerto Rico. The proportional delegate system means that she'll most likely get 35 of the 55 delegates on June 1. Then comes Montana and South Dakota two days later. Obama is expected to win big in those states, winning 20 of the 31 between the two states.

Take his 20 from Puerto Rico and his 20 from Montana and South Dakota, and he's just nine delegates short if he doesn't get another super delegate in the next week.

Not getting another super delegate is a hypothetical situation because 34 of the remaining super delegates are add-on delegates. These are a class of supers who are awarded to the winner of state contests. Obama will get 20 of those 34 at state conventions between now and June 21.

When you're just 49 away, 20+20+20=game over.

Or would you like to look at it the other way? Clinton will get 46 pledged delegates and 14 add-ons, which means she has to get 186 of the unannounced free agent super delegates. At this writing there are only 167 of those delegates left.

It's over.

Let the process play itself out? Sure. The Clinton campaign has done such a good job of poisoning the well with its talk of disenfranchisement that the rules of every other primary do not apply here.

And while I'm on that subject, I would be a lot less annoyed with all this if there was even a moment of handwringing or one crocodile tear for the millions of Republicans who never got the chance to cast a meaningful vote for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Can everyone making this inane argument at least pretend to be consistent?

The party is not embarassing Hillary Clinton. She's doing a fine job of that herself.

Edit to add: My source for keeping track of super delegate endorsements is the most excellent blog 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. They're not aligned with either campaign and they've become the gold standard for tracking super delegate endorsements, drops and switches. It's the first thing I read every morning and I check it several times a day.

[wivabef]

As I was watching the who's online section and saw your extended time spent replying, I knew I was going to be in big trouble LOL.

Then, I said, "I wish I hadn't said the woman comment." Not because I don't believe it's true, but because I think is takes away from my genuine befuddlement over how Hillary Clinton has been over and over again declared the loser even as she won. Constantly, I would hear, "Hillary Clinton has won this state. People are calling for her to step down."

Huh?

I am understanding it better, now. The real politics site is up to date, so I am sure it is not that you are accusing me of providing fixed numbers but perhaps rather of feigning ignorance to what will happen in the future. I was really trying to provide the most accurate, up to date information of results that have actually happened. I also do not believe that Florida and Michigan should be counted... none of those votes would be fair, as many people did not bother to vote as they believed their votes would not count. My mind spins trying to figure out what you have all figured out. It was during this time during elections when I was glad to be the envelope stuffer and voter picker upper rather than the "if this happens, then this happens" matrix and flowchart guardian. I really think you give me more credit than I deserve!

I'm not touting McCain nor am I posting this to draw attention away from him or to him, whatever you might think my agenda might be. He got the big red X when he cuddled up to the evangelicals, a turning point you can find here on this site. It is a turning point that would have shown up a lot sooner had I ever heard of this so-called "joke." McCain is no doubt the press darling. He always has been. He's got that same teflon exterior Reagan had. His comment was inexcusable, no matter the context. If Hillary Clinton had made some kind of comment about McCain being gay, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

I would not even deign to get into a discussion about Republicans, it's not really my point here. I didn't ask "why do the Republicans suck?" I am not disingenous in my query, Brian... I'm not trying to turn this into a partisan fight. I honestly do not see Obama as winning this by a landslide. I honestly believe that the entire Democratic primary has been tainted by pundits proclaiming a landslide and expecting Hillary Clinton to give up as if the race was as readily determined as the Republican primary. Romney and Huckabee quit. Did I think that primary could have played out differently for McCain. Yes. The fact is they quit. Were they convinced to quit? Probably. Does that make them weak in my mind? Absolutely.

I am not saying I agree with Hillary Clinton's comparison to past primary elections. The process is young, I understand that the legality of presidential primary elections wasn't even a reality until, ironically, in Florida, a law was enacted to allow them in 1901. The first wasn't held until 1910 in Oregon. So there isn't much history with which one can compare. But, I do not think she used the point of reference to intentionally suggest that Obama is an assassination waiting to happen.

I have not seen or heard any comments (I'm sure there are plenty that you can pull up, but I have not seen or heard any personally) by anybody in the Clinton camp suggesting that he is some target. Again, like the McCain comment, news to me. But then again, I don't read a lot of the highly-charged blogs that make such connections.

Why does she continue to run? Because so far 16,227,514 have asked her to. There were many who were disappointed when Romney quit.

And yes, Hillary Clinton does embarass herself frequently. As one who suffers from foot-in-mouth disease, I relate to her.

So. Back to the point that I was wary to bring up but now am glad I did.

Yes. there is sexism and even misogyny at play, here. Just like it would be ignorant of anybody to pretend that race doesn't matter in this race, it would be ignorant to pretend that there is not sexism at play here.

I haven't looked up Marie Cocco nor have I ever read her before, so I sure hope I'm not using the words of someone who has an opinion record akin to Phyllis Schlafly, though I doubt it...I think there is some merit in my suggestion that there is a misogyny at play here. Yes... surely by Republicans. But also by the Democrats.

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

That's because it's not okay to be racist. But it's still okay to be sexist.

[brian_igo]

wivabef said

Then, I said, "I wish I hadn't said the woman comment." Not because I don't believe it's true, but because I think is takes away from my genuine befuddlement over how Hillary Clinton has been over and over again declared the loser even as she won. Constantly, I would hear, "Hillary Clinton has won this state. People are calling for her to step down."

Huh?

I am understanding it better, now. The real politics site is up to date, so I am sure it is not that you are accusing me of providing fixed numbers but perhaps rather of feigning ignorance to what will happen in the future. I was really trying to provide the most accurate, up to date information of results that have actually happened. I also do not believe that Florida and Michigan should be counted... none of those votes would be fair, as many people did not bother to vote as they believed their votes would not count. My mind spins trying to figure out what you have all figured out. It was during this time during elections when I was glad to be the envelope stuffer and voter picker upper rather than the "if this happens, then this happens" matrix and flowchart guardian. I really think you give me more credit than I deserve!

I wasn't assigning anything to you. When you ask why HRC is being dismissed when she's within 1.5% of Obama's vote and when they are just x apart on pledged and super delegates, it really ignores the central factors in any evaluation of this race: How many delegates does each need, and how many are left? That's what is going to drive the outcome, everything else is trivia.

That she has done well in the last month of the campaign is no different than a team that rallies in the ninth but comes up short, if you want to use a baseball analogy, or a student who scrambles in the last month of the semester to pull up his grades. Winning the fourth quarter or the last innings doesn't mean you win the game.

I'll ask you a question I've asked a lot of people this year: Who should be held accountable for things like the Hillary Clinton nutcracker and GOP-front groups like the Roger Stone organization I listed above? (I won't call it by its name.) None of this has had anything to do with the Obama campaign, the DNC, or even the media. None of them have endorsed it. There have been (to my ears) an almost universal denouncement of it. But that it keeps being brought up again and again, as you cited at the end of your post, apparently that isn't enough. So I ask, what does it take to convince you that people like myself really find that shit reprehensible?

What does it take to convince you that most people don't think it is okay to be sexist?

I get the feeling from reading Clinton supporters that they expect everyone to stop at nothing short of torches and pitchforks, and to make the campaign about nothing except the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton. If I'm overestimating it, please tell me what does have to be done.

My points about McCain, Limbaugh and Scaife was about Clinton's selective outrage when it comes to sexist attacks on her and her family. What about that? How am I not supposed to compare that to the reaction to a goddamned nutcracker and not see screaming hypocrisy?

I'm a guy so my thoughts about feminism have as much basis in experience as a dolphins opinion on tap dancing. But I don't see how running her campaign this way is going to help any woman get elected president. What you wrote in your first post, "someone who has clearly paid her price to the party can be so summarily dismissed," and what followed, I said out loud that no woman will ever get elected president or even win a nomination if that's how you want to go at it. This isn't an entitlement. When it is handed out because it's someone's turn, it never ends well for that candidate or party. (See Bob Dole in 1996.) Any woman who will win any major political office will only do so when she is the best candidate on the ballot - period. Her gender has to be irrelevant. Women will vote for her, just as African-Americans are voting for Obama, but that can't be a reason she (or he) deserves to win. That's the way it was for Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, and that's the way it will be for the first woman who will be elected president.

Has Clinton been the best candidate? Hell, no. This has been the most disastrously managed campaign I've ever seen. The New Republic polled more than a dozen Clinton campaigns staffers recently about the biggest mistakes the campaign has made. The most shocking thing to me is that there were so many strong reasons given. This campaign totally underestimated its principal opponent, they didn't hire anyone who had worked a presidential campaign since the rise of the internet, they ran expensive top-down state campaigns that failed to match Obama in grass roots efforts, they totally blew the effect of youth turnout, they created a strategy to wrap up the nomination by February 5 and when they didn't it took another six weeks to get their act together.

Want to talk about HRC's shortcomings as a candidate? The only thing worse than her Iraq war vote was her explanation for it in this campaign. (As Jon Stewart quipped, how could she have known that voting for a bill called the Authorization for the Use of Military Force would be read by the president as an Authorization to Use Military Force?) Her biggest weakness has always been trust, which means the self-inflicted wounds from mis-remembering Tuzla, her past as a gun enthusiast, her position on NAFTA, ad infinitum, would do more damage than anything said about her by Obama or Edwards. She chose to run on a platform of experience when the country is screaming for change. She ran for a few weeks as John McCain's running mate. And the list goes on and on.

With her name recognition, support among a key demographic for the Democratic party, and early money advantage she should have wrapped up this nomination on February 5. That didn't happen because of rampant sexism. It happened because she's a deeply flawed candidate who ran an awful campaign. She's the Rudy Giuliani of the 2008 Democratic primary. That's all.

[theworm[$]]

I probably should know better than to post anything here because I'm the first to admit that I'm less keyed into politics than Elyzabeth and Brian, and I don't want to seem like I'm trying to moderate a discussion between my husband and my friend. I actually am posting because I think they both bring up good points that are making me think.

Honestly, early on in this campaign I was supporting Clinton. The more I learned about Obama, the more I liked him and I switched my support to him. The truth is that I like them both. Given a choice, my vote goes to Obama, but should Clinton take the nomination, I could and would vote for her without reservation. I like her and I think she would be a good president.

That being said, I do think that she has not put her best foot forward in the campaign. I don't know enough to know if I should "blame" her or her campaign people, but I think she's made some big mistakes. They've all made mistakes, and perhaps the point is that the press is being harder on her than on the others. If that is the case, than I have fallen victim to that taint. I don't think though, and I hope I'm not wrong, that the press has been hard on Clinton because she's a woman. I think that the Rev. Wright news was huge and potentially damaging to Obama, but that he and his campaign maneuvered through that better than Clinton has maneuvered through her unpleasant moments in the press.

I agree with Elyzabeth that probably too much was made of the RFK comment. While I think it was an unfortunate mistake on her part, I never for one moment thought she was implying or wishing any misfortune to Obama, any more than I think Huckabee's ridiculous comment about Obama meant that he should be shot.

I can not blame Clinton for staying in the race as long as she believes that she can win. She wants to be President, and I respect her drive and her determination to keep fighting. As Elyzabeth said, the popular vote is a close one, and she does have tremendous support. However, our system works on delegates, and within that system, with the way the votes now fall, she has very little if any chance of winning the nomination. If the numbers that Brian posted are correct (and I believe that they are) she can't win. If that is the case, I think the "right" thing to do is to back down and support the party. I can't imagine how hard it is to stop fighting for the Presidency after living, sleeping and dreaming it for so long, but if she can't take it, she would best help the party, by supporting Obama. I don't envy her the position she's in. She's a strong candidate, but it looks like she's going down with the ship when she can instead put her energies into supporting the party.

All that being said, she'll do what works for her and I hope that one the nomination is announced, the party will unify in support of the candidate.

My hope and belief is that Obama will be that candidate - and if that is the case, I would love to see him appoint Clinton to the Supreme Court where I think she would do great things for our country!

[brian_igo]

Wormie makes some great points. She mentioned her Supreme Court idea a couple of days ago and I think it is a very good idea. And her observation that Obama has managed his crisis moments better than Clinton is astute, too. Neither has been perfect, Obama was much too slow to recognize and correctly handle what was happening with Wright, but that is much better than Clinton's typical MO of insisting that she made no mistakes at all.

The comparison between Huckabee's and Clinton's shooting-related gaffes also has a difference she didn't mention. Compare how each reacted to the criticism. Huckabee said he'd made a terrible mistake and he apologized, end of discussion. Clinton, as she did with Tuzla and on many other occasions, spun it as if the criticisms were unfair attacks on her.

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

When Bill or Hillary Clinton makes a mistake it's always someone else's fault. I don't think that's a winning tactic in any campaign, but it's a really bad plan when you're running to replace George W. Bush - who rode this "don't blame me" attitude all the way to a 24% approval rating. And her crying that people are trying to make political hay out of her gaffe doesn't look good when her campaign openly did exactly this - and more - during the Wright fiasco.

A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.

Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.

But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates.

"This helps both his opponents," Politico.com's Mike Allen told CBS News. "It lets Senator Clinton off the mat, gives her basically a club to hit him with. And it helps Senator McCain because it makes it easy for him to cast this as a race against a snob."

The Clinton campaign handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."

Shit like this has driven me insane during this campaign. They want to use bare-knuckle politics whenever they can and then they whine their asses off and cry sexism when anything like that is used on them.

And it doesn't show signs of stopping soon. The way the Clinton campaign has moved the goalposts and redefined winning have become legendary in this campaign. You might remember that for the last two months they have cried it would be the end of Western Civilization if the super delegates decided the race before all of the states had voted. Well, now we're eight days away from the last primary and guess what - the standards are changing again.

Bill Clinton: 'Cover up' hiding Hillary Clinton's chances

Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, and suggested some were trying to "push and pressure and bully" superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

"I can't believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out," Clinton said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News.

Clinton also suggested some were trying to "cover up" Sen. Clinton's chances of winning in key states that Democrats will have to win in the general election.

" 'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.' "

This is insane.

[wivabef]

Wormie, as usual, you say it better than I without the vitriole. You basically said what I meant to say... although, I do believe there is sexism. She sounds like she's whining, because she is whining. But the whine is legitimate.. and with the Marie Cocco piece, you see instances of it from the media, from the left and the only woman standing up on her behalf in the old boys club known as the senate is Barbara Mikulski, who really never did give a rat's ass what people think of her. (Although, I sure wish she'd stop dropping press releases for every ridiculous thought she ever had!... but that's another story and another ream of fax paper).

This is not to say that everybody is sexist, Brian.. and I certainly would never say that of you, I think the fact that you aren't may cloud your perception of what is and has been for sometime out there.

From Marie Cocco's site. (I'm not including the Republican and merchandising references, as we have already covered them here):

It is liberal darlings:

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site.

National Public Radio pundits:

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

Hardball Chris Matthews and general butthead, my favorite fiction writer, Mike Barnicle:

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

Come June 3, Hillary will have played all her cards and it will all be over. But she is someone who likes to finish what she started. And considering what she has stood up against, it's no surprise she is fighting back hard.

[brian_igo]

I really, really like politicians who fight hard. What pisses me off are politicians who fight hard and then cry sexism when they get roughed up, and who lie their asses off time and time again to get the nomination.

Winning by any means is not acceptable to me. I detested it when it was coming from Karl Rove and I feel no different when it is coming from Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[anderclayton]

theworm said

If the numbers that Brian posted are correct (and I believe that they are) she can't win.

Which has essentially been the case since Obama's big win way back when. Or at least the numbers have been so heavily weighed against winning that it would require something crazy to happen for her to win.

It was also the case that Obama quite probably wouldn't be able to close the deal outside of pledge delegates.

...then there is the Michigan thing where something like 38% of the Democrats specifically voted against her when she was the only one on the ballot. Which she then claimed as putting her ahead of the popular vote.

The way that the Democratic primary stuff works it is pretty tough for someone who is behind to catch up because states are split according to votes, instead of it being an all or nothing sort of thing like the general election.