She Has Only Begun To Fight
Even if you are a Senator Clinton supporter her latest remarks about continuing the fight even after Texas and Ohio have got to be a little disconcerting. While it has been an historical and exciting primary season, I find it hard to believe that if after the Texas and Ohio primaries Senator Clinton has not been able to make up lost ground on Senator Obama that she would continue the fight. Though there have begun to be calls that Senator Clinton should abandon her quest for the Presidency I think that they may be premature. At this point the nomination is still as much hers as it is Senator Obama’s, but at some point I hope she recognizes that to continue to fight would be detrimental to the Party and the eventual nominee.
Even though Senator Obama has scored a series of wins and appears to be driving towards the nomination Senator Clinton still has a mathematical chance at regaining her footing and possibly winning. I know it seems unlikely and I personally believe that she will not win, the process must continue at least until Texas and possibly Ohio. There are a number of reasons why I think Senator Clinton will not win the nomination that I would like to discuss here.
The first is politics is a lot like sports, momentum plays a large part in the outcomes. Everyone wants to back a perceived winner. And also just as in sports, perception is often times the reality. Senator Obama is riding the wave of 11 straight victories and nothing succeeds like success. Senator Clinton has not won a contest since Super Tuesday, not only has she not won but has also been losing by double digits. Donors follow the winners, the more you win the easier it is to raise funds. Hillary’s donors have got to be feeling the heat right now and fundraising has got to be tough.
Indeed, Obama now appears to be at a tipping point where all the good news is his and all the bad news is hers. Beyond Clinton's string of recent losses, she has also replaced her campaign manager and deputy manager and loaned her campaign $5 million from personal funds.
Whether these developments turn Obama's campaign into a bandwagon in which Democratic voters start piling on -- the more historically normal pattern at this stage -- will determine whether Obama seizes front-runner status or the two keep slugging it out into the spring. Miami Herald
The second is the fact that we are even in this position so late in the primaries. No candidate has ever been afforded all of the tools given to Senator Clinton at the beginning of this process. Let’s face it no candidate had more money, name recognition, or organization than Hillary Clinton, the fact that she is still in a dog-fight with a one-term unknown Senator speaks to her organizational skills and potential electability. Even her supporters have to be concerned by the current turn of events. Who could have predicted this scenario at the end of last year? This thing was suppose to be over by New Hampshire. The biggest explanation for this meltdown can only be the decision making inside the Clinton campaign, which has to fall on the candidate and not the manager.
WASHINGTON — She had everything going for her. The most famous name in politics. A solid lead in the polls. A war chest of at least $133 million.
Yet Hillary Clinton now finds herself struggling for political survival, her once-firm grasp of the Democratic presidential nomination seemingly slipping away. McClatchy News
The third is concern of campaign fund mismanagement that is only now starting to surface. These concerns should have surfaced after the Senator’s senatorial re-election campaign which spent 30 million dollars on a campaign with only token opposition. The thing with campaign spending is that as long as you are winning no one really counts the cost, but as soon as you start losing every nickel is scrutinized. Right now Senator Clinton’s campaign spending is not only being scrutinized by the media and the blogosphere, but also her campaign donors and no one seems to like what they are finding. The campaign’s free-wheeling spending is causing alarm and now that the news has gotten out that the Senator had to loan her own campaign 5 million dollars the speculation is going through the roof.
If Senator Clinton had won the nomination as expected, would we be discussing her campaign spending now? I seriously doubt it. I think that because the Senator did not win as expected people are now looking for reasons to abandon her campaign and this is as good an excuse as any. The American public, media, and donors are fickle. One day you’re riding high and the next day you’re yesterday’s news. If Senator Clinton is not able to win Texas by double digits, I think it would be incumbent on her to bow out for the good of the Party. We will get to see if her own personal ambition is more important than the Party. If that proves to be the case, then I think the public, including a lot of her supporters will turn against her for good.
WASHINGTON — She had everything going for her. The most famous name in politics. A solid lead in the polls. A war chest of at least $133 million.
Yet Hillary Clinton now finds herself struggling for political survival, her once-firm grasp of the Democratic presidential nomination seemingly slipping away. McClatchy News
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
- Forgiven's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
It would help
if you could add a line to your DKos diary saying that it is cross-posted here.
qui tacet consentire
It is time
for the party to coalesce around a democratic nominee and focus on winning the general.
This is why Dodd came out to support Hillary yesterday, imho, as a signal that it is time for party unity.
If Clinton ties or wins marginally on March 4th and continues on to Pennsylvania it will be very bad for the party.
Think of it this way. If the situation were reversed and Obama had LOST 11 in a row, do you think he would still be in the race?
Hillary has a promising career for herself as a great politician. She shouldn't tear the democratic party to shreds, trying to find a way to gerry-rig herself into the nomination.
The question is who in the party will ask her to exit the primary before it is too late.
I'm only half stupid
-4
I can see I'm going to have to unlaod the full clip of minus 4s in this diary! ;-)
A senator, sticking his finger in the wind and lining up behind the frontrunner this late in the campaign is hardly a watershed moment to me. It is a signal that Dodd knows what side his bread is buttered on, as most Senators do.
Bah! How is it bad for the party? Why shouldn't all the states be heard? I'm so tired of this system, where my vote does not get counted because other states have pushed to the front of the line in the primary calendar.
If he had won New York and California, was only slightly behind in the delegate count, and was close in the polls in Ohio and Texas, then yes, I think he would still be in the race, and these same people who think that Hillary is hurting the party by continuing her run now would be cheering Obama on to the finish line, urging him to keep up his campaign to the Convention so that "his message will be heard."
How is a little competition "tearing the party to shreds??" How is the party even being hurt?
Let them run. Let me vote in a primary for one time in life.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
We disagree...
Get back to me in a week and we will se what the numbers look like.
I will give you a +4 for your -4 on the grounds of passionate defense for your nominee who has to come from behind to beat Obama.
I'm only half stupid
Thanks for the +4
It takes a big person to give out a +4 to someone who has just given them a -4 ;-)
I am a passionate Hillary defender, perhaps, but as I have made clear on many occasions, she is not "my nominee", and I plan to vote for Obama in the Ohio primary next week. It is not about my preference of nominee... it is about other things, like 1.) letting the primary play out in the voting booth, and putting aside all this silliness that letting the people decide the primary in the voting booth somehow "hurts the party" and 2.) countering all these ridiculous predictions of Hillary melting down, her ultimate self destruction personally and politically, and her supporters "turning on her". Some "Democrats", for whatever reason, won't be happy until the the legacy of the most successful presidency in my lifetime is fully rewritten into an abject failure, complete with the personal and political destruction of its architects. All these people so concerned about things that "hurt the party" somehow don't consider that the complete rejection of the Clinton legacy might hurt the party also. After all, why would anybody want to vote for a party which hadn't had a successful President in the last 45 years?
Fie on the Clinton haters. Bill wasn't perfect, neither is Hillary, but they were and are good Democrats.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
excellent, excellent comment
from another poster who would be more likely to support Obama in the voting booth, but finds himself defending Clinton almost exclusively because of the alignments at dkos.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
let me just clarify
that by "another poster" you mean "pico" ;)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There's a poll out saying McCain will beat any Democrat
this year in the LA Times.
I think they're pushing their desires not America's.
I don't see either Hillary or Barak losing to McCain this year. Why? Because unfortunately the Republican Party has become trapped in the grip of a gang of nut cases who America does not believe have their best interests at heart. Iraq for another hundred years right?
At this point
McCain's impression in most minds is based on the last few years, a time when he was most noted for symbolically (if rarely practically) breaking with Bush and his fellow republicans. Now that he has started marching in lockstep, and with the campaign coverage really only beginning for most people, I expect the view of him to plummet pretty rapidly.
McCain's campaign is also skint, Huckabee's campaign refuses to die, and apparently Romney is floating trial balloons about getting back in.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Don't be too sure
I've been getting a sneaking suspicion that McCain can take this election. The polls are tightening and conservatives are getting over their anger.
even *if* the right coalesces
and that is certainly possible...
they still face a very tough environment. They are down in money, they are down in terms of registered party members. They are following a two term member of their party who is massively unpopular. Their principle project is also very unpopular.
Additionally McCain is well known for his tempermental outbursts, and is in general a lackluster campaigner. He's also quite old. He's already had a series of embarassing quotes that just won't fly when the public starts paying attention. The same can be said for Obama but I believe Obama can do a better job of smoothing over the backlash. He's got charisma, no denying that.
I'm certainly not saying McCain *can't* win, but he better run a damn good campaign, and the dem (Obama most likely) will have to make some screw ups.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
if if if
yes, we'll see.
Thankless work :-p
It looks like the site accepted wisdom is that Hillary should drop out, and is a sore loser for not already having done so. As anti-Hillary as that site is, I can't believe I "lost" by 24 to 0 mojo shutout in this exchange:
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
*sigh*
I'll tell you who I'm turning on-- I'm turning on all the people who are intent that Hillary Clinton will end this campaign personally and politically destroyed :-p I guarantee that a lot of these same people who are calling for Hillary to drop out "for the good of the party" would not be calling Obama to do the same if the positions were reversed right now. They would want Obama to "fight" to the point of bing mathematically eliminated on the delegate count and beyond, all the way to the Convention.
Let the thing play out, please. Let me cast a meaningful vote one friggin time here in Ohio before we start writing epitaphs, mkay? /rant
Yeah, she's behind, and odds are against her winning the nomination, but it is still very close in the delegate count, and there is no reason that Hillary should even be thinking about dropping out at this moment, unless she wants to. She's not hurting the party by continuing to run.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I learned something
I didn't know about Hillary last night.
When she did her Heath Care Makeover as the wife of the President, she was playing with one seventh of the budget, behind closed doors, without informing the rest of the democratic Congress. It caused a huge rip in the democratic party for several years.
Some of us are worried that Clinton desparation will lead to nasty tactics.
I'm only half stupid
Really? You think so?
And from the Clintons?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
Democrats talking here, about the Democratic primary. Your opinion desn't matter ;-)
Besides, politics ain't beanbag. The Clintons faced BS criminal investigations into Whitewater, bogus allegations regarding Vince Foster, an ongoing witchhunt fishing expedition by a sham special prosecutor into their personal lives, and impeachment over a personal indiscretion that had no bearing on the integrity of the government. That they didn't roll over has given them a reputation for "nasty tactics" amongst both their enemies on the right and some "liberals" who serve as useful idiots for the right. But in general, their tactics are well within the standards of a political campaign in this day and age, a fact which was eloquently stated by the gentleman from Alabama which quaoar cited a few days ago.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Tim Russert is a complete asshole.
For him to bring up and at length try to link Obama to Farrakhan with his trademark "gotchya" question was obscene.
If it was up to me I'd be blowing GE stock out of the water right now.
It may seem like a stupid question
yet it clears up the issue.
Obama is on record, on National Televsion saying he has denounced and rejected Farrakahan.
I think that is a good thing since the right wing would gleefully use any ambiguity as fodder for the infamous hate fests.
I'm only half stupid
I agree that it is a good thing
that he somewhat cleared the air. Not fully, especially not when it comes to that preacher of his who praised Farrakhan (Obama ignored that part of the question), but it's a start. Because lord knows my side will unleash on him on this issue without mercy.
Get ready Barack.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That's silly.....
But silliness is the right's forte, when it comes to these type of issues.
When patriotism equals flag pins, according to the right, it is pretty difficult to take what they say with any seriousness. Especially since they won't raise taxes to fund the troops needs.
For the right raising taxes is unpatriotic, yet better care for vets returning home with traumatic injuries requires more money.
The right's notion of patriotism does not square with true patriotism of paying to support the nation that you profess to love.
The right seems more vested in loyalty to the keeping a dollar in their pocket, than to paying for the cost of the war. May I suggest that is hardly patriotism.
For good measure:
Did you hear that John McCain went to a church that David Duke attended and Duke is now in Syria. You better check out the Syrian connection to McCain's church that runs through David Duke.
I'm only half stupid
Did David Duke
inspire McCain the way Farrakhan praising pastor inspired Obama? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
More silliness.....
You have no idea who inspired who. Your implied meaning is ludicrous.
And unless you have sung the national anthem, holding your hand over your heart, while wearing a chinese flag pin, and spinning three times, I don't consider you american enough to understand.
I'm only half stupid
eh
Obama said in his book that his preacher inspired him... So obviously I do have an idea.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Obama Fights False LInks to Islam
The EmEsEm addresses these false rumors and questions, which imply that somehow Obama is not a Christian American Patriot who loves his country.
Debunking the Rumors
Yes I know you would dearly love to associated Obama (as you do all Democrats) with some dark plot against America, but it is just simply not true.
I'm only half stupid
Meanwhile McCain embraces Jim Hagee
the famous minister who insists that their is ONE way to salvation, attacking Iran.
I'm only half stupid
John Kerry is Catholic, but pro-choice.....
Just because your church "espouses" something, doesn't mean that every member of the church believes the same thing in lock step.
People are more complicated than that.
I survived the Bush Administration
True, but
that doesn't excuse people from explaining why they align with a particular church - especially since they can choose to go to other churches if they want to. We can't ask it directly because we're not "supposed" to have a religious test for electing officials, but this is one of the ways we get around it.
Incidentally, in Kerry's case the situation was the opposite: the church rejected him rather than the pols asking him to reject tenets of his church. But it would have been interesting if he'd have been called to explain why he aligns with Catholicism even though he disagrees on some major issues. There's nothing exceptional about it - the world is spotted with pro-choice, pro-gay Catholics - but I'd be interested to hear it anyway.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I suspect that
this...
...is simply bluster. If you say "well, gosh, if I lose the next one I'm gone" it tends to depress your supporters right when you ostensibly need them most. Most politicians say they are "in it to win it" right up until they formally withdraw. I wouldn't read too much into it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
+4
Additionally, I seriously doubt that Clinton's true supporters, people who believe that she is the best candidate, are disconcerted by the idea of her continuing her campaign. When Edwards, for instance, failed to win any states at all, were his supporters disconcerted by his continuing campaign? Truth is, I think some anti-Hillary people think she is so despicable that they believe that she could not possibly have any true loyal supporters.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The problem
is not Hillary per se, who we can all say good things about.
It is some of the people she has chosen to listen to....... as in the some of the people that are running her campaign. She chose to take their advice so she has to live with the consequences.
I'm only half stupid
Not only that,
but even if she loses the popular vote in both, Clinton and Obama are going into the convention in a relative dead heat - the margin of victory will be neither decisive nor substantial, especially when so many superdelegates are uncommitted. Why in the world should she withdraw if she has a decent shot at winning?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce