Seems I was right on Monday when I blogged that the Democratic race is far from over. Winning by ten points, Hillary did five points better than she needed to do to justify remaining the race, but not well enough to significantly shift its dynamics. Obama remains the frontrunner, though she now has a more serious shot at her party’s nomination.
Republicans could hardly have asked for a better result (though I would have preferred margin a tad closer).
Hillary won even as “two thirds of voters” said she “attacked Obama unfairly,” further cementing her high negatives. Only half said the Illinois Senator unfairly attacked his New York colleague.
Once again, late deciders broke for the former First Lady. (I’ll have more on this in my followup tomorrow to this post.)
If Rush Limbaugh were truly behind Mrs. Clinton’s big win last night, as some have suggested, he certainly succeeded in keeping alive the divisions in the Democratic Party. Reporter David Lightman called the Democratic race “muddled” in “a stalemate without apparent end.” Hillary Clinton’s “harsh tactics” alienated a lot of Obama supporters (via Instapundit).
In their bitterness at their savior’s loss, expect Obama supporters to spew their bile on Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe for calling FoxNews “fair and balanced.” That former Democratic National Committee chair praised the network for being the first to call the Keystone State.
For such of the hated network, netroots denizens are sure to dub McAuliffe a traitor (if working for Mrs. Clinton weren’t enough).
It’s an important victory for Mrs. Clinton and enough to nudge the dynamics of the Democratic race a little. She won it by going negative, not so much by highlighting her own strengths, but by shining the light on her opponent’s missteps and inexperience.
And I don’t think Obama supporters’ whining about the supposedly biased moderators of last week’s debate helped him very much with real voters.
The very folks who kept the wagons tightly circled around Horndog Bill are trashing Hillary. It’s too damn funny really. These are the same folks, btw, who love to point fingers and scream “hypocrisy” at Republicans.
I’m just waiting for the implosion and collapse under the weight of their own arrogance. The resulting singularity will be massive.
Not to mention the same people who squeal like Ned Beatty about voter disinfranchisement are the very ones who told Florida and Michigan democrats to burn in hell.
It’s all too delicious.
Do I hear “quagmire” anyone?
Senator Obama still has a 100+ delegate lead. Neener, neener!
The very essence of Operation Chaos: keep them campaigning, keep them throwing mud, keep them spending and open the floodgates of the elitist stupidity built into the “super-delegate” system.
Remember The Algore! Hillary and Barry are locked in a stolen nomination scenario. Who won the popular vote? Who won the most delegates? Who got the most states? Who bribed the most super-delegates? Where is the most prejudice: against blacks or against women? Who has the message of hope and change? Who has the most experience (at kneecapping the opposition)?
Let’s see if Obama can win ugly in Indiana. Let’s see if Hillary’s win gets a needed infusion of cash in her campaign chest. Let’s see if those Republicans in Pennsylvania who registered as Democrats were sincere or agents in keeping the Chaos alive.
AE, I had the same thought. It’s a quagmire. Reconciliation is being a little bit delayed. Let’s pull out!!!!!!!!
Seriously – I doubt Rush is having much of an impact. I don’t think he commands an army of tens of thousands of minions.
JJ or anybody: What does this race do to the Dem popular vote total? Isn’t Hillary close to beating Obama on that score?
P.S.
So… gee…. that would make her victory, what… a giant middle finger from rural Pennsylvanians to Obama? I thought he was supposed to ‘unify’ us.
What is this, the Apocalypse?
Final thought – I like the 10-point margin. Remember, she led by 20 points a few weeks ago. Obama’s spin is “See? I narrowed the margin!” It rings hollow. It’s the 10 points that make it ring hollow. Anything less than 10, and Obama’s point might be convincing. The most important outcome of PA is that it gives Hillary 3 million dollars and real hope. Thus ensuring the battle will go on, and get even nastier.
I see your doubt and raise three more that that many Republicans vamoosed to the democrat side.
All very good points, but don’t forget the Florida/Michigan factor. Right now, Hillary leads the popular vote if those two states are included. I don’t know how the delegates would be awarded, but it would get Hillary at least a little closer to Obama. If those states aren’t included, the Clintonites will cry that the nomination was stolen. If those states are somehow counted and Hillary wins, the Obama people will cry foul for years.
Is it wrong of me to get so much glee from all of this infighting after having to listen to the 2000 and 2004 election griping?
Now I know what Rev. Wright meant when he talked about chickens coming home to roost!
Lesson to be learned, negative campaigning works! We may not like it,we may feel we are above all that, but we’re not. Politics is an ugly dirty game, nothing will change that.
I understand now another complaint against her is that she invoked 9/11 in her latest ad, a ploy right out of Carl Roves book! HT
Ann Althouse, http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/04/and-hillary-gets-her-10-point-margin.html
Sorry, meant this to be in previous post.
Am I actually considering sending $ to Hildegard? Lord, destroy me quickly!
Well, Rush thinks so. But TGC, your kind of campaigning is just a bid create a distraction for Barack Obama in his bid for the nomination. [parody attempt] We all know the real issue facing Democratic voters in this campaign season… which candidate will do more to help those oppressed, freedom-fighting “terrorists”?
I’m very upset by the outcome last night. And this on the same day we discover that the anti-gay marriage initiative made it to the California ballot for this November. It looks like we are going to lose marriage rights in California, probably the presidency to McCain, and have to wait another generation before we get marriage rights federally (if at all). I’m just hoping we don’t lose our domestic partner benefits here in California, I can’t afford to pay for my partner’s health insurance if he isn’t on my plan.
Don’t count on it.
I think you mean that, thank God, “we” are going to probably keep the Presidency for McCain. (Not that I love him, or even like him. But, at least he doesn’t rationalize and excuse haters who scream “God Damn America!”)
And the connection with gay marriage in CA, and/or McCain, is… what, exactly? (Do you live in CA? Does your company already give DP benefits? Are you using them? Have you used CA’s existing DP / civil union law? Why would a McCain Presidency cause you to lose any of the preceeding? Also, how about one of you – you, if not your partner – getting a better job? Buck up.)
My partner is on disability, but is on my employer’s health insurance plan. If domestic partnership rights are rescinded he will be forced to have the state pay his substantial medical costs. It is still unclear if the federal marriage amendment the GOP is proposing will rescind state domestic partnership rights.
David, I have lived in CA a long time, and I know for a fact – because, back in the 1990s, I personally acted to help bring it about; you’re welcome – that many companies were extending Domestic Partner benefits long before CA law caught up in terms of providing a DP or civil union arrangement.
Even if CA’s civil union law is rescinded – which, again, I tend to doubt will happen; Gov. Schwarzenegger has announced his opposition to the ballot initiative – I very highly doubt companies would rescind their DP policies. (Since they were put in place by the company’s choice to begin with and in response to market pressures, without government telling them what to do. See how that works?)
Finally, if you are a public employee (say) and worse came to absolute worst, such that your DP benefits were rescinded: You still have options, as both you and I have now pointed out. (Some combination of State benefits + you getting a better job.) So drop the worrying. Discover your personal ability to improve your situation. It’s greater than you (apparently) think.
And one other thing, David – FYI, McCain is somewhat famous for being a principled *opponent* of any *federal* marriage amendment. Old news, to most of us around here. But I offer it to you, in hopes it can further brighten your day.
And also, I notice that David didn’t answer the question of whether he has been legally domestically partnered, as in registered with the state of California as such.
The reason that’s important is because, if he’s not, that means his employer is giving him domestic partner benefits INDEPENDENT of any legal requirement — which means that removal of California’s DP law would likely not affect him one bit. The only companies that are compelled by law to give DP benefits are those who have contracts with the state, and they are only compelled to do so for REGISTERED domestic partners.
My guess would be he’s not. Main reason; since his partner is on disability, were they to be domestically partnered, their incomes would be combined for the purpose of determining eligibility for state disability benefits, and those benefits would be drastically reduced — just like they are for straight married people.
Winning ugly is better than losing any day of the week, it is winners who get to decide where resources go and directs influence. She is making the arguement that Obama lacks electability, and that is what the media is going to be talking about for the next two weeks. Obama will be getting critisized more and he will get flustered, and probably blow it again by saying something.
Proportional system is stupid and should be thrown out, democrats would not be in this position otherwise. Obama fans like to go on about how they lowered the margin, though much of it was soft leaners than real support, but that doesn’t matter in the GE. “Well, McCain only beat us in Missouri by 5 points instead of 10.” Big deal, he gets all the votes and wins the election.
Obama outspent her, had the media support up til the end, and is basically not going to lose the pledge delegate count. He should be able to beat her, but its not happening. The fact she beat him by 10 and got out spent 2 to 1 and sometimes 3 to 1, its sad.
If Hillary wasn’t such a flawed candidate herself I’m sure she could have won more votes. I can see why someone would vote for neither Obama the Fake or Hillary the Liar.
The turnout for the Democrat Primary was around 52%
I like how “as some has suggested” referred to your colleague’s post directly below yours.
Don’t you have to have something in the first place before you can lose it?
And if I may ask about Trinity CC, didn’t they have an official proclamation that they support reparations? Where does Snobama stand on that?
Several points, Dan.
I’ve tired of so many pundits, Obama surrogates and Obama himself criticizing Hillary for being so “negative”. First, it was a legitimate strategy to bring Obama down from his lofty, almost untouchable, status so voters could start taking a look at the real Obama. Secondly, in several recent primaries Obama has done negative campaigning much worse than anything the Clinton people offered.
I doubt that Rush Limbaugh had much to do with the number of Republicans and Independents who changed their registrations to the Democratic Party. A few might have been inspired by Limbaugh but I’d guess that most were probably moderate Republicans from suburban Philadelphia counties that have been trending Democratic for several elections.
I hope I live to see a woman elected President but I fear I won’t — unless, in the next couple of elections, a woman runs against a white man.
This presidential election has shown that, except for some feminist activists, who no longer seem to get much media attention, no one seems to care how much a female is trashed by an opponent, the opponent’s followers and the opponent’s mouthpieces on the blogs and in the mainstream media. But heaven forbid if anyone gets too tough with a black candidate. Hints of racism are hurled at anyone who even attempts to question the black candidate’s judgment and character. But everything about the female candidate seems to be fair game.
I am a political junkie and several things about this presidential campaign will be in my craw for a long time.
They are cited in no particular order of importance.
Some people, especially talking heads in the mainstream media, have a tone of voice that implies racism when reporting on Hillary winning rural, white, working class counties by margins of 75-25 and up to 80-20. But no one seems to object when 92 percent of black voters vote for the black candidate.
Early in the campaign, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., Democrat of Chicago, said in an interview that the Obama campaign wanted to put the Clintons in a position where any criticism of Obama could immediately be called racist. And it worked, helping drive black voters away from Hillary. Myths and legends being what they are, the history of this campaign will forever record that Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark and his observation that Jesse Jackson twice won South Carolina’s Democratic primaries and Hillary Clinton’s very accurate comment about how important President Johnson was to passage of the l964 Civil Rights Act and other comments were racist attacks on Obama. Just as the history of the 1992 campaign incorrectly claims that on a visit to a grocery store President George H. W. Bush didn’t know what a bar code scanner was. It never happened!
While, yes, the election of a black president would greatly alter world opinion toward the United States, and at home shake the foundations of the “professional” civil rights movement (and money machine for some), I lost all respect (if I had any, in many cases) for Democatic pols who all but admitted they are supporting Obama in order to elect a black as president. The fact that the black carrying their banner lacks the experience to be president, clearly lacks good judgment, has had serious questions raised about his integrity and character is swept under the rug.
Trace, interesting points, but note that I never faulted negative campaigning per se, sometimes it’s legitimate. My point was not much that Hillary won, but that Obama lost, something I hope to address in the post I am about to write.
While, yes, the election of a black president would greatly alter world opinion toward the United States
Which, in my opinion, should show us just how rational “world opinion” isn’t.
And Trace, I agree with you; criticizing or questioning Obama in any fashion has been magically transmuted into “negative campaigning” and “racism”. But you need not worry; because of that, regardless of whether or not Obama wins, the behavior of his surrogates has made plain and blatantly obvious that the “civil rights movement” has moved from MLK to Jeremiah Wright in philosophy.
I have always said that what would ultimately get affirmative action and other racism-perpetuating liberal behaviors destroyed in this country was when enough liberals were namecalled for criticizing an unqualified black person. This election has been a bonanza for that.
I’m a bit amused with the opining about the influence of Rush and Operation Chaos. Rush is playing the politician. He has been encouraging people to act on what they were already inclined to do. When the cross voting and cross registrations occurred and Hillary won, Rush, like any politician, takes full credit for it. Doing so, inflates the effect and the whole Operation Chaos campaign grows in stature.
What Rush would most like to see happen, is for Barry and/or the MSM to start throwing references to Operation Chaos at Hillary. She and Obama and the MSM really do not know what the “Operation Chaos effect” may be. Denying its influence looks like spin and talking about it risks increasing its effect. Either way, Rush and Operation Chaos are a healthy dose of itching powder.
The whole game will be revealed in November. Will all these cross over Republicans the MSM are reporting stay with the Democrat nominee? I will be the most surprised person in America if they do. Republicans have been screwing with and screwing the Democrats. I did it myself in Virginia.
I think a lot of people are underestimating the disappointment of either the women who support Hillary or African Americans who support Barack. Come November one group or the other is going to be very disspirited and likely to not vote in the huge numbers we now see in these primaries. Women will be bitter that their chance for a President has passed probably now for another 12 years. Blacks next great hope besides Obama is….who? Both segments of the electorate will be mad and the only way to show their displeasure is to not vote or to vote McCain.
Too bad Obama isn’t actually black, then.
#30
Based on electoral studies and who comes out to vote, I would much rather have women on my side than not willing to turn out. They are the biggest group and as Hillary as shown, they can carry the day for the canidate.
Black Voters, if history is any guide, will not vote Republican…even if they are pissed about Obama. They might not show up but they won’t be voting for Republicans. Women, white women anyway, are much more likely to split or be won by McCain….and their numbers are much bigger.
Why?
How funny you should say that when I just finished reading this load of crap.
Reminds me of an Ann Coulter column a while back about how libs always try to hide behind theoretically unassailable messengers. You cant counter Cindy Sheehan cus shes a grieving mother, you cant attack Kerry or Cleland because they’re war heroes, you can’t disagree with the 9/11 widows, cus they’re widows, and now you can’t criticize Obama cus he’s black.
Victimhood for all!
#33. I do hope America will elect a good conservative woman and a good conservative black person president sometime in the near future — the sooner the better really — for no other reason than to end the ceaseless whining about how we’ve never had a female or black president.
P.S. I think Hillary won Ugly a looong time ago.
AE: By parentage, Barack Obama is 50% white Kansan, 50% African. Bobby Jindal is 100% Indian. Wouldn’t those be about equivalent, on the left-liberal Scale of Brown Goodness?
Oops, I just remembered – Jindal is a conservative – so he doesn’t count. In fact, as an apostate from the left-wing politics that “should” (haha) be dictated by his skin color as though he had no intelligence or personal agency, left-wingers consider him eeeeeeeeeevil. Cf. Michelle Malkin, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers-Brown, etc.
Okay, I have a tongue-mostly-in-cheek theory:
Drudge reads Gay Patriot.
I posted that link in #34 late last night. And lo and behold, Drudge is linking to the same article this morning and he was not last night!
Ok, now dont laugh! Remember, rumors are that he’s gay, we know he’s conservative/libertarian, and he’s certainly a blog reader…. it could happen!
Of course its possible that he came across the column the same way I did, by reading the TimesOnline, but I prefer my theory.
ILC, are you now, or have you ever been Matt Drudge?
and LOL @ “left-liberal Scale of Brown Goodness”. I don’t know what the Indian equivalent of a “house nigger” or “uncle Tom” is — liberals favorite epithets for black conservatives — all I know is that they will come up with one.
LOL – no, I’m no Drudge. But who knows – he might check in!
LOL…..I was going to say, if ILC is Drudge, he’s been holding out on me. 🙂
#39 I thought a while ago that Drudge was gay. Would be great to have him on our team. Most brilliant people are. Conservative and Gay.
#35
My point is that we shouldn’t elect a woman or a black president just for the sake of having a woman or black president (Hillary, Obama).
#40 Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you arent 😉
#42 I dunno, I’m rapidly losing what respect I had for Drudge as he becomes even more of a yellow journalist than he was, which I once didnt think possible, completely ignoring real and important news in favor of controversy and clicks.
#43 Yes, I know. and I agree.
AE: Drudge has always been scandal and celebrity – focused.
If anyone wants to see a history of Drudge Report front pages see this link
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.drudgereport.com
Copy and paste the whole text into a browser, the blog cut off the HTML link