Perhaps had I known Mrs. Clinton would do as poorly as she did last night, I would not have written as many critical posts as I had in the past few days. I had expected her to do well, to lose to Obama in North Carolina by a margin similar to that of her victory in Pennsylvania and to win Indiana by a comfortable margin.
Perhaps, Democrats in those states saw her as did I, a politician pandering and leaving principle by the wayside. They just didn’t trust someone who seemed to believe only in her own ambition.
She might not have won the narrow margin she did in the Hoosier State had it not been for her longtime nemesis of the airwaves. According to Byron York, the Obama campaign contends that “just under 7% of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a ‘Limbaugh Effect.’”
Not to mention the last-minute deciders breaking for her 56-44 in Indiana. Seems this time the polls underestimated Obama’s support. If those deciding in the past few days broke for her, he must have led among those who decided before this weekend, something we only saw in one or two polls.
She didn’t get a big enough margin of victory in Indiana to maintain the bounce she got out of the Keystone State, but then she didn’t see to get much bounce from that victory.
Watching the speeches, I thought both candidates went out way too long. It seems the victory speech has become a stump speech. She seemed a little melancholy. At one time, I actually thought she was going to call it quits. Her husband looked particularly glum. Commentators on Fox agreed while Kathryn Jean Lopex wrote that he and Chelsea had the look of “a loved one with when you’re proud of them as they face a loss/embarrassment bravely.”
She may stay in to win next week in Kentucky and West Virginia, but for all intents and purposes, it’s over. Hillary Clinton has lost the Democratic nomination. And she may not be in the position she’s in now had she not been as overconfident as she was last fall, banking on knocking out her opponents by early February.
Reader Heather linked Jay Cost’s analysis of the Democratic race. He noted that Obama prepared for the caucuses, but Hillary didn’t. He netted 139 delegates in those “low-turnout affairs.”
On logo just before Super Tuesday, she referred to the (then-)recent Los Angeles debate as the last one of so many, as if she would not have to endure another. She likely assumed she would wins enough races in the coming primaries to leave the field to herself. She wouldn’t need do the tedious work of organizing in those pesky caucuses.
Had she done so, tonight’s results might have had different implications. She might not have needed a big victory in a state which borders her opponent’s home state.
It’s too soon to tell if she’s going to stay and fight this one out. She would likely do quite well in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, but the real question is now is whether it would matter.
And another question is why did he outperform the polls this time? That late-deciders tend to break against him does not bode well for his fall matchup against John McCain when most polls show a large pool of undecided voters in a contest between the two men.
I had a little fun with a nifty delegate calculator over at the clinton News Network site. If clinton takes 60% of the vote (a twenty percentage point margin of victory) in every remaining race, and gets 60% of the superdelegates — she still can’t catch up to Obama.
The sound you hear is the clock ticking.
I have to congratulate the Democrats. Their primaries produced a telegenic nominee, who is well aligned with his party’s values (such as they are), and who has the enthusiastic support of his party’s base.
All of which is the complete opposite of what the Stupid Party’s primary process gave us.
This is depressing but its the truth, this is the end of the Clinton Campaign. I don’t think people will force her out of the race, they are probably going to let her go out as she wants.
I do wonder what this means for the future of the Democratic party, wonder if this represents a shift in base for the party.
It means it’s an American party, no more. Not that it would’ve been had Clinton won the nomination, for she and Obama share the same anti-American world view. But his is far more malignant. I fear for this country and lament what it will be turned into.
#4 – “I fear for this country and lament what it will be turned into.”
I can tell you right now what an snObama victory will mean with him and his Omarosa spouse in the WH for 4 years, LNC:
1. Pretty soon we will all be on “Mecca Time” and facing east 5 times a day for mandatory prayer;
2. Women will be forced to wear burkhas;
3. The gay population will decrease because we’ll all either be dead or REALLY sent to those mythical re-education camps in Wyoming or wherever.
Yes, I am being sarcastic – but isn’t a good joke one with a kernel of truth in it?
Think about it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Starting with Dick Nixon’s 1960 campaign, when I was too young to vote for him, I have been involved in every Republican presidential campaign — always at least as a voter, often as a financial contributor and sometimes as an activist in the trenches (or wise counsel in high councils of strategy). But in 2005 I made a personal commitment to support Hillary Clinton this year. Not since 1964 (when Hillary and I were both active in Barry Goldwater’s campaign) have I been as passionate for a presidential candidate. The reasons are no longer important to this discussion now that she is within a few weeks of ending her campaign.
When Obama seemed to come from nowhere to seriously challenge Hillary her nomination became even more important to me. It seemed to me that the odds were heavily against a Republican victory and if a Democrat was to be president it ought to be the more experienced and seasoned candidate, Hillary. I always believed, despite the way some people interpret her record, that Hillary would generally govern as a centrist, especially on military and national security issues. When moveon.org and other far left elements in the Democratic Party, like anti-American bloogers Kos and Aravosis, got behind Obama, I figured they knew something I didn’t about the junior senator from Illinois and considered it even more urgent that Hillary be the nominee.
For months I have been at a loss to understand why Obama is attracting so much support. I know why most blacks support him — he’s black. And I understand why so many of the young voters back him — he’s exciting, much like a rock star, althugh many of his young admirers have no idea what he stands for nor any idea of what he means by change. What I’m having trouble understanding is why so many of the establishment Democrats are supporting him.
I discount most of the elected officials and party elders who’ve come out for Obama in the last five or six weeks. They’re bandwagon backers and want to climb on before it’s too late. The ones who puzzle me include SEnator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Governor Kathleen Sebilius of Kansas, both moderates, who endorsed him before Super Tuesday in February, as well as former Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who, despite his late endorsement, is not a bandwagon supporter.
Now I consider myself a pretty astute person. I had a good education, am well-read, built a business far more successful than ever imagined, and have been involved in local, state and national politics for 48 years. But when I hear the likes of Lee Hamilton explain why he thinks Obama will make such a great president it’s as if we’re on different wave lengths. There’s absolutely nothing that I know about Obama that leads me to believe he has any business sitting in the Oval Office. I must have a blind spot.
I will admit, however, that for months I was convinced that if Hillary did lose I would have no problem supporting Obama. That, I must point out, was before the Democrats’ far left wing flocked to Obama. But before his leftist support began to scare me I was growing uneasy about Obama. His elitist comments about working class voters, made behind closed doors in San Francisco, finally explained why I was so uneasy. Obama is an elitist.
The man’s elitism was confirmed in a recent issue of Newseeek, which at times has seemed to be the official organ of the Obama campaign. In an article one of the magazine’s political pundits conceded that Obama almost feels entitled to the presidency, that he does not like to have anyone question something he’s done or said and that he dislikes having to bother campaigning.
In other words, Obama was an elitist out of touch with the pulse of real America, just as Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry were. It sure looked like John McCain would wipe the floor with him. And since I don’t want to see McCain elected president it was even more important to me that Hillary, who probably could beat McCain, win the nomination.
It’s always possible that as more veneer is peeled back from Obama’s carefully crafted image, something really damaging could come out before the Democratic roll call in August or the general election in November. But even that might not make any difference. Ronald Reagan was called the Teflon candidate because gaffes and flaws didn’t stick but, compared to Obama, Reagan may have been a “sponge” candidate. Nothing seems to hurt Obama for any substantial length of time.
It’s pretty obvious that Obama will face McCain in November. And if I were a betting man I’d wager heavily on Obama. I’m even more convinced of that today than I was last night during the election returns. I watched McCain on CNN this morning answering questions during a town hall type appearance in Michigan. He was tongue tied at times and looked and acted older than his 72 years.
I don’t think the McCain candidacy can survive his debates with Obama. Even those of us who do not support McCain will be embarrassed for a man who has given so much for his country.
If Obama makes the right choice of a running mate he could win in the type of landslide that will get the Democrats close to the 60-vote Senate they want so badly. More importantly for the Democrats, if his coat tails are long enough the Democrats will control enough state legislatures to make sure Democrats draw congressional boundaries after the 2010 Census.
Carl Bernstein reported late Tuesday night (actually early Wednesday morning) that two of Hillary’s closest advisors say she wants the vice presidency. He claims she doesn’t want to return to the Senate. I can’t see it myself. I can’t imagine Hillary playing second fiddle to a man she obviously doesn’t like and I can’t see Obama wanting a veep who he’ll fear has an agenda of her own.
If Obama gets former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn on the ticket he greatly assures those who worry about his lack of experience on military and national security issues. If he picks someone like former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton he assures those who worry about his lack of foreign policy experience.
He might hit a grand slam homer if he goes for a “national unity” ticket with former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel or New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
For a while I thought Obama was the most dangerous man to ever be so close to the presidency. When I see moderate Republicans like Julie Nixon Eisenhower endorse Obama and hear prominent conservatives admit they’re giving thought to supporting him, it’s hard to harbor such fears about the man. If, as has been rumored, Colin Powell endorses Obama even more doubts would be put to rest, although at this time there is no way I can see myself voting for Obama.
If Obama does win the White House there will be one good thing come of it. If predominately white America is willing to elect a black man as president it’s a good bet that the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will have to start working for a living!
#6:”If Obama does win the White House there will be one good thing come of it. If predominately white America is willing to elect a black man as president it’s a good bet that the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will have to start working for a living!”
Sorry, Trace. The scenario you describe above is what logically SHOULD happen if a black man is elected President. But Jackson and Sharpton’s empires were designed from the ground up to be impervious to logic. A black President will have absolutely no effect on the empowerment-through-victimization monolith whatsoever. The US could elect a black President, an all-black Congress and appoint an all-black Supreme Court, but as the objective evidence of any lingering racism in this country continues to dry up, Sharpton, Jackson and their ilk will simply step up their promotion of that “internalized, subconscious racism” that is gaining steam in the academic community. The absence of objective evidence in our society to support inferences of racism will not result in concessions from blacks that we have finally become a color-blind society. At that point, we will be told that we are all still racists because it is embedded in our subconscious and there’s nothing we can do about it except feel deep shame, apologize profusely and finally hand over those long-overdue reparations. Of course, branding all whites with this new and improved, turbo-charged “internalized racism” has the convenient feature built-in that it is impossible to disprove. How do you prove that something is not buried in the deepest reaches of your insidious, evil subconscious? You can’t, of course. It will NEVER be over–certainly not in our lifetime. We are no closer to that elusive light at the end of the racist tunnel than we were 30 years ago. If you disagree, ask yourself: are race relations MORE unstable and tenuous now than they were BEFORE we had a black Secretary of State and National Security Adviser appointed by a Republican President, or LESS?
Sadly, Sean A. is probably right. As long as they live we’ll probably never be rid of Jackson and Sharpton. And they probably have race-baiting wannabees waiting in the wings.