Hillary for President--Part VI

I don't know about you, but I can't count the number of girls I felt up in the student union building while in college.

Good times ...

 

Back to more substantive news . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.

. . .

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Until recently, there was this talk about how she could just bounce back in OH and TX after the primaries of this weekend and today, but I didn't really see it that way. Giuliani proved that you can't just let the other candidate(s) win momentum and media spotlight, and just flip the switch and win a big state. Assuming Obama wins big today, she's in big trouble.

Her saving grace is that she has a full three weeks to right the ship between now and March 4. But I'm not so sure it's that easy. She got a fundraising bump after Super Tuesday, but I don't see it happening now. The money will keep pouring in for Obama.

 

I really do think that this is a slippery slope. If you read the article you linked, he has received dozens of telephone calls from both sides. Again, they are all elected officials or former cabinet members -- traditional government types. They also all talked about the same things like electability.

You have to ask how this can escalate. Is it possible that we go from breakfast to dinners. Is it possible that we then try for a more intimate atmosphere to pitch a side -- say a luxury box at a Bucks game with the clintons and 7-8 Wisconsin superdelegates.

How about if Obama has Kerry and Kennedy take 10-15 northern superdelegates on an Arizona golf weekend to soak up some warm weather?

Seriously, these people hold a vote that is equal to thousands of voters in a traditional caucus or primary. Do we WANT to go down this road?

I am not being critical of Chelsea here. You are correct in that she is helping her mom. I am critical of the process that can be turned into a lobbying like boondoggle in an effort to buy votes.

 

I would never, ever, ever count the Clintons out until Obama actually secures every delegate needed. They will fight to the death to get this nomination. She will be in a pickle if she doesn't win those states big because it will leave Obama in a position where he will likely get to the end of the process with a lead in pledged delegates. Then, watch the Michigan/Florida fireworks fly!

Obama can win today and he can win on Saturday and this is still far from over. If he actually can win Ohio and Texas (which I don't see happening) then he would indeed be in a strong position, but I still don't think it will be over.

 

So, just to make sure we're on the same page, when the campaign says things are going well, they're delusional, and when things are going bad, they're playing the victim?


What, exactly, should this campaign do? Should they just give a "no comment" whenever they're asked anything? Ahh, but then they'd be accused of being secretive.


How does a story like this help the campaign? It makes things look really, really bad. People like backing a winner. This helps Obama, if anything.

 

I see where you're coming from, but that would have to be a VERY slippery slope. I really think this was done under the premise that face-to-face contact is more effective than a phone call. I really doubt the kid left breakfast feeling he got some sort of gift, if in fact Chelsea paid for breakfast.

 

Agreed, to a point. I think Hillary can stay in it as long as she can win with the superdelegates. I don't think the party would stand for it if she had to rely on MI and FL.

 

You have a point there. Hillary got weepy at Yale, btw, and lost Connecticut. And I think those were both genuine on her part (although I know I'm in the minority there).

The Giants. But the intense hatred for Hillary is very similar to the intense hatred for the Patriots.

And also, she may be "behind" right now, but no one sees her as an underdog. She's an underdog in the way the Patriots were the underdog after Burress scored the go-ahead TD.

 

I have been watching so much political stuff that I can't remember who said what. I think this was from Candy Crowley last night.

She said that it is interesting that Clinton has had to change her message several times over the course of the campaign. She started out running as the inevitable candidate already positioning herself for the general. Then she was the tough, defiant Hillary. Then they changed her up to the soft, likeable Hillary. She went from Experience to change. She is continuing to search for a winning image/message.

Obama, on the other hand, has been steady as she goes. Same message. No campaign changes or shake ups etc.

While running a campaign is not necessarily and indicator of how one would govern, I think that it is interesting that her message is that she is this incredibly gifted, experienced politician ready on day one to be president and yet, her campaign ran out of money without her knowing about it. She has to shift people and responsibility on her staff. She is continually changing who she is and the message she wants out there etc.

 

I think it's clear she didn't expect Obama's campaign to be successful (I think few people thought it would be THIS successful). Even when he got some early momentum and moved up in the polls, a lot of folks thought the momentum would eventually wane (and it did in NH for just a bit). But they've just kept on truckin. His campaign just doesn't seem to lose any momentum, which is a testament to his appeal.

As a Democrat, I think it's best if the nomination gets locked up early. But part of me hopes it's still a race when PA votes in April. I'd imagine Obama would have one of his massive rallies in Pittsburgh if that were the case. It would be interesting to see.

 

It could be her saving grace or it could be the end of her. I'm not sure if having more time actually helps her because it allows Obama to build up more and more momentum after he knocks state after state after state down. And as we've seen before, the more time he has to close the gap, the better he preforms.

 

A small part of me hopes it isn't decided until June, that way I can go to an Obama rally at wonderful Howard Wood Field:

 

True. I think she's in some trouble either way, but there has to be an end to this tidal wave for her to have a shot.

 

Jesus, her people just never learn:

This explanation from a prominent Hillary supporter in Pennsylvania, regarding why he thinks Barack Obama could lose his state, seems a bit off message.

According to a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) made the following argument in a meeting with the paper's editorial board as to why Obama could have some difficulty in his state's April 22 primary:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate."

Even IF there is some validity to the statement: a) why in the hell is the governor of the state inviting racially divisive politics in his own state; b) focusing on what surely can't be a large block of the electorate; and c) Sticking his foot in his mouth when he has seen the effects of comments that have been race based in other states?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Nice message about your state Governor. A black man will have trouble winning here because the whites won't vote for him.

 

Yet another email from New York State NOW (posting it in its entirety as it is not yet posted on the NYS NOW website):

Edit: I do not agree with nor personally endorse this message.

 

He went on:

"I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

And, as an update from TPM mentions, here's Obama:

"Sure there are some people who will not vote for me because I'm black and there are some people who will vote for me because I am black," he said. "But I think most Americans are looking for a candidate who can get them affordable health care and less dependent on foreign oil."

Rendell is known for telling it like it is. And that's how it is, primarily in Pennsyltucky. He was asked for his opinion of how things would shake out, and it's a part of the story.

It is impossible to ignore the effect race has on the election, both positively and negatively for Obama. Just like he has gotten support from black voters that has helped him in some states, he can be hurt by it elsewhere, to a lesser degree.

 

That reminds me of Romney's last speech: "if you don't elect a Republican, the world will end through terrorism!!!"

Only, this woeful screed reads: "If you don't elect a woman, women will lose all their rights!!!"

 

That letter was as painful as Cop Rock.

 

Interesting stuff:

Many young women today have forgotten or do not know of the sit-ins, the hunger strikes, the marches, the tears as we lost the Equal Rights Amendment, the thousands upon thousands of women, mothers and grandmothers who died having illegal abortions. Those many young women have forgotten the women’s movement and all the gains we have made. They have abandoned us and instead have fallen for the charisma and charm of a Black male instead of the experience, dedication, and proven life’s work of a White female. Will it take losing Roe vs. Wade to get back that old camaraderie?

First of all, it is laughable to think that electing Obama will be the death nell for Roe v. Wade. He has a 100% rating on women's issues and abortion rights. Yes, he has a penis, but beyond that there is little difference in his record and Hillary's on these matters.

More importantly, the above snippet from the email points to a larger issue that I think parallels what is going on with some of the old civil rights guys.

There is this older generation of feminists who seem to want to force the younger generation into a mold. They don't recognize that things have changed and that younger people are growing up in a different reality. The older generation did what they had to do and advanced the ball a long way down field but then fail to recognize that the results of their work have redefined the issues for women in their 20s and 30s.

 

I think part of it is that older women see this as their last chance of seeing a female president in their lifetimes. That's not the case with younger women.

The other part is that the author is batshit crazy.

 

Why not? I don't understand any of this. I don't understand why people think it's somehow wrong of Hillary to let her grown daughter help with the campaign. I don't know why it's bad form to let her try to dazzle a delegate during lunch. And I don't know why everyone is so freaked out that the reporter dude said "pimp." It's almost as though there aren't real issues to discuss.