In It to Win It

Kevin and Ezra note that Hillary Clinton seems to have made a huge tactical error by directly inserting herself into the "bitter" controversy.

I think this is a misreading of the situation. It's almost impossible for Clinton to win the nomination at this point. She can't afford to "do the smart thing," help her campaign do a bit better, and then lose anyway. She can't afford to let the game come to her. If she's not going to drop out (which is what she ought to do), then she needs to push everything as hard as she can. She needs to make long-odds plays, because only long-odds plays have any chance of resulting in a Clinton win. It's smart, disciplined, rational politics. It's also extremely selfish, but that's another matter.

Comments

When ever Hillary is doing well, the OFB's do a internet haka demanding she quit.

At least you didn't quite accuse her of employing the "Tonya Harding" strategy.

Why are some Democrats so afraid of democracy?

Posted by myiq2xu | April 18, 2008 1:31 PM

Clinton's long shot is the 2012 nomination after 4 years of McCain.

Selfish indeed.

It will be very interesting to see how hard she will campaign for Obama in the general election once he is the nominee. Will she still say oh-so-many nice things about St John of McCain then?

Posted by TDE | April 18, 2008 1:33 PM

Great, we've picked up another useless troll in the comments section.

myiq, fu.

Posted by br | April 18, 2008 1:33 PM

I think you're dead on Matt, especially when one looks at the Wright debacle. There the HRC campaign did largely step aside and let the media do their job... and it didn't work. So they try a different approach now.

Posted by Shock Mouse | April 18, 2008 1:34 PM

I think there is more to the strategy than that. I think what she wants to do is frame her inevitable PA victory.

I suspect that she knows that, no matter what she or Obama does, she'll win PA by between 8 to 14 points. If she can hammer Obama obsessively about "Bittergate," then she can argue that she won by such a large margin because of "Bittergate," an argument that the media is likely to buy, even if the superdelegates don't. Then, if she wins IN, and then goes on to crush Obama in WV and KY, she can argue that Obama is damaged goods with an otherwise-swingable section of the electorate.

She still almost certainly loses under that scenario. But that would least gives her an argument to make, and a rationale for staying in, albeit not a good-enough one.

Posted by pjs | April 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Clinton's long shot is the 2012 nomination after 4 years of McCain.

Selfish indeed.

It will be very interesting to see how hard she will campaign for Obama in the general election once he is the nominee. Will she still say oh-so-many nice things about St John of McCain then?

Posted by TDE | April 18, 2008 1:37 PM

Clinton/Gillooly 2012.

Posted by JJ | April 18, 2008 1:43 PM

Hillary has the problem that she simply can't keep her big fat trap shut. Her best shot was to look like an alternative candidate who wouldn't get bogged down in stuff like this. Instead she mishandled the sniper story, looked ridiculous drinking a beer and crown royal, got her nose up in the air about what she'd do with her own paster- in other words, did everything that reminded people why they dislike her personally.

Obama's candidacy might have risks, but Hillary has never shown herself to be a safer alternative.

Posted by Helter | April 18, 2008 1:44 PM

It's not selfish. Bill really really needs a fresh crop of interns. Hillary's just trying to help him out.

Posted by Josh E. | April 18, 2008 1:48 PM

I don't buy the 2012 argument. If Clinton destroys Obama's chances this year no way she get the nimination in 2012. SHe's not dumb she knows this.

It is the other way around, she knows thi sis her only chance, she quits now and she is never president. She will fight to the bitter end with every desperate tactic imaginable for the 1% chance of still winning.

I think the mistake she is making is thinking she can do that, lose and then go back to the Senate and pick up where she left off as if nothign happened. She is acting like it is a nothng to lose strategy, but she isn't paying attention to how much damage she is doing to her own reputation and standing in the party. She could have gracefully bowed out once the math was against her and started campiagning for Obama with a real good shot at Senate Majority Leader, Supreme Court, NY Gov, basically any position she wanted. By adopting the strategy she has she has set herself up in a do or die all or nothing situation where nothing is probably 99% likely.

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 1:53 PM

i believe kdrum's point was that hrc would have been better off letting the press do their mediathon bit on obama without getting involved. if the press is doing your job, don't get involved (remember the mediathon about bill's pardon for marc rich and how gwb had no comment). MY is correct that hrc has nothing to lose, but she should still play her hand wisely; just 'cause you have no trumps does not mean you play your cards randomly.

Posted by larrybob | April 18, 2008 1:53 PM

i believe kdrum's point was that hrc would have been better off letting the press do their mediathon bit on obama without getting involved. if the press is doing your job, don't get involved (remember the mediathon about bill's pardon for marc rich and how gwb had no comment). MY is correct that hrc has nothing to lose, but she should still play her hand wisely; just 'cause you have no trumps does not mean you play your cards randomly.

Posted by larrybob | April 18, 2008 1:55 PM

Why are some Democrats so afraid of democracy?

The people I really hate are these anti-Obama trolls - whether they're for McCain or Hillary it's hard to tell sometimes. No logic in their arguments, just pure BS.

I'm reading stuff on the Internets that the Superdelegates are going to shut it down. That it's over, the debate was the last straw. Matt's long national blogging nightmare called the Democratic Primary is coming to a close.

Howard Dean is making noise. Here's Joe Klein quoting Obama:

“That [debate] was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November. It happened just a little bit early, but that is what they will do,” Mr. Obama said. “They will try to focus on all these issues that don’t have anything to do with how you are paying your bills at the end of the month. There’s no doubt that I will have to respond sharply and crisply, then pivot to talk about what exactly are we going to do for the economy and what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.”

Until the nominating fight ends, Mr. Obama said, he is “trying to show some restraint.” He added, “I won’t have as much restraint with the Republicans."

----------
The Democrats have decided it's time to stop Hillary from doing the Republicans' work for them.

Posted by Peter K. | April 18, 2008 1:56 PM

Latest Gallup tracking poll has her closing to within three, with last night being the first in a couple weeks where she's actually leading. Bittergate may be having more of an effect that we previously thought. It's like watching a horror movie where the villain will never die.

Posted by NHCt | April 18, 2008 2:09 PM

Latest SUSA Indiana poll shows Obama up by 5, a gain of 21 points from last week. Maybe the Gallup poll is a blip and bittergate largely meaningless.

Posted by blah | April 18, 2008 2:17 PM

I don't buy the 2012 argument. If Clinton destroys Obama's chances this year no way she get the nimination in 2012. SHe's not dumb she knows this.

It is the other way around, she knows thi sis her only chance, she quits now and she is never president. She will fight to the bitter end with every desperate tactic imaginable for the 1% chance of still winning.

I think the mistake she is making is thinking she can do that, lose and then go back to the Senate and pick up where she left off as if nothign happened. She is acting like it is a nothng to lose strategy, but she isn't paying attention to how much damage she is doing to her own reputation and standing in the party. She could have gracefully bowed out once the math was against her and started campiagning for Obama with a real good shot at Senate Majority Leader, Supreme Court, NY Gov, basically any position she wanted. By adopting the strategy she has she has set herself up in a do or die all or nothing situation where nothing is probably 99% likely.

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 2:20 PM

Latest Rasmussen PA polls shows Obama down by only three, a gain of 6 points in 3 days.

Maybe you will go crazy if you try to attribute too much meaning to the daily blips in the polls.

Posted by blah | April 18, 2008 2:20 PM

At least you didn't quite accuse her of employing the "Tonya Harding" strategy.

The reason peopel stopped referring to Clinton's antics as a Tonya Harding strategy was likely because the comparison was unfair ... to Tonya Harding.

It's interesting - more and more Hillary supporters are muting their defenses of her. The people still defending her are mostly McCain supporters. Which should tell you all you need to know about the Monster.

On the substance of the post, I think your wrong Matthew. While indeed Clinton's path to the nomination is a longshot, almost any scenario which leads in that direction relies upon events extrinsic to Hillary's campaign. As frustrating as it is to be unable to influence the narrative at this point, it has become pretty evident that Hillary's clumsy attacks are only hurting her cause.

Posted by LarryM | April 18, 2008 2:20 PM

I agree with Eric K. She is fighting this to the bitter, desperate end because she knows it is her only chance.

Posted by blah | April 18, 2008 2:23 PM

Myth

Hillary has made a tactical error by inserting herself into the bitter controversy.

Reality

Obama's bitter remarks not only touched a nerve with working class Americans, it undermined his credibility with Democratic congressional candidates. These candidates are being asked to renounce Obama's remarks. (Source- Mike Allen/ 12 reasons "bitter" is bad for Obama

Myth

It's almost impossible for Clinton to win the nomination at this point.

Reality

Obama doesn't have the delegates to win either. The only polls that matter occur on election day. It's the voters that decide an election and not the pundits.

Myth

It's selfish for Hillary to stay in the race.

Reality

Obama is being selfish by denying the 2,000,000 FL and MI voters their rights.

Posted by EWard | April 18, 2008 2:26 PM

If HRC is the nominee, it will be extremely close. As a result, she will go after her "friend" John McCain with a vengeance beyond anything she's doing to Obama. Does anyone - especially the supers - think she would soften up when the White House is within reach?

As a result of her attacks on a national hero and former POW, McCain will easily win the Presidency, thanks to the Clintons' act of political suicide, leaving the Democrat party grievously wounded in the process.

Posted by Judy | April 18, 2008 2:29 PM

It's like watching a horror movie where the villain will never die.

Hillary Clinton as Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes?

Posted by jbryan | April 18, 2008 2:32 PM

This is no longer about the Presidency for HRC. Even if she somehow gets the nomination, either this year or in 2012, she's damaged her reputation with too much of the Dem base to ever be viable in a general election. That door is closed.

The prize now is control of the Democratic party. If McCain wins the Presidency this year, the same clique that has run the party for last 20 years and more can stay in place. They've had plenty of practice operating with a GOP President and even a GOP Congress. It's not ideal, but it's not a problem. Some of them seem to prefer it that way. Not because they're GOP sleepers, but because they've lost the will to accept the responsibility that comes with winning.

If Obama wins the Presidency, however, that comfortable status quo will change. To be among the "outs" in "their" party is an indignity not to be tolerated. Do you really think this crowd isn't willing to exchange a GOP Presidency for continued control of the Democratic Party? Do you even think it's a hard choice for them?

Posted by stuck in 200 | April 18, 2008 2:33 PM

EWard,

Here is some reality you neglected to mention:

Obama needs less than 1/3rd of the remaining Supers to clinch.

Everyday it seems new Supers declare for Obama, none do for Hillary.

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 2:35 PM

Hillary could always try for McCain's Veep, thereby reviving the whole Unity '08 schtick. It's pretty clear, by now, that she doesn't care so much about Democratic principles or the Democratic party as much as she loves power.

Posted by ben | April 18, 2008 2:37 PM

$10

Posted by Julene | April 18, 2008 2:45 PM

football analogy time,

It is 4th quarter in the game. The score is 21 to 7 with 4 mintues left to play. Hillary's team is on the 30 yardline. So the game isn't over yet, but everyone knows what must be done. She gets the ball in the endzone, and now it is 14-21. Now she has no choice, because she ran it in there is only 3 minutes left to play. Time for one last desperate move: onside kick and then hail mary. Like the football analogy, winning is still possible, just very unlikely. She needs to throw a hail mary in order to win, and she first needs to recover the onside kick, because if team Obama recovers then can just run the clock down and game over. Even if team Hillary recovers the onside kick and complete the hail mary, it is a tie and we go into overtime. Thus, the 2 point conversion. Hey, it could happen! But really, Vegas odds say no.

Posted by freddiemac | April 18, 2008 2:51 PM

That's really a strained analogy.

I think this works better: Hillary is down 21 to 7 with 4 minutes remaining. Obama has the ball. Hillary grabs a baseball bat on the sidelines, smacks the opposing QB over the head with it.

Posted by LarryM | April 18, 2008 3:04 PM

OK, freddiemac, translate that into actual delegate math:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

How does she win? As Jon Chait said, pretty much by kneecapping Obama and overturning the will of the primary voters:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

Posted by JJ | April 18, 2008 3:07 PM

Freddie,

That was about where it was before WI.

Now it is more like 30-14 with 2 minutes left and Hillary has the ball on her own 20 with no Timeouts left.

She needs a quick TD, 2-pt conversion, onside kick recovery, hail mary TD, 2 pt conversion, and that just gets her tied, then she still need to win in OT:-)

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 3:09 PM

JJ,

Neither candidate will have the magic number of 2025 by the convention. So neither will technically win. The superdeligates will select the nominee. Obama's lead will not be gobbled up by Clinton. However, it is still possible that she can narrow the gap and have the superdelegates crown her the champion-er nominee. Now that isn't a very likely scenario, however if there is some sort of huge scandal that explodes with Obama before the convention, the superdelegates might all run to Clinton. So it is still feasible that she wins, because the superdelegates can vote any way the wind blows.

With her lead slipping in Pennsylvania, and no hope for an upset in North Carolina, it looks like she just threw two incompletions. She better get somewhere on this down before it goes to fourth and long, otherwise her only hope is for an Obama fumble followed by a Clinton recovery, touchdown, onside kick, recovery, and hail mary pass and 2 point conversion. I wouldn't bet on that happening, but I wouldn't say it is totally impossible. Just improbable.

Posted by freddiemac | April 18, 2008 3:28 PM

Kevin & Ezra are right & Matt is wrong. The giveaway quote from Matt:

"She needs to make long-odds plays, because only long-odds plays have any chance of resulting in a Clinton win."

There is a small chance HRC will still grab the nomination, but not through some long-odds play.

HRC can still win if Obama becomes unacceptable. He might yet become unacceptable if Wrightgate and bittergate are followed by yet another gate. To maximize her chances Hillary needs to get as much mileage as possible out of every Obama fumble. Maybe a third (or fourth) will finally turn the tide strongly for the supers to go out on a limb.

Basically, staying in is Hillary's long-odds play. She can't win, but she can stay alive and wait for the other guy to lose.

Posted by tomtom | April 18, 2008 3:31 PM

Neither candidate will have the magic number of 2025 by the convention.

Why not? This AM, Dean has asked the superdels to decide soon.

The superdeligates will select the nominee.

Yes, but will they go against the elected primary delegates? I doubt it. That would play right into "elitist" stereotypes people have of the Dem party-- not to mention demoralize and demotivate the Democratic primary voters and base. If the superdels trump the elected delegates, it will be a very ugly win.

Posted by JJ | April 18, 2008 3:40 PM

tomtom is correct and it is so obvious perhaps that's why it isn't mentioned more; otherwise what the hell can we argue about?

She is staying in because she hopes (knows?) that another, perhaps more than one, controversy along the lines of Wright/bitter/Weatherman is coming, something with a bit more meat on the bone even, something that will draw an even more visceral negative reaction, leading to a tipping point.

I'm not being coy here, I have no idea if there is, but that is why she isn't quitting. And why she shouldn't (unless she loses PA, of course).

Posted by Andruw | April 18, 2008 3:57 PM

HRC can still win if Obama becomes unacceptable.

And her campaign now sees its job in terms of making Obama unacceptable. As in, destroying his political career. That's not something which will happen in the general election: one candidate does not need to drive a stake through the other's career.

There is no way that Obama can bow out of this race gracefully. He will either end the primary season with a lead in pledged delegates, or his career will be in ruins.

As such, the primary no longer depends on what the voters do. If Obama's campaign implodes, it will not be because of vote tallies, but because of something that happens in between the voting.

When 'the stuff that's not voting' becomes more decisive than the actual voting, it's time to start winding things up.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 18, 2008 4:00 PM

Latest Newsweek poll has Obama over Clinton 54-35 among registered and leaning Democrats nationally, a +18 change for Obama since March.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721?from=rss

Maybe Clinton is starting to face a backlash for all of her attacks.

Posted by bla | April 18, 2008 4:09 PM

I wanted to say something about her having pulled her goalie, but that just sounded so rude.

Posted by Alan in SF | April 18, 2008 4:09 PM

If the Clintons are that desparate, why don't they just find somebody to accuse him of rape? Plant a dead body in his hotel room? If she really wants to win this thing. . .

Posted by blah | April 18, 2008 4:14 PM

Clintons to Pennsylvania: That nigger thinks he's better'n you!

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 18, 2008 4:18 PM

JJ,

I agree in principle that the chances of the superdelegates going against the will of the party voters is slim to none. To follow the analogy through, let's say she mucks the onside kick and Obama has the ball. Her chances now rest on Obama throwing an interception or a fumble, and then a desperate drive and a 2 point conversion. I think she's hoping they'll find some crazy dirt on Obama, like video footage of him beating a hobo or something. Not impossible, but not likely. I'd give Clinton a 5% chance of winning the nomination, and an overall chance of 1.5% of winning the Presidency. But hey, she used to bullseye wamprats back on Tatooine.

Posted by freddiemac | April 18, 2008 4:27 PM

Eric K

Hillary picked up 3 superdelegates in the last week. Again the MSM controls the campaign narrative and is only reporting one side.

New Superdelegates for Hillary:
1) Sophie Masloff-former Mayor of Pittsburg
2) Bill Burga, a former President of the Ohio AFL-CIO
3) Jackie Speier, a CA lawmaker-she took over the Cong. seat of Tom Lantos

Hillary leads Obama in superdelegates. About 240 are up for grabs.

Source: NYT 4/10/08 The Caucus

Posted by EWard | April 18, 2008 5:02 PM

I for one, have just changed my party persuasion to Independant and should Barack Obama receive the nomination, I will be voting for John McCain and shall spend every waking moment campaigning for him, rasing money for him and twisting the arms of other Democrats to vote for him. This primary season has been a colossal joke. You have the mainstream media talking about "getting tingles up their legs" listening to Obama as well as launching a full throttle mini campaign for the "Great One". You have the buffoon, Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) doing everything they can to skew the race to Obama. I have seen three petitions (one with nearly 20,000 registered Dems) saying exactly what I am saying and they will be doing the same thing as myself also. WE WILL NOT VOTE for Obama. Beyond his
in-experience, beyond his loyalties to a radical and anti-American pastor, there lies a wealth of information of his past associations with numerous neferious types, including terrorists. He has more taudry associations that the former Richard Daley of the old Chicago mob machine did.

This has nothing to do with race nor is it about patriotism...this is about a calculated effort to "rig" the election by the DNC & The Media and the fact that many of us are sick-to-death of being told who to vote for.

Should he secure the nomination, The Republicans will slaughter this guy and I will be happy to help.

Posted by Wyoming Dem | April 18, 2008 5:12 PM

EWard,

yeah, she picked up 3 in the last week, she picks up a few here and there and goes weeks without getting any, Obama is picking them up every day.

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 5:14 PM

Wyoming Dem, besides the fact that you have probably never been a democrat anyway, your state is what 70% republican? Like it really matters if McCain wins it by 15 vs 20 points?

Posted by Eric k | April 18, 2008 5:20 PM

Somehow or other I doubt either Clinton or Obama will carry Wyoming, so I'm not terribly worried over WyomingDem's selfish threat. It's this kind of lunacy that led people to vote for Nader in 2000, giving us Bush.

Posted by Dave | April 18, 2008 5:22 PM

I for one, have just changed my party persuasion to Independant and should Barack Obama receive the nomination, I will be voting for John McCain

You're that bitter that the candidate you backed in a primary lost that you're going to cling to self-destructive Republican governance? Disappointing.

This primary season has been a colossal joke.

Really? In what sense? I mean, you've got one candidate winning more delegates through the electoral process, and thankfully it looks like the unelected superdelegates are going to stick with the person the people are picking. I'd say that's a pretty fair outcome for the primary season.

...beyond his loyalties to a radical and anti-American pastor, there lies a wealth of information of his past associations with numerous neferious types, including terrorists.

Yeah. And Bill and Hill had Vince Foster assassinated. Sheesh, you sound like the people in 1992 who went on and on about all the women Clinton supposedly raped back in Arkansas.

...this is about a calculated effort to "rig" the election by the DNC & The Media and the fact that many of us are sick-to-death of being told who to vote for.

The election hasn't been rigged. And you can vote for whoever you choose, just as other people can vote for whoever they choose -- and what do you know, it looks like a whole lot of people have been voting and (unfortunately for you) the candidate you backed has lost the elections to date. And as I said, thankfully the superdelegates are doing the right thing by reaffirming the will of the voters in the interests of the Democratic Party.

You got your vote. It just doesn't get to cancel out every vote made by everyone else.

Posted by jbryan | April 18, 2008 5:46 PM

Hillary's campaign is/and history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg

Posted by JJ | April 18, 2008 6:03 PM

I understand, absolutely, why Hillary is still in the race. If she has, say, a 3% chance of winning the nomination and a 1/3 chance of winning the general after that (there's no way she comes out of a convention bloodbath with any momentum) that's a 1% chance of winning the presidency. To her, that is worth ripping the party to shreds, and while I don't like that, I at least understand it.

What I do not understand is why she has so many dead ender supporters among people who are aware of the race's dynamics (see, for example, Wyoming "Dem" above). Why on earth would anyone outside of Hillary's close friends and family be so invested in her campaign that a minuscule chance of success is worth either inadvertently or deliberately crippling the almost certain nominee's chances in November? I just don't understand it. If she (somehow) won the nomination, I would definitely vote for her, not because I like her, but because I'm terrified of what would effectively be four more years of Bush. Then again, I think a lot of them are bluffing about defecting to McCain.

Posted by Kraz | April 18, 2008 6:44 PM

I would also like to gripe about how ineffective the media have been in portraying Hillary's only route to the nomination; they act as if Pennsylvania is some crucial turning point, when there's just no way the delegate count could swing much at all. I'm in the company of a lot of very intelligent, reasonably informed people who think, presumably because of the press coverage, that a Pennsylvania win would somehow seal the nomination for Hillary.

Posted by Kraz | April 18, 2008 6:49 PM

Why on earth would anyone outside of Hillary's close friends and family be so invested in her campaign that a minuscule chance of success is worth either inadvertently or deliberately crippling the almost certain nominee's chances in November? I just don't understand it. If she (somehow) won the nomination, I would definitely vote for her, not because I like her, but because I'm terrified of what would effectively be four more years of Bush. Then again, I think a lot of them are bluffing about defecting to McCain.

They are not thinking in cost/benefit terms. They are thinking about the emotional satisfaction they will get out of seeing their perceived enemy - Obama - lose the general election. They perceive Obama as the enemy because they believe that he unfairly attacked Hillary during the campaign and that the media not only allowed him to get away with it but actually helped attack her unfairly. Thus, they do not think of Hillary's current attacks as unfair, they think of it as Obama's just desserts. I don't know why they should get so emotionally invested in a political candidate to think that way, but people get emotionally invested in all sorts of things - sports teams, American idol contestants, ex-girlfriends that hate their guts. I guess it is just one of the pitfalls of being human.

I cannot say how many Hillary supporters actually think this way, or whether they will still think this way in November, but that is how I interpret the pyschology of the bitter enders.

Posted by blah | April 18, 2008 6:54 PM

Sports analogies are dumb.
Why do Hillary supporters still support Hillary?
We've seen every kind of asshole and fool throw stuff at someone we've been impressed and inspired by for near 20 years.
We are unlike the crazy third party types who loved Dean last time but fell out of love with him the second he screamed.
Hillary supporters know that half of obama's base are hillary/bill haters.
Hillary supporters absolutely reject the idea that obama is ready.
There is a value to not jumping on every new third party-type candidacy that comes along every four years. We know half of obama's supporters are flakey third party types that loved dean and perot AND we watched Obama's campaign position themselves to capture these crazies by:
-extolling reagon and republicans as the party of ideas
-badmouthing bill and hillary
-not including mandates in his healthcare plan
-saying over and over that washington is broken
-running as outsider
its a very retro simplistic campaign. Yes there is something wonderful about the man but mostly he goes after all you third party crazies and his campaign is half full with absolute crazed hillary haters like andrew sullivan, chris matthews, keith olberman.
We can't give in to the hatred and we aren't third party crazies and many of us are feminists who don't pretend its okay to throw a good candiadate under the bus for flavor of the month.

Posted by Michael C. | April 18, 2008 7:56 PM

First, I see Kraz is a math major with that briliiant analysis. Jeebus...

Anyhow, I like this:

Clintons to Pennsylvania: That nigger thinks he's better'n you!

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 18, 2008 4:18 PM>>

Matt, seriously, the policy right below where I am currently typing--is it enforced? I don't really care about such policies, excepting spam of course, but you're allowing a commenter to use the word nigger, AND attribute it to the Clinton's.

Certainly know you don't approve, but lets get rid of the disclaimer if that is acceptable.

Posted by Andruw | April 18, 2008 8:40 PM

Wyoming Dem

Well said! This Democratic election is being rigged to favor Obama. The MSM has become a propaganda machine.

The reaction of the Obama supporters to the Debate is surreal. It reminds me of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They have lost all sense of reality.

I'm tired of the cyberbullies demeaning everyone that challenges their guy. To vilify George and Charles for doing their job is bizarre. They believe Obama was ambushed. If it upsets them so much that they are threatening ABC, why would they expect the rest of the country to elect such a wimp? Obama is unqualified to be President.

Posted by EWard | April 18, 2008 11:46 PM

I think this may be true. It seems equivalent to the rationality of a poor person buying a lottery ticket (I think Ezra Klein might have posted about this a few weeks ago.) Basically, if you feel that you really can't meaningfully improve your situation with a series of sequential, incremental measures, you might as well go for the long-shot with a big payoff.

Posted by Lauren | April 19, 2008 2:38 AM

Prediction: Clinton will either lose PA, or win by less than eight points.

She will gain just enough delegates to have that gain wiped out by Obama two weeks later in the next primary.

After which Gore and Carter will demand she bow out, or they will endorse Obama.

EWard is just one of Chris Ford's alternate personalities.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 19, 2008 4:17 AM

Isn't it funny how the same people who write this...

The reaction of the Obama supporters to the Debate is surreal. It reminds me of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They have lost all sense of reality.

can also write this...

I'm tired of the cyberbullies demeaning everyone that challenges their guy.

In the very next line. Rovian projection: it isn't just for Republicans anymore.

EWard, I'm tired of being told I'm a cultist (or a "crazy third party type," Michael) for supporting the candidate who shares my values.

Posted by Marc | April 19, 2008 9:52 AM

Why is going negative the only way to make a long odds play? What if Hillary had sat down with a non-nutcase journalist in PA and answered the Wright question this way? "Well, I find the statements played on YouTube disturbing, as I'm sure most people do. Barack has rightly denounced these comments as immoral, un-American, divisive and counter-productive. I know that Obama does not these views of Wright's - they are contrary to everything he has worked for since he began his career as a community organizer, and are certainly the diametric opposite of his most important message - that Americans need to unite around the common values we all share, rather than manufacture and exploit divisions. As my husband said, and as Obama is fond of quoting, "there is far more that unites us than divides us."

"And you know what, I read the full text of a couple of Rev. Wright's sermons, and while I find statements like "God Damn America" terribly offensive, this is hardly the message of the sermons. The message was quite similar to the sermons I hear in my church - that each of us needs to honestly acknowledge our shortcomings and seek to overcome them by submitting ourselves to God's will. In addition, there is a message more geared to the lives of his congregants - that despite all the reasons for despair in a community where many suffer unfathomable hardships of poverty and lack of opportunity that are the legacy of segregation, abandoning hope and giving into despair is not an option."

This sort of statement would be quite out of character for Hillary ca. April 15th, 2008, but not that far off from the brief glimpse of Hillary in NH when she "found her voice." This voice was not the voice mocked in the "Baracky" mash-up "I could make all these great speeches and the heavens would open...", but rather the voice of a human being, being herself - "herself" being a dedicated public servant who's devoted her life to promoting liberal causes. It would also give Hillary a way to say, "as inspirational as Obama is, he's untested and inexperienced, whereas I combine inspiration with the perspiration to get things done." This would have been a better tactic than dissing inspiration, and calling into question the intelligence of the millions of people, like me, whose eyes water and neck hair stands up when Obama speaks of the values that underly liberalism (not to mention the hundreds of superdelegates).

This sort of "long odds" play is what Obama did in his Philly speech, and it seemed to work. If (more likely when) Hillary loses the nomination, she may actually prove, contrary to HL Mencken's famous statement, that is possible to go broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Posted by Geoff G | April 19, 2008 12:52 PM

Marc

Anyone that challenges Obama is labeled as Karl Rove. It deflects the real criticism against your guy.

Let's face it this is not a level playing field. The fix is in for Obama, and the media is part of his propaganda machine. Since Iowa, Hillary has been discounted, demeaned, and belittled. Her victories are meaningless, and she's called all kinds of vile names.

She is fighting a two track campaign against Obama and the media bias. Even after the debate the leading headline on the ABC News website was that Hillary states Obama can beat McCain.

The attacks against George and Charles reveal the limitations of his candidacy. How do you expect other voters to trust him, if he can't handle a debate, even if it was an ambush? This was a picnic compared to the real challenges that will confront the next President.

Posted by EWard | April 19, 2008 2:27 PM

EWard, since sardonic observation didn't work I'll try the direct approach.

You complained that you were "tired of the cyberbullies demeaning everyone that challenges their guy." In the previous line, you said Obama supporters reminded you of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and declared that we have lost all sense of reality.

Do you really not see how you're demeaning everyone who challenges your candidate? Doing the very thing you claim to be criticizing in others? That's textbook projection.

I notice that you keep up the projection in your next post, claiming that Clinton's victories are discounted as meaningless when it's her campaign that's run the "insult 40 states strategy" of discounting any race that goes against her (of which there have been quite a few), claiming that she's fighting a two-track campaign against Obama and "media bias" when in fact Obama's been fending off attacks from both McCain and Clinton, who has taken to parroting right-wing talking points and praising McCain. In your efforts to paint Clinton as an underdog, you've cast her as Obama.

There are plenty of reasons for people to support Hillary Clinton, but fantasies of martyrdom for "the inevitable candidate" are pretty lousy ones. And you don't get to claim you're being "cyberbullied" when you demean Obama's supporters in the same virtual breath.

Posted by Marc | April 19, 2008 5:16 PM

Marc
I stand by my comments. Look around at all the blog threads about Hillary and Obama, and you'll get a sense of my frustration. There are so many snide attacks against Hillary that I could write a book. Obama and his campaign play just as rough as Hillary and her team. If you don't believe me read these gems coming out of the campaign of St. Obama.

Who said Hillary Clinton is "literally willing to do anything to win" -- Obama's chief strategist

Who said Hillary Clinton is attempting to "deceive the American people" -- Obama's campaign

Who called Hillary Clinton a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure -- Obama

Who called Hillary Clinton "one of the most secretive politicians in America" -- Obama's campaign manager

Who said John McCain is seen as more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton -- Obama's campaign spokesman

Who called Hillary Clinton dishonest -- Obama

Who said Hillary Clinton is "not being straight with the American people" -- Obama

Who said of Hillary "The American people are not going to elect a president that they do not trust"
Obama's campaign manager

Who claimed Hillary Clinton "consistently" and "deliberately" misleads the American people
Obama's campaign spokesman

Posted by EWard | April 19, 2008 9:29 PM

Criticism isn't projection or dirty politics just because it's aimed at your candidate. The fact that all those things happen to be true bears a little relevance.

And it wasn't the Obama campaign who said McCain is viewed as more honest and trustworthy than Clinton--it was Gallup.

The facts are biased, right?

Posted by Marc | April 20, 2008 10:19 AM

Marc

Myth
"There are plenty of reasons for people to support Hillary Clinton, but fantasies of martyrdom for "the inevitable candidate" are pretty lousy ones"

Reality
Obama became the "inevitable candidate" after Iowa.

Myth
Clinton's campaign discounting any race that goes against her

Reality
It is the media that discounts Hillary's victories. Let's take one media outlet, the Atlantic. In every race since NH, Obama's victories are trumpeted and Hillary's are downplayed. Even when she is expected to win, the pundit projections are that she has to win by double digits to achieve a "real" victory. If you check the Atlantic's archives, you'll see the evidence.

Myth
"Criticism isn't projection or dirty politics just because it's aimed at your candidate. The fact that all those things happen to be true bears a little relevance."

Reality
The 13,600,000 people that voted for Hillary disagree with you. Obviously, they believe that is has little relevance.

Posted by EWard | April 20, 2008 1:16 PM

Thirteen MILLION people, EWard? That's a lot!

Posted by Barbar | April 20, 2008 1:34 PM