This of course is the lynch pin. Without it the smears of numbers two and three can't take hold. Of course it is realistically possible for Clinton to still win the nomination, and the only way it is possible is if the Democratic Party would legitimately be better served by having her as our nominee rather than Barack Obama.
So all of the doom and gloom pronouncements about how the Party will be fatally wounded if Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton does when the primaries end, but she gets the nomination instead, is total bull. She won't get the nomination instead under that scenario unless there are darn good reasons for her to get it.
The Super Delegates aren't in Clinton's pocket. The ones who have pledged are pretty closely divided as it stands and some have shown a willingness to move away from Hillary Clinton. And if the ones who are still undecided didn't jump to Hillary long ago when it seemed like she was the sure winner, they sure as hell aren't going to jump to her late in the game for no good reason. Hillarr is not the big bad Democratic Party Machine candidate.
So what could happen to make them vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? We may have a clear favorite at the moment, but that is far from the race being over.
If Obama loses 8 of the last 10 contests, if the voters of Michigan and Florida do not get the delegates they selected seated or a valid revote instead and polls there continue to show her more popular in those states than Obama, if Obama screws up royally around any new controversy and/or is running ten points behind Hillary Clinton in the national polls for the Democratic nomination, and 8 points worse than Hillary Clinton in polls of match ups against McCain...
Obnama would then no longer seem so inevitable, especially if the pledged delegate count falls under a hundred delegate margin by June.
Under those circumstances the Democratic Party would be foolish to feel bound to nominate Obama if he could not win a majority of the delegates just because he piled up a slim pledged delegate lead early in the contest.
The odds may not favor all or most of that happening. Obama is the clear favorite now, but this race is far from being locked in stone, and there is no reason why it should be.
Have you noticed the latest update of a national state by state electoral map comparison of how Clinton and OBama fare against McCain? Here:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
It projects McCain with well over the electoral votes needed to defeat Obama, and Clinton leading McCain soundly. If trends like that continue you can bet your bottom dollor Obama does not have a lock on this nomination. That is why his side is trying so hard now to shut down the contest and call victory while they still can.
Yes Clinton needs some big wins, not just squeekers. So far she has that chance in both PA and WV, which both are states that polls show she can keep or bring respectively into the Democratic column but which Obama would lose to Republicans.
She also needs to show strength is States where it is not automatically assumed that she has the demographic advantage already; Indianna, North Carolina, and Oregaon come to mind. Depending on other variables she probably needs to win two out of those three, or come extremely close to doing so at the very least.
Not since immediately after the NH Primary have we experienced this election campaign as one in which all the momentum is running in Hillary Clinton's direction. People are living in the bubble we find ourselves in now, one that fosters thinking that Obama is the presumptive nominee. That is one reason why Super Delegates began to break his way before TX and OH.
Clinton slowed down that momentum and gave reasons for some people to hold off thinking that this thing is all over, but that is not the same shifting to a political climate in which Obama seems clearly to be sinking while Clinton is rising. In the scenario that I outlined above however, that is exactly the impression that start to take hold.
Obama built on momentum, fueled in part by his massive money advantage advantage fundraising in January, to put together his streak in February. That gave him the aura of a winner, and that is a key intangible which drove up his support.
I remember a number of folks on message boards a while back coming out and saying they were choosing Obama because he seemed to be the only Democrat who would defeat McCain. That worm in reality however is starting to turn. There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain.
If it comes down to Obama losing most of the important contests from here on out and falling behind in national opinion polls both among Democrats and in relative matchups with McCain, and if his claim to overall popular support in votes cast is premised on not having to take Michigan and Florida into account, and if it seems Clinton could carry those states in the fall and Obama wouldn't, Clinton will be our nominee. And that would be the correct choice under those circumstances.
Tour de force post.
david
Do you pull polls out of thin air?
To suggest that the polls reveal truths about the possible November match-ups is silly.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/election_ 2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html
HRC was recently caught fibbing about N. Ireland, SCHIP, Bosnia, and FMLA. You may want to add some nuance to your comments about HRC momentum. Her whole argument has been experience, but all her specific experience claims have been shown to be exaggerations, if not lies. It's not unreasonable to presume this is a problem for primary and SD voters.
You can't tell the painful truth to those who aren't ready to listen.
It's a moot point right now. If virtually all fair oobservers don't agree that fortunes have shifted and Hillary is most likely our strongest nominee and most favored by both Democrats and the public in general by the time the primaries have ended in June, Obama will get the nonination.
I was just pointing out indications that it is possible that might become the case and why it is premature to think it can't.
But you invent things, why not stick to polls.
Further, even if the polls had HRC significantly ahead (which they don't) the HRC folks have reminded us since New Hampshire, it is sensible to be skeptical of the polls anyway.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/03/obamaclinton_tie_in_n ew_poll_p.html
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/daily_preside ntial_tracking_polling_history
Of course we can agree to disagree. Her fibbing is you view. I think most indy and reagan democrats think this is a political based smear by BO and his campaign to hide from BO support of Rev Wright. Again you can think what you want but so can i. However, going negative is always tricky and IMHO BO has picked some attacks that dont really regester with voters and if that is true than his attacks will end up hurting his campaign more than HRC.
And all you have to do to see this is look at the head to head matchs with McCain. Three weeks ago BO was ahead of McCain and Hillary was just even and now they are both even or based on Rasmussen Hillary is doing sightly better.
And i didnt say anthing about "may want to add some nuance to your comments about HRC momentum". But if you say she has the momentum i will take you word for that since you support BO.
I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about whoppers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF 7Y&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor yonly/2008/3/23/95418/5038/471/482606
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html
The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/pol itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=2&hp
Again that is your opinion and could you provide some proof that some voting block agrees. Really this is sad. It is like some poor grammer school kid screaming in the playgound and no one is listening.
HIllary is a lier, lier, lier, damn it dont you see that. But this is no smear everyone thinks this.
You are an "interesting" person.
Once again, let's remove that particular non-fib from the roster, shall we? I'll actually copy part of the article I cite because it has been my experience that simply posting a link to it is a waste of time since the purveyors of such unresearched memes rarely seem to click on such links. At least, they never respond in any way to indicate that they actually read something that contradicts their meme. Who knows why?
Trimble's dismissal was enough, however, to draw other Northern Ireland politicians to Clinton's defense. John Hume has been one of her most ferocious defenders and Trimble's jibe drew swift rebuke from the man who was Trimble's nationalist Nobel partner. "I can state from first hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade," Hume told the Derry Journal. Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness told the Echo that Hillary Clinton was someone who was "extremely well informed" on Ireland and its peace process. McGuinness described Trimble's remarks as "mean spirited." Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams, speaking in New York during his St. Patrick's Day U.S. visit, was reluctant to be drawn into a U.S. political debate, even if Ireland was the subject matter. Adams explained that Sinn Féin preferred to stay clear of American party politics for the simple reason that it drew support from Republicans and Democrats. "I've met the three presidential candidates and I wish them well," he said. Trimble's comment, however, had crossed the line. "I did take exception to David Trimble saying she (Clinton) had played no role. That isn't true. For the record she did play a positive role," Adams said in response to a question from the Echo during a meeting with reporters in a Manhattan hotel last Friday.
John Hume has been one of her most ferocious defenders and Trimble's jibe drew swift rebuke from the man who was Trimble's nationalist Nobel partner.
"I can state from first hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade," Hume told the Derry Journal.
Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness told the Echo that Hillary Clinton was someone who was "extremely well informed" on Ireland and its peace process.
McGuinness described Trimble's remarks as "mean spirited."
Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams, speaking in New York during his St. Patrick's Day U.S. visit, was reluctant to be drawn into a U.S. political debate, even if Ireland was the subject matter.
Adams explained that Sinn Féin preferred to stay clear of American party politics for the simple reason that it drew support from Republicans and Democrats.
"I've met the three presidential candidates and I wish them well," he said. Trimble's comment, however, had crossed the line.
"I did take exception to David Trimble saying she (Clinton) had played no role. That isn't true. For the record she did play a positive role," Adams said in response to a question from the Echo during a meeting with reporters in a Manhattan hotel last Friday.
The URL to the whole story in the Irish Echo, which addresses both points of view, is http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story .cfm?id=18659
I wonder how many more times I will have to post that before the Hillary bashers begin to admit that they might just possibly, maybe, perhaps, be a little bit wrong on that particular issue.
The problem is exaggeration.
She says she was "instrumental" to the piece process, and that has been shown to be false.
There is no indication that HRC had any part in the negotiations. Even those who you quoted will acknowledge that she never participated in the negotiations.
I think Adams gave a fair representation, she did play a positive role. Why can't she just say that? Why does she need to say she was instrumental, when that's not true? Mitchell's book doesn't mention her. Yes, he has said she met with the women's groups. Everyone acknowledges that. Yes, the the women's groups were a positive factor. Everyone acknowledges that. But, everyone also knows that HRC wasn't in Mitchell's book because SHE wasn't instrumental to the peace process.
She pushes this exaggeration stuff, hoping nobody looks too closely. But, as the Bosnia video and her schedules show, she is taking a huge risk because there is a record, and it doesn't support her exaggerated claims.
Her true record is good enough (not very extensive, but it's not bad), why does she shoot herself in the foot with her embellishments? Can you tell me?
If the problem is seen as one of exaggeration, then that's how it should be posited. Not as a lie. There is a big difference. And it is not correct that "everyone acknowledges that" as you state. Many someones seem unwilling to even acknowledge she could find Ireland on a map. (smiling ruefully)
Who's to say that she didn't really believe her work to be "instrumental"? Behind the scenes, perhaps it was instrumental in its own way. Perhaps the women's groups and others also saw it as "instrumental". That isn't the same as saying that it was "crucial" to the process or even front and center. (Oh jeez, are we back to the meaning of "is"? lol)
As for her schedules, they only tell you so much. They do not tell you everyone she talked to in a day, or what she said, or what she and Bill discussed in their private quarters, for instance. My daily schedules are a mere skeleton of my actual daily activities, for instance, and I'm a mere nobody. We should be careful about reading too much into them, though they definitely have some value.
Alas, I cannot tell you why she shoots herself in the foot with embellishments. Having done that ocassionaly myself in my life, I can't even tell you why I did it. But I'm not running for President, so it's hardly the same thing, is it?
She has definitely lied about Bosnia.
And, nobody says she had anything to do with the negotiations in Northern Ireland. The peace process has been well documented, and HRC was not mentioned as a player. I'm sure she was a helpful and positive, but I don't know why she feels compelled to take the credit of others.
I'm sure there are things you like about HRC, but you must be disappointed that she uses the kind of politicking where dissembling about the meaning of 'is' is perfectly reasonable. Both Clintons have shown that they get too cute when they're parsing language.
The schedules of a First Lady are considerably more definitive than a personal schedule you or I may have.
And, nobody says she had anything to do with the negotiations in Northern Ireland.
Neither did she, actually. To the contrary, she freely admits she was not front and center, did not have a place at the table and did no negotiating. She did perform well behind the scenes and I don't see why she shouldn't take some credit for it.
Both Clintons have shown that they get too cute when they're parsing language.
So do supporters of both Hillary and Obama. Just look at what we're doing.
You've never seen my schedule.
I've been disappointed in Hillary more than once, but I've likewise been disappointed in Obama-- and in every other politician I've ever known about, including Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and RFK. I look at the entire picture as well as I am able and make my final judgment from that.
All of what I've written should be taken as offered without rancor and in a soft tone, please... I am not here to start an imbroglio.
We can certainly agree on no imbroglio.
Al Franken would have called you on this if he were still on Air America:
HRC was recently caught fibbing about N. Ireland, SCHIP, Bosnia, and FMLA....Her whole argument has been experience, but all her specific experience claims have been shown to be exaggerations, if not lies.
Your comment is the very definition of a shameless lie.
Sen. Clinton has not been "caught" exaggerating or lying about anything. In fact, the proof that her statements are completely accurate has come from John Hume and Bertie Ahern in Ireland--both involved in the peace process, as well former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam and others in Northern Ireland. Her involvement in SCHIP has come from none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy--who is on the record saying that if it weren't for Hillary Clinton pushing the bill from the White House, it wouldn't have happened. Her trip to Bosnia is well documented by Alegre and a Nexis Lexis search of the articles at the time proves she was flying into a COMBAT ZONE with snipers in the area--the first time a First Lady has flown into a combat zone since Eleanor Roosevelt flew into London during WWII. And Clinton flew to two outlying bases in the area to visit combat troops personally, a trip which Crowe and Sinbad did not accompany her on.
HRC's schedules have shown the truth:
The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/pol itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=3&hp
Northern Ireland: She claimed she was instrumental to the peace process. Everyone, including those you mentioned, agree that HRC was never part of the peace negotiations. Mitchell and others who wrote about the peace process never mentioned her in their writing. Everyone, including those who have minimized her role in the peace process will acknowledge that she play a positive role in the process because she met with women's groups. The problem is that it is silly, and politically stupid, for her to claim she was an instrumental part of creating peace--everybody knows that this is taking credit for the work of others.
SCHIP: The bill was initiated in congress, with support from Hatch. The Clinton administration was opposed, for budgetary reasons. The budget and funding issues where worked out in congress. As part of the lobbying effort to move the White House, HRC was recruited by those in congress to help get WJC to support the legislation. HRC didn't create SCHIP, she didn't work to get congress to pass the legislation, she was recruited to get WJC to accept what congress was doing. As much as her persuasion of WJC, SCHIP was accepted in the White Hosue because it's funding was changed so that WJC the initial budget issues were removed. But, HRC was a helpful advocate in the White House, why can't she just stick with the truth? Why does she need to take credit for the work of others? HRC has been caught exaggerating on this when she takes credit this legislation.
Bosnia: You're joking, right?
WJC was in there two months earlier. HRC had her teenage daughter with her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF 7Y&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor yonly/2008/3/23/95418/5038/471/482606
You need to acknowledge that she invented this story (which she repeated more than once) if you want to have any credibility.
FMLA: you didn't address this one.
**Lies can be small and lies can be whoppers. Hillary has tried to give the impression that she was more involved in the peace process than she indeed was. Hume was being kind. He named people who were especially helpful in his Nobel acceptance speech. Bill's name came up. Tony Blair's name came up. Mitchell was named. Didn't see Hillary mentioned. I'm certain that Tony Blair's wife was also quite hopeful that there would be a meaningful peace. Do you think she claims to have been instrumental in the peace process? I think those of us who are/were FOB admired his diplomatic skills. I don't think they should necessarily be extended to his wife. Hillary is being rightfully pilloried for this series of "exaggerations." It's probably helpful that this isn't an October surprise.
You make a lot of good points. I support neither Clinton nor Obama now, but will vote for either in the general election.
Having no favorite, it is easy to see the games and misstatements of both campaigns.
The so-called "progressive netroots" has been pathetic in this election. They are mertely an echo chamber for soem of the most obious falsehoods.
It's not about issues or real change.
"There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain."
You didn't cite any, and I'm not finding any polls to back that up.
