'Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.'

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/too_little__too_ late_107751.htm

Obama is the leader here. Has been, will continue to be. Really Clinton lost in PA. She lost by not being able to hold onto a 20 percent margin.

She had lost long before having not been able to check Obama and his serious fund raising advantages, and steady delegate wins.

If Obie wins Indiana and N.C. in two weeks, it's all over but Hillary's concession speech. If he doesn't, we'll have to wait till June. In either event, there's no chance Hillary can convince the party leaders to give her a nomination over the winner of the most delegates and most popular votes. In fact, if Obie wins Indiana and N.C., enough superdelegates going Obama may make any argument she may mount as moot.

Based on what I saw, Hillary only gained 9 delegates last night. I still believe Obama will hold on, but I have to say, I'm impressed with the stamina Clinton has shown (and the GOP better be careful what they wish for by continuing to root for her over Obama).

And Obama usually loses the Democrats.

So based on that Herb that means Obama will sweep in November with over 50% of Republicans voting for him.... The Dems will vote for McCain??? DON'T THINK SO!
Thanks for the info.

Hillary will not overtake Obama. That is, unless she does some of the usual behind the scenes Clinton sleeze.

Let's hope she does!!!!

Never under-estimate the Clinton machine.

Herb

Just like the DUHbya and Co. muckrakers.

Like we over-estimated the intelligence of a SHRUB!

91 on an IQ test isn't Intelligence.

Obama should continue to take the high road to the nomination. He is breaking new ground every single day. If he has to counter her attacks, he should, but he has to focus on John McCain. The rest of the party will have to hash out whether they will support the "Democrats" blindly as a group, regardless of the tactics and the results. Or, insist on an entirely new ballgame. Unthinking partisanship is a sinking boat. I hope we pick and choose the best people to represent us in the future. If we do not, it will be very bleak indeed.

To the Clinton machine, Obama is just a tool to build the party, much like his role in 1992. There will continue to be a no holds barred attitude from her camp both above and below the surface. They know that she has lost this year, so she must insure that Obama cannot win in November. This is why she positioned herself with all of that "commander in chief threshold" rhetoric. This also why she is now far to the right of McCain on foreign policy. She has a thousand year plan in the Middle East with nuclear options. Since the NIE clearly states that Iran has no WMD, it looks like any other carefully crafted nihilist neo-con ruse to keep us on the brink of Armageddon. Is Hillary Clinton just Joe Lieberman in a pantsuit?

If Obama loses the nomination or the election, this kind of hard-line positioning will enable the DLC branch of the party to shape the future in an ever more conservative and corporate direction. Armed with the claim that "even that amazing black guy" couldn't win, the big machinery will not allow an old-fashioned populist to get that close again. Her complete rejection of party activists goes all the way back to her days as a Republican. It is reflective of the overall attitude of "use and lose 'em" -- an approach both parties have held for decades toward most of the nation. The results of this kind of politics are especially hard on working folks, minorities, soldiers, small businesses and rural America.

She may also permanently damage the credibility of future female candidates, but perhaps, only those like her who did not achieve power on their own. Like Pat Schroeder's crocodile tears or Geraldine Ferraro's bigotry, it could be a short lived setback. In our lifetime, a woman of stature and quality will have a real shot at the White House, not just a coattail riding, triangulating schemer. Of course, if she has her way, they will have to be approved by the old guard and the big money interests. In Obama, we may be witnessing the very last real "Democrat" to run for the Presidency.

To anybody with a calculator, this season is already over, but she is running for 2012. She was banking on Democrats forgetting all the damage she and her husband did to our country in the 1990s, and by and large, most of the sheep have forgotten. She will be banking on our memories dimming of the low road they have taken when she comes back in four years and drags us down yet again. Her supporters insist it is "her turn" as if politics were some sort of parlor game for dynasties.

They both have earned a place in history, but that very story is still being written. Right now, one wonders if there are "two historic candidates" in this race. One is solidly historic, but the other is bordering on the hysteric. In this moment, her negatives are only exceeded by her immeasurable levels of entitlement and embellishment. She is doing great damage to herself and the party. She is also taking focus off of many important downticket primaries like ours here in Oregon.

My only hope is that enough people get fed up and actually raise the tons of "baggage" she jokes about. With much of the right wing either sitting on their hands, or going after Obama, ordinary folks need to cut her out like a tumor. We cannot be concerned with saving her Senate career. When she cares so little about the party and the country, it is no longer acceptable to give her a free pass. Neither the McCain "saga" nor the Clinton "legacy" should be sacred cows when America is hungry for red meat.

"...she is running for 2012."

I don't think so.

She'll be seen as too old, too ham-fisted in her 'scorched earth' tactics and her negatives can only go up from here. She's made many enemies amongst the democrats.

I wouldn't count her out now. But 4 years is not something she's willing to wait for. It's now or never, and that's why she's so desperate.

Herb

She'll be seen as too old.

And Johnny Mc isn't? McSame will be 106 after 8 years in office.

It doesn't look good for my guy....

Herb, for once we agree. There is no way Hillary is setting herself up for 2012, and there's no way her secret plan is to allow the Democrats to be defeated in November. Waaaaaaay too much conspiracy theory for me. I would like to see her boot Harry Reid from his position as Senate Majority leader and see Obama as president.

However, I don't think she's desperate. She's running for president, has come this far, and it's her right to continue fighting. It would be dumb for her to give up now after all she's been through. After all, if baseball teams gave up after 7 innings, what's the point of having a 9 inning game?

Vitalogy, to most folks in a given party, the primary season is a scrimmage before the big series. This is the shirts playing the skins. Or an even more apt analogy: Spring Training. The real grind of the season is ahead of both parties.

The Democrats know that they are the favorite to win it all this year, so why are they still fighting about giving the starting job to a dedicated young superstar instead of a veteran part-timer with a checkered past? In baseball terms, it gets ludicrous.

Just ask another baseball man, Robert Creamer. Not the baseball man, mind you. :0)

With all due deference, Littlesongs, the democrats first have to get past a civil war before taking on the next opponent.

Mr. McCain won't have the wounds the democrat will have.

Herb

With victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Hillary has shown that Obama still has some people to prove himself too. Don't get me wrong, I would like Hillary to call it quits today so Obama can focus on the general. But, if it were me in Hillary's shoes, I would see a few more primaries before I threw in the hat. So although I disagree with her continuing on, I understand why she's continuing.

"I would like Hillary to call it quits today so Obama can focus on the general."

Me, too.

Nothing good can come out of a Clinton win.

Herb

Plenty good can come out of a Hillary win. Part of that good will be the sick to their stomach conservatives that will certainly be in line for some payback. Part of me would like to see her win just to see the reaction.

I know there is that Ohio and Pennsylvania argument that the whole ballgame belongs to a handful of voters, but these are primaries, so total registration and turnout are the only factors that ought to matter long term. We may have to muddle through the rest of the season, but it is building the base.

The idea that our election in November will not be about people voting in all 50 states is very shortsighted. The winning of one or two primary states is not more important than reaching all 50 states with a solid message and growing support from the bottom up. Whether a candidate in a downticket race wins or loses depends heavily on who the nominee is at the top.

Both Democrats have shown great strength in blue states, but red state gains have been almost entirely Obama. The real message of voters in this season has been lost in the spin. A new party base can be built on the foundation of the old and large gains in the House and Senate are achievable. It also insures the future of the party as another generation of active Democrats get engaged in the process all over the country.

On the other side, history is not kind. The Clintons gave away over a hundred House seats in the first two years of their administration, and that was just the beginning. Before long, Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court all belonged to the GOP. Remember, the Democrats lost in 2000 for a whole variety of small reasons and one really huge reason: Bill Clinton.

He gutted the party, but we are supposed to give his wife the crown for another go round? Wow. Will Rogers was right:

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

"..payback."

That says it all.

If it's payback you're about, be prepared to lose.
Because hatred of Mr. Bush isn't going to fix any of our problems.
Even I can see that, and I didn't even vote for him in the primary election either time.
The left has a problem with hatred. Stay blinded with your rage and voters will see right through that.

Herb

Hatred of Bush has nothing to do with it. The payback will be the loss of power to the GOP and the advancement of the Democratic way moving forward to hopefully change things for the better. However, with the amount of damage Bush and the GOP has caused over the last 7+ years, it will be a tough gig.

"However, with the amount of damage Bush and the GOP has caused over the last 7+ years, it will be a tough gig."

Probably too tough for either of the Democrat candidates. That's why it makes more sense to vote for McCain.

"Probably too tough for either of the Democrat candidates. That's why it makes more sense to vote for McCain."

Non-sense, perhaps. The Republicans have destroyed themselves under the shrub regime. Had McSame stayed whom he was before, there might be some credibility in what you say, but he didn't and there isn't!

McCain isn't Bush.

By the way, don't count Hillary out just yet. It may be McCain against Hillary. Bill may get Air Force One back after all.

No, he's just like Bush.

He's a Republican.

McCain IS Bush. Same economy, same war, same conservative justices. A majority of the country will decline a third term for McSame.

Nothing good can come out of a Clinton win.

We agree on that!


I think it's ironic that the EXTREMERS are going for McSame after they THREW HIM UNDER THE GD BUS in 2000 in favor of DUHbya. Now McSame is a good choice??? FLIP Fin FLOP!
WOW!

Nothing good can come out of a Clinton win.


Well, Id rather have a Clinton win than a MCSANE win. If Mcsane wins we are all fucked!

"Nothing good can come out of a Clinton win."

Really? Just about everything that Bush is not, Hillary IS.

Nothing good can come out of a Clinton win."

Really? Just about everything that Bush is not, Hillary IS.

Boy is that a tempting open invitation!

But I won't! Mama always said "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all!"

""Nothing good can come out of a Clinton win."

Really? Just about everything that Bush is not, Hillary IS."

Actually in this case, I see a lot of similarities even in their diametric differences.

Neither is well-liked in their own party.

Both are running as something they are not. Bush and his "compassionate conservative" crap, Hillary branding herself as a moderate.

Both are beneficiaries of being in a political machine family.

Neither one would measure up worth a hill of beans to their family predecessor in the Oval Office. (Dubya only wishes to be a sliver of the President his father was, and Hillary would have some BIG shoes to fill to match up with Bill.)

Both will have partisan gridlock.

Neither will do what it takes to get us back where we need to be in our standing amongst our allies, and more important our adversaries.

While Bush and Hillary differ philosophically, it can be said that the end result will be largely the same.

Obama or bust, baby!

Check out the video in this link:
http://www.againsthillary.com/2007/04/27/is-hillary-clinton-falling-victim-to-ov erconfidence/

She lies more than Bill. Hmmmmm.....I guess Bill lays, I mean lies quite a bit himself as well.

"There is no way Hillary is setting herself up for 2012, and there's no way her secret plan is to allow the Democrats to be defeated in November. Waaaaaaay too much conspiracy theory for me."

Is Hillary Positioning for 2012?

March 22, 2008

I've been trying to figure out for weeks why Hillary Clinton is still in this campaign because the math has been obvious for quite some time now. Even Mitt Romney had the - what would you call it, decency, wisdom, common sense - to drop out after he realized it was mathematically impossible (or next to impossible) for him to win.

There is one possibility as to why Senator Clinton might still be in this race, inflicting heavy damage on the presumptive Democratic nominee. That reason is Hillary 2012.

Now that's a heavy charge. I can't read her mind, so I don't know what her true intentions are. We can only judge based on her actions. Her staff understands and agrees that she has a very, very small chance of winning, but she is still willing to go after front-runner of her own party in the strongest possible words.

Huffington Post

Hillary 2012?

March 22, 2008

The question is: Does Hillary Clinton, aware deep-down that she probably won't be the Democratic nominee, secretly want Barack Obama to lose to John McCain so that she can run again in 2012?

Clinton will be 64 in 2012. That's clearly not too old to seek the presidency. I also don't see any obvious heavyweight competitors on the horizon, although of course predicting something like that is dicey at this juncture. If Obama were to lose to McCain, it's possible he could run four years from now, but it would depend on how he lost. A John Kerry-like defeat or worse would probably end his ambitions. An Al Gore-like defeat would probably enhance them.

But here's where things get dicey for Hillary 2012. If she were seen by a significant portion of Democrats as not having done all she could for Obama in 2008, she'd face massive hostility in 2010 when she started making noises about running again. So she has to be active in helping him, which of course creates a sort of double paradox: she has to work hard for the very outcome that works against her own future interests, knowing that said work is the only thing that will in fact help her future interests! Got it?

Like I said: it's OK for her to think about an Obama loss, but she can't act like she wants an Obama loss. It's a fair moral distinction that society accepts in most realms. No one ever got thrown in prison for thinking about robbing a bank.

So the best outcome on November 5 from the self-interested Clinton point of view is this: Obama lost soundly but not devastatingly, Democrats made gains in the House and Senate, the Clintons did all that could be expected of them.

Guardian

Hillary or Nobody?

March 26, 2008

Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?

Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons' divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no Democrat.

New York Times

Clinton's 2012 Strategy

March 26, 2008

Her goal is to defeat Obama by destroying him in the next month or two, not by making a positive argument about herself. By ramping up his negatives, she also has an added threat to the superdelegates: nominate him and you'll elect McCain. And if she cannot destroy him this time, and he gets the nomination, she will have so anathematized him with a segment of voters that McCain will beat him, and she gets to say "told you so" and run again in 2012. The new Gallup finding shows that it is working. It is Rove-Morris politics at its purest; and she and her husband are as skilled at it as anyone.

The Atlantic

Top House Democrat denounces Clinton campaign tactics

April 24, 2008

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

"I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win" in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

Clyburn has not yet declared whether he supports Clinton or Obama. But in January, he raised his concerns about the heated exchanges between the two campaigns before the South Carolina primary.

Reuters

Obama gets the nod?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120899521565139921.html?mod=todays_columnists

WSJ Thinks so. Damn cool.