It's 3 a.m. and Hillary's Dreaming

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/its-3-am-and-hillarys_b_89936.html

To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states. Barack Obama, however, has won twice as many primary and caucus states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.

For two or three days, the Clinton campaign will spin itself -and the media--silly, breathlessly celebrating her overwhelming victories in Rhode Island and Ohio and her squeaker in Texas.

After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.

Seven more weeks of campaign slog through Wyoming, Mississippi and into Pennsylvania. And then maybe tack on six more weeks, if you can believe it, into Indiana , West Virginia, and a handful of other states and into Puerto Rico on the 7th of June, quite literally into D-Day. Whatever the outcome, even if Clinton wins all 16 remaining contests -and some of them by veritable landslides, she will still be dozens of elected delegates behind Barack Obama.

She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).

Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?

"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."

Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.

Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.

The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."

Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.

"...Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.

The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."

Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed."

This hasn't been a true democracy since 2000. It's just going through the motions.

and this was not a slam at either candidate, but a comment on the stolen elections of '00 and '04.

I just thought it was funny. :)

the title alone is a slam at one of the candidates.

But while his wording may have been harsh, I think the sentiment it expressed is correct.

for some reason. the whole point of my post was to dig at the seeming pointlessness of "democracy" when the last 2 presidential elections have been stolen. all this hillary vs. obama debate might well be rendered academic come november when McCain is installed as resident. that's why we need to unite in november, no matter who the candidate is. we need to win by an overwhelming landslide so that they have no room for a 51 to 49% type of "victory".

...but perhaps then, if "we ... win by an overwhelming landslide so that they have no room for a 51 to 49% type of "victory" -- is when we'll see the declarations of martial law that have been prepared for over the last eight years.

let the revolution begin.

...on the phone.

wtf does that mean?

The following is based on the results of Rasmussen Reports rolling polls. The pattern since Feb 5th is very interesting.

Around 3 weeks ago, Obama was beating McCain by up to 8 points. Hillary was losing to McCain by up to 6 points. So it looked like only Obama could beat McCain!

Now, McCain beats Obama by 5 points, but Hillary is almost tied with McCain. So maybe Hillary is the strongest candidate to go up against John McCain? :eyes:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

And we have to see how he responds to, for example, fear mongering ads that rip-off republican framing on how Americans should be scared and vote of fear.

She's also been complaining to the referees (aka, the Media) that they've only been calling fouls on her, and that *does* and did effect them.

When it comes to the GE, Hillary's got tons of skeletons that the fascist's will use against her. And it will be relentless. Obama is harder to pick apart, and provides new hope for our country.

In Chicago, the politicians who screwed up America were secured inside a fortress of a building while the protesters got beaten and gassed outside. They didn't have to face the consequences of their actions (supporting Johnson and the Vietnam War) in any real physical sense.

In 2008, the protesters will be more subtle and smart than the dope-smoking dreamers of Chicago. Years of dealing with riot police and dirty tricks have been learned. They will breach the security of the Denver convention center and get in the faces of the delegates. Heck, maybe even the faces of the candidates, who never really faced their public before.

It would almost certainly doom the Democratic Party as it exists. And considering how "well" this particular group of Democrats have fought against the war, economic disaster and dictatorship, they deserve exactly that doom.

Mind you, this is all supposition. Americans are passive sheeple. They aren't as angry about Clinton and the DLC as people on DU like to imagine. And yes, they have cars, but no gas - also thanks to the Democrats - so they won't be able to go. The hookers the delegates will be patronizing will have more influence on the convention than any potential protesters.

But it's nice to dream.