Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Sees No Cause for Alarm

By Anne E. Kornblut
MCALLEN, Tex. -- In the wake of her larger-than-expected losses on Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a case that goes something like this: We always knew Sen. Barack Obama would win there. So it doesn't count.

"Some weeks one of us is up, and the other's down, and then we reverse it," Clinton said at a press availability after a rally here. She smiled and shrugged off the defeats -- moving quickly past the fact that Obama had won and inviting him to meet her in Texas -- as if the votes had not actually mattered.

Would she recalibrate her message, which failed her in Maryland, a Democratic stronghold, and in Virginia, an increasingly Democratic state that could be a vital linchpin of a Democratic race in the general election in the fall? Clinton declined to say.

"My husband lost Maryland when he was running in the primary," Clinton said, brushing past the Maryland loss on Tuesday.

What about the delegate count, which now appears to be moving in Obama's favor and will require Clinton to win by much larger margins in the states ahead?

"That's what I always thought would happen, so we are very well positioned to compete in these big states," Clinton said.

And the reports of bickering inside her campaign, where Patti Solis Doyle was replaced as campaign manager over the weekend and her deputy, Mike Henry, soon followed? No in-fighting whatsoever, Clinton said. "That's not what's going on," she said.

Would she be putting any more of her own money into the campaign, after lending herself $5 million in January?

"No," Clinton said. "No, we're doing very well fundraising."

What about the fact that Obama had cut into her core constituencies, including women and union voters? Was that a cause for concern?

"No," Clinton said. "You know, this is the back-and-forth of a campaign. Now it's on to Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin next week. This is a very competitive campaign, and we need to make sure that the people voting in these states understand what's at stake."

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 13, 2008; 1:09 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Frames Race as Solutions vs. Promises
Next: GOP House Leaders Flock to McCain

Comments

To margommm,

I totally agree with you that one should think about what is best for the country. You are absolutely correct.

You state universal health care as an example. Again, I agree. This is actually the most important issue to me. I am a doctor, I deal with this every day.

I have issues with Clinton's plan and with Obama's plan, but I have significantly more issues with Clinton's.
If people do not have health care coverage, it is not because they do not want it, IT IS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT!!! To MANDATE health care is ridiculous. She is suggesting garnishing people's wages!!! This, to me, is patronising to the point of being 'big brother-ish'.

The only way to ensure that everyone is covered is to have a socialised medicine system, and that also has its problems. In summary, I think that the pragmatic view is to accept the fact that without socialised medicine, it is not possible to cover everyone.

Posted by: ayant002 | February 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

If the roles were reversed right at this moment and Hillary Clinton had won 9 straight victories and tied in Super Tuesday, Clinton and the DNC establishment would call for Obama to end his candidacy for president, in order for the DNC to unite against the GOP in the fall.

However, that is not the scenario.

The writing is on the wall that Senator Obama is THE BEST candidate of the democratic party that has an opportunity to beat McCain in the fall.

Obama has won across the country throughout various regions, appealing to voters in the rural and urban communities, across races, ethnicities, sex, class, profession, age, etc...

I thought this was what the democrats had always been waiting for and dreaming about after some formidable, but stale candidates in the past.

Americans are voting to turn the page in history.

Why is the DNC establishment and the Clintons trying to keep us in the same place or take us back to the 1990's? Yes, the 90's were a fruitful time for many Americans economically, under BILL Clinton's administration. However, the country and world is a VERY different place compared to that time. What happened back then, cannot happen now. America must look FORWARD!

Ideally, I would like for Senator Clinton to gracefully step aside, unite with Sen. Obama and the DNC, in order to take on the Republicans.

Millions of Americans across various demographics see something special and needed right now--in Sen. Obama, especially our young people, who ARE the future after all.

Regardless, if it is Obama's stance against the war, inspirational speeches or just Clinton-Bush dynasty fatigue...Americans have a right to vote for who they want to and for whatever reason. Americans deserve a change of direction in our country's leadership and the way government plays a role in our lives.

Thus far, Obama is the only one who appears to deliver what Americans needs-- a Change that we can believe in!

Continue to turn the page America, we are ready.

Posted by: Robby1 | February 14, 2008 5:51 AM | Report abuse

"Very awkward moment in the Hillary Clinton campaign today. I guess Hillary told her staff to call Democrats with money, and they called Barack Obama." - Jay Leno

Posted by: ron | February 14, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

"yes, clinton won states like CA,MA,NY and NJ, but obama was competitive in all those states except MA. and, those states will vote democratic in the general election anyway ( no matter who the D nominee is)."

I agree with this entirely but I don't think people realize how well he actually did in Massachusetts (where I worked my butt off). In a state where Hillary polled 37 points ahead just two weeks before Super Tuesday, he climbed to within 15% and actually won more votes than the entire Republican field. Nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: wmdrpa | February 14, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

You know I don't get it.....All of this negitivity, why don't we stick to what is really important, our country and well being. First of all, I hear so much about change, what change??? what will be different? On the ohter hand, what I do hear are real definitive answers from Hilary; such as, She really has the only Unversal Health Care Plan, My friends that is real change..any questions about it, you may see it in detail on www.hilaryclinton.com

Posted by: margommm | February 13, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is asking us to choose another President who's either unwilling to accept reality or unwilling to tell the truth about it.

Posted by: davestickler | February 13, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Why can't Hillary admit to mistake or take a loss?

Posted by: jamie.p.johnson | February 13, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

What bothers me about Hillary's comments above is that she is obviously a very intelligent woman and a seasoned politician, she must know that she was thoroughly routed by Obama, so why not admit it. I find her spinning this and minimising her losses in the 'Chesapeke Routing' somewhat insulting. Does she think that people are so stupid that they will believe all that poppycock? Is this the way she wants to run her government.

This is a democratic system, the people will decide who they want.

As far as I am concerned, Hillary is subjecting herself to a slow and painful 'death by humiliation'.
I for one will be happy to see the last of Bill and Hillary Clinton, with their scandals, megalomania and abuse of office. You just watch, you will see all the media knives come out as she goes down.

Posted by: ayant002 | February 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's campaign is so far away from what she envisioned last year during her time as the "inevitable" nominee, that she is at a loss for explanation. That said, however, people would be mistaken to believe that she does not remain strongly positioned to take the nomination. Going into the convention with even the slightest edge in common delegates will be enough for Hillary's machine to secure the nomination.

Posted by: mail.mdm | February 13, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The anointed candidate who was supposed to have wrapped it up by Super Tuesday knew all along that she would lose on Tuesday. It is good that she lost in Maryland even with the governors help because Bill lost. It's bad that she lost in So. Carolina because Bill didn't.

If Hillary wins one on March 4 she'll call it confirmation that the people have chosen her, more realistically it should be called a dead cat bounce.

Posted by: Gator-ron | February 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

onwaj6 beat me to the point.

Kornblutt writes
'"My husband lost Maryland when he was running in the primary," Clinton said, brushing past the Maryland loss on Tuesday.'

Hillary, you're not Bill.

Posted by: bsimon | February 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is very funny. My favorite part:

What about the delegate count, which now appears to be moving in Obama's favor and will require Clinton to win by much larger margins in the states ahead?

"That's what I always thought would happen, so we are very well positioned to compete in these big states," Clinton said.

YES - YOU ALWAYS EXPECTED TO LOSE STATE AFTER STATE BY 25 TO 30 POINTS. IT'S ALL PART OF YOUR MASTER PLAN!!

Posted by: JasonT910 | February 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004:

You're not doing anyone any favors. As an Obama supporter, I don't agree with your mean spirited comment. All that you're doing is working against Obama, if you are really for him, then maybe you should listen closer to his message and learn something.

Posted by: bjorn | February 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004, first you pretend to be a black person by saying some really childish stuff, then you come back about Obama's church. So I guess I am supposed to be afraid of this 'black' candidate?
Please move on.

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Clinton was expected to win CA, NJ, and NY by big margins - 3-2 weeks before super Tuesday she was up by 25+ in those places . Obama went there cut the lead and even made it competitive competitive losing by only 10 in CA, 17 in NY. She could not cut the lead, worse the real numbers were bigger than the polls. That in itself is sign of trouble when you cannot cut the lead you see in the polls. I have no idea what she is doing in Texas, they should have learned that they could have cut the lead in Louisiana if she showed up. Obama did not win big there and she never showed up and did not launch an ad.

Posted by: al_164_1999 | February 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is so unconcerned that she ran off for a secret meeting with John Edwards to see if she could get his nomination. I would think after the last 3 contests, he should feel very glad that he held off last weekend. Obama is winning by such large margins, and even in the constituencies Clinton used to call her own, that many superdelegates are starting to reconsider. If Edwards endorses Clinton, it can only be to further his own career, and it will look emensely hypocritical. The only hope he will have is that Clinton wins, he gets a good position out of it, and he can rebuild some credibility. But if he endorses her and she loses, well, that will be the end for John Edwards as well, and an ugly legacy to leave with. John's only choice then, as Obama grows stronger, is to endorse him, where he gets less jolt but more credibility, or stay on the sideline safely until the frontrunner is clear.

Posted by: katharinestavrinou | February 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

this is trending poorly for HRC. if people analyzed Super Tue correctly they would see that obama came out on stronger footing. yes, clinton won states like CA,MA,NY and NJ, but obama was competitive in all those states except MA. and, those states will vote democratic in the general election anyway ( no matter who the D nominee is). obama has won states like GA, CO, AL and a very tight contest in MO. he makes all of those states swing states, throw in VA from yesterday, all states that he will turn blue in the general election. in other states like KS, Neand other red states- he likely won't win though he could swing KS; obama however does not have HRC's negatives and hurt the down-ticket D's. long story short, obama is the better national candidate, obama grows the party with new voters and independents. superdelegates will notice this, and at best the clinton camp can only essentially tie obama. but, this will all play out. and to boot with obama we don't get an illegal co-presidency, and establish a de facto dynasty in our democratic republic.

Posted by: jacade | February 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs, you don't understand the gravity of the situation"

Posted by: Phrank1 | February 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or is the fact that every other sentence out of Hillary Clinton's mouth is "My husband didn't do this, or my husband did that", is not exactly a winning strategy? It doesn't exactly tell me a lot about what she would do?

Posted by: onwaj6 | February 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a case that goes something like this: We always knew Sen. Barack Obama would win there. So it doesn't count"

Is it appropriate for a journalist to preface a report of an interview with a snide paraphrase that mischaracterizes the interviewee's answers? Anne Kornblut and I will have to disagree about that.

Posted by: zukermand | February 13, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company