Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton's Blueprint for Victory

By Chris Cillizza
The conclusion of the Ohio-Texas Two-Step has spawned a series of strategy memos and conference calls from the campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), as each candidate's team tries to put a favorable spin on the results.

In attempt to cut through the clutter, we will cull all of the information (and disinformation) being moved/peddled by both sides into two coherent plans -- or blueprints -- that the candidates could use to build a strategy that will snag them the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination.

We'll start this morning with the blueprint for Clinton; the Obama blueprint will follow. Agree or disagree with our assessment? Did we leave something out? The comments section awaits.

THE CLINTON BLUEPRINT

1. It's National Security Stupid! -- The Clinton campaign took a big gamble with their "3 a.m. phone call" ad and they believe that it worked -- framing (finally) for voters the practical consequences if Obama wins the nomination. Exit polling conducted in Texas, where the "3 a.m. phone call" ad ran, suggested considerable movement toward Clinton among late deciders. One in five voters in Texas made up their minds in the final three days of the contest and, among that group, Clinton won by a whopping 60 percent to 39 percent margin. Not all of that is attributable to the ad alone but, according to the Clinton campaign, the commercial is rightly regarded as a catalyst for a broader debate about national security and what is at stake in the election. "The more people have at stake in this election, the better [Clinton] will do," predicted Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) during a Clinton conference call yesterday. Expect the Clinton campaign to push the national security message hard over the next few weeks and, dare we say it, months.

Continue reading at The Fix »

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 6, 2008; 11:31 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pennsylvanians Get Set for 'Iowa on Steroids'
Next: For Obama, an Uphill Battle in Pennsylvania

Comments

I hear Obama supporters say its not fair to Obama to seat Florida because he was an unknown at the time. Granted. But then it is totally unfair to seat all Obama's caucus states, because caucuses are nearly impossible for the Clinton senior base to navigate, for multiple reasons. Said differently, caucuses are easy for young voters to attend [and party], but it is difficult for grandmothers and grandfathers to get out in loud boisterous crowds, if they even have transportation there since they are frequently held in the evenings.

Posted by: thinktank | March 7, 2008 2:59 AM | Report abuse

bhatttt

And up here in the Midwest it is quite the opposite.

I for one am one of many a True Blue Lefty that if given a Hill-Bill vs. McCain would vote to the right.

Damn shame what we have gotten ourselves into with what the Dems are offering up.

Some folks today said they would not vote if their Dem does not get the nomination.

I for one will still vote if Obama does not get it, but I will be voting McCain.

Posted by: brian | March 6, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is the Candidate I will cross party lines to vote for McCain and so will a very large chunk of Democrats.

If Obama is the nominee, California may go to McCain. I am already hearing this on the ground. With Obama the Democrats will lose this year. As hard as this may be for Obama fans to understand, many people simply don't like him and think he is crooked.

Posted by: bhatttt | March 6, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Bradley Goes There
06 Mar 2008 04:26 pm

Bill Bradley, like all good basketball fans, is behind Barack Obama and he's bringing up the Presidential Library that dare not speak its name:

I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

As I wrote in my Los Angeles Times op-ed on the subject, Hillary Clinton has, to her credit, recognized that George W. Bush's undisclosed library fundraising is a problem and sponsored a bill to ensure that the next President of the United States can't do what Bush and her husband are doing. And Bill says that if Hillary wins, then he'll disclose. But that's too late -- the election is happening now, and people deserve to know now. We do know that "Denise Rich. Ms. Rich gave the foundation $450,000 while her fugitive ex-husband, Marc Rich, was seeking a pardon on tax-evasion and racketeering charges" and that other donors as of 2004 include various Wal-Mart-linked individuals and foundations, Haim Saban, Qatar, Kuwait, the Saudi Royal family, etc.

Posted by: awb75 | March 6, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I supported McCain in 2000, voted for Kerry in 2004 and registered as a Democrat in time to vote in the Florida primary this year. I had intended on voting for whoever won the Dem. nomination, mainly because I was so disgusted by the win-at all-costs sleazy politics of people who care more about winning than about their country. I don't know how much Clintons supporters reflect on her, but they aren't helping her.

Any of the scenarios (other than Obama imploding) for her winning the nomination would doom her in the general election and she is smart enough to know that.

I think she is angling for a deal. I don't think she wants the VP slot (although she could probably have it). I think she will drop out in exchange for a guarantee that she will succeed Reid as the Senate Majority Leader, and that Obama will support her health care bill and drop his own plan after being elected. Maybe a cabinet post for Bill too.

Posted by: paul79936 | March 6, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA-gate continues to heat up, hang on Hillary...

"Brodie told CTV reporters that the Clinton campaign had called the Canadian embassy in Washington to tell officials to take her anti-NAFTA rhetoric "with a grain of salt," said local media.

Around the same time, a news agency reported that a Canadian government memo detailed a meeting between Obama's chief economic advisor Austan Goolsbee and officials from the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

The memo reportedly said Goolsbee noted Obama's attacks on NAFTA should not be taken out of context, citing fiercely protectionist sentiment in Ohio about the pact and political positioning as a motivation.

Although CTV News had the Clinton allegations last month, it only reported then that Obama had tried to reassure the Canadians. A spokesman for CTV News was not immediately available for comment."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iyTwLKLMqDp1j3uualAOhLUCvb5g

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 6, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

It's wierd that candidates can freebase and no one in the media bats an eye. If Obama win, thats would be two ex coke heads in a row in the White House. Considering there are 1 million coke heads rotting in jails across the country that is quite a political statement.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 6, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I am sure Hillary will spin her campaign deficit spending as experience towards doing it at the national level.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I read an article(s) February 28, 2008 that state:

Vendor Sues Clinton Campaign For Not Paying Bill.

With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination This and other articles like Bill and Hillary To Face Fraud Trial and her spending large amounts of money in Las Vegas makes me very nervous.

We are already faced with Bush spending and just because Former President Clinton got us out of debt does not mean she will do the same.

Her speeches are always what I am going to do and I like what Senator Obama states about what WE can do.

Also Senator Obama did not have nearly enough money to work with as Senator Clinton and look at what he did. Until recently she was almost in the red. She even had to dip into her personal funds to pay her campaign staff.

If these allegations are true why more is not being said about them is beyond me.

Posted by: acureforall | March 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I am blown away to think that any person of color, black or brown would consider supporting HRC after this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677
She obviously is pandering to the purple hairs who might not realize that Obama is black unless her staffers 'photoshop' the picture. Same as her strange response when asked if Obama is Muslim; http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-says-ob.html This woman is evil, she is not a democrat, she is only interested in her political future, she does not care about the Democratic Part and will take it down with her if given the chance, just wait and see..

Posted by: Kira1 | March 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

To those of you who are saying that Hillary will win the nomination or should lead an shared ticket.

Facts:
Popular vote won: BHO: 8,119,171 HRC: 7,916,422
States won: BHO: 25 HRC: 16
Pledged Delegates won: BHO: 1355 HRC: 1213
"Super Delegate" endorsements: BHO: 200 HRC: 240

Obama has lead in all categories except "Super Delegates" for the entire race.
How and Why would you suggest that "the American people" favor Hillary over Barack and that it would be appropriate for her to lead a joint ticket?

Posted by: aliyon | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Whitewater is old, I am more interested in the corruption trial coming soon. Will it be televised on Court TV?


Posted by: vitana1900 | March 6, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

jamesbaie

Indeed Whitewater dry on evidence?
14 convictions and just when they were getting close to Hill -Bill, a mysterious "suicide". 1992 TAX Fraud. Kenneth Starr, Robert Ray.

There is not enough time to go on about all the crimes these two have committed that the AWAKE American People have forgotten about.

Sleeping with your eyes open is a better way to put the Americans who could even think of putting these two back in the White House.

Every single American Citizen needs to research White Water. Do your own DD.

Dry on evidence indeed!

Posted by: brian | March 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wly34 | March 6, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

SOONER OR LATER THE FAT LADY WILL SURELY SING BECAUSE:

1. HILLARY CAN'T BE THE NOMINEE WITH OUT CHEATING VIA SUPERDELEGATES WHICH WILL BURN THE PARTY!!!

2. ALL SHE IS DOING NOW IS POURING GASOLINE TO BURN THE PARTY COS SHE CAN'T CATCH OBAMA ON DELEGATES EVEN IF SHE WON ALL 12 REMAINING CONTEST BY 20%

3. WHY IS SHE THE ONE WHO SETS THE BAR/THE CLIMAX/THE GOAL POST. THE GOAL POSTS ARE ALWAYS STATES WHERE SHE'S AHEAD BY 20 POINTS. 1ST NH, THEN CALIFORNIA/SUPER TUESDAY, OH TX AND NOW PENN. WHY CANT THE GOAL POST BE MISS OR NORTH CAROLINA?

4. SHES GOT THE PRESS IN HER BAG, SHE'S TAMED THE PRESS, SHE NOW CONTROLS THE PRESS EVEN THE ONCE OBJECTIVE CHRIS MATHEWS, THEY ARE NOW HER ATTACK DOGS WHICH SHE UNLEASHES AT OBAMA WHEN SHE CHOSES

5. OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE UNLESS HIS WIN IS STOLEN!!!! THIS IS A FACT

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Anyone that says that they will "stay home" on election day if one candidate or another gets the nomination, then they should just stay out of the election process all together. What a cry-baby reaction. If you don't care anymore about what happens to your country, then you really don't deserve the right to vote. If staying at home allows another Republican to be elected, then you just voted Republican without even leaving your home.

Why is it that Obama-ites feel that they are so special? Question his actions, then it is heresy. Ask for specifics, then you are picking on him. If you think that people are giving him a hard way to go now, then you will be sadly disappointed when the Republican election war machine starts on him.

Posted by: ataylo53 | March 6, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

YesWeCan1. The upcoming trial in California will touch on more that the Clintons can ever hide. And they will all be called as witnesses, you can bet. Along with a few Hollywood friends.
What a hoot!

Posted by: wly34 | March 6, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

What's the strategy going to be when the Clintons' corruption trial comes up in Oct. before the election?

Posted by: vitana1900 | March 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

For those who say they'll stay home if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, who cares! A non-vote is just that. 12 year olds also can't vote. For those who go on about Whitewater, which by the way came up dry on evidence, who cares. For those who are whining about tax returns, put yours on the internet or better still tell your neighbors what your salary is (bet that's a dark secret) and also who cares. In short stop obsessing about things for which you have no proof except your own prejudices.

Posted by: jamesbaie | March 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Have any of Hillary's Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What winning Ohio REALLY means:

First let's look at 1960. Ohio Dems nominate local boy Michael DiSalle (Ohio governor) over eventual winner John F. Kennedy. There goes the theory already. JFK won in November and didn't win the Dem contest.

Moving on to 1968, the Ohio GOP nominates local boy James Rhodes (Ohio governor) over eventual winner Richard M. Nixon. Again, there goes the theory. Nixon won in 1968 and didn't win in the GOP contest.

How about 1972? The theory holds here as Ohio GOP nominates Richard Nixon, the eventual winner. However, Ohio votes very late, on 5-2-1972, and Nixon has little trouble pulling in a hefty majority.

1976? Ford wins the GOP contest, Carter wins the Dem constest, but Ohio is literally the LAST to vote on 6-8-1972. Strangely, it's contested up until the end. Ohio had a say in this one on the GOP side, but not so much for the Dems. Carter wins the general.

In 1980, Ohio Dems nominate Jimmy Carter, but barely. The Ohio GOP nominates Ronald Reagan, the eventual winner. Ohio votes on 6-3-1980 and favors Reagan by a 5-1 margin. However, in this election the contest was already over, as Bush only won like 6 states total and Reagan had it locked up.

In 1984, Reagan was nominated...again...but appeared to be really the only one getting votes and delegates. Ohio votes on 5-8-1984. This appeared to be a rubber-stamp election.

1988, 1992, and 1996 were all essentially uncontested, as both parties rubber-stamped the elections in other states.

2000 - Ohio GOP nominates GWB. This one was actually a contest and he put McCain away by about 20 points.

2004 - Bush ran uncontested in all states.

So, it seems to me that the argument about "needing to win" in Ohio, as "every eventual president won his party's nomination in Ohio", is a bit hollow, as well as historically inaccurate. Ohio has been, in recent history, a rubber-stamp for previous results. Go back even further and not only does the theory not hold up (see 1960 and 1968), but Ohio was an also-ran in presidential primary elections, holding conventions or votes in May and June of the election season.

While it cannot be denied that Ohio is an important bellwether and battleground state in the general, it is NOT that important when it comes to the primary election, at least as far as this argument will take you. So, don't believe the hype. History, in this sense, doesn't mean much in either party.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about me bad Brit-Talk.
Me`s a German. May be me's a Hunn or a Kraut.
Never mind!
But me me like to give the US Democrats a little advise:
First opinion: H. Clinton for President (Mam)
Mister Obama for
Vice-Presidency
Second opinon: Mister Obama for Predident,
Madam Clinton for Vice-Presidency.

Why?
We Europeans want the US back in the world. Without Bush,
without McCain.
But with Clinton and Obama!
Me've have a question:
Where is Al Gore?
He may be the right man as President to lead the US in the future.
Questions? Answers?
Me message to al fellow US Citicens : Vote for the women/men, who will - and is able - to end the f.... war.

Noch was Deutsch: Eigentlich halte ich ja den kanadischen Premiermister Stephen Harper für einen..... naja....
Aber der Junge ist gut. Jetzt zeigt eine Nation endlich einmal den Amereikaner, dass die US nicht die "allmaechtigen" sind.
Und das ist gut so!

Joerg Bannach
Hauptstrasse 93
75334 Straubenhardt
Federal Republic of Germany
j.bannach@gmx.eu
+497082 925898


Posted by: j.bannach | March 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kcg612: "what about the Canada NAFTA EPISODE..?"

The Canadian press has revealed this to be a piece of misinformation:

"The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton'scampaign called and was 'telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.'"

And

"There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080306.NAFTA06/TPStory/?query=PM%27s+top+aide+set+off

Posted by: edwcorey | March 6, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

THE MOST SHAMEFUL THING ABOUT THIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN IS THE HYPE AND HYSTERIA IT HAS ENGENDERED AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HILLARY CLINTON HAS RUN ON THE BASIS OF HER HUSBAND BILL, WHO WOULD EFFECTIVELY RUN THE WHITE HOUSE IF SHE WERE ELECTED. OBAMA TALKS A GOOD GAME, BUT HAS NO SPECIFICS ON JUST HOW HE WOULD HANDLE THINGS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. McCAIN IS THE GREAT WHITE HOPE WHO WOULD TAKE AWAY PRIVATELY-HELD GUNS, OPEN THE BORDERS AND MAKE THE US PART OF THE THIRD WORLD, AND THEN REMIND US THAT AT LEAST WE DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. *NO ONE OUT THERE IS WORTH VOTING FOR. NO ONE, WHETHER THEY CAN CRY ON DEMAND, GRIN CONSTANTLY, OR PROMISE A STRONG NATION. NO ONE. THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF THE CANDIDATES. #AND THIS IS THE 'CHANGE' ALL OF THEM PROMISE???

Posted by: grumpiestoldman | March 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter and I agree with your assessment. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain will run a fear campaign and some folks are sensitive to those kinds of campaigns. Senator Obama should have a stronger counter-attack on these national security issues.

It has been seven years since 9/11 happened, many Al Qaeda leaders are dead - they are supposedly stronger in Afghanistan. We also have the nuclear threat which is probably a greater threat than Al Qaeda. Senator Obama should have an ad about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and reflect how the Iraq war for which Senator Clinton voted detracted us from that threat.

In the end, I believe that the majority of Americans will not buy into the fear campaign and Senator Obama will prevail as the Democratic nominee and he will win the November election.

Senator Obama should employ a different approach towards Senator Clinton in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. His close second performance in the Texas primary proves that he can improve his odds of winning if he has time to campaign in a state. A win in Pennsylvania will be great but a close second will do.

Posted by: felicitymason | March 6, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Release your TAX RECORDS Clinton. What are you afraid of ?

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

Dear Madam, and Sir,

A Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama ticket is what we want. And that is what we need to take back the Whitehouse. We want a smart, tough, idealistic, seasoned veteran of many battles fighting for the American people (Hillary Clinton). With a young, passionate, smart, open-minded, hard-working idealist fighting for the American people (Barrack Obama). The DREAM TEAM!

You are both fabulous candidates. And we, the American people are very fortunate to have each of you. Taking back the Whitehouse is critical for the American people, and the world at this time. And I think the American people have been saying loudly, and clearly that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket is the best way to do this.

I think the American people have made it very clear that they feel Hillary Clinton is the one best able to lead the ticket against John McCain at this critical, and desperate time in America, and around the world. These dramatic comebacks are testament to Hillary Clinton's skill, and experience as a fighter for the American people. They are also a testament to the strong desire of the American people to have both of you fighting for the American people at this time of midnight in America.

Typical of the Clinton's is an uncanny ability to see and understand what the American people want. And then to try and get it for them. Even if they have to go through three political near death experiences to try and get it for the American people. This is classic Clinton's. They are the best I have ever seen.

We are desperate out here. Millions of us are suffering greatly. And tens of thousands of us are dying needlessly every year. Men, women, children, and babies. We need help! As Hillary Clinton said "It's not a game". We need the two of you together on our side fighting for us, and for the American dream for all. Not fighting against each other anymore.

It's time for you Senator Obama to join forces with Hillary Clinton as her running mate so that we can all focus our energies, and resources on taking back America for the American people.

Don't make me hurt you. :-)

Sincerely

Jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember Whitewater?

Right, the American people are awake!

She and her husband are crooks, liars and cheats (maybe even murderers).

But then again maybe they will return some of the stuff they stole from the white house.

Posted by: brian | March 6, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

When Hillary wins the media really turns it up don't they? The media hasn't been tough on her because if they were they would ask questions like... during your so called experience why didn't healthcare get voted in then? If she is so tough why does she only come out and acknowledge when she wins: S.C. Bill Clinton had to come out. LOL! If she is so tough why was she whining about being first to answer a debate question? Why does she whine during the debate after both have had a chance speak? She wants the last word. Now will she still get the last word after not being asked to respond first? I think people need to ask this final question. Do you want Hillary answering that phone or Bill Clinton? National Security and response was called into question with the USS Cole. Remember?? Do you want this AGAIN?
I'm tried of a family running this country and until we stop it we are not a true democracy. 20+ years of Clinton and Bush and neither have fulfilled their promises.
If we really want change then it is time for OBAMA. And don't call his response ads negative before they even come out media when you aren't willing to acknowledge Clinton ads were negative.

Posted by: bbg_isback | March 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

What's up with this Charlie Christ egomaniac? Why doesn't he keep his fingers out of the internal politics of the Democratic party? How dare he try to affect the party in the guise of making votes count? He's a possible VP for the GOP. He is not an honest broker. At best, the GOP believes (and the polls show) they have a better chance at picking off Hillary (even that is unlikely with the current climate) than Obama. Or at least they can keep the issue muddled by bringing up the issue of what happened in Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: NittyGritty08 | March 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it amazing!..people can make 'hot air' coming out of the mouth of Obama look like manna from heaven??..The man has done nothing but get welfare for people in his village..what about the Canada NAFTA EPISODE..THE MACARONI/SPAGHETTI deal in IL..not quite presential resume is it??..
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE PEOPLE!!..
I'll say it again..read my lips..if and a big if..should Obama become the democratic choice..bet the farm..McCain will be the next president..white America will see to that..care to wager on that..?/..

Posted by: kcg612 | March 6, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Come on people, it's been 20 years of the Bush, Clinton Dynasty. Do we really want another 4 or 8 years of the same. I agree that when Bill was president things were alot better than since "Goofy" Bush has been president.

But if I can't vote in the general for Obama, I'm voting McCain.

Posted by: divadrellim | March 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Looks like there is a great deal of support for Clinton now that she has won Texas and Ohio. Well, I can tell you all that if she manipulates this primary by pushing for the MI and FL delegates to be seated then she will effectively kill all her chances wth the community I am from. My family for example will not vote for her. Me, my wife, and my son will be voting for McCain if she stoops low enough to try to change the rules after the game has started. Although we are all lifelong Democrats we discussed this over dinner last night. The thought that she would have the audacity to push for those delegates to count when the rules were clear and those states violated them puts her on the same level as scum...no it puts her on the same level as George W. Bush. That would be a bit lower for those of you wondering!

Posted by: donaldwill | March 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I am waiting for:

Election - 2008
Clinton
Obama

And we will soon be having re-primaries in MI and FL (per news buzz today). One would expect H.R.C to pickup both if not atleast 1.

Posted by: automan.paki | March 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary would make a fine president, but she cannot be elected. Let's say here "unfavorable rating" is 40% (the lowest number I've heard). That means she would have to take 5/6 of the remaining 60% of voters!
How likely is that?
Let's get real - the most important thing is to end the Bush disaster, which McCain basically pledges to continue.
Obama is your only choice is you want to end the Bush disaster.
TIME TO WAKE UP!

Posted by: bobgil12000 | March 6, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I almost want to cry when I see the assertion that Clinton would do more to "protect our children". I wonder what the parents of the 4000 who have died in Iraq think?

How did Clinton 'protect' those children when she decided to vote in favor of Bush's Iraq war?

How did she 'protect' those children when she failed to read the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, the document that the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, urged all Senators to read, the document that, in part, caused him to join 22 other Senators, and vote against the Iraq war authorization.

Obama was right about the war; Clinton, wrong. Good judgment trumps experience. I want my President to be *right* on day one.

Obama'08

Posted by: george25 | March 6, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm not really sure what state has much importance anymore. Hilary would need to win 90% of the overall vote and Barack would need to win 75% of the overall vote to get to 2,025 delegates. Those percentages are virtually impossible to hit. It seems like this will be going to the convention, unless one of them bows out.

Posted by: palmierimep | March 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

We need Hillary and not because she is a woman. The country economically was in much better shape when Bill was President and he would be a great advisor on her team. Talk about experience!!!!! She is so much more in touch with the people then Obama could ever be.

Posted by: hedrick | March 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Release your TAX RECORDS Clinton. What are you afraid of ?

Posted by: PulSamsara | March 6, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I am eager to vote for an Obama-Webb ticket on November 4.

Posted by: jwendland | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's campaign must be aware of the fact that Pennsylvania is quite different from Texas and Ohio. Governor Rendel's vote alone cannot assure her of victory. Leaders have supported her in other states where she has lost. It is going to be very difficult for her to carry Pa. The support for Obama is huge in Pa. We have to cross our fingers and wait for the results after April 22.

Posted by: guskebbie | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

The reason behind Hillary winning.......The American people are now very awake. At the beginning they were kind of sort confused by Oprah campaigning then. But at the end the american people realized that we need think our country first before satisfying one's inner motives and desires. Our economy is in bad shape. We the people feel that. The american people then realize that we need the best qualified experience candidate and have proven result to run our country. So far, the american people know best that Hillary is the one. The american people also realize that we are voting for race as how Obama suggested, vote for him because he is black. Fortunately, we voters are intelligent enough to know better. We know that we don't rewrite history on the way we vote for president by race. Obama instead wants us to be divided by race. This is our country, and we need to protect it as one nation. We need to come together to rebuild it and show to the whole world we are the best and we are proud on how we vote for our president...best qualified experience candidate not because of our race. The news posted it like the whites voted Hillary because Hillary is white.....no, they voted for Hillary because they believe that Hillary can bring the economy back to a better condition since under the Clinton administration, our economy was in good stable condtion and with surplus. Hillary will do it again. I have seen also black people who stick to their principles that they will vote for the best qualified experience candidate not because they are black they will vote for Obama. They voted for Hillary because Hillary has shown proven results. I am very pleased that the american people are now awake. The rest of the States will continue to vote for Hillary not because of her race but Hillary's experience and determination for real real change for our country. Viva America! Viva Hillary! Check the backgrounds of all the candidates...that will also our guiding factors to vote. How they were raised at young age? What's their ideology in life? their principles in life? Theat will show the direction their minds are going to be. This is our country and we are ready to protect it from harm. We love our country and our country first to take care from sinking. I want to be proud of my country all over the world and I know you do too. We should not be divided by race but come together for good cause. We the people are the one going to suffer, and we will suffer again if we put someone that does not have the experience to lead our country, not at this very crucial situation of our economy. We are feeling to get worst......the gas price is high, difficult to get a job, pay is not enough to pay daily expenses. WAKE UP AMERICA! WAKE UP AMERICAN PEOPLE! Viva Hillary!

Posted by: lianette_steele | March 6, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama has maintained or even gained in delegates despite the negative adds from Clinton, being campaigned against by a popular former president, receiving potshots from McCain, and even all the republican voters who took Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton in the recent primaries. And by the way, the last Democratic presidential candidate to lose Ohio in the primary and win the presidency? JFK.

Posted by: poulosps | March 6, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

This is not about national security. Up until this 11th hour, HRC has never claimed any specific experience or expertise in this area. She is arguing again that Obama is objectively too callow for an important job, and resorting to cold war era fear tactics now that plagiarism charges didnt do the trick. And she is daring BHO to call her out for trumping up her supposed White House policy work, which he has not yet done. It will be hard for him to go after her on this point and maintain his positive message, or avoid another "how do i do it" whinge-fest from her campaign. But she has never had to answer in this campaign exactly what policy roles and authority she had in the whitehouse and what she was accountable for, even though that is the very premise of her entire political career. Its a big risk for her to pick this fight. I'm sure HRC did a pretty good job at what she had to do in the WH, but if you can't be fired for messing up, you don't have a real responsibility. And You can bet McCain would make a meal out of that.

Posted by: wharwood | March 6, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed at how much is made of so little. She was supposed to slam Obama in both OH and TX. She won one and arguably tied in TX. He's still ahead in money, delegates, voter enthusiasm and states won. He's going to win the next two this week and increase his lead in delegates. Her wins in the 'big' states don't add up. Those voters aren't going to McCain. Obama is the only one who has a chance in the 'Red' states. He still polls better than McCain.

If Hilary continues 'talking smack', it'll backfire as more of the same old same old. I will give her credit for playing the media like a fiddle.

End the Drama! Vote Obama!

Posted by: thebobbob | March 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

No, Pennsylvania is not key. Even a big win for Hillary in Pennsylvania would barely dent Obama's lead, so please do not try to set it up as the critical contest of the nomination process, especially since Hillary is already expected to win it. The more critical contest is over the nine states that will hold their primaries BEFORE Pennsylvania.

Posted by: mrcasner | March 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

More details of the blueprint coming out now, specifically NAFTA-gate.

"The organizations said Brodie told reporters from the CTV network last week that someone from the Clinton campaign was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt". CTV probed the remark and then ran a story focusing on Obama."
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0562494220080306

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will sit home on election night and not vote. Try me.

Posted by: eat | March 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Hillary fought hard, but then again, she was expected to win Texas and Ohio. Her overall margin of victory (delegates) for the day, was only something like 4. Thus, onto PA- she will need to win by double-digits;

Keystone is key- Barack vs Hillary
Internet Analysis:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Posted by: davidmwe | March 6, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company