Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Wins Ohio; Promises to Continue the Campaign

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) is halfway to claiming victory in the Ohio-Texas Two-Step, having been declared the victor over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the Buckeye State primary.

Clinton's win in Ohio was confirmed by the television networks, Edison-Mitofsky, the independent organization that conducts exit polling, and the Washington Post shortly after 11 p.m.

Clinton, taking the stage in Columbus, Ohio to chants of "Hill-a-ry", acknowledged that many had counted her out before tonight.

"For anyone in Ohio or America who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, for everyone who worked hard and never gives up, this one is for you," Clinton said to massive applause.

Putting to rest rumors that she might end her campaign depending on the results of tonight's vote, Clinton offered an affirmative assertion she would continue on."We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way," Clinton said.

Chants of "Yes She Can!" filled the room.

All eyes now turn to Texas where the race is extremely close.

With 40 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton held a razor thin 17,000 vote lead; she led 49.6 percent to 48.6 percent margin.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 4, 2008; 11:33 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Huckabee's Out; McCain Officially GOP Nominee
Next: Who Won?

Comments


agreen1:

We kinda feel sorry for you, but mostly just indifference. That is all.

Posted by: jpm321 | March 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

If I'm not mistaken, WASN'T SHE EXPECTED TO WIN IN OH & TX evethough he lead was cut considerably? So, she is the one who shouldn't start meassuring for Drapes!! She won 3 that she was really expected to win! Obama won 12, so the wheels are not off of the bus in the Obama camp, THEY EXPECTED IT!!

What short memories Clintonites have! 8 years of scandals! I think what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander, it's time to take of the gloves in the Obama camp eventhough he was trying to take the high road! But then again, whenever she cries her base falls for it!!

Posted by: Angryman | March 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"whoever wins will still spend money on Iraq regardless with all the mess out there."

Do you honestly think -- based on what they have CLEARLY stated -- that McCain and Obama will spend the same amount in Iraq?

Do you think they will spend these BILLIONS in Iraq for the same duration?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"About the fiscal responsibility, that's the reason why we need to keep a Democratic control of Congress. Remember it is the Congress that has the power of the purse!"

BUT -- the President has veto power. The Dems have control of the Congress right now. They've had it since the last election. Why have they not been able to change the country's course? George W Bush.

And McCain wants to continue the policies of George W Bush.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

To AdrickHenry... You said, "Obama has a completely different vision for America."

Listen to Obama and compare that to going to church on Sundays. Some may feel warm, but you don't really know what he is talking about. Please listen to the guy and analyze what he says and his positions. As an example... analyze his positions on health care. If you still like the guy after that, I don't think any reasoning will change your mind.

Should Obama win the nomination, it is worth analyzing why do Dems like the least qualified of all of those who run for the nomination. Anyway, at this point, might as well vote for McCain if Hillary does not win the nomination.

Posted by: CPCook | March 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Wow, chacha1, you have some interesting things to say. May I ask you a few questions?

1st, you say that Obama outspent Hillary 4-1 in the 4 states that held primaries last night; my question is: what is the spending to date? Since the campaign began, who has spent more, Obama or HRC?

2nd, how do you know that 40,000 Republicans have changed parties to vote for Obama? What is your source?

3rd, how do you know what those alleged 40,000 party-switchers motives were/are? How do you know they don't "like him", as you say?

4th, I live in Chicago and it was the Chicago Tribune that broke the Rezko story. You contend that "they are thinking that the state can turn red on the next election cycle". Who is "they"?

Waiting for you answers...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

To AdrickHenry...

Iraq, at least for me, is only 1 issue, and not even the main issue. For me, the main issues are the economy and healthcare. For both, I think experience trumps change. Besides, whoever wins will still spend money on Iraq regardless with all the mess out there.

Anyway... "tax breaks for the rich" is pure slogan. You can't give tax breaks to those who don't pay taxes. At any rate, if the Dems hold onto Congress, the tax breaks Bush created will elapse.

About the fiscal responsibility, that's the reason why we need to keep a Democratic control of Congress. Remember it is the Congress that has the power of the purse!

Posted by: CPCook | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Re the discussion re total delegate counts. I am from a caucus state and feel those votes are a suspect reflection of voter wishes because many of us could not even get into the room to participate because of traffic jams,lack of parking spaces, work schedules, etc. I, for one, am glad there are the super-delegates, who can hopefully consider the fact that many who wished to participate in selecting a party nominee, were disenfranchised.

Posted by: ljfortier5 | March 5, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at some of the comments here. From everything that I have read Obama out spent Hillary in all the states by over 4 to 1 and some people commented that if money was the criteria for a win then Obama should have won all hands down. He wanted to knock her out from all that I have read but the American people know what they want and a lot of us are Hillary backers. When you enter a race, the idea is to try hard to win. She said she was a fighter and was willing to work hard for the position and she is doing just that.
I live in a republican area and they want Obama to win because to them it is a sure win. 40,000 republicans have changed to democrats just to vote for him, not because they like him but because they consider him a sure loss for the democrats. Our area is alive with all kinds of e-mails on Obama and once he is the elected one we will find out just what else they have on him. With Rezko trials now in Ill. they are thinking that the state can turn red on the next election cycle. And they thought Hillary would bring down the party! NEWS FLASH they tried to bring Hillary down for years and they haven't succeeded. She not only won NY once but twice to become senator and that they fought against that happening. She is a proven fighter and winner, is Obama. He needs more experience, and we will find that out as the campaign heats up if he wins the nomination.

Posted by: chacha1 | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

from CPCook: "if Obama wins the nomination, I hope people (even die-hard democrats) vote for McCain. Iraq is only one issue"

Iraq is one issue (but THE major issue because so much flows from it).

But what about Tax Breaks for the rich? McCain wants to make the Bush tax breaks PERMANENT.

So... McCain wants to keep the tax breaks for the rich in place AND continue the occupation of Iraq to the tune of $12,000,000,000 per month.

Do you honestly think this makes good economic sense? To borrow from Communist China to finance the occupation of Iraq and to finance tax breaks for the richest Americans?

Is this Fiscally Responsible?

So, now you've got Iraq and Tax Breaks.

What about Immigration? McCain used to have a very reasonable position. Now, he has caved in to the Right Wing of the Republican party.

It is not just Iraq. McCain has one vision for America. Obama has a completely different vision for America.

Listen carefully to what each mans says. They are telling us -- clearly -- which direction they want to take the counrty in.

They are very different directions.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

my reference was that B.O. as Pres. would answer the red phone and then turn to H.C. for a sollution.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

adrick: we agree that Biden needs to be persuaded to be on the ticket. You are also absolutely correct about B.O. not being vetted and might have a glass jaw, and IF he still wins H.C. has done him a great service. If he is not tough he should not be running for Pres. we will see. And there was a post above using the word stealing which to me sounds like whining. Personally I think that H.C. has much more to offer this country than to hold his hand for 4 years and answer the red phone. The Obama teflon factor looks like it is starting to wear a little thin.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

adrick: we agree that Biden needs to be persuaded to be on the ticket. You are also absolutely correct about B.O. not being vetted and might have a glass jaw, and IF he still wins H.C. has done him a great service. If he is not tough he should not be running for Pres. we will see. And there was a post above using the word stealing which to me sounds like whining. Personally I think that H.C. has much more to offer this country than to hold his hand for 4 years and answer the red phone. The Obama teflon factor looks like it is starting to wear a little thin.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I am glad that Clinton is still in the contest. Obama is like teflon, nothing sticks. But that does not mean he is qualified. As such, if Obama wins the nomination, I hope people (even die-hard democrats) vote for McCain. Iraq is only one issue. Obama is the Bush counterpart in the Democratic party - your buddy but no platform. He is eloquent (although surprising not articulate), but has nothing but sweet words. I am pragmatic, I want the president to run the country, and run it well. Can't do that with pure rhetoric and then evade questions. Anyway, just make sure you vote for a Democratic congress.

Posted by: CPCook | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter and I did not predict he would win in TX. I posted on this Board yesterday that HRC would get 50.4% and Obama 49.6%. I have not seen the final numbers, but I'll bet I was pretty close.

Also, please re-read my post: I did not say that I want Hillary as VP. I would much, much prefer Joe Biden, or Wesley Clark, or Chris Dodd, before Hillary.

What I said, was that Hillary might TRY to leverage her 2nd place position, Bill's connections and her strong support among the super-delegates into the VP spot.

Additionally, I'm not accusing Hillary of "stealing" anything. Relax. From my perspective, Obama is dealing with Hillary's attacks quite well. He responds quickly and forcefully. This is just what is needed to prevent another "swiftboating". I think -- and I've posted this many times here -- that Hillary's negative campaigning is actually GOOD for Obama's camp. It vets him thoroughly and sharpens his Team for taking on the Repubs -- who will be much dirtier than the Clintons. She is good for Obama.

Lastly, you're funny: you mildly chastise me for asking "what if", and in the same breath you ask "what if" Hillary wins PA, IN and PR.

We agree on this, I think... let's wait and see what happens.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Biden is a real adult who would make a perfect V.P. with a true understanding of the middle east and especially Iraq, and an aggressive campaigner. He is finished as a presidential candidadte for the future and might realize that he has a better legacy as a vp and rethink that statement. I am just impressed with him, maybe its my bias.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

what if, what if. Lets wait and see what Pa does. If Hillary wins by a significant margin(10-15%) plus Indiana(Baye's state) and Puerto Rica the difference may actually be less than 50 delegates by then. I suppose if B.O. has 1950 and Hillary has 1949 you will still be telling us its mine and you can't have it or you stole it. Politics is hardball, if B.O. can't stand up to Hillary he truly has a glass jaw and might be the more risky choice in Nov. That is exactly the message we sent your side from here in Texas. Every B.O. supporter yesterday predicted B.O. to take Texas by 3-15% points. I called it 52.2 to 47.8% for H.C. with .2 % so I think our side is actually bing calmer and more reasonable about this process.Curious after last night that you now suggest you might want H.C. as the V.P. Again very generous of you.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

also, I agree that Edwards and Richardson will continue to wait. ...maybe until the Convention, but at least, until Pennsylvania.

I think Richardson showed his leanings (toward HRC) during the debates.

Edwards will have a strong role to play before this is done. And that's a GOOD thing.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

BTW: Biden is already on record as saying the he would decline the VP spot if it were proferred by Hillary. Biden claimed that Bill's shadow would be too long.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

what if Obama does not reach the 2025 magic number, but has a substantial lead, say 150, or so?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

a spot on the ticket? that is mighty generous of you. Voters in Texas and Ohio, millions of us think otherwise, and Biden would be my first and only choice as Hillary's V.P.

As to winning the delegate count no one wants to deal with the fact that neither will likely have anywhere near 2025 delegates and its likely that B.O. may have 1,900 by Denver and H.C. 1,850 statistically an insigignificnt difference. Richardson's and Edward's silence this morning may indicate that superdelegates are now rethinking their support and many may just wait until the convention. Again I suggest that the B.O. supporters stop measuring for curtains. Your candidate woke up this morning and realized that H.C. is his opponent and not John McCain, its time his loyal followers started dealing with that reality as well.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

very, very sorry.

I meant to write: "some white HAIR would also help -- politically."

I was thinking in line with the needed "gravitas" and "experience".

This TYPO is laden with negativity. I apologize for the mistake.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

from NoCal at 1:05 AM : "The basic fact is this: Clinton won't be able to get more pledged delegates than Obama. I simply cannot see the superdelegates failing to nominate Obama if he has the most elected delegates. I personally think that would be political suicide."

This is true -- BUT...

Hillary may be able to use her increased leverage to garner the VP spot on the ticket.

Best for the nation would be Joe Biden as Obama's Veep.

Politically, it would be best for Obama to choose someone with deep foreign policy experience and loads of gravitas. A few pints of testosterone would be good, too. Some white would also help -- politically.

BUT... if Hillary wins "enough" she might be able to broker a deal to get a spot on the ticket. Plus, I'm sure Bill could call in a lot of markers from those super-delegates. After all, he was President for 8 years - I'm sure many owe him plenty.

Never underestimate the political sagacity of the Clintons.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

interesting now that H.C. has regained the momentum we hear her opponents saying she is stealing, cheating and my momma would use ugly words about her. Grow up. Acually here in Texas our precinct caucus ended up being civil and cordial although 10 x larger than I have ever seen.That bodes well for our Nov chances of retaing the US Senate and some judicial races in Nov wish we had heard more about that in the campaign. Except for the young B.O. supporter telling me he was voting for B.O. solely b/c he loved the B.O. music videos(that is his business but not very thoughtful) it was otherwise a lot more reasonable than expected.B.O. and H.C. neighbors actually saying hey neighbor great to know I have a Texas Democratic neighbor. Lets move towards more civility in the next 7 weeks like what I observed at our caucus. Its mathematically conceivable that without counting either Fla or Michigan delegates that both will have around 1900 delegates at the convention and neither will get to 2025. Looks like Bill Richardson's Sunday threats have backed off.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse


In a different post I stated that:
Republicans win because at the end of the day they fall in line. They understand that filling Supreme Court, Justice Department, and other appointments, along with veto power is more important than an individual. Republicans can fight extremely nasty against one another but at the end of the day they fall in line.

For democrats this year it seems like "an offer you can't refuse" sort of race. Democrats (especially Obama supporters) seem to be saying, "elect my candidate or I will vote for Republicans in November". It doesn't seem to matter that the two candidates politically appear to have similar priorities and policies.

I think it is actually a good thing for Obama and Hillary that the race continues. I also believe that it is good for Obama that Hillary is attacking Obama. Seriously. Here's why. NOW Obama is going to be under attack by the republicans (that is what happened to Hillary when she was the leader). If He had won today those attacks would be vicious and relentless. Fox would be Fox again. However, Clinton can only softly attack Obama (all her attacks have been mild despite what Obama supporters say). This results in inoculating people from similar (and Harsher) attacks in November if he wins the nomination. People would have heard the attacks already and say is the same old thing (even if they are done more harshly) He will also have time to adjust. For Hillary, the though fight will make people realize that she has earned the nomination. She's a fighter and did not quit when the chips were down. At the end of the day they may need each other ( and us) if they are going to win this thing...McCain is a strong opponent.

Finally, a do-over might be a great thing in Michigan. By the way, Obama supporters seem to highlight the rules only when it helps their candidate. the "rules" are that super-delegates are supposed to be independent and vote their beliefs NOT just how their district won. This could theoretically benefit Obama or Clinton. However, Obama supporters shout that this rule is un-democratic; however, they say that having people's votes count in Michigan and Florida is "not playing by the rules", but to exclude them WOULD be un-democratic. So are you for rules or democracy?

Posted by: mcfield | March 5, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse

Momentum shift. Finally pro-Obama posts can stop inserting the 11 straight line. HRC looks like she has her second wind - it was a very good speech. Obama, not so good with his. Delegate count and math still favors Obama but that ever changing mo remains perplexing...

And two more words for everyong - Michigan / Florida

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 12:36 AM

So are you admitting that HRC can only win by cheating and going against the rules everyone played with?
What a dirty campaign she has run.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | March 5, 2008 2:40 AM | Report abuse

"25% of the vote for Obama is Repubs"

Are you kidding or delirious? How about some facts to back that assertion up.

And how exactly would Michigan be counted without a "do-over" since Barack Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot? Or would this just be another example of the anything-to-win Clinton campaign strategy?

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

lylepink,
The push was to have R's vote for Clinton in Tx so that the D race would continue (see Rush). It is conceivable that R's actually gave her the win in Texas.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary wins where the Dems MUST WIN in the GE. These X-Over states are telling in that about 25% of the vote for Obama is Repubs [my revised estimate] that are so intent in stopping Hillary from getting the nomination and have absolutely no intention of voting Dem in the GE. I have not changed my mind about Hillary being our next POTUS. The states left that will be the clinchers are Pa., Ky., and WV.. Someway Fla. and Mi. must be counted, and I don't think there will be a do-over.

Posted by: lylepink | March 5, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Well dave, *I* was not talking about momentum. I was more focused on the delegate count.

And yes, I realize there are superdelegates and the race is much closer than my baseball analogy, but I wanted to make it easy to understand.

The basic fact is this: Clinton won't be able to get more pledged delegates than Obama. I simply cannot see the superdelegates failing to nominate Obama if he has the most elected delegates. I personally think that would be political suicide.

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

My post was poorly worded - the numbers will fall in her favor for the day but they still don't look good for the nomination.

NoCal, the baseball analogy does not really work since there are no superdelagates deciding wins for the Royals or White Sox. That and HRCs record is NOT 70-80. She is mathmatically very alive and mo does matter. It's funny how Obama supporters were all talking about momentum and 11 straight wins and now that the streak is over, momentum means nothing.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile,
It looks to me that Clinton gains around 24 in Ohio, not sure where you got your numbers from. The numbers still don't fall in her favor but at the end of the night, she will probably gain somewhere in the 15-20 range.

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

FYI - my above comment wasn't directed specifically at The Fix, but at the press in general, and especially the news networks.

As for momentum... it's largely a media creation. An excuse to dramatize each contest. However -- once a candidate has a lead that the other candidate cannot realistically overcome, I fail to see how momentum really has any role to play. (If the White Sox are 110-40, but lost the last 10, and the Royals are 70-80, but won their last 10, it doesn't matter that the Royals have "momentum" since there's no way they can win).

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

I wasn't around for Cronkite, but I always imagined the news of his time much more independent than today, with journalists able (and willing) to utilize their own independent judgment and analysis. Today, however, it seems that the media just cannot help itself and MUST create "dramatic" developments, even when there are none or they simply regurgitate campaign slogans and soundbites without any factual or analytical evaluation of what is being said and argued. It's a shame.

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Momentum shift. Finally pro-Obama posts can stop inserting the 11 straight line. HRC looks like she has her second wind - it was a very good speech. Obama, not so good with his. Delegate count and math still favors Obama but that ever changing mo remains perplexing...

And two more words for everyong - Michigan / Florida

Posted by: dave | March 5, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Clinton nets 3 delegates in Rhode Island, Obama nets 3 in Vermont, Clinton nets 5-9 in Ohio, and in the Dem primaries, even if Clinton wins the vote 50-48, because of Obama's numbers in Austin, Houston, and DFW, he'll net 3-5 in the primary, and that's before a caucus that can net him another 10. So, at best, without the caucus, Clinton nets 6 tonight and draws overall(whenever the Texas Caucuses decide to announce the results), at worst she loses the delegate battle tonight by 22. It's time for someone to have a serious intervention, and time for the media to stop just blindly following the Clintons as they move the goalposts.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 5, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

wow BGreat_in2008, your stupid comment on people from Ohio seems to suit your choice of candidate.

way to go.

Posted by: trisha2 | March 5, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's tactics are from the book, "The way things have always been done." That's why she must go back to NY; we need a leader, a new vision, new ways of doing business.

If Obama and McCain are the candidates, we may just get a civil, high road campaign....this is not possible with Hillary and the "kitchen sink" approach. her answer on 60 Minutes, about Obama's religion was reprehensible....but it fits her personality and style.

If Hillary works a deal and becomes the candidate of the Democratic party, John McCain will be the next president. That will be a very sad day in Amercan history.

BTW, people in Ohio have never really "gotten it"....they are a little slow there.....for real.

Posted by: BGreat_in2008 | March 5, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Good for her with Ohio and that was widely predicted, yet she did so with good numbers. Yet, the bigger story is how she let Texas, which was in her hip pocket, slip out of her hands;

Texas Primary Analysis- Hillary vs. Barack:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=50

Posted by: davidmwe | March 5, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double-post. The comments are malfunctioning tonight (unless it's just my computer).

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Despite Clinton's claims to the contrary, this campaign is all but over. There is no way that she will overcome Obama's lead in the elected delegates. Obama will be the democratic nominee - barring a superdelegate override of the will of the "pledged" delegates. Obama has built up too big of a lead, especially considering the fact that Mississippi, Oregon, and North Carolina are still to vote and are likely Obama victories.


Now that that's out of the way...
It's hard to argue that Clinton's two-pronged strategy has worked to a certain extent - it will allow her to claim she has a chance to win (despite the fact that she doesn't - again, barring a politically disastrous superdelegate override of the will of the voters).

1) Her attack ads against Obama seem to have worked (temporarily). However, they seem completely short-sighted and astoundingly horrible politically. FIRST - Any voters who vote because of the thrust of this ad seem to me much more likely to vote for McCain than Clinton since his national security credentials are much better than hers. SECOND - my first objection reinforces my second, that Clinton is amazingly short-sighted. Obama will be the nominee, and her ads only give credence and video clips for Republicans to use in the general election.

2)The second prong of Clinton's strategy has also worked (and I believe even to a larger extent) -- i.e. convincing the press that they are biased for Obama and against her.

However, this is belied by the fact that the media has focused on Clinton to the detriment of Obama and all the other candidates because of her huge initial advantage in name recognition and celebrity status as a first lady. The fact that nearly 75% of the campaign stories on news websites over the past week featured the name CLINTON in the headline (and a corresponding picture of her) instead of Obama reinforces the Media's focus on Clinton.
(i.e. the story is almost always framed: "Clinton loses", "Clinton wins", "Clinton attacks", etc. instead of "Obama wins", etc.)

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

With a 14 point lead, Clinton's win in Ohio is remarkable. But yet again, Obama still got at least 40 percent of the vote...which except for Oklahoma and Arkansas has always been the case. Sure she has the right to keep on fighting, but unless she wins Texas, which is still close, Clinton owes it to the party to get out, because she will eventually lose.

Posted by: ZnanaB | March 5, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

It will continue to baffle and amaze me when the Clinton campaign (and the media) can spin Clinton victories in states such as Ohio and Rhode Island as "come back" victories. Nothing could be farther from reality, given her double-digit lead in such states as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago. Obama achieved a huge victory today by making these competitions close enough that we're still watching the results at midnight. I am not upset with Clinton's victories today, as they were well deserved (and expected). However, I am very upset at the way in which her campaign has spun, shaped, and shifted her status in this race for the Democratic nomination.

During the next several months (and we all know it will now go to the convention), I sincerely hope that a sense of respect and honesty will return to these campaigns, and prepare a solid movement for change against the incumbent party and John McCain (since his victory in November will burn in our minds much more painfully than an Obama or Clinton loss in these primaries).

Posted by: murawski | March 5, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Despite Clinton's claims to the contrary, this campaign is all but over. There is no way that she will overcome Obama's lead in the elected delegates. Obama will be the democratic nominee - barring a superdelegate override of the will of the "pledged" delegates. Obama has built up too big of a lead, especially considering the fact that Mississippi, Oregon, and North Carolina are still to vote and are likely Obama victories.


Now that that's out of the way...
It's hard to argue that Clinton's two-pronged strategy has worked to a certain extent - it will allow her to claim she has a chance to win (despite the fact that she doesn't - again, barring a politically disastrous superdelegate override of the will of the voters).

1) Her attack ads against Obama seem to have worked (temporarily). However, they seem completely short-sighted and astoundingly horrible politically. FIRST - Any voters who vote because of the thrust of this ad seem to me much more likely to vote for McCain than Clinton since his national security credentials are much better than hers. SECOND - my first objection reinforces my second, that Clinton is amazingly short-sighted. Obama will be the nominee, and her ads only give credence and video clips for Republicans to use in the general election.

2)The second prong of Clinton's strategy has also worked (and I believe even to a larger extent) -- i.e. convincing the press that they are biased for Obama and against her.

However, this is belied by the fact that the media has focused on Clinton to the detriment of Obama and all the other candidates because of her huge initial advantage in name recognition and celebrity status as a first lady. The fact that nearly 75% of the campaign stories on news websites over the past week featured the name CLINTON in the headline (and a corresponding picture of her) instead of Obama reinforces the Media's focus on Clinton.
(i.e. the story is almost always framed: "Clinton loses", "Clinton wins", "Clinton attacks", etc. instead of "Obama wins", etc.)

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

It will continue to baffle and amaze me when the Clinton campaign (and the media) can spin Clinton victories in states such as Ohio and Rhode Island as "come back" victories. Nothing could be farther from reality, given her double-digit lead in such states as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago. Obama achieved a huge victory today by making these competitions close enough that we're still watching the results at midnight. I am not upset with Clinton's victories today, as they were well deserved (and expected). However, I am very upset at the way in which her campaign has spun, shaped, and shifted her status in this race for the Democratic nomination.

During the next several months (and we all know it will now go to the convention), I sincerely hope that a sense of respect and honesty will return to these campaigns, and prepare a solid movement for change against the incumbent party and John McCain (since his victory in November will burn in our minds much more painfully than an Obama or Clinton loss in these primaries).

Posted by: murawski | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I guess negative campaigning works. I've always heard it did. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. If Hillary ends up with the Democratic nomination I will cast my first Republican vote in the general election. My mother had names for people like Bill and Hill Clinton, but I'm afraid that I can't use them here.

Soon to be a registered Republican.

PV

Posted by: kevans6019 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I guess negative campaigning works. I've always heard it did. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. If Hillary ends up with the Democratic nomination I will cast my first Republican vote in the general election. My mother had names for people like Bill and Hill Clinton, but I'm afraid that I can't use them here.

Soon to be a registered Republican.

PV

Posted by: kevans6019 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Despite Clinton's claims to the contrary, this campaign is all but over. There is no way that she will overcome Obama's lead in the elected delegates. Obama will be the democratic nominee - barring a superdelegate override of the will of the "pledged" delegates. Obama has built up too big of a lead, especially considering the fact that Mississippi, Oregon, and North Carolina are still to vote and are likely Obama victories.


Now that that's out of the way...
It's hard to argue that Clinton's two-pronged strategy has worked to a certain extent - it will allow her to claim she has a chance to win (despite the fact that she doesn't - again, barring a politically disastrous superdelegate override of the will of the voters).

1) Her attack ads against Obama seem to have worked (temporarily). However, they seem completely short-sighted and astoundingly horrible politically. FIRST - Any voters who vote because of the thrust of this ad seem to me much more likely to vote for McCain than Clinton since his national security credentials are much better than hers. SECOND - my first objection reinforces my second, that Clinton is amazingly short-sighted. Obama will be the nominee, and her ads only give credence and video clips for Republicans to use in the general election.

2)The second prong of Clinton's strategy has also worked (and I believe even to a larger extent) -- i.e. convincing the press that they are biased for Obama and against her.

However, this is belied by the fact that the media has focused on Clinton to the detriment of Obama and all the other candidates because of her huge initial advantage in name recognition and celebrity status as a first lady. The fact that nearly 75% of the campaign stories on news websites over the past week featured the name CLINTON in the headline (and a corresponding picture of her) instead of Obama reinforces the Media's focus on Clinton.
(i.e. the story is almost always framed: "Clinton loses", "Clinton wins", "Clinton attacks", etc. instead of "Obama wins", etc.)

Posted by: NoCal | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

It will continue to baffle and amaze me when the Clinton campaign (and the media) can spin Clinton victories in states such as Ohio and Rhode Island as "come back" victories. Nothing could be farther from reality, given her double-digit lead in such states as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago. Obama achieved a huge victory today by making these competitions close enough that we're still watching the results at midnight. I am not upset with Clinton's victories today, as they were well deserved (and expected). However, I am very upset at the way in which her campaign has spun, shaped, and shifted her status in this race for the Democratic nomination.

During the next several months (and we all know it will now go to the convention), I sincerely hope that a sense of respect and honesty will return to these campaigns, and prepare a solid movement for change against the incumbent party and John McCain (since his victory in November will burn in our minds much more painfully than an Obama or Clinton loss in these primaries).

Posted by: murawski | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I guess negative campaigning works. I've always heard it did. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. If Hillary ends up with the Democratic nomination I will cast my first Republican vote in the general election. My mother had names for people like Bill and Hill Clinton, but I'm afraid that I can't use them here.

Soon to be a registered Republican.

PV

Posted by: kevans6019 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I guess negative campaigning works. I've always heard it did. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. If Hillary ends up with the Democratic nomination I will cast my first Republican vote in the general election. My mother had names for people like Bill and Hill Clinton, but I'm afraid that I can't use them here.

Soon to be a registered Republican.

PV

Posted by: kevans6019 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

I guess negative campaigning works. I've always heard it did. Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. If Hillary ends up with the Democratic nomination I will cast my first Republican vote in the general election. My mother had names for people like Bill and Hill Clinton, but I'm afraid that I can't use them here.

Soon to be a registered Republican.

PV

Posted by: kevans6019 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

It will continue to baffle and amaze me when the Clinton campaign (and the media) can spin Clinton victories in states such as Ohio and Rhode Island as "come back" victories. Nothing could be farther from reality, given her double-digit lead in such states as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago. Obama achieved a huge victory today by making these competitions close enough that we're still watching the results at midnight. I am not upset with Clinton's victories today, as they were well deserved (and expected). However, I am very upset at the way in which her campaign has spun, shaped, and shifted her status in this race for the Democratic nomination. During the next several months (and we all know it will now go to the convention), I sincerely hope that a sense of respect and honesty will return to these campaigns, and prepare a solid movement for change against the incumbent party and John McCain (since his victory in November will burn in our minds much more painfully than an Obama or Clinton loss in these primaries).

Posted by: murawski | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Actually, they were chanting "Yes She Will"

Proud Ohioan and HILLARY supporter here.

Posted by: trisha2 | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

It will continue to baffle and amaze me when the Clinton campaign (and the media) can spin Clinton victories in states such as Ohio and Rhode Island as "come back" victories. Nothing could be farther from reality, given her double-digit lead in such states as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago. Obama achieved a huge victory today by making these competitions close enough that we're still watching the results at midnight. I am not upset with Clinton's victories today, as they were well deserved (and expected). However, I am very upset at the way in which her campaign has spun, shaped, and shifted her status in this race for the Democratic nomination. During the next several months (and we all know it will now go to the convention), I sincerely hope that a sense of respect and honesty will return to these campaigns, and prepare a solid movement for change against the incumbent party and John McCain (since his victory in November will burn in our minds much more painfully than an Obama or Clinton loss in these primaries).

Posted by: murawski | March 5, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

This is getting ridiculous

2 weeks ago, anything short of 20 point victories in both Texas and Ohio were losses for Clinton. Now winning by 10-15 points in Ohio and a virtual tie in Texas is a victory for Clinton??? Give me a break. She's not going to win without overturning DNC rules or the will of the pledged delegates. Give me a break.

She is going to lose and drag down the entire democratic party with her. She is going to go negative on Obama and mess up our chances at victory. Shame on you Clinton.

Posted by: Tetris | March 5, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

I hate her. That is all.

Posted by: agreen1 | March 4, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company