Sullivan's just plain wrong when he states "there is no mathematical possibility", but then he's generally wrong about everything these days. It was dim for her a month ago, but if Obama is so confident he has it in the bag then why does he continue to campaign against Hillary rather than McCain?
What is becoming clear, though, is that unless Obama can make inroads into the white, working class vote, he's toast in November.
Bruce: I don't think he's wrong. There's "possiblity" and "probability." While it's technically possible for Hillary to still take the nomination, it's SO improbable that it's virtually impossible.
Overall, the longer Hillary stays in the race, the more it hurts the Democratic Party. It's nice to see they're finding new and exciting ways to lose Presidential elections they should be able to win handily.
There is a distinction between a negligible chance and a mathematical impossibility. A lot can happen in politics and another Wright-size blowup could cause the Obama campaign to implode. Clinton's best chance lies in convincing the super delegates that Obama can't win, and she could still pull that off, although it is unlikely.
June 7th, the date of the last primary election, is many months prior to the November general election. I doubt there is any serious damage to the Democratic Party from an extended primary contest. It may even help because Wright and Ayers, etc., will be regarded as old news in a few months.
I do think both Obama and Clinton carry a lot of baggage that will make them unpalatable to significant numbers of voters, but it is better to get that on the table early, when you can control the damage, than have it come out in late October.
I think Obama and Clinton realize the race is over. Obama spoke last night about healing divisions and moving forward--typical end-of-nomination process speech. And check out the glum face on Bill Clinton behind Hillary giving her victory speech in Indiana--it is the face of someone who reads the writing on the wall. Clinton's only hope is to stay in without alienating too many superdelegates and hope Obama implodes somehow. Seems very unlikely at this point.
Posted at 2008-05-07 09:51:14 [PermaLink]Hilary's best hope is for Obama to lose in November, preferably by a big margin. Then in 2012 she can be the high odds favorite to be the nominee by saying "I told you so."
After Obama gets the nomination (the most likely scenario), look for HRC to give his campaign lip service at best.
Somewhat off-topic, but I'd really like to do a plug for this entertainment writer's blog:
[External Link]
It is just so rare to see Hollywood critiqued from the conservative perspective. And yes, he does discuss politics too. Do drop by and add to his traffic count...
"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic party," said Ms. Clinton.
One does not "work for" oneself. Either that's a Freudian slip or Clinton is signalling it's over.
"One does not 'work for' oneself"
[External Link]
Used in that sense, to "work for oneself" means not to be responsible to anyone but oneself. Not a good trait in a presidential candidate. That is a weak reading of her comment. I wager it was a Freudian slip.
Posted at 2008-05-07 12:28:09 [PermaLink]Indeed, I hink Hillary meant to say no matter what happens she would work for the "nomination" of the Democratic party, but slipped and said "nominee" instead. Either that or the reporter slipped and misquoted her--probably more likely.
Posted at 2008-05-07 12:35:53 [PermaLink]Sorry - I want to see the house atop her and the socks curling up. I want to see her melting and that final puff of smoke. That isn't going to happen.
I know what she's thinking: Obama is a one-termer, tops. With him in the White House, conservative Republicans will swamp the Congress as they've done before. Those with foresight seldom see 20-20: She's seeing 20-12, [if you get my drift]. Better: With a likely Republican majority in Congress if Obama takes it now, and the Public's tendency to hedge bets, that'd make it even better for her than this Pelosi-Reid train wreck.
Rod'em in 2012.
Ran:
HRC's game plan is this:
Plan B: (plan A was to win barely lifting a finger in january but that went out the window after Iowa and the near-miss in NH) Hang on hoping for a final cataclysm being visited on BO. This may actually come from the person closest to him - Michelle - a far-left marxist with what may be revealed as militant leanings. She looks to have been the one who dragged BO into continuing the relationship with wright and ayers and rezko.
Plan C: stay in long enough to fatally cripple BO in Nov., causing McCain to win in a romp. Sufficient damage has probably already been done, but like LBJ's politics they are leaving nothing to chance. 80% chance McCain doesn't run for re-election in '12 and the last time a there was a rep pres for more than 12 years in a row was lincoln/US grant.
Hillary can stay in the race until the superdelegates tell her to leave, an action which may cause a real schism in the party. Until then, there's no reason for her to drop out; Huckabee is still in the Republican race with nil prospect of winning, but the Republicans are not urging him to leave. Hillary should have the same choice. If the shoe were on the other foot, would Obama drop out? No sexism here, eh?
Posted at 2008-05-08 06:21:06 [PermaLink]"the last time a there was a rep pres for more than 12 years in a row was lincoln/US grant."
The reason Grant resigned his commission and ran for President, at the behest of the stalwart wing of the Republican Party, was because Andrew Johnson had succeeded Lincoln and had done his best to roll-back civil rights in the former states of the Confederacy. Johnson was a Democrat.
Violet: This has nothing to do with sexism, it has everything to do with math. If Obama were in exactly the same position, I have no doubt that leading Dems would be trying to get him to quit. And Huckabee dropped out two months ago. Try paying attention, OK?
Posted at 2008-05-08 10:15:15 [PermaLink]Bruce:
I stand corrected. So then perhaps a 12 year interval of gop presidents is unprecedented.
Grant served 8 years and was followed by Hayes, Garfield (who was assassinated) and Arthur -- all Republican. That is 16 years. McKinley was assassinated and was succeeded by Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. That is also 16 years. Harding died in office and was succeeded by Coolidge and Hoover. That is 12 years. Reagan served two terms and was succeeded by George H.W. Bush, which is also 12 years.
For what it's worth, both Grant and Harding were much better Presidents than they are typically given credit for.