Horserace
March 13, 2008 12:28 PM

Clinton Camp Pushes Electability Argument In Conference Call

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Hillary Clinton
The Clinton campaign held a conference call today to make an electability argument for the former first lady built around the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania.

Clinton leads in Pennsylvania polls and needs to win the state handily to make an argument to superdelegates, who could decide the nomination in her favor even if she trails in pledged delegates, that she deserves the nomination.

The Pennsylvania vote, Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn told reporters, will be a "very significant test of who could really win the general election."

"We believe this will show Hillary is ready to win, and that Senator Obama really can't win the general election," Penn said.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called what he characterized as the Obama campaign's attempts to "diminish" the significance of the Pennsylvania vote "off-putting."

He said Pennsylvania's primary will be a "true test of someone's national appeal" because of the state's diversity, citing the presence of farming, big cities, coal mining, and both a midwestern and east coast "tinge."

"This is not a solid blue state," Rendell said. "This is a purple state. And we need a candidate who can win here."

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter took aim at a recent memo from the Obama campaign critiquing and editing a Clinton memo sent yesterday.

The memo is "one of the silliest things I've seen in recent times," Nutter said. "If somebody on my staff wrote something like that, I'd fire them, because it just doesn't make any sense."

Pennsylvania is "a critical state and everybody knows it for the general election," he added.

Both Penn and Rendell pushed the notion that Pennsylvania is one of four states – the others are Ohio, Florida and Michigan – that Democrats need to do well in if they want to win in November. (Clinton won in all three of the other states, though Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and the candidates did not compete in Michigan or Florida because the states violated DNC rules by holding their primaries early.)

The four states are "dominated by swing voters who are critical to a victory in November," Penn said.

Added Rendell: "We need to win three of four."

Add a Comment See all 14 Comments
by seanoneill5 March 14, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
Nutter and Rendell need to spend a little more time on their day jobs and less on campaign sound bites. The outrage expressed over the obvious is laughable. The statement they found inflammatory: Pa is only one of ten states left. Such an utterance of plain fact is a basis, Nutter says, for firing! I like Nutter, but he won''t win any acting oscars for that hyperbole. PA is obviously critical to Hillary Clinton''s survival as a candidate, much less so Obama''s.
Reply to this comment
by seanoneill5 March 14, 2008 11:28 AM EDT
Nutter and Rendell need to spend a little more time on their day jobs and less on campaign sound bites. The outrage expressed over the obvious is laughable. The statement they found inflammatory: Pa is only one of ten states left. Such an utterance of plain fact is a basis, Nutter says, for firing! I like Nutter, but he won''t win any acting oscars for that hyperbole. PA is obviously critical to Hillary Clinton''s survival as a candidate, much less so Obama''s.
Reply to this comment
by seanoneill5 March 14, 2008 11:20 AM EDT
Nutter and Rendell are outraged. Nutter would even "fire!" someone who made such a statement. The inflammatory statement? Pa is only one of 10 state primaries remaining. Uh, duh. Seems like our Mayor and Governor need to spend a little more time on their day jobs and a lot less on campaiging and feigning outrage about simple reality.
Reply to this comment
by kenbomc March 14, 2008 2:20 AM EDT
Hillary cannot win the delegate battle. All this article shows is desperation on the Hillary campaign. The governer of PA wants so badly to be considered vp. I think he''s kicking himself for supporting Hillary so early in the campaign. People will vote for Obama when they get to know him and become familiar with his ideas. Hillary had the big bad 100 million dollar, special interest backed, unstoppable campaign. That was until it was completely demolished by the small donor, american citizen backed Obama campaign. Obama is a natural leader -he has that good judgment that Hillary lacks. I think most of us feel that we need a change from the same Bush policies that McCain supports -and we certainly do not want to add another 4 years to the past consecutive 28 years were either a Bush, or a Clinton has occupied the white house. It''s time for new leadership.
(Bush Sr. vice president ''80-''88, president ''89-''92; Bill Clinton president ''93-''00; Bush Jr. president ''01-''08).
Reply to this comment
by greenfun March 13, 2008 10:24 PM EDT
I don''t think you can minimize ALL of the big states put together. I would be more convinced if Obama had won at least a few, but winning in states that will go red in a General election is not a convincing argument.
Reply to this comment
by kimberlypeac March 13, 2008 10:05 PM EDT
Who does the core of the Party support? Hillary that is who. Hillary is winning the democratic states. The best predictor of future performance is past performance. We know what the Clinton''s did for the economy in the past and we have a good idea for the future. Obama we can see is a good political organizer, and he is smart. I''m sorry, he can be inspirational when he is not denegrating Hillary, but that''s not enough for me to risk my future on.
Reply to this comment
by kimberlypeac March 13, 2008 9:58 PM EDT
The same people keep lying about Hillary. They figure if they throw enough mud at her, they will sink her. Why not? It seems to have worked in the past. Hillary is still standing and even if you were to keep her down this election she will come back stronger. Why? Her supporters will never back down and we will just fight harder. If Obama secures the nomination he is just ensuring a landslide defeat to McCain. Just wait and see.
Reply to this comment
by lhummer March 13, 2008 6:34 PM EDT
This latest argument by the Clinton campaign borders on the bizarre and ignores every poll that finds Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than Hillary. Either Ed Rendell has a supersized ego or he must think anybody not from Pennsylvania is a moron. To imply that big states are the only ones that count in this primary is not only wrong-headed, it%u2019s insulting! And then to act offended when Senator Obama points out that he (Obama) will likely lose Pennsylvania. What%u2019s that all about? I wonder what Rendell%u2019s rationale will be when at the end of the campaign Obama has more pledged delegates, more states won, and a majority of the votes. What then, Ed?
Reply to this comment
by pnanula March 13, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
The Clinton machine is really showing its desperation. Losing in the popular vote, losing in the state count, losing in the critical pledged delegate count - all they can do is concoct arguments about why certain states are more important than others, or how being First Lady gave Hillary some "experience" making executive decisions or would be mnore electable because she narrowly wins a few states that the ultimate Democratic nominee (either Barack or Hillary) will win handily over McCain in November.

The voters are smarter than this. The super-delegates would be crazy to honor Bill''s great service to the country by subverting the will of the people to put his wife in office over a transcendant figure (Barack) who has honestly earned his victory as the Democratic nominee - and done so in a positive way despite the points being scored by the Clinton attack machine.

Bravo, Barack. Stay positive, and keep warning voters about the kitchen sink coming from the Clinto camp so they can put all of these attacks and specious arguments in proper perspective.
Reply to this comment
by goldstategirl March 13, 2008 4:59 PM EDT
Rush Limbaugh urged his GOP listeners in droves to vote for HIllary because they know how SHE IS THE WEAKEST, not Obama.

At the conservatives convention where Mitt officially withdrew, they were salivating over the prospect of being able to run against such a polarizing figure that they''d already laid that groundwork so she''s toast in the face of that machine, while Obama can will beat McCain handily.

She knows this -- which is why her camp''s spinning themselves dizzy.

One of the reasons I''m most glad to vote for Obama is because she''s been so ungracious to other states, that she''s said on camera afer losing contests that this state wasn''t important, or blew off that state like oh we never intended to spend money there and win. He''s won like 30 states to her maybe 18, with a far better organized and cohesive team and meanwhile, she lilterally forgets that a candidate can''t make other states feel like you think they''re beneath the others -- that''s insane.

You''re running to be the President of the entire Union , not just the ones you win in the primary.

That''s just one of the things that is a letdown in her end.

Obama is lightyears ahead of her as a statesmen, conducts himself and his organization much more effectively and yes -- makes a much better Commander in Chief than out-of-touch McCain or Clinton.

The much more electable Obama''s got my vote.

Reply to this comment
See all 14 Comments
.

Follow Horserace

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...