Clinton's Down, But She's Not Out (Yet)

National Review Online: Democrat Is Relying On Upcoming Wins To Restore Her Campaign

(National Review Online)  This column was written by John Hood

---

There’ll be time enough to write the post-mortem on the Hillary Clinton campaign. But some pundits can’t seem to wait another couple of weeks. They want it over now. Some just hate the Clintons. Others want to spare the Democratic Party any more lasting damage from the nomination battle. They’re wrong, though. The Clinton campaign is deeply wounded, but the mortal blow has yet to fall.

March 4 may be the date. If Barack Obama wins either Texas or Ohio, Clinton will lose her last chance to arrest his momentum. The Obama camp has tried to set the bar higher - that Clinton must not just win the major prizes, but win them overwhelmingly. I don’t think that’s accurate. The delegate count is close today and will be close after March 4 no matter what the vote margins are. That’s not what will settle the issue. Clinton still has a shot at winning a healthy majority among the super-delegates, and even at seating additional delegates from Michigan and Florida. None of it will happen, though, if Clinton doesn’t do something dramatic.

Here’s the drama I see playing out if Clinton managed to hold on to her (declining) leads in the March 4 states. Winning even narrowly in Texas and Ohio - plus perhaps in Vermont and Rhode Island - would garner massive media coverage and breathe life back into Clinton’s staff, donors, and volunteers. Sure, the net gain in delegates would be small, but the momentum shift would be significant. Don’t discount the strong self-interest that the mainstream news media has in keeping the primary race going. It will overwhelm the partisan interest that most media elites have in seeing a unified Democratic party.

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign will actually continue to make arguments against the Obama coronation, some of them potentially persuasive. For example, it will argue that while Obama has won more contests, Clinton has won the big states, including the key battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida (yeah, I know, but it’ll sound plausible). Through surrogates and independent expenditures, the Clinton team will keep pressing the argument that Obama is untested and unready in a world of dangerous adversaries and evil Republican hatchet-men. Meanwhile, Clinton herself will assume the role of victim and flash her emotional petticoats. Obama’s condescending treatment of her at several points in Thursday night’s debate shows that he can be suckered into the role of Man, rather than a man, so expect the Clinton team to try it some more.

Most Democratic pros I know support Obama, but they remain fearful. Despite - or perhaps I should say because - of the extent of conservative disdain for him, John McCain was the Republican nominee they least wanted to see. It has also occurred to many of them that, even though by many measures 2008 should be a Democratic year, the party has chosen to take a huge risk - to nominate either a freshman minority senator with an odd-sounding name or a former First Lady that half the country dislikes. So while Obama has captured their hearts, Clinton still has a shot at capturing their heads. Is she really more salable to the public as a steady hand in a time of peril? Are there enough closet racists out there to cost Democrats key states? Would a foreign-policy crisis this fall give McCain a clear opening to cold-cock the newbie? Is he truly vetted the way Hillary is?

The Clintons only have a couple of weeks, but they do, indeed, have those weeks. Any size win in Texas and Ohio on March 4 will be seen as a political comeback, and if followed by wins in Pennsylvania in April and North Carolina and Indiana in early May, the dream of a Clinton Restoration would stay alive.

Rats.

[rational_1]

After her "Shame on you Barack Obama" speech her desperation to somehow slow Obama down is becoming almost palpable. Her being anointed the inevitable nominee all those months ago has really hurt her. Her campaign has largely consisted of reacting to Obama rather than defining her (which might not have been a bad idea at the time). On the bright side, this death spiral should be over soon.

[it_oldtimer]

The NRO is always good for a laugh or two, give them credit for that at least!

[gretagreen]

I just want the primaries to be over so we can all get behind Obama for the general. A Democrat must win in 2008. The next president will appoint at least one, if not two or three, Supreme Court justices. I don''t want McCain doing that.

[gkc99]

More diarrhea from the Nether Republican Orif*ace.

Pretty much what you expect--$hit from an a$$hole.

Pay no attention to the "man" behind the curtain.

[andor3]

I liked Sen. Clinton and was happy the dems had such good candidates, but her new direction is troubling--working on lame catch phrases and little irrelevant wedge issues.

Even more troubling is that the Republicans are supporting her with words and dollars now--they are terrified of running against Sen. Obama.

[jb4peace]

To ainttaken: Your tirade to me about George Bush was not necessary. I did not vote for him and personally thought he should have been impeached. You obviously did not understand my point that it''s too bad that, because of his terrible presidency, people like you are going to the other extreme and voting for a candidate just because you''re "willing to take a chance on anyone different. How could it get any worse?" --- That''s what you wrote. I would hope there would be more of a thought process than that in picking a candidate for president.

Again, name-calling is unnecessary and not helpful in promoting your cause.

[esyrdr413]

YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT A WEB SITE,WHITEHOUSE.COM
THIS IS A NON PARTISAN NEWS WEB SITE.THERE''S AN ARTICLE ABOUT OBAMAS CRACK COCAINE DRUG USE IN 1999, AND HIS GAY AFFAIR, WHICH IS BEING DOCUMENTED,THIS IS WHAT ALLEDGEDLY HE WAS DOING AS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE.YOU MIGHT WANT TO QUESTION, WHY HE HAS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH FARRAHKAN (GOOGLE).YOU MIGHT WANT TO QUESTION WHY HE WON''T PUT HIS HAND OVER HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, OF WHY HE WON''T WEAR A PATRIOTIC PIN ON HIS LAPEL, IN A TIME OF AN ONGOING WAR AND UNREST IN OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD, THAT HAS SHOWN SO MANY SIGNS OF UNPATRIOTIC BEHAVIOR.I PERSONALLY CAN''T BELEIVE THE RUSH TO SUPPORT THIS PERSON,THAT HAS NO EXPERIENCE.WE HAVE GONE THROUGH EIGHT YEARS WITH AN IMBECILE,THAT HAS TOTALLY DAFACATTED ON EVERYTHING THAT SOME HOLD IN HIGH ESTEEM.WE HAVE THREE CHOICES, ONE IS TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN,HE PREDICTS 100 MORE YEARS IN IRAQ,ANOTHER IS OBAMA, THAT DOESNT EVEN CAST HIS YEA OR NAY AS A REPRESENTATVE,BUT SIMPLY SAYS (PRESENT), WITH NO EXPERIENCE,OR WE HAVE CLINTON, WHO BY ALL MEANS ISNT WONDERWOMAN, BUT SHE HAS SOME EXPERIENCE AND VOTES WHEN CALLED ON,AND WANTS US OUT OF IRAQ.IM FROM THE OLD SCHOOL, I BELEIVE WE SHOULD NOT ONLY QUESTION AUTHORITY, BUT EVERYTHING.IM ALSO A VIETNAM VETERAN
WITH A SON IN IRAQ,HES A CAREER SOLDIER WITH 20 PLUS YRS. IN, OUR VOTES ARE GOING TO HILLARY CLINTON,AND MAY YOUR WISDOM OUTWEIGH YOUR NOVELTY FOR A NOVICE.

[cfin5]

Posted by IRLiberal at 02:43 AM : Feb 24, 2008-----URATARD.

[PulSamsara]

Wow... I actually voted for Hillary once.
She has become a sad figure in American politics.

And so have her supporters in disrespecting everyone who supports Mr. Obama. What kind of people are you ?

[irliberal]

GO HILLARY 08, WOOHOO!!

Those who hate Hillary are:

A) White males who feel inferior before a woman of obvious power.

B) White females who think they should stand by their man, at least as long as it does not interfere with getting their hair done or interrupt their shopping.

C) Republicans, because she would end the Iraq war, balance the budget, and set this country back on the right course it was already on when Bill left office. If all that is possible to do in eight years anyway. You see, a single Hillary term would do much to illustrate to the world what fools the Republicons are and yes, they fear that. They fear it desperately.

D) Religious zealots of all shapes and sizes, who know that Hillary will preserve the line between Church and State, and that the tax free money that flows to pad their coffers and build mega churches and pay for se.x scandal lawsuits will likely stop.

E) Hunters, because the NRA tells them to think that way. Sure, those independent and fiercely free gun owners, true cows that they are.

F) The rich, who know that they will have a LITTLE LESS money than they do now, because they will be taxed at a higher rate. They might run a little short of cash for that second sailboat or that little villa in France and that JUST WILL NOT DO!

G) The military establishment, who no longer will get unlimited money to pursue pointless wars. Hillary would make sure the vets were properly taken care of though, something GW Bush OBVIOUSLY does NOT care about.

[sparks224]

How many of you voted for W?
Come on now, tell the truth.

[user168-2009]

How would a brain-dead Hillary still have a chance to capture people''s heads if she couldn''t even capture their hearts in the first place?

[sparks224]

I would love to see Hilary sworn in as President, just to watch the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" from the conservatives.

[jb4peace]

To Ainttaken: Your comments and name-calling shows what type of supporters Obama attracts. My comments about the media were in response to the article. And no, not all people can see past the media. They still are voting for Obama.

[jb4peace]

To Ainttaken: Who''s the one deluding themself? You are the one who would "take a chance on anyone different". That''s pretty scary. Has the Bush administration so disenchanted people that they''re now willing to give the presidency to any inexperienced politician who is arrogant enough to run on rhetoric? Under all the speeches, you''ll find the usual politician playing the usual games.

[jb4peace]

Re: "Don%u2019t discount the strong self-interest that the mainstream news media has in keeping the primary race going."

Unfortunately, this it too true. The media has been totally responsible for Obama leapfrogging to where he is now. They have not given him any real scrutiny. I want to hear more about his connections with Rezko, Exelon, and where his fundraising dollars have come from in ALL his campaigns. Let''s hear about the lobbyists that have supported him in previous campaigns and the ones that support him now (he does accept money from state lobbyists). Where IS all that campaign money coming from and why won''t he commit. as he promised before, to using General Funds in the presidential election if he wins. I want the media to ask him why he set a spending record as a first-term senator.

Obama is no change from the usual Washington politician. The media should not be giving him a free ride into the White House.

[tibu987]

Hillary''s experience claim is misleading. As a shyster lawyer in Arkansas, the U.S.''s second worst backward State, eight years as First Lady, planning menus, not sitting in on important national and international meetings does not equate into valid experience for the position of president.
Don''t be misled, do your own political homework.

Vitriol, that stuff Hillary and her staff toss about so easily has a way, like lies, to come back and bite you in the a$$-. The Republicans plan to use vitriol on Obama will have the same effect, it will strengthen the Obama campaign.
Innuendoes, insinuations, and mud slinging, becomes more and more prevalent when one is being cornered, i.e., defeated.
"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
I forgot who the author was; please don''t accuse me of plagiarism.

In yesterdays, 02/20, Chicago Tribune Editorials Section, there were listed many of the scandals that Hillary has had in the past and there were several.
Again, before you believe all the accusations and innuendoes that Hillary and her staff are slinging around, do your own homework, and ask yourself, do I want this person to be president of the U.S.
I don''t.
I am a 72 year old white male, veteran, and I have seen it all, and I will be voting for Obama.

[tibu987]

"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
I''m sorry, I don''t know the author of that saying.
Please don''t accuse me of plagiarism.

There are a lot of important issues facing this country, semantics is not one of them.

[tibu987]

In 2 years as a Senator, Obama authored 152 bills - Hillary: 20 in 6 years
Posted 10 hours ago by Anonymous
http://you.presscue.com/node/442


Let''s take a closer look at who''s really qualified and or who''s really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

Records of these two candidates should be scrutinized in order to make an informed decision.

SENATOR CLINTON, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of
legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress www.thomas.loc.gov.

[tibu987]

RAFREE, et al.
Before being definitively against Obama, do more homework please for both Clinton and Obama. Go back 30 years for both, the good, the bad, and then make your decision.

To all the Obama naysayers out there, I say this:
I would rather have an idealistic young person who recognizes many of the wrongs in this country, than more of the same from the Clinton twins and McCain.
Most of our Washington pols are tired old men and women who have been in office too long and no longer
feel any closeness, any obligation, to the people of this country. Many of these Washington old-timers are more concerned with their positions of power, arrogance, and feathering their own and their cronies nests than meeting their obligations to the electorate.
I, for one, am tired of seeing and hearing these old goats and their blathering oratory.
I welcome the presence of more young idealistic people in Washington.
Incidentlally, I am a 72 year old white, male, veteran. and I''''ve seen it all.
I''''m voting for Obama