Analysis: Buyer's Hesitation For Dems?

CBSNews.com's Vaughn Ververs Says Clinton Has At Least Blunted Obama's Momentum

(CBS)  This analysis was written by CBSNews.com senior political editor Vaughn Ververs.

---

Hillary Clinton did something last night she had not been able to do since New Hampshire - stop Barack Obama's momentum in the Democratic primary contest. Or at least blunt it.

By winning three out of the four primary contests Tuesday night, Clinton almost certainly saved her campaign to fight on in a contest that now looks likely to stretch at least another seven weeks - until Pennsylvania votes.

Clinton can now boast of two more wins in big states, having carried Ohio and Texas (as well as Rhode Island), but she did nothing to erase Obama's sizeable delegate lead. In fact, she may have lost ground by the time all the delegates are awarded.

It's hard to see a path to the 2,025 delegate threshold needed to win the nomination for either candidate without the support of a sizable number of super delegates. So, the argument will rage on, muddied enormously by last night's results.

Despite the fact that Clinton once held enormous leads in Texas and Ohio, Obama came roaring into the evening on the precipice of ending the contest. The winner of 12 straight contests, he repeated his pattern of erasing those big leads. But, unlike big wins in Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin, Obama couldn't get over the top and seal the deal.

"We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way," Clinton said in Ohio Tuesday night. "We're just getting started." Coming into the night, the New York Senator was expected to face increased pressure from party leaders and insiders to exit the race if she failed to win the two big states at stake. Now that she has - and added Rhode Island to boot - where such pressure would come from is less clear.

Obama's campaign argues that this is less a race about winning states and more about winning delegates. But winning pledged delegates alone probably won't get him the nomination, as long as Clinton remains in the race, splitting the haul to the end.

The recent sharpening of the argument Clinton has pressed, along with outside events, may have helped her stem the tide. Her campaign in Texas launched a much-discussed ad raising questions about Obama's readiness to handle a crisis as president. Obama's campaign got caught up in a series of revised statements about what one of his economic advisers said to a Canadian official about NAFTA. Meanwhile, the trial of Chicago developer Tony Rezko, a former Obama supporter, thrust that issue back into the headlines.
Whether any of these developments mattered to voters in Texas and Ohio is unclear, but they marked the first time Obama had entered such an important contest while facing tough questions. Having won a variety of states with large margins since Super Tuesday, it's fair to say Democrats last night may have cumulatively expressed some buyer's hesitation.

What comes next is uncertain. Wyoming holds caucuses on Saturday and Mississippi's primary is next Tuesday. Both should be strong states for Obama but aren't likely to be enough to knock Clinton out, should she lose them.

Then it is six long weeks before the next contest in Pennsylvania. To put that in perspective, the Iowa caucuses were held just nine weeks ago. Those are six weeks that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will have to ready his general election campaign, six weeks in which Clinton may yet face more pressure to bow out and six more weeks for Obama to weather the kinds of issues he's faced in the past several days.

A prolonged race also raises an issue most Democratic leaders would rather avoid - what to do with Michigan and Florida. Both states, stripped of all their delegates by the national party for moving their primaries earlier than February 5th, were won by Clinton, and they are not insignificant states.

Obama's campaign is unlikely to allow those delegates to be restored and allocated on the basis of those earlier results as long as they have a breath left. Ditto for Clinton; unlikely to ever agree to splitting them evenly or in proportion to current totals. We could yet end up with two more major primaries at the end of this crazy process.

[keithepike]

Nothing but excuses from Vaughn Ververs on this subject but Obamas was blunted,Well Vaughn where going to the convention flore can you understaind that.

[samthetvcat]

pt 2

In terms of ending the nomination process early, it was an unfortunate pile-on; in terms of now offering Barack the opportunity to gain experience in setting up contingency plans in much the same way a President and his cabinet might be called to do, the Ohio loss undoubtedly makes him stronger as he will no doubt rise to the occasion given his talent for being a quick learner and easy to adapt.

I think if Barack''s able to do that, he''ll start showing bigger gains in all of Hillary''s bases of support. Like to think this is buyer''s hesitation might be a mischaracterization - it seems more to me like a case of one step forward, two steps back, but slowly but surely making inroads and earning peoples'' confidence . . .

jmo!

[samthetvcat]

pt 1

The more I think about it, I don''t think the problem Ohio had with Barack was necessarily substantive (although if he had been able to persuade them that his plan stood a better chance of reviving the economy definitely would have given him the win).

All the pundits on tv are talking about how he kind of got put to the ''test'' the last 3 days and didn''t close the deal. Okay, I think there''s something to that, but consider that it wasn''t just a do-or-die Hildebeast who was attacking him, and it wasn''t just about mishandling the whole economist meeting about NAFTA - Barack was also simultaneously taking incoming from McCain on Iraq AND a mysteriously leaked memo from the Canadian government. Like it wasn''t just the kitchen sink from Hillary, it was also the everybody else''s kitchen sinks being thrown at the same time.

[unlocking-2009]

If Americans are so fair minded as we claim Hillary should have bowed out long ago. The nubers are not there unless the superdelegates do the opposite of what the American people want.

If the shoe were on the other foot we uld not be having this conversaton. Of coure the press want their own press and coverage by keeping he story alive.

The real story is that you can lose 11 straight, be mathematically behind in the delegates and still win the nomination.

Reminds me of Florida, Bush and Gore.

[samthetvcat]

What''ll take Hillary down is to take people down memory lane to show Hillary''s ''strength'' and ''determination'' at it''s worst . . . letting her friend go to prison rather than allow her to testify in the Whitewater trial, the ''I''m not some woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette'' with a split screen of Monica Lewinsky, her introducing herself to America as being not just ''staying home baking cookies'' . . . it was kind of before my time, but I''m sure there are tons of salacious tidbits that others can remember.

I think if Hillary''s making the argument that the GOP are going to be throwing Rezko in Barack''s face, then it''s fair game to point out what the GOP are going to be throwing at her . . . bonus points if either Barack or McCain are able to secure the endorsement of Gennifer Flowers.

[samthetvcat]

Ooh - I saw some good attack ideas on another website. Yeah, team Barack ought to say they really have to give Hillary her props for her determination because nobody''s been able to get her to do stuff that all the other candidates have done like:

- release tax records
- release white house records
- return questionable donations
- etc

[samthetvcat]

pt 3

Ms. ''hard worker'', why doesn''t/didn''t she:

- read the NIE before voting to go to war on Iraq
- create any jobs as co-founder of the Senate manufacturing caucus?
- have a plan for withdrawing from Iraq? If she''s so experienced and ready why wait until day one to get started?
- have a plan for reworking trade agreements in place rather than wait until day one to think something up?

[samthetvcat]

PS Oh and with regards to not reading the NIE, Hillary''s on the Senate Armed Services Committee''s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities whose SPECIFIC JOB it is to keep track of the threat level of terrorism and wmd''s.

[watcher269-2009]

What I get a kick out of is - that Republicans need about half (1/2) of the votes that Democrats need to win a Primary - and OBVIOUSLY one qurater (1/4) or less of the BRAINS to win a Presidency!

[samthetvcat]

Oh, and also Barack ought to say that a candidate who would ever say that caucuses don''t matter is really saying that WE (the people) don''t matter. When she says superdelegates ought to ignore the popular vote, she''s saying WE (the people) ought to be ignored.

Rather than put pressure on Hillary to drop out, team Barack maybe should instead show confidence and say that they''re all about the people seeing who really thrives under the pressure of a head to head and that it''s time to fully ''vet'' princess Hillary to make sure she''s really entitled to the throne she believes herself to be entitled to . . .

[kaliveotin]

Who has won the most delegates in actual Democratic primaries, where only democrats vote. How have primaries where only democrats and independants voted turn out? Furthermore, has there been a difference in Primaries where Republicans cross over as spoilers, voting for the individual they''d want to run against in November. How have the caucuses been different, being decided by the younger voters who have the health and energy to attend an uncomfortable caucus, but who will be a small percentage of the voters in Novembers general election? Obamas supporters say (with respect to super-delegates) that the choice should not be as designed by the party, but should reflect the will of the voters. Then shouldnt they also support the candidate who got the most "Democratic" votes in the more democratic primaries. Caucusses are a very poor reflection of how the masses will vote in November.
Isn''t 60% of democratic voters in a Republican state generally a VERY SMALL percentage of actual potential voters? The democrats are heading to a terrible defeat if they let a young elite group of voters who are voting for OBAMA simply because they view him as Anti-establishment combined with african americans who overwhemingly support Obama simply because hes
black and a small group of Republican voters who have supported Obama because theyre afraid of Hillary. It seems the democratic nomination is being hijacked by voters motivated by non-democratic principles.

[keithepike]

Barack needs to say what he means. I really mean he needs to say what he means. Quit Quoiting other people and tell me what he means.

[samthetvcat]

Where was Bill tonight anyway? I have no reason to doubt that he wasn''t with Monica Lewinski, Gennifer Flowers, or some other ''other'' woman . . . as far as I know . . . I will take him at his word . . . of course not, of course not.

He sure wasn''t pouring over the white house records to facilitate their release (cackle cackle cackle) . . .

[samthetvcat]

Kaliveotin, what I want to know is why Hillary hasn''t managed to end one election night with more delegates than Barack? No election day happens in a vacuum - how one state chooses to vote tends to impact how other states choose to vote, and Barack even when he ''loses'' has maintained or surpassed Hillary in net delegates by the end of the evening (New Hampshire, Nevada, Super Tuesday, etc, etc, last night, tbc . . . )

[keithepike]

I don''t know if this is important but watching the news they keep coming up with Vermont results and not RI. Does RI count. All you Wamerjammer let me know.

[samthetvcat]

Sure, Rhode Island counts because apparently Hillary''s got some great momentum built up because she believes she''s proven that she''s the ''stronger'' candidate better able to beat the GOP in a general, and seen as more ''capable'' of managing the economy and national security.

So since she''s got this great momentum based on what she believes to be her ''superior'' capability and 3 wins tonight, then the next couple of states ought to be a sure-things for her, wouldn''t you say?

[keithepike]

SamTheTVCat, Bravo,Bravo.

[keithepike]

It comes down to Phillida Fredom.

[wooha3]

Barack still leads in delegates, super delegates and MONEY raised from grassroots supporters! So how is Hillary back on track? She has not gained any ground, and Barack is closer to the nomination. And one more question, when will Hillary release her income information, and the White House papers? Barack has released all information, he doesnt take money from PACs or Washington lobbyists and he doesnt smear Hillary with cheap shots or emotional displays. He is genuine and he will lead our country and restore honor, judgment and integrity to the White House.

[hobbitofohio]

Buyer''s hesitation? NO I voted for her because he made false statements to us about his stand on free trade. After his comments in the early primaries about his passing a law to protect us from the Nuclear power companies. (Which he did not do.) I find I can not tell what is smooth talk to get elected and what is really him on the issues. Which words can I trust from him? I have no idea so I did not vote for him. That is not buyer''s hesitation. I call it telling a snake oil salemen to get lost.

By the way, I will not vote for him in the fall if he is on the ballet. I am loyal to the party, so i will write in FDR. Since 1945, he is dead. However I figure he makes a better president then the golden talking Barack who clearly is not truthful.

[jason101other]

We''re on our way to the White House. It is clear that Obama''s balloon is losing air. His armor is tarnished, and his speeches are sounding repetitive and hackneyed. America is waking up. Clinton also surpassed total number of votes cast in the whole primary cycle.

[samthetvcat]

Ooh, the tide has already turned - no logical explanations for why Hillary can''t win caucuses. Has she won any caucus other than Nevada?

As for her argument that because she wins states she can win the election, she won Nevada and paradoxically polling shows Obama could win Nevada in a general election but Hillary can''t - same with Michigan. Neither can win Texas, Florida, or OHIO!and California, Massachusetts, New York, will NEVER vote GOP. What a ''fairy tale!''

As for ''as Ohio goes, so goes the nation'', more evidence the Clintons'' are stuck in the 90''s, much like when they pointed to the past to say that ''Jessie Jackson won South Carolina''. Like I said above if the nation goes as does Ohio, she''s really saying that John McCain''s going to be the winner.

Why can''t Hillary win a caucus? What about her momentum?

[samthetvcat]

As for the Rezko incident, maybe Barack should use the opportunity to highlight a soon-to-be drawn up plan for Presidential accountability because as all the candidates'' pasts demonstrate with Whitewater/Travelgate, and the Keating 5/VickiPaxsongate, it''s human nature to be susceptible to certain temptation.

He could turn this into an opportunity to prove he will earn peoples'' trust and also point out how dirty his rivals are at the same time . . .

[susanbarone]

Should DEMOCRATS be concerned about their Nominee being able TO WIN ONLY IN CAUCUSES BUT NOT ANY BIG PRIMARIES?! That too Democrat Primaries!!!!!!
Does it mean Democrats have no play in NOV GENERAL ELECTION?!

[samthetvcat]

susanbarone, Obama DID win big states like Illinois, Virginia, Washington. New York and New Jersey are Hillary''s home states so if you don''t want to count Illinois, you shouldn''t count them either.

Here''s a tip in case you hadn''t heard - it''s really WASN''T the vast right-wing conspiracy at play . . . sometimes the Clintons lie . . .

[samthetvcat]

PS Also whats up with both Hillary and her supporters casting stones from glass houses? Is it because she can''t manage money that she can''t win caucuses? Is her campaign still $12.7mil in debt? Did Mark Penn get paid his $4mil last month yet?

[susanbarone]

SamTheTVCat
Hi,I did not count Illinois as I thought it was Obama''s Home state!!Pardon me if I''m wrong.But I would count New York,Massachusetts,New Jersey,California,Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Texas as big ones. Obama did win Missouri but by a hair''s breadth.
Either way the point is who best can take on McCain in an ELECTION and win. Are we overlooking something if OBAMA CANNOT WIN DEMOCRATI PRIMARIES?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[samthetvcat]

susanbarone, yeah exactly what I thought - so when it''s Hillary''s home state it counts, but when it''s Obama''s home state it doesn''t.

You''re also ignoring that Virginia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, South Carolina, DC, plus many more were all Primaries . . . did you really not know that or are you just trying to use the double standard for that argument too?

Maybe those arguments''ll work on superdelegates who don''t know how to read and have IQ''s less than maybe 40. But given that they''re all big wigs or elected officials, I don''t think that would be a safe bet.

Of course Hillary''s probably got a different argument for behind closed doors - if superdelegates give her the nom, be sure to start seeing new crops of national parks in areas near you :p

[samthetvcat]

PS By the way, Wisconsin BECOMES a blue state if Barack''s the nominee. It''s only red if Hillary is the nominee.

[susanbarone]

SamTheTVCat
Regarding DC,SC,Virginia,etc being big primaries at par with New york,New Jersey,Massachusetts,California,Florida or even Texas...........I guess you know the answer best and my job is not to convince you otherwise!!
My interest is only in seeing to it that Bushies and Co pay a price for taking us on a ride and for that you need a viable candidate who CAN WIN BIG PRIMARIES OR ELECTIONS.
Anyway you could be right about OBAMA being the better candidate and only time and Nov will tell.If People respond to the Security 3 a.m ADVERT for Hillary who has no security experience(!) imagine what they would do if you put Mccain in that advert!!
Anyway your arguments seem to be reduced to a bar room brawl or you have really unhealthy likening for BARACK!
Go DEMS 2008!!! Bye for now.And take care of yourself!!

[samthetvcat]

If Hillary can''t prove she can win a purple state even with this HUMONGOUS momentum and an apparently ''strong'' message of ''experience'' and ''plans'' and ''hard work'', then we can''t afford to have her only able to win solid blue states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

She can''t even win Michigan and Nevada which Barack can.

And she doesn''t bring in any new states like Florida, Texas, or Ohio, which have taken a turn for the Red.

So isn''t it really a sign of weakness that all her votes are concentrated in states which even Obama can win? All her votes are in disproportionately in California, New York, etc . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"Anyway your arguments seem to be reduced to a bar room brawl"---
susanbarone

omg, pot meet kettle . . . good luck to you . . .

[ji_john]

I hate eating crow. But Hillary won a victory, however immoral it was. Her negative campaigning, coupled with the Obama gaff with the Canadian Counsulate, led her to win the Ohio and Texas Primaries. The Texas Caucus, however, is trickling in slowly, and Obama will still have the lead in delegates when the day is over. Is it buyer''s remorse, or is it because Hillary and her negative campaign smears dominated the news cycle for the five days leading up to March 4th? I tend toward the latter. I think it''s unwise to keep hitting Obama on his ethics, because Hillary is no model of stellar service, as she made herself out to be. If her past (or her husband''s, for that matter) were to be disclosed, this Primary season would be different. If she wins the Nomination, God forbid, the Republicans will expose every descrepancy down to her bare bones. But Obama has weathered setbacks before (New Hampshire; I don''t know if you can call Super Tuesday a setback, but Hillary supporters can), and he can do it again. Clinton is going to push one negative button too many, and then you may see some real fireworks.

[jack3213]

My goodness, this media nonsense can make one go neurotic with their flip flopping about each candidate after each contest! Clinton did not landslide Obama, she barely won by a few points. It was McCain who won by a large margin and this should tell you something. Get a grip!

[shayjo-2009]

Here is the deal,
Hillary won because she went negative in the most fear mongering and racist way. I am a life long Democrat and I promise if she gets the nomination for our party (which I am thinking of leaving and becoming an independent) then it would prove only one thing, the nonsense which has existed in Washington for the past 15 years will continue. Texans and Ohioans were dooped. Mr. Obama can and will prevail.

[tbweb]

Sen. John McCain has no money, has a divided Republican Party and wins in every Poll ever taken against Sen. Hillary Clinton, no Poll ever taken shows Sen. Clinton beating Sen. John McCain! Sen. Clinton would enter a general election campaign with high divisive negatives with over 50% of the electorate claiming they would never Vote for her under any conditions! A wounded Sen. McCain now gets a 3 month break without being attacked while the Democrats continue to fight on. Sen. McCain gets to raise money and unite Republicans for 3 months untouched by the Democrats. Whats worst is every attack Ad Senators Clinton and Obama use against each other from now on will be copied and used by Republicans in the Fall Campaign! The Democratic strategy should be in the context of the bigger election picture, Democrats should wrap it up since they will only have 8 weeks to campaign against Sen. McCain which plays into his hands since he has little money for a long fight. Sen. Clinton being selfish is in effect electing John McCain President!

[cattlekate]

We are doomed to hearing President McCain condescendingly call us his "friends" for the next four years and continue the Bush&Co policy of destroying the middle class. Hillary cannot win the general election. I can''t believe the Ohio results. (Texas was a squeeker.)

[jack3213]

It is actually quite perfect if Clinton is chosen the Dem candidate to run against McCain- she will most definately lose. Most know it, too and now that she has won only three states the country is back in its comfortable state of denial. Even if she won all the rest, mathematically she cannot win- the superdelagates have to decide. Good luck with that. You want a better chance of having a Democrat, vote Obama.

[craigh9]

The exit polls in both Ohio and Texas are very telling. In both states one demographic made all the difference in the primaries. Hillary won by large margins with the less educated voters. Isn''t that interesting - she is bouyed by those that as a group buy much more into the negative campaign she is running and the fear she invokes - while those that are more educated and more likely to think for themselves and what might really be best for the country shy away from her. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Hillary.

[paris1969]

Obama would not have been such a shining star if Clinton had been given the delegates for Florida and Michigan which she deserves. She just did not win against Obama last night, she won against Media bias, Oprah, and reverse discrimination.

[jyu1915]

"Hillary won because she went negative in the most fear mongering and racist way."

Posted by shayjo

You make a good point. The more I think about that 60 minute interview where she says, "He''s not a muslim...AS FAR AS I KNOW", the more I feel disgusted with her. The comment makes me suspect that she had full knowledge about the photo that was publicized with Obama in an African outfit. Her tactics really helped her in Ohio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYspjJCjgX8

[cattlekate]

Posted by paris1969 at 08:44 AM : Mar 05, 2008

Paris - please read up on those races, who was on the ticket and why, and why the delagates do not, and cannot, count.

[realpatriot1]

Paris1969,

Why does Hillary deserve the Michigan and Florida delegates? Because she ran unopposed? I guess Chavez deserves to be President of Venezuela and Sadaam shouls still rule with 100% Iraqi support.

Hillary signed an agreement to not campaign in those states then broke it when she knew she could run unopposed. Her committment to the principles of democracy are not exactly inspiring.

If the Michigan delegates are seated the almost 50% who voted none of the above should be awarded proportionately.

[vet_sk]

paris1969: You''re ignorant. Even with Florida, Obama is still ahead in the popular vote. In any event, if you don''t want to abide by contracts, then don''t sign them. Hillary and all the rest signed them.

Hillary won last night because she went negative - fitting of her personality of just fighting. I thought that Texas and Ohio could see through that. We don''t have to go negative just state the clear facts - but of course, Hillary is not too good with those, as she voted for the Iraq War. Only those who have not really lost anything in that war, will tell you that is history. ...but it is not. It it reality. She knew what she was doing. And the Iraq oil for food program of the 90s where UN reports say over a million died due to that. It is just that feel good Clinton foreign policy.

[liberalvet]

Hillary took a page right out of the Karl Rove play book. Fact is that was all that was left for her to do and it barely worked for her.

The Democratic party needs to unite or they will pay for it in the general. Hillary''s dirt slinging is doing nothing but driving a wedge into the party and fueling the GOP war wagon.

In the past couple of weeks I have lost much respect for her, and I am sure that most educated Democrats have as well. Her recent negative actions will come back to haunt her, but I fear it will not matter as her and Bill will strong arm the Super Delegates into voting for her in the end.

If that happens I see a terrible and most horrifying scenario where the GOP will retain the White House, which is something that will result in the last of America being detroyed.

[vet_sk]

Analysis: Buyer''s Hesitation For Dems? What a rediculous headline. Are people voting more than once in this primary?

CBS is just exagerating this whole thing. Likely just to keep it going and making the news media ritcher has huge amounts of campaign money are being funneled in.

If they try to move this election in a direction other then where the delegates are headed, the Dems will lose for sure in Novemeber. The Obama supporters will certainly not vote for a candidate who steals the primary.

[l8c6]

Obama''s campaign argues that this is less a race about winning states and more about winning delegates. But winning pledged delegates alone probably won''t get him the nomination, as long as Clinton remains in the race, splitting the haul to the end.

Uh yeah, and what is it from Obama supporters?, their detest of super delegates and demanding they go in favor of the popular vote. It''s not about winning states at least for now. Same old of any politician, something is right when it works in favor of them.

[liberalvet]

Obama would not have been such a shining star if Clinton had been given the delegates for Florida and Michigan which she deserves. She just did not win against Obama last night, she won against Media bias, Oprah, and reverse discrimination.

Posted by paris1969 at 08:44 AM : Mar 05, 2008

Obviously you are amoung the lower educated populace that is the target market for the Hillary machine. Florida and Michigan did not abide by the established rules, which made thier delegates not count. The candidates agreed and signed a contract not to campaign in those states, but Hillary violated that. She was the only candidate on the Democratic ballot in Michigan. In Florida her campaign was in high gear, I know for I live there. Since our delegates were deemed to not count many Democrats, me included did not waste our time to go to the polls. If our vote had counted we would have turned out in the same large numbers as in all other states. Had Michigan and Florida not moved up thier primaries, I strongly feel Hillary would have lost them to Obama.

[l8c6]

There is an old saying that''s probably in Texas. It can be heard in other places. "Don''t throw the baby out with the bath water". If Hillary were to become president it, won''t hurt Obama''s future as a strong leader and president but Obama could hurt the steps necessary to begin change. Experience does matter and Obama has not been in Washington to learn what he really faces. His "advisors" will lead as Darth Vader has led the current Mascot.

Force the craft into an abrupt maneuver and the wings may separate. Turn the craft with careful skill and a new course will be set.

[l8c6]

Those people who say if Hillary wins they will vote for McCain but if Obama wins they will vote for Obama are right wing republicans playing a game of strategy. If the illogic of such assertions don''t send red flags up for the people truly concerned that change take place, then it''s a troubling thought such folks may be driving the freeways in close proximity.