PHILADELPHIA, April 23, 2008

Clinton Campaign Gets Pulled Back In

Washington Post: Just When You Think They Might Be Out, N.Y. Senator's Campaign Shows Resiliency Again

  • Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., appears on her campaign plane during a flight to a rally in Indianapolis Wednesday, April 23, 2008.  (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

From Our Partner:
(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Dana Milbank for the Washington Post's Washington Sketch column.

Somebody, please make it stop.

It's primary night -- again. Barack Obama is on the verge of eliminating Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination -- again. And Clinton -- her campaign broke and written off by the pundits -- wins. Again.

This time it's Pennsylvania -- home of Punxsutawney Phil, the rodent made famous by the movie "Groundhog Day," in which Bill Murray is forced to relive the same day, over and over. So it is with the Democratic Party in this never-ending campaign season.

"Some counted me out and said to drop out," the victorious Clinton declared here Tuesday night, in the latest iteration of her comeback-kid speech. "But the American people don't quit. And they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either."

On other Tuesday nights through the winter and spring, Democrats waited to see whether Obama would finally put it away -- in New Hampshire, in California and the other Super Tuesday states, and then in Ohio and Texas. Each time, Clinton narrowly survived. This time, the candidates had nearly two months to persuade Pennsylvania voters to deliver a definitive result -- and again the race was left in limbo.

With history repeating itself as farce, the exhausted reporters covering the Democratic seesaw decided to take matters into their own hands. Instead of accepting a Clinton win, the media announced in advance that, to be declared the victor, she had to beat a point spread -- a point spread determined by, well, the media.

"If Clinton wins by more than 10 points," decreed CNN's Bill Schneider, "her campaign will have new momentum and she will soldier on."

"At least 10 percentage points," the Los Angeles Times concurred, citing unnamed superdelegates.

Even foreigners wanted in on the game. Britain's Guardian newspaper said Clinton "needs to win by a margin of 10 percent or more."

Dan Balz, The Post's magnanimous chief political writer, suggested alternatives. "Some say Clinton needs to win by 10 points," he wrote. "Others say eight points. "Some say . . . anything over five points would be a respectable victory."

Clearly, setting the spread is not a science -- but there is some justification for it. Before Tuesday, Clinton trailed Obama in the popular vote, in delegates won and in states won -- and it will be difficult for her to persuade the party's superdelegates to make her the Democratic nominee if she can't win one of those categories. Even the easiest of those hurdles, a deficit of 700,000 in the popular vote, can't be erased without lopsided wins here and in the remaining primary states.

The campaigns must have agreed with the logic of the spread game, for they began to play it themselves.

The Obama campaign began Tuesday morning with an e-mailed memo to "interested parties." It pointed out that, in polls, Clinton "led by as much as 25 points." And it quoted the Philadelphia Inquirer saying she needs to "take the state big, perhaps by double digits."

The Clinton campaign retaliated with its own memo, also to "interested parties," asking: "Shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight?"

Late in the afternoon, the early round of exit polls came in: a four-point Clinton advantage. By any other standard, that would presage a win. But by the standard of the spread, it hinted at crushing defeat.

Urgent action was required. Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe and booster Lanny Davis left the Park Hyatt -- scene of the Clinton primary party -- and took their case to the Fox News camera near a bus stop on Broad Street. How big a win does Clinton need? "A win is a win," McAuliffe decreed. Another Clinton adviser, Ann Lewis, went to the camera risers in the ballroom. "A win is a win," she echoed.

Except when it's not.

In the Hyatt ballroom, the crowd gave an energetic cheer when the CNN screen showed the first returns: Clinton leading, 65 percent to 35 percent. "Yes, she can!" they cheered, perhaps not noticing that only 3,000 votes had been counted.

The journalists were unimpressed. "A minute 40 left," somebody called out. Until polls closed? No -- in the Philadelphia Flyers' hockey game.

At 9 p.m., word traveled that the Associated Press had called the race for Clinton. Minutes later, CNN flashed "Clinton Wins Penn. Primary" on the screen, and the crowd gave an extended cheer. Only those looking at the fine print noticed that the margin had shrunk to 52 to 48 -- not enough to beat the spread.

"A win is a win," McAuliffe repeated, on CNN. "We were outspent three to one," he pleaded.

The pundits disagreed.

"It's also so much about the margin of victory for Hillary Clinton," CNN host Campbell Brown reminded viewers.

"She needed a big victory," David Gergen agreed. "The numbers we're looking at so far suggest she did not. . . . For a blowout victory, it has to be above 10 points."

In the Hyatt ballroom, the Clinton campaign battled that view. "There'll be all this discussion about the margin, the over and under and all that stuff," Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter told the crowd, which responded with boos. "A win is a win."

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, taking the microphone next, challenged those "talking about our shrinking margin." Said Rendell: "It's 10:15 and our margin is growing." It was true -- Clinton's advantage had edged toward the magic 10-point spread ordained by the commentariat. The candidate, with her mother, husband and daughter, sounded many of the same underdog themes she uttered on earlier primary nights: "no wavering in the face of adversity," fighting for "everyone who's ever been counted out," and, of course, disproving the "pundits [who] questioned whether Pennsylvanians would trust me."

Mostly, however, she defied Obama. "He broke every spending record in this state trying to knock us out of this race," she declared. "Well, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas tonight."

And now, Punxsutawney Hillary and the Democrats get to do the whole thing all over again, two weeks from now.

By Dana Milbank
© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by rowdytexan2 April 24, 2008 9:40 PM EDT
Posted by John_Lai at 01:48 AM : Apr 24, 2008

Well said!
Reply to this comment
by fstop100 April 24, 2008 9:06 PM EDT
Did anyone else besides me see her nose grow longer when she said what she could do for this country?
Reply to this comment
by spoonerfineart April 24, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
Each side is going to have its favorites and special states. If you had a state filed with old white women, guess who would win that state, Hillary (Oh that state exist, it''s called Pennsylvania). Likewise, If you had a state filled with Black voters guess who would win that state (see North Carolina results two weeks from now). Hillary argues, "Why can''t he close the deal" I say to you, wait till the NC result and ask "Why can''t she get the Black vote"

AND SO GO THE STATES ... DIVERSE

The question you have to ask, WHAT IS THE RESULTS OF THE CUMULATIVE VOTE AMONG ALL VOTING AMERICANS. THAT IS TRULEY YOUR MEASURE.

Right now it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win this nomination(unless she uses the same fuzzy math calculator Bush has used)
Reply to this comment
by emelder April 24, 2008 11:38 AM EDT
"They say we''re young .. and we don''t know ... I got you babe ... I got you."
Reply to this comment
by fuzzybear9 April 24, 2008 10:43 AM EDT
`` Phil , Phil , Phil ?

I''m Ned Betty , Needle Nose Ned ``

`` am I right ? , right, right, right ? ``


Ok so where is Needle Nose Ned Betty
when we need a candidate ?

I predict 6 more months of Winter .
it should clear up in August.

sincerely your Puxatawy Prognosticating Bear
Fuzzy
Reply to this comment
by fuzzybear9 April 24, 2008 10:37 AM EDT
Hello COrncerned Citizens

`` This time it''s Pennsylvania -- home of Punxsutawney Phil, the rodent made famous by the movie "Groundhog Day," in which Bill Murray is forced to relive the same day, over and over. So it is with the Democratic Party in this never-ending campaign season.
``
might I just add to this insightful CBS tid bit that
yes Its 6:00 AM all over again and
America is caught up in the dayshavu

daishavu ?

daisha`vu ?

daiseshavu ?

hum sound it out day-sha-vu

there`s the crossword, word of the day

sincerely Fuzzy bear

Reply to this comment
by bos123 April 24, 2008 8:15 AM EDT
truth-hurts: YES!!!!!!!She will be the next President of the Liers and Snipers Fire Club.
Reply to this comment
by Lai K W April 24, 2008 4:48 AM EDT
Everywhere I go, the Obama fanatics have been cheating on facts, on labels, on stereotypes, on making new rules of primary, on lying to the public, on making up phony records for the wimp that runs away from debates now.

The first time the media start ask some questions that they should ask long ago, the time that he quit debates altogether. What a sore loser!!! He is losing and he claims that he is winning. Whatever OBAMA said, you just have to interpret in the reverse direction.

This wimp enjoys huge crowd of college kids chanting his name like receiving the saviour but he isn''t. He comes out of church of hatred.

He is out of touch with the hardworking, but glossy institutionalized nerds. How despicable!

It is utterly wrong to split evenly the delegates of Florida, and Michigan. The Obama campaign is shamelessly making suggestions like burglar who rob people''s civil right and people are no more than loot. It does make you angry and blown out of top.
Reply to this comment
by pepperwood2 April 24, 2008 3:31 AM EDT
Hillary Hillary Hillary - What''s the story! Now you''re talking about obliterating the Iranians. You''re sure talking tough since that doctor changed you''re medication. Maybe it''s PMS? or Both? You haven''t been too stable since you charged across that landing strip in Bosnia knocking out those snipers.

Just what is it with you? I know, you''re running out of cash and are trying to impress your Jewish Contributors so you can clean them out of a few more million Right?

You were against the war before you joined the Bush Brigade & voted for it. You were against NAFTA before you supported it. You wanted to rescue our Troops in Mogandishu before you abandoned them. You were against the Rwandan Genocide but in their time of need allowed it to happen. 35 years in Washington, it is time to take your $110,000,000 and go.

You been making some pretty outrageous statements since you downed a few shots with Rendell. It is important that you don''t take alcohol with your medications. Remember that your suppose to be looking for ways to bring Our Troops Home. Not to Incite the whole Muslim World. Time to Chill out! You''re so unstable & transparent Sooo Sad!
Reply to this comment
by tibu987 April 23, 2008 11:40 PM EDT
It is time for Obama to go on the offensive against the belittling insults from the Clinton twins.
The Clintons, perhaps the most conniving, lying, scandalous pols to ever reach the White House should not be allowed there again.

The Clintons background from Arkansas to Washington has been one of scandals from the beginning, one of which even caused the suicide of one of their close associates.
Then, there is the matter of a one million dollars donation to Hillary''s campaign by indicted donor Norman Hsu. The money had to be returned.

How does it go. "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones".

Obama remains a breath of fresh air in Washington and has my vote.
Reply to this comment
by onceagirl April 23, 2008 10:59 PM EDT
Excuse me...I am forgiving my fellow WASP women for voting for Senator Clinton....they know not what they do!
Reply to this comment
by blkpresident April 23, 2008 10:50 PM EDT
Hillary-Steinem ''08?

America can do better than this. Wonder who they would tap as Secretary of Defense, Jane Fonda?
Reply to this comment
by relee42 April 23, 2008 10:45 PM EDT
Actually Hillary and Barack were divided by only about 9.3% points which rounds to 9%. That means that if 4.7% of her voters had gone the other way, she would have lost. She actually lost support as time went on, but only Hillary can call that a huge double digit turn the tide rout.
Reply to this comment
by mrtutto April 23, 2008 10:45 PM EDT
Hillary''''s new slogan is " Why can''''t he close the deal?" Someone should remind Hillary that they are running for the office of the President of the United States and that they are not some used car salesmen. Keep counting those imaginary delegates from Michigan and Florida. If there is one thing that America stands for, is that We are a nation of Laws, and Michigan and Florida broke the Democratic laws. The Democratic Party is not going to show the rest of the country that they will break their own rules."If we had the same system as the Republicans, I would already be the nominee...." yet another Clinton scenario for winning the primary. Do you think that you can make any other points as to whether the superdelegates should back Hillary ? Why did the media fail to chastise Ed Rendell " There are some people in this State that will not vote for a black man" but they vote for someone who channels Truman and said " we can totally obliterate Iran" By the way that wasn''''t McCain who made that statement... it was Hillary. I did not say Clinton, because you may have understood it to be Bill Clinton.... Hillary won by 8.5 points and not 10
Reply to this comment
by kansas1946 April 23, 2008 9:47 PM EDT
Unfortunately, whether Hillary keeps stating that she is winning the "big" states that she needs to win in November it don''t make it so. She is running against another Democrat in these "big" states. Most Democrats will probably support her in Novemeber, but no Republican will vote for her no matter how much they don''t like McCain, and she will split the independents which she needs to win. Obama will get Republican votes, the Democrat''s votes, and a huge percentage of independents. So if you want a Democrat elected, then I believe you should support Obama.
Reply to this comment
by lordmi April 23, 2008 9:46 PM EDT
Only Idiots with No brains and fooled by Clintons are voting for them.
Yes, it will take some time to overcome "house hens" and stupid, who never read a word.
We are not in Zimbabwe. We will overcome Idiots and dishonest Monster.
America goes ahead, not back.
Reply to this comment
by truth-hurts April 23, 2008 9:19 PM EDT
Hillary will be the next President.

Its really so simple.

McCain can''t win because of Bush and

The Super Delegates will not take a chance on Obama.

Hillary Can''t Lose.
Reply to this comment
by michael0004 April 23, 2008 8:43 PM EDT
... Why can''''t she close the deal in a state her family has been working for 70 years!!???!!!For Obama to come in, with just 6 weeks of exposure, and whittle off half of Clinton''''s former lead is impressive,... Only Hillary would take a down hill, losing, behind in every category campaign and say "The Tide is Turning"...
----------------------------
Posted by boatdocster at 05:18 PM : Apr 23, 2008

Take another sip of that Kool-Aid. If you do not think that this latest big loss by Obama in a big swing state is not troubling to the super delegates, think again. If the trend continues, after all the primaries have been completed, Clinton will have overtaken Obama in the total popular vote, Obama will have a small lead in elected delegates, neither Clinton nor Obama will have the 2025 delegates needed for the nomination and the superdelegates will have a difficult decision as to who they should support. The biggest thing that Obama will have going for him after the last primary (and this is the dirty little secret that Democratic Party officials and the media will not talk about) is that the supedelegates will back Obama so as not to alienate Obama''s black supporters this year and possibly for years to come. They will give their support to Obama even if it means losing the election in November. Why else would major figures in the Dem. party (Kerry, Kenedy, etc.) back Obama and, along with the Media, since early January, relentlessly try to pressure Clinton to drop out?
Reply to this comment
by boatdocster April 23, 2008 8:18 PM EDT
craigh9

Agree. On top of losing 10-13% of her former lead, the Clinton machine has been in PA for 3 generations, but could not close the deal with power win she claimed was coming. When polls showed her slipping to Barack she started with the "nice to win", then a "Must Win" tone!!! Why can''t she close the deal in a state her family has been working for 70 years!!???!!!

For Obama to come in, with just 6 weeks of exposure, and whittle off half of Clinton''s former lead is impressive, especially in light of the deep Clinton machine that failed to deliver a strong win.

Only Hillary would take a down hill, losing, behind in every category campaign and say "The Tide is Turning"... But tall tales are specialty - just like the "Sniper Fire"...
Reply to this comment
by michael0004 April 23, 2008 7:39 PM EDT
Only Hillary can take an expected win by 22% - turn it into a 10% win, and claim a HUGE victory. Last night changes nothing - she is still too far behind in pledged delegates and the tightening of the popular vote will reverse after North Carolina on 5/6.
Pennsylvania is overwhelmingly White, Older, Blue Collar, and Catholic - everything was set up for her to hit a grand slam homerun - she only managed a single with 1 RBI.
The only difficult pieve of all of this is those that support Hillary will be unbearable for 2 weeks, then they will be compeltely deflated on 5/6/08.
Enjoy it while you can - hard times are coming for the Clinton campaign.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by craigh9 at 03:35 PM : Apr 23, 2008

You ought to be hired by the media, with that kind of spin. A 10 percent win by anyone else against any other candidate would be condidered a landslide regardless of how much money was spent by the loser. But throw in the huge bundles of money that Obama spent in to the huge loss, and it makes your argument absurd. As to Obama''s poor showing among white, older blue collar workers and Catholics, you make a strong case on how Obama may be unelectable in November.
Reply to this comment
See all 21 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie." Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: