Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Lunchtime Quickie | Praise for 10,000 B.C. »

Friday, March 21, 2008

The Clinton Myth

posted by on March 21 at 12:02 PM

From The Politico:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

RSS icon Comments

1

Well, of course.

I thought that was obvious.

She also, in addition to the Primary, has an uphill battle for the General election.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 21, 2008 12:08 PM
2

As a Clinton supporter, I encourage the repetition of this line by the media. It worked wonders in New Hampshire.

Posted by chicagogaydude | March 21, 2008 12:16 PM
3

Eli, you are seriously in need of an intervention.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 21, 2008 12:16 PM
4

One big fact: "virtually" is pretty subjective.

Posted by pbaitch | March 21, 2008 12:18 PM
5

i didn't realize it was so out of hand. i had the impression the race was neck and neck...i knew he had more delegates...but i was thinking if she won PA and then they re-voted in florida AND michigan AND she won both...THEN the superdelegates who want her would feel comfortable voting for her...lately, it sounds like they won't be revoting, right? then obama is the winner...sucks to be florida and michigan (constituents) and not have your vote count.

Posted by uhmmmm | March 21, 2008 12:19 PM
6

If by "lost" you mean "mentioned in every Slog thread about the election" you are correct.

Next on Politico: The never talked about housing crisis.

Sheesh.

Posted by arduous | March 21, 2008 12:21 PM
7

Nothing on the rush on banks either.... you know Great Depression type stuff.

Posted by Andrew | March 21, 2008 12:22 PM
8

it's true. which makes it even more tragic to see that she's willing to destroy the democratic party for no good reason.

Posted by brett | March 21, 2008 12:25 PM
9

I guess Clinton holdouts should all keep hoping that superdelegates change their mind by the dozen and overrule the popular vote. Although it'd be interesting to hear the convoluted rationale for why it's a good thing for the will of the general public to be overruled by a bunch of party elites.

Posted by tsm | March 21, 2008 12:25 PM
10

Yeah, outside of the front page of the third-largest daily in the country, a day before the Politico's post. The sound of silence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html

Posted by Eric F | March 21, 2008 12:33 PM
11

@2: You may or may not have noticed, but we've had a few primary since NH. Comparing the statement of "can't win" now versus then is like comparing a declaration of victory in a football game in the first 3 minutes of the 1st Q to down-by-28-with-2-minutes-left-in-the-4th: of course, she could score a crapload of points in that time... if the other team went home.

Posted by torrentprime | March 21, 2008 1:07 PM
12

Incidentally, remember that batshit woman from NY NOW? I love her press releases.

[Callers to NY NOW] are infuriated that a woman with exemplary qualifications could be supplanted by a man with limited experience and scant qualifications ... It has been further suggested by callers that if Obama's supporters are so anxious for Party unity, they should convince him to drop out because Hillary Clinton has won all the big states a candidate needs to take the Presidency.

Limited experience? You mean the guy who's been in public office two years longer than Hillary Clinton has? And I guess we should be reassured knowing that Clinton has won "big state" primaries, as John Kerry did.

Posted by tsm | March 21, 2008 1:17 PM
13

Well, democrats ARE a deluded bunch.

Posted by Gomez | March 21, 2008 1:17 PM
14

Except that she has every chance of winning... she's backed by the weapons industry and an array of heavy hitters. I'll bet even the CIA backs her.
I'm voting Obama, but I think either Clinton or McCain are going to "win" the presidency.

Posted by treacle | March 21, 2008 1:29 PM
15

Thank god for NY NOW. Thank god for Marcia Pappas. The Rudy Guliani 9/11 exploitation is genius.

Posted by elenchos | March 21, 2008 1:32 PM
16

*Yawn*. So the supes would have to break for Hillary. Let me just file this in my "No Shit Sherlock" file.

Posted by Big Sven | March 21, 2008 2:01 PM
17

Which means she has to kneecap Obama, without leaving fingerprints on the tire iron.....

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 21, 2008 2:02 PM
18

all of the true progressives (not liberals or Dems, but progressives...) should not fear Clinton destroying the Democratic party. It NEEDS to be destroyed. We hang onto it just because we see it as a better alternative than the R's. But if it went away, we'd get something new and better, hopefully something truly progressive that would get something done. We might even get a Party with members who would stand up for what they believe in.

The Democratic Party is the status quo. It's stale, generally out of touch and out of ideas and controlled by big money and Christians. I actually see an Obama win as worse for the Democratic Party - at least the establishment part of the party. Obama's biggest fear is the "liberal" establishment who would be empowered and enriched by Clinton, but who would lose that with Obama.

Posted by Meinert | March 21, 2008 2:29 PM
19

generally agree but with kerry, kennedy, and so many of the establishment on his side I don't think they "lose" if he wins

Posted by McG | March 21, 2008 3:35 PM
20

What will all of Obama's supporters say when he is unable to gain enough votes to win before the primary?

Are these the same supporters who argue against FL and MI because "we all agreed to the rules before the game started?"

Posted by six shooter | March 21, 2008 7:33 PM
21

@20 I wonder what all the Hillary supporters will say when McCain kicks her ass?

Posted by catnextdoor | March 21, 2008 11:21 PM
22

I must concur with catnextdoor. Based on purely anecdotal evidence and hunches, HRC will lose to McCain big time. So many of those "independents" aka "don't know what the fuck they believe and easily swayed by posturing" just wont vote for HRC, ever. They hate her. And they find McCain highly palatable. If any other Republican were the nominee, I'd say she had a shot.

Posted by Dianna | March 23, 2008 12:49 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).