Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today's Seattle Times Opinion ... | Clinton Wins Pennsylvania »

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The Subhead Says It All

posted by on April 22 at 19:22 PM


She won—but it’s not going to help. Hillary won’t be able to catch up with Obama. But she can stay in the race, divide the party, and fatally weaken the Democrats eventual nominee. Right now she’s Joseph Lieberman in a skirt.

She can’t win this thing. “It’s impossible for Obama to lose his lead,” says Chuck Todd of NBC News (via Americablog), she’ll need to take 69% to 70% of all the delegates in all the remaining states.

“Crazy numbers,” “impossible,” “the pledged delegate count is over”—when are the adults in the Democratic Party going to step in and end this thing?

UPDATE: Someone out there agrees with Josh….

The long-drawn-out fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is likely to benefit the party in the November general election because its campaigns are gathering massive amounts of data on voters, party strategists said.

Information gathered by supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during door-to-door canvassing has been passed on to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which plans to use it in the November election against the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain.

The data, which can be as simple as a correct phone number and address for a likely Democratic voter, will help the party mobilise its turnout operation and raise money for the costly general election fight, according to party strategists.

RSS icon Comments


I think you mean Lieberman in a pant suit.

Posted by poster girl | April 22, 2008 7:27 PM

Correction, Dan. She's Joe Lieberman in a pantsuit.

Posted by Lou | April 22, 2008 7:27 PM

Correction, Dan. She's Joe Lieberman in a pantsuit.

Posted by Lou | April 22, 2008 7:27 PM

Great minds. I was a couple of seconds faster but yours was better written.

Posted by Poster girl | April 22, 2008 7:29 PM

And don't forget I had to take all that time to click on the Submit button twice.

Posted by Lou | April 22, 2008 7:30 PM

Yeah, but we're talking about the Clintons, the most egomaniacal political couple since, well, anybody.

But remember, the protracted contest keeps getting record numbers of Dems to show up, and keeps voter registration of new Dems super high. Plus, Obama is having to expand his ground game to states that otherwise would be non-competitive. That's going to come in handy in November.

Finally, remember that even Ed Rendell said she needed a double digit victory to stay competitive. Each time this goes on, the money is going to dry up a little bit more, and since she was already $2 million in debt last month, and Obama has more cash than the emir of an oil rich Gulf state, her ability to compete continues to shrink as time goes by, particularly as ain't no one gonna extend her deadbeat campaign credit.

Posted by Gitai | April 22, 2008 7:31 PM

Two things:
1) Dan loves anus so much! He loves his own, he loves other mens in bathrooms, he loves Terry's. He has loved thousands of anus's over the course of his lifetime of buggering. Anything that offends the "anui" of the world is like watching the holocaust happen in front of him. To Dan, the persecution of anus's is like watching his best friend get gassed by nazis at aushwitz.
2) I love it when arrogant and ignorant city folk encounter something from the more rural part of this country. Not that any of you have actually shot a deer. No. Yet you go the extra step and conclude that someone who does is a serial killer. BRILLIANT!!! You guys sure do know a lot about life! I mean, between preening yourselves for a trip down to the glory hole, laughing at homeless people and finding new and exciting ways to make your hair look like shit, how do you have the time to chortle at the backwards ways of the common folk?
I take solace in the fact that city will turn into virtual slaughterhouses and you assholes will become cannibals when the impending collapse happens. That is, until you die from some ungodly illness picked up because you have no idea why it's important to core out your prey's asshole.

Posted by ecce homo | April 22, 2008 7:37 PM

hey dan, don't you mean Joe Lieberman in a pant suit?

Posted by cochise. | April 22, 2008 7:40 PM

Wait. Wait.

We lost the last two elections not because of ads with chanting terrorists burning flags and swiftboating and hanging chads, but because we didn't know people's correct phone numbers? That's all you need to win?

Posted by elenchos | April 22, 2008 7:44 PM

Uhm....Lieberman's suit had pants too.

Posted by Cheeseburger | April 22, 2008 7:50 PM

that lieberman comment bullshit is exactly while i'll never be able to vote for barry.

Posted by yah | April 22, 2008 7:57 PM

ecce is mentally ill and needs help. is there any way to get a social worker out to his house? how does that work, exactly--can you get to a home address thru an email address in case of mental health emergencies?

Posted by ellarosa | April 22, 2008 7:59 PM

She will at least go through the next round. Possibly Oregon, but she's delusional at this point unless she has some major dirt on Obama.

Posted by Cale | April 22, 2008 8:00 PM

Is anybody else watching Obama's speech and wanting to know just what the fuck is up with the crazy homo in the green Abercrombie tee behind Barack?

Posted by Gander | April 22, 2008 8:04 PM

There's actually a trio of Abercrombie homos back there.

Posted by Cheeseburger | April 22, 2008 8:08 PM

Remember when Texas was called for Clinton on the night of the primary and caucus? And then people counted the actual votes, and Obama officially gained more delegates than Clinton in said state?

I think I'll wait for the totals to actually be counted, thanks.

Posted by Dr. Savage Mudede | April 22, 2008 8:08 PM

Yeah, but the one in the white seemed to be paying attention (accept when green was talking to him) and the giant black FITCH had his head chopped off, so you couldn't really tell what he was doing. The one in the green was just going nuts and I SWEAR he was texting behind his sign.

Posted by Gander | April 22, 2008 8:09 PM

@15 EXACTLY. The two on the left were majorly into the politics, and the guy on the right was SOOOOO thinking about S E X.

Posted by Eddy | April 22, 2008 8:11 PM

I am an Obama supporter who will not vote for Hillary under any conditions. I will vote libertarian instead. The problem is that the party is not divided between Hillary and Obama, it is divided on a level deeper than that. This is a three man (well two men one woman) race. It is the Hillary party vs the Obama party vs the Republican party.

A win by McCain will be better then a Hillary win. It will unite the Democrats, something that Hillary can't do. She certainly can't unite America in general.

Posted by Jeff | April 22, 2008 8:18 PM

Re: Hope vs. the Clintonator

Sweet Jeebus, why are white people so gratuitously stupid?

I've been asking that question a helluva lot over the last seven years; it's like our idiocracy has decided to commit slow motion suicide.

Regardless of the answer, we all know this battle’s gonna end in a steel mill and Pennsyltucky’s got plenty of those (or used to anyway).

Posted by Original Andrew | April 22, 2008 8:22 PM

I seriously think ecce homo might be a crackhead or something, or as was said before msybe mentally unstable and in need of help. I'm not kidding.

Posted by Todd | April 22, 2008 8:22 PM

Original Andrew @20: Weird, isn't it? I just cannot fathom why Joe Lunchbucket would vote for Hillary Clinton. McCain, yes. Obama, yes. Joe's wife for Hillary, sure. But your union hall guys? WTF?? Is it racist? Cuz they cannot seriously believe that Hillary "Screw 'em" Clinton gives a flying fuck about them.

Posted by death zombie for clinton | April 22, 2008 8:57 PM

Dan, how exactly can you make the Democrats fatally weaker than by nominating Obama? This is a serious question.

Posted by croydonfacelift | April 22, 2008 10:42 PM
Right now she’s Joseph Lieberman in a skirt.

Oh, Dan.

Posted by Big Sven | April 22, 2008 10:50 PM

So, thanks to Clinton, it's now ok for McCain to run ads trying to scare the public, since she did it first ...

Yeah, way to go ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 23, 2008 12:19 AM

Honestly, how do Clintonites answer to the "Chuck Todd" math? I mean your girl can NOT win without a superdelgate revolt against the will of democratic voters nationwide. So.... what say you to THAT? She will not win, so you are more interested in her proving that she can almost win than in the ACTUAL dem candidate (Obama, since you seem to not know that) winning in November? Seriously, what the hell is your point now other than to burn down the Dem party because your candidate lost?

Posted by longball | April 23, 2008 12:20 AM


By nominating Clinton.

Posted by keshmeshi | April 23, 2008 12:23 AM

Six delegates. All she gained in PA.

And behind by over 100 .. actually by a lot more.

It's not just over. It's OVER.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 23, 2008 12:35 AM

@28: It's more like 16 net delegates.

Posted by ru shur | April 23, 2008 6:40 AM

I agree, it is over and she can't catch up in the delegate count without a coup via the superdelegates which will always look like overturning the will of the people. However much she claims "he can't seal the deal" or "there is buyer's remorse" the fact is people who just so happened to vote earlier are not somehow "worth less" than those who happened to vote later. Obama has won more delegates fair and square.

That said, I think we should all stop the demands for her to drop out. Let her stay in until every state and territory votes. Honestly, pleading and clamoring for her to drop out just fuels the fire of those say they'll never vote for Obama. Hillary's support right now are people who identify with her: people who still believe in identity politics, baby boomer women who are projecting the rage they felt every time they were passed over for a promotion in favor of a male coworker, voters who actually believe the GOP talking points Hillary has co-opted regarding patriotism, those who say her biggest asset is "she's tough and she won't quit!", and those who think Hillary is "saving us from ourselves". Let every state and territory have its vote and then let Obama win the nomination. Having the (mostly male) pundits demand Hillary conceed really just does enrage and embolden the Hillary-or-die types, who've I've always found more emotion-based in their voting than the so-called Kool-Aid drinking Obamatrons. Let this primary run its course. It's unfortunate the Clintons' sense of entitlement has brought it to this, but demeaning and belittling Clinton is throwing gasoline onto exactly what is keeping her momentum going.

Posted by Jason | April 23, 2008 7:07 AM

Have IQ points just dropped precipitously while I've been gone? We Clinton supporters never expected to catch up to Obama in the pledged delegate count.

We expect to win enough of the remaining major primaries to prove that Omaba would be a fundamentally weaker candidate in the general election than his advocates suggest, because he is in fact an ultra-liberal in the Adlai Stephenson model, running a traditionally negative campaign, who loses his eloquence when the going gets tough. Then we hope the undecided superdelegates do the right thing and side overwhelmingly with Clinton.

But by all means, keep harping on the pledged count. We'll keep working the supes.

Posted by Big Sven | April 23, 2008 7:18 AM

ps- was responding to Swill in Seattle, longball, etc. I kinda like Jason@30's post. Though I'm neither a baby boomer or a woman.

Posted by Big Sven | April 23, 2008 7:21 AM

MSM are calling this a 10% win, but that's because they are rounding Hillary up, Obama down, and THEN doing the math.

If a double-digit win was what Hillary needed, the only way she got it was through a) rounding errors or b) counting the first number after the decimal point.

The real margin was 9.4%.

Posted by John | April 23, 2008 7:51 AM

You avoid the real issues here! Why?
You don't speak the whole truth! Why?
Everyone is harping on the fact that Obama leads based on the Democrats poorly designed nominating system.

It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

Like it or not our election system is based on a winner-take-all state-by-state system so the democrats have done this entirely on themselves otherwise Clinton's lead would be so huge Obama would have stepped down long ago.

Posted by Gay Seattle | April 23, 2008 8:04 AM

Over for Hillary or not, I find it extremely troubling that Obama cannot win amongst large, important demographic groups in important electoral college states like PA and OH. White working-class voters are a pretty large segment of the democratic party and they just won't vote for him.

It's making me worry that the democrats are going to Nader themselves and hand McCain the win.

Posted by PA Native | April 23, 2008 8:25 AM

last time i check sven, hillary has lost ground on the supes. what now?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 23, 2008 8:54 AM

PA Native, I find it troubling that Hillary can't win this despite winning the majority of large demographics. maybe it's time to turn this demographic talk on its head?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 23, 2008 8:57 AM

@34: One of my favorite illogical arguments advanced by Hillary supporters; thanks for surfacing it again.
So what you're saying is, if the rules were TOTALLY different, and if the system those rules governed was TOTALLY different, and if the candidates had done the EXACT SAME THING in their campaign strategy, even KNOWING that the system was TOTALLY different, well, then, Clinton would be TOTALLY winning.
In other words, if the rules were not what they are, and all the candidates were total idiots and ran their campaigns as if the rules were not what they are, Hillary would be winning.
And she would have been greeted with candy and flowers too...

Posted by torrentprime | April 23, 2008 9:25 AM

torrentprime, I'm glad you believe in playing by the rules. If the supes swing for Hills, as is their right under the rules, I'm going to remember this conversation.

Posted by Big Sven | April 23, 2008 10:18 AM

And when Hillary accepts that the Florida and Michigan delegates shouldn't be sat, as the rules dictate... Oh wait. That will never happen, because Clinton doesn't believe in the rules, she believes in power.

Just like the supers won't in any universe exercise their right under the rules to hand the nomination to a nominee with such high negatives, a ceiling of support, and a general "Sword of GOP Fundraising +10" effect on the race.

Posted by torrentprime | April 23, 2008 10:38 AM

keep telling yourself that and maybe someday it will come true. she won bitches!!!!!

Posted by Emily | April 23, 2008 10:41 AM

Emily, want to put money down on who wins the nomination?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 23, 2008 10:47 AM

The democrats are going to lose. Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary, and visa versa



Posted by gaypatriot | April 23, 2008 11:39 AM

@41 (ie, @classic-example-of-hillary-supporters):
Um, dear: It already has happened.

Posted by torrentprime | April 23, 2008 1:26 PM

Comments Closed

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