Unless Obama Wins, He Loses

So the goalposts move again. If Clinton wins even one state by the narrowest of margins the Tuesday is a win for her.

Or, even more weird, if Obama wins all 4 states by 1% each, then it is also a victory for her.

What this basically is saying is that she hasn't been able to raise the money to compete.

Also, let's face it, the media has been giving her a lot of slack. If the roles were reversed, the media would be very verbal about Obama needing to drop out, as would the party leadership.

Of course, if the situation were reversed, in all likelihood, Obama would have gracefully dropped out by now.

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 11:54 AM

Pretty clear they're worried. To paraphrase: If Obama only wins 13 or 14 out of 15 primaries and caucuses, he's doomed. DOOMED.

Posted by NHCt | February 29, 2008 12:00 PM

This is exactly why journalists mistreat Hillary. Her campaign seems to work on the assumption they are idiots. No wonder they are hostile.

Posted by Benjamin | February 29, 2008 12:01 PM

"If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem."

No Hillary, you have already framed March 4th. You must win Ohio AND Texas. If you don't, you can be sure there is a BIG problem and it's not Obama's. It's yours.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 29, 2008 12:02 PM

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

What? I thought Obama was ahead in votes even including Florida and Michigan against him.

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 12:03 PM

Well, of course there are doing this. They will win at least Ohio and Rhode Island. And to some degree they have a point. He's having trouble with old school democrats. There is a decent amount of polling evidence that he could lose them to McCain in the fall.

They think that if they pull out a couple of squeakers the whole story changes and the media will start coming down a lot harder on Obama over the next few months.

They are probably right.

Posted by AhYup | February 29, 2008 12:03 PM

John, the Clintons don't count caucuses. At all.

Posted by matthewcc | February 29, 2008 12:05 PM

So what they're saying is that a 1-14 win/loss streak would trump a 14-1 win/loss streak.

By this sort of logic, the Miami Dolphins would be a better team than the New England Patriots.

Posted by lampwick | February 29, 2008 12:08 PM

WAR is PEACE. FREEDOM is SLAVERY. IGNORANCE is STRENGTH.

Posted by V. | February 29, 2008 12:11 PM

"I thought Obama was ahead in votes"

He is BUT they are talking about Democrats not the independents and and the new voters that has given him such large margins in open primaries.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/02/29/obamas-weaker-support-with-democrats/

What they are pushing for here is the real partisans and people who have a long term commitment to the party. Among them she still leads.

Posted by AhYup | February 29, 2008 12:12 PM

matthewcc - my understanding is that Obama is ahead even including Florida and Michigan and excluding all caucus states.

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 12:13 PM

Yeah, CB Todd is right. This line kills me:
If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem.

Every HRC cult member whines about how the media hates her, but I don't know any other candidate in history that has lost so many consecutive races and is still considered a possible victor. The media has bent over backwards to keep her in the race.

Hillary has been given a huge benefit of the doubt even though she clearly mismanaged her campaign, failed to plan to a real fight, and has no clear message anymore.

The problem is the famous Clinton entitlement. And that problem is almost out of the picture.

Go Obama.

Posted by Joe Justice | February 29, 2008 12:15 PM

AhYup: He's having trouble with old school democrats. There is a decent amount of polling evidence that he could lose them to McCain in the fall.

You're kidding, right? You think that "old school democrats" are going to vote for a third Bush term?

If Obama wins the nomination, the vast majority of Democrats will rally around him in the fall. Don't be misled by the rancor of a tightly-contested primary.

Posted by Marshall | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM

So exit polls are more important than actual results? Jesus Christ this is some weak stuff.

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM

Now the only voters who count are Democrats? The primaries include cross over republicans and independents for a reason. Their opinion is supposed to count. What a waste of time and money this whole primary season has been.

Bottom line - The entire process should be scratched. Rules and rationales be damned. Hillary is entitled to be the nominee no matter who voted for Obama. Anything to contrary is crazy talk.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 29, 2008 12:17 PM

AhYup,

But aren't the people with "who have a long term commitment to the party" going to vote Democratic no matter who the canidate is? Aren't the a stable good..inelastic? They aren't going to vote for John McCain..where as most of the independents and Republicans who have voted for Obama will vote for John McCain..

At least that is how I see it.

Posted by Whoa Now | February 29, 2008 12:18 PM

Hillary is slyly arguing that only Democrats should be able to choose the nominee. And more "Democrats" are behind her, and not Obama. I don't think she's trying to make an argument about whether Democrats will vote for Obama in November. She's trying to say when counting votes in a primary the votes of Democrats should count more (or others less, depending on how you look at). It's more of the same only the votes for me count routine that she has been offering up for weeks.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 29, 2008 12:27 PM

PRESIDENT CLINTON SAID THE CAMPAIGNS MISSION WAS TO WIN BOTH OHIO AND TEXAS WITH OVERE 20% OF THE VOTE IN EACH STATE...2 weeks ago those margins existed when billy declared their winning strategy...anything short of this attainable goal will be a complete failure....

I am wondering when the journalists will replace the surrogates and tell the truth...report the facts.

Posted by american patriot | February 29, 2008 12:38 PM

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date

What kind of junk is this? How do they count this? Do they poll all the voters in all the states and get an breakdown of the figure of whos voting for who? The spin is dizzying.

The last a saw Obama was leading by a million votes and by almost 200,000 if you include Michigan and Florida, which we all know were not contested and his name WAS NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT in Michigan. Yet he still has a 200,000 vote lead on HRC if these are counted.

What kind of spin is this? Usually spin has at least some element of truth in it...

Posted by Sean | February 29, 2008 12:39 PM

Hmmm... I thought delegates were who decided ?

He looks pretty well positioned in any case. :)

Posted by PulSamsara | February 29, 2008 12:39 PM

Black Democrats don't count. Either do newly registered Democrats in caucus states. But yea Black Democrats don't count at all in that analysis. I think someone might have a problem picking up the base in November, especially if her campaign and supporters continue to imply that African Americans aren't real Democrats.

Posted by Eh? | February 29, 2008 12:41 PM

Personally, I am loving every minute of this.

Posted by Larsenist | February 29, 2008 12:44 PM

God, why is the media letting her get away w/snubbing an entire people (oh and 40 states). So those voters in SC weren't real democrats? Those voters in GA, LA, AL, weren't real democrats? Marc, do the math, HRC will not win in November, OH as a significant portion of non counting Democrats.

Posted by eh? | February 29, 2008 12:44 PM

Up until recently, Hillary had raised almost the same amount as Obama--a bit more until last month.

To paraphrase: With all that money, and all that name recognition, and two candidates (well, one ex-president) working flat out to put Hillary in the White House--if she can't win one state on March 4--she should just get out.

Posted by KathyF | February 29, 2008 12:47 PM

Clinton's campain staff should be sued for political malpractice. They are a highly paid clueless bunch who are taking donors' money to enrich themselves!

Posted by Kwaku Azar | February 29, 2008 12:50 PM

RE: Bottom line - The entire process should be scratched. Rules and rationales be damned. Hillary is entitled to be the nominee no matter who voted for Obama. Anything to contrary is crazy talk.

Duh! Finally someone sees the light! We should just make her the queen of the world! I mean who else is willing to fight for us, is ready for change and other various calculated slogans? Anyone who disagrees is obviously an idiot and doesn't count. God its so frustrating dealing with these stupid "voters" GRRRR

Posted by Mark Penn | February 29, 2008 12:53 PM

Can anyone even see the goalposts any more? It's like they're strapped to rockets.

Posted by Deborah | February 29, 2008 12:54 PM

This is really weird, 'cause I thought Dems were supposed to be the party with the big tent. I guess if Hillary manages to win among aging '60s activists and FDR deadenders, then yeah, she'll be a great president for the other 390 million Americans.

Posted by karl | February 29, 2008 12:55 PM

i don't understand this memo. actually, i plain don't understand her strategy at all at this point. they're hoping to play the "we won the big states" card, right? but just as it's stupid for obama to say his success in idaho means anything, isn't it absurd for her camp to argue that winning in ca, ny, ma is worth anything? can we think of a single democrat, anywhere, who would lose those states in a general in 2008? i don't get it. if we're going to be in the "these states don't matter" business, then we should go exclusively by the results in places like mo, nm, fl, and ohio. fl aside, and oh not having happened yet, it's pretty clear this whole primary will yield a relatively split decision with one person having many more delegates. isn't that as good a reason as any to hand it off to that guy?

Posted by klair | February 29, 2008 12:57 PM

This has to be a spoof? right? This will certainly be all over the news if it is not. Then the real question is, how can a newscaster even read this without laughing and possible shitting their pants. Thats what it is, they are trying to take the news and people that can read out of the equation, insuring them a win. While we are cleaning up our pants, they will hold the vote. Damn they are clever.

Posted by KevinQ | February 29, 2008 12:57 PM

Bottom line with this folks is that they think they can at least win Ohio and RI. Considering Obama's cautious note yesterday it seems likely they are right. They have a huge lead Ohio's early and absentee ballots. I don't see Obama getting that state. I suspect a fairly comfortable margin.

Mathematically the Clintons can't catch up unless its a huge win. But any win gives them a reason to keep going.

This spin will look a lot smarter after Tuesday I think. With current expectations on Obama any win by Hillary at all will be seen in the media as her big comeback and him hitting the way.

Posted by AhYup | February 29, 2008 12:58 PM

Haven't we reached a tipping point with all of this? The spin, the challenges, trying to change the rules during the game, etc. I get the feeling people have had enough.

We get it, Hillary is a competitor. The fact is that her campaign has been the most mismanaged effort possibly in the history of American politics, while Obama's campaign has understood the task before it (ironically, from day one) and has executed brilliantly. Some incredibly interesting books are going to be written when this is all over.

Can you imagine running a campaign, being up by 25 points nationally last summer, and now being behind by 4-8 points nationally? That's a 30 point swing - hard to do unless you're completely inept.

Nobody is listening to this HRC spin anymore - it's reached the point of diminishing or negative returns and it's not worth getting worked up over. That's why they play the games. Let TX, OH, RI and VT have their say on Tuesday and then we'll see what makes sense for the party and the country.

Posted by GoodTimes | February 29, 2008 12:59 PM

This is exactly the point I was agreeing with toobie on last night - and thank god the clinton campaign has had the foresight and forthrightness to bring this to the attention of the biased media!

This is not "moving the goal posts" or "spin" - this is just pure fact. Obama has won a majority of the states (and I remind you that outside of IL, basically none of the ones in his win column matter), the popular vote (if you include undemocratic caucuses) and raised more money (from lots of poor people who maxed out their ability to donate now). With all this "noise" if he can't win very decisively in all the upcoming primaries, it proves he is unfit to run in the general election.

Remember he hasn't won a primary by less than 17 points in the last few weeks, so anything less than this is a clear sign of a swing. If Hillary wins Ohio by 5, it is a HUGELY decisive win for her - a flip of 22 points! Were Obama to pull off a 3 or 4 point win in Ohio it would only prove he can't do well in these incredibly important general election states no matter how many resources he has.

Frankly I do think its a bit silly of the campaign to mention Texas in this memo, but again I think they are just trying to distract Obama from the states that matter.

Add in MI and FL (where obama's resources again failed him) and she will win because Obama momentum (created by the biased media, as pointed out by Tina Fey last week) would finally have been killed off.

Automatic delegates will realize this. and then its game, set, and match.

As the Clinton campaign very astutely points out - Obama has "spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches." ...All while Hillary has been creating SOLUTIONS. Hillary '08!

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 12:59 PM

Poor HRC, she works so hard, but this new kid on the stage is shaking the whole Clinton machinery upside down. This, is obviously the choice of America, its a new dawn.

Posted by Garba | February 29, 2008 1:03 PM

Has the authenticity of this been confirmed? It reads like satire to me and I cannot find it among press releases on the Clinton campaign site.

Posted by Paul Turner | February 29, 2008 1:04 PM

If you vote for Clinton, you're a REAL Democrat.

Hence more REAL Democrats have voted for Clinton.

Impeccable logic from the Pennster.

Posted by wj | February 29, 2008 1:05 PM

well judgeing by the polls obama should win Vermont and Texas, which means....since feb 5th hillary is 2-13 thats 2 wins outta 5 states, we only have 50 states you cant loose 13 of them in one month and say obama has the problem if he looses 2! no im afraid Hillary is the one with the problems.

Posted by Travis | February 29, 2008 1:06 PM

well judgeing by the polls obama should win Vermont and Texas, which means....since feb 5th hillary is 2-13 thats 2 wins outta 5 states, we only have 50 states you cant loose 13 of them in one month and say obama has the problem if he looses 2! no im afraid Hillary is the one with the problems.

Posted by Travis | February 29, 2008 1:07 PM

well judgeing by the polls obama should win Vermont and Texas, which means....since feb 5th hillary is 2-13 thats 2 wins outta 5 states, we only have 50 states you cant loose 13 of them in one month and say obama has the problem if he looses 2! no im afraid Hillary is the one with the problems.

Posted by Travis | February 29, 2008 1:07 PM

I hate to say it, but Fred although clearly biased kinda has a point. If Hillary wins two states, that's a huge momentum boost. If she keeps playing this "Winning among Democrats" card, that could sway the party faithful at the convention.

Call me crazy, but I guess she has a chance.

Posted by Martin | February 29, 2008 1:07 PM

Is Fred Agbot's comment a joke? I honestly cannot tell anymore.

Posted by jw | February 29, 2008 1:08 PM

Up until last week, the CW was that Clinton has to win BOTH Ohio AND Texas by 65% or she is DONE!!!

Nice try. Shame on anyone that falls for this crap. Or actually, let them keep wasting their money supporting someone who really can't win unless she meets that cold, hard threshold.

Posted by David | February 29, 2008 1:09 PM

Karl, you nailed it. I thought the overall goal of ANY party was to bring more people into the fold. But in the world according to Clinton, only long-time, hardcore Democrats should count and the new voters and independents be damned. We should keep the party as small as possible.

And now winning is losing and losing is winning.

I feel I've slipped through the looking glass . . .

Posted by Amy | February 29, 2008 1:10 PM

Fred Agbot: so what you're saying is that wins by less than 17 percent don't count. Got it.

I'll contact Chairman Dean and have him adjust the delegate totals accordingly.

Posted by DumDum | February 29, 2008 1:13 PM

Hillary is beating Obama among Democrats in most states, and we now know that 10% of his support in TX are repubs - mostly anti Hillary - and will never vote for him in November. Indies have always liked MsCain. Obama has pissed off a lot of dems/Hillary supporters who might not show up in November. Maybe he and his supporters need to come down from the mountaintop and give some of this some consideration. All this Clinton bashing has gone to their heads and might come back to bite them.

Posted by RReddy | February 29, 2008 1:16 PM

It's like something you'd read in The Onion.

Posted by Cotoia | February 29, 2008 1:16 PM

It is hilarious that the Clinton campaign would complain so vociferously about being outspent.

Just where did the $120 million go, Hillary? Maybe too many party platters and too many Dunkin' Donuts?

Posted by Joe "Hussein" Powalski | February 29, 2008 1:18 PM

I thought Deborah nailed it: the goalposts are strapped to rockets.

Posted by KathyF | February 29, 2008 1:18 PM

Fred Agbot may be a bigger horse's ass than even Tim K or some of the other morons around here. My guess though is that the wizard behind his screen name is some witty Obama supporting satirist.

It's hard to imagine that someone could be that brain dead.

Posted by Josie | February 29, 2008 1:18 PM

RReddy, what are those states, why do you assume that HRC's campaign and asinine supporters like yourself, aren't alienating the AA voters.

Point blank, she will loose the GE, you can not carry OH w/out AA's. She won't get it. Oh I forgot those aren't real Democrats.

So maybe Hillary and her supporters need to come down from the mountaintop and give some of this consideration. All this snubbing has gone to your head, and it WILL come back to bite. There have been thousands of letters sent to the DNC, Dean is well area of how the democratic base feels.

You won't hear it from the media (cause you know AA's are easy to ignore).

Posted by eh? | February 29, 2008 1:21 PM

Just where did the $120 million go, Hillary?

Mark Penn's nickname around the Clinton campaign is "Fat Bastard". That should give you some indication.

Posted by Josiah | February 29, 2008 1:21 PM

The latest NPR poll has 20% of Democrats bolting to the McCain bandwagon if Obama is the nominee. He's not doing as well as she is with Hispanics, who have a favorable opinion of McCain due to his immigration stance. It will turn to the great fight for Independents.

Posted by w2 | February 29, 2008 1:22 PM

I hate to say it, but Fred although clearly biased kinda has a point. If Hillary wins two states, that's a huge momentum boost. If she keeps playing this "Winning among Democrats" card, that could sway the party faithful at the convention.

Call me crazy, but I guess she has a chance.

Posted by Martin | February 29, 2008 1:07 PM
_______________________________

The thing I don't understand at all is how on earth this could be a huge momentum boost for Hillary Clinton. Two weeks ago, she was up significantly in all of these states (except maybe Vermont). So if Obama wins either Texas or Ohio, or even makes it close in both, then it's a huge blowback against the Clintons, who couldn't hold their substantial leads. The momentum is what is getting Obama close. Hillary is simply praying to hang on. Her momentum is still backward.

The only hope is that this memo gets out to the voters and they decide "Enough!" (in the immortal words of Maggie Williams) and vote heavily for Obama to end this thing. I don't expect Obama to win Ohio, but I hope he puts in a surprisingly strong showing in Texas and that it ends up being enough to get the "party elders" to tell the Clintons to go away.

That said, I fully expect Hillary to keep running until Pennsylvania no matter what happens. I think the Clintons are absolutely stunned at what is happening in this election, and they don't know how to quit.

Posted by Amy | February 29, 2008 1:23 PM

Why would anyone sanction such BALONEY? "Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama." Insulting other people's intelligence is always the best way to get taken seriously, yet some people just never tire of doing it. Gee, I guess this means all those rank-and-file Democrats have their doubts, are having second thoughts. Were I a Clinton staffer, I'd add this caveat: COULD HAPPEN. Or, WHEN PIGS FLY. You know: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 29, 2008 1:23 PM

Okay one last time the "winning amoung Democrats card" is Bull, if her campaign and her supporters keep using it (it won't work anyways) they are only going to further divide the party and aleinate one base, along w/ young voters, and independents.

Posted by eh? | February 29, 2008 1:23 PM

I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again

Hillary's like Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, and The Virgin mary all rolled up into one.

Posted by Helen Reddy friend of RReddy | February 29, 2008 1:27 PM

Martin - thank you for seeing the light here. I don't know where toobie is but we could use more clear thinkers in here!

The "winning democrats card" is the only play that matters. Winning a majority of the primaries, the popular vote, raising the most money and winning among independents, youth, and african americans is all very nice from a media standpoint - really makes for some great articles and keeps Bill Schneider employed.

However, this is the democratic primary. Winning democrats is the KEY. All these wins obama has are because he's brought new people into the political process that have never voted before. He's inspired them and they are voting in record numbers. That's fine and dandy but won't fly in the General Election.

Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 1:34 PM

He's inspired them and they are voting in record numbers. That's fine and dandy but won't fly in the General Election.

You've nailed it there, Fred. Record numbers of independents, young voters, and African American voters coming out in the general certainly won't "cut it". Nosireebob!

No kidding around this time. You are seriously a moron. Please return to under the rock from whence you came.

Posted by Jay | February 29, 2008 1:40 PM

>>>>Actually, I think Penn's spin might work.>>CAN YOU IMAGINE THE PRESS STORIES THAT WILL COME OUT ON WEDNESDAY IF HRC WINS BOTH TX AND OHIO????

Posted by enough | February 29, 2008 1:42 PM

The Automatic delegates I know tell me that Hillary has a leg up and looks to have a clear path to the nomination. Rumors have also been swirling that they may sue to disallow the previous caucuses due to their illegal nature and unconstitutionality. I for one hope this comes to pass.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 1:46 PM

Remember folks, the only people inside the convention hall will be longtime activist ddemocrats. Yes, republicans and independents voted in a lot of these state contests but they aren't at the convention. That's where the power of who won the base really begins to matter differently.

This is a party picking its nominee. What is good for the party will sound a little different there than it does in the echo chamber of the internet. Many of these people see each other every four years at the conventions. It'll be a lot different there than we think.

Posted by Michael C. | February 29, 2008 1:47 PM

That's hilarious Fred Agbot. Brilliant! Sometimes people on these politics forums are so uptight that they can't even recognize humor and sarcasm in posts. It's Friday, people!

Hillary's people are so in love with SNL that not only do they cite to its skit for arguments on national TV, but also emulate its style in memos to the press. Just classic!

Posted by TeeKay | February 29, 2008 1:54 PM

Fred,

You are hired to replace Penn for the Drive to Puerto Rico.

Brilliant!

Posted by Turnip | February 29, 2008 1:59 PM

I love this comment:

"So what they're saying is that a 1-14 win/loss streak would trump a 14-1 win/loss streak.

By this sort of logic, the Miami Dolphins would be a better team than the New England Patriots."

Hillary - the writing is on the wall! Please, please, please stop already!

Go Obama!

Posted by BC | February 29, 2008 2:05 PM

I would like to point out that the post under my name at 1:46 PM is not me, but an imposter. I'm internet famous!

That said, I actually do agree in small part with my imposter - that caucuses should not count. However, I do not think they are unconstitutional. They just are not a good representation of what will happen in the general election.

Automatic delegates know this.

Turnip, I appreciate your compliment, but I think Penn is doing a pretty good job without me!

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 2:06 PM

At this point, there's only one thing left to say about the increasingly lame-o Clinton campaign machine (other than, anybody got some rust remover?)

And that comment is..."Blecch!"

Posted by JimNY | February 29, 2008 2:11 PM

Obama's 2 to 1 media campaign advantage has been paid for by his allies alright --- a.k.a. voting supporters. Geeze, who'd a thunk it could be accomplished in such a fundamental way?

Posted by ButterflyWeed | February 29, 2008 2:11 PM

Sticky Ickes comes back to town. Clinton loses. She's the clown.

Posted by rainier | February 29, 2008 2:39 PM

Obama is outspending Hillary 2:1. That means Clinton votes count twice as much as votes for Obama. It's that fuzzy math you have been hearing about.

Posted by jayVa | February 29, 2008 2:50 PM

With supporters and campaign strategists like Fred Agbot no wonder the Clinton campaign is flushed down the drain. Keep it up.

Posted by pinto | February 29, 2008 3:06 PM

This is a good strategy by the Clinton campaign. I expect it to pay off. Mark Penn is a GENIUS. Hell as far as am concerned if Obama does not win all 4 states by more than 20 points come Tuesday then there is no momentum and he should drop out. I also believe all those caucuses should be awarde to Hillary since they are illegally except of course Nevada.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 3:17 PM

Where did this memo come from? Marc provided no link or source. I did not find it (after an admittedly very cursory glance) on the Clinton campaign press release Web page. The memo is so baffling that I consider it bogus until creditable sources are provided.

Posted by klr | February 29, 2008 3:48 PM

All about expectations setting. First it was, "Come on down to Texas, Obama, I'll meet you here!". Then it was Bill's more plaintive, "It's up to you, Texas" - Hillary can still be President, but if she doesn't win Texas, "I'm afraid she won't make it".

Now, then, it's down to, "If Obama doesn't win Texas (and Ohio, and Rhode Island, and Vermont) - and if he doesn't win decisively - then we'll be vindicated.

Talk about setting the bar low. For themselves. I just hope the movers and shakers in the party see this as the kind of pathetic it is.

Posted by nimh | February 29, 2008 4:11 PM

Oh, and -

With an eleven state winning streak coming out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum .. The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. .. Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches. ..

How weird does this sound? It's like an analysis of just how good a campaign Obama has run. Which would make the logic something like: "Look, Obama has run a much better campaign than we have -- so if he still doesnt win every single state with that, then, clearly, we deserve to get the nomination instead."

Uhm....

Posted by nimh | February 29, 2008 4:15 PM

Might be your shortest entry, But very well put. :)

-Chuck

Posted by Chuck | February 29, 2008 4:21 PM

When Hillary wins Ohio she'll have a clear path to the White House.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 6:11 PM

The Super Delegates I know also told me that Baghdad Bob will be endorsing Hillary on Sunday.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 6:27 PM

I meant to say - after Tuesday, Hillary will have plenty of time to visit the White House.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 6:29 PM

Here's the strangest diss of all:

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

A candidate who makes speeches! How opportunistic! How shallow! Can't be trusted with the red phone...

Posted by Asp | February 29, 2008 7:44 PM

I would like to remind everyone of some states Obama won which are deemed not relevant in the "democratic column". Let's see: how about Wisconsin? Minnesota? (carried by Kerry/Edwards in '04 by very small margins) And what can you tell me of Virginia. Think now, die-hard Clinton supporters: Kerry+Ohio sure wins the GE, but so would Kerry+Virginia, for example.
If I here just once more that Obama cannot carry states like CA, MA, NY, etc. in a GE against a REPUBLICAN (!), I think I am going to go plain mad. How can such stupid things be said out of desperation? I know that a SurveyUSA poll showed the margin for NY in a GE to be HIGHER with Obama than with Clinton (a senator hailing from...?). Please take all this into account and vote massively for Obama come next Tuesday. This is our only chance of offsetting the advance vote effort for Clinton (which most probably won her California, by the way).
Obama '08 (and I hope he chooses Gov. Sebelius as VP)

Posted by ColonelDiego | February 29, 2008 7:48 PM

I would like to remind everyone of some states Obama won which are deemed not relevant in the "democratic column". Let's see: how about Wisconsin? Minnesota? (carried by Kerry/Edwards in '04 by very small margins) And what can you tell me of Virginia. Think now, die-hard Clinton supporters: Kerry+Ohio sure wins the GE, but so would Kerry+Virginia, for example.
If I hear just once more that Obama cannot carry states like CA, MA, NY, etc. in a GE against a REPUBLICAN (!), I think I am going to go plain mad. How can such stupid things be said out of desperation? I know that a SurveyUSA poll showed the margin for NY in a GE to be HIGHER with Obama than with Clinton (a senator hailing from...?). Please take all this into account and vote massively for Obama come next Tuesday. This is our only chance of offsetting the advance vote effort for Clinton (which most probably won her California, by the way).
Obama '08 (and I hope he chooses Gov. Sebelius as VP)

Posted by ColonelDiego | February 29, 2008 7:50 PM

Marc, your response to that Clinton letter is so perfect, it's beyond perfect. You could write hundreds of words about sheer inanity of Clinton logic, but that one "Huh?" says it all. I laughed and laughed and laughed, and am still laughing.

:-)

Posted by Kathy | March 1, 2008 1:28 AM

Um, shouldn't Hillary Clinton have already won with her husband, you know, being a past President????

Clinton is an idiot.

Posted by Noel | March 1, 2008 3:00 AM

They are probably building up arguments why Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race when she looses Texas and/or Ohio (but winning Rhode Island), so that she can use the following months to work the superdelegates again and have Mich/Florida delegates be put around the table.

Posted by Willeke | March 1, 2008 3:49 AM

Two weeks ago, she was up significantly in all of these states

And the reason she's now slightly behind is because the polls are taking the increased Republican vote into account, for the most part.

Without question, Clinton is backing off her intention to quit if she loses Texas and Ohio, and I suspect it's because they didn't realize that independents/Republicans would play such a big part. She'll be smart to wait until Pennsylvania, which she will win huge.

Everyone focuses on delegates, but they really won't matter. She doesn't have to catch up in order to make her case. All she has to do is continue to show that Obama hasn't made the sale among Democrats--where he is running behind.

if her campaign and her supporters keep using it (it won't work anyways) they are only going to further divide the party and aleinate one base, along w/ young voters, and independents.

Keep on kidding yourself.

Posted by Cal | March 1, 2008 4:15 AM

I think I understand the math Hillary Clinton is employing since I have an advanced math degree.

The FNDM theorem is little known in the mathematical field and it states that the internal perception is the only thing that counts and that is why it is called "Facts and Numbers Don't Matter" or FNDM Theorem.

Yeah .. it is really deep stuff !!!

Posted by Jan E | March 1, 2008 7:50 AM

...and 2 + 2 = 5 Thank you V.

Posted by Sydney Duval | March 1, 2008 9:33 AM

You know what I cannot understand, is why common sense is never brought up in this continuing inevitable blow up of the Democratic Party!
I am proud of both candidates regarding what they can do for our country. But let’s look at the facts. Clinton has lost 11 states in a row. Probably will lose Texas and win Ohio.
She will not catch up to Obama in the delegate count. It mathmaticly will not happen. For Clinton to win, she will have to turn this democratic process into a high intense business deal. This election is having a record number of voters. This is a direct reflection on the message that Obama has had on the American people.
If this election is won by biter self centered super delegets or chaging of rules, (regardless of what candidate creates this division). I will guarantee you that the race for presidency will not even be close. The breath of fresh air from record number of voters will be siphoned up. Mc Cain will be victorious.

Posted by Erik | March 1, 2008 10:35 AM

It is rather silly to compare, as some have done, Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln. But it is fair to compare their means of assent in the nomination process. How is Obama on the cusp of defeating the party establishment? This is not the first time an upstart candidate came out of nowhere to win a party nomination. There are a few interesting examples in American history to compare it to, but perhaps none are as tantalizing as the republican nomination for President in 1860.

Check out more on this at the link above to blogflict - blog.iconflict.com.

Posted by Jason | March 1, 2008 11:36 AM

Oh No! Not another candidate who disputes the "Reality Based Community!" How can anyone possibly say:
"Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

Obama won more favor among Dems. He won more votes, more delegates, more primaries.

This sort of nonsense has no point in this race.

The time is now. The need is fierce.

The fierce urgency of now!

Carole Bell
www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com

Posted by Carole Bell | March 1, 2008 9:18 PM

Fred (if he's not already) should be writing for The Onion.

Automatic Delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot fan | March 2, 2008 1:15 AM

I love this part especially:

'and - of course - making speeches. '

Im glad to know Hillary is above this 'making speeches' nonsense. I mean, spending his time campaigning and making speeches as a democratic candidate? Shame on you Obama! Shame on you!

But that whole letter is pretty Golden. It just makes her inevitable downfall that much sweeter to me. Such shady bullshit.

Posted by Slurpy | March 2, 2008 4:58 AM

interesting article on obama, if only just a tidbit about his work in illinois
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by sonja | March 2, 2008 8:55 AM

Okay.
I get it .
It's Fuzzy Math!
I wonder if there is a thing called Fuzzy Reality Too...

from Wikipedia:
In a typical fuzzy math class, children are placed in small groups, and encouraged to develop their own methods of solving arithmetical problems, presented in sentence format.

Much controversy surrounds the teaching of fuzzy math, with many parent and teacher groups arguing that the approach simply does not work. Even the NCTM, which originally recommended the approach, has released statements reversing its position.

Posted by anita | March 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Okay.
I get it .
It's Fuzzy Math!
I wonder if there is a thing called Fuzzy Reality Too...

from Wikipedia:
In a typical fuzzy math class, children are placed in small groups, and encouraged to develop their own methods of solving arithmetical problems, presented in sentence format.

Much controversy surrounds the teaching of fuzzy math, with many parent and teacher groups arguing that the approach simply does not work. Even the NCTM, which originally recommended the approach, has released statements reversing its position.

Posted by anita | March 2, 2008 1:38 PM

I wonder if it has occurred to the Clinton campaign that with wins like that who needs losses?

Posted by Jonbama | March 7, 2008 10:51 AM

Unless Obama Wins, He Loses

Comments (96)