The March 4 Stakes for Hillary
Two things are obvious: If Hillary Clinton can somehow win both Texas and Ohio, she stays; if she loses both states, she’s tuna fish.
A third possibility—a split decision—will present Clinton the justification to push on if she wishes to, but without any clear way to win.
Let’s say Hillary wins Ohio (as the latest polls suggest she will) and falls just short in Texas (as polls also indicate). For the sake of it, let’s also say she wins Rhode Island, where the lower-income white Catholic voters among whom she has done so well elsewhere predominate, and fails in Vermont, a state rich with the reform-minded progressives who are so taken with Obama. In other words, let’s say Tuesday produces a tie—in states won, total popular votes, and delegates accrued.
For all practical purposes, such a tie would go to Obama, who now leads Hillary by more than 100 delegates. Winning Texas, the second-largest state in the union, would keep Obama’s national momentum going, and to catch him in the delegate race, Hillary would need to win the remaining states by margins of about 30 points. When you’re the front-runner, not losing is just as good as winning.
But Hillary Clinton is unlikely to give up that easily, walking away from what is probably her one and only shot at the presidency. With a win in Ohio, the state that decided the last election and that could decide this one, the temptation to press ahead would probably be irresistible.
Sure, she could reason, catching Obama in the hard delegate count this spring would be out of the question. But if she could roll her Ohio success into a late primary winning streak (starting with Pennsylvania on April 22), maybe she could draw close enough that the 350 or so superdelegates who are still uncommitted would conclude that the primary season hadn’t produced a clear popular verdict for either candidate, thus giving Hillary at least a theoretical chance to win them over and reverse Obama’s pledged-delegate advantage.
The other potential equalizer would be Michigan and Florida. Both states hosted outlaw primaries that Hillary “won” (Obama’s name wasn’t on the Michigan ballot and the candidates refrained from campaigning in Florida, where turnout was substantially lower than in other states). Right now, pushing for these pro-Hillary delegations to be seated at the convention is politically poisonous for her campaign, something they have been slowly recognizing.
But what happens if there’s buyer’s remorse among Democrats who have rallied to Obama? The Democratic convention is still more than five months away, but already Republicans are aiming their attack machine at Obama. What if their broadsides start to dent his armor—if he proves as vulnerable on the “experience” question as Hillary has warned, and if in defending himself he does start making costly rookie mistakes? Maybe then the party would embrace Michigan and Florida as their salvation from handing their nomination to a doomed candidate. Buyer’s remorse could also weaken Obama in the late primary states, giving party leaders even more cover to turn on Obama.
In reality, of course, this isn’t much for Hillary to cling to. Obama has already proven himself adept at responding to her attacks and has only reinforced his supporters’ affection for him in his early skirmishes with John McCain. The notion that he will melt down before the August convention is a doubtful one, judging by the remarkable endurance he has already shown. And many of the uncommitted superdelegates that Hillary would need to help her topple Obama have serious reservations about her own electability. Short of winning the most delegates in this primary season—a highly unlikely proposition by now—the odds of Hillary securing the nomination are slim.
But human nature suggests—and history demonstrates—that candidates in Hillary’s situation will take anything short of complete rejection from the electorate as a license to stay in the race, just in case. History also shows that the consequences of this kind of thinking can be devastating.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy fell desperately behind President Jimmy Carter in the delegate count after an early losing streak in the Democratic primaries, but wins in several big states kept him in the running through the final primary in June, after which Carter led by about 700 delegates.
Kennedy refused to abandon his effort. While Republicans rallied around Ronald Reagan, Kennedy spent the summer months fighting for an “open convention,” in effect urging delegates to junk the rule that bound most of them to the will of primary voters, a procedural change that might theoretically have snatched the nomination from Carter. The bid ultimately failed, but precious months were lost for the Democrats and Carter entered the fall campaign with a deeply fractured party base. He went on to lose 44 states to Reagan. (It also didn’t help that Kennedy snubbed Carter on national television on the convention dais, or that his attacks on the sitting president were recycled into a brutal general election ad by the Reagan forces.)
Four years later, Gary Hart also refused to give up even when the numbers weren’t adding up. Walter Mondale ended the 1984 primaries in early June about 800 delegates ahead of Carter and, after lining up a few dozen super delegates, promptly declared himself over the magic number.
But Hart spent the next six weeks acting like a candidate, pleading with superdelegates to abandon Mondale and to throw the convention open. He was boosted by polls that showed him running far better against Reagan than Mondale. Only when New Jersey officially put him over the top at the mid-July convention could Mondale and his forces finally let loose a sigh of relief and focus squarely on the fall campaign, which Reagan ended up winning in one of the most thorough routs in American history. Hart’s lingering presence in the early summer helped keep the public’s focus on intraparty politics—and not on the Democrats’ case against Reagan.
Kennedy and (especially) Hart have mostly been given passes for their roles in their party’s ’80 and ’84 defeats, mostly because Carter and Mondale were probably doomed no matter what. But 2008 is a different story. The party faithful expect to win this year, and there will be hell to pay for whoever mucks it up.
Sorry folks, she's not going anywhere, win or lose. Keep tearing yourselves apart, Democrats.
As far as there being hell to pay for whichever candidate mucks this election up, that's not true. Gore and Kerry, especially Gore, blew their chances. Gore has turned into a hero/legend (what a laugh) and Kerry has kept his job representing the most liberal state in the union. Now that the media adoration of Obama is slowly starting to correct itself, we're going to see more slip-ups and a generally more interesting campaign. Rezko anyone??? Lies to the faithful about NAFTA??? Suckers.....
The most humorous thing I think I've seen from the Republicans to date is Rush calling for Republicans in Texas and Ohio to vote for Hillary. I don't know how he does it with a straight face, but I'd love even more to see him when she wins.
The fusion of the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine of cult leader Obama makes the Democratic nomination process similar to the stuffed ballot box of a banana republic.
American democracy calls for the Democratic nomination process to continue for all the remaining states to have their say and then add the numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.
At the Convention, the superdelegates should vote their consciences on the most qualified, experienced candidate for the presidency and that would be Hillary Clinton.
With the fusion of the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine, rational Democrats must support Hillary Clinton with frequent contributions for her to make a powerful stand against that fusion.
Hillary Clinton is fighting for the future of America; she is the qualified, experienced, visionary leader America needs to make change real and restore America to prosperous times, and she is the credible commander in chief to restore our good standing in the world.
The fusion of the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine of cult leader Obama makes the Democratic nomination process similar to the stuffed ballot box of a banana republic.
American democracy calls for the Democratic nomination process to continue for all the remaining states to have their say and then add the numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.
At the Convention, the superdelegates should vote their consciences on the most qualified, experienced candidate for the presidency and that would be Hillary Clinton.
With the fusion of the pro-Obama biased media and the cult money machine, rational Democrats must support Hillary Clinton with frequent contributions for her to make a powerful stand against that fusion.
Hillary Clinton is fighting for the future of America; she is the qualified, experienced, visionary leader America needs to make change real and restore America to prosperous times, and she is the credible commander in chief to restore our good standing in the world.
crat3
Could not agree more, it is all part of the process and there for a reason. Anthing less would only make our Democracy fall further away from the people.
Hillary Clinton is in full flower as the former "Goldwater Girl" she has always been. Lip-synching MSNBC's Conservative "Morning Joe's" talking points, Tucker Carlson's "poor Hillary" narrative (while she loses State after State) -- and, the Conservative Canadian Government INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION AT A PIVOTAL MOMENT -- is more of the same.
The voters have spoken. The Conservatives of BOTH Parties, don't like what we have to say and have enrolled even other Governments to interfere. Very Karl Rovian. Hillary will do whatever it takes to get her way no matter what it does to the Democratic Party, who clearly will let her. The press bias is in HER favor and was the entire year 2007. Dividing Americans into slices and fearmongering based upon georgraphic region -- is what Mr. Obama wanted to CHANGE. Playing on people's fears is Republican, not Democratic -- except w/the Clintons. The Republicans WANT to run against Hillary -- and she knows it.
Democrats will LOSE. Rush Limbaugh said yesterday he hopes Hillary "bloodies" Barack and this Process go on through the Summer.
OH and TX will rebuff what 11 States wanted, listening to other Governments and the Clintons -- whose scandals were EPIC. We will remember. This is how we got George W. Bush...RED STATES.
Disgusting.
Maybe Hillary should discuss WHY hedge fund managers pay 15% tax while working Americans pay 25%??? OH, TX -- that's a question you can ask CHELSEA CLINTON, who works at a NYC fat cat hedge fund! Then, you can ask for the tax returns, donor lists to the Library and White House Lincoln Bedroom fundraising Hillary hostessed -- and maybe then, the MEDIA will do its job and connect the dots.
Barack Obama is our best hope, RED STATES. Can't believe you are going to be bamboozled AGAIN, putting us ALL in jeopardy.
Hey, can Hillary have it both ways? She tells us that she'll be able to start as commander-in-chief from day one! Yet in
the primaries she tells us, "I'm just getting started!" Next year the new verb in Webster's will be clinton=contradiction, cutting both ways but not cutting anything of substance.
As an independent who just might vote for Obama in the GE (still legitimately undecided) there are things I do know for sure; 1) I would never EVER vote for Hillary, and 2) my disdain of her places me solidly among the vast majority of Americans that are not already committed to her. I don't understand the thinking of her supporters and I am genuinely curious what scenario they play out in their minds that lands her as a GE winner. She started this whole campaign with close to fifty percent of the country's voters saying they would never vote for her under any circumstance. Now, she has aliented more than 50 percent of the democratic base with which she had to work. Some of those, particularly the African-Americans are NOT coming back to her if she somehow manages to win via Superdelegates, FL and Mich, etc. So what's the end game? Are you HRC supporters just happy to win the nomination and be crushed in the general? Do you think you could actually win the general? If so, please tell me how? I'm dying to know.
Mr Obama supporters might be interested in the story Angry Barack Obama bombarded by media
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/04/2008-03-04_angry_bar...
GottaKnow
There have been many polls that indicate what you're saying and others that say the opposite. But the current polls I've seen today show that 25% of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain rather than voting for Mr Obama, and only 10% of Obama supporters feel the same, so I guess it depends on what day of the week it is. I'm guessing that if Hillary does get the nomination that she would have the majority support of their party.
Byron,
Are the Hillary Clinton supporters going to vote for John McCain as he is backed into a more and more right wing corner on abortion, taxes, trade, gun rights, immigration, all on top of his advocacy for more war, war, war in the Middle East?
Thats a lot of pique to hold onto. As annoyed as I am with Hillary Clinton's recent angry outbursts, I can't say I'd hold onto that much pettiness that I'd vote for McCain.
Byron and Karen, I agree with your point about the unrelaibility of the polls, and I guess I didn't make my point very well. What I'm getting at is the prospect that there aren't a dozen independents in the country who will vote for Hillary in an election versus McCain. I don't know how many would vote for Obama over him, but I think it's undeniable that his number far exceeds hers among independents. What happens within the Democratic voting ranks is kind of a moot point if every single registered Republican and Independent voter votes AGAINST her (which they will) She'll get crushed, don't you think?
Fuzz coming off Obama's Peach
SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference. Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.
Just as Bill was obstinate in retaining his grip on the Presidency after impeachment, thus denying Gore and the Democratic party an easy win over Bush in 2000, Hillary will do her level best to stay in and keep throwing stinkbombs at Obama, the man she was "honored" to be sharing the stage with way back two weeks ago.
Yes, Teddy helped elect Reagan in 1980 by challenging a sitting president from his own party, just as Reagan helped Jimmy Carter beat Ford, by challenging his party's sitting [if unelected] President. Curiously, the only "honorable" departure in recent memory -- alright, not so recent -- was Nixon quitting after Goldwater came to him and said, "we'll support you if you fight impeachment, but we'd rather you leave for the good of the party."
It really does come down to character, and that's OK. We know what the candidates say they'd like to do on the issues, but character is what counts in case of the unexpected. And this race has revealed Hillary's character as the spoiled child of privilege, the self-proclaimed victim. What a mess! Obama isn't her bad luck; she's his.
I am a proud Hillary Clinton supporter and if she does not win the Democratic Primary then like others I will either vote for John McCain or stay home.
I think Obama is a Charlatan and there are many, many glaring reasons why he is unfit to be the President of this country.
In two days I have learned about his friends Ayers and Rezko who he chose to associate with for their influence even though one is a convicted Weatherman bomber and the other has been indicted for fraud, some of the money landed in Obamas pockets.
Meanwhile he is telling everyone he will renegotiate Nafta (Hillary's idea) while winking 'pay no attention' to the Canadian Government.
This man is unworthy to be our President.
Hillary Clinton with all of her warts will do a wonderful job just as Bill did. When he left office with a surplus of $559 Billion that Bush frittered away and gave to his rich friends.
There was full employment and we had peace.
Therefore if Hillary does not win I will not vote for Obama and neither will many of my friends.
I think Rush would make more money if Hillary eventually won--it would give him four years of grist for the mill. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he secretly does want her to win...
Sonia, Kevin, et al. Stop for one second. Before composing your next post, accept the reality that SHE CAN'T WIN. Could she steal the nomination through some shady dealing? Highly unlikely but...even if I grant that scenario, then she will, just as GottaKnow says, be absolutely destroyed in the general election because she is curently doing nothing but padding her astronomical negatives nationally. It's okay that you like her, you are entitled to your opinion, but please address how you think she can win an election when most of the country abhors her.
Sonia,
If those are your only reasons for disliking Obama, I have two words for you...actually three. "Rosenburg" "Evans" and "Hsu"
Susan Rosenburg and Linda Evans are both CONVICTED felons who were pardoned by Bill Clinton in the final moments before he left office. Rosenberg and Evans were members of the Weathermen. Notice I put CONVICTED in caps. Ayers was NEVER convicted of anything, and is instead now a respected Professor of Education. As the Washington Post Fact Checker blog states, "Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?"
Then there is Norman Hsu. How his slimy dealings are at all different from the slimy dealings of Rezko, you will need to enlighten me, because I don't understand it.
So, you are going to need to come at Obama with something more than "Ayers" and "Rezko" Hillary has proven time and time again that she is far more unqualified and unfit for the Presidency. Her 2000 Senate bid was a transparent stepping stone to a run at the presidency. She never held any elected office before, and had to move to an OVERWHELMINGLY democratic state as a carpetbagger to win her Senate seat. She was exceptionally lucky she never had to run a real Senate race (that much, of course, can also be said of Obama, who's opponent went down in a scandalous sex story).
She's wrong on the issues (her "universal" health care is simply yet another unfunded government mandate. I can't wait till people have their paychecks garnished or face stiffer penalties for not joining her healthcare plan. Iraq = Wrong. NAFTA = wrong. DOMA = Wrong) She is a transparent, greedy, power-crazed politician. Nothing more and nothing less. You may think the same about Obama, but you'll need more reasons than "Ayers" and "Rezko" to remain intellectually honest.
PS - Bill didn't do a "wonderful" job as president. He betrayed his party more times than I can count, backtracked on campaign promises (Don't Ask, Don't Tell), he co-opted GOP legislation (balanced budget, welfare reform, all GOP ideas) and the "surplus" he left had nothing to do with him. It was the dot-com boom, and like all booms, it went bust. Billy boy had NOTHING to do with that. What Billy Boy DID do was commit adultery, time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. He abused his power for his own sexual gratification, and Hillary, like the good feminist she is, "stood by her man"...probably because she correctly calculated that she couldn't get into the White House herself without him still in the picture. She is cold, calculating, and entirely self-serving. Hopefully after today, she'll get out and allow the Democratic Party to rally around someone who could actually win in November.
Nothing thrills me quite like the bombast that some have made over the Rezko and Weatherman reports about Obama. Nobody, not one press official, not one pundit, not one insider has managed to connect him to any of the fraudulent dealings of Rezko, and Obama returned money Rezko lent him during the race. The Weatherman incident? Come off it. The guy gave the campaign $200. I'm not certain that sum is causing anyone (aside from Clinton supporters) any type of anxiety.
For all the supposedly soft press that Obama is getting, has anyone noticed how there haven't been references to the "good old days" Clinton scandals. Say Whitewater? How about the Peter Paul incident? Or the fact that Pres. Clinton took money from Rezko as well?
Say he's unqualified (he probably is). Say he's too much of an idealist (he probably is). But let's never say Obama is unworthy of being President because his scandals are worse than Clinton's. That's just pure hooey.
The Tony Rezko Problem:
There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko's bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will start changing, Rezko is on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.
But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off. He just got nailed for lying to the judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas. And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois. Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois. The boy plays to win.
When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won't care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.
The William Ayers Problem:
William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, though he is normally described as a distinguished education professor. One does not necessarily rule out the other, but he himself acknowledges planting bombs in U.S. Federal buildings. There is now undeniable proof of a longstanding relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers. We are not talking about two guys who just happened to bump into one another on the street. We are not talking about a secret admirer (Ayers) who quietly sent $200 to an aspiring politician.
No, we are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack's first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.
What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.
Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama's ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton.
The Problem of Rashid Khalidi:
So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist. An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:
Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school's Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah's recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday's Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi told the paper.
Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, "He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians -- though I don't recall him ever saying anything publicly."
Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel. But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran's Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi. The New York Times had his reaction to the event:
Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, "The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.
"The president of the university had every right to state his differences," he said. "That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner."
Now, which presidential candidate is calling for talks with Iran? You do not have to be Karl Rove or Lee Atwater to figure out how to tie Obama with Ahmadinejad using Obama's friendship with Khalidi.
I don't know what else is out there on Obama. Unfortunately, the worshipful, servile attitude of many Democrats and media personalities so far has hindered a tough look at Obama's friends and associates and his judgment. But that will come. What should concern Democrats keen on taking back the White House is whether or not these issues will be fully vetted before Obama is installed as the candidate. My guess is no.
And what do Republicans think? I only have anecdotal evidence. I asked an old friend, who served in law enforcement (I'll leave the particular agency out of it) for more than thirty years, about the William Ayers era. There are a lot of Federal agents who believe that Ayers is a terrorist who got away with his crimes and still owes a debt to society. My friend wrote the following to me today:
I think many of my Republican friends believe Obama is beatable; however they concede that Clinton can win. Therefore, their thinking goes, WE hope Obama gets the Democratic nod and THEN flood the gates with information later.
Feelings of hope and inspiration about Obama will evaporate when the commercials tying him to a convicted felon slumlord, an unrepentant terrorist who hates the troops, and a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies who has been a PLO official spouting anti-Israeli rhetoric.
Everything that can hurt Hillary is already known and she is still in the race. The longer it goes on the more we are finding out about our Golden Boy Wonder.
"Everything that can hurt Hillary is already known and she is still in the race."
Are you sure?
A GOP ace in the hole?
Editorial by Mark Goodman
January 24, 2008
Beyond the melodrama of Sen. Hillary Clinton's tears-on-her-pillow triumph in New Hampshire and her gaming victory in Nevada lies the profoundly disturbing question of the Clintons' hidden record of suspected crimes.
It's that very record which likely prompted Sen. John Kerry's sudden endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama just two days after Mrs. Clinton's first primary win, followed by two more supportive votes from ranking congressional Democrats.
Their swift response was a clear sign that ranking Democratic colleagues are determined to derail Mrs. Clinton. Why? Because there exists a vault of information American voters are not aware of concerning the Clintons — information which should have been brought to the nation's attention well before the kickoff of the 2008 presidential campaign.
The bedeviling problem is that party leaders on both sides of the congressional aisle conspired two years ago to bury the telltale documents. I'm referring to the 120 missing pages of the Barrett Report which, by all accounts from Washington insiders, former press secretary Tony Snow among them, contain sufficient evidence of Clinton misdeeds not only to furl Mrs. Clinton's presidential flag but quite possibly to send her and her miscreant husband straight to the courtroom dock. Yet the papers have lain moldering in some deep Capitol Hill tomb with no one daring to dig them up though they can be exhumed on demand by any member of Congress.
How could this happen? Let's go back to January 2006, when the 684-page report was finally released absent the incriminating pages. David Barrett, a Washington lawyer, had been appointed by the D.C. Court of Appeals to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of Henry Cisneros, President Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Barrett then spent nine frustrating years watching his inquiry blocked at every turn by the IRS, the Justice Department and Clinton attorneys.
Ironically, the detours led him into a thicket of apparent Clinton crimes and misdemeanors largely revolving around the misuse of the IRS and Justice Department to punish their enemies — abuses that apparently persisted even after Bill Clinton's term of office ended in 2000. Before Mr. Barrett could release the report, three Democrats, Mr. Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, managed to redact the potentially damaging pages by attaching a rider to an unrelated appropriations bill. Furious, Mr. Barrett issued a statement saying, "An accurate title for the report would be, 'What We Were Prevented from Investigating.' "
What indeed. The papers must have been devastating. Why grasp at the desperate straw of redaction? Still, the Democrats had to realize they were merely buying time. Suppressed evidence cannot remain suppressed forever and the Republicans are well aware of the wild card they have in the hole. Odds are that's why no Republican congressman has as yet unearthed the missing pages: The Republicans are banking on Mrs. Clinton, the scenario goes, to win the Democratic nomination so they can bake her in Mr. Barrett's oven in the election campaign.
If there is any doubt about Democratic fears, witness the timing of Mr. Kerry's lightning sweep into South Carolina to trumpet his support for Mr. Obama. It's fair to conclude from this that Mr. Kerry, the party's premier spokesman as well as the principal sponsor of the redaction rider, threw his weight behind Mr. Obama at this pivotal moment because he knows, better than anyone else, where the lethal poppy fields lie along Mrs. Clinton's winding yellow-brick road.
On cue, California's Rep. George Miller, a 33-year Democratic veteran of the House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's devoted confidante, quickly echoed Mr. Kerry's support for Mr. Obama. Next, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a 33-year veteran of the Senate, rang in with his Obama endorsement. So, the picture sharpens into focus: The Democratic establishment, which considered it too risky to put its chips on Mr. Obama in 2006, plainly reckons that it need not — indeed dare not — gamble any further on Mrs. Clinton in 2008.
The Clintons do not suffer rejection gladly. The collective rebuke Mrs. Clinton sustained surely explains why, as Mr. Clinton ratcheted up his Obama-bashing in South Carolina on Monday, she followed in the evening's debate by cross-examining her worthy national rival as if he were an unworthy county defendant. It seemed poor local politics to beat up in open forum on a black opponent in a state filled with black Democrats; backroom bets say she was letting her colleagues know, before a television audience, that their preferred candidate was in for a nasty 15 rounds.
The long view is that Mrs. Clinton and her loose-cannon regent have slid by far too long on foul play aided by diminished expectations (they're supposed to be ruthless). Now they're pointed on a collision course with political disaster. It's therefore time for Mr. Kerry and his Democratic colleagues to redress their misbegotten rescue of two years ago by opening up the concealed evidence on the Clintons for inspection by American voters.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/EDITO...
Some insight into the real Barack Obama, revealed by Spengler of the Asia Times.
Barack Obama's Women:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html
ͨ