Ohio Gov. Says Hillary Could Fight On Without Texas
LAKEWOOD, Ohio—Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio thinks Hillary Clinton should keep pursuing the Democratic nomination even if she emerges from Tuesday’s voting with a victory only in his state.
“In my judgment and if I’m asked, I’ll say to her that if she wins Ohio, I think she should continue this because Pennsylvania is another sizable state,” Strickland said in an interview with The Observer after a campaign event here with Bill Clinton. “We need to be thinking about what is going to happen in November. It will do no good to come up with a Democratic nominee if we don’t win in November. We’ve been through that before.”
When asked if there wouldn’t be overwhelming pressure from senior Democratic Party officials on Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race if she were to lose Texas—no less a supporter than her husband has intimated that she wouldn’t be the nominee if she didn’t win both major states on March 4—Strickland grew adamant.
“Listen,” he said, standing beside the empty stage, “I consider myself a senior official in the party. I represent a big state. I have been in the Congress 12 years, and I represent 11.4 million people and I represent what is arguably the most critical swing state in November. So I think my opinion is as important as some of those who would consider themselves the senior leaders within the Democratic Party.”
When asked if an isolated win in Ohio gave Clinton a satisfactory rationale to continue her campaign, Strickland said, “Yes, because neither candidate will have achieved the number of delegates necessary to achieve victory. I don’t hear people asking Mike Huckabee this. And he is a lot less viable than Hillary Clinton is.”
I pointed out that the Republican Party nomination is settled and that Huckabee’s sideshow candidacy isn’t generally regarded within the G.O.P. as a long-term threat to unity, whereas Clinton—if, say, she won Ohio but lost Texas—could certainly choose to engage Obama in an increasingly bitter and expensive fight long after the contest for pledged delegates is out of reach. It could, I asserted, be a party chairman’s nightmare scenario.
“Oh, come on. Oh, come on,” Strickland said when presented with that comparison. “Don’t blame damage to the party on Hillary, and until one of them has a victory by securing an appropriate number of necessary delegates, it is a contest. And we should not declare a victory in the middle of the game. So she has every right to continue, to fight on. Absolutely every right.”
When asked why Ohio has so far appeared less receptive to Obama than other states have, Strickland argued that the Illinois senator has done better in generally homogenous small states that will likely be won by Republicans in the general election.
“The Ohio voting populace is more representative of the larger nation and is less homogenous and perhaps then less susceptible to a particular appeal or a particular message,” he said. And echoing a Clinton campaign talking point, he said that since Clinton had won in bigger, more dependable general-election states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and California, she should be the party’s nominee.
He said that that would remain “a very strong argument” even if Obama won Texas.
Asked what would happen if Clinton lost Ohio, he said that then she’d have some serious thinking to do.
“She would have to make a decision there,” he said. “I would have to leave that decision to her and her advisers. But if she wins Ohio, I think she should go on.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
=============================================================
GET REAL ... HILLARY WILL GET THE NOMINATION WITHOUT TEXAS, BY HOOK OR CROOK --- OBAMA-CRATS CANNOT BEAT THE 'MACHINE.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ohio voters will have to decide what to do with this delusional governor.
Look she is the eternal Victim and people dont realy want her to lose
please God dont let anything happen that will make a Little girl cry between now and the fourth of Mars.
Sister you got some trouble if your reality is determinded by Mark Penn and Tina Fay. Here we come SNL.
I went back to ohio
But my city was gone
There was no train station
There was no downtown
South Howard had disappeared
All my favorite places
My city had been pulled down
Reduced to parking spaces
A, oh, way to go ohio
Such a joke.
If she keeps going, the next ads will be a montage of the corrupt Hill and Bill, Whitewater, Monica, allegations, Futures investment, destroyed documents, allegations of rape and cover-up, Jennifer Flowers, stained Blue Dress, Impeachment, Corruption, Mark Rich calling 3 am offering a bribe, Hill/Bill agreeing to grant a pardon, tax returns, the library donors. And more and more.
The horrible sexual abuse and cover up of a young intern named Monica…, and then trying to destroy her. Carl Rove had nothing on the immoral Ann Lewis.
The press has not been hard ton these two corrupt thugs. Just the opposite.
She is toast… go out with a little class….
Governor Strickland has sold his and his staff's future to Hillary. He appears to be willing to give up the governor's office for a position in her administration (not VP, probably cabinet) no matter the cost. As an Ohioan I am extremely disappointed.
Peter: We, in New York, have the same problem w/our own pols --and WE WILL REMEMBER!!! Zero votes for Mr. Obama in HARLEM??? Corruption on steroids and very Clintonesque. New Yorkers have been sold out by OUR pols as well. Have you heard the Junior Senator (or Senior Senator, Governor, the NYT) even mention Osama bin Ladin??? What does THAT tell you? We have a big, gaping hole in the ground and years of red/yellow alerts -- that NOBODY SPEAKS ABOUT. All we got/get is movie dialogue -- WANTED, DEAD OF ALIVE -- before/during Campaign seasons. Look at our Southern region after Katrina??? Americans STILL not in their homes. Let's turn the page!
This is the arrogance of the HRC camp we have all come to know. We are bigger, smarter, mightier and we can do everything better than you except run a campaign. Even hubby Bill has admitted she will have to win in Texas and Ohio (but fail to say how much she has to win by) to be a legitimate competitor. The only reason to take this flailing campaign all the way to the convention is to ruin the Democratic Party. Before the Party allows that, many more of her pledged super delegates would turn against her. She will have nothing to barter or promises to make it worth their while; and they risk losing some support of their own constituencies. Obama’s will have to spend less to win the remaining primaries and caucuses and she digs herself into a deeper hole.
Wow, thanks for your comments. I thought I was the only one that rememberd the ghosts in the Clinton closet....course I would as a Republican conservative. But I was gladdend to see that all of Mrs Clintons gender had not lost their minds over heWb77r.
MB1
Wow, thanks for your comments. I thought I was the only one that rememberd the ghosts in the Clinton closet....course I would as a Republican conservative. But I was gladdend to see that all of Mrs Clintons gender had not lost their minds over heWb77r.
MB1
What a joke this Strickland guy is. This just in: it takes more than winning Ohio and PA to get the nomination. Is this guy on drugs? Can he not count high enough to do the delegate math?
I am from Ohio..
Trust me this guy Strickland is a Losser..
We had little to choose from last time. I hope we get rid of him soon.
Why is he being so strident and shrill? It gives me hope that the estimable Governor Strickland has evaluated the numbers and trends, and not only knows Clinton will lose Texas, but understands she might lose Ohio too. And when she does, his own political capital will plummet.
If so, it serves him right. Advocacy is one thing, blind loyalty (and nodding while she made that ridiculous tirade about flyers) is another. He could have been 2% more statesmanlike and saved his own career.
He is absolutely right. The media has been doing it's darndest to count Hillary out and annoint Obama as the nominee (if not President) when the reality is that there is barely a cigarette paper between them
If she loses both, then its curtains. If she wins just Ohio she should absolutely go on. If after that Obama streaks away, then fair enough, but there are lot of other variables which still might swing Clinton's way such as the support of superdelegates & the problem concerning the votes of florida and michigan.
PLUS, it will lengthen the debate which might see the Obamania wear off. Barack is smart, but VERY inexperienced. He is going to trip up big time in front of the world's cameras - if not against Hillary then against McCain. If he makes some ridiculous foreign policy statement before he gets the nomination, the superdelegate vote will desert him as he will be seen as too risky.
So if Hillary wins Ohio but loses Texas, she's still in it.
If she wins both, she's the likely overall winner.
If she loses both, she's toast.
Hillary Clinton feels entitled to the Nomination and, consequently, will take the Party down (as her husband's out-of-control conduct did while they were in The White House, making Al Gore's RUN much more difficult than it needed to be) in the process. Everything is PERSONAL to Hillary, who has something to prove. Being rejected by the Electorate will only make her more dangerous. Nothing more dangerous than someone who has something to prove and remains ANGRY from perceived public slights and disrespect (by Bill, not Americans) and having to remain in her marital state to serve her AMBITIONS. Of course, modern women know she did not have to make that choice after becoming a United States Senator. Hillary made that choice because of her own inadequacies, which she is very well acquainted. MOCKERY is more of her weakness. MOCKING the accomplishments and life experiences of Senators John McCain and Barack Obama wreaks WEAKNESSES, not strength. We mock what we don't understand. We mock what makes us insecure. We mock when we are AFRAID. Mockery does not equal character. The opposite. Were Hillary not in a bubble of privilege half of her so-called professional career, she would understand that our young are rightly turned off by this dated, tired Gloria Steinem tactic. Her staffs may have to endure this kind of treatment, but put in the public discourse, it is pathetic and toxic. Turn the page.
Here's the thing -- neither candidate is particularly electable, even against Mccain, but Obama is even less so. "Obama for President" has become a religious calling and his followers swoon for him (some literally). Women fainting, men crying, applause for meaningless words.... As a presidential candidate he lacks substance and has little to no real plans. His followers are drinking his kool-aid without really stopping to ask what's in it and that's a problem.
HRC, on the other hand, has actual experience and a background in the political system. That's not to say I really care for her as a candidate either, mind you, but at least there's some substance there. As others have mentioned, she's carried large states that matter in a general election whereas her competitors have carried those that are less critical and would likely go to the Republican candidate anyway. She's not the BEST candidate but she's a far better choice between the two.
The Democrat party needs to seriously sit back and ask if they want the White House this election and if the answer is yes, they need to run Clinton. (Of course, an even better choice would be Gore but that's a different discussion.)
I'm embarassed for her...
Media bias??? ONLY in the NYT and in American media can Hillary Clinton LOSE 11 STATES and still be treated as if she is equal to Barack Obama's wins...and continue to dictate and move the bar. Very George W. Bush. This is media bias, alright. Media bias in FAVOR of a total loser allowed to DICTATE to the Democratic establishment and MOCK a winner and voters -- basically hijack the PROCESS like she hijacks the debates. She just said she WILL NOT QUIT no matter what happens tomorrow. DENIAL isn't a quality we need in the President of the United States. We already have that in Office and not much worse could have happened in a period of 7 years. Turn the page, OH, TX and RI. PLEASE!!!
Well, since this Obama supporter is a 'kool-aid drinking' 'cult member', I guess Senator Clinton doesn't need my paltry vote in November, should she win the nomination.
But hey, why would anyone need my help when they have a negative approval rating of 59%? And since she has "actual experience", she obviously thought her negative approval ratings were not low enough, she went out of her way to sink it even more by dissing members of her own (supposed) party. What an astute woman!
As for me, I choose to stick with Barack Obama. I know, I know; why in the name of Tesla would I vote for a man who spent 8 years in the Illinois Senate, and 3 years in the U.S. Senate? But gosh darn it, that's what kind of a woman I am. I prefer to cast my vote for a résumé that I can see, not for one that has been padded with silicone.
Hillary Clinton. The Lurleen Wallace of the 21st century.
And Ted Strickland is her willing enabler.
The Democratic Party can do much better than the amoral and incompetent Clinton.
Found this on the web and thought some might find it interesting so I quote who I believe was Rudolf Steiner who said
"empty phrases", such as Rule By The Will Of The People, The Free World, Individual Freedom, and so on. These phrases are largely devoid of reality in our socio-political structure; here the pervasive actuality is the power of money over Men and over life. And where the empty phrase rules in language, mere conventions — rather than living human contact — rule in social life, and mere routine — rather than lively human interest — rules in economic life. And: "It is only a short step from the empty phrase to the lie." Again, this is especially true in politics and economics, for the prevalence of empty words makes possible the falsification of realities."
In my opionon Mr Obama's whole campaign is empty phrases the most popular being "Change We Can Believe In" and I don't feel that's the candidate for the future of America.
As prevalent as sexism is in our society how anyone, (especially the male dominated media which claims not to be bias) ,could see any rational behind the idea that this isn't a part of this electoral process seems hypocritical. When the concept of sexism is discussed as being part of how Mrs Clinton is portrayed in the media and is dismissed, this should raise suspect to the credibility of those reporting it given how common sexism is in everyday life in America.
Why have the media not delved more into the possibility that this is occurring, when this can only serve to give less dialogue on the matter? Then for the media to be seen by a wide number of polls taken of the voters, (which included Mr Obama's supporters), that the media is overwhelmingly bias in an unfavorable way toward Mrs Clinton, should be something that would lead one to question this possibility of sexism in the process and the media rather than dismiss it.
NAFTA has gone and raised it's ugly head in Mr. Obama's camp. Another politician back peddling. Since I was never clear on his empty phrase of "Change We Can Believe In" was this the change he promised?
Ok, I'm sick of this ABSURD argument that "Hillary won the big, solid democratic states...those are the states dems need to win in Nov!"
The unspoken (and utterly ridiculous) premise to this argument is that California, NY, Massachusetts, and NJ, all SOLID blue states (yes, even NJ) would not vote for Obama if he was the nominee. Does anyone, ANYONE, actually believe that? Does someone out there believe the GOP has a shot at winning California or MA???
It is this silly "50% +1" strategy that destroys our political process, one that was founded on finding MEANINGFUL CONSENSUS. It is precisely the fact that Obama has won HUGE, with (and here's the important part) record democratic turnouts in some of the "reddest" states out there, that ADDS to his candidacy. If Dems want to win in November, they don't need a candidate that "can win" California. That is a cakewalk for any Dem nominee. They need one that can win, or at least compete seriously on the ground, in places like Missouri (Dem senator, and Dem gov. from 93-2005) and Kansas (currently with a dem gov) or hell, even West Va (with a Dem Gov, 2 dem senators, and 2 of 3 dem Reps).
These states have wrongly been written off by the party (before Dean's Chairmanship that is) and they will be written off by any Hillary Campaign...and will lead to yet another stunning loss for the Democrats. Obama is the only one that can FINALLY challenge and change the electoral map. Hillary is just more of the same.
LetDCVote
The current polls I've seen recently 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. I'm guessing that if Hillary does get the nomination that she would have the majority support of their party.
Sour grapes from the obama supporters...She ended up taking Ohio in a big way! She is the only choice for the democratic party. Clinton's long track record of successfully translating vision into action dwarfs Obama's accomplishments. Her present proposals to the future target the right issues with the necessary level of specificity and openness required in these troubled times. Notwithstanding Obama's potential, we can't afford an extensive learning process in the top job today - a learning process that Hillary has already largely completed; where-as, Obama has just begun. Both prose and poetry are needed moving forward and Hillary has both today.
Anonymous
Great post, right on target and expressed very important points. Thanks
Hillary 2008 2012