Dave Lindorff: I'm Going to Make a Prediction Here: Hillary's Toast

[marmar]

from ThisCantBeHappening.net:


Dave Lindorff
I'm Going to Make a Prediction Here: Hillary's Toast
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 20:11 — dlindorff


For two years now, I have been telling people who insisted that Hillary Clinton would be the next Democratic candidate for president that they were wrong. I even put it in writing a few times.

Now I'm going to really put it out there: Hillary Clinton is Toast. She is not going to be the Democratic nominee.

The reason I always figured she wouldn't make it across the primary finish line was that she was too calculatingly conservative for primary voters.

For years, it has been the case that Democratic primary voters have been more liberal than the broader spectrum of registered Democratic voters. That is because progressive voters have generally been better educated and also more motivated to try to have an impact on the decisions of "their" party than other voters who just mechanically, or out of habit, checked the Democratic box when they registered to vote. Then you have to add to the mix the reality that independents, who vote in the primaries of many of the 50 states, are often, contrary to conventional wisdom, way more "liberal," or better, anti-Establishment, on many issues than are Democrats.

Clinton, meanwhile, is the quintessential Establishment candidate. She has honed her resume, she has cautiously calculated the impact of every critical vote in the Senate. Even as Mr. Bill's unofficial adviser, she played the role of making sure that White House decisions hewed to the center-right, as for example when she pressed him to defund welfare, or to gut habeas rights for death penalty prisoners. Her craven support in the Senate more recently for a flag-burning law, and her vote in support of the mortally dangerous Kyle-Lieberman bill last year (which would, if passed in its original form, have declared Iran's main armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, to be a "global terrorist organization," thus giving President Bush all the authorization he thinks he needs to attack that country), epitomize her politics. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/104

[Proud2BAmurkin]

1. More votes, more delegates, more experience, beat the MSM and opponent. Stick a fork in her

[milkyway]

13. You mean less delegates, less experience, can't even win with her ex-Prez husband

trying to put her in the Oval Office.

Obama has more experience. He's been an elected official since 1996. Hillary has been an elected official since 2000.

Unless by experience you mean her years at First Lady. But if her experience advantage is because of those years, then she can't possibly be the "change" candidate--her and Bill will just be going back to where they were before, this time with the number 1 and 2 reversed. That's not the kind of change most people are looking for.

[jasmine621]

2. This is really pathetic. Obama is much more conservative than Hillary.

And watch his behind the scenes backers and supporters. You couldn't be more "establishment."

[kurth]

3. More corporate media endorsements than anyone

That should be enough to make anyone suspicious.

[Blarch]

4. "Obama is much more conservative than Hillary."

That simply isn't true.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. ~

~

[hertopos]

12. yes, it is true

If you only look at Iraq vote and othe war related staff, maybe Obama seems less Hawkish.
However, that's about it.

Everything else, Hillary's platform is much more liberal than Obama.

He support biofuel blindly without paying attention to it's potential side effect.
He supports nuclear.

He is as pro gay as Clinton.

We all know about Healthcare.

On the top of that, he does not know anything about economy.
This is scarist to me.

Obama can be next Hoover.

Hertopos

[Samantha]

19. The war issue alone is enough for me

It's the only issue people have died over. People breeze by that here as if it's an issue of the same weight as all the others. It has much greater weight than all the others combined.

[skipos]

6. Yes, Obama is the establishment candidate. He was voting for the war while Hillary

was speaking out against it. She has always been the underdog. He was leading the polls for months with all of the media calling him "inevitable." He is so conservative that Rupert Murdoch did a fundraiser for him, and people like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter say they will vote for him over McCain. Go Hillary!

Edit to add: and Obama is a member of the centrist DLC too, while Hillary is not. I forgot about that one.

[karynnj]

16. They could be more establishment, they could be "Bill Clinton"

[yourout]

5. Sizes up my thoughts exactly.

[thevoiceofreason]

7. marmar

You know your article hit a nerve when the crazies/freepers came out after you.

[marmar]

9. Thank goodness I just posted it and didn't write it!

:scared:

[medeak]

10. super delegates ... 20% of convention

are already lined up to vote for her...unless Obama can work some magic.

Am an Edwards supporter and have no bias...just sayin'

[UALRBSofL]

15. And Senator Nelson made statements

to Dean that if Florida delegates weren't seated per the primary on Jan 29th they would sit out the convention and in the GE many democrats would a) write in there candidate, b) stay home, c) vote off party. Nelson refused a caucus offered by Dean. In our primary, people didn't know there votes didn't count for there candidate. We had as big a turnout for our primary about as many people as NY did, it was a record breaker. We have 231 delegates at steak.

[milkyway]

25. People didn't know their votes didn't count? This was a huge issue in Florida for a long period of

time.

[milkyway]

18. It will never--repeat, never--happen. There is no way the party elders are going to allow

the will of the people to be subverted by party insiders.

The people vote for Obama to be the first black nominee, yet party insiders and elected officials overrule them and take the nomination away from him? It would destroy--permanently--the Democratic party.

Likewise, the people vote for Hillary to be the first female nominee, yet party insiders and elected officials overrule them and take the nomination away from her? It likewise would destroy--permanently--the Democratic party.

Donna Brasile said as much yesterday on CNN. She's been connected with the Clintons for years, yet yesterday she said that if the superdelegates were to give the nomination to a candidate that did not receive the majority of unpledged delegates, she would leave the party. She was speaking directly to the Clintons--don't try to get the party insiders to force your nomination on the voters. Go out and win it.

[medeak]

27. my state...2 of 3 super delegates committed

to Hillary. Were so before caucus and remain so afterwards. Hope your thread isn't a pollyanna post...but afraid it may be so.

[CoffeeCat]

11. Her upcoming strategy is a gift to Obama...

She's got barely any ground game in the next ten states. Obama has significant presence in
nearly all of them, plus enough money to do ad buys.

Hillary's announced strategy is to put everything into TX, OH, PA. The only problem with that
is that those states vote in early March.

This is the failed Guiliani strategy and I can't believe that any candidate commit political
suicide like this. I'm beginning to think that she doesn't want to win.

Obama will handily take the majority of the delegates in the next rounds that happen on Saturday,
Sunday and Tuesday. She'll be lucky to win one state. For an entire week, he'll trounce her, and
she thinks she'll be able to recover and move on to take TX, OH and PA????

Obama all ready has 10 offices in TX.

She'll be a loser for at least a week, probably more--because after this week comes Wisconsin
and another state (Hawaii??). Wisconsin favors Obama.

So...for nearly two weeks, Hillary will lose. It's unrecoverable.

No wonder she begged her supporters for money now. After Tuesday, she'll be lucky to get a dime from
anyone.

She is toast.

[milkyway]

17. 9 states between now and March 4--596 delegates (pledged & unpledged).

Yet the Clintons focus on Ohio and Texas, total of 389 delegates. The Clintons, like Rudy, are desperately trying to convince the media the big showdown for the nomination is March 4.

Obama has a good chance of gaining a 50-100 pledged delegate advantage before March 4, and even if he loses Ohio and Texas, they should be fairly close, not nearly enough to overcome the advantage in pledged delegates he will have built up.

I think the Clintons are trying to make March 4 into a final showdown to get the media to declare the winner the presumptive nominee, hoping this creates pressure on Obama to step down for the good of the party.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

[CoffeeCat]

22. Interesting assessment...

I think the Clintons are banking on Mar 4, as being the final showdown. However, they know that
all that matters is total delegate count. Especially in this tight race, with half of the party
totally gung-ho on Obama. There's no way that anything BUT total delegate count will matter, no
matter who takes TX and OH.

I really think that they know they've lost it. Obama has the overwhelming advantage in nearly
all of the 10 states that vote before Mar 4. He'll have major momentum, increasing as each
day passes. This momentum will cut into the outcomes of OH, and TX. Plus, Obama has a serious
ground game in TX and probably Ohio.

I think the Clintons have all ready lost it.

Super Tuesday was her shot at banking major delegates. She had two states totally devoted to her (AK, NY)
and many states with large Hispanic populations. It's a dead heat, with Obama sailing to crushing
victories in many of these upcoming 10 states.

I'm actually stunned--looking at all of this, because I see no way for her to win.

She's low on money, and she's got a lot less to work with than Obama. He's got money for big
media buys and she doesn't. She got that $6 million dollar infusion, but that only goes so far.

Also, she's a horrible campaigner when she's down. She gets frustrated and she seems to spin out
of control.

This is going to be very, very interesting.

[milkyway]

23. Yes, their Full-Rudy strategy does not seem to be a winner. I think their only hope

is to stay close enough so that after winning Ohio and Texas (assuming they do) the media crowns them as the big winners, and their advantage in superdelegates puts them ahead of Obama, allowing them to try to push Obama to step aside for the good of the party.

[CoffeeCat]

26. ...and wouldn't you agree, that those Super Delegates...

...will go to the clear winner?

I don't care who the Clintons have cajoled, bullied and strong armed into
pledged support.

Those Super Delegates will go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

There will be hell to pay in our party, if the Super Delegates usurp the will
of the people. I'm guessing that they'll fall in line with the candidate
who garners the most delegates.

From this angle, Obama has this race in the bag.

[CoffeeCat]

29. Look at this!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4470425

I think you're thinking like the Obama campaign team.

Look at this "leaked" Obama campaign memo. The memo shows that they
determine that they'll be ahead in delegates even if they lose OH, PA and TX .

Isn't this frickin brilliant????

In effect, the Obama campaign is kneecapping her ability to do what you said the
Clinton campaign would do---assert that winning OH, TX and PA means that they're
the big winners.

This "leaked" (wink, wink) memo, neutralizes Clinton's TX, OH and PA wins.

The Clintons must be standing in their jammies right now, stunned at how well
Obama plays the game.

I'm marveling!

Obama is Kayser Soze-ing the Clintons!!!

[milkyway]

30. Yes, I think it's a deliberate leak. Also, as I posted in another thread regarding

superdelegates flipping the nomination from one candidate to another:

It will never--repeat, never--happen. There is no way the party elders are going to allow the will of the people to be subverted by party insiders.

The people vote for Obama to be the first black nominee, yet party insiders and elected officials overrule them and take the nomination away from him? It would destroy--permanently--the Democratic party.

Likewise, the people vote for Hillary to be the first female nominee, yet party insiders and elected officials overrule them and take the nomination away from her? It likewise would destroy--permanently--the Democratic party.

Donna Brasile said as much yesterday on CNN. She's been connected with the Clintons for years, yet yesterday she said that if the superdelegates were to give the nomination to a candidate that did not receive the majority of unpledged delegates, she would leave the party. She was speaking directly to the Clintons--don't try to get the party insiders to force your nomination on the voters. Go out and try to win it.

[K Gardner]

21. Bingo again, Two Sparkles !

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Wow there was at least one whopper of really dishonest spin in that

"...her vote in support of the mortally dangerous Kyle-Lieberman bill last year (which would, if passed in its original form, have declared Iran's main armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, to be a "global terrorist organization..."

But Clinton did not vote for the original form of that bill. She was among those in the Senate involved in the effort to amend the original version so that it WOULD NOT give Bush dangerous authorization. The version that passed significantly differed from the original version. Clinton said at the time of her vote that she planned to vote NO on the original version. Meanwhile her remaining primary opponent co-sponsored an earlier Senate effort to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist organization himself. But that point is spin by omission. The part about blaming Clinton for what the original version that she declined to vote for said is blatant distorting spin.

[DUyellow]

20. I would say the bill that past was too much trust, i do not trust bush. period.... I woul...

I would have thought that with the IWV she would have learned her lesson.

[catagory5]

28. You goofy shit.

Obama is much more conservative than Clinton? Obama was the #1 liberal senator this past year. Check your facts.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. the kiss of death