Hillary Clinton's campaign plunged into crisis

[MindMatter]

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/11/wuspols111.xml

This think is coming apart at the seams. It looks like they are conceding a bunch of defeats, and hoping to make it up in Ohio and Texas. Anybody know how Obama is doing in Ohio and Texas?

Finish her off.

[cbayer]

1. oooooohh, finish her off. that should get you at least 5 recommendations.

[yardwork]

2. LOL! What an incredibly biased editorial!

First off, Clinton would expect to lose the primary to Obama in most southern states. He appeals to the more conservative elements of the Democratic Party and has cross-over appeal to Republicans. He also appeals to African Americans. He will win all the primaries in southern states - all of which will vote Republican in the general election.

Ohio and Texas are heavily populated states with lots of delegates. If Clinton loses both Ohio and Texas, then her campaign is in big trouble. Right now, it's in a holding pattern.

Neither campaign is in crisis. They are tied. Neck and neck.

[mkultra]

4. no dem condidate

sense wwii has won without carrying the south. The west coats and the NE are usually in the bag no matter what.

[yardwork]

7. No Democratic candidate in my lifetime has "carried the south."

The south votes Republican, consistently.

Democrats have to win the midwest and Florida, along with the west coast and northeast, to win the election. That's how they've done it.

Democratic presidential candidates don't win the south. Not in my lifetime. Not since the Civil Rights Movement.

[MindMatter]

10. Then you were born after 1976

Carter won the entire South.

[yardwork]

11. No, he lost Virginia. And he lost the entire west and most of the northeast.

Carter was a popular governor of Georgia. Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton have that kind of appeal in the south. Their campaigns depend on winning the coasts and the midwest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1976

[MindMatter]

16. Don't be silly now

Take a look at this map (in this case red is Carter)

>

If that is not "carrying the South", I don't know what is.

[yardwork]

25. Ok, you're right. I'd forgotten how many southern states Carter won.

But look at the blue states he lost.

Maybe Obama can win the south and the west and the northeast. If so, he wins in a landslide. That would be great. I'm serious. I want a Democrat in the White House.

It's too soon to count Hillary out, though. The primaries aren't over.

[MindMatter]

34. It is remarkable, and indicative of the power of a mindless press

The media has beat this red state-blue state drum so long and hard, it is very easy to forget that it is really a very recent phenomenon and not by any means a consistent one. For awhile, it seemed as if the only man alive who knew better was Howard Deam.

That one of the factors that makes this election cycle so interesting. If Obama is the Dem nominee, he has a very good chance of sweeping through a lot of "red states" that the GOP strategists count in their column as sure things. Obama's demographics would be a little different from Carter's but not that much different. The big thing is that the black turnout in the southern states would be very high -- so high that the GOP dirty tricks could not overcome those numbers. In contrast, Hillary's transformation from a Southern gal to a Yankee would not help in the south. Southerners don't much like Yankees.

[yardwork]

41. Good points. By the way, I was glad to see Hillary stand up against the mindless press.

[southern_dem]

61. ...

This was before the realignment in New England. Outside of Mass, most of it was dominated by liberal Republicans at the time.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. Carter, 1976, as noted

and Clinton in 1992 won GA, WV, KY, TN, LA, AR...so half of the South; the same states again in '96, except subtract Georgia and add Florida. Democratic candidates may not have won EVERY Southern state in your lifetime, but they HAVE won a significant number of Southern states. (And those numbers increase if one counts Missouri and Maryland as Southern, too.)

[yardwork]

28. I would argue that WV and KY aren't really south, but I concede your point.

Both Carter and Clinton were governors of southern states. Neither Obama nor Hillary have that advantage.

[jackson_dem]

33. That's because we stupidly dismissed southerner Edwards

Now we are stuck with ceding the entire South if Obama is the nominee or the entire South except Arkansas with Hillary. Floria will be competitive as usual but given its high migration from the North, culture, and economy it isn't a true southern state.

[yardwork]

39. No arguments from me on all your points.

As usual, the Democratic Party stupidly dismissed its progressive candidates and now we're stuck with two centrists from which to choose.

I'll support either of them but I will not pretend that Obama is some shining beacon of liberalism because I don't see any evidence to support that whatsoever.

[MindMatter]

42. I don't agree

It is all about turnout. Of course there are plenty of racists in the South. But they side with the GOP already. The question is, if Obama were the candidate, would he bring out more backs or more racists? I think there is a good argument that the historic nature of that scenario means the black turnout in the South would be huge. I can't see McCain really firing up the racists much.

So I think that is a 5-7% advantage. Obama is also doing extremely well everywhere with young voters. That is a possibility for another 5% factor that we don't normally see. So Obama could have a 10% swing, and that could be enough to win half of the southern states.

And remember, how close the Electoral College has been. The GOP cannot afford to lose even one of those "sure bet" Southern states.

[yardwork]

46. If Obama is the nominee, then black turnout will be crucial to him.

If Obama can find more black voters in the south than have voted in the past, he might overcome the racists and the conservative bias against him. Especially since, as you say, McCain is intensely disliked by many conservatives and we can hope that they'll stay home.

But Obama must increase the black turnout. He can't hope to increase the percent of blacks who already vote Democratic. It's about 88% - and that 12% vote Republican because of abortion and won't be swayed.

[MindMatter]

48. I think that's a very real possibility

I'm as pasty white as they come. But I do have a lot of African-American friends, and I do believe they are truly pumped at this historic possibility.

It takes more than good intentions to get out that vote. But we are witnessing one of the best ground campaigns in recent times, so I think it is a very plausible that if Obama seals the nomination by March, he will have time to organize a registration campaign with unprecedented results.

Conventional wisdom is not in control here.

[yardwork]

49. This pasty white woman thinks that would be wonderful.

If Obama is the nominee I will vote for him gladly.

[jackson_dem]

55. The honest answer is they would probably offset each other

I don't see Obama carrying a single southern state other than perhaps Florida. He hasn't seemed to produce astronomical black turnout so far in the primaries and to win he would have to do that (almost all blacks are Democrats so while they make up half the vote in Deep South Democratic primaries in the general election they will be about 25% of the electorate in the South). The black share of the vote in southern primaries is about the same as in the past.

Obama does well with young voters but poorly with older voters.

[MindMatter]

6. I predict

Edwards will endorse Obama on Monday, in advance of the VA/MD primaries and call for Clinton to end her campaign so that we can unite behind a candidate.

I contributed a little money to Obama early on, but was mainly an Edwards supporter. I have some concerns about Obama. Having said that, his momentum is building every day. It seems to me there are some folks in denial about that. It looks like the Clinton campaign is no longer denying it.

She's dumping $5M of her personal money into the campaign. That would seem like a last ditch effort to stop the Mo. But then they turn around and say their strategy is to go for broke with OH and TX. That looks like a campaign in crisis to me.

Big mistake by the campaign to try those underhanded maneuvers to seat the MI and TX delegations. That is just wrong. That is pushing a lot of people over to the Obama side. It is reminding is of the trust factor with the Clintons, in case anybody temporarily forgot that.

If the writing isn't on the wall today, it will be on Tuesday if Obama sweeps DC, MD, and VA.

[yardwork]

8. I'll take that bet. Clinton won't drop out until and unless she loses OH and TX.

[MindMatter]

14. I agree with you.

Big wins in OH and TX would give her a mathematical path back into the campaign without having to resort to party shenanigans. So I can't see her cashing in until March 5. But if things go badly for her between now and March 4, she will be wise to stop the cash bleeding and to start to put out conciliatory messages.

The prediction with Edwards is just a wild guess. If he was ever going to make an endorsement, tomorrow would be the right day. That is probably the last time that his endorsement would be at all relevant. So I'm guessing there are some phone calls going on this evening between Obama and Edwards in light of the Clinton campaign implosion.

[yardwork]

27. Oh yeah, I didn't comment on your Edwards prediction.

I agree that Obama is probably working hard to get Edwards's nod. I think Edwards will hold out a little longer.

If Hillary loses OH I don't think she can win the nomination. She would be wise to drop out if that happens.

[Top Cat]

40. If Clinton loses OH and TX

I don't think she will concede even if that happens. Hillary will puch for FL and Michagan to be counted first.

[Lefty-Taylor]

9. We're not talking about just "southern states" now are we?

This weekend Obama beat Ms. Clinton and her Republican Lite legislative record in virtually every corner of the country. Handily. Surely you know this: He won in the NW (Washington), the Heartland (Nebraska), the Northeast (Maine) and yes, the south (Louisiana) -- oh and also in the Virgin Islands.

I don't think her campaign is in a "holding pattern." It's in a downward spiral.

But hey, call the Telegraph piece "incredibly biased" if it makes you feel better.

Cha-cha-change!!!

[MindMatter]

12. How did he put that together?

As you say, he is winning everywhere and winning BIG. The only significant exceptions have been California and NY, and if they came 3 weeks later, it appears he would have won them too.

What is most impressive is how an underdog with no access to the major party apparatus has been able to organize such an affective feet-on-the-street campaign, not in a few states, but in every state.

As I said above, I have had some concerns about Obama, but his ability to make the right moves in this campaign is very impressive, and a reason to support him.

[Stephanie]

50. When an Iowan reported here that the Obama campaign threw 1000 house parties in one night

I was awed. 1000 houseparties in one night in Iowa? That's an amazing achievement, that's real organization.

[yardwork]

13. If Clinton is Republican Lite, what is Obama?

Please show me a vote by Obama that differs from Clinton's and is more progressive than hers. They are few and far between.

They're both Republican Lite.

[Lefty-Taylor]

17. Regarding their votes -- yes, HRC and Obama have mirrored each other

often in the Senate. (By the way, I'm an Edwards supporter first and Obama second.) But you to must look deeper -- Obama expressed clear and vocal opposition to the war (I know he didn't have to vote in the Senate about it). He has a record early in his political career of supporting progressive issues and causes -- including my passion, helping the poor and disenfranchised. Clinton on the other hand supported the horrible "welfare reform act" her husband pushed through and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that consolidated corporate control of the airwaves.

These are only a few things that distinguish her as truly Republican Lite.

I hope Obama goes back to his more progressive past; at least he has one.

[yardwork]

21. I'm not persuaded. It's easy for Obama to say how he would have voted now.

The poor and disenfranchised did a lot better under Clinton than they have during the past seven years. Obama has a lot of good speeches, but his voting record is the same as Clinton's.

Despite their campaign rhetoric, I think that they are about the same on the issues.

[Lefty-Taylor]

38. With alll due respect, you all completely misguided if you think the poor did well under

the Clinton administration. As documented by reports in The Nation, Harpers and other publications, the gap between the rich and poor grew substantially during the economic boom of the 90s that benefited the upper, upper-middle classes and, in some cases, the middle class. You do know what "welfare reform" did, right? If not go ask families who had food stamps and a modicum of other help how they fared once they were "reformed."

Look at the right-wing corporate ties the Clintons have.

Look at what Bill Clinton did in 1993 when he backed up George the First and the Bush family and bombed Iraqi civilians. The record is tainted. And Bill often called Hillary "my closest advisor."

[yardwork]

43. Can you read? Please reread my post.

Unless you are arguing that somehow the poor did better under Bush than Clinton, in which case I'll just put you on ignore.

[Lefty-Taylor]

51. Yes, I can read. Thanks for asking. In digesting your entire line of thought (the whole context),

I deduced that you were suggesting Hillary would be better than Obama when it comes to progressive policies about the growing poor. Of course, the destitute have suffered more under Bush; we were NOT talking about that. Apples and oranges, Yardwork. We were debating the merits of a Clinton presidency and an Obama one. You wanted to know how Clinton was Republican Lite. I clearly offered an example or two of how the Clinton corporate policies reflected Republican positions (it's on the historic record). You haven't countered with anything of substance regarding Clinton's support of the welfare bill, the T-comm bill and the Republican-like terrorism in Iraq in 1993.

I think we probably agree more than we're showing here. But if you choose to "ignore" so be it.

[yardwork]

52. No, you are misunderstanding me entirely.

I don't disagree that Hillary is Republican Lite. I say so all the time. I'm saying that I think Obama is, too.

I don't see a big difference between them. Nothing in Obama's record persuades me that he would be much better than the Clintons.

I'm not saying that I think she would be particularly better. I'm saying that I'm sick and tired of this "Obama is a shining beacon of liberalism while Hillary is a mean old vicious crone who loves war and hates people" meme. I'm not saying that you posted that. I do see it all over DU and I'm fighting back by stating the following:

I don't see a big difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issues.

I can respect folks for whomever they support, and I'll gladly vote for whichever wins the nomination, but I won't participate in this villification of Hillary.

[MindMatter]

54. I have the same concerns

He has made a decision to reveal very little during this campaign, which is really the opposite of Edwards. Edwards made it very clear where his passions were.

We know exactly where the Clintons stand and how they operate. We do not know that about Obama. So we are left to speculate.

I don't expect that he would pursue a radical agenda, because he has not developed a mandate for that. He has been rather clear about the war. I think it is reasonable to assume he would work to free up some of that $trillion/year we're dumping into our military machine. It wasn't very long ago that the military budget was $400 billion, which still made it more than the entire rest of the world was spending COMBINED on their armies.

I expect that he would have a bit more passion for the challenges the lower income folks face, particularly as we have exported so many really crucial jobs under the Clintons and Bushes.

I would certainly feel better if he were to speak directly to these issues. But I also know how the media works. They fixate on the smallest of things, so Obama is trying to run a campaign where he gives them the least grist to work with. I don't like it, but I understand why he's doing it.

[Lefty-Taylor]

58. If only the media hadn't undermined (Howar-Dean-ified?) Edwards out of the race ... sigh.

[Lefty-Taylor]

57. As well you shouldn't then ("participate in this villification of Hillary"). But you should consider

what she supported in the 90s (and again with the Kyle-Lieberman legislation a few months ago that opened the door for Bush to attack Iran; I know Obama didn't cast a vote on that one. But he didn't support it either -- that's for sure.) I think you and I both wish we had someone with a true progressive record. Am I right?

I simply look at the entire record of Hillary and Bill (you can't separate the two) and recoil.

[yardwork]

59. When I look at the entire record of Hillary and Bill I see a lot of good things.

You're absolutely right that I'm disappointed that, yet again, the Democratic voters wimp out and refuse to support anyone much to the left of Attila the Hun.

However, the Clinton years weren't such bad years. I'm in healthcare, and people may have forgotten how dreadful things were under Reagan and then Poppy Bush. Clinton turned a lot of bad things around. Yes, I totally disagreed with welfare "reform", NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, and some other things - but Clinton faced a really really nasty right-wing Congress.

I like the Clintons because they are tough. They are fighters, and I like that, because too few Democrats have been fighters. I think that Obama is a fighter too. I think that they're both good for the party.

I wish they were more progressive.

[Lefty-Taylor]

60. Peace, YW. Thanks for engaging me. May progressivism resurface!

[MindMatter]

18. The devil we don't know

And I don't care for the two devils we do know (McCain and Clinton).

[Top Cat]

44. The devil we don't know

I sure hope you are not refering to Obama

[MindMatter]

45. Chill. It is a figure of speech.

Haven't you ever heard the expression "The devil we do know versus the devil we don't know"?

[PassingFair]

23. He is not a DLC member.

That is good enough for me.

[yardwork]

29. That doesn't seem to really mean anything anymore.

It's like worrying that Kerry was "skull and bones." On the votes, I don't see a big difference between Obama and Clinton.

I'm supporting the devil I know.

[PassingFair]

30. To YOU it doesn't.

It matters to ME.

If I have a choice.

[bigtree]

3. hope and unity

[AtomicKitten]

5. Her campaign has exhibited ominous symptoms:

1. Money crunch.
2. Shake-up in staff.

[DS1]

19. I'm an Obama supporter, and I disapprove of this message

[democrattotheend]

24. Me too

It ups the ante and makes Hillary supporters more determined.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...we still have a long way to go.

[yardwork]

31. I'd disapprove of it if I were an Obama supporter too.

It's an incredibly biased article from a source that will no doubt be trashing Obama next.

[MindMatter]

35. I don't see a lo0f of bias in that article.

Go to cnn.com. They are telling the story pretty much the same way. You don't pull the plug on your campaign manager and dump millions of your own money into the campaign at this critical moment without it being a full-fledged crisis.

[alteredstate]

20. Don't be fooled.

The Clintons don't like to lose. They're going to put everything they've got into Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

47. I agree! The race isn't over!

[thevoiceofreason]

22. Obama camp is getting love all over Texas.

But we have a lot of work to do to climb over the institutional support Hillary has in the state.

[alteredstate]

26. Say hi to the Charleston SC Obama staff

if they end up in your town! They arrived in Texas today!

[Bluebear]

32. "This think! This think!"

:silly:

[Top Cat]

36. The end is near for Hillary's campaign

I think her campaign is in trouble, because she is holding out hope of clinching the nomination in March with. You cannot put all your apples in such a small bag. Obama needs to keep the heat going and we all can watch he wither on the vine.

[elixir]

37. Nothing like going half way around the world to get an opinion.

As much as you'd like to "finish her off". Hillary will remain in the race as long as she can and I support her race.

[MindMatter]

53. Unfortunately we've had to depend on the foreign press a lot lately

I cited that article because it was the first one that appeared in Google News. I didn't see any discussion at DU of this important development in the Clinton campaign. I didn't pay much attention to the conclusions. The facts tell the story pretty clearly, it seems to me. And since that article appeared, we see the same things on CNN and elsewhere.

Here are some other citations, if you prefer.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcDC59haLkOQ9cTAjuNQK_akosSA

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080211/cm_thenation/45283237

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/10/clinton.campaign/index.html

[Lefty-Taylor]

62. My thoughts, exactly. The foreign press actually do some real reporting.

[NJSecularist]

56. Even if she hurts the party while doing so?

[MindMatter]

63. I don't think she hurts the party

She will drop out when she concludes that remaining in hurts her future opportunities. I don't think we are at that point yet. However, Obama certainly upset her balance on Super Tuesday and she hasn't won a lick since then. If she doesn't win any of the three primaries this week, she starts to look petulant -- putting her personal ambitions above the party and the voice of the people. She needs to consider that very carefully because most of us are predisposed to see her as an opportunist more than a statesman. If she thinks she has a chance to run in 2012, she needs to exit this thing with some dignity.