Tuesday night might be Barack Obama's last chance to knock Hillary Clinton out

[Herman Munster]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/2008/03/03/2008-03-03_tuesday_night_might_be_barack_obamas_las.html

You hear it everywhere: Tuesday is Hillary Clinton's last stand. If she can't win Ohio and Texas, she's history.

True, mostly. But it's not the whole story. The rest goes like this: This is Barack Obama's third chance to knock her out. If he can't close the deal this time, maybe he can't close the deal, period.

Either the third time is the charm for him, or it could be strike three against him. Any result tomorrow that doesn't finish her off lets her argue that Democratic voters' love affair with Obama was just one of those flings. She'll say buyer's remorse has set in, and it's time to get serious about winning the White House.




There are also 350 superdelegates still on the sidelines. Since neither Clinton nor Obama can practically get to the magic number of 2,025 without them, these supers are the deciders.

Clinton can make a case for them if she holds her own tomorrow. Winning Texas and Ohio would let her claim the race is basically tied and she has the momentum. Winning either one keeps her alive because it denies him the knockout. It's an asymmetrical contest where the greater burden is his.

It's not fair, but it's politics. She is like an incumbent, and the longer the race goes on, the more she benefits just by surviving.

Yes, the odds are against her. And it won't be pretty, but she still can win. If she does, she will have been tested by fire and the Clintons will have a new Comeback Kid.

[cali]

1. Up is down and black is white

It's Hill who's had the opportunity to knock Obama out and she's failed miserably. Up until Wisconsin she was the heavy weight front runner and she largely played it that way. Comeback kid? Hardly. She's running on borrowed time whatever happens on Tuesday- unless she has a political miracle handed to her and pulls out big wins in OH and TX.

And if she doesn't? She's done. The SDs will spurn her and flock to Obama. Richardson and others on the fence will push her to withdraw and Dean will do everything in his power to end it.

Here's to the demise of Hillary's disasterous run.

[Alter Ego]

29. Isn't the cognitive dissonance here wonderful?

Obama's killed her in 11 straight contests--and HE'S the one on the ropes.

The logic used here is just mind-boggling.

[w4rma]

46. Yup. That's why I won't support Hillary. This is Obama's *first* real chance to knock her out. (nt)

[FrenchieCat]

2. "close the deal"? Mary Matlin's words? What in the Fuck is this?

You've got madame says she practically President being in politics for 20 fucking years, with money, establishment support and the fucking media all blowing at her back side for years.....and here she is about to lose her shirt, and someone is talking about what Obama's got to do? He already closed double digits in weeks, and they've got the fucking nerves to state that he needs to close the fucking deal? :wtf:

Some nerve this twit of a reporter has! :wow:

[Herman Munster]

9. you don't understand the media will turn on your goldenboy like a dime

MSNBC had the highest ratings in its history the last debate. They NEED the race to go on. They will savage your golden boy that he can't close the deal, he's a cult of personality, the rezko trial.

The media will turn on him but Hillary has to win both Ohio and Texas to do it. Then the whole narrative changes. Add possible re-votes in Michigan and Florida and the media frenzy goes on.

It's amazing how naive Obama supporters are to the realities of this world.

[FrenchieCat]

16. You better tell you girl to stop whining all over the goddamn place......

because she's about to piss off an awful lot of people.

And calling Obama supporters naive won't help Ms. Clinton one bit. So if I were you, I'd put some skids on that shit now.

[BigDDem]

40. "You better tell you girl to stop whining all over the goddamn place"

The politics of change....Obama style.
Classy!

[Hepburn]

18. Hint: Your posted from....

...the NY DAILY NEWS!

'Nuff said....:eyes:

[karynnj]

30. Naive enough to have him up 150 pledged delegates over the mature, wise HRC supporter's candidate

It takes chutzpah to act as though this was all part of some complicated plan that the geniuses in the Clinton campaign concocted. The fact is that the naive Obama campaign had ground operations already working in the February post superTuesday states, while the Clinton people planned the February 5th victory party. February 5th was designed for HRC - including the tri-state area, CA where the Clintons had great ties and MA, pushed up after no favorite son :( was running, and Arkansas. Obama's team did what they needed to do winning many states that HRC's team didn't think counted and holding the delegate count down in the big states, where she had been over 20% up. He actually ended up with slightly more delegates on SuperTuesday - since then she's been scrambling for a plan.

The media actually did not turn on the Clintons until they started to give the media too good a story to not go for it. Bill Clinton, a former President, red faced, threatening, wagging his finger as if he were a B movie thug was good TV. The media loved the Clinton soap opera in the 1990s and this was their reunion show. The problem is that show was not always good for the Democrats.

[Skittles]

14. the media has been trashing HRC since 1992

have you forgotten this? IT IS A MIRACLE SHE HAS GOTTEN THIS FAR YET SHE IS STILL PAINTED AS SOME KIND OF LOSER.

[FrenchieCat]

17. It ain't no fucking miracle......

she is right where she put herself. IT has nothing to do with the media that has been annointing her since "day one".

And I'm not impressed as to where she's gotten and how she has gotten there. That you be you, maybe.

[karynnj]

32. She and Bill had the White House to respond from

In addition to the RW media's attacks, there were the typical MSM 's first lady puff pieces - especially in woman's magazines. During those years, the garbage mostly stayed on hate radio and in the tabloids - until the Lewinsky mess became front page material everywhere. This century's media is far tougher, but in the MSM she was portrayed for the last 7 years as an outstanding Senator, who is well liked by all. (Compare how the NYT or the WP treated her vs either John Kerry or Howard Dean, both of whom were doing more to lead the party in the direction it is now going than she was. Her coverage was positive, theirs savage.)

[elixir]

38. You are understandably upset about where the race is today, but, this thing has to play itself out.

If Obama is meant to be the nominee, he will be, but, Hillary giving it over to him at this point is unrealistic and unnecessary. She can close this thing.

We should work hard to support our candidates and do as much as we can to help them out.

[BeyondGeography]

44. The sooner you accept this the better...Hillary will not be "closing out" anything in this campaign

Hillary can only win if the superdelegates give it to her and overturn the popular vote. There are zero scenarios under which she gets to the convention with more pledged delegates than Obama.

If she gets the nomination this way, it won't be worth having. She'll spend the entire fall campaign trying to unify the party.

Have fun with it.

[susankh4]

3. I will not be AT ALL surprised to see this battle go forward!

I think it's pretty clear that the Clinton Camp won't go out without a fight.

I was at a rally yesterday where I heard she won't be getting out any time soon.

Plus, Gov. Ed Rendell is already campaigning for her in PA.

And the Obama folks are sending their trainers out to Philly. That, right there, should tell you THEY don't think it's over either.

[lapfog_1]

10. It's going to take a wooden stake through the heart of her campaign

to nail this one into the ground.

And you should SEE the number of posters (on a different thread) that said that IF Obama is the nominee in November, either they would not vote, write in someone else, or vote for McCain.

Just un-freaking-believable.

[susankh4]

13. I think you are correct....

and the Obama supporters in this forum, who think otherwise... are in for quite a disappointment tomorrow.

[Gore1FL]

4. Define knockout

Any count with a Hillary pick up of less than 80 delegates is a knock out.

[bluestateguy]

5. What a bunch of pro-Establishment drivel

If she wins 52%-48% in Texas and Ohio, assuming a wash in RI and Vermont, she only makes a net gain of 5-7 delegates over Obama.

That will be washed out, once Obama wins landslides in Wyoming and Mississippi (states that Mark Penn has already declared do not "matter").

Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania is collapsing faster than her lead in Ohio melted away.

[BringBigDogBack]

6. We'll see.

I see quite a bit of failed logic in your op.


BTW, she needs to win OH, TX, and PA each by 20% or more. Something that she cannot and will not accomplish. Thank you for playing. Drive home safely.

[lapfog_1]

7. You just don't get it, do you?

Spin this any way you can... just as I predicted would happen.

so the story NOW is that if Obama doesn't win BIG on Tuesday, he is a LOSER!

Right... sure thing there.

:sarcasm:

Hillary can make any case she wants to the super delegates. No matter WHAT happens Tuesday, come convention time, Obama will have more pledged delegates than Hillary. And there are plenty of contests that Obama is waaay ahead in between now and then. So that Momentum thing just won't be there for her.

Only those contests are in those insignificant states, the ones that don't matter.

Whatever. Obama shows up with more pledged delegates and the Super delegates are going to vote for Hillary??? Really? You think that would be a smart move, do you?

[FrenchieCat]

8. Just because the media is again kissing Clinton's tail, after a short hiatus

Try not to push this drivel!

Hillary Clinton has convinced the media that it is biased against her, one of the great (and rare) successes of her presidential campaign, akin to her creation of the vast right-wing conspiracy responsible for conceiving a string of sexual and other disgraces in her husband's White House.
With classic chutzpah, Clinton would have us believe that in a campaign in which she has escaped the most basic scrutiny of her finances, her husband's business relationships and her claims of experience, she is hurting because of the media's favorable treatment of Barack Obama.

On the race itself, the media has time and again let itself be manipulated by a Clinton campaign deftly managing expectations, albeit in increasingly surreal ways. Only two weeks ago the consensus was that Clinton had to win Texas or Ohio by 20 point margins to have a shot at the nomination (at the time these margins still seemed plausible). In recent days, her campaign has put out the word that if Obama doesn't win all four contests this Tuesday, it will be a sign of trouble for him. Of course journalists, no matter how lazy or gullible, know this is stupid, but nonetheless, maybe in a failed effort at fairness, they now seem to accept that Clinton needs to win either Texas and Ohio by any margin. Suddenly gone is the original assessment that Clinton has to win big on March 4, despite the fact that it is mathematically verifiable that there will be too few contests after Tuesday for her to make up the delegate count if she doesn't put a big dent in Obama's lead now. This judgment has become more accurate daily as Clinton's superdelegate lead melts away.

Losing eleven contests in a row, mostly by far wider margins than anyone had anticipated, would doom any campaign (in fact, can anyone think of one major primary contender who has survived such a string of defeats?). Yet the media continue to portray Clinton as strongly viable, if not quite the frontrunner. Again, this is a remarkable feat by her campaign, and an utter failure by most journalists to accurately portray the state of the race.

Clinton has been able to twist these expectations because so many are still in awe of her and her husband, attributing near-mystical powers to their ability to come back from the dead (the latest example, we are told, was her narrow New Hampshire win two months ago). At the same time, she has set up the media as sexist and easily wooed by Obama. This may be true, but, if anything, this has lead the guilt-ridden mainstream press to soften its negative coverage of the Clintons. Nowhere is this more visible than in the complete lack of recent interest in the couple's finances: far more has been written about Obama and Rezko, despite the relative benignity of the charge, than about how Bill and Hillary have amassed the tens of millions of dollars that make up their fortune, starting with her Arkansas cattle futures deal and ending with his Kazakhstan connections. There is a rich vein of potential conflict of interest, corruption and misuse of power that the media should relish covering in great detail, but much of the discussion has been relegated to a few bloggers. A particularly opportune time for coverage should have been when Clinton pulled out $5 million seemingly out of nowhere, to finance her campaign, but we're still left to wonder how these long-time public servants have instant access to such sums, especially since no tax returns are available.

In the meanwhile, journalists have been covering the cackle, the misty eyes and the pantsuit; Clinton should be eternally grateful for this, as it has distracted us from far bigger sins, made her look like a victim of the predominantly male political media's sexism, and rendered journalists insecure about their ability to cover her campaign objectively...

more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/clinton-and-the-vast-medi_b_89465.html

[UALRBSofL]

47. Further Evidence That Obama Is A Media Darling

A few days ago, Jake Tapper of ABC ran this false story:
ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.
(Emphasis supplied.) It is false because as the story itself states, no site had been launched and John Edwards launched an attack site against Hillary Clinton previously. No correction has been made by ABC. It is egregiously bad journalism. There is no question that, as Howard Kurtz reported, the Beltway Media detests Hillary Clinton.
But I also think there is strong evidence that Barack Obama is the Beltway Media darling. For example, consider this Obama "attack" site. Think Jake Tapper will run a story on that? Me neither. How about Obama's planted question?
In an online posting Monday, ABC reported that an Obama volunteer wearing a press pass asked the candidate a friendly question about tax policy at an Iowa event. But several of the assembled reporters huddled and concluded that it was not a story, one of them said. Clinton faced a storm of media criticism over a similar planted question.
More.
Of course all the campaigns do what they do as do all of the pols. But there is not question that Obama is the Media darling. Consider some of Edwards' coverage. It has been ridiculous at times. Obama has had almost universally favorable coverage. Some say it is because of the fanatical anti-Hillary bias in the Beltway Media and that it will not last into a general election. I think that only explains part of it.
I also think it will be difficult for the Media to turn on a dime and be brutally against a historic Presidential candidate. Obama is this cycle's Media darling. This is a good thing.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/22/93524/437
*************************************************************************************************************************************
Media and Debates: Media Favoring Obama?
CNN appears to favor Obama. They talk nice of him, show pleasant pictures, and marketing headlines. Hillary gets the negative headlines and pictures. Look at the article with Bill Clinton's picture all embarassed and red in regards to Obama's camp's accusing Hillary of copying her husband. This is not his reaction, this is CNN choosing that picture to post it with the article.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080222111017AAvJcj3
*************************************************************************************************************************************Media seems to lead 'Obama fan club'
Feb. 25, 2008 12:00 AM
When Hillary Clinton was leading the pack, John Edwards and Barack Obama trashed her at every opportunity. Obama and the media called it "drawing distinctions."
Now that Obama is leading, Clinton is drawing some distinctions of her own, but the media is now screaming, "negative attack ads."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0225monlets253.html
*************************************************************************************************************************************
According to the Culture and Media Institute spokesman, it is obvious the press is rooting for Obama to win the White House. "You just hear Barack Obama trotting out a laundry list of all the promises he's making to people," says Fitzpatrick.
For example, he continues, the Democratic frontrunner has promised he is going to provide universal healthcare -- and then, in the same sentence, that he is going to reduce healthcare costs for the average American family by $2,500 a year. "I don't know how anybody would do both of those things," says Fitzpatrick, "but he promises both of them at once and nobody seems to be calling him on it, asking him how this is to be done."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=67367
*************************************************************************************************************************************
Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday's key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.
Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V4T5282&show_article=1

[mattclearing]

11. LOL. Two more days. n/t

[Political Heretic]

12. He's ALREADY closed the deal.

Short of a historic implosion, he has clinched the lead in pledged delegates.

That's the ball game.

The only way to overcome that and get the nomination is for super delegates to counter the public process and circumvent the participation of the people. That won't happen. They will not throw the general election like that, and they know that they will disenfranchise most of the voters responsible for the party's record breaking turnout and divide long-time democrats as well. They'll lose the general and leave the party in dis-array. They are not going to do that, and frankly no one should want them to.

[lapfog_1]

15. It's Tiger Woods

up by 9 shots with 5 holes to play, 3 par 3s and 2 par 5s... and next player back is Phil Mickelson, and it's the Masters. Phil could make a couple of birdies and make a run, and Tiger could bogey a hole... but blow a lead like that? Tiger? No way.

[tekisui]

19. Well, then and of course at the Convention when it becomes official.

[rateyes]

20. Whatever happens tomorrow, she's "allowed" to make any

argument she damned well pleases. That doesn't mean the argument is a valid one. After tomorrow, Clinton will be ready for the proverbial "fork" to be stuck in her...she will be done.

[thereismore]

21. Yeah, Hillary is playing rope-a-dope with Obama. Like hell she is!

She is just driven by jealousy and ego.

[Avalux]

22. I actually heard this morning that Obama HAD to win Ohio, or he isn't a viable candidate.

Talk about spin! MSNBC proclaimed this, stating he must win Ohio, that Texas doesn't matter because it's a red state and the other two don't matter. It's all about Ohio and he has to prove himself there.

:crazy:

[democrattotheend]

23. I think a lot of people feel that way

If he loses Ohio big, it will raise questions about his ability to carry the state in the general. He doesn't have to win but he can't lose big...I am a little nervous about the Suffolk and Columbus Dispatch polls that show him down 16 and 12, respectively.

[karynnj]

33. But that is crazy logic

Though it may seem counterintuitive, the candidate that wins a primary in a state doesn't necessarily do better in the general there.

1) The population voting in the general is different
2) For those voting in the primary, the conditional probabilities matter. That is the probability that you will vote for A, given you voted for B in the primary. (where A and B are Clinton and Obama in both orders.) In very blue states, it is very unlikely that either will lose enough of the people who would have preferred the other to lose the state.

The real question long term is how they will play against McCain. There it could come down to damaging McCain's undeserved reputation for being clean and honest. Obama could call McCain on this better than HRC - using his ethics reform stuff and following the "Kerry precedent" in disclosing details of any meetings he had with lobbyists. For Obama, that should be easy - Kerry disclosed them back to 1989 - 15 years! That could be used to ask McCain to give his over that length of time - though it sounds as though he may have had as many as Kerry's 15 year's worth just on his campaign plane!

[jefferson_dem]

24. Knockout = Prevent Hillary from the 20(ish) point win she needs in both states.

I wonder how you would have felt before Iowa if you knew this would be your post on March 3.

[Medusa]

28. The cable news networks are using this latest line of BS

from the Clinton campaign. "Obama must win both states and win big or Hillary stays in". It's called COVERING THEIR ASSES. And it has absolutely no basis in reality but it does show you the desperate lengths that the Clintons and their supporters are willing to go to.

[PITBOS]

25. "Hillary will lose her way to victory"*

*

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. you act like Hillary is the insurgent newcomer here

[Little Star]

27. This my friend, is a good question don't ya think?

[JimGinPA]

31. If She stays in, which of these can she win?

WV,KY? That's it.


March
9
Wyoming
11
Mississippi

April
22
Pennsylvania

May
3
Guam
6
Indiana
North Carolina
13
Nebraska
West Virginia
20
Kentucky
Oregon

June
3
Montana
South Dakota
7
Puerto Rico

[Alter Ego]

43. This is truly her last stand.

All she's got left after this is WV and PA--Obama will destroy her everywhere else.

He's got something like a 14-point lead in NC--and they don't vote till May.

[totodeinhere]

34. You always try to put a pro Clinton spin on everything.

It's getting really tiresome.

[UALRBSofL]

35. Herman, If Obama wins Texas, Hillary's camp

has already stated she wasn't dropping out of the race. If he can't clearly get an overwhelming number of seated delegates she is marching on. After going through the sespool of smear, fire and brimstone she is still viable proves she is electable over McCain. :)

[zulchzulu]

36. The superdelegates are party hacks that want to keep their job

The last thing they are going to do is hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

Besides, it's almost a mathematical impossibility at this point that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee anyway. The Pre-Coronated Frontrunner who blew 20+% leads can never be honestly called a "Comeback Kid".

[elixir]

37. Great post. It is far from over and that explains a lot of the Obama angst on this page. It's

understandable that if you have a candidate who's so close to winning it all, you want it to be over. But this thing is going to play itself out and 340+ superdelegates will play a big part.

Anyone see Dean on CNN? Very ineffectual, I like the guy but it appears he really has mismanaged this situation.

[oviedodem]

39. I don't think we have angst; I for one am not. It becomes simple for me

If Hillary takes this to convention behind in the popular vote and pledged delegates and somehow "backroom" deals this to her nomination:

I become an independent the day after and write Obama's name in.

If Hillary somehow is ahead in pledged and popular and gets the nomination, I stay home OR write Obama's name in. I will not support a candidate who has provided so much negativity over the last month and a half. If she had run a better more positive campaign I would vote for her in the GE. Since I live in Florida (a really red state) this becomes important.

After some of the things her campaign has said and done I will not support her.

[theboss]

41. When did he fail to knock her out?

Super Tuesday was supposed to be the day that she talked him out....and he either won the day or tied it, depending on who you talk to?

The Potomac Primary was as big a victory as anyone can have during a primary season. And Hillary simply was not going to quit.

He buried her in Wisconsin, which should have been a state that Hillary won. She simply was not going to quit after it.

If your opponent simply refuses to give up, and the structure of the process does not force her to giev up...what else can you do?

[Exilednight]

42. There's a few flaws with your theory....

1. Winning one state and losing another is not momentum. Momentum is winning all four primaries on Tuesday and then winning the next round of primaries.

2. Winning by 3-5 points is a joke after blowing a 20 point lead only two weeks ago.

3. For her to stay viable, she needs to win by a 65% to 35% margin. Anything less keeps her from ever reaching 2025.


If Hillary wants to stay viable, she has to win by the margins she originally predicted. She's moving the goal posts in a desperate attempt of winning the nomination using Bush's fuzzy math.

[stillcool]

45. Harold Ickes said the same thing...

days ago. It was laughed about then. Has something changed?
Oops! Edit to add....It was Mark Penn...

MUST-WIN SPIN

So Clinton must win, right? Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist Mark Penn today released a memo to the media, though, with the subject, “Obama Must-Wins.”

“If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem,” Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be “decisive,” according to the memo.

“Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear,” Penn continues, “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.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/716900.aspx

:rofl: :rofl: