Kristof - NY Times: The Too-Long Goodbye

[IDemo]

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 8, 2008

After the Tuesday primaries, Hillary Rodham Clinton now has maybe a 2 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But if she pursues her losing battle, she has perhaps a 20 percent chance of costing the Democrats the presidency in the fall.

So should she soldier on if continued campaigning is 10 times more likely to benefit John McCain than herself?

My percentages are, of course, wild estimates, but they suggest the orders of magnitude. With Mrs. Clinton trailing by 700,000 votes in the cumulative popular vote, and also behind in pledged delegates and number of states won, she just doesn’t have a plausible route to the nomination. Even if you include Florida, she’s more than 400,000 votes behind.

In contrast, Mrs. Clinton does have a plausible route to winning the election for Mr. McCain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/opinion/08kristof.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Colobo]

1. Very good piece.

[babylonsister]

2. Hopefully enough of these kinds of articles might make her

rethink her questionable strategery.

[Bread and Circus]

3. I have a serious problem with this paragraph from the article:

"One of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton is resolved to keep fighting is, I think, a resentment that she and many of her followers feel over sexism in the campaign. On that issue, she has a point. One of the political lessons of this year — backed by psychological research and polling data — is that the bar is probably higher for a woman candidate for president than for a black candidate."

I have heard or seen NO data that backs this up. In fact it seems in the Democratic nomination process where women outnumber the men and women are hugely going for Hillary based on gender (which is backed up by data), that Hillary actually benefits from gender based politics.

Clinton lost because she forgot to organize and campaign well in a lot of caucus states and liberal states.
Clinton lost because her team didn't have a plan after Super Tuesday.
Clinton lost because she was offering "politics as usual" and then "Republican politics as usual".
Clinton lost because she was offering the establishment in a change election.

Don't give me the "poor little lady" crap. Clinton lost the lead and establishment backing of a century.

Obama has won despite his mixed race, not because of it.

[flor de jasmim]

4. Agreed.

[City Lights]

5. Me too. He seems to have fallen for Ferraro's talking point.

Other than that it was a great piece.