Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

480
Letters
Sunday, February 10, 2008 12:00 AM

Hillary's time of troubles

As Clinton and Obama spoke to Virginia Democrats on Saturday, the crowd's response -- and returns from Nebraska, Washington and Louisiana -- showed how the tide is turning.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:40 AM

Furtail, you're right . . .

. . . Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000, not 2002. But I think the premise still holds. You're post also reminded me that if Hillary had waited until 2004, she would have avoided a vote on the war authorization. Yes, it would have been necessary for her to take a position on it, but I'm pretty confident she could have finessed it. Maybe the other point here is that you can't really "game" for a phenomena, which is by its nature new and unanticipated. Like him or not, Obama is a phenomena.

Its all hard to prove. If Hillary pulls it out,her wins in NY, NJ, and Mass. will justify her strategy.

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:41 AM

"Winning" States

"There will be no "excuse" if Clinton loses Ohio or Texas or Pennsylvania. That will be REAL evidence of true momentum with core Dem constituencies on Obama's part"

Again, another largely meaningless distinction. Nevada shows that you can win the state and still lose the delegate count. The only thing "winning" a state does for you is give you some media attention. What matters in Ohio, Texas, and Penn. are how close the votes are and the delegate spread.

In short, Delegates of the states are all that matter.

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:43 AM

More on Superdelegates from todays WaPo

THIS is the real campaign going forward. Front page story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/09/AR2008020902703.html?hpid=topnews

Some excerpts:

Democratic operatives not affiliated with either campaign consider Clinton's operation in the superdelegate race much more formidable. Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), the longest-serving member of the House, never received a call from the Obama campaign, according to a source close to the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. Last week, Dingell endorsed Clinton.

And some superdelegates can be worth more than others, particularly those who have the ability to bring along others with them.

Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), who endorsed Clinton last year and is viewed as a vice presidential possibility, is trying to lock down the five DNC members from Indiana who are superdelegates on behalf of Clinton, according to a source close to Bayh.

Obama's campaign is working hard to catch up.

While three members of Connecticut's congressional delegation have endorsed Obama, the state has six DNC members who are also superdelegates. Two days after Dodd's campaign flamed out in Iowa, Obama was on the phone, telling Larson about his bid and the high-minded effort to refashion the way campaigns are waged.

"Obama made the best pitch himself. Sometimes seeing is believing," Larson said, recalling that both candidates and Bill Clinton called the weekend after the Iowa caucuses. "I heard from him. I heard from Hillary. I heard from Obama. . . . It's not as if they were beating down the path to me. They were beating down the path to everyone."

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:44 AM

@Xrandadu Hutman: COLIN POWELL

FACE THE FACTS!

IF WE DIDN'T HAVE COLIN POWELL SHOWING ALL AMERICANS THE WMD'S WE WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

COME ON PEOPLE. STOP THESE INSANE WRITINGS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

COLIN POWELL MAY HAVE BEEN THE REPUBLICAN LAP DOG, BUT HE WAS THE ONE IN FRONT OF ALL OF THE NATIONS.

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:45 AM

@Brian - Seattle

Wait a minute. You're worried about "legitimacy" and yet you think a system where someone who loses the popular vote in a state, but gets more pledged delegates due to some arcane rule, is fine, but if superdelegates make the decisive choice of the nominee, it's not?

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:45 AM

@Hut

Strange... You're the 2nd person in the past half-hour to specifically focus on, of all people, Colin Powell. What could that be about? It's interesting to me that two people have apparently spontaneously chosen to focus on Colin Powell.

blather blather.....

Probably the fact that Powell himself publicly spoke on the subject on Friday I'd guess and since ain't the free republic (entirely yet) it's the topic of discussion.

I don't think Colin Powell "escaped scot-free" any more than anybody else in Bush's clan did. The episode completely marginalized and derailed Powell's political career.

Really? To think I thought Powell retired gracefully after serving as Secretary of State. You are indeed a goldmine of (revisionist) history!

None of this, by the way, gets Hillary Clinton off the hook for her cynical Iraq vote. Here's a top Senator in a position to take a stand that will thwart the obvious intentions of the Bush administration -- an administration proven to be incompetent from the outset -- and she blows it.

Of course. But isn't that what you are specifically HERE to say over and over. Isn't it?

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:45 AM

Oh, and those of you talking about Obama's being against the war

not counting because he wasn't in office yet:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:46 AM

The Utility of Civility.

Neither Clinton nor Obama supporters have anything to gain from berating each other.

Think about who you're talking to. Your " opponent" on this thread today may be the voter you're wishing your candidate could win over tomorrow.

So unless you are privately certain your candidate is going to lose, you do your own cause a disservice by being so hostile.

Let's be honest. Neither candidate is the Second Coming. Neither candidate is the spawn of Satan, either.

You're not going to sway anyone with an angry tirade. Calm reason and friendly persuasion work a whole lot better.

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:47 AM

Will one of them be president?

The meme seems to be that the winner of the Democratic primary is going to win the Presidency. That seemed very reasonable 6 months ago, but I'm not sure it's true anymore. The Obama-Clinton wars have divided the Democrats and I'm not at all certain that we have a sure win. McCain will attract moderate votes. The right-wing media and leaders have already started to try to rally their supporters to hold their noses and vote for McCain. Many Obama supporters say they won't vote for Clinton, and a lot of older and more moderate voters find Obama to lack substance and experience. I think the Republicans see an opportunity to win this race.

Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:50 AM

11:45 AM Anon

It is you Hillary supporters who are revising history.

Hillary didn't just vote for the war, she was one of the primary voices arguing in favour of the war. Not Lieberman, Hillary.

Meanwhile you like claiming that Obama's opposition to the war, at a time when such opposition was at its least likely to get him elected, doesn't count because, well, uh...

Most Active Letters Threads

735

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
688

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
329

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
322

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
192

The poster boy for progressive self-delusion

Read Hayden's 2008 Obama endorsement to remember the way the left sold our centrist president to itself

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon