What Fresh Hell Is This?

April 22, 2008


With 3% of the vote in Pennsylvania, MSNBC has already projected Hillary Clinton as the winner over Barack Obama.

UPDATE: Hillary in Pittsburgh pics.

From the March 14th rally in Pittsburgh:

From the "21st Century Jobs Summit" on April 2nd in Pittsburgh:

From the rally in Market Square yesterday:



Bram Reichbaum said...

It was a pretty good victory speech. Kinda slick how she equated herself with the whole country in its ability to "come back" or whatever, but a good speech nonetheless.

jaywillie said...

And it changes nothing.

She still won't overtake Obama in pledged delegates, states won or the meaningless popular vote(it is a contest for delegates after all and even if we included MI & FL, that still would account for the caucus states were Barack won because we don't have any accurate counts on popular vote totals from those states).

In fact, for Hillary to overtake Obama, it got even harder for her - she now has to win 71% in the remaining contests instead of 66%.

So what is the point of this continuing? We know that's not going to happen because she's not going to win North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and maybe Montana.

If she needs to win all the remaining contests with 71% to catch him in delegates, how does can she possibly win when she won't even win all of those contests?

She can take it to the convetion, but the Rules and Credentials committee will be controlled by Obama since he won more states.

So, how does Hillary actually win this nomination at this point?


She won't win enough of the remaining delegates to overtake Obama.

She hasn't won enough states or delegates, so she won't control the committees at the convention.

The Superdelegates are not going to give it to her - she's been losing that battle badly since February 5th.

So how does she win?

And if she can't get the nomination, what justification does she have for staying in the race?

If we have to take this out to June 3rd, sobeit. But when she's still losing on June 4th, it's time for her to concede.

Maria said...

Obama can't close the deal.

Obama can't win enough pledged delegates to beat Clinton.

Obama can't win big states.

Obama can't win over Reagan Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Clinton can't close the deal, either.

Clinton can't overtake Obama in the total number of votes cast.

Clinton can't overtake Obama in the total number of pledged delegates.

Clinton simply can't win without the superdelegates overturning the will of the majority of those Democratic voters/pledged delegates.

If that happens, the damage she will do to the party will be immeasurable.

By continuing the fight, she's helping John McCain win the White House.

Just as we can thank Ralph Nader for Bush in 2000, we might have to be thanking Hillary Clinton for the McCain administration.

Thank you, Hillary!

Anonymous said...

Obama can't win educated voters.

Obama can't win angry middle-aged white women.

Obama can't win states with corrupt and entrenched party machinery.

Obama can't bowl.

But does that mean that Clinton has even the most remote chance of winning the nomination? Once again, Maria, you've avoided the question with a series of rah-rah cheers that echo Clinton's silly post-victory rhetoric. I understand that you're loyal to her campaign and all, but really, does she have any chance? I'd like to hear a Clinton supporter (instead of an Obama supporter) explain the math. Or is this all just about the "audacity of hope" at this point.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Can't close the deal? How much worse is it to be trailing?

Anonymous said...

You could also look at it as Clinton cannot win states without a large democratic party machine in place that supports her.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing that she had the backing of the machine. You need it to win in the dem majority states.

For all of the frustration of the party machine in this city and the state from the postings on this blog, sometimes you have to give credit when it's due.


Maria said...


Trailing is definitely worse.

But for better or worse -- I'd say worse -- we have a superdelegate system. If either of them had been able to win the required amount of pledged delegates, we wouldn't be where we are now.

The superdelegates are supposed to decide for themselves who they vote for -- that's their whole reason for being. Neither candidate is trying to change the rules by appealing to them (as Clinton is often portrayed as doing).

Agent Ska said...

That picture of her with Dan and Luke is really funny.

Maria said...


I agree -- click on the link to read the original caption for it.

jaywillie said...

Yes, Maria, we understand how the Superdelegates work.

And we also know that since February 5th, he's outpaced her something like 70-10 in securing their endorsements. How do you think that's going to play out, especially since there is absolutely NO CHANCE for her to overtake him in pledged delegates?

But you didn't answer the question. You didn't tell me how Hillary WINS the nomination.

You're right; Barack probably won't get to 2025. But he will finish with more pledged delegates. And we know that most of the Superdelegates have no desire to overturn that.

What will happen is that the Superdelegates will refer to something we call "democracy," where if you're ahead by 1 or ahead by 200, you're still ahead. You still beat the other person. They will ratify that decision.

And Obama has already won more pledged delegates than Clinton, so I'm pretty sure, unless we're just completely pulling shit out of are assholes(like Bill Clinton suggesting that Hillary would be the winner if this were the GOP contest - wtf is that supposed to even mean?), he's beaten her.

But he has a legitimate claim to the nomination - more pledged delegates, more states won and popular.

Let's be frank though - the only one of those categories that matter are pledged delegates. And if a candidate has more of those than another candidate, how can you possibly justify taking the nomination away from him?

Talk of big states is moronic. Wins in primaries and caucuses have almost no bearing on what those states do in the general election.

And are you suggesting that the "big" states are more important? Are you saying that the Democrats who voted in all those other states - like VA, WI, CO, IL, MO - are less significant than voters in big states? Or perhaps you're suggesting something really ridiculous like Obama not being able to carry CA or NY - no one with any credibiliy believes states like CA, NY and Mass. are going to flip to the GOP.

If it's all about the "big" states, why are we wasting everyone's time? Why don't we just limit it to those contest?

And if those big states are so important, why is Hillary still losing?

It takes an awful lot of gall to suggest that the candidate who has lost the nomination is stronger than the candidate who will be the nominee.

The truth is that that's a convenient excuse manufactured by the Clinton campaign after their prediction - nay, they're arrogant self-assurance - that the race would be over on Feb. 5 was blown out of the water, a prediction made when they had absolutely no intention of paying attention to the states after Super Tuesday.

Clinton should have actually fought for this nomination, instead of waiting until it was out of reach(which it most certainly is).

What kind of message does that send for a fall campaign run by her? Will she just go back to being the old kind of Democrat that surrenders enormous swaths of the country to the GOP without even a fight?

But still, you gave me no path for her to win. Not at all. Instead you just trotted out some tired, old dogs of the Clinton campaign.

Of course, indirectly what you posted says a great deal about what the Clinton camp feels is their path to victory and that is to tear Barack Obama down.

It's to wound him politically, so as to make him unelectable. It's to pile on him so much and so often with vindicative, petty, nasty and baseless attacks that he won't be able to win.

We all know that that's the Clinton strategy.

When all else fails, turn to the politics of personal destruction that the Clinton's manipulated so well to their advantage and to the fulfillment of their personal ambitions during the 90's.

If you can beat 'em, start throwing mud.

Oh, and please don't whine about Barack attacking Hillary. After all, that's the campaign that says it's vetted, that it can withstand anything.

Then again, if that were the case, I guess she'd be the nominee, wouldn't she?

jaywillie said...

Let me add one more thing...

We've reached the point where Democrats need to ask what's more important - winning in November or stroking egos.

At some point, Clinton will have to concede. It's a foregone conclusion, because the only way she wins is to rip the party apart.

And if at any way Democrats are defeated this fall and connect it to her(and many of them most certainly will and for good reason), she can kiss her 2012 propsects goodbye and get used to the idea of never being president.

Because 08 was her shot and she blew it. The Clinton's have no one to blame but themselves. From the beginning, they campaigned as though it was simply a formality.

They didn't plan for the states after Feb. 5, because they didn't care. In December, she said it would be over.

How condescending is that to voters - behaving as though you can't possibly lose the nomination, that it is somehow owed to you, before even a single voter has registerd their opinion?

One more thing...

We're constantly told that Hillary can stand up to the Republicans, but the truth is that she's never been in a competitive race. She's never one a tough election as the candidate.

And once she finally got into a tough campaign, she's losing!

So, how exactly is she better at facing off against Republicans, when she's never beaten a serious GOP challenger?

Bram Reichbaum said...

In order to vote contrary to the totals in pledged delegates and popular votes, the supers would have to have a really good excuse ... like finding out Obama has some kind of gnarly brain disease, or is a foreign agent.

"He seems like kind of an elitist" and "He can't take the heat" are not going to cut it.

In addition, although Clinton's recent campaign strategy is exciting to her and her fervent supporters in identifying her as "tough" and a "fighter", dumbing down her message and resorting to schoolyard taunts is not endearing herself to very many.

Yes the superdelegates get to vote how they want, but I am convinced that increasingly they will want more to do with the candidate who is struggling (yes, it's a struggle) to take the high road.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I LOVE the "elitist" slam against Barack Obama.

His democratic opponent went to Wellesley AND Yale and his (eventual) republican opponent, the son and grandson of a Navy Admiral, went to Annapolis.

So which one is the elitist?

-Not Shitrock

Anonymous said...


Nice pictures of Hillary's Final Farewell!!!!

I am sure you are going to miss her.

I bet you may even deep down fear that she is going to lose her senate seat.

Anonymous said...

dream on you Omama supporters. Americans know that when we have do dig into the trenches, only a fighter, drty or not, wll save our ass!!!!

Anonymous said...

sorry about the spelling, old champ, my i got stuck in my honey bun.