RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Charlie Cook: Clinton in "Political Purgatory"
April 24, 2008 5:23 PM
"The good news for Hillary Rodham Clinton is that she’s winning a lot of battles," the essay writes. "The bad news is that the war is pretty much lost."
The column is from well-respected Beltway prognosticator Charlie Cook.
"If this contest were still at the point where momentum, symbolism, and reading tea leaves mattered, Clinton would be in pretty good shape," he writes. "Everything she has needed to happen is happening now. Obama is getting tougher press coverage and critical examination. He’s also getting rattled a bit, and he didn’t perform well in the recent debate in Philadelphia. Clinton is winning in big, important places."
But, Cook notes, "it's happening about three months too late."
Cook says that in some ways "Clinton has spent the past six weeks in a horrible situation. How do you quit a race when you’re still winning primaries? ...But even in victory, she isn’t getting any closer to securing the nomination. This political purgatory will continue if she manages to win Indiana but loses North Carolina — hard to drop out but harder to see winning the nomination. If she loses in both states, then her campaign’s donors and creditors, as well as superdelegates and party leaders, are likely to intervene. But that can’t happen as long as she continues to win."
Cook is of course not always correct. (Perhaps most glaringly, he declared Sen. John McCain's campaign dead prematurely, saying "the physicians have pulled up the sheet; the executors of the estate are taking over.")
But his occasional evidence of fallibility notwithstanding, he's pretty astute, far, far more than I am, it likely goes without saying.
And his harsh assessment will no doubt be widely circulated among superdelegates who know and respect Cook.
- jpt
April 24, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (135)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The Clinton team is just like the New England Patriots last season, crowned champions before the season started, everyone said they couldn't lose and no one dared even try.
Her campaign is, and will, end like the Pats did with an effort that was too little too late.
It does make for some good post analysis articles though.
Posted by: Richard | Apr 25, 2008 9:25:04 AM
Hillary did not take her name off the ballot in MI because she was angry at the DNC for punishing MI and FL for moving their primaries up, when Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada did as well, and they were not punished. Because Hillary left her name on the ballot in MI, Iowans were FURIOUS with her, and it hurt her in the caucus - as well as the fact that IOWA HAS NEVER ELECTED A WOMAN TO ANYTHING! But now, given that the race is so close, and the PEOPLE OF MI and FL ARE ASKING THAT THEIR VOTES AND VOICES BE HEARD you are saying that it fits Obama's message of "UNITY" by not allowing revotes in MI and FL - and everyone including the NYT has reported that Obama is blocking the revotes. Obama is running away and hiding from debating, revotes, and answering tough questions about character and connections. If Obama is too wimpy to handle this, if he isn't tough enough to campaign in MI and FL and try and FIGHT for Americans the way HILLARY WILL FIGHT FOR AMERICANS, then why should anyone vote for Obama in the GE? Obama will never win if his politics of change is to push through radical, liberal left wing ideas. Moveonorg. and Obama should moveon out of the primary and quit hurting the democratic party!
GO HILLARY! Obama is a wimp. Afraid to debate a girl.
Posted by: calli | Apr 25, 2008 9:25:00 AM
The arguement could be made that Obama voters decided to stay home in Florida because they knew that it would not count. It was agreed by all Dem candidates that it would not count. No need to change the rules at this point. It would be different if Hillary had went on record as saying how unfair it would be, but she did not. She had no problem with it because she assumed that the nomination was hers because her last name is Clinton.
Posted by: Shawn | Apr 25, 2008 9:20:52 AM
And Hillary is afraid of "Sniper-Fire."
Posted by: pt | Apr 25, 2008 9:19:20 AM
I stand by what I said... if the Democrats want a landslide defeat in November, they'll nominate Obama. Just like they did McGovern in '72. Read it and weep!
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 25, 2008 9:18:20 AM
Calli, so you are saying that it is Obama that is keeping Fl and MI from revoting? Are you sure? Where did you get that from? Was it not disenfrachisement when Hillary signed and agreed that FL and MI did not count. Had she come out ahead on super tuesday like she thought, she would have never mentioned those states.
Do you not acknowledge that point?
Posted by: Shawn | Apr 25, 2008 9:16:54 AM
I am proud to be a supporter of Hillary Clinton. In fact, I'm one of the thousands of new donors just after her PA victory.
What got me was imagining who will be stronger, more knowledgeable and better equipped to make the best decisions immediately (without having to consult countess people because of lack of knowledge, learning curve, etc...)
Obama does not give me a feeling of safety- he will cower in the corner when something happens. THAT is not the kind of president I want.
Posted by: MarkRoanakeRapids | Apr 25, 2008 9:14:30 AM
Obama is afraid of brand new primaries being held in Fl and MI.
Obama is afraid of debates.
Obama is afraid of reporters asking questions.
Posted by: geevill | Apr 25, 2008 9:13:15 AM
If Obama does not allow a revote in MI or FL or count the votes, then this primary will be looked at as Election 2000 repeat - Obama steals the election. But that fits Obama's election MO, he cheats and uses dirty tricks to win! What is Obama so afraid of by allowing two huge states to vote? The democrats living in FL and MI didn't make these stupid decisions affecting democracy, the idiots at the DNC did? Why does Obama want to punish the people he claims "that we can do it together?" If Obama is listening to "his people" they are asking to vote! What happened to "Americans doing it with Obama together"? Obama is just all BS and we all get it. Threaten to riot, bully, do whatever it takes to get Obama the nomination, but he won't win in November because Hillary supporters will vote for McCain. That slow drip, drip you hear is Obama bleeding from the mortal wound of Rev. Wright. Hate and racism are so 1960's. Moveonorg. is the POLITICS OF THE NEOCONS - LIBERAL VERSION!
Hillary is going to the convention!!!!
Go Hillary 08!!
Posted by: calli | Apr 25, 2008 9:11:41 AM
Calli looking at the numbers ...to say that Obama won just because of AA...is like saying Hillary only got her votes because women 50 and over (a much larger population) voted for someone that looked like them.
There will always be a certain amount of population that is swayed by population... there are a lot more racists than their are African Americans...
and there are as many people effected by sexism as there are people voting for Hillary because she is a woman.
This argument is a moot point.
The only difference is Hillary outwardly uses her being a woman to garner votes.
Obama only uses his "race" or combination of races (that he is both black and white) to answer the claims and accusations on the other side that he is racist or that he is using his blackness...
and you can't find me a clip that says otherwise.
Posted by: dl | Apr 25, 2008 9:08:06 AM
It is all over, the nomination is over, Obama won and what is happening now is only the side show for us and the media to enjoy. I bet it will be Obama- Clinton against Mccain-Romney in Nov 4, 2008.
Posted by: alexis compton | Apr 25, 2008 9:04:39 AM
calli wrote, "Who said Hillary had to "win" by 10 points to "win" - the biased media, the pundits? Only in Obama land can Hillary's win be labeled a loss, and Obama's loss, be labeled a win. Wimpy loser."
---------------
Well Calli, she did win, but she only picked up 8 pledged delegates. That does not put much of a dent in Obama's lead. I assume you are talking about Fl and Michigan again also. Do you not acknowledge the fact that Hillary was not thinking about either state until after her beat down on super tuesday. At this point, I am almost willing to say just give her Florida, but there is no way in H E L L, that she should be Michigan in her column.
Posted by: Shawn | Apr 25, 2008 9:00:07 AM
It is Hillary that can't close the deal...Obama is taking down the machine.
Change is hard.
Change is even harder when people have fought for the clintons in a defensive position for 15 years.
Posted by: dl | Apr 25, 2008 8:59:33 AM
So now Democrats will be held hostage by the Affirmative Action plan for electing our nominee. Thank you DNC. Since Obama and his wife aren't grateful for their Ivy League educations, do you think they'll be grateful for being handed a nomination that is not won with all 50 states participating, and superdelegates votes are threatened, bullied and bought? Since Obama will lose in the GE, will the AA threaten to riot like 1968 then in order to guilt and frighten Americans into giving Obama the presidency? This is the real politics of fear.
PS - Who said Hillary had to "win" by 10 points to "win" - the biased media, the pundits? Only in Obama land can Hillary's win be labeled a loss, and Obama's loss, be labeled a win. Wimpy loser.
Posted by: calli | Apr 25, 2008 8:53:30 AM
Geevil
Obama beat HILLARY in HER OWN PARTY.
How do you think Hillary would have won the general where her favorables and pluses are a half ...maybe a third of what they were in the primary? She lost with double triple the chances...
so you all are arguing that SHE is the better nominee?
Obama BEAT the CLINTONS ...in the their OWN PARTY. How in the heck are you people typing this stuff with a straight face.
If she can't win with just DEMOCRAT voters and beat Obama...and you think Obama couldn't win ...who has higher favorables amongst those outside the party... how would she ever be a better case to win with independents and republicans thrown in...
are you thinking at all before you make that argument or is it just going from that angry space of wanting your nominee straight to your keyboard ...surpassing the logic part of the brain?
Posted by: dl | Apr 25, 2008 8:44:46 AM
HoosierSue
lol
Obama is not George McGovern. Hillary and Mccain may be part of the machine like Nixon... but Obama is not McGovern.
and hopefully we have learned... and can use that argument you just brought up...
Look what the country got for voting for Nixon.
This IS just a case of not necessarily "older" Americans being nervous...but "Old school" politics holding sway over choices ...people not recognizing that they have made choices like these before... it is out of this thought process safety on the old school party that we have failed... Bill Clinton was not part of that old school party when he won. Al Gore was (though I love him as a candidate for the President and wish he was the President) John Kerry was...
We have always won when we choose the right nominee not the embedded in the party loyalist nominee.
It is hard to change... that is why Obama is a better fighter.
He beat the Clintons in their own party where here favorables were sky high at the beginning...now you think she is going to win when HE beat HER in her own party ... and she is best in the general where her favorables are below the floor?
I don't care if it sounds "elistist" ...that's dumb.
so the way you convince everyone that Hillary is better is to trash the real candidate of your own party to try and bring his lower than hers? the guy who is the only other person running carrying the torch for these issues?
again...dumb.
Posted by: dl | Apr 25, 2008 8:37:34 AM
Well-respected, but seeldom right.
How's that President Kerry prediction working out for Cook? or the McCain is finished prediction?
Obama would lose a national Democrat primary.
Posted by: geevill | Apr 25, 2008 8:35:39 AM
We will see how she fairs on a equal playing field. I give her credit for holding serve in PA, by any means necessary. However, she clearly does not have the best interest of the party at heart, because it is clear that she cannot win, at least not honestly. She is too far behind and is she is given the nomination at the convention, the Democrats can forget about this election.
Posted by: Shawn | Apr 25, 2008 8:13:35 AM
I just do not understand it. PA was a tailor made state for Hillary. She should have won, she has roots there, grandfather played for Penn State. Had the Mayor of Philly (who was actually no help, since she was destroyed there), the vast majority of other mayors, the governor, and others on her side. She was a 20+ point favorite going in. Yet she won by 9.3% points. Come on now, she basically held serve in PA.
She does not have those home grown factors supporting her in NC or Indiana.
Posted by: Shawn | Apr 25, 2008 8:11:02 AM
Hope Sen Clinton bears in mind that it is not about the party but about the COUNTRY.
Hope she delivers this country from an RHETORICALLY GIFTED SCARY unknown or from a BUSH SURROGATE.
Posted by: politicsIsdirty | Apr 25, 2008 8:02:30 AM
Post a comment


