Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Huckabee on Hillary: "I Feel Her Pain!" | Main | The Ellsworth Endorsement »

The June Myth

May 08, 2008 8:54 AM

"It's still early," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY yesterday. "I mean, everybody is so focused on where we are right now -- I guess I remember that, in June of 1992, that's when Bill really wrapped up the nomination -- the middle of June, after the California primary."

We've vetted this claim before and found its accuracy to be wanting.

Then- Gov. Bill Clinton literally did not secure enough delegates through the primary and caucus process until the California primary, June 2, 1992.

But he had sewn up the nomination long before then.

Months before then.

Moreover, the first real contest that year was on February 18, 1992. (No one competed in the Iowa caucuses since Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, was a candidate that year) The first real contest this year, the Iowa caucus, was January 3, 2008. So you'd also expect that race to last later in the calendar -- it started more than a month and a half later.

But regardless of that, here are some key dates for that 1992 race that indicate how misleading this argument is.

February 18, 1992 -- Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., wins New Hampshire primary. A scandal-plagued Gov. Bill Clinton comes in second.

February 20, 1992  -- San Diego Union-Tribune headline: "Tsongas got most votes, but Clinton says he won".

February 25, 1992 -- Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., wins the South Dakota primary.

March 3, 1992 -- Clinton wins Georgia. Tsongas wins Maryland. Harkin wins Minnesota and Idaho. Former California governor Jerry Brown wins Colorado. Still all very much up for grabs.

March 5, 1992 -- With no money, Kerrey ends his campaign. "We were ready to go full throttle," Kerrey says, "but unfortunately we ran out of gas."

March 7, 1992 -- Clinton wins South Carolina.

Harkin announces he will drop out.

March 10, 1992 -- Clinton cleans up on Super Tuesday, winning Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. Tsongas wins Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Kerrey: "I would say he's got a very clear path to the nomination. But it's not a path without mine fields. There are still things out there that he's got to worry about. He's got to win."

Jim Lehrer on PBS: "David, how close is Bill Clinton to being the Democratic nominee tonight?"

David Gergen: "He's on the verge."

March 17, 1992 -- Clinton wins Illinois.

At this point, it becomes clear Clinton will be the nominee.

Tsongas drops out. Only Brown remains in the race.

March 20, 1992 -- The Dallas Morning News: "Former Sen. Paul Tsongas abruptly halted his presidential candidacy on Thursday, effectively ending the Democratic contest and turning the primary campaign into a mop-up operation for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. 'It was clear that we did not have the resources necessary to fight the media war in (the April 7) New York (primary),' Mr. Tsongas told a packed crowd of supporters in Boston."

The Boston Herald: "A no-holds-barred presidential race between Democrat Bill Clinton and President George Bush - in a clash of generations and vastly different values - was all but sealed yesterday as Paul E. Tsongas ended his quest for the Democratic nomination."

March 24, 1992 -- Brown wins Connecticut. Clinton holds a seven-to-one lead in delegates.

March 26, 1992 -- Harkin endorses Clinton, expressing concern that the fight between Clinton and Brown will cause divisions in the party that would hurt the nominee in November.

"I say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights to work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992," Harkin says.

Harkin is the first of Clinton's former opponents to endorse him, and the party begins to officially rally around the presumptive nominee.

April 1, 1992 -- Former President Jimmy Carter endorses Clinton, calling him "an honest, decent, competent, idealistic, practical man" who doesn't deserve to have his character questioned. "Pretty obviously, Gov. Clinton is going to get the nomination," Carter says.

April 4, 1992 -- Before the New York primary, Gov. Mario Cuomo says Clinton would be a "superb president."

April 8, 1992 -- Bryant Gumbel: "Good morning. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, call him flawed, call him slick, but call him a winner this morning. He swept the primaries in New York, Kansas and Wisconsin. Big strides toward the Democratic nomination that seem his for the taking today, Wednesday, April the 8th, 1992."

As a slap in Brown's face, Tsongas -- no longer in the race -- comes in second in New York.

April 12, 1992 -- House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, endorses Clinton. "Bill Clinton will be the kind of president the United States needs to recapture our economic strength and leadership in the post-Cold War world," Gephardt says.

House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash: "All the dominoes are falling in favor of Clinton. He is going to be the nominee."

At the California Democratic convention, Brown says Clinton is likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee, and says he will back Clinton if he is nominated.

Austin American-Statesman: "Brown strongly indicated that, having lost the New York primary Tuesday, he will campaign as a crusader for political change rather than as a serious contender for nomination. Ron Brown, national party chairman, said the comments were 'very positive' and hinted that the contest has entered a new phase. The two met privately earlier in the day."

April 14, 1992 -- Clinton wins the final round of Virginia's caucuses. "Uncommitted" comes in a strong second,
Brown comes in a distant third.

April 19, 1992 - Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine, endorses Clinton.

Earth Day, 1992 - Clinton challenges President George H.W. Bush to a face-to-face debate on the environment.

April 28, 1992 -- Clinton wins Pennsylvania primary, having earned 1,466 of the 2,145 delegates needed to win. Brown has 316 delegates.

And on and on...

This notion that the 1992 presidential race was not over until June is literally true. But it was truly over about five or six weeks after the New Hampshire primary.

Interesting, though, how Bill Clinton and his campaign lobbied big name Democrats to rally around him once it became clear that mathematically he'd be the delegate winner. Though Brown, aware that some horrible big story about Clinton might break and change everything, stuck around.

- jpt

May 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (151)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/28885014

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The June Myth:

User Comments

rhbate...not going to happen...ever...hands of time will never turn back the clock to ideals/laws of the 70'...quit your scare tactics.
McCAIN ALL THE WAY (if not Hillary)!

Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 4:55:55 PM

catleya...I worry that there is some buying of voters in W. Virginia or KY right now. I know she is expected to win, but Obama campaign is probably outspending again, 4 to 1, and if you see enough commercials from the guy who has money to burn, maybe it will sway voters. I hope the good people of KY and WVirginia are true Hillary supporters and remember Obama's small town people comments. Looking down his nose at the hard working Americans who make this country great. He was with the snotty liberal millionaire group in San Francisco that he fits in with so well. I hope those comments are still burning in the ears of voters in upcoming states.

Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 2:31:41 AM

rhbate...give it up. No one believes McCain has a Hagey relationship for 20 years buying his BS ideology. Don't even compare to Obama/Wright...we all see through that. Obama said in his famous "kick Wright to the curb" speech.."I should have vetted my pastor". What crap! Twenty years and you can't "vet" your pastor? It would have taken most of America about 20 minutes to figure out Wright's hate filled rhetoric. I've vetted Obama...and he's out!

Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 2:01:57 AM

dl...it was so great tonight on Hannity and Colmes, I found out Colmes is a Hillary supporter. I knew where Sean stand (firmly in the right). I love Fox News...fair and balanced.
Could someone explain campaign finance 101 to me....because with individual contributions at $2,300 tops, and Obama's core group being colleg kids, African Americans and liberals...how is there that kind of money in his campaign? I know he has 5 billionaire liberals behind him, but how do they "bundle" money? There is no possible way with his wins he could amount to this much. I know they outspend Hillary 3 or 4 to 1 and the money never ends. NO WAY this is poor grassroot supporters with his core group. Who are these lefty liberals with billions to buy a presidency? One of them lives in San Francisco where BO made his "clinging" remarks. Seriously want to see his fundraising books.

Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 1:56:18 AM

Carl Rove is on Fox saying Obama rubbing Clinton's nose in it by claiming victory on May 20 is really the wrong move. Obama supporter caught on tape violations in voting booths..I have heard nothing but trouble with caucuses and intimidation by Obamabots...will someone look into these dishonest voting situations, like Indiana Mayor of Bend turning in suspicious votes so late Tuesday night. CNN Wolf and Anderson could not believe and another Mayor in Indiana (Hillary supporter) was embarassed it was lookig dishonest. Mayor of Bend said it was because of 11,000 early votes they were still counting.
Anyway, Carl Rove said this thing should play out and Obama is wrong at suggesting he is the winner May 20.

Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 1:38:54 AM

dl...it's not just issues and policies here, my friend. Americans want to vote into the highest, most esteemed position in the world...someone who is deserving to represent us and work on our behalf. All politicians have baggage....but it better not be WHITE HATING, ANTI AMERICAN BAGGAGE for this great office of President a candidate has to earn! Obama's 143 days working as a Senator does not qualify, and knowing what we know about him now, I don't even think he should have his senate seat.

Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 1:30:42 AM

Sandy

get your facts straight...

I never said anything about Hillary having it all and polls and whatever...you should get your commentors straight. Hillary did have the backing of the democratic elite and lots o moneys that she lost...but nothing that has anything to do with polls?

and if I hear this stupid Starr report investigated and found nothing argument again...ugh...
Republicans wasted 70 million dollars and focused on getting BILL OUT OF OFFICE...that was the point...once they had Monica and him lying on the stand and to the American people that's what they focused on...and yes they did find out and drew up documents to go after Hillary for White water...but they knew it would be just another legal battle and fought off scandal from the Clintons and SHE was not the target... it is even being reported today from that 1200 page playbook the they had waiting for her... they have one for Obama too, but it ain't as long as the Clinton's... years and years of scandals that have lots of details that you all have not heard...and some you have but most of America thinks the Clinton scandals are MOnica and some word "whitewater" oh and maybe something to do with cattle...they don't know all the details with Hillary...they think it is all Bill.

and you think voting for Mccain is going to help us keep congress...or that his agenda will "keep it in check" with all of those things... especially with our efficient congress. A president (especially a first term President who beat out the dems this time after Bush) can get things done eventually. Supreme court justices can only keep going back so often if they are in the range and have not decided anything that was illegal or vastly to the right. As long as they have shown judicial prudence...whatever that may mean.

Voting for McCain shows congress that the American public is okay with his choices.

But obviously you don't get that.

so i guess those issues aren't as important as your anger toward you nominee not getting elected.

Which if it is the case makes your comments not worth much to most. Most Americans want the issues taken care of not the candidate. They want the candidate who will best carry out the issues. Not make more issues with their fighting or making issues that don't help them.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 10:56:41 PM

REV. Wright's and his connection with OBAMA of 20 years with audacity and hope would have turned away many votes. If we took that off OBAMA's popularity vote, he is not so unelectable.

take away the rural American votes, the catholic votes, the working class ...

He is a shaky candidate in Nov

Now he is so conceited, he needs a spank and shoes in his mouth.

Posted by: John_Lai | May 8, 2008 10:36:49 PM

How do you experts know what kind of president Obama will be, the same things you say have been said about every candidate who has run for president. Only time can tell, not know-it-alls, John Kennedy won the presidency by a thread bare margin and seems to have done alright, even by your self important standards.

Posted by: fool me once | May 8, 2008 8:12:50 PM

Excellent comments Jayhawk.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 6:22:56 PM

Obama and foreign policy? What planet did that take place on? Must be the same planet Rob is on, because it sure isn't here.

Has Obama even been to Iraq? Oh, that's right. Obama did go to Somalia and play dress up with a turban.

Obama didn't vote on going to into Iraq as he was not yet a member of the U.S. Senate. Obama just stated his position as many Americans did.

When in the United States Senate, Obama voted exactly the same on Iraq war bills as Hillary Clinton except for one time when he voted with John McCain. Of course, a lot of times he missed votes or just voted "present." There's real leadership.

As I have stated before, Barack Obama is no John F. Kennedy. A better Obama correlation would be Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, or Jeremiah Wright.

When I think of JFK, I don't just think of his political service. Like John McCain, John Kennedy's character was shaped by sacrifice and service in the military. Has anyone ever heard of PT109?

Before people on blogs compare great men like John F. Kennedy to political hacks like Barack Obama, they need to at least have a semblance of accurate information and show some respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Posted by: Jayhawk | May 8, 2008 5:58:30 PM

LOL Debra, how do you figure Obama is toast, wishful thinking right. And there won't be any revote. They's already a plan on seating them.

Posted by: ll | May 8, 2008 5:47:32 PM

This should play out until August, when they can revote in MI. All Americans deserve a vote....OBAMA ONLY WINS 26% OF WHITE WORKING CLASS...OBAMA IS TOAST.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 5:44:45 PM

Rob...I believe JFK had 12 years in the Senate NOT 143 days.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 5:41:32 PM

With regard to Obama's so called lack of experience, just look at JFK, who was very inactive in the senate, was frequently ill, and was not a great orator until he started running for president, and improved dramatically. JFK's experience was practically non-existent but was a revered and fine president. Obama actually writes the majority of his speeches, unlike JFK and Reagan. Obama is the brightest president we will ever have, and has consistently shown good judgement with regards to the Iraq war and foreign policy in general. His poor judgement was in underestimating the character of several people he associated with, or more pointedly, people that other people introduced to him so that they could help with his fund raising efforts. These are easy lessons to learn, especially for a younger politician. Hillary has made far more mistakes, bith on her own, and with flawed associations, and the modern press writes them off as previously 'vetted'. Same for big BIll. We all make these types of mistakes, just not to the horrendous extent for which the Clintons have shown time after time. One of Hillary's former employers during the Watergate times, who has no axe to grind, said that Hillary was one of the biggest liars he ever had working for him, and he had to fire her for her dishonesty, while refusing to write her a letter of recommendation- only one of two people ever under him that he could not in good conscious support with a letter of recommendation. This speaks volumes about her character, even when she was a young democrat in her 20's. Bill of course is far worse, but their bad behavior accounts for while they are still together. they are two peas from the same pod.

Posted by: rob | May 8, 2008 5:35:13 PM

Christopher so sorry you have to bring race into your comments. It doesn't matter if Obama is purple....it's what he stands for to many Americans (except the 98% of black support) that makes him unelectable. I get so frustrated as a 49 year old white Republican who crossed over for Hillary. OBAMA IS INEXPERIENCED (143 days worked in Senate so far), LACKING CHARACTER AND JUDGEMENT (I can't even list all his negatives here) and LACKING PATRIOTISM (McCain will cream him here).
I DON'T CARE ABOUT HIS SKIN COLOR.....I WOULD HAVE VOTED COLIN POWELL.
I AM NOT A PARTY LOYALIST. Ninty percent of the time, I vote Rep, but not always. Economy, national security are of importance to me....BUT I VOTE WITH MY HEAD AND MY HEART everytime.
NO OBAMA '08....HOPE CHANGE HATE

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 5:25:06 PM

So once again Hillary gives her "version" of reality. Always thinking that the rubes won't know any better.

Maybe she should have those contact lens she wears looked at because they sure don't help her see things as they truly are.

Posted by: Richard | May 8, 2008 5:22:11 PM

FOX is more balance than NBC/MSNBC or CNN. When was the last time Keith O had anyone on who disagreed with him?

Posted by: Florida Cat | May 8, 2008 5:10:41 PM

Jayhawk, you sound like me I have been a democrat for 37 years never voted any-other way. Yesterday I re-register as no affiliation. I will never again give my vote blindly.

Posted by: Florida Cat | May 8, 2008 5:07:25 PM

Since when would putting the "Freddie Kruger" of American Politics, Hillary Clinton on the Democratic Ticket, be anyone's idea of a dream? Clintonista's in the mainstream media are trying to sell this story the same way they have tried to maintain the pseudo reality that she has a path to the nomination. It is clear powerful forces are trying to force Obama's hand into choosing her. First of all this would be a catastrophe. Trust me Hillary does not want to "count all the white people" who support her. Because that pool of folks just ain't all that deep. The fact is that there are a hell of alot of white men and white thinking women who really detest the racist, deceptive and fraudulent campaign that she has waged. Hillary has employed every tactic from George Wallace, Jessie Helms, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove's playbook and truthfully it has made more and more American despise her and everything she represents. She lost. She should withdraw, apologize and exercise some dignity and class. But I am afraid that her blind ambition for power will make that very unlikely. So, I say to Hillary, you think all the white people are with ya? Think again honey. It just ain't so. I grew up in a family of construction workers and electricians. None of them are for your candidacy my dear.

Posted by: Christopher London | May 8, 2008 5:02:07 PM

By the way, dl, neither the Republicans nor any one else that can read were surprised that Obama won a state where about a third of Democrats are minority with almost 98% of that group voting for the half-black candiate.

Get a grip on the reason that Obama has won where he won. Minorities gave him caucuses and the resulting delegates in states where he could have never won a primary.

While Democrats have admitted time and time again that their rules are a flawed and have failed the process, changing them for the next election will not help them in this one.

Republicans could run Pee Wee Herman against Barack Obama and win by a landslide. Obama has effectively split the Democrat party along almost every line of contention possible.

President McCain...

Get used to it...

Posted by: Jayhawk | May 8, 2008 4:41:11 PM

Debra,

As a union member for all of my past working life, I made the choice to be a Democrat at the age of 18.

Although I didn't always agree with party positions (I am pro-gun, against illegal immigration rights, etc.), I always voted for the Democrat presidential candidate.

And, there were some losers: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry just to name a few. They were the most liberal of the liberals, but I tried to remain loyal to the party that I thought best represented my views.

Was I ever wrong! And this year's nomination debacle courtesy of the Democrat leadership and the DNC was the last straw. Obama is the worst of the worst.

Any party and candidate that is so two-faced as to cry and whine about the elections of 2000 and 2004 while they unashamedly move to do the same thing (in one way or another) to Michigan and Florida voters has lost national and international credibility and my support...permanently.

For 34 years I was a Democrat. I am now registered as an independent. As with a growing number of dissatisfied and disgusted Democrats (and former Democrats), I will vote for whoever is running against Barack Obama.

The Republican party and the ranks of independent voters will grow exponentially this year as the exodus from the failure of the Democrat party and its leadership continues.

Posted by: Jayhawk | May 8, 2008 4:32:36 PM

DL - so many counter-arguments, so little time ...

"HRC had it all ... and lost it" - polls were all it ever was, and early ones at that. People don't make up their minds until they have to. Equiv of saying "Yes I want steak for dinner" when that's the only choice, and then opting for shrimp when it's available.

"Repubs are scared to run against Obama, why else did they go easy on HRC and never bring up the scandals?" ... Hmm - b/c REPUBS WASTED 8 YRS and more than $70M (don't forget the cost of COngressional investigations to add to Starr/Ray) to prove that they couldn't prove anything! Not their best moment then, and certainly not a good idea to remind everyone of their tactics and failure back then.

"McCain is McBush ... and its the end of civilization" ... only one word - CONGRESS! Almost all of the points you mention, need to run through Congress. I'd rather vote in the right Dems (and get them to man-up) than vote for Obama.

Posted by: Sandy | May 8, 2008 4:29:49 PM

dl...get this straight. I am a 49 year old Republican. I love Hannity and O'Reilly for expressing views MILLIONS of us have. Some Amerians sitll hold values and love of our country dear to our hearts. Not the zealous, radicals that support Obama, tho. I was just reading of the threatened riots that will take place from the black organizations, letter to Dean, if Obama is not the nominee. What a shame...I wonder if they will riot when McCain wins in Nov. I am not a racist. I don't care if Obama is purple....I don't like him for a President. Pure and simple. I knew about Wright months ago, and the more I found about Obama the more I knew I could never vote for him. I have looked at this from hiring an employee standpoint, for the highest office in our country. I have two applicants for the job, either would be fine with me....Clinton or McCain.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 3:54:44 PM

Most of America is remembering that Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox are half the problem that got us into this situation in the first place.

It was those news outlets that was the megaphone for the old scare candidate last time...

We will make sure as Americans that people remember that.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 3:45:02 PM

dl...yeah, I watch FOX news and Hannity and O'Reilly have done this country a service for exposing Obama for the loser he will be in Nov. No one backed off on the Bosnia fire, her only big slip up. Bill's not running so bringing up his old news ISN'T news.
Can't wait to watch my other candidate of choice, McCain, tonight on O'Reilly.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 3:23:37 PM

Debra is a 28% er Bush Loving Republican. The Democrats could run the socialist Senator from Vermont, Sanders against the decrepid and feeble minded McCain and still win. No matter how loud the Right wing nuts claim the Democrats are "liberal". All they have to do is look at the last 8 years and say, no more.

Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 8, 2008 3:04:15 PM

and I never said the Republicans were surprised by Obama winning NC

I said they were panicked at what happened that night...

because their last hope of Hillary being the nominee was done ...

You can try and twist that but the letters and statements are out there. You as a registered republican...(now arguing for Hillary lol) should know when you watch FOX the tone changed.

Did you never ask yourself why when over the past few years all the republican pundits would laugh and say Hillary will have to avoid all the scandals...everyone would say...what Hillary brings to a run for the presidency was the clinton years ...but she also brought the scandals...as soon as the primaries started and she announced... the republican pundits never mentioned (ever) any of the Clinton scandals...

why would that be? hmmm...they didn't hold back on Obama?

Have some common sense. I am not spinning the letters newt wrote and Fox News was saying the night and next morning after NC and Ind. ... or Giuliani's reinforcement of what Newt said.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 2:53:29 PM

Debra

"just look at her campaign"

she is losing.

and she had the entire democratic establishment behind her at one time ...and in most states...

actually really I should say...she lost.

She lost with millions and millions of dollars and eight years of imagery of her IN the white house...and the name recognition as the "queen" of the party...

and she still lost...and had to loan her campaign money and be a deadbeat on bills.

She lost even though not a single scandal was brought up from the "lists" of scandals in her background...and she is the one that is a "fighter"? yet never answered a single question about any of those scandals in herlong list... and she lost.

She lost with a surrogate out campaigning and getting her twice the press coverage if not more with the last Democratic President out on the stump EVERYDAY pitching for her.

and she lost.

so I agree "just look at her campaign"


Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 2:46:30 PM

carpenter.nyc...we all know this and I'm with you. Unfortunately our MSM is all owned by the same billionaire liberals "bundling" money into BO's campaign. TIME magazine is putting out this weeks cover page with Obama's mug and the headline "And the winner is..."
Boy those leftys wish. It just won't happen with mainstream Amercica WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY VOTED MIDDLE RIGHT..LAST 8 OUT OF 10 ELECTIONS FOR PRES. HAVE BEEN REPUBLICAN! Obama is unelectable on issues of character, judgement, patriotism, and experience (he has only worked 143 days in Senate.)

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 2:16:31 PM

dl...for delusional...yeah the Republicans were all surprised Obama won NC. Right. You can keep telling yourself that, but since I am a registered Republican, who voted for Hillary here in Calif, the circles I run in know she is the stronger candidate against McCain....just look at her campaign. She is still surviving with millions supporting her and Obama is running from debates again. I KNOW Hillary would be a more formidable candidate against McCain. OBAMA WILL LOSE!

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 2:02:03 PM

Debra

every woman that has fought for the protection of women...and Roe vs. Wade.

Should be bothered by the fact that you post things like Hillary or McCain.

What you prove is that it is not about ending the war

or the economy
or our standing in the world
or healthcare
or the mortgage crisis
or our dependence on oil
or a right leaning supreme judicial body

or any of the other issues that McCain holds and Hillary "supposedly" holds...

It is about Hillary.

Well it's not and I think most Americans know it is about them and the government they elect...not Hillary winning her position.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:58:04 PM

Obama can't beat McCain if he can't win white votes and majority of Independents.....

Less and less people believe his change/hope and more focus on the capability, experience and strength and policies...

He is no longer to attract independents or Reps after all his weaknesses came out...

So the question is: can his loyal AA and young voters boost him enough to win over McCain??

Posted by: True Truth | May 8, 2008 1:57:31 PM

Hillary's comments in USA Today about white voters demonstrates how divisive and self-serving her motivations are at this point. She knows that she cannot win the nomination, but she is in effect 'poinsoning the well' for Obama. She is tacitly signalling to white voters that she understands that they won't vote for Obama in the general.

The superdelegates or party elders would be wise to get her out of the race or tell her to stop the racist comments.

Posted by: suzanne | May 8, 2008 1:57:20 PM

Yeah!!!OldSpice....how beautifully said. Take comfort their are millions of us who think likewise. I listen to Repbulican talk radio often, and yesterday a gentleman called expressing his fear and anxiety over this election, but Hugh Hewitt, said don't worry, Sen. McCain will not let these out of touch liberals take over this great country. I beleve that. An Obama presidency would be devastating....it'not going to happen with college kids/blacks/radical-liberals the bulk of his base. Rest assured.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 1:56:38 PM

McCain is a great hero and a great Senator. I am glad he is one of our great leaders.

But what he has signed on for and is promising to do with the White house...will weigh so heavy on future generations that it would be impossible for anyone who cares about women's right to choose, not being financially beholden to china, who understands that all of our issues and the road we are going down have direct relation with how the world is progressively more and more viewing our country, how our safety has to do with the intelligence we receive from other countries, how the Buch economic policies of protecting the haves and saying the market will protect the have-nots...is another reason we are HERE...NOW at this point...and looking down the road at a potential disaster with oil dependence and terrorism rising out of hatred for our country.

McCain fortunately does not have the hand to win when it is finally brought out into the light of day from the shadows it has been in from this extended primary on the democratic side.

The problem is now...will there be enough time for people's eyes to adjust.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:51:41 PM

Well we know she isn't good at math...maybe she can't read a calendar either.

Either way she is not getting out and plans an ugly ugly floor fight right after she keeps telling us Obama is the "black" candidate. I know he is and this older white woman will keep on supporting him.

Posted by: Math | May 8, 2008 1:49:42 PM

Bruce...well said...McCain's the man to do it, if Hillary isn't the woman to get the nom. It's pathetic the media/press are so liberal and do not represent the majority of Americans. You should see the horrible cover of TIME next week...they are so slick pushing Obama. Well I have spoken to Hillary's offices in the upcoming states and she is staying in this. Anybody this close in votes, would be stupid to drop out now. HILLARY OR McCAIN '08!

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 1:49:32 PM

Why does Obama run scared over debates? You'd think he'd want to warm up for McCain, if he has this nom so in the bag. I just spoke to a young man in Hillary's Oregon office and they are still working hard to get him to debate her. They have offered four different dates and he still won't commit. He has done this since February, because we all know he is better SCRIPTED! Oh my god, his stutter and stammer answers are hard to comprehend. I signed a petition to get him to debate Hillary in Oregon....puss that he is.

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 1:42:38 PM

If Obama's change/hope tone worked, he should have won majority of white votes and other minority votes....

Besides, what is the exact change he will bring to America with the same old politicians backing him?? Does he have a new vision of foriegn policies (the same old talk on War on Iraq and trade)? Does he have any new plans to boost our economy? Does he have any feasible solutions to our oil problems, healthcare problems, social security problems, immigration problems???

Please don't do the change just for the sake of change.. If there is no substance, it is just a fool...

Posted by: True Truth | May 8, 2008 1:42:29 PM

As you say she is technically right.

The republican do not want to run against Obama especially Mccain. They know everything they say is going to be turned into race.

If Mccain is smart he would put a woman other than Condi Rice on the ticket. Many woman are ready to bolt the democratic party. I have been a democrat for 37 years never voted any-other way. Yesterday I changed my affiliation to no affiliation. I will not blindly vote democrat anymore, my vote will have to be earned.

Posted by: Florida Cat | May 8, 2008 1:42:17 PM

Would everyone be suprised Obama won NC??

It would be suprised if he didn't win...

So why are people so excited about Obama winning NC? He was so expected to be backed up by his loyal AA half brother....

It just proved again and again the same patters Obama has since day one: he continuously won overwhelming AA and he was continuously defeated among white votes and other minority votes..

There is nothing new here, is there???

Posted by: True Truth | May 8, 2008 1:34:09 PM

Hillary won't beat McCain...it is an election to "change" the direction of the White House and Washington...

Obama represents that best overwhelmingly... but McCain (even with his horrible policies and wanting to further the mobvement to change the highest court in the land)...represents change better than Clinton...she is part of the Bush/Clinton "thing"...

It's done all but her choice to quietly and respectfully get out support the party and make an attempt to regain her seat (hoping that now that she has pissed off even half of her state she can get it again) or attempt to ruin him and the party in an attempt for a run in 2012 and be shown the door by every person who believes that the policies of ending the war, making us safer, getting our standing back in the world, a woman's right to her own body, and affordable healthcare... they all will start to stand up and show her the door at that point...whether her supporters are still blindly marching off the cliff with her or not.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:33:58 PM

Why won't many Democrats vote for McCain. He was the one Republican who the Party actually attempted to get to switch a few years ago. He will garner the huge Latino vote as though they like Hillary a lot they also like McCain's immigration stance. They went for Hillary in the primary but Obama can forget them. McCain has often co-sponsered bills with Democrats. He has often angered the Republican right by his rejecting their views. He has always been considered the darling of the Independents. If the Democratic Party does not dump Obama and damn the outcry from the left, then John McCain will be the next President.

Posted by: bruce | May 8, 2008 1:33:49 PM

The supporters of Sen Obama & CSen Clinton had better realize that this was a fight within the Democratic Family and that the most important thing is not the candidate his or herself but the ideas and solutions put forth to help America. A McCain Presidency means no end to Iraq, an end to Roe v. Wade, through the appointment of 2 Conservative Supreme Court justices, No economic, educational and enviromental plan to lead America into the future! I personally think Sen clinton should run her historic candidacy to the end of the primaries, because she owes it to her supporters.
Sen Clinton campaigned today in West Virginia and she refrained from attacking Sen Obama and concentrated on the issue of importance to the Citizens.Democrats the fight between the family is over, now is the time to make fundamental changes in the Politics of old. Now we have a chance to
have government of the people and for the people!

Democrats are on course to victory unless we get caught up in petty distractions

Dems united 08

Posted by: jld1959 | May 8, 2008 1:31:11 PM

To Progressive Dem:

Liar? …Yet another reason I have lost faith in the left wing of my party…it's been overtaken by a bunch of rude 13 year olds.

First of all, I wouldn't honor Nadar with my vote since he saw fit to put his ego in front of the greater good of our country in 2000 and helped hand the White House to George Bush.

Second, whether or not you see it this way - the Presidency is a unique and precious position - and I'm sorry but Obama is undeserving of the honor -

To sit in that church for 20 years and use Rev. Wright for his own political needs and then throw the man away like a piece of garbage when he's no longer of use was disgraceful and to conspire with his supporters in the Florida and Michigan legislatures to disenfranchise those voters because it serves his short term political needs speaks volumes of what kind of man he truly is.

I may disagree with McCain on things but he has proven himself an independent thinker and a man willing to take positions outside the hard line of the Republican party. He served his country with honor and distinction and if given a choice between the two, this liberal Democrat will have no problem making one.

Posted by: oldspice | May 8, 2008 1:30:15 PM

Obama can't win WV so he won't go there.

Posted by: Bishop | May 8, 2008 1:29:49 PM

Debra

Newt said on the view two weeks ago when it looked like Hillary had a chance and the republicans wanted her to be the nominee. As soon as Obama was locked in Newt sent out the letter (which Giuliani actually backed up as well)...

You prove my point the republicans wanted and pitched Hillary every chance they could...they did not want him to be the nominee. As soon as the NC vote came in ...you saw the phones of every old "red dog" light up and letters and interviews went out saying..."fellow republicans we are in for it...you better change"...

Guess what they see the writing on the wall. They wanted to run against Hillary...they got Obama... soon to be President Obama.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:26:28 PM

If the war becomes the prime issue McCain will not be hurt that much. He is very good at adjusting his message. He will remain against withdrawas and as to the 100 years remark, all he needs to say is "Do you think I meant that literally?" I mean get real. He is good. He beat a pile of very good oponents while Rush, O'Reilly and other Republican string pullers were raving against him. Obama must be sent to the showers and Hillary "Rocky" Clinton sent in to close out this guy McCain.

Posted by: bruce | May 8, 2008 1:22:53 PM

McCain won't come close when more soldiers are dying...more are committing suicide...more starving villages ravaged by war and famine are being convinced tat the US is a "war mongering nuclear satan" in the words of al quaeda...

More foreign companies see less market for people"buying American"...

More focus on the consumption of oil rather than the painful unavoidable removal of dependence on it.

and more super conservative people chosen for the highest law enforcing body and authority in the land.

America will not make the same mistakes it has with fear and the Bush administration...when that fear and those policies got us here.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:18:45 PM

dl...Newt said on The View, Hillary would be harder for McCain to run against. They can't wait to go against Obmama and are creating attack ads as we speak. Behar, said this on The View yesterday or the day before. REPUBLICANS KNEW HILLARY IS TOUGHER TO BEAT...SHE IS LEFT OF CENTER, McCAIN RIGHT OF CENTER....OBAMA SO FAR IN LEFT FIELD, MIDDLE AMERICA (majority of population) WILL NOT VOTE BO!

Posted by: Debra | May 8, 2008 1:14:15 PM

You know carpenter NYC

all these amorphous ...incendiary "old" campaign tactics that you right about...won't hunt anymore when the US is getting worse.

The whole Taxes will be raised thing... as opposed to McCain?

so we should borrow more money from China?

Because his policies won't add up. The war alone with what it is taking financially is going to put the burden squarely on the backs of our kids and grandkids.

A war and a foreign policy stance that is making us less safe by far not more.

Economically McCain doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:12:54 PM

The chances of Obama, who cannot debate, who lives by the script of Deval Patrick(Governor of Massachutes), who has many things to explain, whom Hillary could not really go after as he is in her party, getting the Presidency of these United States by beating a universally admired war hero, who spent 5 years in captivity in serving his country, who has been considered the most willing to work with Democrats Republlican in the Senate, who has many years experience in key debates and is definitely ready for prime time, is about 10,000 to one. Time to get real and get off the Obama trip before he drives us into 4 more years of vetos and judges who lack understanding.

Posted by: bruce | May 8, 2008 1:06:58 PM

Carpenter NYC

Obama at the least writes almost all of his own speeches by himself.

It's funny because those words have concepts behind them that Hillary doesn't seem to get.

and the Republicans aren't laughing when Newt and the rest are saying Republicans need to shape up because right now ...Obama looks pretty concrete to the attacks they were going to use that Hillary already did.

When Newt, Joe S. and half of the Fox News boys are telling the republicans to worry and get their act together...they ain't laughing...they wanted to face Hillary...

Posted by: dl | May 8, 2008 1:06:35 PM

So if someone give Obama $ 625000.00 to purchase his House, it's ok?

Cause he couldn't buy his Dream House without REZKO.

uh uh...boneheaded.


Posted by: carpenter.nyc | May 8, 2008 1:03:01 PM

All Obama has are JUST WORDS.
( And most aren't even his own words )

JUST WORDS

YES WE CAN

JUST WORDS

HOPE

JUST WORDS

CHANGE

And without a speech he can read from----he stammers like a jackhammer.....cause he really is lost without JUST WORDS.... preferably written of course.

The Democratic Party has become a laughing stock to the Republicans and all Independents.
NOT because Hillary has done her job BUT because the Democrats took hook line and sinker to JUST WORDS.

Posted by: carpenter.nyc | May 8, 2008 12:58:42 PM

Oldspice,

You are a liar. Any proud liberal democrat would never vote for McCain. Maybe Nader but not McCain. Try again.

Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 8, 2008 12:55:38 PM

A drug dealer donates $20,000 to the DNC, attends a Christmas reception hosted by Hillary Clinton, has his photo taken with the Clintons and Al Gore and then -- three weeks later -- is arrested for smuggling 6,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States. It should have come as no surprise to anyone involved. After all, Jorge Cabrera had already served two prison sentences -- one for trying to bribe a grand jury witness and the other for filing a false income tax return. Later he will be back in the news when a businessman pleads guilty to laundering $3.5 million for Cabrera between 1986 and 1996.

"I see the White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open the gates." -- Clinton contributor Johnny Chung talking about the $50,000 he gave Hillary Clinton's top aide while seeking VIP treatment at the White House.

Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 8, 2008 12:52:14 PM

Oh, gee, you mean she's not telling the truth?

Posted by: John | May 8, 2008 12:51:51 PM

progressive dem,
why are you talking about that stuff?
we all know the story, we all may have facts for the supermarket tabloids to add that you did not read.

Posted by: jgaw | May 8, 2008 12:51:09 PM

To Progressive Democrat:

The percentage of the African American and white vote in Iowa has nothing to do with Obama's victory there - It was the sad fact that Iowa and the majority of other states won by Obama were caucus states - a fundamentally flawed, antiquated and undemocratic process that disenfranchises thousands of voters.

The other fact leading to his victory there was Clinton's refusal to withdraw her name from the Michigan ballot which damaged her with the zealots in the left wing of our party.

And just for the record I'm a proud liberal Democrat that will be voting McCain in the fall. and it has nothing to do with the color of the candidates' skin and everything to do with the content of their character.

Posted by: oldspice | May 8, 2008 12:50:31 PM

Oh, fercryingoutloud. Nit-pick, nit-pick, nit-pick. No matter how hard you and your talking head cohorts try, Hillary is NOT going to drop out of this race. Sheesh. What a pathetic story.

Posted by: Vickie | May 8, 2008 12:48:39 PM

Two months after commencing the Whitewater scam, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

Hillary Clinton makes a $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal that involves taking advantage of the FCC's preference for locals, minorities and women. The franchise is almost immediately flipped to the cellular giant, McCaw.

Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 8, 2008 12:48:34 PM

WHY HILLARY CAN BE NOMINATED...I recently heard most of the ,week of 9/11, Pastor Wright hate speech about the attack on the Twin Towers. It was the coldest cruelest speech I have ever heard. While even countries that do not like us much were in sympathy this guy was screaming and that " The chickens had come home to roost." That the attacks were indeed justified and he goes on for a long time listing reasons in a screaming hateful voice. There was no sign of empathy for the victims or their greiving families. That speech was over 6 years ago. Of course Obama knew of this speech, he is attuned, he had to have at least heard about it if he was not there and yet he had Wright be the one who baptised his childern later and continued attending for years. Wright is not just offbeat or "eccentric" as Obama tried to make us believe in his Philadelphia speech. He is a vessel of hatred and racism and it does rub off on Obama...What the super delegates should consider and maybe Pelosi and others are starting to think, is that while, true, for the supers to be the deciding factor in this election will make many livid for some time, that maybe because Obama is truly probably not electable by the USA as a whole, that we Democrats need to come to our senses here. Hillary has not used and could not use things like Wright's hate speech videos in her ads but the Republicans will, and much more that she did not use. Republicans will juxatapose Obama saying good things about Wright with exercpts from those videos with Wright's extreme hatred of most about the USA. It is hard to believe that so many believe that Obama will triumph in November. I would like to know what their reasoning might be. If we count his big loss in very key Florida where he was on the ballot and some more wins by Hillary then she has a case.

Posted by: bruce | May 8, 2008 12:46:56 PM

Obama and his rich Bleeding Heart Liberals will raise our taxes....

Everything will go up.

And Obama with his Militant America Hating wife are laughing all the way to the bank.

Thank you Obamabots for selling out our country on the bases of JUST WORDS.

Posted by: carpenter.nyc | May 8, 2008 12:46:22 PM

In the late 1970s, the Clintons and McDougals buy land in the Ozarks with mostly borrowed funds. The Clintons get 50% interest with no cash down. The plot, known as Whitewater, is fifty miles from the nearest grocery store. The Washington Post will report later that some purchasers of lots, many of them retirees, "put up houses or cabins, others slept in vans or tents, hoping to be able to live off the land." HRC writes Jim McDougal, "If Reagonomics works at all, Whitewater could become the Western Hemisphere's Mecca." More than half of the purchasers will lose their plots thanks to the sleazy form of financing used.

The McDougals will be among a number of close HRC's friends and business associates who will end up in jail. Others include her law partner Webster Hubbell and financial middle man David Hale.

Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 8, 2008 12:46:05 PM

I voted for Obama along with millions of other new voters. I think it's time to grow up, Clinton supporters, and realize that we have a candidate, a big election in the fall and a nation that needs our solutions.

The primary is over - unless Clinton gets 76% of the vote in each of the remaining states - and that is including in the math all of the Fl and Mi votes.

For as much as Hillary talks about "count the votes", she is ironically begging the superdelagates to ignore the national VOTE totals and give her the nomin