May 22, 2008
Beaten at Their Own Game (A.B. Stoddard)
Now the news is that Bill Clinton wants his wife to be vice president. And Time magazine today included this fascinating nugget about Hillary's possible convention plans: "Several party officials believe she is likely to insist that her name be placed in nomination on the first ballot, opening up all the divisions once again."
Hillary's frustration, and perhaps even outrage, is understandable. She has won the big states, the swing states, the contests closed to Democrats only, and perhaps the popular vote as well. The math simply isn't fair, but the game is over.
The question becomes: Why didn't the Clinton machine prepare for the rules of this game, strange as they may be? Barack Obama learned the rules and mastered the map, and Clinton easily could have done the same — as I described in my column this week.
With their money, their allies, and their influence, the Clintons should have known how to run a presidential campaign. They let a juggernaut slip away, and let a novice beat them at their game.
***
WHAT SHOULD HILLARY ASK OF OBAMA NOW AND WHAT DOES SHE DESERVE? Ask A.B. returns Tuesday, May 27 — Please join my weekly video Q & A by sending your questions and comments to askab@thehill.com. Thank you.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 35 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You're right up to a point. Obama understood the game better, but Hillary Clinton was simply a weak candidate. Obama will become a weak candidate in the general election. They stand only for gender or race, not principles of national unity. They are the political equivalent of feather dusters.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 22, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
A.B.,
I have written it over and over again. HRC's campaign is not really about the people, or women's rights, or counting every vote. It is about the Clintons getting back to the White House where they can loot whatever is left in the U-S Treasury, and hide past sins of the Bush and Clinton eras.
Again, if HRC prevails, randy-Bill will run the show.
We cannot hang the Clintonista albatrous around a new president's neck.
By their actions, the Clintons are showing us just who they are. HRC is using petulant, post-menopausal women to do her dirty work.
Comment by barbara day — May 22, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
People didn't vote for her, that's went wrong. She is so conceited that the thought of somene voting for anyone else didn't cross her mind that's why she called herself the 'inevitable candidate' And last I heard in my statistics with anyaltical geometry class, 1 plus 1 still equals 2, so math still does work. She's just trying to create new math. She wants every voice to be heard, just not the ones that are not voting for her.
Comment by Yvonne — May 22, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
AB,
A lot things come to mind about Hillary's loss. First it was her vote for Bush's war. Her vote on teh Bankruptcy Bill, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, her vote to ban flag burning, all which are right wing votes. If have enough republican and the last republican in the WH is enough. Also she is Hillary Clinton and until the SC primary, I and many other AAs were willing to vote for her. Her and Bill's antic before the SC primary did it for me and many others. Her futile fight confirms what we felt at the time, if not her then no one. Well it won't be her.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 22, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
I agree with Mike Coleman #4 above. It was Hillary's right wing vote to ban flag burning that did her in during Democratic primaries. I assume Mike meant burning the American flag, not UN or flag of Mozambique. How dare Hillary vote to ban liberals' favorite past time? That was an oversight not to focus group the US flag burning right so dear to Democrats. No wonder the chickens are coming home to roost…
Comment by Misha — May 22, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
It took a while to figure out who is better: a lying snake or a terrorist-loving appeaser. Of course the appeaser hid his anti-American tendencies early on, but now that they've been exposed for all to see he is losing the white vote. The blacks and the hyper-libs don't care, so they are still voting for him, but even a lying snake is better than this candidate of evil.
Did you know that the band that created the huge crowd for Obama right before the Oregon primary is called "The Decemberists". It frequently uses the Soviet anthem as the introductory tune at many of it's concerts? The name Decembrist refers to the 1825 revolt over the Imperial Russian succession that created Lenin's role models.
This is what they often sing:
"In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal,
We see the future of our dear land.
And to her fluttering scarlet banner,
Selflessly true we always shall stand."
Yup, that's the crowd that was attracted to both the concert and Obama. That's who is leading the Democratic party now. You Obama supporters don't care? That's because you want a Marxist elected or you want a black man without any regard to what he stands for. How pathetic!
Comment by Igor R. — May 22, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
How did she win the closed primary states? Maryland went Obama, DC went Obama, as did Connecticut, Colorado & Delaware were…
Are you confused or am I?
Comment by se — May 22, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. Here is a woman told most of her life she'd be president only to see that dream slipping away to a novice.
Hillary really is a tragic figure. Here is a woman who stayed married to a cheating bastard only with the hopes of using him as her way into the White House.
I think she is a talented woman who could have done it all on her own with out Bill Clinton. Perphaps she can still win this thing. But who would want Hillary Clinton as President?…I sure as hell don't.
Comment by John — May 22, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Like You-Know-Her and her loose-lipped, loose-canon husband, Ms Stoddard simply assumes that the Clinton Partners in Pathos define "the game" that they clearly have not understood very well. In fact, Senator Barack Obama CHANGED the usual political game by understanding the rules and competing fairly according to them. You-Know-Them never even noticed until way too late. They still don't think the rules apply to them.
From the title and tone of her blog posting, it would appear that Ms Stoddard hasn't caught on either. Senator Obama defeated You-Know-Them at HIS game, not theirs.
As well, nothing about basic arithemetic poses the slightest "unfairness" to those who learned to count in elementary school. The Democratic Party has for decades chosen its presidential nominee according to who has the most delegates. You just count them up and you know the winner. Even a posh debutante finishing school like Wellesley should not have made this profoundly simple concept too difficult for You-Know-Her to grasp.
And just for the record: self-serving "popular vote" fantasies have nothing to do with anything presidential in the "compound republic" (as James Madison described America's electoral system). Just ask Panama-John McBomb how much he gives a damn about those "diseenfranchised" Republican Party primary voters who still keep showing up in state after state to vote for someone, anyone but him: their party's very own foreign-born nominee for an office the Constitution normally resticts to native-born Americans like Senator Barack Obama.
Comment by Michael Murry — May 22, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
As of today Clinton leads Obama in delegates elected in primary elections 1329 to 1327 his lead is from Caucus states 318 to 174 and Edward's switches.
We saw in Texas that the caucuses have nothing to do with the will of the voters. Of course Clinton wants to hang in their until the Democrats seat Florida and Michigan. At that point her lead in Delegates elected by the will of the voters increases significantly.
Comment by Chuck R — May 22, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Chuck;
you are as delusional as Hillary. Read Mike Murray's insightful post above and get educated. hillary has lost the game and now she is losing her mind.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 22, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Misha;
I applaud your try at being humorous but you lack the certain something that all great comedians have. A sense of humor. Better luck next time.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 22, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
#8 ' Here is a woman who stayed married to a cheating bastard only with the hopes of using him as her way into the White House.'
Kind of appears as though they used each other. As Hillary Rodham, astronaut she would have lived a life less infamous.
# 10
We saw in Texas that the caucuses have nothing to do with the will of the voters.
Gee, did WE see that, I must have missed it. please own your opinions and not generalize.
Comment by james d granata — May 22, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Mike Coleman, it's not humor, it's sarcasm. I hope you'd have an opportunity this Memorial Day weekend to burn our flag, since this right is so important to you people.
Comment by Misha — May 22, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
No delusion Mike the numbers are the numbers. Using NBC's numbers of "pledged" delegates, add up the states that held primary elections and Clinton now leads Obama 1329 to 1327. Obama won the caucus states 318 to 174. The rest of Obama's pledged delegate lead is delegates pledged to Edwards that intend to vote for Obama.
So to this point the will of the voters is Clinton.
The will of the caucus attendees and superdelegates is Obama.
Comment by chuck R — May 22, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Pride is a foolish thing!
Comment by Louis — May 23, 2008 @ 5:12 am
Chuckles,
The caucus attendees and superdelegates are voters.
Comment by abrxas — May 23, 2008 @ 5:31 am
Abraham Lincoln was assinated and so was JFK who took L. B. Johnson by keeping their Enemies close. I think Barack should stay as far from Hillary as he can for his own political good and safety! We must learn from the past that these marriages of convenience do not work! Now Hillary is whining about a gender bias, when it has been Team Clinton, since Iowa, that has fueled a racial and gender division, which to me disqualifies her for a V.P. slot due to a divisive personality when we need a unifying one like Barack. They have been cold and calculating and frankly devoid of a conscience, at times. Now she is whining, but she is also distorting the facts. Clintons made a big deal about Barack whining after PA and Bill said very publically to Barack, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I think they should take their own advice!
Comment by Angellight — May 23, 2008 @ 7:44 am
I really doubt Obama will be President, I heard Hillary say last week at a large cocktail party that she could take it to the convention just like the boys.
She is going to win the popular vote and my bet is that Hillary takes it to the convention. I heard her say it.
Comment by Diane B — May 23, 2008 @ 8:54 am
"Abraham Lincoln was assinated and so was JFK who took L. B. Johnson by keeping their Enemies close. I think Barack should stay as far from Hillary as he can for his own political good and safety! We must learn from the past that these marriages of convenience do not work!"
Hello.
If JFK had not had LBJ on the ticket there would have been no Camelot.
Comment by True Observer — May 23, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Whatever Bill's valiant spouse has in her heart to accomplish… she certainly will.
God bless America… with more women of such strength, bravery and grace.
Amen? Amen.
Comment by gregory scott dougherty — May 23, 2008 @ 10:27 am
L is for love.
Comment by gregory scott dougherty — May 23, 2008 @ 10:29 am
We are witnessing Hillary's meltdown and it is a great disappointment to Di Fienstein and republicans if Hillary is not on the ticket as VP. Hillary on the ticket is believed to be the only good possibility that republicans can win in November. Diane F. is wishing for November dog fight with Hill' on the ticket, Barack loses votes from the center if Hillary is on the ticket, and the crazy lady vote does not cover the spread of the center types, independents and republicans.
Only Obama gets the Clinton fatigue voters and they are now more numerous than ever, so his ticket can blow them off I hope. He should NOT place Hillary Clinton anywhere near the ticket or the White House. I are one of those voters. The country is sick of the Clintons and with her on the ticket…it's back to McCain.
Comment by Rita1 — May 23, 2008 @ 10:51 am
If Hillary was a man do you think that we would be hearing this crap about HE should drop out? That he was "desperate" trying to get the votes in Florida to count? Come on folks the entire attack of the Obama campaign had been sexist from the begining.
If a man candidate was ahead in delegates elected by the will of the people in the primary elections against another man that had the political insiders from the caucus states putting him ahead, we sure as heck wouldn't be hearing how "irrational" the person leading in delegates elected by direct popular vote was.
It is pure sexist crap! It only plays with the pundents because she is a woman.
Comment by Chuck R — May 23, 2008 @ 11:14 am
The longer this goes on the more we know the clinton true colours….Deceit, distortion, lies and theft. All but the most rabid clintonites are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Her fuzzy math, tortured truths and shameless race baiting are bringing the polls in line to reflect Obama's lead without her. It has always been the delegate count…the pop vote did not work for Gore either. They need to know that blackmail will not work with Obama–regardless of how musch Bill whines and she lies.
Comment by Docb — May 23, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Angellight, she is making professional women look like we are sore losers. Now we are going to look like if we don't get what we want we will destroy anything in our paths. This is going to make people raise the ceilings even higher for the 'good' of the company.
Comment by Yvonne — May 23, 2008 @ 11:49 am
If Obama is winning without her, why does he need her? The media wants her on the ticket so they can say at least she is vice president.Notice how they are talking about how important the V.P job is since Cheeney and that even some V.P.'s have more power than the president. I don't think her on the ticket would be a good idea. This stuff is coming from the Clinton campaign, not the Obama's. Remeber how she was offering him the V.P. job a few months ago? The lady has serious denial problems. The strength she is showing now is that of a woman spurned by both her husband and her country. But she did it to herself. She initiated race after Iowa, she said the votes in Michigan don't count, She said the caucus states don't count, She says she has the white votes, she keeps moving the goal posts, she keeps losing even after she moves the goal posts, she claims she's not winning because of sexism, (not the fact that people aren't voting for her) And she has the nerve to make demands. The media is helping her with this hype. She doesn't deserve a damn thing but to be kickedout of the DNC for trying to destroy it. She should have thought about women's right when her husband was cheating all over the place. She should have thought about the constitution when he lied under oath. She should have thought about Florida and Michigan when they first broke the rules instead of signing that she agreed with the rules. She should have wanted every voice heard when it came to the caucus states. She should have thought about civil right when she said she had the white vote. She should have thought about our soldiers on day one.
Comment by Yvonne — May 23, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Diane B, Hillary has said a lot of things. She is displaying what a sore loser is like, not a graciuos lady. But then again,that's a hat she has never worn.
Comment by Yvonne — May 23, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Misha, I'm taking a short break from flag-burning to try to enlighten you. Most liberals don't like to see the flag of our country, and of our parents and grandparents country burned by anyone.
What we hate even worse is the assault on freedom of expression even when that expression is revolting to us.
I know this is probably a hard concept for a pea-brain to understand and support, but then that doesn't matter because the courts have ruled that such expression is protected by the Constitution.
Go back to school, your missing a lot!
Comment by smilinjack — May 23, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
It is pure sexist crap! It only plays with the pundents because she is a woman.
Comment by Chuck R — May 23, 2008 @ 11:14 am
What is pure sexist crap is that she has come this far because she is a woman. Her record is what is truly crap.
Comment by james — May 24, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Right James and the other guy had been in the Senate for 18 months when he announced and did almost nothing in the Illinois legislature.
Face it he is just the anti-Clinton democrat winner.
Comment by chuck R — May 24, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Yes smilinjack, we have lots of rights. Just try to burn a Koran and see what you get charged with.
Comment by Igor R. — May 25, 2008 @ 1:38 am
This is all very interesting. As a resident of MI, my state reps ripped me off by changing the rules. The democratic candidates all agreed to this stripping of the delegates. There were 4 frontrunners, Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Richardson, 3 took their names off the ballot as they had agreed. One didn't, Clinton. She's been here once to fight for "our" votes, when it didn't work she left. Two of those frontrunners have backed the other who took his name off the ballot. My voice was not heard and she is not fighting for that. She is fighting for 700,000 out of 10 billion, not even a 10th of this state and of those she received 55%.
If she was a man she would have been asked to step down when she lost 11 states in a row. Because she is a woman and because she is a Clinton she is being treated with kit gloves. It's crap, I am a woman, take the gloves off and treat her like you would anyone else. Isn't that how she wants to be treated, equally. It's time for HRC to belly up and take it like a man. It's over.
Comment by Robin — May 25, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Robin what you posted is the crap that the talking heads are saying now. There was never any agreement to take names off of the ballot. All of the names were put on the ballot by the Michigan Democratic Party. All of the candidates said that they would not campaign in Michigan and none of them did. Many, but not all of the others took their names off so they wouldn't lose to Hillary. There was then an pretty well organized joint effort and all over the talking heads radio to vote for uncommitted so that Clinton would lose. So, the only real campaign was a stop Clinton campaign and Hillary won anyway. Without campaigning.
Comment by chuck R — May 26, 2008 @ 1:18 am
Chuck R. : Many, but not all of the others took their names off so they wouldn't lose to Hillary.
No. The reason Obama is winning is because he figured out how to win more delegates than Hillary did in states she won. He never really "lost" to Hillary.. She lost her campaign in February because her male advisors designed a losing campaign.
Comment by Eileen V — June 1, 2008 @ 12:11 pm