Hillary Shouldn’t Give Up
Calls for Hillary Clinton to abandon the race are premature. Not only can Clinton still grab the Democratic nomination, she also has a better shot than Barack Obama of winning the White House in November.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
In a boxing match when one competitor has lost two rounds on points and is taking a beating in the third, the cries go out to call the bout — in favor of his opponent, that is. But many Democratic primary watchers are now offering a bizarre new rule of combat: stop the fight and declare the bloodied, flailing combatant the winner.
That is precisely what much of the liberal media, otherwise known as Barack Obama’s support staff, is urging. The New York Times made that plea the day after the Pennsylvania primary, calling for the superdelegates to “settle the bloody race.” Despite Clinton’s impressive win in Pennsylvania, the Los Angeles Times intoned that the race was essentially hopeless — for Clinton — and that she had failed to provide “new evidence that would compel Democratic Party elders to step in and anoint Clinton as their White House nominee.” Well, that is other than a 200,000 vote margin in a must-win state for Democrats. Likewise, the Washington Post declared on Wednesday that Obama’s lead was “almost insurmountable.”
But it was up to Maureen Dowd to summon up Dr. Seuss’ Marvin K. Mooney, calling for Clinton to “just go now.” That, after Dowd had reminded readers that Clinton had all but emasculated Obama, reducing him to a tower of Jell-O in the debate.
Now this is nothing new for the Obama-infatuated pundit class. Back in early March Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter called for Clinton to “get out” and weeks before the Pennsylvania race Nora Ephron of the Obama-devoted Huffington Post echoed the same theme.
The Obama crowd is plainly worried that their man is sinking under a wave of increased media scrutiny and is irritated by his inability to make good on his promise to build a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-anything coalition.
The call for Clinton to abandon the race seems increasingly strange after she has logged substantial wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Simply put, there is no good reason for the Democratic Party and, the superdelegates specifically, to listen to the entreaties to hand the nomination to Obama.
Despite the whimpering from the punditocracy, Clinton does not face an insurmountable barrier to the nomination. We have long since passed the point at which either candidate could claim a victory based on pledged delegates so it truly is in the hands of the superdelegates.
Clinton has already spelled out her formula for victory: counting Florida and Michigan (where real voters did go to the polls) she now leads in the raw popular vote; the superdelegates should recognize that and, much more importantly, the electoral handwriting on the wall. The superdelegates may not relish the prospect of dumping the Agent of Change and facing the wrath of the Dowds and the Ephrons, but they might be wise, from their perspective, to do just that.
Clinton has made a strong case, both on policy and demographics, that she would make a superior nominee to go up against John McCain. Looking at policy first, let’s put aside the argument that her proximity to the Situation Room gives her national security credentials. Her real argument is that she won’t carry the baggage of weak-on-defense Democrats who saw their electoral chances evaporate in the barrage of GOP ads interposing their photos with America’s enemies.
Once she dispenses with the nomination process she can say what she really has meant to say (and almost did in the waning days of the Pennsylvania primary): she is not one of those fuzzy headed liberals who wants to have tea with dictators and attracts Hamas endorsements; she’s more than willing to bomb Iran to smithereens if they mess with us or Israel. That’s a message that might enable her to hold on to some national security voters.
On domestic policy she has made her case successfully (at least with Democratic primary voters) that she is the fix-it gal for what ills the American economy. Winning overwhelmingly (59-41%) among Pennsylvania voters who see the economy as the biggest concern, her mix of populist rhetoric and a modicum of restraint (maybe a capital gains tax is not the way to go and perhaps raising the payroll tax salary cap would affect more than just the rich, she offered in the last debate) may be a more effective foil against McCain than Obama (who confessed he didn’t much care if the capital gains rate increase brought in less revenue so long as the really rich got soaked).
But the real advantage which Clinton holds, and which should garner the attention of those superdelegates, is that Clinton, not Obama, has proven her ability to put together a winning coalition of women, whites, rural and small town voters, seniors, Catholics, Jews, union members and downscale Democrats. She did it in Ohio and again in Pennsylvania. With Obama attracting less than 40% of the white vote and relying on the historically unreliable youth vote, the potential for an electoral wipeout with him as the nominee looms large.
Yet, he argues, won’t those very same voters flood back to him after he secures the nomination? He hopes so, but there is little to suggest that they all or even most of them will. His putrid showing in northern and western Pennsylvania counties (many of which he lost by more than 30 percentage points) where many of these voters reside suggests that he will be a hard sell in November. His “cling” comments and grab bag full of exotic, radical connections (from Bill Ayers to Reverend Wright) will not make his task any easier. And if the polls are any indication, a higher percentage of disappointed Clinton voters (25%) will defect to McCain or stay home than would his (17%).
So at bottom: the premise and the conclusion of the “Hillary, Get Out Now!” crowd is misguided (unless you are rooting for a McCain win). She can certainly win the nomination — the superdelegates just need some steel in their spines. And more importantly, she would likely be the more effective nominee. Democrats concerned about winning the White House might reconsider giving the nomination to the guy who is losing races by double digits.
Jennifer Rubin is a writer living in Virginia. She is a regular contributor to Human Events, American Spectator and the New York Observer and blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
28 Comments
John Samford:Don’t get your pantyhose all twisted up Jennifer. Billery will steal the nomination at the Convention, using the “I’m more electable then he is” argument. Plus tons of Soros cash.
Apr 30, 2008 - 4:10 am ohgodnoplease:As a Republican voter since 1962, I’m good with that.
Billery is no more electable then BO.
Billery’s approval rating is ALREADY lower then President Bush’s. As bad as you and your ilk hate PRESIDENT Bush, there are many more people out here in fly-over America that hate Shrillery even worse.
I am looking forward to the former FBI agents that were ordered off the Foster case to Swift Boat Hillery. Or the IRS agents that were forced to compile dossiers on the people on Billeries enemies list.
That is just a scratch on the surface. There are enough bones in Shrillery’s closet to double the size of the National cemetery.
As a life long Republican, I’m used to seeing the donks shoot themselves in the foot. I will admit that this is the first time I’ve seen them shoot both feet.
I love it. Plenty of rounds in the mag, keep squeezing that trigger.
I think you are dead right.
I am aghast at the prospect of Hillary POTUS, but that pales into insignificance beside the dangerous horrors and sheer nonsense attendant on an Obama victory.
HRC is a much stronger candidate for the general election, but getting there will depend on the SD’s acting in a RATIONAL manner. Will they? Can they afford to? Will the fear of a “blacklash”, combined with the formidable influence of the ultra progressives, prevail, handing the nomination to a sure fire loser? I hope so.
Apr 30, 2008 - 5:04 am David Thomson:“…the superdelegates just need some steel in their spines.”
Ain’t gonna happen. Many of them are worried about being charged with racism—and punched in the mouth. They truly do need to worry about becoming victims of violence.
Apr 30, 2008 - 5:52 am JJMcD:Looking at the Democrats is like watching a Great Soap Opera. They created the “Super Deligates” to have a method of preventing a Un electable candidate. (like McGovern) The only problem is that there is no Courage test or Integrity test going along with that creation. Thus you have uncommitted deligates who are that way because they don’t want to become at loggerheads with members of their own party. It is not the Republicans who are scaring them, but their fellow (and adversarial) Democrats. A Republican cannot cut a Democrat’s funding. A fellow Democrat can.
Both of these two are going to continue into the convention. IT has to happen, because of the vote, both popular and electorial, and the fact that until the convention, there will be no accounting for Michigan and Florida. For either candidate to quit before then, UNLESS there is a distinct winner in the next 9 primaries, would be to deliver a brokered and Broken deal to the public.
Which would only leave McCain.
Apr 30, 2008 - 6:23 am Andrew:Why even bother taking on this topic. Conservative commentators have hit the airwaves lately giving advice to Hillary on how to beat Obama. What motivations do they really have? Maybe its “lets hope the dems keep fighting so they don’t have time to attack the John McCain”. Get real when Hillary was up the right was talking up Obama. They just want to sway the national sentiment in favor of the person behind to prolong the nominee race.
Apr 30, 2008 - 6:27 am DD:None of this matters. Both Democratic contenders are unelectable. The real story is how the once great Democratic Party landed up with two of the weakest candidates for President in their history in an election cycle that should have been a slam dunk for them.
Apr 30, 2008 - 6:39 am Bill Bradley:You know, there is actually a history to American politics before the Iraq invasion (the rally point of the hyperpartisan right) and the Florida recount (the rally point of the hyperpartisan left).
In this very distant past, Bill Clinton was utterly unelectable in 1992, running behind not only the worthy George Bush I, but also the wacky Ross Perot.
There are also polls, like the Rasmussen poll, run by Republican Scott Rasmussen. Which reach somewhat different conclusions, even in the frenzy of the current moment.
Apr 30, 2008 - 7:13 am sliptooth johnson:What nobody mentions is the fact that whether it’s obama. or clinton, or mccain matters not. They ALL are the same as they all work for the “other” government. And which ever one of these puppets gets elected, will do as they’re told like a little puppet should. Until the people wake up and start demanding definite goals to be met, we will continue down this path toward socialism.
Apr 30, 2008 - 7:50 am Ohio Granny:I was thinking all the talking heads were right until I went to Google Maps and searched for 2008 US Primary Results. I got a glimpse of how many counties went for Hilliary in PA. Then I started checking states Obama won, and WOW, Hilliary is taking most of the states and he is getting a big boost in the cities only. I think the early states had Clinton fatigue but if they did them now, they wouldn’t be supporting this Chicago politician.
Apr 30, 2008 - 8:18 am Will Rogers:I said it in January and I’ll say it again, all the folks coming out to vote for Obama are ALL the FLOKS who want to vote for Obama. Take his final number and match that against McCain.
Some food for thought.
Apr 30, 2008 - 8:20 am J.J. Sefton:The Dhimmicrats are headed straight for a “Night of the Long Knives” in Denver. It will finish them off and, if it hasn’t already, they will become completely and vocally socialist after that convention.
Apr 30, 2008 - 9:42 am Teri Pittman:You are missing the point. This is actually a struggle for control of the Democratic party. Will it be the Daley/Kennedy/Kerry crowd or the Clintons? This contest is just showing the true split in the Democratic party. And it’s one of the reasons why Hillary won’t quit. They simply are not going to give up control of the party that easily. And there’s something to be said in their recognition that the party is running towards the cliff at high speed. As someone who has always hated Hillary, I gotta give her credit for sticking it out. I’d rather see her in charge any day of the week than Obama.
Apr 30, 2008 - 10:22 am Kate:Well Jennife, while I am sure that your pantyhose not only remains in place I’ll bet it has no bearing on your position. Funny how when it comes to a woman’s opinion, Democrats and Republicans alike too often just reduce their arguments to the significance a woman’s underwear.
Apr 30, 2008 - 10:43 am Tricia of Charlotte, NC:I think you are right. Hillary would be the stronger candidate. Might even vote for her myself. We really need to do something reasonable about health care and I agree, she would be tough in foreign affairs. The picture of Obama and Ahmadinejad is just plain scary. Those guys will just hand him his lunch. As for Bill, she can finally just ship him out to lower Mongolia or maybe make him the travel director and just hide the interns.
The Super Delegates are afraid they’ll lose the African American vote.
That will never happen. African Americans know the Democratic party is the only party that will help them; they won’t desert them for McCain. Notin an million years.
Apr 30, 2008 - 12:19 pm Han Dang Ngoc:Sure, superdelegate want to back Clinton, if they want to back Obama, they have had backed him after 10 state he won.
Apr 30, 2008 - 12:36 pm dirigible:Bill Clinton was indeed unelectable in 1992 … in a two-way race. But since it was a three-way - with an unusually strong third-party candidate - Clinton was able to squeak in with a mere 43% of the vote.
2008 is not a three-way race. Or, rather, while it looks like one now, it won’t be by November.
_____________________
Hillary is of course far easier to take seriously on national defense than Obama. But it won’t do her much good. A voter who thinks national defense is important is going to vote for any Republican over any of the current crop of Democrats.
Apr 30, 2008 - 1:59 pm John Samford:“Well Jennife, while I am sure that your pantyhose not only remains in place I’ll bet it has no bearing on your position. Funny how when it comes to a woman’s opinion, Democrats and Republicans alike too often just reduce their arguments to the significance a woman’s underwear.”
That was a joke, kate J_O_K_E. joke.
You really need to lighten up to paraphrase John Riggens. Work on your sense of humor.
Here is an exercise to help you.
“What does your ex-boyfriend think of Roe vs Wade? Two different ways to get across the river.
Exercise two; This man has some time to kill between flights so he wanders into the airport bar. He spots two attractive young women sitting at the far end of the bar so he sits down at the near end and when the bartender comes over orders a drink then says “Reload those two women on me”.
The barkeep says “OK, but your wasting your money.
HE says “It’s my money, load ‘em up.”
When the bartender takes the ladies their drinks they nod thanks and go back to chatting.
After our flyer finishes his drink he orders another and two more for the females. The bartender says “Look, I know it’s your money but I hate to anybody just throw money away and you could buy the whole bar and it wouldn’t get you anywhere. Those two are lesbians.” The guy says “Thanks for the tip, make them their drinks”.
Well the third time the bartender doesn’t say anything just makes the drinks. After he puts them in front of the two women, our intrepid travller picks his fresh drink up and goes down to stand between the two slightly inebriated women.
“Evening Ladies” he says, “How’s the weather in Beirut?”
Back on the factual side (where true humor lies), Jennifer, like you and millions of other feminists, support Shrillery because she is female. That makes feminism a legitimate political issue.
Apr 30, 2008 - 5:18 pm John Samford:BO is getting most of his support from blacks, which makes race a legitimate political issue.
When you niche market a political campaign, expect those not in the niche to examine that niche closely.
As President Johnson (D, Tx) said “Politics ain’t beanbag”.
Just to set the facts straight ( just the facts ma’m, and only the facts. _Sgt Joe Friday)
Apr 30, 2008 - 5:28 pm Ron:Billery is getting their clock cleaned. Billery is the bruised, battered, beaten and bloody boxer that won’t throw in the towel.
I have no doubts that she will steal the nomination at the Convention. After all, her neighbor, George Soros, has piles of money and we are talking about Democratic politicians here. I fully expect money to change hands and votes to switch.
I don’t think that is illegal, so a democratic pol won’t have any problems with it.
I tyhink it will be good for the young Ohhh…BAMA fans. Politics is a dirty game. The sooner one learns that, the better.
Pure speculation she would beat McCain easier than Obama.
Apr 30, 2008 - 5:45 pm John Samford:Another thing is the Superdelegates, funny thatmost of them that give Obama support are former cabinet members of the Clintons.
Never forget that Billery has a higher diapproval rating then PRESIDENT Bush. By about 10 points. 40% of the general election voters will vote against Billery. That means they have to get over 80% of the remaining voters to win, which while not impossible, has never been done before. IIRC, the largest margin ever was in the 60’s. So after stealing the nomination, Billery has their work cut out. It breaks out about the same on EV’s.
May 1, 2008 - 7:50 am Mathew Cole:What I find most interesting about this upcoming election is that Ca. is in play for the first time since Ronnie. That is due to the Mexican vote. Hunter would make a good VP. If he helps with Ca he would be a GREAT VP and the front runner for ‘12.
Ron,
Here’s a site -
electoral-vote.com
That site uses the latest HRC/McC and BHO/McC polls to detemine the likely winner of a general election if it were held tomorrow.
In other words, it’s speculation backed by evidence. Not just speculation.
May 3, 2008 - 8:17 am gordo:Hillary is appearing, after some tough fighting, to be the better candidate. But the Dems have to give Obama the nod otherwise a bloodbath within the party would ensue. So, enter Al Gore. The Dems have a candidate who could win and the party doesn’t rip itself apart. We’ll see.
May 3, 2008 - 7:50 pm Veyry Serrano:You are so right.Hillary is the only candidate 100% for this job.She’s the only one capable to beat McCain.Obama needs a lot of more years to learn from Hillary.We don’t want Hillary to quit; Obama’s people are afraid of her.GO HILLARY!
May 4, 2008 - 7:30 pm anne white:Right on target! Hillary is in all the way to Denver, and why shouldn’t she? Why do we have primaries in all states? If they wouldn’t count why bother? Let Iowa and NH decide for everyone and cancel the rest of the states primaries. It’s not a coronation, regarless of what Obama may think. I don’t see anyone asking him to quit, even though he doesn’t have the needed delegates either? Not only is Obama bored he is also afraid, that’s why he won’t debate!
May 4, 2008 - 7:58 pm Kendall Johnson:I am so sick of hearing about all the states Obama won. Most of these states are red states with almost no people living in them!!!! Wyoming is no measure of a democratic candidates electability. Florida and Ohio are measures of electability. Obama might have won more states, but Clinton won the states with the most people. A matter of fact the states Clinton won represent more than two thirds of the country’s population and where the majority of democrats live!!!!!! HILLARY IS THE LEADER!!!!!!
May 4, 2008 - 9:31 pm Uma:Only cowards beg their opponents to go away. America is in BIG trouble if a coward becomes commander-in-chief.
May 5, 2008 - 12:15 am C. Navarro:Give it up, Hillary. We good-ole-boys here in North Carolina weren’t fooled one bit by those speeches you gave from the bed of a pickup truck. We aren’t as gullible as you think. We know that people who raked in 100 million in eight years aren’t the kind who drive around in pickups or have friends who do. As Lincoln put it: “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. So give it up. You and your de facto running mate, husband Bill, have run out of tricks.
May 7, 2008 - 9:22 pm John Samford:For all you Billery fans;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/NATION/602407036/1001
The girl is dirty. Very dirty. Indictable dirty. You think this is bad, wait until the retired FBI guys that were working on the Jordan case Swift Boat Shrillery.
Mathew Cole, a poll is NOT evidence. Pols are tools. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously you slept thru your Stat101 class. To bad. If you had stayed awake you would have learned that statistical studies ( polls, models, etc.) are tools used by scientists to help them find evidence. Watch CSI. Those microscopes are not evidence, they are tools used to find evidence. People with lower then room temperature IQ’s and those that slept thru Stat101 can’t tell the difference. That doesn’t mean it’s not there.
May 8, 2008 - 6:06 am