May 08, 2008
Hotline After Dark -- Should She Stay Or Should She Go Now?
A majority of last night's TV concentrated on whether Hillary Clinton should leave the race.
FNC's Hume: "Even George McGovern, the man who devised this long primary process, says it's time for her to go" ("Special Report," 5/7).
George McGovern, asked why he withdrew his support of Clinton: "There's two kinds of loyalty. There's loyalty to people and there's loyalty to principle. And I've touched on both of those areas during these last eight months. I'm proud that I endorsed Hillary Clinton last October. But I think the time has come, in the life of the Democratic Party, in fact, in the life of the nation, for us to get together on a candidate as soon as conveniently possible. ... Barack [Obama] seems to have an insurmountable lead. So that is why I hope as soon as it's reasonably possible and as soon as Hillary feels the time has come, for us to get behind our nominee and win that election next November" ("LKL," CNN, 5/7).
Syndicated columnist Mark Shields: "What Hillary Clinton is going through right now is reality setting in. It's painfully public and publicly painful" ("NewsHour," PBS, 5/7).
NBC's Todd: "It is a standard thing for all of us to put the Clintons on the couch. This is what we have done for 16 years. ... I think that they want to see how bad the next 48 hours are for them. How many campaign obituaries are going to get written? How many more Tom Edsall columns are going to get written over the next 48 hours?" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 5/7).
More after the jump (KATHERINE LEHR).
Obama strategist David Axelrod: "We respect Senator Clinton. She's a formidable person, a tenacious candidate. She's poured her heart into this. And it's not for us to tell her what to do. ... I think she'll make the decision that she thinks is appropriate at the time she thinks is appropriate" ("Situation Room," CNN, 5/7).
Air America's Maddow: "We're starting to hear some of the things that insiders in Washington say are the sort of dog whistle signals that Hillary Clinton's campaign will be packing it in. ... [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein voicing dissent here may be a dog whistle signal" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 5/7).
NPR's Liasson: "I think she is soldiering on. I think she absolutely understands very clearly what her chances are, which are extremely slim, barring some kind of Obama collapse that nobody is anticipating right now. I actually talked to a lot of Democrats today who think it's absolutely fine that she stays in. It depends on how she stays in and what kind of campaign she wages. If she is going around saying he is not ready to be commander in chief and he is elitist, that's one kind of campaign, a scorched earth strategy, or she could wage a vigorous fight for herself, but do it in a way that doesn't undermine him, and that at least lays the groundwork for the unifying that the party will have to do after" ("Special Report," FNC, 5/7).
Posted at 08:52 AM
Comments
Maddow always sums up things accurately and well. She is the finest journalist in America today.
Royal King | 05.08.08 10:00 AM
 |
Maddow always sums up things accurately and well. She is the finest journalist in America today.
Royal King | 05.08.08 10:00 AM
|
Maddow always sums up things accurately and well. She is the finest journalist in America today.
Royal King | 05.08.08 10:01 AM
|
So George McGovern--who lost 49 states in 1972--is singing kumbayah. Yeah, Hillary should definitely take the advice of the man who united millions of voters behind Richard Nixon. Yes We Can!
As for the rest of the punditry who are projecting their own feelings onto Hillary Clinton, I can only quote the incomparable Digby:
Who ... anointed Tim Russert as the final arbiter of anything? His job is to analyze the political landscape not declare the decision as if he were some kind of Roman Emperor giving a thumbs up or thumbs down. It's bad enough that these gasbags put those thumbs on the scale as hard as they do, but actually taking the initiative to say when the race is over is even worse. To coin a favorite Village phrase, "it's not their place."
How about they answer this question, while they're examining their navels? Ohio. Texas. Indiana. Pennsylvania. New Jersey. Massachusetts. California. Yes, even Florida and Michigan, where he wasn't even on the ballot. Obama lost them all. Why is he still in the race?
corinne | 05.08.08 10:12 AM
|
@ Corinne:
Yes, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California. I'm impressed with your ability to make lists.
Now ask yourself who has more of the popular vote. Who has more pledged delegates? Who has more success with fund raising? Who has better staffed their campaign with effective people? In short, who has run an overall more successful campaign?
I'm sorry the Democratic primary is not panning out the way you'd like, but denying the math, closing your eyes and holding your breath is not going to change anything.
Piter | 05.08.08 10:41 AM
|
Hillary has exploited race-baiting and fear-mongering and has shown the country that she has no shame and no sense of decency.
Hillary lacks the character, integrity, and gravitas to be President or Vice President.
Hillary needs to drop out immediately. She is a shameless, lying huckster who'll tell voters anything they want to hear to get their vote - her idiotic gas tax holiday being the latest example.
jerry | 05.08.08 04:19 PM
|
So let's see what Clinton is claiming again -- that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
Obama's support among whites is actually increasing compared to Ohio, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. She lied about that.
Obama's support among "hard working Americans", which is code for poorer Americans, has also increased over those in previous contests, save for Mississippi, where the under-$50K vote was overwhelmingly black.
Obama's numbers among college grads is static to increasing. We don't have exit poll breakdowns for education by race, and we can assume North Carolina's huge numbers with "no college" are due to the large African American percentages in the state. But what about Indiana, a state that is whiter (83.9%) than Pennsylvania (82.1%), Ohio (82.9%) and Texas (48.3%)? Despite the demographic disadvantage, Obama actually increased his support among voters with no college degrees.
So how can Clinton be so wrong? Because she's citing an AP-Yahoo News poll from back on May 3rd. Rather than cite actual voter data, she is basing her claims on an old poll taken before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.
Yup. That's what Hillary Clinton has been reduced to. Ignoring actual votes and cherry picking polls.
Which really, shouldn't surprise anyone. She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.
SMS | 05.08.08 05:16 PM
|
If there was every any question of whether it is the "democrat" or "democratic" party, Florida and Michigan ought to settle that argument.
flyover | 05.09.08 09:07 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
