90 Days, Give or Take

• email this story
• read comments (16)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

Hillary Clinton (speaking earlier today in Greensburg, Pennsylvania): "I think that what we have to wait and see is what happens in the next three months. There's been a lot of talk about what if, what if, what if. Let's wait until we get some facts...over the next months millions of people are going to vote. And we should wait and see the outcome of those votes."

N.Y. Times columnist David Brooks (in a 3.25 column called "The Long Defeat"): "Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she's probably down to a 5 percent chance.

"Five percent.

"Let's take a look at what she's going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we'll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we'll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We'll have campaign aides blurting 'blue dress' and only-because-he's-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

"For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

"For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring."

comment #1

oakling says ...

How are millions of people going to vote over the next three months? Are we really not out of the primaries yet? And how long does she think the Dems really want to wait to declare a freaking candidate?

comment #2

Gus Petch says ...

A quick read of the column confirms that the five percent number, like the ten percent number before it, is being pulled out of the columnist's, er, ear. There's absolutely no reason to believe it.

Buried in Brooks's column is this gem:

A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

Exactly. Does anyone really believe that there's no more than a five percent chance that Obama will be damaged goods come August? And that the super-delegates, who are the only voters that matter at this point, will start to worry about his electability? I'm not saying he can't win. But I put the odds as much higher than five percent that, by August, super-delegates will start to wonder whether the most liberal member of the Senate, who has surrounded himself with angry extremists, is the best candidate against a moderate Republican.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

Bush hangs out with even bigger extremists, and he still managed to "win" two elections.

comment #4

PoisonSkin says ...

they've already handed it to mcCain. maybe next time.

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

On ABC News tonight, Jake Tapper reported that an unnamed source within the Clinton campaign told him that they are contemplating a, and I quote, "Tonya Harding Strategy." In other words, Hill may go nuclear, even if it means neither of them win. Scary stuff.

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

I just dont understand the contortions you Hillary supporters have to take. I just don't. Why? For a guaraunteed dismal Presidency, at best?

comment #7

dangovich says ...

But I put the odds as much higher than five percent that, by August, super-delegates will start to wonder whether the most liberal member of the Senate, who has surrounded himself with angry extremists, is the best candidate against a moderate Republican.

News flash, friend. McCain long ago began the sad transformation to extremism demanded of him by the GOP hyenas. And when it comes to foreign policy, he's even crazier than Bush.

It's unfortunate that so many in the media spout this "moderate McCain" nonsense. Of course, many of them are the same people who call McCain BFF Joe Lieberman a "centrist Democrat."

comment #8

MASON says ...

There's also a 5 percent chance that McCain dies or gets really sick before the election. Actually, considering his increasing signs of old age (see his confusion on just who is helping who in Iraq), I'd say it's more like 15 to 20 percent.

comment #9

Gus Petch says ...

Dangovich, regardless of your feelings about McCain, he will be much easier to portray as a moderate than Obama -- based on their voting records, their close advisors, and everything else. That's something the super-delegates could consider if the movement in the polls Brooks cited continues.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Huh? Endorsing torture and suggesting we stay in Iraq for 100 years is "moderate"? Oh, and blowing Charles Keating isn't going to look good on his resume, either.

comment #11

christian says ...

"Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she's probably down to a 5 percent chance."

Probaby down to 5 percent? Gee, I didn't know they had a ruler too! But I trust Matt Drudge's fave site POLITICO. I'm dying to know what Dick Morriss thinks also. Maybe it's on FOX right now!

comment #12

DarthCorleone says ...

Wait and see what happens in the next THREE months? The Democratic convention is FIVE months away. Couldn't we presume that most of the scenarios that give Hillary the candidacy would not come to full fruition until the convention itself? That's where it's going to get really ugly, and that's the reason I'm so discouraged. We have to be subjected to five more months of this coverage centered around bullshit sniping (no pun intended, Hillary), and ONLY THEN do we have two months of the actual general campaign.

I understand that this was the most wide open Presidential election process in recent history, so we needed a little more time to evaluate the candidates, but - seriously - something needs to be done next time to streamline the process a little more. It doesn't have to be a one-day national primary (although I endorse that solution), but something needs to be done.

How long will these people have been campaigning for President? Doesn't it break down to a full year at least? Don't they have some other duties to which they should be tending? If they are truly our best leaders, I wouldn't mind if they spent a little more time doing something useful as opposed to trumpeting how they can do something useful in the future. Is it truly necessary to fully vet our candidates by scrutinizing ancillary footage from years ago and holding this many rather pointless pep rallies? How many people will actually change their minds in the next five months, let alone the two months after or the entire year proceeding?

comment #13

JaySmack says ...

Hillary's MO at this point is to play the Republican candidate. She's using every play out of the Karl Rove dirty tricks handbook. Now she's been reduced to lying her worthless ass off. I always knew she was nuts, now she's going on TV and having hallucinations about snipers and running for her life.
How sick and power mad must this crazy b**ch be to do this?

Oh, and Gus Petch, by what math do you postulate that Hillary can win? She can't even get a majority of Democrats to vote for her, how the hell will she get a majority of the country?
You sound like some Bill O Reilly shill who says "Well the Democrat party is going for Barack because the entire Democrat party is the lunatic fringe!" Uh, yeah, millions of people who just happen to be right on the issues, and in the majority. What does that make you?

For an Hillary-lovers or GOP disinformation mongers like Gus, here's yet another primer on why Obama is winning among Dems and will win the presidency.:
Republicans HATE McCain (this is why folks like Gus and Rush Limbaugh attack Obama, to get GOP voters thinking about something other than how sickening it is to vote for Insane McCain) but he's the closest to a "moderate" they could find, becuase a Bush-like or Bush-lite candidate (what Gus no-doubt defines as "mainstream") can't win. 2006 proved that.
Howard Dean's already said this primary won't go to the convention. That means he'll start working behind the scenes to tell people to get off the fence and pledge support well before August.
Oh, and as for Baracks' "liberal" record hurting him? Notice how neither McCain nor the radical right is going after Obama's "record?" They're going after his preacher instead. And notice how the right isn't touting McCain's "record (like McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy) So much for attacking Obama's "record."
Got any other strawmen you'd like me to knock down Gus?

comment #14

Mgmax says ...

Imagine this same conversation after five more months.

comment #15

christian says ...

"How sick and power mad must this crazy b**ch be to do this?"

Jay Smack, talk about playing a Rove card. How about a comment on the bags under her eyes? Or is that too audacious? Your retorts would look better on the Daily Kos along with the other wild-eyed hopefuls.

And if you think that the GOP is not scared of Clinton, then you aren't paying attention. I'll let you in on a secret: the GOP thinks they can demolish Obama in an election. For obvious reasons.

comment #16

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Thanks Hill for giving the election to McCain.

Its the liberals fault for letting her think she'd win with no competition.

Post a Comment