Myopic Dyslexia: Is There Really No Cure?
by sarabeth at 8:56 am on May 7th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Barack Obama, HillaryFor a long time now, the writing has been on the wall. But Hillary Clinton, for some reason, has proved unable to read it. If it’s not myopic dyslexia that she suffers from, then it must be dyslexic myopia. She’s been stupidly stubbornly shortsighted.
For a long time now it’s been abundantly clear that, given the numbers — and all the twaddle about Florida and Michigan delegates notwithstanding — the probability of Clinton overtaking Obama in terms of pledged delegates or total delegates or the popular vote was exactly zero.
Here’s the delegate math at this point: with 217 pledged delegates still up for grabs and 267 superdelegates still uncommitted, Obama leads 1588 to 1422 in terms of pledged delegates, and 1845 to 1693 in terms of total delegates. To take the pledged delegate lead, Clinton would need to win 192 of the remaining 217 delegates (88%). That couldn’t be happening even in Hillary Clinton’s dreams.
If we generously assume that Clinton and Obama split the remaining 217 pledged delegates (and go ahead and give the tie-breaker to Clinton), then Obama would need only 67 of the remaining 267 superdelegates (25%) to get to 2025 total delegates and clinch the nomination, while Clinton would need 218 (82%). Once again, that’s fantasyland for Clinton.
Until this morning, though, the media and non-partisan bloggers have largely been content to play along with the Clinton campaign, and refrain from pointing out that she really didn’t have a snowball’s hope in hell of taking the nomination. Not by fair means, not even by marginally foul means.
And while Obama won North Carolina by a bigger margin than expected (14.7% compared to the consensus forecast of 8%), and Clinton won Indiana by a smaller margin than expected (1.8% compared to the consensus forecast of 5%), last night’s results were broadly in line with expectations. Yet, somehow, these just-as-expected results have led to some very blunt talk about how Clinton is now done, even if she continues to cling to her myopic dyslexia. And this blunt talk has been surprisingly widespread.
There was Tim Russert on MSNBC last night:
We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it…
[…]
Their ability to raise money after the events of tonight - it’s going to be very difficult. As opposed to what happened after Pennsylvania, when money roared in, because people saw a realistic chance. That no longer exists. They know it, Obama knows it, and the voters … now know it, as well…. She has some real soul-searching to do. And those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say, ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared superdelegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ Tonight, there’s no good answer for that.
There was the press release put out by Service Employees International Union (SEIU):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
OBAMA: CLEARLY THE PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE
SEIU Calls for Democrats to Unite Around Obama
“Senator Obama’s commanding win in North Carolina and close showing in Indiana means he is clearly the Democratic nominee for President,” said Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer. “We’ve had a long process and the outcome is now clear. The Democratic Party should come together to focus on winning in November.”
There was the Clinton insider who told the WP:
We lost this thing in February. We’re doing everything we can now . . . but it’s just an uphill battle.
Here’s Mark Halperin’s summary of the media reaction:
ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “End of the Road”
NBC’s “Today”: “Is it Over?”
CBS’ “Early Show”: “Obama’s Big Night”
NBC: Russert repeated his Obama-is-the-nominee line, but hung it on “objective Democrats” rather than his own judgment. Of insiders, said “the obstacles are overwhelming, and they know it.” Russert suggested Obama would help Clinton retire her campaign debt (and pay off Mark Penn’s bills) as part of an exit deal.
Andrea Mitchell: “She is ready to give up.” Cited Ed Rendell as the kind of supporter who might ease her out.ABC: Stephanopoulos said despite the race going on “this nomination fight is over,” Obama’s lead “can’t be overcome” in elected delegates. Says she’s depending on Oregon, seating full delegations of Michigan, Florida and a “revelation” on the scale of another Rev. Wright controversy to see any sort of comeback.
CBS: Schieffer said the race is “basically” over, question is whether this “demolition derby” continues where they are fighting each other. Suggested dream ticket as a solution. Said she’s meeting with advisers Wednesday, there will be increased pressure on her to drop out.
There’s no doubt that the media narrative has suddenly shifted. That can only make it harder for Clinton to go on ignoring the writing on the wall. Then there’s also the campaign’s money woes. Maybe the lady will end up making an exit after all. (I was about to say “graceful” exit, but after the campaign she has waged the last few weeks, it’s hard to attach the word graceful to expected campaign behavior by her.)
*** Update, 9:25 am ***
We’ve just been told that General Wesley Clark, a strong Clinton supporter and fellow Arkansan, called Hillary tonight to tell her it’s over.
(Clark denied this and AmericaBlog updated their post. - Matt)
AP:
Former Sen. George McGovern, an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama.
NYT: Pundits Declare the Race Over
Very early this morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against Senator Hillary Clinton’s continued viability as a presidential candidate.
crazybusymom wrote:
Are you kidding me? Neither O’Bama, nor Hillary will win without the other. They both have dedicated voters who will vote for McCain before they will vote for the other candidate - but a Hillary/O’Bama ticket - experience + hope w/o politics as usual - THAT will win. If Limbaugh AND Hamas are “endorsing” O’Bama - then O’Bama needs Hillary (and Bill). Superdelegates who jump to O’Bama now are thinking Democratic party vote - not popular, independent, overall U.S. vote.
Posted 07 May 2008 at 7:44 pm ¶
Linda of Atlanta wrote:
Hillary Clinton is presenting herself as a vulture, staying in the race and hoping something bad happens to Obama. That is just disgusting and repulsive! She has devolved as the worst possible candidate for president. Doesn’t anyone else see her behavior as evil and dispicable?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 7:45 pm ¶
Gloria Rolley wrote:
I have been working for Hillary’s campaign and find it an honor to do so. Comments from a person named sarabeth just simply infuriate me! What some Democrats do not understand that there are growing numbers of us who will not, under any circumstances, vote for Barack Obama. The Democratic “good ole boy” attitude of some of the senior Dems will cause them to find out how strongly we feel that she was thrown under the bus not only by the press, but by her fellow Dems as well. I am a Democrat, but right now, I am not very proud of it especially when I learned today that George McGovern also sold her out. How dishonorable is he??? She gave up a good deal of her life during his run for the presidency to work for him and this is how he pays her back? Obama and the turncoats are going to find out just how angry a lot of us are. What part of “not going to vote for him” do they not understand?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 7:58 pm ¶
r b-j wrote:
She had the opportunity to be gracious and historical last night. She could have humorously chided Obama about his words of “Indiana [as]
the tie-breaker” and that she “broke the tie”. And then she could have (surprizing many) conceded the inevitable. And last night she could have made an historical note by recognizing this inevitability and then doing the selfless thing for the benefit of the party, nation, and the planet. Look at the cred she would get!
But instead we hear
“full speed on to the White House.”
“we were outspent 2 to 1 by my opponent, so go to hillaryclinton.com to contribute…”
I mean, holy fucking shit, lady! He doesn’t take
lobbyist/special_interest money. There is a primary-phase campaign donation limit for each person. Obama didn’t put in $11.4 million of his own money, like Hillary did (you *are* allowed to put more than $2300 into your own campaign, because the U.S. Supreme court has ruled that spending your own money on your own campaign is constitutionally protected free speech).
So why is Obama ahead by more than 2 to 1 in financial support?
We’ve eliminated rich supporters mega-contributing to a political effort (like Harry and Louise or the Swift Boat liars), except for the fact that Hillary has pumped $11 million of her own money into her own campaign.
lessee, let’s do the math.
$_clinton = num_clinton_supporters × $_mean_clinton
$_obama = num_obama_supporters × $_mean_obama
Now for either Obama or Clinton
$_mean < $_max = $2300
Now, Clinton is definitely the candidate of what was the Democratic Party Establishment. “The Clinton Trademark”.
How is it be that $_mean_clinton < $_mean_obama ? It can’t be.
So if $_mean_obama = 2×$_clinton:
num_clinton_supporters <= 1/2 × num_obama_supporters
Barack Obama has more support than Hillary Clinton. At least twice the support.
Just imagination how much cred she could have gotten if she didn’t wait for Terry McAuliffe or James Carville or for Bill to say to her, “Hon, it’s over.” What if she had figgered that out for herself and gracefully brought her supporters to that same position Tuesday night instead of acting selfishly and ambitiously? Maybe it will be Chelsea that will break the inevitable to her.
Why doesn’t she do
1. the right thing?
2. the smart thing?
3. the thing that will make her look soooo much better and even give her some historical note and rehabilitate her image from being not as trustworthy (that’s a polled fact) and definitely an ambitious relative of a president who considers themselves entitled to have the White House controlled by one of two family dynasties for 28 years?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 8:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
do you people even give a fuck about facts? your arguments are for shit.
O’bama? Twice the support? the right thing?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 8:54 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
We have heard nothing but questions like “what does Hillary have to do to beat Barack Obama?” We have never heard the same types of questions about Obama’s campaign. My question is; What does a black man have to do to win other than win in order to be considered the winner?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 9:56 pm ¶
Marge wrote:
“Mike wrote:
We have heard nothing but questions like “what does Hillary have to do to beat Barack Obama?” We have never heard the same types of questions about Obama’s campaign. My question is; What does a black man have to do to win other than win in order to be considered the winner”?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 9:56 pm ¶
My sentiments exactly!!!!!!
Posted 08 May 2008 at 8:46 am ¶
Marge wrote:
“Gloria Rolley wrote:
I have been working for Hillary’s campaign and find it an honor to do so. Comments from a person named sarabeth just simply infuriate me! What some Democrats do not understand that there are growing numbers of us who will not, under any circumstances, vote for Barack Obama. The Democratic “good ole boy” attitude of some of the senior Dems will cause them to find out how strongly we feel that she was thrown under the bus not only by the press, but by her fellow Dems as well. I am a Democrat, but right now, I am not very proud of it especially when I learned today that George McGovern also sold her out. How dishonorable is he??? She gave up a good deal of her life during his run for the presidency to work for him and this is how he pays her back? Obama and the turncoats are going to find out just how angry a lot of us are. What part of “not going to vote for him” do they not understand”?
Posted 07 May 2008 at 7:58 pm ¶
What part of 4 MORE years of BUSH do YOU not understand?????
I can’t understand “these” people that are “proud” to announce they will either NOT vote or vote for McCain…Solely because their candidate did not win. If the last 8 years were good for you,then by all means give Bush a 3rd term. But if you’re struggling now under the this disatrous economy,how much more will you do so under McCain?
These folks that whose feelings are sooo tied to Hillary’s campaign,care more about Hillary NOT getting the nomination than improving their own personal situations. Why engage in “revenge” when the ONLY person you’re huting is YOURSELF???? That is not a very intelligent stance to take.From the outset every one should have realized there could only be ONE winner. Maybe this wouldn’t be so hard had Hillary not been dubbed as the “nominee” from the begining.
They both have worked hard and ran their respective campaigns,now
IT’S OVER……WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!! Disapointment I can understand,but blatent IGNORANCE I can not!
Don’t worry about Hillary,she’ll recover….she will be fine….she has 109 Million to comfort her……She’s not worried about Paying her mortgage,or putting gas in her car,or getting that call that her loved one has died in Iraq for a war SHE supported.Her support of NAFTA won’t impact her job. Can YOU say the same?
Posted 08 May 2008 at 9:08 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Her support of NAFTA won’t impact her job.
what about obama’s support of nafta?
Posted 08 May 2008 at 9:56 am ¶
Ed Harrison wrote:
Why don’t we just dispence with any pretense of democracy & let several small states from the East coast continue to pick our nominees for president from some Ivy league school. They may eventually decide that other states should be allowed no voting delegates because this would damage the party unity.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 5:54 am ¶
Ed Harrison wrote:
Why don’t we just dispence with any pretense of democracy & let several small states from the East coast continue to pick our nominees for president, from an Ivy league school of course. They may eventually decide that other states should be allowed no voting delegates because this would damage the party unity.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 5:57 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Hillary Clinton, the poster mom for party unity? That’s positively Bush-esque.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 6:21 am ¶