« Live-Blogging Super Tuesday II
The Iraq War & What Could Have Been »



Hillary Clinton Wins Texas Democratic Primary And “Comeback” Narrative (UPDATED)

March 5th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


_8BCCF45C_EFB1_435F_A828_83C7DB07CBFD_.gif

New York Senator Hillary Clinton clinched the Texas Democratic 2008 Presidential primary — giving her the two big prizes for the night, Ohio and the Lone Star state, plus Rhode Island. The results: a second-lease on life in her battle to win the Democratic Presidential nomination and a new test for rival Senator Barack Obama.

Clinton’s win in Texas means she and her campaign can rightly say that she carved out victories in several big states and has no reason to agree to end her campaign, even though many analysts say the “math” in the delegate count makes it impossible for her to win via pledged delegates. So the battle will likely start now, more than ever, to convince Super-delegates — via increasingly sharp attacks on Obama and more no-holds-barred advertising — that the Illinois Senator would be a bad risk for the party in the general election.

Clinton, her campaign, and her followers will tout her victory today. And Obama, his campaign and his followers will try to downplay it. But the fact that Obama only won Vermont mean the net result is clear, as the New York Times reports:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries on Tuesday, ending a string of defeats and allowing her to soldier on in a Democratic presidential nomination race that now seems unlikely to end any time soon.

Mrs. Clinton also won Rhode Island, while Mr. Obama won in Vermont. But the results mean that Mrs. Clinton won the two states she most needed to keep her candidacy alive. Her victory in Texas was razor thin and came early Wednesday morning after most Americans had gone to bed. But by winning decisively in Ohio earlier in the night, Mrs. Clinton was able to deliver a televised victory speech in time for the late-night news. And the result there allowed her to cast Tuesday as the beginning of a comeback even though she stood a good chance of gaining no ground against Mr. Obama in the hunt for delegates.

“No candidate in recent history — Democratic or Republican — has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “We all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win Democratic states just like Ohio.”

Although Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote in Texas, her hunt for delegates was complicated by the state’s peculiar nominating process, which includes a separate caucus that awards 35 percent of the state’s delegates, irrespective of the primary results. Mr. Obama held a slight lead in that contest with less than half of precincts reporting, but the outcome is likely to stay up in the air until later on Wednesday.

The Associated Press reported that all told, Mr. Obama retains his lead in the delegate count, with 1,477 pledged delegates compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 1,391. The A.P. said that 170 delegates from Tuesday’s contests have yet to be assigned, many from the Texas caucuses.

Expect the Clinton and Obama forces to battle each other every centimeter of the way while a smiling Republican (virtual) nominee Senator John McCain looks (and attacks) on.

One factor already being talked about in Texas is: did talk show host Rush Limbaugh help tilt the scales there with his call on Republicans to cross over the primary and vote for Clinton to sandbag Obama? There is already some buzz suggesting he might have. Conservative blogger and talk show host Hugh Hewitt:

If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?

Bill O’Reilly was just on with Brit Hume giving Rush the credit for the Clinton comeback –which is certainly the least expected bit of Campaign 2008 news in this very, very long campaign.

A month ago talk radio was dead. Now it has resurrected Hillary?

What does it mean for Democrats and how to some of those who’ve backed Obama view it? Kos from Daily Kos:

If she’s eaten into Obama’s lead, then we’ve got a serious rationale for the race to continue. If Obama wins the delegate count tonight, which is still pretty possible (remarkably, because this primary process is so stupid), then Clinton will have ended her “good” night without making ground where it actually matters. We’ll see.

But he sees a silver lining for the Democrats in general:

For one, Obama may finally have to go negative. I’ve never seen him do that. He’s never had to do that.

Second of all, as long as the talking heads are talking about the Democratic race, that’s time they’re not talking about their “maverick” friend. And what’s the debate about between Obama and Clinton? Health care. Iraq. Jobs. The sort of thing that can only help us long term.

Finally, Obama has to prove that he can bounce back from such setbacks. He’s had a mostly charmed political life. A little political adversity is important. Hillary Clinton and her team responded well to her painful losing streak. Now let’s see how the Obama team bounces back.

So I’m cool with her continuing on. I certainly won’t be calling for her to quit.

But if he wins the delegate count, her task will be even more difficult than it was today. And at that point, she’ll become little more than batting practice for Obama.

Some thoughts:

(1) Forget the navel gazing about negative campaigning and press criticism by candidates not working. It works. And, due to the way Clinton turned her campaign around with highly-touted negative ads plus what some called “working the refs” (calling the press to further scrutinize and be tough on Obama, which occurred during the past few days), expect the McCain and Obama campaigns to follow suit.

(2) The most interesting aspect of the Texas race was the issue of national security coupled with the idea that if you elect one candidate you’re safer then if you elect another. For several years now Democrats and independents have been critical of the administration’s and Republican Party’s suggestion that if you vote for them you’re more likely to live to a ripe old age and watch your children survive. Democrats decried this tactic. But, in a primary, it apparently worked quite well.

(3) The Republicans will most certainly use a national security argument — and advertising — against the Democrats. It’ll be harder for the Democratic Party itself and whoever the candidate is to argue it’s foul play or unseemly since the argument that if you vote for X you and your family are more likely to survive than if you vote for Y — since the Democrats have already been there/done that in their own primary. Expect the battle over this issue to continue in remaining Democratic primaries on the stump and on advertisements.

(4) The Clinton campaign came under fire for suggesting when it lost that it really didn’t matter losing their states. The Obama campaign is now suggesting the same — apart from its still-ahead position on delegates. In reality losses matter and, just as Clinton’s task and image was impacted by her losses, so are Obama’s despite what his camp may argue today.

Cagle cartoon by Paul Zanetti, Australia

UPDATE: The AP’s veteran political reporter Ron Fournier reports that pressures, tensions and ugliness in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign are going to soon increase:

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. “In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever.”

Consider that a shot across the bow to the Clinton campaign because Brazile — like many other superdelegates — worries that Clinton’s only hope for victory is tearing down Obama and dividing the party. Party chairman Howard Dean recently told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he was concerned about the possible impact of a nominating campaign that stretched through the end of the primaries in early June.

Some superdelegates are bracing themselves to intervene on Obama’s behalf if necessary.

“If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate,” Brazile said. “But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby.”

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s team will respond to Tuesday’s results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons’ past.

The winner of that fight would be John McCain, who sealed the GOP nomination Tuesday night and would love nothing more than fratricide among the Democrats. He could use the time to raise money, energize conservative voters and sharpen his general election message.

(Did he read TMV?:)



This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 5th, 2008 at 3:51 am and is filed under Negative Campaigning, Primaries, Newsweek Blogitics, Ohio, Conventions, Texas, Superdelegates, Democratic Party, Elections, Republicans, Democrats, 2008 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Media, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Hey Joe.

    I don't know if Rush can claim much credit for a Clinton victory in Texas. The exit polling numbers I saw had only 9% of voters being Republican, and of those 56% went with Obama. Unless we want to say that without Rush, Republicans would have gone 90% for Obama (or not showed up), it likely wasn't the difference. I supposed if Clinton's 40% Republican vote would had gone to zero without Rush, that would indeed have been the difference.
    • ^
    • v
    After three weeks of nothing but confidently shouting Obama as the untouchable candidate with the unbeatable message, the pro-Obama pundits are now reduced to confidently shouting "but the math, but the math." Seems to me that to have to go from the sublime to the pedantic in the course of one evening has its significance.

    Does the power of the math obviate the power of the perception? The math, indeed, is largely unchanged. However, that math largely existed on Monday and it did not stop the Clinton voters from going to the polls on Tuesday.

    The DNC is already acting like a banana republic in terms of disenfranchising the citizens of Florida and Michigan. Do they want to up that ante further and take the voice away from 12 more states?

    The very same math shows that Obama would have to sweep the remaining states with huge margin wins to get there on delegate count alone. So, yes, the Superdelegates are indeed the key. But, if the SD's have shown they will change with perceptions, what if perceptions continue to change? And are not these SD's largely annointed due to their state office holding or state power position? Even the anti-Hillary Koskids are wondering aloud how SD's from states that Clinton has won justify voting differently from the voters of that state that effectively annointed them? If Clinton can advance that argument, the sd math swings in her favor.

    This primary needs to go to June, including the reinstituting voters' rights in Florida and Michigan.

    Yes, it took Clinton 8 rounds to find a way to get past Obama's "float like a butterfly" campaign strategy. But, in the course of one week and being aided by an awakened journalistic crew, Clinton has landed some punches. How do we know that is not a glass jaw to be found over the course of the next few weeks?
    • ^
    • v
    A prolonged fight would definitely be a disadvantage for the Demmies, who are now watching the GOP consolidate around McCain. Hopefully, we will have a nominee before August, because the worst thing would be to have a civil war between the Clintonites and the Obamamaniacs, which could leave lasting divisions,with some of the loser's supporters even bitter enough to go over to the McCain camp.
    • ^
    • v
    Clintoniacs like casual-o overlook the oxidation effect a prolonged and steamy primary season will put on a shiny Democratic ticket.

    Both sides digging [and with HRC, most of her unindicted crimes are a matter of public record, so Obamaniacs only have to use a garden tool] and finding lots of nasty stuff. Doing the Repub campaign research for the McCain crowd.

    And how is HRC going to keep her obnoxious, finger-wagging, racist hubby Bubba out of the picture? He's turning into a real deficit for her campaign.
    • ^
    • v
    First up in both Clintons' defense, I think through years of public service, both Clintons have shown that they are in no substantial way racist. That was one of the disappointing thing about Bill's actions in SC; that he would suggest to voters they should think racially if it would help him out. B Clinton has, however, spent much of his life attempting to help African-Americans in his own way.

    With that out of the way, I did want to add on: think of all the money that Democratic sponsors are about to spend simply to defeat more Democrats. It is our money (I am Dem) that will dig up all the dirt for the Republicans to use in the future, as well as our money that will test out various attacks to see what stick. It can only be better if it's over. But... it's not.
    • ^
    • v
    "reporter Ron Fournier reports that pressures, tensions and ugliness in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign are going to soon increase:"

    This veteran reporter is 'reporting' something that hasn't happened yet., a prime example of how the press influences, even controls, actual events.

    Next we will have news reports consisting of horoscopes!
    • ^
    • v
    It would, no doubt, be good for the Dem. Party to unite around one candidate.
    I'm also bothered by the amount of money and enrgy expended before the final contest against the Reps.

    What would that say to those living in states that haven;t had their primariy
    yet? Don't bother voting, because it;s been settled? Con't they deserve to have the candidates court them, also?

    I'm not sure. It's a legitimate concern, though.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Live-Blogging Super Tuesday II
The Iraq War & What Could Have Been »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.