Hillary still not president some more
Oh look, despite the overwhelming support of her key constituency (rural white Catholic senior citizen female truckers without a college education, pictured, at right), Hillary Clinton still isn't going to be president any time soon.
All the embarrassing performances by her husband the former ex-president, all those new personalities and personae adopted as quickly as the old ones were discarded, all the pandering, the pathos, the pantsuits — it was all for nothing, as an apparent split decision between Indiana and North Carolina effectively amounts to sound and fury signifying no more than the next inexorable step toward the nomination of Barack Obama that has been inevitable for months.
What's even worse for the Clintons is that notwithstanding their best efforts to render the Democratic nomination wholly worthless on the theory that if they don't get it this year they can come back in 2012 and try, try again, Obama is still going to win the presidency because John McCan't is such an old stinky fart. But for now, of course, it's time for the media noise machine to spend a week pretending West Virginia matters.





Puhleezze, Gleaner. Let's keep the pantsuits going. We don't want to see what only Billbo has seen, now do we?
Posted by: texexnv@gmail.com | 05/06/2008 at 05:30 PM
It's increasingly obvious that both sides are entrenched, with no detente in sight.
That the over-60 crowd refuses to cave into conventional wisdom should worry both sides.
Posted by: theo | 05/06/2008 at 06:49 PM
You forgot to mention the other Clinton base demographic Hugh, Rush Limbaugh lackeys.
Posted by: | 05/06/2008 at 07:39 PM
Oh, why so harsh? She's a politician seeking the highest office in the land. To completely write her off would be foolish since she is also winning voters Obama needs also. They both just need to be on the same damn ticket and call it a day. I would like a nominee soon (likely to be Obama) but no need to get SO bent out of shape about it. ;)
Posted by: Werd2406 | 05/06/2008 at 07:50 PM
Don't legitimize Limbaugh. MSNBC reported that Hills recieved 52% of the Republican vote, while Obama received 48%.
When the Republicans won't even listen to him, you know Rush is in trouble.
Posted by: theo | 05/06/2008 at 07:51 PM
The further she goes, the behinder she gets.
Which brings up the question: Why is this man smarter than Text to be displayed
Posted by: texexnv@gmail.com | 05/06/2008 at 08:01 PM
Ahhhh!~! this woman?
Answer in the morning. In the meantime just have fun with it....
Posted by: texexnv@gmail.com | 05/06/2008 at 08:03 PM
I think Obama upsets in Indiana.
Posted by: Pedro | 05/06/2008 at 09:26 PM
Barack beat Hillary by almost 240,000 votes in North Carolina.Barack outvoted McCain in Indiana by almost 300,000 votes. Hillary eked out a win with crossover Republicans who go back to McCain in the fall. Hillary won by less than 22,000 votes. Indiana is a loss for Hillary.
The surge of white backlash did not emerge. Hillary should gracefully bow out and end the divisiveness, and no don't have her on the ticket. Go with Biden, Dodd someone with real experience and strenghth of character.
Posted by: Kickboxermomma | 05/06/2008 at 10:33 PM
Just to play devil's advocate, McCain didn't really have a "primary" to get his voters to ;)
Posted by: Werd2406 | 05/06/2008 at 10:41 PM
Oh, and he's got to go with either Strickland or Clinton on the ticket...that or Wesley Clark to shore up his "no defense experience" that McCain has made clear is going to be coming at him.
Posted by: Werd2406 | 05/06/2008 at 10:47 PM
Even when there was a primary the Republicans received less votes than the Democrats and Obama out polled McCain each time. That's the back story. Republicans are not able to ignite their base.Saying he's going for conservative judges will backfire and you don't even have to mention the word abortion just McCain supports unequal pay. With the economy the way it is that will resonanate with many women.
Posted by: kickboxermomma | 05/07/2008 at 01:01 AM
We don't need her on the ticket, nor do we need to follow the Clinton map to victory. In following the Obama map to victory, she would hurt the ticket.
They can have FL, PA & OH; we'll take VA, CO, and NV or NM.. which gives him 272 with 270 needed to win.
At a time when the country is ready to "turn the page," she will not be an asset.
Posted by: KidFromVegas | 05/07/2008 at 06:33 AM
She won't be on the ticket because she's done too much to try to damage our nominee. The Supers are coming to him in a steady flow---again, this has been over for months now. Watch the NV supers flow his way now.
We need only one mountain state and either OH, PA, VA or NC. He will pick up one Red state in Nov too. Betcha he bars Bill from campaigning for him too.
I still think he goes with Biden too. Clarke went off the HRC deep end and is out.
Posted by: | 05/07/2008 at 07:03 AM
First, I hope Clinton sees the light. We need this thing to be over.
Second, Kid, I must respectfully disagree, and I disagree partly on the basis of the Gleaner's snarky commentary and photo. I have been to Indiana, and I think I can safely say that older women do not comprise 51% of the population, whatever the photo and commentary may suggest (at least it wasn't The Golden Girls again). We run the risk of making one of the mistakes Al Gore made in 2000, which was to believe in the idea of Clinton fatigue and keep Bill out of the campaign. You use your resources where they do you the most good. If Hillary's supporters are just little old ladies from Pasadena, you ask her to campaign with little old ladies from Pasadena.
Finally, a reminder that in 1960, John Kennedy didn't adore Lyndon Johnson, but he thought he needed him on the ticket to win. If Obama wants to win, he goes with someone he likes and is comfortable with, but also doesn't duplicate his strengths or emphasize his weaknesses. I wonder if putting Biden on the ticket suggests that he needs a wise old head to guide him, and reminds some people of the current maladministration. And if McCain is going with the new governor of Louisiana to show that he knows someone under the age of 70, does it do Obama any good to try to out-experience McCain? I wonder if the answer lies in a woman. If we're going to have a historic ticket, might as well go all the way?
Posted by: Michael Green | 05/07/2008 at 08:12 AM
Doc you have some good points. Because Biden and McCain are buddies, that does help negate some BO weaknesses, and no one speaks Foreign Relations better than Joe on our side.
Biden allowing for Barack a seat on that committee--an IL first-- and a friendship that bloomed, puts him in the #2 seat by all accounts. 99 other senators would not say a bad word about Biden, though some may not like him. He's exceptionally qualified to help heal our image around the world.
Few would question Biden being the nominee's first major decision--most would wildly applaud, and that gives Biden the clearest shot today.
It also indicates a grown-ups ticket.
Posted by: MikeZ | 05/07/2008 at 09:14 AM
I don't disagree with any word in praise of Joe Biden, and I think he would be a great addition to the ticket. I just don't know how much good it does us to toss around the line about experience--and I don't say that cynically; I mean, I don't know!
Posted by: Michael Green | 05/07/2008 at 09:18 AM
Nice post, Mr. G., but the last thing Obamawan needs hanging around in his campaign - and especially in his administration - is a Clinton. He would have to spend more time managing and trying to control their meddling egos than running his campaign and, later, running a troubled nation.
Obama has run an astounding campaign based on one word: Change. To include any Clinton would abort his successful, underlying philosophy which has carried him so, so far. He will try to get their support but not go so far as to surrender or compromise his earned power.
Posted by: texexnv@gmail.com | 05/07/2008 at 09:21 AM
I may get tossed into the peanut gallery for saying this, but I don't see how Obama picks anyone BUT Hillary for the VP slot.
Your VP pick should maximize your potential voting base. HRC wins that hands down. Right now around 30-40% of HRC voters (white working class + retirees) say they won't vote Obama. If HRC brings even half of that bloc back to the base in November she's ahead of anything any other candidate could offer.
Personally I'd prefer Biden or Richardson. I'm sure Obama would too. But if we're going to win this thing (and we really can't afford to f**k this one up), it's time to give peace a chance. Obama-Clinton '08.
Posted by: That Anonymous Guy | 05/07/2008 at 09:28 AM
Put Clinton on as VP and Obama is our next President. Anyone else (and I think Biden is wonderful) and he is our next Kerry.
Posted by: Coastal Eddy | 05/07/2008 at 09:29 AM
Yeah, you really can't be the 'change' candidate and choose HRC. I'll bet she says yes without even being asked, then turn that on him too. They are capable of such conduct.
I think neutralizing a major issue helps Barack. McCain has been around for 237 years now and choosing Joe forces McCain to his party's far right for a VP---Graham? Hagel? Rice?
The further right he has to go, the better for us in Nov. The pretty boy Gov from FL's stock went down last night.
Posted by: MikeZ | 05/07/2008 at 09:32 AM
And EDWARDS? I would think and obama Edwards ticket is much more enticing to voters than an Obama Biden ticket. You will not get dissatisfied Repukians voting for Obama if Biden is on the ticket. He has been LIBERALIZED by the right wing.
Posted by: Judy | 05/07/2008 at 09:38 AM
Edwards didn't endorse when needed and can't carry NC. He has no gravitas in the party and when was the last time the same guy was VP to two diff guys?
Bayh and Strickland may be up there too, but neither carries the weight Biden does. Richardson may still be in play, but if I were a betting man, I would go Biden on this one.
Harry would cheerlead that combo for his super vote. Knocks the guy who should be SML out of the picture. Plus, Joe is highly respected.
Posted by: MikeZ | 05/07/2008 at 09:53 AM
Ok now... HRC: 1) her negatives are too high; 2) she drives GOP turnout; and 3) she does not to gain independents or cross-over GOPs. Her base is already His base come November. Give her a SCOTUS spot.
Edwards? Like he did so much good in 04, nope... but give him a cabinet post like AG, HHS, or Labor. Always liked Biden for State.
A female governor could do the trick, but then he has to announce Defense and State to bring in that credibility. Anybody but Webb! Richardson's got skeletons. Sam Nunn or Wes Clark might also do the trick.
Posted by: KidFromVegas | 05/07/2008 at 09:55 AM
Ladies and gentlemen your 2008 bullshit comment of the year: "Put Clinton on as VP and Obama is our next President. Anyone else and he is our next Kerry."
I like Sebelius, Biden, & Bayh (even though he endorsed Clinton)
I'll take a pass on Hillary, Richardson, & Edwards
Posted by: Pedro | 05/07/2008 at 10:09 AM