Monday, March 03, 2008

Don't Count Hillary Out Just Yet


There's the saying, it ain't over till it's over. Well, it certainly ain't over... yet. On the eve of not-so-super-Tuesday-but-very-important-Tuesday-nonetheless....the Hillary Clinton camp is hoping for a double-win in the key states of Ohio and Texas to not only keep her campaign alive, but to thrust her back into the lead. Those two rich states offer up a bounty of 334 delegates, while the smaller Vermont and Rhode Island have 36 delegates up for grabs. In the latest polls, Clinton leads in Ohio and Rhode Island, Sen. Barack Obama leads big in Virginia, and there's a virtual dead-heat in Texas.

Right now Clinton's trailing Obama by about 150 or so delegates, depending upon who's doing the counting. And because of the way the Democratic Party allots its delegates proportionally--unlike the GOP's winner-take-all system--the math experts believe the hill is way too steep for Hill to climb going forward, even if she wins Ohio and Texas on Tuesday. But it's not all simply about "delegate math."

Here's what's most interesting: If Clinton succeeds in winning Texas and Ohio, and Pennsylvania thereafter (which she is likely to do), she'll be adding those three major prizes to New York, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, Massachusetts and California...among others. What this indicates is that she, not Obama, has carried the big Democratic states; the states that the Dems historically win hands-down. The states a Democrat must win in order to beat his or her Republican rival. While Obama's certainly had an impressive run racking up wins all over the country, the simple fact is, states like Kansas, Mississippi and Idaho and others are Republican bastions and will likely stay that way in the general election. Now, his supporters will of course say that come November, if he's the nominee, he will pick up the big states that Hillary won. And while they could be right, the party is so split that we can't be sure. But even so, and way before November 4th, the issue is what happens come convention time when, after a likely delegate deadlock, Hillary's narrative could be that (a) she's the one with the momentum; (b) she's the one who's got the big, national states behind her; and (c) is the one who's best positioned to beat the GOP's John McCain. Not a terribly unconvincing scenario, and one that might resonate very well with the super-delegates, who could drop Obama like a hot Idaho potato and push her over the top. Remember, super-delegates exist solely to ensure victory for the party. To them, come August, Obama's lead in overall delegates and states may not be nearly as significant as Hillary's. And if that's the case, the annointed-one may not be so annointed after all.

To be sure, if we stopped the presses today, Obama looks golden. Seems to be the inevitable nominee. But this year is like no election in recent memory. The landscape's way different, the stakes way higher, and the party way more split than ever. And as an old wise man once said, never underestimate a Clinton. Let's see what happens Tuesday night before we fit Obama for his inaugural suit...


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Thank you.

36 comments:

Vigilante said...

I'll Take any one of them: HRC or BHO. Just so we can landslide McCainster. The only thing I want to know if she wins is what will she do with WJC?

Anonymous said...

I'm indifferent to Hillary or Barack, but think Barack has a much better chance of beating McCain.

Hillary has won the big states, but it's the ONLY states she seems able to win. For a democrat to win in November it's Iowa and Virginia and smaller red states they must win, and Hillary can't do it.

It's the independents and on-the-fence Republicans who will put the election into the Democrats hands, and it's Barack they much prefer over Hillary.

Anonymous said...

I'll vote for either one, but I'm concerned about men. Will they give up the power to a woman or a black guy? Where I live, I don't think they are ready to give up the power.

Anonymous said...

Hillary has to stay in the race even if she loses both Texas and Ohio because Obama hasn't got a chance of winning the presidency. The smears/scandals have already started and no one has even mentiioned THE GLOBE attack about Larry Sinclair's lawsuit filed against Howard Dean DNC chairman and David Axlelrod for consipiracy to violate his freedom of speech. He says they intimidated and threatened him when he accused Obama of scandalous actions. I don't believe they are true but the charges are out there and it will be a "smear" when others in addition to THE GLOBE publish ths story and the Republicans circulate it after Obama's the presidential candidate. Take that smear, plus the ones that have already started and you see Obama cannot be elected. Kerry was smeared and we all knew for sure they were lies; he was a true war hero. There's no new news about Hillary so she won't have that problem. It will be old stuff already exposed. And, if men can't stand a woman president I wonder how they'll like losing their jobs, paying more for gas and other vitals and escalating health costs, just to name a few problems we'll have with McCain. Their wives now confined to the kitchen will have to get a job if they haven't had to already.

Not only that McCain has a few scandals to overcome too, but none so bad as the ones already started against Obama.

johnny said...

The media is trying to make Hillary look bad at every chance they get. I can not believe the one sidedness that is not only on the air waves but in the news print. Obama is the Lord of all, the one that can do no wrong, will give everyone a chicken in every pot and will change the government as we know it. Listen to his speeches and you'll see what we have been saying for some time now. He talks a lot but says nothing, it's all hype. I heard recently that he is starting to leaning to the right and Hillary is leaning to the left more. Look at his healthcare proposal, he leaves out at least 15 to 25 million people. Hillary is correct in her healthcare proposal where EVERYONE must have insurance. If you can't afford any the government will help out and more will be placed on the businesses to provide healthcare. None of the candidates have the best idea, the ONLY solution is to have a single payer system like most other countries. We have to get the insurance companies out of the picture and until we do we will continue to have the mess we have.

How do we pay for all of this? End the war NOW and eliminate the tax breaks for the well to do. Raise taxes a bit and cut unnecessary spending until we have a surplus again, like we did under Bill Clinton. The best way to get people to take better care of themselves is to raise the tobacco taxes triple of what they are now. Start charging people by the pound for airline tickets, bus tickets etc,. Make it a campaign to have people loose weight and get more exercise. Make smoking banned in all public places including bars all over this country.

Anonymous said...

It is an element of human nature that some people have difficulty giving up bad habits. Smoking, gambling, drinking, overeating. And Clintons.

A HUGE portion of Democrats - myself included - REJOICE at the notion that we finally have an opportunity to vote against Billary without having to vote for a Republican.

And I believe that the media - as tilted our way as it is - is amongst the group most rejoicing at their newfound opportunity.

Face it - these people are careerists who care about power for its own sake and for themselves, first last and always. There is a long line of bodies behind them - figuratively and otherwise. You come near the Clintons and you find yourself in hot water, in jail or with huge legal bills to avoid it.

They tried to steal government property on the way out, they had the gall to list themselves for housewarming gifts as if they were marrying when they left office and they sold pardons for big bucks.

These people sold out America in so many ways just to preserve power. Hooking up with that disgusting Morris after Hillary nearly destroyed the Clinton administration with her heavy handed health care proposal resulted in a disgusting string of triangulation that produced NAFTA and welfare reform was despicable and all about their personal survival.

They sold out OUR principles for THEIR survival. At least the GOP had the sense to throw the first Bush over the side of the boat when he broke his read my lips pledge. But not us - no no no. He was our guy and if he raped Mother Theresa, we would protect him.

Well now we don't have to because the alternative is NOT a Republican.

And who is kidding whom? Do you really think that if Obama wins the nomination that NY, NY or CA is going to vote for McCain? If she pulls out a win in Texas do you honestly think that the Lone Star state will go against McCain?

There are few battleground states that are close. And I think that Hillary's HIGH negatives - she starts with 48% of the electorate hating her - is a HUGE negative. There is precious little difference between these two candidates. Hillary lies when she claims experience. Obama lies when he claims that he can work with the Republicans (all you have to do is look at any of the bi-partisan issues that have passed and you will ALWAYS see Barak out there with the libs, clearly positioning himself for the primary).

The real issue is whether this is a Democrat year and I believe it is. Subtract out the polarizing divisiveness of this careerist, lying, low class opportunist and we will have a far better chance.

Anonymous said...

In the beginning, I could have voted for either. I voted for Obama because everything else being equal, I prefer his foreign policy stance. After watching her for the last 2 weeks, I can't vote for Hillary Clinton. I won't. Best case scenario if she is somehow able to arm twist the super delegates or seat the disqualified MI or FL delegates to 'win', I leave the top of the ballot blank or go Nader if he gets on our ballot. Worst case, I vote McCain over my hopes and dreams for my country. She is doing just as much herself; poisoning the well in case she loses. How can anybody not voting identity politics vote for a political coward like HRC? Look at their actual senate records side by side.
http://grassroots-mom.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Anonymous said...

Andy---fuck Hillary Clinton---she wants a new world government. she supports Walter Cronkite and his Federal World Government New World Order buddies. Here Andy---watch the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaS6bLQixkM

Anonymous said...

Here's Andy again----supporting someone who voted FOR the war! Another loveletter to a PRO-WAR candidate! and yet Andy claims to hate the war so much! Total hypocrite Andy!

johnny said...

The HRC haters have no valid reason to hate her. What has she done to fester such hate, NOTHING. The ONLY thing anyone can think of is her vote for this war and has since said repeatedly that it was a mistake, knowing what she knows now. Obama never had to cast a vote for the war and had it pretty easy to talk. The thing is what has Obama really done in his political career? What do people really know about him besides his gift of gab? Who will he bring in to his cabinet if elected? What is his foreign policies?



When the hype is gone the choice might just surprise you and it will be too late. I'll take a sure thing over a flim flammer any day.

Anonymous said...

I live in Michigan and men are not going to vote for Obama here.

Here comes President McCain.

Disgusting.

Walter F. Wouk said...

"The HRC haters have no valid reason to hate her." Really?

How about voting for the war on Iraq and supporting each and every one of the Bush Regime's attacks on our civil liberties.

Hey Johnny! Name one time that "Hillary Dearest" stood up in support of our Bill of Rights.

And, while you're at it, enlighten us, tell what grand things Hillary has done for the for the country.

Anonymous said...

Re-think your loyalties to Obama. The Tony Rezko federal trial for corruption started today with jury selection. A judge has already cleared the way for Obama to be named in the proceedings. The trial is set to go on this spring during prime campaigning and is estimated to last three months. This links not only the concept of corruption but the act of corruption and profiteering with Obama. If Hillary isn't around to use it, the GOP and Rove will and make it stick. Then it will be President John Mc Cain for certain!

Think! Think! What is the next best political move to counteract this? Leave Hillary in to shoot down Obama and leave the DNC with a viable candidate or sacrifice Obama to the GOP machine and lose...which is it?

Anonymous said...

Barack has nowhere near the baggage that Hillary has. At one time, I would have voted for either of them, but after seeing the Clintons in action no way I'd vote for Hillary. She's such a ....republican.

Anonymous said...

2:30 Anonymous......You Nailed It! Brilliant! It's all there. I for one, see Obama as Our next President. He looks and acts like Our next President. I think more people should give this guy the go ahead. Get with the program. Let's break the strangle-hold racism and corporate dominance in the White House.

Anonymous said...

This blog is unmitigated crap because it allows anonymous comments.

Anonymous said...

hey anon 9:07----I like anonymous comments because Ive used actual names before and if someone doesnt like you or your comment, they post under the name you used and say a bunch of shit they know you dont believe but it looks like it came from you. Any way, I have to comment on johnny saying "the HRC haters have no reason to hate Hillary" and he posted it right AFTER I just stated why i hate her! She supports a new world government. How many looked at the YouTube clip of her congratulating that anti-American prick Walter Cronkite for being honored by the Federal World government pricks? She's a new world order shill for the global elite. She's as American as the swastika. Im not an Obama or McCain supporter. I hate them all. Its like choosing between 3 bowls of shit---one is fresh, one is 15 years old and one is 30 years old. I want this goddamned war OVER---and NONE of these mother fuckers will end it! Did you hear Karl "the fuhrere" Rove yesterday say that if we pull out of Iraq it will embolden Iran and oil per barrel will double to $200? Isnt this about the biggest load of SHIT you ever heard? With our troops THERE it has gone from $20 a barrel (when Clinton left office) to $103!!! It has gone up 83 fucking dollars WITH OUR TROOPS THERE! This was all said so his FOX News sheep would support the troops staying. Andy, do an article on Rove's bullshit.

Anonymous said...

I'm hoping Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary end up in a tie at the end of today. Then the fun will really start. I'd like to see both Democraps spend all their money knocking each other's lights out.

It basically has come down to which candidate can deliver more goods to the idiots that want a nanny state.

Anonymous said...

first lets take the vote for the war,obama wasn't there for the vote in the first place#1 knowing obama's record he would of voted present as he did on child molesters and porn shops like he did when he was in the state senate #2 obama said he or his people didn't meet with canadian officials on friday,monday he admitts there was a meeting but the memo from it ,is a lie. and if obama doesn't take texas, ohio, rhode island and vermont,it proves he can't close the deal,when hillary has taking all tha big states and will carry them again in the general,making her pres. obama's garbage is just starting to be brought to light,witch if he's the dem of the primary,you have just put JOHN MCCAIN in the white house

Anonymous said...

Democrats are racists and like to categorize people by color (Affirmative Action).

Anonymous said...

Obama is no longer a viable candidate. The offenses mentioned by 9:07 are enough to arouse doubts about his character and integrity and "transparency." The Republicans are pushing for Hillary to run and have bashed OBama lately because they hope we Demorcrats will fall for their "Br'er Rabbit" routine and nominate Obama. He has not got a chance. And, if Hillary is human and therefore not perfect, I'll take her with her flaws because I and my family are hurting economically and live in fear of a medical demand and she's the one (even if Bill is whispering in her ear) that can fix our economy. Please, Democrats, don't throw the presidency to McCain -- we, in our party, cannot survive another Republican presidency. Did anybody see the Sixty Minutes story about the crowds of working Americans who had to travel miles and sleep in their cars until the clinic opened to get
the medical care they simply cannot afford.

Anonymous said...

I'm taking Ostroy Report off my reader until it changes its comment policy and bans anonymous smack talk. I'll check back every month or so to check it out.

Anonymous said...

10:09 and the other Anon who objected to "anonymous" cowards who wouldn't give their name, are undoubtedly Republicans who cannot see the irony of complaining about anonymous comments when they themselves are offenders. No wonder our country is in trouble.

It reminds me of Chris Matthews not "getting" the irony of Steinem's comments about the difference the observations would have been about McCain's heroism if he'd been a female prisoner. Matthews and his slow-witted guests thought she was attacking McCain.

I_AM_NOT_ANONYMOUS said...

10:50 AM,
I agree. It's kind of like the Global Warming nuts that fly to resorts all over the world to discuss saving the environment. Such hypocrites!

DVSDen said...

Is Ostroy this delusional? Hillary is likely to win TX, OH, and PA? She MIGHT pull a squeaker in OH; otherwise she is losing two tonight and will beat in PA. In every state since NH where campaigning has been even (sorry Super Tues) Barack has blown Hillary out when the polls showed it being close going into the election. 11 in a row by landslides against the vaunted "Clinton Machine"! If you think Barack can't win now or Nov, you haven't paid attention.

Anonymous said...

9:-7pm and 10:09 am----uhhhhh, didnt YOU post under ANONYMOUS too?? Who is this poster? BIll O Reilly???

Anonymous said...

It is clear that the only way Clinton can beat Barack Obama is to resort to a strategy of character assasination, smear and attack.

As a result of this approach, millions of Democrats are seeing the Clintons in a different light. They've already damaged their reputations, and they are beginning to hurt the party.

If they keep it up, Hillary can still win the primary (although I believe it will begin to backfire on Hillary very shortly) but even if she wins, it is likely she will have made so many enemies in the process, that she'll lose to McCain.

And by the way, for you to give Hillary credit for winning Michigan and Florida is downright disgusting. Can you call a "win" in Michigan where her name was the only one on the ballot? How silly. If Obama could campaign in those states and get his name on the ballot in Michigan, we'd see some very different results there.

Anonymous said...

My problem with Obama is if he was so anti-war, why did he vote to fund it for two years? Why did he not speak out about it when he was a U.S. Senator--it was easy to do so before he was elected. If he was not a leader in the Senate how can he be a leader as President? He could have made a statement with his war funding votes but he didn't. He folded. That is why I believe he is a lot of hype. Also, there is serious Hillary-bashing for her war vote that I don't recall when Kerry was the nominee. Why the double-standard? Remember how everyone was vilified at that time if they did not go along with the President? Well Obama has gone along as a Senator--how do we know he would have behaved any differently?

Anonymous said...

Per 1:40's comment, however it is important to make a distinction between the Michigan and Florida primaries. You are right, in Michigan hers was the only name on the ballot though voters who wanted someone else had another option (I can't recall what that was--uncommitted or something like that.)

However, in Florida all names were on the ballot and she won it (even though Obama advertisied there against their agreement--why is there no discussion of Saint Obama's behavior there?). Should these votes be discarded? Shades of Florida, 2000--smoked by Republicans again????

Anonymous said...

The Obama campaign practices character assasination, too, especially as they are the ones who started the "racist" labels. After all it was Michelle Obama who distorted President Clinton's very correct assessment that Obama's anti-war stance was a "fairy tale" given his war funding votes. She turned it into a comment about her husband's entire candidacy and suddently everything the Clinton's did was racist. That also, it seems to me, was the time the campaign began to tilt toward Obama--once he played this dirty card.

Anonymous said...

"Rezko" is about as valid as "Whitewater" ever was.

In other words: a non-issue.

This is apparently the best that Clintonites can come up with, which is a sad state of affairs and bodes terribly for any potential dust-up with McCain & the Swiftboat Hucksters.

Depressing how little of Clintonite talk there is about what makes Clinton a good candidate and how much more they spew about Obama and his supporters being vapid and naive.

What's more pathetic is if the DLC gets its way and anoints Clinton who will then come begging to all the "vapid and naive" Democrats who have raised dramatically more money and put substantially more boots on the ground in this race.

Vigilante said...

I agree with "ANONYMOUS". I have unsubscribed from this blog until such time as anonymous commenting is banned.

bacci40 said...

andy,

you are a great progressive, but how can you and other clinton supporters close your eyes to her campaign's tactics over the past 2 weeks?

its one thing to attack an opponents positions, another to try to use fear and racism against an opponent.

and its another to use the republican opponent to attack another dem.

its triangulation at its worst.

its rovian.

its bullshit

Anonymous said...

And, hopefully, it's VICTORY for the Democratic Party. If Obama can't survive an attack from another Dem what do you think the Repugs will do? Not only that, you exaggerate, Bacci40. She produced an ad that reflects the truth and the fear that all reasonable Americans have. THere are people out there who hate us. And, if you think her pointing out Obama's inexperience is unfair, do you think it's fair to American to gently step aside and hand the nomination over to another who is not truly qualified? What kind of wisdom, fairness, patriotism is that? And is it "racism" to point out that the Black population is supporting Obama despite his shortcomings, simply because he is black? Super delegates are receiving threats if they don't support the "black" candidate.

ShoutHC! said...

As an "Obama Atheist" (I see no compelling evidence to believe in him) I was quite pleased to watch Hillary's TX, OH and RI victories.

She continues to rack up wins in the most relavent and crucial states. Obama continues to prove he can game the caucus format.

Go Hillary!

Anonymous said...

I am just curious--if the Democrats had the same "winner take all" rule for each primarhy, what would the delegate count be for each? Also, what was the popular vote for each in Floriday and the delegate count that goes with it? I continue to see it lumped together with Michigan and they are two completely difference scenarios. Why shouldn't Florida count? All were on the ballot?