The media is nudging Hillary Clinton toward the exit, even though it will impoverish their cash-starved sales departments - so deep is the Clinton hatred in the press that they root against a continued Democratic race that would be golden in this recession-driven advertising slump. Look, there's Andrea Mitchell predicting Hillary's imminent departure.
Across the blogs, doe-eyed Obama supporters, so new to this messy "democracy thing" whisper about "party elders" pushing Clinton from the race. They won't stand for a continued race now that John McCain awaits, will they?
The answer is "it depends." If Clinton has a strong showing tomorrow (and the polls are decent for her) in the second super Tuesday, my view is she will remain in the race at least through Pennsylvania a month from now. And those urging an exit forget one thing: it's her call. Entirely. You think she'll listen to Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry at this stage? Guess again.
As hard as it is for Clinton to overcome Obama's 100-plus pledged delegate lead in the coming weeks, it's equally as difficult - if not more so - for Obama to find a path to 2,025 delegates, the number needed to clinch the nomination.
And here's the kicker - it's good for Democrats. A Hillary-Barack race that goes to the convention is a bonanza not just for the media sales departments (who will be rooting against their Obama-worshipping colleagues in the newsroom) but for the Democratic Party and for the progressive cause. The fickle, often-bored electorate is excited about this race - why go dark for several months? Further, why give McCain and the Republicans equal time?
An ongoing Clinton-Obama race also sharpens the issues and the candidates. I say: make 'em defend their positions, and make 'em hang left - not tack to the right, as Obama has started to do once he became convinced this nomination was in the bag.
Finally, keeping hope alive in Clinton land means keeping my hopes alive for the best possible Democratic ticket featuring the best two candidates of this long, long cycle.



A salient point, Tom, and one I haven't heard before. With luck, those with influence in this race will pause and pay attention.
Posted by: Kathleen M. | March 03, 2008 at 09:02 PM
Uh, don't you think it will severely bloody both the Dem candidates to continue to pound each other with increasingly scurrilous accusations, ammo that the Republicans can continue to use against the eventual winner in the general election? And what about the danger of disengagement of the losing party's supporters as the fight drags on and both sides dig in deeper with their rejection of the other candidate? My fear is if this continues for much longer McCain will have all the dirt he needs to fling at the Dem nominee, and the losing side will have little excitement to support the ticket. I say let's start thinking as a united party intent on winning the White House ASAP rather than trying to tear each other to shreds over the next few/several weeks.
Posted by: bcelaya | March 03, 2008 at 09:13 PM
A long primary battle would be great for Hillary Clinton, since Obama has shown a great reluctance to hit her on the things that the Republicans surely would love to hit her on: her entire history of "scandals". They may be fake, but if they were aired, they would suck the oxygen out of the media chatter.
In the meantime, Clinton is free to provide McCain with chapter and verse on how to attack Obama. Excellent stuff. Sure, Clinton can't win the pledged delgate math, but if the superdelegates are smart, they'll get rid of Obama, anyway, anyhow. What an empty suit! You can tell how weak he is because he won't really rip into her the way she is with him.
Who wants to play Kumbaya with the Republicans? The only way to deal with them is to rip them to shreds, Marquis of Quuensbury rules be damned. After all, that's what they're going to do to us, so let's do it them first. That's what Obama doesn't understand. The only good Republican is one out of power.
And to those who say Clinton is just using Republican tactics, I say get used to it. The only way to impose a progressive agenda is to impose it on the nation. yeah, I know, that sounds hypocritical, but you don't know that Hillary Clinton is a true progressive hero. When she goes negative, it doesn't count, because she is a true progressive.
Posted by: Roger T | March 03, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I feel a lot of support Hillary got was "too little too late." Too bad the Rezko trial started only yesterday. I feel that's only the tip of the iceberg.
We'll see. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. Pardon me for the cliché.
Posted by: tina oiticica harris | March 04, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Why is Hillary Clinton playing the fear card? That whole red phone ad was right out of Karl Rove's playbook. I think she's run a terrible campaign. Considering that the Press is biased against here, why does she give them so much ammunition?
The Chicago Tribune broke the whole Rezko story and there's not much there to taint Obama. You want to compare Obama's integrity with that of McCain's? No content. So, please, let's face reality. The Republicans want to run against Hillary Clinton because she will energize the base. They hate here more than they ever hated Bill. Her nomination will help McCain get elected President, in my opinion. You think the Press is biased against her now? Wait until she runs against McCain.
Posted by: Ralph | March 04, 2008 at 04:54 PM
I dont give a ratz patootey what the media says or wants. Until they pay my mortgage they can just shed ep.
Posted by: Judith | March 04, 2008 at 07:50 PM
Tom, you've been making excellent points here for more than two months. Respect.
If the choice were mine to make (it isn't - I'm a Brit living in Canada) I have a mild preference for Clinton over Obama, but would happily see either as the nominee.
The excitement of race, the massively higher D turnout over R, and the greater amount of genuine enthusiasm for both candidates has been great to see. Why give up all the free media, as you point out above?
Obama, at this stage, has a significantly higher probability of winning - call it 85%. Why does that force Clinton to concede - because of a given pundit's preference? Please.
Always a pleasure to come back here.
Posted by: Andrew | March 04, 2008 at 11:07 PM
A long, drawn out, hotly contested primary only hurts the democratic nominee. It's a case where conventional wisdom is on point (see also Clinton v Dole, where whatever slim chance Dole had of winning was marred by a tough primary fight). Just because we think it may not be fair, or "the media" wants it, doesn't mean the race shouldn't be called.
What's worse is, it is virtually impossible for Clinton to overcome the deficit in delegates without going to extremes, like reopening Florida and Michigan or some other desperate play. If something like that were to work, a significant portion of the Democratic electorate is going to feel slighted at best.
Posted by: Mark Mays | March 05, 2008 at 03:42 AM
example of media bias: it was repeated OVER AND OVER AND OVER again on MSNBC last night, I hate to say it by Keith Olbermann as well as Chris Matthews, that Obama has "the majority" of the popular vote total for the year.
If the data I just looked at is correct, not only does he not have "the majority", but he TRAILS Hillary in popular votes as of last night.
http://flaminggrasshopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dem20080305.htm
She has about 28,000 more, out of more than 28 million cast.
Didn't any of these morons bother to check this fact?
Posted by: bruce b. | March 05, 2008 at 11:05 AM
correction on my previous comment: those totals include Michigan and Florida. without those two states, Obama leads in the popular vote.
Posted by: bruce b. | March 05, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Burce - the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. So I gotta ask, why do you turn on msnbc looking for anything resembling news coverage or fairness? Entertainment, yeah, if you call watching monkey's sniff each other's stuff fun, which, in grade school, I did :- O
Posted by: Judith | March 05, 2008 at 01:37 PM
Judith,
I turn on MSNBC because I am "left of center" and have historically enjoyed Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Pat Buchanan (believe it or not) and many of their other commentators.
perhaps why I am even more appalled at some of their recent behavior.
Posted by: bruce b. | March 05, 2008 at 07:43 PM
I think it is almost too late for Hillary Clinton now.Anyway I would like to say good luck to her.
Posted by: vastgoed koop | March 11, 2009 at 06:42 AM