Close, close
May. 7th, 2008 12:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richPundits Declare the Race Over
Pundits Declare the Race Over
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 8, 2008
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.
The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” he said on MSNBC. “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 super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.”
It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Mr. Russert’s comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Mr. Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, “The Nominee.”
The thought echoed throughout the world of instant political analysis, steamrolling the Clinton campaign’s attempts to promote the idea that her victory in Indiana was nonetheless an upset in the face of Mr. Obama’s heavy spending and his campaign’s predictions that he would win there, or that she could still come back if delegates in Florida and Michigan are seated.
“I think there’s an increasing presumption tonight that Obama’s going to be the nominee,” Chris Wallace, the Fox News host, said to Karl Rove, President Bush’s longtime political guru, who is now a Fox News analyst. The statement preceded a discussion about what a general election race would look like between Mr. Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.
A posting on the DailyKos Web site included a mock memo to Mrs. Clinton titled, “To-Do List Before Dropping Out.”
Speaking on CNN, David Gergen, a former adviser to several presidents, including Mrs. Clinton’s husband, said, “I think the Clinton people know the game is almost up.”
Stating it more bluntly, Bob Franken, the political analyst, told the MSNBC host Dan Abrams shortly after 2 a.m. Eastern time, “Let’s put it right on the table: It’s over. It’s over.”
And it picked up again on the major morning news programs in a devastating cascade of sound bites for Mrs. Clinton and her campaign.
Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program “Early Show”: “Basically, Maggie, this race is over.”
George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “Good Morning America”: “This nomination fight is over.”
Matt Lauer on the NBC News program “Today”: “Good morning, is it over?”
The commentary was punctuated by some brutal morning newspaper headlines: “Toast!” blared The New York Post; “Hil Needs a Miracle” declared The New York Daily News.
Of course, the political news media have not exactly showered themselves in glory this year. They have frequently made predictions that have been upended by actual votes from actual people.
But their opinions matter as much as ever in this late phase of the primary race, when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are battling to sway the opinions of the uncommitted superdelegates — the party leaders and elected officials with automatic convention seats, whose support Mrs. Clinton will need if she is to snatch the nomination from Mr. Obama.
The superdelegates are a largely elite group that presumably will track the conventional wisdom of Washington’s class of political insiders as they weigh their decisions. And the big donors and fund-raisers whose help Mrs. Clinton will need to continue her campaign are similarly tapped into the news media echo-sphere.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign indicated early this morning that it would try to prove the commentariat wrong once again. “Pundits have gleefully counted Senator Clinton out before, and each time they have been wrong, because they don’t decide this race — voters do,” Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, wrote in an e-mail message. “And as the results in Indiana demonstrated, voters are rewarding Senator Clinton with victories, even in states Senator Obama predicted victory in.”
Mr. Wolfson’s statement came in quick response to a request for comment that was sent to him by e-mail after 2 a.m. Eastern time — an indication of the campaign’s eagerness to undo the new conventional wisdom before it hardens.
The Clinton campaign initially had some reason for optimism.
Many of the gloomier assessments of her chances came late Tuesday night and early this morning, when it appeared that she would not win Indiana as easily as exit polls and early vote tallies indicated earlier in the night. By then, early newspaper deadlines had passed and many voters were probably either asleep or off watching Jay Leno or David Letterman.
If East Coast viewers of “NCIS” saw no news the rest of the night, they certainly went to bed believing that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was still there to fight another day. CBS, which broadcasts the show, declared that she had won the Indiana primary at 8:09 p.m. Eastern time, and Jeff Greenfield, the CBS analyst, reported, “We go on to June 3, Hillary Clinton got the win she needs to press her case.”
Even as Mrs. Clinton’s real-vote lead over Mr. Obama in the state dwindled to just 16,000 as later returns came in, the CBS News Web site held on to its headline, “Clinton Wins Ind., Obama Takes N.C.”
The headline was vindicated when several other news organizations declared that Mrs. Clinton had indeed won in Indiana, five hours after CBS made its projection. And it is that view of Tuesday’s results that most voters awoke to on Wednesday: A split decision for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, no matter how narrow.
The question is, will the analysts be talking that way throughout the day — and if not, where does it leave Mrs. Clinton?
As of this morning, the climb for her seemed steeper.
Not sure what I think of this. On the one hand, when you have a race like this on the same side, one of them dropping out at this point would go a long way toward helping the voters forget the unfavorable things said about the presumptive-nominee by the losing candidate during the primary race. It's been pointed out that everything one of them says against the other, the McCain campaign just has to sit back and quietly write it down and store it up for later ammunition. And I really, really have a sinking feeling that warmongering borderline senile old white guy is going to get the vote, come November.
On the other ... much as I do not want to have to vote for Clinton come November, I hate to see someone give up on a fight that actually matters. Especially - and yeah, this sounds trite, but it's true - a woman. I don't support her for the primary, but I like that she's run. And maybe I've missed something in news coverage, because I do sometimes, but I also like the fact that it seems she's been questioned on her qualifications and merits from experience and her own mouth, just like the other candidates, and that gender has ceased being a big deal. (Then again, I've never understood why a woman in charge would be a bad thing - to quote someone else, it's not like she's going to get her period and push the "Nuke" button. And if you don't think there's a male equivalent of PMS, you've never lived with a man. But on the other hand, I will not vote for a candidate just because she's a woman.)
Pundits Declare the Race Over
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 8, 2008
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.
The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” he said on MSNBC. “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 super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.”
It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Mr. Russert’s comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Mr. Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, “The Nominee.”
The thought echoed throughout the world of instant political analysis, steamrolling the Clinton campaign’s attempts to promote the idea that her victory in Indiana was nonetheless an upset in the face of Mr. Obama’s heavy spending and his campaign’s predictions that he would win there, or that she could still come back if delegates in Florida and Michigan are seated.
“I think there’s an increasing presumption tonight that Obama’s going to be the nominee,” Chris Wallace, the Fox News host, said to Karl Rove, President Bush’s longtime political guru, who is now a Fox News analyst. The statement preceded a discussion about what a general election race would look like between Mr. Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.
A posting on the DailyKos Web site included a mock memo to Mrs. Clinton titled, “To-Do List Before Dropping Out.”
Speaking on CNN, David Gergen, a former adviser to several presidents, including Mrs. Clinton’s husband, said, “I think the Clinton people know the game is almost up.”
Stating it more bluntly, Bob Franken, the political analyst, told the MSNBC host Dan Abrams shortly after 2 a.m. Eastern time, “Let’s put it right on the table: It’s over. It’s over.”
And it picked up again on the major morning news programs in a devastating cascade of sound bites for Mrs. Clinton and her campaign.
Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program “Early Show”: “Basically, Maggie, this race is over.”
George Stephanopoulos on the ABC program “Good Morning America”: “This nomination fight is over.”
Matt Lauer on the NBC News program “Today”: “Good morning, is it over?”
The commentary was punctuated by some brutal morning newspaper headlines: “Toast!” blared The New York Post; “Hil Needs a Miracle” declared The New York Daily News.
Of course, the political news media have not exactly showered themselves in glory this year. They have frequently made predictions that have been upended by actual votes from actual people.
But their opinions matter as much as ever in this late phase of the primary race, when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are battling to sway the opinions of the uncommitted superdelegates — the party leaders and elected officials with automatic convention seats, whose support Mrs. Clinton will need if she is to snatch the nomination from Mr. Obama.
The superdelegates are a largely elite group that presumably will track the conventional wisdom of Washington’s class of political insiders as they weigh their decisions. And the big donors and fund-raisers whose help Mrs. Clinton will need to continue her campaign are similarly tapped into the news media echo-sphere.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign indicated early this morning that it would try to prove the commentariat wrong once again. “Pundits have gleefully counted Senator Clinton out before, and each time they have been wrong, because they don’t decide this race — voters do,” Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, wrote in an e-mail message. “And as the results in Indiana demonstrated, voters are rewarding Senator Clinton with victories, even in states Senator Obama predicted victory in.”
Mr. Wolfson’s statement came in quick response to a request for comment that was sent to him by e-mail after 2 a.m. Eastern time — an indication of the campaign’s eagerness to undo the new conventional wisdom before it hardens.
The Clinton campaign initially had some reason for optimism.
Many of the gloomier assessments of her chances came late Tuesday night and early this morning, when it appeared that she would not win Indiana as easily as exit polls and early vote tallies indicated earlier in the night. By then, early newspaper deadlines had passed and many voters were probably either asleep or off watching Jay Leno or David Letterman.
If East Coast viewers of “NCIS” saw no news the rest of the night, they certainly went to bed believing that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was still there to fight another day. CBS, which broadcasts the show, declared that she had won the Indiana primary at 8:09 p.m. Eastern time, and Jeff Greenfield, the CBS analyst, reported, “We go on to June 3, Hillary Clinton got the win she needs to press her case.”
Even as Mrs. Clinton’s real-vote lead over Mr. Obama in the state dwindled to just 16,000 as later returns came in, the CBS News Web site held on to its headline, “Clinton Wins Ind., Obama Takes N.C.”
The headline was vindicated when several other news organizations declared that Mrs. Clinton had indeed won in Indiana, five hours after CBS made its projection. And it is that view of Tuesday’s results that most voters awoke to on Wednesday: A split decision for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, no matter how narrow.
The question is, will the analysts be talking that way throughout the day — and if not, where does it leave Mrs. Clinton?
As of this morning, the climb for her seemed steeper.
Not sure what I think of this. On the one hand, when you have a race like this on the same side, one of them dropping out at this point would go a long way toward helping the voters forget the unfavorable things said about the presumptive-nominee by the losing candidate during the primary race. It's been pointed out that everything one of them says against the other, the McCain campaign just has to sit back and quietly write it down and store it up for later ammunition. And I really, really have a sinking feeling that warmongering borderline senile old white guy is going to get the vote, come November.
On the other ... much as I do not want to have to vote for Clinton come November, I hate to see someone give up on a fight that actually matters. Especially - and yeah, this sounds trite, but it's true - a woman. I don't support her for the primary, but I like that she's run. And maybe I've missed something in news coverage, because I do sometimes, but I also like the fact that it seems she's been questioned on her qualifications and merits from experience and her own mouth, just like the other candidates, and that gender has ceased being a big deal. (Then again, I've never understood why a woman in charge would be a bad thing - to quote someone else, it's not like she's going to get her period and push the "Nuke" button. And if you don't think there's a male equivalent of PMS, you've never lived with a man. But on the other hand, I will not vote for a candidate just because she's a woman.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 06:56 pm (UTC)HELLO?! At that point, Indiana and we here in NC had not yet voted!! What right does he or anyone else in the Democratic upper echelon have to tell us what our choice has to be, when both candidates could still mathematically win the nomination? His statement - not that he's the only one who has been calling for Clinton to drop out to "save the party" - read to me, as someone who hadn't yet gotten the chance to vote, as, "We know who we want, your vote doesn't matter, we're going to get this decided ahead of time. Now go on off you, go play with your toys, let those of us who know better and have more power take care of everything."
Gee, the last time I checked, I lived in the USA, not one of those countries where elections really are a sham because the people never truly have choices in who to vote for. At the time the statement was made, I had not decided who to vote for, but I resent the implication that just because I'm an ordinary voter, just because we voted later on in the year, that my vote doesn't mean a thing. So long as either candidate has the mathematical possibility of winning, it's still a race, and EVERY vote counts.
Yes, one or the other of them dropping out would get everybody working on the same thing a lot sooner. But it is their decision whether to go on or not, and as long as both of them have a mathematical shot at the needed numbers, I say they should both feel free to stay in, and let the voters decide. If there was absolutely no way at all Clinton could get the numbers now - and I've not heard anybody says it's a mathematical impossibility yet, if they have, I missed that report - if it's impossible to get the numbers, then yes, drop out. If you've got the chance though, then I think it's up to you to decide for yourself if you can go on or not.
And because certain people in certain positions of power have long hated the Clintons, the cynical part of me has to wonder: If the numbers were reversed, would they be so quick to ask Obama to drop out? Or would the spin then become, "He's still fighting the good fight, he's still got a chance, he needs to hang in there?"
Good grief, but I've been in/been around/seen TV and TV news for too long...
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 09:24 pm (UTC)But, at that point, she really had no mathematical chance of winning enough pledged delegates, save pulling impossible numbers in every single remaining primary. I guess it wasn't impossible, but very improbable. Her only hope at that point was to gain just enough delegates that she could justify having the superdelegates overturn the popular vote, of which Obama had the majority. This has basically been over since Texas, and Clinton is even farther behind now.
The nomination is usually secured long before IN, NC et al get to vote, but at this point, they don't have any choice but to let this thing run its course. Obama will probably lose KY whether she's still in the race or not, and it's less embarassing to lose to someone who's still campaigning. I expect her to continue her fundraising to try to pay of her debts, but to do very minimal advertising from now 'til the end.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 10:46 pm (UTC)Yes, improbable, no argument from me there, but not yet impossible at that time. I've not heard anybody run the math since last night yet, but Newshour is running now (yes, naughty me, posting from work :) ) so I'm expecting somebody to bring up the numbers. If after last night she's hit the impossible point, then yes, she needs to go ahead and drop out. If it's still just improbable, then the choice is hers, and she needs to decide. Can she still afford to do this financially, mentally, emotionally, politically? If her answer is yes, then it's her right to keep on going. If one of those questions is answered with a, "No," then she needs to drop out gracefully. But I feel that it is her decision to make, and it should be left to the voters to decide who they want, her or Obama.
I don't like the whole "superdelagate" thing. Puts too much power into too few hands, IMHO. I won't claim to know or understand all of the complexities that are involved in party politics, but as a political outsider - that is, someone who is an ordinary voter, I don't have high up connections or whatnot - the whole superdelagate business to me feels like just another way that upper mucketity-mucks make sure they can get their way in tight races just like this. I'm having less and less love for the electoral college process too as I get older, but that gets into a whole other rant, so I'm going to shut up now before I start getting off onto tangents like I am wont to do, and my stalker boyfriend, LJ's character limit, decides to come say hi to me again.
Speaking of improbables though - We're North Carolina, state of Jesse Helms. We just nominated a black man to run for President of the United States. We could've just as easily nominated a woman who happens to be named Clinton. The imp in me really wishes she could've seen old "Senator No"'s face last night when NC was called for Obama. I really want to see his face in November, when it is entirely possible that NC will vote for Obama for President (yes, I do expect Obama to be the nominee). I think the only thing that would make Senator No bust his gut harder would be the words, "President Hillary Clinton".
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 03:09 am (UTC)I don't like the superdelegate thing either, but it was Hillary's only chance. She wanted to convince them to choose her because Obama was "unelectable" in the General Election, so they should override the popular vote. I'm also pissed that she signed an agreement that MI and FL wouldn't count, then turned and demanded they be counted because she broke the rules and campaigned in FL and left her name on the ballot in MI and thus "won" both states.
I wish there was a movement to eliminate the electoral college. I don't know why it was set up like that in the first place and I don't know why popular vote isn't the method to elect a president.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 06:23 am (UTC)We are easily technologically advanced enough that a popular vote could be counted and used instead of something as old and creaky as the electoral college, and I really wish somebody could get it pushed through. There's been four occasions in history where the candidate with the popular vote lost because they didn't have the electoral college votes, which to me is highly unfair. Also, unless their state laws require them to follow the state's popular vote, some of the electors aren't legally bound to cast their vote according to the popular outcome in their state. The time for the electoral college to be put to rest is far overdue.
And why have I typed "collage" every single time I tried to type "college" in this post is beyond me. Caught myself doing it each time, but still...
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 09:32 pm (UTC)I'd love to vote for a woman, but I'd really like a woman who makes it to the top on her own merits. You have to admit that if everyone didn't look fondly on Bill's presidency, she probably wouldn't have made it this far. I get the feeling that quite a few people think they're voting for Bill again. I was really blown away the other day when I was watching MSNBC and someone referred to an appointee (from Bill's term) as "theirs" as in "they" appointed the person (meaning Bill and Hillary). I didn't realize we had co-presidents! I'll go make a note in my history book.
Also, I think 30 years or so of the Bush-Clinton dynasties is enough.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 01:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 03:02 am (UTC)And who the frick determined that George playing mediator at the PA debate wasn't a conflict of interest? I imagine they are just tearing out their hair because all their dirty tricks weren't enough to sink Obama.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 02:08 am (UTC)Thankfully no, people finally got some sense after having been kicked in the ass first by the terrorists in 9/11 and then kicked in the teeth by the conniving Bush Administration. The voting public wants CHANGE.
There needs to be a pronounced call for her to drop out. NOW, not June 15th. And that whole uproar over Michigan and Florida? Well, Florida is the reason we've had 7 years of greed and mismanagement in the White House, so we better leave them be. And Michigan, I don't know what the hell happened to those people. But the party agreed the votes from those states would not count. Any more bellyaching about it and Clinton looks like a very sore loser.
And we can't have that come August either. In fact, I'm so disgusted, they better not even allow her to speak. The party MUST be united NOW or they can kiss November good-bye.
Oh, one last thing - Who could possibly have instigated the whole Rev. Wright debacle? Maybe the husband to whom Rev. Wright came to aid when his marriage was in jeopardy. And when the video tapes didn't seem to be working, Rev. Wright got to go on a press tour and spout off some more idiotic proclamations forcing Obama to disown someone he had considered family.
Yep, no doubt about, Hillary stayed married to Bill because he was her ticket back to the White House. She is one bitter lady at this point, I don't care how big her smile at the campaign rallies.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 06:27 am (UTC)DON'T SAY THAT!! D8