Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Slight understatement of the month: Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes are in big trouble.

I was browsing around some of the American liberal and Democratic blog sites, and found this at Daily Kos today:

Once we got past February 5th, Clinton’s only chance was to keep Obama from posting big wins. She failed. In the ten contests since Super Tuesday, she’s lost by an average of 67% to 30%. Even if you take out the territories and the caucus states, looking just at Louisiana, the Potomac Primary and yesterday’s contest in Wisconsin, the average is 63% to 35%.

Now, most of Daily Kos’s contributors and its owner Markos are Obama supporters, but those percentages speak for themselves. Note the large numbers that she’s lost by even when you take out state caucuses, which has been used as an excuse by Hillary supporters as somehow not being democratic or reflecting the will of Democrat voters or whatever; she’s still gotten swamped by Obama-mania.

I’ve read somewhere that Hillary needs to win by massive margins in Texas and Ohio to get back intro the hunt, and now with Obama gaining on her in Texas to close to within single digits, that strategy seems to be in trouble. I would suggest that after Texas and Ohio, if she fails to make a large dent in the delegate lead that Obama is getting, that Hillary consider dropping gracefully out, that her advisers stop trying to pin their hopes on super-delegates to somehow grab the nomination away from Obama, and that she does as this article suggests: turn her attention to using her considerable talents in the Senate to aid a President Obama with progressive legislation.


2 comments to Slight understatement of the month: Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes are in big trouble.

  • Sad?  Really?  Why would you think that people are getting excited about the wrong person? Do you think it’s a bad thing that so many young people in the US are finally participating in the political process?   Do you  know anything about Obama’s legislative record?  And how would he not be good for Canada, where Clinton (biggest recipient of for-profit healthcare corporate dollars in the race by a long shot, AUMF yes vote, most divisive political figure in recent Democratic history, among other things) would be?   Just because she has spent a few years in New York?  She’s not from there, you know.  She moved there conveniently to run for the senate.  The only problems she understands are the ones on the board of directors at WalMart.   You make it sound as though Obama is an automaton with a good speech writer.   I have a feeling you know practically nothing about him.

    Disclaimer – I am a US citizen, registered voter, Canadian Permanent Resident (and future citizen), a feminist, and former Edwards supporter.   I’ll be voting for Obama because I’ve done my research and I think he will make the best president of my home country. 

  • slg

    I think it’s sad – quite frankly everyone loves Obama, but he certainly will not be good for Canada.

    I saw Frank McKenna interviewed – he said Clinton would be less trouble, especially on border issues.  She understands the problems being NY’s senator.

    I have a feeling people are getting excited about the wrong person – hero worship/celebrity/rock star stuff is not a good idea at all.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.