Some Hillary Advisers Worry About Staying In Past New Hampshire; Others Urge Her To Fight On

Comments (126)

Mark, NY wrote on January 7, 2008 3:57 PM:

I think she would get a lot of respect if she got out of the race after NH.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 3:58 PM:

I'd be astonished if Hillary didn't stay in the fray after NH, unless she did just stupendously badly.

I mean, if she's concerned about her Senate career, for God's sakes, how about how Biden performed in Iowa? Did he break a single digit?

If I were Hillary, I'd try to revise expectations quick. Since Obama won by 8 or 9% in Iowa, I'd declare any victory by less than that in NH as being Hillary "coming back", reducing the margin, eventually to overtake Obama.

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 4:01 PM:

I agree franklyo to a certain extent. If she gets blown out by 15 to 20 points, she should graciously get out of the race. If it's less than iowa, then you are correct, but the polls aren't going that way right now.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 4:02 PM:

I think she would get a lot of respect if she got out of the race after NH.

Nothing could be further from the truth. She'd be pilloried as a quitter for the rest of her career.

I could just see the columns written about how she broke down and cried and then quit when the going was tough. (With a more than a little implicit sneer at these weakling women politicians).

Cut 'n Run wrote on January 7, 2008 4:02 PM:

Time to go, Hillary. The Folks have spoken.

DRinOH wrote on January 7, 2008 4:02 PM:

Mark, agreed. I think she go do herself a lot of good by getting out early.

This is similar to the discussion about how she should have handled her concession speech after Iowa. I thought she would have done herself and her campaign a lot of good by acknowledging the reality (that she just got her butt kicked) rather than spinning it as a "win," given the odds.

She's a great candidate and great campaigner with a shot in the future if she's interested. But more importantly, even if she's not interested, she's going to be as toxic as Ted Kennedy if she keeps this up. Barack is a borderline hero/icon right now in this country and she's shooting bullets at a rubber wall.

After the events of the last week or two, one thing is clear: do not listen to Mark Penn.

bob wrote on January 7, 2008 4:07 PM:

Staying in the race after NH isn't the problem. The problem is if she stays in the race until/after February 5 AND GOES HARD ON THE ATTACK against Obama.

Democrats are going to start to say, "Obama is going to be our nominee. We should not beat up on him. The GOP is going to do enough of that in the general election. We need to circle the wagons and support the likely nominee."

Then she is going to start looking bad to her fellow Dems. Also, realistically, she doesn't have much of a chance if she loses NH. Maybe try for a comeback in NV, but if she loses SC, she should not contest the Feb. 5 states by going negative. It would be irresponsible.

Maybe Sen. Clinton should set her sights on being the first Senate Majority Leader. There's a position where Washington experience is beneficial.

bob wrote on January 7, 2008 4:07 PM:

First female Senate majority leader, I meant.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 7, 2008 4:09 PM:

I know that campaigning is tough, that it is draining, that you hear the voices go, and then the 'stump speech' yet again, but summing up the zeitgeist, this is like Rudy in the hospital, saying everything is OK when the results don't warrant it.

Clinton needs to manage the image that tears and losing don't make her feminine and weak, and Edwards jumped all over that vulnerbility, wanting to put a stake through her than await another day and a possible vampire comeback.

I'm waiting to see if Pau; trumps Rudy and that signals the end of the coronation by the media, and the emergence of the uncola candidates.

But yahoo is running a bad lead on Hillary and that is what voters are reading as they prepare to vote.

colonpowwow wrote on January 7, 2008 4:10 PM:

Yeah,

She should save herself for 2012 and her fight to unseat President McCain ;-)

Seriously, I don't see her staying in the race if she loses New Hampshire and South Carolina, even if it's by just a little bit.

I also suspect that most of her supporters favor Obama over Edwards as second choice. I'm just pulling that out of my orifice though. Is there any polling on this out there?

DRinOH wrote on January 7, 2008 4:12 PM:

With all due respect to Hillary - I truly hope she can find an important post, i.e. chairman of foreign relations committee after Biden becomes S.o.S. - after what I've seen out of Chris Dodd this campaign I really hope he's the next Senate Majority Leader. He displayed conviction and leadership that I can only hope was contagious enough for Barack to display similar fortitude as president.

Michael wrote on January 7, 2008 4:13 PM:

Bob got it right. If they're staying in for the long haul, that means going all out on Obama, in a negative way.

That's an issue for a variety of reasons. For one, his favorables are fantastic, so its likely to provoke a negative backlash. For another, seeing as how those negative attacks would come on the heels of two electoral spankings (in Iowa and NH), the campaign artifice would be obvious, making the chance of a backlash even more likely.

So, Hillary would truly run the risk of tarnishing her national profile (she already has lower favorables in NH now than a year ago, btw, whereas Obama's are higher than when the race started) in pursuit of (theoretically) a fool's errand. And that's not the best way to position yourself for Dem majority leader.

That being said, since I'd prefer a Chris Dodd for Dem majority leader, I wouldn't be too upset if things worked out that way.

Tim N from NH wrote on January 7, 2008 4:13 PM:

Color me paranoid, but maybe Penn et al have some inside polling showing that they're only going to lose by 3-5 points. With all the hand-wringing today, they can definitely spin that into a victory tomorrow.

blackstar wrote on January 7, 2008 4:14 PM:

the problem with staying in the race is that she doesn't have anything to do. over time, the straw man that Obama is "young and inexperienced" will be ground down, while sinking her reputation in the Democratic party who kept going negative when she was certain to lose in an attempt to smear the eventual Democratic president (and talisman for many Democratic voters).

she COULD have come into of this race in a position to combat Obama, had she run her campaign differently from the start. but that would require her to be something she isn't.

Celeste Johnson wrote on January 7, 2008 4:16 PM:

Quit after two small State primaries. I think not!!! One reason I love Bill was because he famously said, "I will be here until the last dog died."

I am confident Hillary is just as tough and determined. In fact, she is maybe even more determined.

Go Hillary, go go go.

Does anyway wonder why the Republican pundits as soooooo happy to pump up and tout Obama?

DRinOH wrote on January 7, 2008 4:17 PM:

On the subject of Edwards, I'd be a little bit wary of calling Hillary a crybaby. That sort of reminds me of the beef jerky commercials where the guys are "messing with Sasquatch." Poke the bear at your own peril. Not to mention the fact that, assuming he still thinks he can win, that can't play well with women voters.

Helter wrote on January 7, 2008 4:17 PM:

I thought this was all Drudge-led BS, but now it sounds like the story is real. If this is leaking out, doesn't that indicate a decision has already been made? This is like, the ultimate loser talk.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:18 PM:

I agree, stepping aside would be the right thing to do, accepting the voice of the voters, be they right or wrong, they are what they are.

AJB wrote on January 7, 2008 4:21 PM:

The polls showing Obama in the lead by 10-15 points are outliers. But they're the polls being trumpeted by the MSM, and many bloggers.

But what happens if Obama wins, by say, 5 or 6 points? Then Clinton could just as easily claim some measure of victory, exactly as her husband did 16 years ago, in the exact same State.

Hillary still holds a substantial lead in the later, larger States. Only if and when she loses those should she even consider the notion of retiring from the race.

She and her advisors know that perfectly well. So why would anyone spread this nonsense about her getting out?

A.J.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:21 PM:

This remains me of their public "handwringing" about whether to tout their overwhelming lead in the national polls.

grover_rover wrote on January 7, 2008 4:22 PM:

This "Talk vs Action" argument isn't going to go anywhere. The fact is that Hillary doesn't have a real history of credibly action and change, her major project in the past was health care as First Lady, and that failed miserably. Her short time in the Senate, her only actual political experience, has been strikingly devoid of action and change. If she tries to strike out with this kind of attack, the obvious first response is, "well what is this action you speak of?" The truth is, her "action" and "change" is fluffed, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

And on top of all that, Obama has frequently responded with his personal accomplishments (ACTIONS!) during his career in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate.

I've looked at both the records and she is throwing stones from a glass house. More like frantically throwing while screaming/sobbing.

She is just pissed that she can't inspire people and energize people like Obama can, but that's okay, hell, I'd be jealous too. She just needs to not make up for the shortfall by misrepresenting his history and her own.

JZ wrote on January 7, 2008 4:24 PM:

Hillary needs to stay in, if only for Obama's sake. If there's one thing that worries me about the guy it's that he's never really been tested in a campaign. His senate campaign was a cake-walk and so far, no one's really come after him in this campaign. The GOP sure as hell will and it would be a good thing for him to get a taste of the pressure before securing the nomination. I think Hillary should go after him with all she's got, within reason. Don't slime him or try to swiftboat him. But hit him on the themes you know the GOP will try to exploit. Either he figures out how to combat it or he crumbles. As an undecided, I need to know he's tough enough.

Jim wrote on January 7, 2008 4:24 PM:

The biggest question for Clinton is whether or not she has the money to continue. If she loses New Hampshire, most of the support is going to Obama. Of the big 3 Democrats, Clinton is the most dependent on institutional money.

But if she has the funds, then she should fight on until at least South Carolina. That would indicate whether or not the line of attacks work.

Regardless, Obama is going to beat her tomorrow by 8-10 points.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:24 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:21 PM:
This remains me of their public "handwringing" about whether to tout their overwhelming lead in the national polls.

EXACTLY! This is all bullshit propaganda to keep her the story and not Obama. Sorry team Hillary (and that includes you Greg) but too little too late.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 4:27 PM:

It's worthwhile to remember how much of Obama's current lead in NH is simple consequence of the perceived surge in his direction after Iowa. If he didn't have that surge, instead of being perhaps 10 points up, he'd probably be a point or two down.

People, you see, are sheep.

The problem for Obama is that he is only one good meme away from losing that critical surge. If Hillary can manage to portray whatever success she has in NH (or for that matter, somewhere a bit further down the line) as a shift in momentum, and the press and the voters buy it, Obama's right back to where he was before.

Expectations and spin are everything here.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:28 PM:

Double digits for Obama tomorrow. Just watch.

JHinNYC wrote on January 7, 2008 4:28 PM:

All along, while Hillary was leading, I said to myself that I'd be happy with Hillary or Obama or Edwards. Now that the possibility of Hillary losing to Obama is becoming more and more concrete, I find myself deeply sad. I was really looking forward to helping elect the first female US president.

Carl Nyberg wrote on January 7, 2008 4:28 PM:

How bad is it to have your campaign personnel discussing that the candidate might quit after losing the next primary?

If this is covered on the evening news, she's toast. It's practically begging her supporters to vote for their next choice candidate.

One of HRC's selling points is that she's tested in tough political situations. This kind of story makes her look like she's not ready for prime time as a presidential candidate.

She might have the resolve to hold Bill's hand while he discusses infidelity allegations, but that's not the kind of toughness needed by a candidate in a high stakes campaign.

erica wrote on January 7, 2008 4:29 PM:

Hillary should fight on, and she should use her "teary moment" as a campaign ad, paying for a full 60 seconds if necessary. This was the first time I had ever seen the personal conviction that fuels her machine-like drive, and her point that people think that elections don't matter is a good one. Those who insist that "tearing up is not a good idea on the campaign trail" are making her point for her, and making themselves looking like greedy politicians in the process.

She should also stress the point that even though she is an ordinary person (as demonstrated in the "teary" ad), she also has vast and specific experience that makes her qualified to lead, not because of who she is, but because of what she has done. I'm still a big Obama fan, but this is the first time Hillary has convincingly demonstrated how her personal compassion drives her convictions, why she has served and why she hopes to lead the country. First time she has really made sense to me.

What it comes down to is this: Obama feels he would make a good president primarily because of who he is, while Hillary feels she would make a good president primarily because of what she has done. It would be smart for both of them to really talk about this and make that distinction in a very calm way.

Then voters could decide for themselves which approach they want their nominee to take in campaigning for the presidency, without interference from pundits trying to parse everything into a dogfight.

Wow, how great would that be.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:29 PM:

Yes we are sheep, but so are the Republicans, problem is their sheep may lead them to their stronger candidate as opposed to the weaker.

blueshift wrote on January 7, 2008 4:29 PM:

I think it's premature to even think about her getting out. Neither Iowa nor NH are the whole story, due to their smallness. The value of these two early contests is that they are laboratories that allow (require) candidates to interact with voters on an intimate level. This won't happen again after NH (or if one of them gains the white house, never again). The acid test is Hyper Tuesday. After that, if she or other key candidates are trailing, yeah, it's time to think hard about what's best for the country or the party...but even then, it's up to the voters.

dog of the south wrote on January 7, 2008 4:30 PM:

I don't believe for one second she will quit after NH, even if she loses abysmally. Maybe they're trying to lower expectations. Maybe all of this is off-the-record babbling by people who don't know what's going on and have no business talking. If she quits before Feb. 5 at least, I'll eat my shoe.

Stacy wrote on January 7, 2008 4:31 PM:

Obama has now overtake Hillary in Intrade nationally and is up by double digits in the latest SC poll. After tomorrow, expect even wider margins. Seems that the public has had a little too much of the Clintons this weekend and today what with her losing her shit at the debate, and her crying today coupled with Bill's outrageous statements. Enough of the drama already. Go back to Little Rock!

mcc wrote on January 7, 2008 4:32 PM:

So then we'd be looking at the last few weeks of the campaign being Obama vs Edwards? That would be... interesting.

I find this scenario really hard to believe, though.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:32 PM:

This is all about lowering expectations and TPM is playing its part. Bottom line: she is toast and everyone on the ground knows it.

mkolb wrote on January 7, 2008 4:34 PM:

Didn't this thread of an idea start on Drudge this morning? So Hillary is supposed to be a good little girl and take her dollies and go home.

No, no, no.

It is hard for me to think that her backers are quite so lily-livered also.

This just sounds like (fairly sexist) spin to me.

gobacktotexas wrote on January 7, 2008 4:36 PM:

Separately, there's been some talk today to the effect that James Carville has privately been urging her to stay in and fight it out through the later states. In an interview, Carville told me that this was indeed his position, but he also said that he had not been privately counseling Hillary to do this.

So then what has he actually been privately counselling her to do, drop out?

Michael A wrote on January 7, 2008 4:37 PM:

Stacy do you have a link to the sc poll? I've been trying to find other states polls after iowa. Thanks.

Bill R. wrote on January 7, 2008 4:37 PM:

No one likes humiliation. I think she will probably stay on for Nevada and South Carolina, maybe Florida. But if she is still getting trounced she will leave and think about fighting another day.

moondancer wrote on January 7, 2008 4:37 PM:

It would give Edwards positions a chance to air. I want the whole populace to see and yea/nay his stuff. It would be a shame if Edwards never got a full audience.

Steve wrote on January 7, 2008 4:38 PM:

Are we witnessing the fall of the Clinton family?

cleter wrote on January 7, 2008 4:38 PM:

They may have some internals or modeling that we can't see. This exit talk may lend credence to the idea that they are burning through money at a prodigious rate, as well.

What if she comes in third again?

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 4:39 PM:

I have to say it was really stupid of Edwards to sneer at Hillary over her breaking down. That's gotta come to hurt him with women voters any way you look at it.

If he wanted that criticism of her to be made, he'd have been a thousand times better served to have it come out of someone else's mouth.

Carl Nyberg wrote on January 7, 2008 4:39 PM:

Is anybody else getting tired of the implications that Obama is untested, like he's gotten to be the frontrunner by being lucky or something?

The guy has real talent. He connects with voters. He works the media.

He does what successful Democratic politicians do.

If elected he will be the most liberal Dem nominee to take office since at least Harry S. Truman. (I'll accept arguments LBJ was more liberal than Obama, especially if they come from people who had family die in Vietnam.)

I understand that HRC supporters are having a hard time letting go. And if she does well in NH they won't have to let go. But if she gets drubbed, she should get out.

She'd rather stay in the Senate than have an executive branch subtly backing a challenger against her in the primary, right?

SteinL wrote on January 7, 2008 4:40 PM:

Seriously? Getting out after two primaries? So the whole thing was just for show?
Ridiculous.

I am no Hillary fan, but she has to go through to mid-February, and see how this turns out.

And if the US is ready for Obama, so be it!

Mike Meyer wrote on January 7, 2008 4:41 PM:

Sounds like another story the Obama people are planting.

anon wrote on January 7, 2008 4:42 PM:

What's the polling on an Obama Clinton ticket? I know there's some water under the bridge there but having Clinton as your VP, once you got into office, might be useful. Kinda like having Ashcroft as your AG, it would take some of the right wing heat off the Prez.

NYGOPer wrote on January 7, 2008 4:42 PM:

I am no fan of Senator Clinton's and believe that Obama is a much better choice on every level, however, even I don't think that she should bag it after only Iowa and NH have voted. That's giving WAY too much importance to two small, non-representative states.

Say what you will about Hillary, she deserves to put her message before the voters and go at least until Super Duper Tuesday before deciding whether her campaign is finished. I think she still has the potential to surprise us all.

moondancer wrote on January 7, 2008 4:42 PM:

The worse thing, career wise is to piss off the uber delegates. If they start publicly withdrawing their support, it will be embarrassing to HRC and piss off the pols for being made to do it publicly.
She will need to save face for all.

za wrote on January 7, 2008 4:42 PM:

If Hillary doesn't get off her behind and start inspiring people, she's gonna be eating the dust of both Obama AND even Edwards.

She needs to get back to why she's in politics in the first place. She needs to get her feet on the ground and be real with the American people. Forget about her opponents, and lead.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 4:42 PM:

Is anybody else getting tired of the implications that Obama is untested, like he's gotten to be the frontrunner by being lucky or something?

Obama has never, never faced serious Republican opposition.

Unless you've lived in a cave for the last 20 years, you know that means he hasn't really been tested.

TheraP wrote on January 7, 2008 4:44 PM:

I think she should do what Hillary feels she's able to do. If she has the "fight" in her to continue, ok. If not, ok.

If she feels the most important thing is winning here, she can try to do that. If the most important thing is electing a Dem and turning things around, she may do the selfless thing.

Not everybody is good at everything. Is she better at legislating? Maybe, if so stay where she is.

Is she an executive? The kind of charismatic leader needed at the moment? If not, no shame in that.

We don't need our candidates tearing one another apart. We need to be strong as a party, win the presidency, and then do our damndest to turn the country around.

The woman has to decide this on her own, irrespective of what I think or any advisers think. Unless she has fire in her belly to go all the way and be herself and be strong but not negative... then let her decide to get out. And give her credit for that.

Nick wrote on January 7, 2008 4:46 PM:

Just seeing Mr. Matalin-Carville's name here makes me sick. Did he take time off from mowing Scooter Libby's lawn? I admire Hillary; liked Bill; but this is so over it beggars description. The creeps she surrounds herself with like Penn, McAuliffe, etc. make me want her to just go away. There will be no coronation.

Jay wrote on January 7, 2008 4:47 PM:

She will stay in after N.H. She will drop out if her internal polls forecast a loss in New York, because a loss in N.Y. would invite a real challenge for her senate seat.

Anonymous wrote on January 7, 2008 4:47 PM:

Blue Puppy - where are you?

Anybody else wonder where this little guy has been now that the sky is falling?

Gregor wrote on January 7, 2008 4:48 PM:

None of this matters because the phenomenon of Hillary is that the more time she spends on the ground with voters, the worse she does with those voters. This is troubling math for Hillary and, at bottom, it's not a criticism of her as a Senator. It's just a feature of not having much talent, for this game.

Of course, many of us saw this characteristic in her years ago. She is a name recognition candidate. Not a candidates who can actually convert voters, on the ground. She is not Presidential material. She is on the same level as Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore.

Again, I want to remind how happy, busy, and accomplished Gore has become since he gave up the wrong goal of becoming President. I wish only the same outcome for Hillary.

NCSteve wrote on January 7, 2008 4:49 PM:

I agree Edwards' sneer was not his finest hour.

I'd like for her to stay through February 5, but only if she can resist going completely over to the dark side. If she turns things around without giving in to her inner Nixon (or her outer Penn), she'll have earned my respect. If she doesn't win, Obama will come out as a stronger candidate.

Either way, if Obama's the eventual nominee or if she drops out early, she'd do the Party and the country a favor if she turned over her entire oppo file on him to the Obama campaign.

CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 4:52 PM:

Tell it to John Edwards. Or John McCain, for that matter.

Sullynyc wrote on January 7, 2008 4:54 PM:

People, she is trying to break into the boys' club.
Edwards put the stake right in her heart, just like the strong-closing Trial Lawyer he is.

There's no crying in baseball.

She'll stick around until Feb 5 and then bow out.

She's T-O-A-S-T.

JenJen wrote on January 7, 2008 4:56 PM:

I think Hillary would make a most excellent Senate Majority Leader. In fact, couldn't she take what's left of her warchest, parlay it into a PAC and use that money to build support for a run at Harry Reid?

Carl Nyberg wrote on January 7, 2008 4:57 PM:

If HRC folds her tent after Iowa and NH, it isn't b/c two small, non-representative states rejected her. It's because she doesn't have a realistic chance of winning the nomination.

And if she's beat by more than 10 points in NH it's hard to see what her realistic scenario is.

Win in Nevada and Michigan? But if she's on track to lose in SC and FL, what's it matter?

Obama has more of a field operation. He's got more money. He's got more potential to raise money.

And keeping all those HRC staffers paid has got to cost a pretty penny.

What's HRC gain by staying in the race and being humiliated? And why would her staffer encourage her to stay in the race if they are gonna get pink slips themselves as the campaign streamlines?

Cranky Observer wrote on January 7, 2008 4:58 PM:

What it could "do to her career"? She is a 2-term US Senator with 5 years left to go in her second term. The Presidency is the only higher job to which one could aspire.

Getting out prior to any large states with urban Democratic populations would be silly.

Cranky

Mark F. wrote on January 7, 2008 4:58 PM:

Depending upon what the press does with it (and how much the Edwards campaign pushes it), Hillary's bathetic soliloquy this morning could seriously add to her troubles. To me, her whining sounded totally phony and contrived. Hillary just ain't the one. She just ain't.

hopeful wrote on January 7, 2008 5:00 PM:

If the hillary camp would bother to read The Audacity of Hope, they would be presented with clarity as to why the Obama Juggernaut is only getting started.

I think her campaign is over.

syvanen wrote on January 7, 2008 5:01 PM:

"frankly0 wrote:
People, you see, are sheep."

Not in this case. The people, at least those whose first choice has been 'anybody but Hilliary' are making a totally rational decision to back the candidate who will block Hilliary.

It is is a sign of real desperation when we see the Hillary people begin to attack the voting public for their stupid decisions. If you hate people so much, maybe you should take up a different hobby.

hello_world wrote on January 7, 2008 5:01 PM:

Two points on this. First, there's NO way Clinton drops out after NH. I don't agree with frankly0 about a lot of things, but he's 100% right about managing expectations and spin. I suspect that Clinton has internals that suggest she's not down as much as most polls suggest. So she takes a risk, plays the campaign strife card, and then tries to beat expectations. If she does, Comeback Kid Part Deux. If not, oh well, huge numbers are already out there, so no real harm.

Second, and most important, for the sake of the party, I don't think Clinton should give up right now. Obama has the air of leadership, style, and a truly inspirational demeanor, but one thing he does need to develop his campaign organization. He needs to works the Obama "Get Out the Vote" campaign in a multiple state competitive race before the GE. If Clinton really feels it's over, and that she's ready to pack it in, the best thing she could do for the party is play the foil to Obama through Feb 5th. She should just tone down the post-nuclear rhetoric, and hit him on a few of the issues that we know the GOP will try.

I no longer have any questions about Obama's ability to lead and campaign effectively. But there's no substitute for actually driving out the vote if you want to win nationally.

morgan wrote on January 7, 2008 5:01 PM:

I think she should stay in as long as she can, for a variety of reasons. Not being perceived as a quitter, but also that it keeps Obama on his toes, and not take his front runner position lightly as we move through the primaries. It should help refine and enhance his campaign to have to continue to duke it out and then be ready for whatever turd the republicans serve up.

Tim Kane wrote on January 7, 2008 5:01 PM:

By all means she should stay in the fight.

It's only another month anyway.

Obama is hot today, but that could change tomorrow. New Hampshire and Iowa picked Kerry last time and that proved wrong. New Hampshire and Iowa did not pick Bill, and that proved wrong too. So relying on what New Hampshire and Iowa says has hardly good for the Democratic party.

Right now there's a lot of intoxicating buzz surrounding Obama. Throw that on top of the fatigue of 12 months of campaigning, and its easy to see the current situation as seemingly permanent.

I think, at some point, things could change before super Tuesday. And they'll either flow towards Edwards or Hillary.

Personally, of the three, I think Edwards is the better candidate for the Democratic party. Both Hillary and or Obama would represent significant moral victories, because one is a women and the other is African American. But, at this point, we cannot afford moral victories. We need absolute victories. And economically, the country needs to policies that Edwards has been putting on the front burner all along.

Having said that, I think Hillary should soldier on till the end, which is no sooner than Super Tuesday.

Matt A wrote on January 7, 2008 5:03 PM:

More likely it is the story the Edwards' Campaign is promoting.

The question for me is, even if she can somehow beat Obama down off of his visionary perch as the frontrunner, how does she go on to win the general? All of these new people will be disenfranchised and Hillary-hate will be at an all-time high. Maybe she hopes Bloomberg launches a 3rd party bid and she puluralities her way in to the WH just like Bill did in '92.

I'm on board for Dodd as Senate Majority Leader and Biden for Sec St.

Obama-Edwards '08!

Steven Van Haren wrote on January 7, 2008 5:05 PM:

I think Carl makes a good point, Obama is an excellent candidate, I'd be happy to have him as president. Do you hear the "but" coming?

What I'd like to address are two pervasive ideas that I think are misguided, firstly, the idea that Hilary is hopeless if she loses New Hampshire, and secondly, the idea that Hilary exploits her gender.

The argument for Obama owning the momentum of the moment is irrefutable, but the states' delegates are not merely a series of dominoes, are they? I have a hard time believing in the inevitability of Obama, although I'm sure he'll trounce Edwards. Unlike the Edwards campaign the Clinton machine has years of good will among people who vote in every election. I think there are voting, old-style middle class people out there that feel an obligation to Hilary and I think they amount to more than peanuts. And doesn't the nomination benefit from the strongest candidates staying in the race, as long as they can? The more Hilary pokes at Obama, the stronger he will be in a general election.

Quickly, my second point: Before the campaigns got underway, I thought that Americans were ready for woman president more than they were an African American. I am inspired by Obama, and I think he signals a brighter future for international relations and civil rights, and I welcome it. What saddens me though is not Obama's campaign, but the buzz of the vocal electorate and punditry that humiliates Hilary for being a woman. Femininity is not equal to weakness, just as quick wits do not predict intelligence. I can see the glass ceiling clearly, because it's covered in finger prints, so many of us are propping it up.

Michael wrote on January 7, 2008 5:06 PM:

I do not understand why she would, or should, quit after just 2 out of 50 states weighing in. On the one side, we conplain that the presidential contest starts so early, and then here we have some people who want it to end so early. Is it any wonder why States are stepping all over each other to get to the front of the primary line if candidates are encouraged to quit the race after just two States vote?

Fight on till at least the Super Tuesday.

CalD wrote on January 7, 2008 5:07 PM:

I smell Trippi.

frankly0 wrote on January 7, 2008 5:08 PM:

It is is a sign of real desperation when we see the Hillary people begin to attack the voting public for their stupid decisions. If you hate people so much, maybe you should take up a different hobby.

Before Iowa, Obama was behind Hillary by a point or two. After Iowa, with absolutely no further knowledge of Obama than that he won, Obama was up by two digits.

People, I submit, are sheep.

QED.

Oh, and BTW, syvanen, hate to break the news, but there is no Santa.

(I know, I'm such a meanie.)

litigatormom wrote on January 7, 2008 5:09 PM:

I think she has to stay in until Super Tuesday to maintain her credibility. Tough as nails Hillary quitting after the primaries in two states? Nah. Even if she is already thinking ahead to taking out Reid as Senate Majority Leader.

And I agree with Erica, I think that video clip of her "crying" -- which she is not -- would make a terrific ad. One of the biggest raps on Clinton is that she's not "passionate," that she's cold and calculating and that this is just a power game to her.

She was responding to a question about how she manages to keep going day after day, and the clip (which shows only part of the response) shows her talking about her personal commitment to the race. She should use it.

Steven Van Haren wrote on January 7, 2008 5:11 PM:

Cranky Observer says:

"What it could "do to her career"? She is a 2-term US Senator with 5 years left to go in her second term. The Presidency is the only higher job to which one could aspire.

Getting out prior to any large states with urban Democratic populations would be silly.

Cranky"

Which sums up my feelings nicely.

BeAngryAtTheSun wrote on January 7, 2008 5:14 PM:

@anon:

Obama-Clinton ticket? Neither Edwards or Clinton would work as a #2. Edwards because he already eschewed his 2004 position with Kerry, and that becomes a story after any gaffe from #1, especially since Edwards has that fire in his belly.

As far as Clinton as #2? Impossible. The Second Gentleman would be able to submarine half of your domestic policy initiatives.

On the flip side, Obama has made his way onto the ticket at this point. Either Clinton or Edwards would (have to) choose him now, I think.

Steven Van Haren wrote on January 7, 2008 5:17 PM:

Gregor says:

"None of this matters because the phenomenon of Hillary is that the more time she spends on the ground with voters, the worse she does with those voters. This is troubling math for Hillary and, at bottom, it's not a criticism of her as a Senator. It's just a feature of not having much talent, for this game."

Unfortunately for Hilary, I think he's right. I wonder if it's because of who she is or because of what she symbolizes as a woman with teeth.

Joe Buck wrote on January 7, 2008 5:17 PM:

Hillary's my least favorite candidate, but the idea that the former front-runner should just quit on the say-so of two tiny states seems wrong to me.

If she's worried about damage to her reputation and the party, she can avoid that by attacking from the left on domestic issues: why won't Obama set the goal as health care for all? (for example; his plan is a lot weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plan).

pseudonymous in nc wrote on January 7, 2008 5:17 PM:

For pete's sake, an electorate of perhaps half a million people decides the fate of a top-tier candidate?

I don't think so. Let's get to February 5.

Doc Rock wrote on January 7, 2008 5:18 PM:

Why don't we just cancel the elections and let Iowa and New Hampshire pick our leaders? Along with the ministers of the media, of course?

Bob Miller wrote on January 7, 2008 5:18 PM:

I see no reason why she should bow out if she loses in New Hampshire. The national polls still show her in the lead.

My advice, free for the asking and worth twice as much, would be to stay in the race with a totally positive message. Just wait and see how Obama holds up for the next 6 months.

gwil wrote on January 7, 2008 5:18 PM:

I like and prefer Obama but I was disappointed in his debate performance. Being most generous, I thought he only tied HRC. Any other opinions?

mencken wrote on January 7, 2008 5:21 PM:

she'll get shellacked by the villagers no matter what she does. that's like worrying whether the GOP will try to portray the dems as weak on terror.

no reason for her to play defense.

that said, other concerns---senate majority leader, a cabinet position---may persuatively argue for getting out.

but it's hard to see with such a telescoped primary calendar how it wouldn't look premature to bail after NH.

after Feb. 5, only a month away, may be another story.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 7, 2008 5:21 PM:

It is obvious that given my passionate dislike of Clinton that I will happily welcome Clinton returning to her role as being one of New York's least worst Senators . . .

AND Clinton's absence might allow conversations for better suited folk to gain air time . . .

AND as much as this pains me to type . . .

Clinton should stop making bullshit rookie misstakes and hang in there through February 6th.

America desrves choices . . . Even bad ones.

Mofuka wrote on January 7, 2008 5:33 PM:

Hillary only has experience sucking Bills cock.

steve wrote on January 7, 2008 5:34 PM:

The "people have spoken"? What people? More people live on my block than voted for Obama in Iowa. This is crazy. She need sto stay and fight, because if she is not the nominee, we are handling the White House to the Republicans on a silver platter.

Liam wrote on January 7, 2008 5:37 PM:

Off course she should stay in. I am an Obama supporter, but they have not completed the first mile of a marathon. I do not want any candidate to not be put through a strong competitive test. We did that with Kerry, and it turned out that he was a sprinter, and could not go the distance. I want even my candidate, Obama, to have to prove that he has the staying power. We need Hillary, Edwards, and even Richardson to stay in the competition, for the sake of the party.

Run Hillary, Run Edwards, Run Richardson, and Run Obama. May the best long distance runner win, and trounce the Republicans.

goldberry wrote on January 7, 2008 5:39 PM:

Know what? It's time Hillary Clinton stopped worrying about what the frickin' press says. There's no way she's ever going to make them happy. It's time she reached out beyond the media filter. It's still only a year into her second term. This can't possibly hurt her anymore than failed presidential runs hurt Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden or half a dozen other senators.
Jeesh

Pepp wrote on January 7, 2008 5:39 PM:

Well she should do whats best for her, you cant lead a donkey if it doesn’t want to move to the center. Hopefully Bloomberg runs or is it to late for Al Gore to jump in, the facts of Obama personal history with drug use, voting record and lack of experience disqualifies him for my vote I see no change just more politics all the time with no other talent like the current guy in the White House and Edwards not a chance. I also don’t buy the marketing that getting along is what we need in this country, what we need desperately is Competent Capable Leaders not personalities that Parties think represent their sects view and hte old tried and true uniter not divider pitch. So one really wonders why Democrats are falling for this one line stunt but oh well gun and foot come to mind. Ta Ta…

ZH wrote on January 7, 2008 5:42 PM:

This seems part and parcel of today's tearful event; not actually aimed at foreshadowing her withdrawal from the race (which is laughable to consider right now... for one, Obama could get caught up in some scandal b/w now and 2/5 that'd put her right on top right in time... a Clinton should be familiar with such unexpected occurrences). Rather, the aim's to soften her image by making her appear more vulnerable. I think it works in Hillary's favor to have her recent poor performance be constantly blamed by unnamed staffers of hers on Mark Penn, other peoples' inability to understand that she's the only one that can be president, etc.

David wrote on January 7, 2008 6:01 PM:

Wow, Erica (way up on the page) wrote exactly what I was thinking. For many months now I've worked hard for Obmama, collecting signatures, organizing people, attending meetups, selling buttons, etc.

What I've been working towards is now within reach, but somehow I can't be happy about it, because I suddenly really feel for Hillary. Her handlers really failed her, promising her that the election is just a card game to which she holds the winning hand, and all she has to do is play the right card at the right moment. That's what made her seem so mechanical.

Now she's off script, and she's wonderful. Really, I just wanted to hug her when I saw that video from earlier. And she always had that in her! It's really depressing. She's been in front of cameras for so many years, but I never saw this side of her.

Of course, if she won, I almost certainly wouldn't again. She'd go back on script and back to triangulating and strategising. But that's a real shame, and it's probably to some extent the legacy of the sexism of her generation (which is different from the sexism of my generation). Women leaders from her generation were still fighting to prove that they could lead every bit as well as men can, and to do it, they had to look like they're made of steel. But that has its own problems, and Hillary the person suffered from these problems long before she ever became a candidate.

If we lived in a better world, Hillary could have campained as herself, the way Obama did. And who knows what would have happened?

Tempest wrote on January 7, 2008 6:03 PM:

Deep in her heart she knows she's toast.
Her tears show that.

Buh-buy.

Michael Stevens wrote on January 7, 2008 6:11 PM:

She's in a no win situation and her people know it.

She can't win unless she goes negative. But given Obama's current aura, going negative against him now would bring Hillary a tremendous amount of blow-back by the party faithful.

People "say" they hate negative campaigning. People lie. Negative campaigning WORKS. If it were two or three months until Super Tuesday, she could wait for Obama's aura to wane a bit and go negative on him then. But given the compressed schedule, going negative now would damage both her and Obama, potentially delivering the nomination to Edwards.

She simply can not win if she stays positive. But going negative now will damager her too much.

I think the only possible hope for her campaign is that her opposition research group may have dug up some dirt on Obama that can be released through surrogates. But looking at the way her campaign is running around like chicken's sans heads, it seems doubtful that the Clinton oppo group is holding any Obama cards.

Her people know these political realities, which is why there is so much talk of her pulling out. There is simply no upside to losing 20 battles in a row. When the war is lost, it's far better to negotiate a truce before the big battles even happen.

The politically smart move would be to negotiate a union (surrender) with Obama before she suffers permanent political damage on Super Tuesday. It would actually be in Obama's best interest to give Hillary a seat at the table. She has the largest opposition research group of any campaign and it has been digging into the Republican opposition for years. If she were to agree to turn her oppo group over to the Obama campaign, Obama may give her whatever she wants.

I don't think she'll do that. I think she'll do what she did in '04. Take her football and go home, secretly hoping the Democrat loses so she can try again in '08.

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:32 PM:

I generally agree with some of the comments up-thread...

if she loses by more than Iowa, she should stick it out through SC

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:36 PM:

Pepp wrote on January 7, 2008 5:39 PM:

ROFLMAO

(scroll)

lestatdelc wrote on January 7, 2008 6:37 PM:

Weired, my comment at 6:32 got truncated.

I generally agree with some of the comments up-thread...

if she loses by more than Iowa, she should stick it out through SC, but not go negative. THen if NV, SC do not go her way... leave gracefully. If she loses NH by less than IA, then she should keep on fighting, though I suggest her going negative is still a losing strategy.

moondancer wrote on January 7, 2008 6:45 PM:

Re: Clinton

Its not that shes' slipping in the polls, it's falling through the earths crust. Down 17 nationally. down 20 in South Carolina. I don't want her to surrender yet, but those aren't trends...

Pepp wrote on January 7, 2008 6:50 PM:

If she dose not win tomorrow she should walk...why spend her creditability legitimizing Obama and Edwards as candidates or be their whipping girl leave the Party to its own folly. If they want Obama let them have him, my guess Dems win Senate and House seats still. And I cant wait to listen to the next debate one wonders what the candidates will have to say if they are not attacking the Senator certainly no their own records or lack there of.

Y whait wrote on January 7, 2008 7:16 PM:

She could quit now and save everyone a lot of trouble.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 7:26 PM:

Hillary still holds a substantial lead in the later, larger States.

Does she really? How do we know that? What the new national polls tell me is that those later state leads must be dissolving (how else can the national average shift?). I would not be surprised to see that the so-called "firewalls" of CA and FL turn into real squeakers.

Mike wrote on January 7, 2008 7:36 PM:

I'm a Democrat, and I plan to vote that way come November. However, if Obama is the nominee, I'm voting McCain. Given a choice of a fake Republican and a real one, I'll go with the real one.

Desider wrote on January 7, 2008 7:38 PM:

Fuck them all. Just do it. Keep walking, keep talking, just do your job. The whole thing is bullshit - you're running for leader of the free world. You should only quit when you can't stand.

Michael Stevens wrote on January 7, 2008 7:53 PM:

There have been no recent polls released for California or Florida. But she's dropped almost 20 points in some national polls over the past 4 days. It's likely that her lead in both FL and CA has evaporated just as much.

She also has a massive problem in CA. The CA Republican party has closed its primary to independents. Meaning if independents want to vote in the California primary, they will be forced to vote Democratic. Most of these independents will probably vote for Obama.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/01/07/hillary-s-california-dreaming.aspx

Obama would probably win a California primary tomorrow. After a few more weeks of wins, he should decimate there.

My view is that unless Hillary's opposition research has dirt on Obama, the war is lost for her. But if she gets out now instead of going negative for the next month, Obama is probably prepared to reward her.

DTM wrote on January 7, 2008 8:06 PM:

To address one point above, voters aren't sheep. Indeed, this is all perfectly rational behavior.

Democratic voters always liked Obama. Of course, they also liked Clinton and Edwards (and Biden and Dodd and Richardson) too. The preferences they formed were always soft in that sense: not because they were reluctantly supporting their first choice, but rather because they were almost as excited about supporting any of the top people.

With respect to Obama in particular, the big concern holding him back was basically electability. And the new information the voters are getting directly addresses that concern, insofar as Obama is demonstrating his ability to organize a broad and effective political coalition.

So again, it is perfectly rational for voters who: (a) already liked Obama, and (b) are having their chief concerns about him addressed, to switch their preferences around slightly and put him at the top. Of course, for the same reason they could conceivably switch back--but only if they got new and contradictory information that reawakened their concerns (or created entirely new ones). And so far, despite Clinton's best efforts, that hasn't been happening. And that too is rational.

Akonitum wrote on January 7, 2008 8:09 PM:

From my perspective, the problem with Hillary is not at all that she's a woman.

Rather, in this campaign she would have had to overcome nearly 18 years of hateful anti-Hillary free media, which has reified in the minds of many millions of self-identified "Conservatives", all to the detriment of her, the Democratic party, and progressives.

She also would have needed to overcome personal shortcomings, partly stemming from that history, but also previous Clinton successes. That is she presents at once as imperious, insecure, cynical, and untrustworthy.

Finally, from her, another Clinton, we would have needed less drama, not more.

Shazbat wrote on January 7, 2008 8:17 PM:

You guys have short memories. The whole reason Hillary is in the Senate in the first place is to prepare her for the presidency. This was widely rumored when she first ran for Senate. Further evidence: her career in the Senate has been marked by nothing in particular. She has no agenda; she's only biding her time.

Senate Majority Leader Hillary? Nothing could make people less happy with her. You think Harry Reid is spineless?

She's not gonna drop out until the bitter end. This is the endgame for her. The question is whether she also resigns from the Senate if she loses.

GeorgeinSeattle wrote on January 7, 2008 8:18 PM:

I think a quick exit after tomorrow would send wrong signal to other women in future considering a run. HRC needs to tough it out for awhile.

Nick wrote on January 7, 2008 8:26 PM:

I'm not planning on voting for Hillary but I'd be tremendously disappointed, in her and in the process, if she dropped out before Feb. 5th.

c wrote on January 7, 2008 8:46 PM:

Baaaaaaaaaaa!

But seriously, DTM nails it again. Chattin' with the family over the holidays, several of them said look, I really like Obama, but I don't think he can do it; Clinton's the safe choice. What Iowa showed is it's not just hype and glitz and media bubble; his campaign is a triumph of community organizing and he has a message that attracts independents. For anyone who has been following politics a while, the crosstabs from the Iowa polls, and now from SC, are *stunning*. I can remember McCarthy and McGovern, Jackson in 84 and 88, and of course Dean last time around. None of them came close to pulling this off.

FWIW in many ways Obama gains if HRC stays in and goes negative -- she'll give him some of the seasoning her supporters claim he lacks, and he'll be introduced to the rest of the country as the sunny, positive anti-Clinton. Sadly, that's not a bad way to present him to the independents and moderate Republicans whose votes he needs in November.

What the Clinton camp will have to assess, though, is how much resources they want to pour into a losing effort. Camapaigning in CA is not cheap and if she also has to defend her home turf of NY, we're talking very expensive media markets. She does not have a financial edge. And they're exhausted and traumatized -- this isn't fun for them right now. If she can stay close tomorrow and find some good news in her polling (pity she doesn't have a better pollster) then definitely she hangs in. But if she's blown out and NV turns and the national polls don't look any better, you could see loss-cutting sooner not later.

This is the bitter result of a strategy that said to donors and prominent Democrats a year ago hey, you may not like us but we're inevitable, get on board or get frozen out when we win. Your stock starts falling and those guys want out.

NH Dem wrote on January 7, 2008 9:06 PM:

Hillary would surprise and get a lot of respect from me if she did drop out, and that's the only way I see her getting it right now, given the way she's conducted her campaign.

cleter wrote on January 7, 2008 9:44 PM:

I wouldn't count on Clinton having much of a firewall in Florida. I have yet to see a Clinton yard sign, but I have seen some Obama activity. I know some college students working for Obama. I haven't seen any campus organizations for Clinton. Plus, back in the early days, to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire, she vowed not to campaign in Florida if it moved up its primary--which it did. Florida was just expected to fall into place like the other dominoes after she won Iowa and New Hampshire. She could break her vow and campaign here, but that would raise a new set of problems for her.

mooster wrote on January 7, 2008 10:19 PM:

If Clinton drops out this early, she will never be a credible national candidate again. I'm not sure she's ready to deal with that.

postxian wrote on January 7, 2008 10:53 PM:

Utter bullcrap. She has to stay in the race until Feb. 5. Period. This is only the 2nd state to vote, for crying out loud. She has to stay in just because we can't have Iowa and New Hampshire deciding who the nominee will be. It would be both undemocratic and unDemocratic to leave the race that early. In other words it would be disrepectful of both democracy and the Democratic party to quit so early.

Paul wrote on January 7, 2008 10:55 PM:

Surely Vernon Jordan will tell her that she can't now go into South Carolina with a campaign being followed by the world press asking every black politician "aren't you for Obama?" What the Clinton's can't seem to get around is the notion that Obama can't be elected (and perhaps in their minds shouldn't be). That explains both the "crying" and the MLK-LBJ civil rights bill quote. Without me, she is saying, the evil empire will keep the White House and our agenda will never be enacted.

But read Joe Klien's post on NYT The Caucus. Obama is already the behind the scene president in waiting - apparently doing all sorts of work coordinated with Rice to help calm down Kenya. Also do a Google News search on Obama in South Carolina and Nevada. Her numbers are collapsing everywhere. Her organization is apparently a million miles wide and two inches deep.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 7, 2008 11:28 PM:

If she quits before Feb. 5 at least, I'll eat my shoe.

That is my thought as well. I simply do not believe this speculation about her dropping out after two paltry states. Mind you, I am an Obama man, so it is nothing to me one way or the other if she does, but I just find the claim far too implausible to credit.

Sounds like another story the Obama people are planting.

I can see how you might arrive at that conclusion, but I am afraid that it does not fit with the data. Look back up at the story at the top of this thread. Patti Doyle, Mark Penn, Harold Wolfson - these are not names of Obama staffers. These are Clinton's people, and one cannot use one's opponent's staff to plant a story (or, if one can, that opponent has real problems). No, strange as it might seem, this story is evidently originating in the Clinton camp.

Joshua Bradshaw wrote on January 8, 2008 12:01 AM:

I think that she will stay in even if she looses NH. Hillary will be in through Feb. 5th period. This is for several reasons first it is wrong to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to choose the nominees. Secondly her strength will be in the larger sates where there are more Union support. She is also like bill in that it is absurd to think that she will drop out. She is to much of a fighter. She is now in the position that she has been in so often backed against a wall. This is when she is at her best. She should also get a bit of a break from all of the media coverage. The reason that this would be good is for the fact that the media essentially gives her only negative news coverage just as they did bill. and to steal a line from Edwards when agents of change speak out the satus quo attacks well has anyone noticed that whenever her or bill speak out they are attackes.

also is anyone else tired of he medias constant coverage of Obama as the historic black candidate and the fact that they have completely ignored the fact that Hillary would be the first Female president. This show the typical reaction of weak men who are fear a strong women.

The simple fact is that Hillary will win

Mike G wrote on January 8, 2008 12:04 AM:

It would be crazy for her to drop out after NH. I think it would hurt her in the long run because donors would say, we gave you $100 million and you quit in the second primary? Plus, um, Clintons aren't quitters, just ask President Gore. I think the real question is, what happens if she gets her ass handed to her on Super Tuesday? Then it's really hard to see how she wins, because she'll have lost all around the country, including the South which would have been presumed to be problematic for Obama. Then I could see her thinking about it hard for her future, and for 2012 or 2018. But not after one caucus and one primary.

Donkey Voter wrote on January 8, 2008 12:50 AM:

Josh,

I admire you but this story stinks of bad, biased journalism, which you should be very sceptical of. No way is HRC considering dropping after NH. If she gets trounced tomorrow, maybe she'll think about it then, but no way she or her campaign are wasting their time and energy discussing it now. After losing 1 small-state caucus and trailing in some small-state polls? Are you kidding?

Some of her advisors might be thinking that on the side, but if they even mentioned it out loud in her or Bill's presence, they'd be blasted with all of H & B's pent up anger, which they are well famous for.

For all those who think Hillary's "tears" show weakness or quit, you have very little understanding of women. To most women and many men, her emotion is a sign of strength and resolve and comfort with the American people.

joejoejoe wrote on January 8, 2008 5:41 AM:

It's scorched earth advocates like Carville who are doing damage to Sen. Clinton's future not some sinister outside forces. There is no harm in staying in the race through Feb. 5th if Clinton takes the high road and hopes for an Obama stumble. That kind of race would enhance her stature.

I think Sen. Clinton gets bad advice from both camps inside her campaign and that suggests her stumbles are ties to her own bad judgement in picking advisors. Loyalty is great but it's no substitute for good judgement.

erica wrote on January 8, 2008 8:52 AM:

Clinton does not need to go negative on Obama to have a shot at winning. The best thing she could do (for her party and for the country) is be positive about Obama's enthusiasm and then campaign on her experience, which is compelling.

People might still choose Obama, but if Hillary's problem has been that she doesn't come across as human, this is the way to fix it. Comments from Litigatormom and David, among others, indicate that Hillary's emotion is not a dealkiller and in fact may have shown more about her than we've previously seen.

I also agree with DTM that primary voters are watching closely and making rational decisions. They may move back toward Hillary because of her experience.

Liam wrote on January 8, 2008 10:12 AM:

Hillary may have the experience. So did Gore and Kerry, but she also has something else in common with them; a lack of charisma. Hillary, like Gore and Kerry, is very stiff and not a natural outgoing person.

We know from past experience that the majority of voters will opt for the "most likable" candidate for President. That is why they rejected Gore and Kerry, and opted twice for a amiable guy without much else to offer. Hillary has run into the charisma wall, and there is nothing she can do about that. She can not obtain a charisma transplant or act as if she had.

People are not going to vote for someone that they do not first have a sense of comfort with. They do with Obama, and not with Hillary. That leaves her with no where to go to find more support beyond her hardcore supporters.

bajsa wrote on January 8, 2008 10:15 AM:

Hillary should stay in or Edwards should. If everyone concedes to Obama the Republicans will start their attack.

RobbyLove wrote on January 8, 2008 10:48 AM:

She'll be in until Super Tuesday, at least.

There is the real possibility on both sides, Dem and Repug, of brokered conventions. It will make for interesting dinner theatre and high drama. We haven't had a brokered convention since the 60s. Imagine the chaos with **today's** political environment. It's a long time until August folks. Hold on to your seats.

John McCutchen wrote on January 8, 2008 10:53 AM:

"Consider the Senate career"?

Consider MISTER BILL!!!

kamenwati wrote on January 8, 2008 11:21 AM:

I think Clinton is toast and that she should get out early. People how much time do we need to test and pick a candidate? This damn campaign, which will waste billions of dollars, has entered its second year. No other democracy in the world spents this much time and money on national elections. And it's not that all this investment has paid off for the American people (consider what the last two presidential terms have wrought).

It doesn't matter how many primaries are left, time has run out for Clinton. She can redeem herself, however, by getting out and endorsing Obama. If she wants to save face and her career, she should do so after the Feb. 5 primaries. To hang on after that--in some kind of scorched-earth campaign--will severely damage her reputation and future prospects.

Sean Reilly wrote on January 8, 2008 11:53 AM:

I'm an Edwards guy, but I can't believe people are suggesting that any candidate who won 29% in the first vote to pack up and go home. Damn people, only a tiny fraction of the democratic party have been heard and you're already calling the race over?

Let the people vote!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)