Obama's Humiliating Losses

Three times this season, Barack Obama merely had to lob a ball, and he could have struck Hillary out.  Three times he has failed.

1.  After Iowa, a win in New Hampshire, a win that every poll foresaw, would have done it for him.  But he gave that supercilious comment in the debate about Hillary's likeableness, and Hillary gave a strong performance in the final days.  Obama failed to strike her out.  How humiliating.

2.  After a breathtaking run of the bases in February, winning one contest after another, wins in Ohio and Texas would have sealed the deal.  The polls suggested he was on the brink of doing it, and he outspent Hillary hand over fist.  Obama failed to strike her out.  How humiliating

3.  For six weeks, Obama demanded Hillary get out of the race.  He plastered the airwaves in Pennsylvania with his visage and message.  He outspent her.  He spent weeks on the ground shaking hands and hold rallies.  And for the third time, he suffered another humiliating loss against Hillary.

Now comes the greatest humiliation of all.  Since he is unable to close the deal by himself, his surrogates are back in force demanding that Hillary get out of the race. Clyburn of South Carolina cajoles Hillary to get out because "she can't win this":

The Clintons know that she can't win this. But they're hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win.

Really, after Hillary's landslide and Obama's humiliating loss in Pennsylvania, I wonder who it really is who can't win this.  

Now come the bloggers; as one visitor from the Big Orange Cheeto wrote this morning, Stand Down, Hillary.   How humiliating.  Obama now has to have his surrogates beg Hillary to do for him what he can't do for himself.  Since Obama can't beat Hillary by himself, his surrogates reason, Hillary has to help him beat her.  How humiliating.

If he's the better candidate, let him win the damned thing fair and square.  If he can't do it without Hillary's help, he can't do it at all.



Display:


If Obama can win it, (2.00 / 3)

let him win it by himself without Hillary's help.

How humiliating to suggest it should be any other way.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:52:13 AM EST

Re: If Obama can win it, (none / 0)

So let me get this straight. Obama is "humiliated" because he can't "close the deal." But everywhere you go, Clinton insists that the race will continue, no matter how many people call for her to drop out. How exactly is he supposed to "close" if she herself admits she isn't going anywhere?
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama can win it, (none / 0)

I'll spell it out again, phrased a bit differently this time. The reason why Obama can't stop running against Hillary is because she is still in the race. It doesn't matter if she has any feasible way of winning or not. This is politics, reason and logic have no effect. She is in the race, so he has to keep running against her. It doesn't matter that she can't catch up.
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah thats what (none / 0)

I said about Hillary.

If she is so inevitable why even fight in the primaries.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (2.00 / 1)

Who cares Hillary wont win this and Bill Clinton is no longer well liked by the Party (a recent poll of just DEMOCRATS has Bill Clinton's disapproval at 51%).

Its the Clintons who are humiliated since the party is telling them that its time for them to go away.


by Cheebs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:55:29 AM EST

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for speaking on my behalf  but no thanks..Once again when there is a lack of substance the retreat to personal attack..Is there not another tactic?


by grego101 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A loss in Pennsylvania by 9% (2.00 / 1)

is NOT a humiliating loss.  A loss of 20% will be a humilating loss.


by puma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:16:36 AM EST

Re: A loss in Pennsylvania by 9% (2.00 / 3)

well, we'll give obama a certificate of attendance if it'll make you feel better.


by campskunk on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah lets do that (none / 0)

for Hillary in the 11 states Obama won in a row.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (2.00 / 1)

You're funny.  Hillary says she'll be in the race through convention, but her choosing not to drop out is a sign that he can't close the deal?

You're funny.


by niksder on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:20:57 AM EST

How stupid does one have to be to believe this? (2.00 / 2)

Do you really think the average reader here is dumb enough to buy this stuff?

1.  After Iowa, a win in New Hampshire, a win that every poll foresaw, would have done it for him.  But he gave that supercilious comment in the debate about Hillary's likeableness, and Hillary gave a strong performance in the final days.  Obama failed to strike her out.  How humiliating.

Do you really expect him to win every contest? After Iowa, New Hampshire (where I live BTW) was the first state where Hillary was able to bring in an army of volunteers from her home state of New York since it was so close by. I was at the polls and experienced this first hand. I think that the Obama campaign in this early phase was not well enough prepared for this. This is also where Hillary unveiled her first dirty tricks, attacking Obama falsely on abortion, and claiming his campaign chair was a federal lobbyist which was not true. All this a couple of days before the primary.

Still, how did New Hampshire turn out? How many delegates did Hillary net? Zero. Nada. A big goose egg. They both took 6 delegates out of New Hampshire.

2.  After a breathtaking run of the bases in February, winning one contest after another, wins in Ohio and Texas would have sealed the deal.  The polls suggested he was on the brink of doing it, and he outspent Hillary hand over fist.  Obama failed to strike her out.  How humiliating

So Sen. Clinton won one. Good on her! The bar here is not that the nominee has to win every state, although Obama has won about twice as many states as Hillary. The bar is winning the most delegates.

3.  For six weeks, Obama demanded Hillary get out of the race.  He plastered the airwaves in Pennsylvania with his visage and message.  He outspent her.  He spent weeks on the ground shaking hands and hold rallies.  And for the third time, he suffered another humiliating loss against Hillary.

Pennsylvania was Hillary's to lose. She couldn't muster the cash she needed to compete there or certainly she would have loved to match Obama's advertising. He closed the gap to where she won by single digits. Had she blown him out there she would have started her effort to convince superdelegates she might have a chance. She failed to seal the deal.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:24:22 AM EST

Hillary lost (none / 0)

11 states in a row.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong. Provide link. (none / 0)

In New Hampshire, he had a state lobbyist working on his campaign. A guy who is registered to lobbying our lame legislature here in New Hampshire, not in Washington. Sen. Clinton tried to make this an issue.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has done really well. (none / 0)

Do you know what happens if a registered federal lobbyist contributes to the campaign? The check is returned. That's easy to check against a list.

People with some other association with a lobbyist are harder to verify and you really can't expect anyone to have a perfect record on spouses, friends, employees, etc. The fact remains that Sen. Clinton will take money from anyone who will write a check while Sen. Obama doesn't take money from registered federal lobbyists, PACs, etc.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He spent a lot of money against (none / 0)

what amounted to almost the whole state Democratic machine which was behind Clinton. Fact remains, she worked her butt off for a blowout in PA and managed single digits. She can't make the case.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Humiliating (2.00 / 3)

What's really humiliating is starting with all the advantages, the money, the machine, the name recognition, huge lead in the polls and then blowing it all and getting schooled by a green behind the ears newcomer.

When the rubber had to meet the road the ready for day one, competent and invincible Hillary turned out to be just so much spin. A media illusion that crumbled as soon as it met the harsh light of reality.

Obama has been written off several times, every time they insist he has to get down in the mud and fight fire with fire but he has calmly stuck to his game plan and has continued to move closer to the nomination week by week. Hillary failed to score the kind of victory she needed in PA. Next up SC and IN. If I were betting money today on the outcome it would not be on Clinton.


by hankg on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:59:15 AM EST

Bingo (2.00 / 2)

Nothing is as mystifying about this whole thing than the notion that Hillary is some underdog fighter.

She had every advantage imaginable at the outset. She has blown every single one. It's a product of a very poorly run campaign and a very poor strategy.

Can we afford those same things in the general election?


by PSUdan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:01:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (none / 0)


by hankg on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:59:48 AM EST

So you're saying Hillary is a bad candidate? (none / 0)

You must be, because otherwise it would not be surprising that Obama hasn't knocked her out of the race yet.
4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.
by ashriver on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:21:52 AM EST

He can't force her to concede. (none / 0)

The fact she stays in even though she's lost, and is causing people to think about destroying the Party for some short lived victory in becoming the nominee and losing the election, is really not his fault. He can't make her act sensibly.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (2.00 / 2)

yeah, obama's ego is bruised easily, and he doesn't do the noble suffering in silence schtick well. getting beaten by a girl is really getting under his skin, and he's committing a lot of unforced errors. he's showing some temperamental deficits which confirm my initial impresssion that he doesn't have the character traits to make a good president.


by campskunk on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:52:52 AM EST

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (none / 0)

By which of Hillary's "new and improved" metrics is she winning again? Most states that start with "P"?
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (none / 0)

The inevitable candidate with massive name recognition, institutional, DNC and ex-presidential support... getting completely out-voted, out-campaigned and out-fundraised. THAT's humiliating.
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST

Re: Obama's Humiliating Losses (none / 0)

Hahahahahahahahahahha. Wow I am laughing so hard I can barely type. The Democratic establishment is behind Obama, ahahahahahhahaahha. That's why Hillary is on the leadership council of the DLC right? It's why Harold Ickes (DNC Rules Committee Chair) is a key figure in her campaign. It's why Hillary to this day holds a lead in support from SuperDelegates aka party insiders. If there has been any swing in support of the DC/Dem establishment, it has only occurred after Hillary started melting down. Once it became clear that the Clinton dynasty was fading, their backroom arm-twisting has become less effective.
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:31:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.