A golden rule in the game of American (or any modern professional)
politics is that if you are behind in a campaign and you’re running out of
time, you “go negative”. Twenty years ago I actually took a class in
professional campaign tactics at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School
of Government. We examined case studies of campaigns in recent years and saw
the very precise metrics that the professionals use to gauge how much you
lose if you throw mud at someone – because you look like a sleazebag –
compared with how much damage you can inflict. The general conclusion is
that even though your negatives can go up, the other guy always does worse.
So fling away.
Now Harvard is a quite marvellous university, but whatever version of this
class it is now teaching needs a little revision in the wake of the past
couple of weeks. Hillary Clinton started throwing some stink bombs at Obama
months ago; then, after New Hampshire, she threw the kitchen sink; and in
the past week, as cable news threw the boiler, she gave it an extra push.
“I wouldn’t have Jeremiah Wright [Obama’s preacher friend who made
embarrassing/incendiary comments] as a pastor,” she told Richard Scaife in
an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which just happens to be in
Pennsylvania, which just happens to be the next primary state.
Clinton wins even more chutzpah points when you recall who Scaife is. He is
the far-right media magnate who made a fortune in the 1990s running the most
irresponsible antiClinton stories in The American Spectator, who broke
Troopergate, who promoted the notion that Clinton had her best friend Vince
Foster murdered and fanned the idea that Bill Clinton was a drug dealer.
Still, Clinton managed to sit down with him and discuss the real enemy:
Obama. Machiavelli would understand, although one has to think he would be a
teensy bit more subtle about it.
At the same time, in the past three weeks Clinton has pounded on about her
foreign policy “experience”. She even said that John McCain, the Republican
nominee, had more capacity to pass what she calls the “commander-in-chief
test” than Obama, her Democratic rival. As for her own experience, she
reminded us, as I’m sure you recall, how she ended the cold war, tore down
the Berlin Wall, brought peace to Northern Ireland, prevented the Bosnian
genocide, negotiated the Kyoto accords, saved Rwandans from mass murder and
transformed the Middle East into a feminist nirvana. Or something like that.
She did all this at the same time as working day and night to provide
healthcare for all Americans. I’d say that Christopher Hitchens’s memorable
1999 book on the Clintons, No One Left To Lie To, clearly needs a new
foreword.
Last week she hilariously had to rein back from claims that she had had to
duck sniper fire, skip a greeting ceremony and resolve a border issue in the
Balkans after arriving in Tuzla, Bosnia. The blogs spotted the whopper first
(of course) and then the networks followed. It was all made up – as
incontrovertible video evidence and eyewitnesses showed – and the border
issue to which she referred was resolved before she even arrived. Although
she had previously told this tall story several times in the past, she first
blamed her one-off gaffe on being “sleep deprived” and then said she
“misspoke”.
“Misspoke” is a classic Clintonism. What does it mean? You can say that you
genuinely forgot, or got muddled up or fibbed. But Clinton cannot ever admit
an actual mistake or confess a deliberate exaggeration. It was the same way
in which Bill Clinton could never actually say that anything he did was ever
“wrong”. At most it was always “inappropriate”.
However, the anti-Obama negatives still work, right? We waited for the
polling. Those of us hoping for Obama to win went into a defensive crouch.
His speech on race was amazing. But you can’t win American elections
sounding like Reinhold Niebuhr. And sure enough, one of the candidates did
see a sudden plummeting in public esteem.
But it wasn’t Obama. Clinton’s personal rating sank to 37% in the NBC/ Wall
Street Journal poll last week. It was her lowest rating since 2001 – just
after her election to the Senate. Did Obama suffer too? Yes, he did. His
positive ratings slipped from 51% to 49%; his negatives rose from 28% to
32%. But in polling terms that’s almost statistical noise. Nationally, by
Friday, Gallup had Obama’s national lead over Clinton at eight points – his
largest ever measured by Gallup.
When you look at critical Pennsylvania, where the next primary takes place on
April 22, recent polls show no serious movement in the past two weeks with
Clinton’s average lead still about 12%-16%. Over the past few months the
direction has all been in Obama’s favour. He is on a six-day campaign tour
there and on Friday he won the endorsement of Bob Casey, the Pennsylvania
senator. Casey matters because he is the son of the former Pennsylvania
governor of the same name, who was one of the most socially conservative and
pro-life white Catholic Democrats in the country. If Clinton’s only hope is
now to appeal to white conservative working-class Democrats, she just lost
one of their heroes.
However, she still has a chance and her tactics have not entirely backfired.
The latest Pew polling, which dug beneath the horse race numbers, found
something fascinating – and troubling for Obama. People always think that
social conservatism and old-fashioned prejudices against blacks are
Republican monopolies. They never have been. Until the 1960s the Democrats
were overwhelmingly the pro-segregation party. And in analysing white
work-ing-class Democrats last week, Pew found the following: “White
Democrats who hold unfavourable views of Obama are much more likely than
those who have favourable opinions of him to say that equal rights for
minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove
of inter-racial dating and are more concerned about the threat that
immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of
white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a
Muslim.”
This is now Clinton’s best hope of beating Obama. The woman who has a great
and admirable record on racial issues, whose husband was described as the
country’s “first black president”, the candidate with the strongest Hispanic
support . . . now needs the votes of older conservative whites, who are
uncomfortable with the idea of a black president and suspicious of Latino
immigration.
Some candidates at this point would feel so divorced from their own core
principles and values that they would see the mathematical
near-impossibility of winning and withdraw. One recalls that great line from
Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, when Thomas More reproaches the man,
Richard Rich, who betrayed him for petty political advancement.
“Why Hillary, it profits a woman nothing to give her soul for the whole world.
But for Pennsylvania?”
Here's what frosts me: Her constant praising of Bush clone John McCain, who is going to keep us bogged down in Iraq, repeatedly and deliberately confuses the Sunni Al-Qaeda with their mortal enemies the Shia in Iran, AND is itching to invade Iran, too, just for grins. This is clearly beyond barmy and goes into war-crimes territory, yet she praises him over Obama.
Think about it:
Would Maggie Thatcher, at her most desperate, have EVER praised a Labourite over a fellow Tory, no matter how much she hated that Tory? No.
Just as no Tory would praise a non-Tory over a fellow Tory, no Republican would praise a Democrat over a fellow Republican: It would seriously damage the party. Mitt Romney, in fact, quit the race when it became obvious that the only thing keeping him viable was Democratic crossover voting in Michigan. Yet Hillary praises John McInsane over Obama. Think about that.
Phoenix Woman, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Jodi, Simon and a few others, this brilliant article by Andrew Sullivan isn't anti-Obama... Perhaps you missed the part where he said, "Those of us hoping for Obama to win..."
I think his analysis is top-notch brilliant! Hillary has changed so many times during her campaign to be elected (at any cost as) the Democratic nominee, that she now gives new definition to the word "CHANGE"!
Elias, Stevenage, UK
An absolutely dreadful article. I wonder when the Media will actually start reporting coherently, as opposed to merely rant about the evils of Clinton.
For Shame.
Anthony, London,
Fantastic. As an overseas American, I have to say, Simon is the first I've heard ,in the UK, to state accurately, his assessment of the American racial divide and the fact that it's not a problelm unique to the Republicans. We are all clear now that the working class Dems have the same problem.
Krista, London, UK
Great article and of course spot on,,,,interesting set of comments. Especially of how bad the US economy is...:)
We are not in a recession and yet some comments seem to state an even worse state of affairs. The unemployment rate is still under 5%. It reminds me of the last days of the older Bush when the liberal (all) media were hammering home the point that the economy was in a terrible shape, though of course it was not. No sooner had Clinton been installed and all the media stopped complaining about the sad state of the economy and yet when Clinton left office the US was in a mild recession,,,,of course unreported. Bush jr took office in a mild recession, had to deal with 9/11 and Catrina!! He has done an excellent job on the economy but of course he can get no credit from media. The average Joe's insight in economy is nil and his views on economy are formed by media entirely.
Good job from the entirely biased medias point of view, but serving the nation? Treason comes to mind.
Andrew, Sacramento, California
D--n! Where can I get more of Andrew Sullivan! I am still gut-laughing, as absurd and sad as the whole tale is!
I maintain that the Clinton's would have gotten away with all of this sly nonsense in the 1990's, but what they didn't include in their calculations was the ubiquitousness and growing sophistication of internet observers. It is not longer possible to cover stories in rags with polite euphemisms, in fear of the scorch-the-earth power of people like the Clintons. The columnists and reporters have stopped doing that, because the blogs demonstrated their willingness and ability to give the straight truth. It's hard to threaten thousands of sites; much harder than just calling Fox News in the morning to tell them Senator Clinton will be very displeased if you run that story....
Edward Hicks, Raleigh, NC
The dirt trowing may be effective for Hillary Clinton but is not useable in the change and coming together campaign basics from Obama. He should in my opinion address Clintons supposedly strong points and dismantle them one by one with facts, and maybe in the process also show the voters what kind of policy and views will guide the USA with Obama as President. Diamonds instead of dirt, Love against Hate and the restoration of basic democratic values. Bless Obama and Bless the USA.
Louis Pascal de Geer, Barretos / SP, Brazil
We are tired of 8 years of a president known for lying, secrecy and vindictiveness. Hillary has a reputation for all of the above. Those who don't like Hillary pretty much hate her. It sticks because it fits with the negative aspects of her reputation.
Bademus, Seattle, WA
I think Clinton will say ANYTHING to get elected. One good example is when she went around telling people Obama is not ready to be commander in Chief but then panders to the African Americans by saying Obama could be her Vice President. She almost has no chance of winning - maybe it is time to tear up again on television?
Steve, Dayton, Ohio
Alice - I don't want any politician 'taking care of the economy'. Do you really think our econcomic problems began when Bush got elected, or that they will miraculously disappear when a 'smart person' is in the white house again? Have you stopped to think about why we owe the world 9 trillion dollars? You put gas in your SUV, or shop at Walmart, and guess what? The oil producers and the chinese take those dollars and invest them in US Treasury Bills. Or why people are jobless? Because there is someone in India, or China who is happy to work for 1/10 what an american worker demands. A lot of the problems you cite are simply growing trends (like globalization) that started long before Bush was elelcted and will continue long after he is gone.
ian , mission viejo, ca, usa
The trouble is, Mr. Sullivan, you've made a brilliant case (as I indeed would only expect of you) for Hillary to win for all the wrong reasons. The best chance that America has of making some sort of progress on the most challenging issue facing its people--race--is to elect Barack Obama into power. You yourself said some weeks ago that Hillary is a polarising figure. How then would she help America to achieve racial unity? Compared to what she might do to further entrench politicla and social divides, Obama is a blessing from the gods.
Simon, London, UK
I enjoyed the article it seemed very thoughtful and balanced. If Clinton supports the notion of super delegates (aka Electoral College) to bail her out then she does not believe in a true democracy. Since the democrats want to eliminate the EC her plan will never work. She is planning on doing to Obama the same thing that (according to democrats) cost them the election in 2000. Dick Morris was right Hillary has to lose (appear to lose) in order to win. Besides Hillary does not have the content of character to do as Reagan did in 1976 and step aside in the face of an electorate that went against him despite what he personally felt. She simply does not have the courage and conviction to do it.
Andrew, Cokeville, Wy
Always a pleasure to read your articles, Andrew. By the way, I have had occasion to watch the full Reverend Wright sermons Fox news got their soundbites from. I find them very telling. Would be nice if the media was placing some interest in them...
Charles, Edinburgh, UK
I am genuinely frightened by voters who seem to believe that the president dictates the health of the economy. I guess the media should take most of the blame here. I seem to remember a lot of discussion in 2004 about how there were millions of jobs lost over a string of monthly declines in jobs. Well that trend reversed markedly and we never heard a peep. Until, of course, the trend reversed again and now the Democrats can't stop talking about lost jobs. Gee, I wonder when the economy is going to rebound? Perhaps when a Democrat is finally elected president?
Terrence, Singapore,
Alice,
Do you really think that Clinton will put the interests of working people above political expediency and self-interest? Really?
andre, San Francisco, ca
To mary, Downington, pa
Since you're a teacher, and I assume, like to keep facts straight, you might want to reconsider your comment that HRC won Texas. As you are aware (I hope) she didn't. Yes, she won the primary vote with the help of Limbaugh Republicans, but she has lost the total vote. I know, you'll say the caucuses don't count. But, they do. Sorry, she lost Texas. And, as WJC said "if she doesn't win both OH and TX she will drop out." Well, the country is waiting....
(In NC where Obama will bury her on May 6!)
PhilM, Hillsborough, NC
As a Pennsylvanian , i can assure you its beats Wales
Dan Bernstein, Philadelphia,
After listening and seeing in action the Clintons for awhile, it's obvious that they are always campaigning, always saying what promotes them. Do you remember that during Bill's presidency, people would say that Hilary was doing what she did as First Lady to position herself to run for President. It was true! "The insolence of office." One could make a case the Clinton's marred the Democratic Party by turning it into a Party aimed only at winning elections than at real social and ethical principle. There is a difference between the two! Maybe, maybe Obama will correct that!
Dennis Sansom, Birmingham, Alabama
Re: Jacksmith's rant.
I must be an Idiot!
What 35 Years of experience? Hillary has been a mere hanger-on in the corridors of power until she was elected to the senate 8 years ago.
She is, however, a very well qualified political manipulator, which is all that 35 years taught her.
As for Obama's experience, he already has more than Abraham Lincoln had when he was elected. What both share is vision, not a resume.
Oh, and I am a Republican as well, even though I support Obama over McCain (and McCain over Hillary). Kerry was the first time I voted for a Democrat in 35 years of voting. I only wish I could have voted for Obama in the primary, but my state did not allow changes in registration. So I voted for McCain, which proves I must be an idiot.
Only idiots, of course, seriously think that they can actually change anything. So I am proud to be an idiot. Shure beats being a redneck!
(see comic Jeff Foxworthy's routine 'you might be a redneck if...')
Ben Hoff, New Jersey, USA
As one of the American columnists wrote, when the President takes tuition, the people pay. Indeed they are paying dearly for Bush misadventure in Iraq. The problem is that when a US President takes tuition, the people the world over pay, thanks to the influence the strong (or now not too strong) US economy.
Obama is an amazing speaker, but he is still not vetted enough. And currently, one cannot take a chance. We hope the American people make a considered choice for the good of the world and that choice should infuse more life into US economy, reduce dependence on oil worldwide drasticallym, settle Iraq and Palestine and above all make American an admired and not hated world citizen.
ksr menon, dubai uae
ksr menon, dubai , uae
Brilliant article!! You know the Clintons so well. The racist rednecks , who Hillary made fun of in Arkansas are now her voters. Very interesting.
Cher, Nashville, TN
This 60 something white female has decided that Hillary would be the wrong female to be our first. Being first comes with responsibility so those that follow have had a good foundation established. Hillary with her 'tales' (or fabrications) and 'my way or the highway' approach to managing would fail, in my opinion.
Also, it is telling when a campaign is not paying their bills....just like the oval office....the buck stops at the desk of the candidate and Hillary is failing the economic test miserably.
Mary from TN, Maryville, usa/TN
Hillary Clinton is the changemaker that Barack Obama can only dream about! By the way, if the tables were turned, would you be calling on Barack to pull out? If you were in a race, just inches behind your competitor would you stop because some fool on the sideline was yelling, "you're losing, I'm tired and want to go home, let's end this race." I really think that anybody who calls on anybody to quit this race at this point should go and live in a non-democracy for a while. You certainly need some point of reference because you are "Anti-American" and "Anti-democratic". Let all the people of this country have their voices heard or we will never, ever regain our reputation anywhere in the world again. Witnessing the cowardly remarks made against Hillary at this point makes me understand the contempt that Republicans have for liberal democrats. Really, if you think this spirited election, the sign of a true democracy, is bad for the democratic party, then we have already lost the GE.
Stacey Kiepler, Philadelphia, USA
Enough of the Kennedys;the Clintons;The Bushes!
America should turn its back on the dynastic presidency.It has not been very good for America anyway.
Do we really want to go back to divisive,nasty,vengeful politics that marked the Clinton era?Do we want to have all the Clinton scandals resucitated and brought back into our lives.The Clintons have been gone for 8 years.America has moved on,let's not go back to those times.They were not good times and should remain buried in the past.
Obama and McCain represent a new choice.Grab the opportunity.
C.Elder, Paris, France
Hillary might as well just give up she's doomed.
Ro, Cheltenham,
Talk about your chickens coming home to roost!!! -- --
The former Young Republican herself is now the darling of the arch-Right! Must feel good for her to get those comfortable old shoes back on again.
A real Manchurian Candidate.
Bob, Atlantic,
Spot on Andrew! Good job pointing out that going negative does not always help. I think that if you are the one with higher negatives to begin with it's a problem. I also think that if credibility is an issue going negative tends to cut against the one that starts it if their own mendacity is an issue.
Hillary needs to go. I'm interested to see just how hated she is willing to become. At present she seems to be on the same trajectory as Joe Lieberman and that's on the way out of the Democratic party. I think she'd run Independent if she thought she could get away with it. I can only hope she'll see reason but for all the reasons you pointed out she may just be capable of anything. Thank heavens she'll never be president!
James Thomas, Denver, CO,
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
jacksmith, Dallas, US
I remain convinced that I witnessed the Jerimiah Wright story be launched after a noisy Geraldine Ferraro day on Politico and other blog comment boards. I am convinced that this was cooked up by James Carville, including the Geraldine Ferraro self-immolation.
I base this on my memories of Carville's modus operandi in Bill's administration, and my Instincts immediately told me it was him, and lo and behold, after it died down a bit, who should pop up in the campaign narrative. It was him, I know it in my heart.
BWoodson, Duluth, Mn
A friend of mine who was at high school with Hilary over 40 years ago said that even then she was odd. There was nothing she wouldn't do to get ahead - and now she's within rea ch of the top job. Better you ask her to commit suicide than to give up her life-long ambition. She would have dumped Bill years ago for the humiliation he heaped on her, but there was the bigger prize in her sights - the presidency of the USA. If she must, she would destroy the Democratic Party and give McCain a walkover to the White House. Perhaps Obama should stand aside? Whether many of his supporters would turn out for Hilary seems unlikely. A betting man or woman would say she can't win.
protogodzilla, London, England
Alice says the Clinton legacy is the economy. Clinton's legacy was to let Greenspan run the economy and de-regulate Wall Street, which as Obama has correctly identified, is the cause of the present housing and financial crisis.
Clinton's other legacy on the world stage was to so ignore the provocations of al Qaeda on US interests, that the 9/11 incident was planned while he was President.
Did America provoke Islam to attack her. No. But if you believe it did, and many in the US do believe that, it was Clinton that must have been the provocateur, not Bush, who everyone has blamed.
Clinton happened to preside over a time of relentless world economic growth that affected practically every nation in the world where there was no war happening.
Did that take skill or just good luck?
Stephen Rothbart, Prague, Czech Republic
i love this article!! however, i continue to believe obama wins. he's different from the rest and i think that deserves a chance.
patsy, accra, ghana
Hillary mis spoke on something she has laid claim to before. The day after being proud to sit down with Obame she went public in reviling him. She has implied that ,whatever , whoever, it must be a democrat in the White House. Now apparently even McCain is a better choice than Obama. Her appling delusions and personal ambition to be someone at any cost. are laid bare and still there are Democrats that support her. I am nonplussed,flabbergasted and in despair.
alan burden, mijas pueblo, España
A completely biased article. Have some decency to find a few positives of Hillary Clinton as well. Obama has also campaigned negatively-he just sugarcoats his words and the newsmedia fall flat!
Hey! before you jump into conclusion and say I am a diehard Clinton supporter, I am not .Iam also not an American and therefore cannot vote but I am interested, as many others, about the elections in the most powerful country.
Rakesh Sumit, London, UK
The trouble is, Mr. Sullivan, you've made a brilliant case (as indeed I would only expect of you) for Hillary to win for all the wrong reasons. The best chance that America has of making some sort of progress on the most challenging issue facing its people--race--is to elect Barack Obama into power. You yourself some weeks ago that Hillary is a polarising figure. How then would she help America to achieve racial unity? Compared to what she might do to further entrench politicla and social divides, Obama is a blessing from the gods.
Simon, London, UK
Andrew, congratulations -- fine article!
MDX552, San Francisco, CA
There seems to be some kind of delusion betwwen the Obama supporters that Hillary went negative on Obama while Obama and his people were the gentlemen. Anyone who has been following the primaries knows quite well that the Obama surrogates have been going negative on Hillary for months now. Not just negative, nasty negative. Somehow Mr. Sullivan thinks that articles like his do not constitute negative campaigning against Hillary.
George, NY, NY
Although, we don't share the same party affiliation, Andrew....I must say you have touched upon what I consider the inner intricacies of the Clinton psyche: their win-at-any-cost mentality. Brilliant, piece! Keep up the good work!!!
Patricia , Salem, VA
As ever, the first word in "hillarious" is Hillary.
P. Naumann, tacoma, wa
Steve you are the one who is WRONG!! From Obama's own website, you will notice the word REFORM: "Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them."
Jodi, St. Joseph, MO
I am a 50 year old Democratic voter. I was thrilled by the 1990s economy and most of the policies. I like both of the Clintons. What I question is this end run for a third Clinton term. We have term limits in place for a reason.
The United States should not go down the path of electing the spouses of term-limited former presidents, regardless of performance or party. It is a very bad precedent to set. Imagine a White House with a Mrs. Bush or a Mrs. Reagan! Do you remember Imelda Marcos and Eva Peron? Can you say "banana republic"?
For this reason, rather than being a feather in the cap of women, a Clinton presidency demeans the feminist movement by suggesting that a female cannot obtain the office without having initially been a First Lady.
Mrs. Clinton, please do what is right for the country and step aside. We will all be better off, historically speaking, now and in the long run.
Christopher Turner, Carbondale, Illinois,
Mary, you're wrong. Obama also wants to end NCLB. The prime difference between them on NCLB is that Mrs. Clinton voted for NCLB, along with other examples of support. I say this with all due respect. But I had to catch you on that. Please do your research first.
steve, mission viejo, ca
Since most of the insiders(politicians etc. including Clinton's peope) in DC apparently knew since 2007 about Rev Wrigt why do you think she waited until so late to let the political right bring this all out in the open. Don;t you think she would have benefited far earlier in her campaign if she had played the Wright tapes say before Iowa?
I am also sooooo tired of the you must be a racist or not educated if you are for Hillary. I have my masters plus and teach in a mixed population school. I love all my students and would be sad if NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND still stays. Hillary CLinton is the only one who wants to end NCLB and has said it is time for teachers to stop testing and start teaching again. BTW I agree with Alice about the economy. It is so sad as democrats we can not praise Bill's fiduciary prowess because it would make Hillary look too good.
ALso interesting if PA, Ohio and Tx had come before SuperTuesday the press would have had to hand Obama his walking papers.
mary, Downingtown, pa
I supported the Clinton's by voting for Bill twice and sticking with them as they went through all they went through due to their own actions. Now, it's time they did something for US and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY! I'm a 40 year Democrat voter. Time to GET OUT HILLARY! You're being incredibly SELFISH!
Danny, Nashville, TN
Very good article.
QUESTIONS
1. Will any journalist take the time to point out the hypocriscy of counting the popular vote and railing against disenfranchising fl and mi?? Counting popular vote disenfranchises the caucuas states!!!
We need an entire article to lay this out!!!
Rob, FOUNTAIN HILLS,
Great article, non bias. Andrew the truth is that the economy is not good. People are losing their jobs, their investments, their retirement, their homes, bankrupt from high medical bills, millions without health insurance, business are slowing down, and millions face a jobless future. Pennsylvania is not exception, because the whole country owes the world nine trillion dollars. The Clinton legacy is the economy, they know how to give buying power to the people. We need Mrs. Clinton like immeatedly, to take care of the economy, she is loved, admired and respected by millions, most of the politicians who knows her say she is very smart and hard worker. That is why she is still running strong. And I hope she becomes the President so we get on with our business knowing someone is taking care of this country.
alice newton, lebanon, mo
as a (american) humorist, i think i speak for a lot of us who simply enjoy waiting to see, "just how low will she go?" she relentlessly provides me and everyone else with limitless material.
tommy jonq, carbondale, usa