Why She's Losing

When the results from the primaries in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC come in tonight, Barack Obama may be ahead of Hillary Clinton, in both raw votes and the delegate count. We already know that she's losing the fundraising race. And yesterday, a major polling organization released numbers suggesting she's losing her core constituency---women---as they flock to Obama.

By way of explaining why she's on the downward slide, a lot of people have invoked the 1992 and 1996 examples: that George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were decent candidates, but ANYBODY running against that supernova, Bill Clinton, was going to lose. The same can be said for 1960: Richard Nixon was an extremely formidable (and much better prepared) candidate, but anybody running against JFK was going to pale in comparison.

Now we have a new supernova in Obama. Anybody running against him looks weak and boring. And poor Hillary thought this was her year.

But there's something else at work here: Hillary is losing because she's being Hillary.

Two recent episodes illustrate:

A few days ago, when MSNBC's David Shuster suggested the Clintons were "pimping out" Chelsea by having her make phone calls to and have breakfasts with superdelegates to lobby them to vote for mom, mom did her best "outrage" act. She said she was glad to see NBC suspend Shuster, and then went on to insist that she's "a mom first, a candidate second." Sure.

But even if you give her the benefit of the doubt and concede she was showing genuine maternal protectiveness, Hillary lost the battle---because she kept pressing it. She's still out there saying she doesn't believe a mere suspension of Shuster is enough and that NBC has shown a "troubling pattern" of being against her.

I don't remember Margaret Thatcher ever whining like that, do you?

Even Barbara Walters said on The View yesterday that Shuster apologized, and now it's time to drop it. But drop it, Hillary will not----because she's incapable of knowing when to stop pressing her luck.

The second example happened today. Last week, I posted a blog questioning where the Clintons were getting their money because they aren't forced to disclose what Bill is doing to earn $3 million, even $20 million, paychecks. Obama then picked up the theme and asked that the Clintons release their tax returns.

Hillary said she would not, unless and until she was the Democratic nominee. She reiterated that stand this morning.

In other words: Stick it, suckers. I'm rich now, and I don't have to tell you how we're making our dough unless you wake up and make me the nominee.

This is why she is losing. Yes, Obama is dynamite. But Hillary is shooting herself in the foot by resurrecting the old Clinton stonewalling, the whining, the pushing things one step too far. Voters have had enough of all that, and she keeps reminding them that, in fact, she hasn't changed at all.

This is who she is. The girl can't help it.

Comments

[PelaLusa]

On his February 11th, 2008 talk show, Dennis Miller commented that he's convinced the fix is in for Obama from the Clintons. He alleged that the "Super Delegates" are controlled by the party and thus by the Clintons. He went on to say that unless Obama is wildly successful over the coming weeks that he can never "beat the system". Time will tell if Miller is correct.

Robert W.
Vancouver, BC

[Ree]

Monica,

Hopefully soon Imus is going to be up to cruising speed, he is expanding... Imus: we are going to be in your house!! Just one more cow baby!

http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com/2008/02/hope-for-more-imus-radio-show-on-tv-ny.html

[FK]

"There are SNAKES, on the PLANE, and they're BITING, and they're SCARING people." -- Dave Coyne, a/k/a DCLugi, as Jack Nicholson auditioning for "Snakes on a Plane".

[SteveOk]

Monica, I hope you are feeling better. I'm sending prayers and warm thoughts your way. Let me be first to wish you a happy Valentines Day!

One other reason she is losing is Bill Clinton. I think he really damaged her campaign by being himself also. He didn't do anything without her approval though so she is not a victim. Bill has been a disgrace in this campaign.

[SteveOk]

I listened to the McCain acceptance speech tonight after his Primary wins and I must say it was one of the most boring speeches I've heard in a long time. The Democrats got what they wanted from the Republican Primaries: another Bob Dole (1996) campaign. McCain's speech was right after Obama gave his speech and it was no contest. McCain makes Bob Dole look exciting. The only way McCain has a chance is to carry around an IV of viagra.

[gringoman]

FredK2929,

Speaking of coherence and logical syntax, you self-identify as an Ivy Leaguer (Correct me if I misrepresent you.)

Now I know you have progressive reading difficulties with me, so let's take this nice and easy. As part of your insult jihad against Monica, calling her analyses "garbage" etc, you imply that you are at least her intellectual equal, if not superior. (Is this coherent enough for you, or should I go back and break it down for you in strictly monosyllables? Seriously, we can do progressive Tom and Jerry shtick if you feel more comfortable with sentences limited to five or six words. I'm sure that Monica, like a civilized hostess, wants even the progressive mind to feel relaxed here.)

Now here we come to the point. Have you followed so far? You know what a "point" is,right? If this is still too much for you, too incoherent, hold on. I'll give you an example of a "point." It should be clear enough even for Comedy Central laughers. Here it is:

Since you, by means of your prog insult jihad against Monica, are clearly asserting either that (1) you are intellectually equal to her or (2) you are intellectually superior to her (and don't be shy about telling us which you think you are), should we assume that you are not only Ivy League (like Monica)but also Ph.D Ivy League (like Monica?)

Okay, I know that was probably unfair. A long compound sentence that would be banned from the kind of shows you watch. Here's the English-as-a-second language version:

Monica's got a Ph.D from Columbia University. What do you have,Fred, and would you mind naming the, uh, institution?

PS. You do have another option, Fred. You can plead, "This is too incoherent, gringoman. Why don't you write what I can understand?"

[gringoman]

Monica,

(While sending special vibrations for recovery---feel them tingling all over).......

These are grim days for Clintophiliacs. Mrs. Clinton, their "inevitable," goes down to three more primary defeats by increasingly "momentous" Barack Obama, the glib but poised Charisma Boy who transcends race while having a white mama, Asian stepfathers and being packaged blatantly as "black" due to Democratic neo-plantation obligations and his being sired by a bigamist from Kenya who never raised and barely knew him.

This is depressing enough for Mrs. Clinton's Angry White Woman who wants to drop the Estrogen Bomb, feeling that today's USA is still not sufficiently feminized.

But what must Sensitive White Man be feeling, who arguably has given more of his biological self to getting her back into the White House a third time?

Is the Democrats' once mighty Clinton Wermacht finally on life support, the Cagey Couple forced to inject millions of its own dollar-denominated lucre amassed on the world stage after it learned the core techniques down in steamy Arkansas?

Are next month's Texas/Ohio primaries really and truly do-or-die time for "the inevitable"?

In the end, will the Democrats' Super delegates, the macher donkeys, really defy their faithful neo-plantation and snatch victory from the jaws of Obama?

Will they disillusion the enchanted campus and all the other whites who are excited and inspired by--- even grateful for---a "black" man who they are confident would never mug them?

Or is the bad hand-writing on the wall? Do the Clintonistas now wake up and smell the panic?

Is Hillary Clinton, a peculiar model of inter-racial marriage, wife of the first two-timing black President, going down? Is she going down "inevitably"?

Has she become, in effect, a poster girl for the suggestion by gringoVision months ago, showing Mr. and Mrs. Slick, with the caption:

HAD ENOUGH?

In fact, is she now reaping the reward due her for sticking to that guy like decades of Epoxy glue? Is she now going down faster than Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office?

[FK]

Gringoman --

Congratulations on actually writing something coherent.

I'm not going to go so far as to identify my degree and where I got it from here because it will provide too much information to enable the nuts on this blog to find out who I am and possibly go after me the way they used to go after Jack. They got really personal, and constantly gave links to Jack's web site and youtube videos. I'm not interested in exposing myself to that.

I don't think I've gone so far as to say that I am some kind of intellectual. I have suggested that Monica is not, and I have gone so far as to say that she is not qualified to offer political analysis. She's more like a toddler who has been given the opportunity to speak into a microphone. I'm sure all of have seen that, and have experienced the childish giggles and silly jokes that a child loves to hear through the speakers. It's not conducive to sound political discourse.

Fortunately, Monica is not popular enough to be too big a problem. I'm more concerned about the more effective pundits like Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter.

So I'm not taking you up on your invitation to lay out my resume here, but rest assured that my degree is from an institution as prestigious as Columbia, and it's a graduate level degree. That doesn't make me an intellectual. And it doesn't make Monica one.

She's still a cute little girl with a microphone though.

[M/M]

Speaking of Ann Coulter, her latest column is hysterical . And she shares my fine appreciation of Patrick J. Buchanan too.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

(And I'll be listening to Laura's show on WABC later this evening.)

[Jack Flynn]

My! Gringoman spoke his first words today. He wins the golden rattle in my opinion. I'm speechl. . .

[Jack Flynn]

My guess is, ole Gringo-Belly may not quite be at the Immanuel Kant level, but he could give James Joyce a short run to the ice cream stand. Et Tu Wally? E.E. Cummings comes to mind and Robert Creeley who talked about
"The day
I gave up loving
and lived with her."
Why aren't there more female playwrights?
There's your answer.
Same goes for Hillary in some men's minds.

As far as the jihad against Monica goes, doesn't a jihad require a rather large contingent?