Here are just some of the editorials running in today’s various newspapers. From the perspective of a growing number of pundits, the Clinton campaign is not only forestalling the inevitable but also hurting her party’s chances in the fall.
The LA Times laments:
“Instead, despite a grueling and often bitter campaign, Clinton’s victory Tuesday left in play the same questions that remained seven weeks ago after her 10-point victory in Ohio, another large and politically important industrial state.
What does it portend for the fall campaign that Obama is not winning working-class whites, a crucial swing voting bloc, in the Democratic primaries? Or that he has lost most of the biggest states to Clinton?”
Read the full article here.
Clinton’s “hometown” newspaper, the New York Times, suggested she took “The Low Road to Victory,” writing of her negative tactics:
“Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.”
Read their full assessment here.
Finally, the harshest critiques of her continued campaign call on her to quit altogether. In “It’s Over…But It’s Not Finished” [accessible here] the Philadelphia Daily News writes:
“The race for the Democratic nomination goes on, even though Clinton still has no realistic chance to catch Barack Obama in the popular vote or in elected delegates. It’s a reality her campaign can’t spin away, but she’ll keep trying. And that’s not good.
So it’s not over, but it ought to be. “
4 thoughts on “Hillary Wins Big and Should Drop Out?”
Thanks for posting this. I read the LA Times today and was amazed. Did we watch the same thing? More and more editorials/blogs are making the analogy between McGovern and Obama. I absolutely see that. But so far that has not hit the mainstream media. They need to wake up. The DNC needs to wake up. I don’t get why they hate the Clintons so much given that Bill Clinton gave them 8 great years that the Republicans tried hard to screw up and then Al Gore would have had the presidency but for a Supreme Court coup. So really if the SC had not messed with the results the Clinton legacy would have been at least 12 years of a Democratic white house if not more. So I am baffled.
I agree that ultimately her ten point win did nothing but stall the same conversation we’ve been having until the next primary, when Obama will pick up enough delegates (and probably enough popular votes) to negate whatever small advances she gained in Penn.
Ten points is big in theory, but she’s behind enough now that the sixteen delegates or so she’ll pick up is not even near close enough to change the direction of the race. All she did was move out of check, she didn’t get to safety and certainly can’t go on the offensive.
I think she has the right to stay in the race as long as she wants. But realistically she’s only holding up an inevitable nomination. That’s not hatred. It’s reality.
Oh yeah! A long race is OK, but a long nasty race isn’t.
It is all propaganda and “we the people” do not get to select candidates anyway. Even with a popular vote, the Delegates choose the president.
We are only allowd to choose from the choices we are given. Anyone who comes in with new ideas and integrity get’s pushed away by the media.
The rockafellers said it only takes 3 things to become President. Money, Money and more money.
Buy enough coverage and you can win.