Why bother voting? Coronate Clinton now

Hillary Clinton's state poll numbers are heading south for the winter. Barack Obama reaped a publicity, fundraising, volunteer and poll bonanza over the weekend with his Oprah offensive. There are reports of internal Clinton staff dissension. The Republicans didn't even mention her in their debate yesterday.

One of her chief financial bundlers has been indicted. She continues stonewalling over release of her first lady papers which would -- or perhaps would not -- support her claim of sufficient experience to become chief executive. Two Iowa staffers got canned for forwarding e-mails alleging Obama is Muslim. She got caught planting questions at a public forum.

With precise Clintonian calculation, her New Hampshire co-chair went blabbing about Obama's past drug use yesterday, saying he feared Republicans would make it an election issue next year but actually doing that himself right now. Gee, must have been a slip of the tongue.

Her popular husband keeps talking about himself on the campaign trail and stepping all over her campaign's messages and making corrections that dominate another day's news and then claiming, typically, that the press misconstrued what he said. After an emergency planning meeting in Chicago, she's pumping more staff into Iowa, where Obama is so well organized, and even took her mother there on the campaign trail.

All the while reminding us of the soapy, sloppy diversions from the past Clinton years that she proposes to bring back. 

Besides getting the endorsement of that faded songstress, the good news for Hillary Clinton these days is her negative rankings are steady -- very high but steady.

And yet, according to a revealing Times story today by Peter Nicholas with contributions from Dan Morain, the candidate told a private crowd in a closed fundraiser at a Sacramento restaurant the other night that it's only a matter of time until she wins the nomination.

The race, she told her audience on an audio recording obtained by The Times, "is all going to be over by Feb. 5." She may be behind now in Iowa or even, and even in New Hampshire instead of way ahead ...

... and ahead in South Carolina, though maybe slipping some after the Oprah onslaught. But Clinton already has her eyes on California. She told the crowd, which reportedly dumped another $300,000 into her coffers, that she was really going to need the state's support after she won the nomination.

"The state is critical," she said, "not only to my victory for the nomination, but for the general election." So she still thinks she's the inevitable victor.

California primary voters go to the polls that crucial Tuesday, Feb. 5, along with voters in 21 other states. But Clinton pointed out that absentee ballots start going out tomorrow and she told her Sacramento donors that "more people will have voted absentee by the middle of January than will have voted in New Hampshire, Iowa and a lot of other places combined."

According to people who've attended both her forums and Obama's rallies, hers are just that, soporific forums. His, as anyone could see last weekend on C-SPAN, are energized rallies with screams and hundreds of cellphone flashes going off to capture the moment. She's so controlled, she does not talk to the press. Obama does regularly. And the coverage reflects that accessibility.

As late as it seems after all these months of campaigning, it's still early. Polls show upwards of half the Democrats remain undecided. But if she loses Iowa or wins only narrowly, how long can Clinton keep talking inevitability? Will she have to become the second Clinton comeback kid?

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Andrew M. Thinks He Can Divine the Contents of Hillary's Mind, How Special]

I don't see how saying the race will be over by Feb 5th is stating that she thinks winning the democratic nomination is inevitable. If anything, she is just stating the obvious. There is no way she could lose Iowa, NH, CA, etc and still win. We will know where she stands by that day. Stop putting words she obviously did not say in her mouth.

Also, the comparisons of Hillary & Obama's rallies is irrelevant. If people chose their presidential candidate by who got amped up the most Howard Dean would have been the Democratic candidate the last time around. You remember how that went don't you?

It is an unfortunate reality, but all the young people in the world aren't going to win this election. We saw it last cycle when the stakes couldn't be any higher. Lots of celebrities shouted vote or die and none of the young people voted. In the end (like always) being able to throw a good party isn't going to get you into the White House.

[papou]

"Why bother voting? Coronate Clinton now" - now at last a LAT "reporter" has an article that does not smear a Clinton - well almost except for tone and mis-representing the facts. The 2/5 primary will indeed end much discussion - but you can't note that the Cal primary is important lest an Obama fan gets upset at the LA Times.

[Julia, Pasadena, CA]

Clinton is looking towards California a little too late. Obama has been organizing in California since February and has thousands of volunteers out canvassing and phone banking. The Clinton campaign is easily 8 months behind.

See for yourself. Do an event search on a California zipcode (try 90210) on the Obama and Clinton websites and see the difference in organization.

[California Voter]

Once again, the arrogance of the Hillary rears its ugly head. Republicans will rejoice if she is nominated-- you can stick a fork in the Democrats' hope to re-take the White House if that happens. (Notice the use of the word "if", Hillary.)

[Bob]

Yes, it will probably be over Feb 5th -- over for HRC. The trends are huge and the tide is turning. Obama is moving up and Hillary is sinking fast. The Hillary campaign is in serious turmoil while the Obama camp is upbeat, excited and motivated. Obama is riding a huge wave of optimism and confidence. I cannot see how Hillary can stop him now. It is amazing this young "rookie" politician is beating the infamous Clinton political machine at its own game. This in of itself validates that Obama can take on the GOP in the general election and win.

[Marc]

To paraphrase von Clausewitz - "Politics is war by other means". Hillary Clinton seems to be a good warrior, nice to know in case of emergencies. Unfortunately Barack Obama, a truly decent man but naive, is not quite as versed in the art. He has made an impossible promise on Iraq, however well intentioned. Also he is vocally anti special interests but now has, probably unwittingly, aligned himself with Oprah Winfrey, the voice of political correctness over many years and America's no. 1 special interest incarnate. Hillary struggles to be spontaneous and warm like 2 other Arkansas fellows - call it "Huckabillity". She should rather look towards other models like Margaret Thatcher or Eleanor Roosevelt.

[Wallace]

In trying to act presidential and above it all, she acts anything but. At least when her husband Mr. Clinton drooled over the job of becoming U.S. president, he enjoyed it and inspired those around him. Getting the nation focused and enthused is kind of part of the job. She ain't doing it.

Seeing Mrs. Clinton at her so-called rallies is like being dragged to yet another school assembly. Just what we need leading the free world: Another crabby substitute teacher who acts like she knows everything. We know better.

And to "Andrew M. Thinks He Can Divine the Contents of Hillary's Mind, How Special".

Is that your birth name or married name? We can't tell.

[Arlene]

You can't win the White House by just winning California. Californians must consider what more conservative states think of candidates and Clinton could do real damage to our majorities in Congress because people in other states really do despise her. She will bring out a united front of Republicans to vote against her which will make it hard for Democrats in those states to be elected or re-elected to Congress. And I have not heard yet a convincing argument for how she will overcome this real problem. She is not the one we need.

[Michael Snyder]

Hillary a Queen? She'd give all the Queens in West Hollywood a bad name.
Actually I've changed my voter registration to "Democrat" just so I can vote against Hillary in the upcoming primary. Obama or Edwards, it doesn't matter so long as it's not Hillary. After the primary I'll change back to Independent.

[John Barlett]

Hillary's "assumptive close" technique won't help her even if she does get the nomination, which is by no means an inevitability.

In fact, her unwillingness to allow access to the press in open forum will eventually erode whatever support she may have be able to muster when Obama and his cadre of A-List celebs (Geffen, Clooney, etc.) get down to the nitty gritty and go for the spotlight during the CA primary cycle.

So go ahead, Hillary...keep that "I'm the Nominee" train on track......because we can't wait to see you lgo down in flames in '08!

John Barlett
Palm Beach, FL

[Once a Goldwater Girl Always a Goldwater Girl?]

No. Still a Goldwater Girl, [1] Soon a Dewey Disappointment [2]

So keep the Rove/Atwater Playbook coming. Osama Obama. Barry the Cokehead. Barack the Kindergarten Liar.

After all, what worked for Bush, will surely work for HIll? Won't it?

[1] white, spoiled, entitled;

[2] shocked, divisive, decisively defeated.

[Susan Nunes]

It isn't Obama who is "well organized" in Iowa; it's Edwards.

But why spoil a good media story with the truth?

(Not mentioning him in this particular item doesn't contradict you.)

[R.J. Deakins]

I agree with Hillary, and if George Bush were a true patriot, he would resign today, take his incompetent staff with him, and allow Hillary to move into the White House tomorrow; it is inevitable.

[john Smart]

I am fed up with the press bashing Hillary Clinton and giving Obama what amounts to a free ride. Why DON'T you look into his drug use? Why is it so bad to assume that the GOP would use it against him in a general election?

Most articles about Obama read like a teen magazine from the 60's writing about Bobby Sherman.

Clinton encourages supporters about the importance of California and it somehow becomes an attack on her with the word "coronation" in the headline. The relentless anti-Clinton bias of most press is offensive. Turning every move Clinton makes into a negative story serves no one, and unless the press starts really looking at Obama now, not after the GOP starts in on him, Democrats may wake up on Feb 7th with a bad case of buyer's remorse.

[John in CLT]

Yes, please California coronate HillBillary now. Save the rest of us in the country from her endless Marxist universal health care stump speeches for at least a couple of months anyway. As an additional bonus, we will no longer have to listen to our Carolina's native son Johnny "Two Americas" Edwards as well. He can go back into retirement at his mansion and continue on with his $500.00 blow dried hair cuts.

[bauersox]

There's no such word as "coronate."

The correct word would have been "crown."

[Pettyfogger]

I'm a lot less concerned with Obama's blow than I am with Mrs. Clinton's habit of not doing her homework when it comes to matters related to the American Public and not herself and her career track.

In 1993, through a fatal combination of political naivete, arrogance and lack of preparation, she singlehandedly sank universal health care for Americans for the next thirty years.

And in 2003, she voted for Mr. Bush's war without even having read (she now belatedly admits) the ninety-page intelligence package specifically drafted for all senators. She now lamely claims that she was "briefed by a staffer" on the report. Some homework.

Lastly, Mrs. Clinton's "Don't Hit Me, I'm a Girl" rant when the going rough (read: having to go off script at rallies with a real question, rather than the planted creampuffs she likes to field), echoed by her reinvented feminist husband, doesn't bode well for her ability to handle the next world crisis.

Do we really want another lazy, incurious person occupying the White House?

[Jade7243]

Hillary believes that "it will be her." The number of people who believe that along with her is shrinking steadily.

The Clintons are past their prime. We've already crossed the bridge to the 21st century and do not need to go back, hook up with another Clinton and cross it again. It is time to move on. The Clintons need to be thanked for their service 1992 -2001 and sent back to their respective homes: his in Chappaqua, Hers in DC.

We want change, not "change agents." We want authenticity, not someone who "appears" authentic. We want unity, we're tired of fighting Republicans and the "vast right wing conspiracy" that the Clintons brought with them to Washington in 1993.

We don't want Hillary Clinton.

[Henry CA]

She will win CA because we love Clinton here and it is a big help for the nominee.

[Rich Fletcher]

Democrats....Do you think Hillary will be able to unite this country? A simple yes or no (No, I'm not throwing a tantrum via Thompson) will work...If you can be inellectually honest for once, that would be nice...

[Sheldon]

Hillary Clinton will probably wrap up the nomination by February 5, not because she deserves to win or is the most qualified candidate (she assuredly is not) but because American politics has degenerated into a publicity circus and reality game show. In that context, the Clinton political machine has too much of an advantage, as detailed in my book (http://www.hillary-clinton-nude.com). With all due respect to Barack Obama, he is a neophyte when it comes to political ruthlessness, while Hillary Rodham Clinton is a practiced veteran.

[Joseph]

To quote you, Andrew

"Soporific.....inevitability" versus "energized.......accessibilty."

Reminds me of War Admiral versus Seabiscuit.

[chris]

your article is deceptive. you know it and thats all I have to say.

[michael]

This is why i don't like reading or watching "news" anymore.

So biased, so bitter. And the answer is provided toward the end "hillary doesn't talk to the press".....what a baby.

This article is NOT news.

I guess we should call them "opinionpapers" since "newspapers" no longer really exist.

(Not here. This isn't a newspaper. Glad you're reading it anyway.)

[Joseph]

Hillary is just another slick talking used car salesperson wearing threadbare, shiny pants but no undergarments.

Hillary authored book It Takes a Village. What does she know about that subject when she sure didn't help the village of Washington, D.C. improve its miserable public school system? Chelsea went to private schools. Why didn't Hillary enroll Chelsea in a public school and then work as First Mother through the PTA to improve the quality of the school system? She might have obtained real credentials to qualify her as a transformative leader.

This book and her abdication of responsibility to improve the schools of the village in which she resided for 8 years is proof positive she is a Five Star hyprocrite just chomping at the bit to take over control of Uncle Sam's plantation. You loyal serfs shouldn't expect things to improve for you. Just take a good look at D.C. schools' improvement while she was a resident there. Washington, D.C. is the Village of the Federal Government.

As First Lady of that village, why didn't she work hard during her entire residency there to make a lasting improvement in the school system?

I hope Barack Obama asks her that question in a debate.

Hillary's candidacy and her book deserve to be thrown into the dustbin of history.

I rest my case.

P.S. to strengthen my earlier analysis that the election of 1860 foreshadows the election of 2008 (see thread http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=30&threadid=227812 ), it would be stunning if Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois is nominated by the Democrats to oppose Ron Paul. In 1860, Abe Lincoln defeated Stephen Douglas, a Senator from Illinois. It would also be fitting that an African American be the challenger against Honest Ron, a man of the same integrity to principles as Honest Abe. That would make for one exciting campaign that would galvanize the attention of the entire electorate.

Republicans I dare you to nominate Ron Paul, likewise I dare Democrats to nominate Barack Obama. Such a matchup would electrify the country like the match race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral on November 1, 1938, almost 70 years ago to the day of the election, Nov.4.

Go ahead, just do it! I dare both parties.

[vy]

I agree with you that Hillary Clinton is getting raw treatment by the media. Several friends have have tried to post supportive comments of Hillary Clinton in the comments section of the New York Times as well as saying that drug use is basically wrong, and the New York Times has refused to print the comments. I think the way the media is behaving unfortunately smells of a left wing conspiracy to elect Barack Obama. The media is telling us what to think and how to think and emphasizing the things that Hilllary Clinton has siad. Let's not the rationale people forget that Barack Obama went negative first. The media even had headlines as no more Mr. Nice Guy! When a Hillary staffer points out that people have questions about people who use drugs, Hillary is branded as just mean and she's not. Obama was the one who admittted to drug use first. This is not something that was dug up to smear him. He admitted it and Drug Use Was illegal in this country the last time I checked.

[Joseph]

In an earlier comment I dared both political parties to create a Paul vs.Obama mathchup after dumping Hillary's candicacy on the ash heap.

A Paul vs. Obama contest has the potential to be a campaign of epic significance for any number of obvious reasons. I propose a less obvious issue that would enable them to clearly contrast their leadership abilitiies. --Andrew, this is something you saw yesterday from me, so please bear with me.

The picture of 300 flooded school buses in a New Orleans parking lot after Katrina is all the evidence needed to prove that a government program will not save your butt. The emergency plan for New Orleans said that school buses would be used for evacuation. When it didn't happen, everyone blamed Bush, but did anyone ask why didn't the 300 bus drivers show up? No, they did not. I guess they were expecting Bush clones to drive the buses, similar to the star troopers cloned by the Empire in the Star Wars movies (Some people must have trouble distinguishing fiction from fact.)

In contrast to that photo, there was a story of a young man who stole one of those buses to save his family and neighbors. His example demonstrates Ron Paul's message of freedom and self-responsibility. If you want a compassionate society, you have to be compassionate yourself and act when someone is in need. You cannot sit on your duff, and expect a clone of the president, essentially any bureaucrat, to act in your place.

We recently had a popular movie about 300 Spartans who acted to save their community. We need a movie about 300 Bus Drivers who failed their community in New Orleans. It would reveal what seriously ails U.S.

Thank God there is a chance for a good doctor to be in the White House, Dr. Ron Paul, to cure what ails U.S.

Any chance to get a movie made about 300 Bus Drivers? Maybe in a couple thousand years. But it could be a key issue in the 2008 election.

The story of the 300 Bus Drivers could be an element in the history yet to be written about the 2008 campaign, as was the 300 Spartans" heroism in the history of the Greco-Persian War for the following reason.

A key question for the two candidates to debate is: How would your leadership ability get the 300 Bus Drivers to show up?

The replies to this question by both Paul and Obama could be as memorable as Lincoln's House Divided argument in his Lincoln-Douglas debates.

We the People, please make a Paul vs. Obama matchup happen. I would find anything else borrringgg.