Hillary Clinton finally wins one!

The nation's tiniest state gave Hillary Clinton her first victory since the Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5, with each of the cable networks calling Rhode Island for her.

With a large working-class, Catholic population, the state long had been assumed to be favorable turf for her. But Barack Obama made a late run at it, traveling there Saturday for a speech in Providence.

In retrospect, given the apparent closeness of the battle for Texas tonight, he might have been better advised to spend his time there.

Clinton was backed by most of Rhode Island's Democratic establishment. Obama countered with support from the state's most-famed political maverick, Republican-turned-independent Lincoln Chafee, and a Democrat with an especially well-known name, Rep. Patrick Kennedy.

Obama's defeat continues what has become a trend in this campaign season -- being backed by a Kennedy hasn't paid ...

bottom-line dividends.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, Patrick's dad, was unable to deliver Massachusetts for Obama; Clinton carried it easily. Nor were the outcomes any better for two of his nieces who also signed on with Obama -- he lost New York, home state of Caroline Kennedy, and California, home state of Maria Shriver.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the daughter of Robert Kennedy and the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, didn't prove any more helpful to Clinton. Townsend's backing failed to prevent Clinton from getting trounced in the Free Line State.

The one member of the clan who will have reason to gloat at the next family reunion? Townsend's brother, Joe Kennedy II, a Massachusetts resident who campaigned for Clinton.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[Adriane]

Dreadful headline - are you kidding? Finally wins one? Uh, she's won quite a few last I heard.

[Jet]

This is how media is picking stories and soooo biased... ONLY WINNING ONE? and the fact is it's more than 1. Hillary wins people from the urban area. Obama wins in the rural area because there is a gender gap in the rural area.

The winner on the Democrats should come from where there is a lot of population like CA, TX, NY.

Make your story right LATimes. I hope this comment gets in if you are not really that biased.

[Paul from Australia]

Hi from Melbourne

I have followed the campaigns so far, reading my own local newspapers which has up to a page per day, US papers from the major cities online and local TV coverage which includes the PBS News Hour. Therefore, I have been spared the advertising campaigns of all candidates.

I must say that the bias against Hilary Clinton has been palpable. Her opponent has been supported by one section of the media in the hope that he might win and by another section because they know he can't.

Mrs Clinton has the intellectual capacity to tackle the role and her policy framework is strong, if not "exciting". She lacks the charisma of her husband but almost everyone else does.

I have seen many clips of Mr Obama speaking. Although he reads almost everything he says, the next time he says that is remotely intellegible will be the first. he peaks in riddles and generalities.

Mr McCain seems a good and intelligent man, in stark contrast to the nut who is currently President. How did that happen? However, Mr McCain does not seem to have the strength that is required.

The headline today is just another example of the bias I have referred to before. It is clear to me from the votes so far that Mrs Clinton is supported by the majority of Americans. However, she is very much hated by a large minority. They will do anything to ensure that she does not win, including supporting her non electable opponent ( until November).

[pmc]

Correction: she won BOTH- Texas and Ohio. When will the LA Times start leading with a positive and Clinton in the same sentence? Clinton is here to stay- please no more stories about how she should 'go softly into the night". Of course you could lead with "CLINTON ONLY won Texas and Ohio", but then it would be clear to everyone how bias the paper is toward Obama.

(Check the time on this posting, please. It was written as soon as she won one without waiting until she won or lost others so that other posters would not say how come you ignored her winning one finally.)

[Dana Marterella]

Even as Clinton proves her endurance, the language of the press is completely sexist.

[Mara]

Who in the world was expecting an Obama victory anywhere today? Virtually every mainstream media outlet carried nasty, negative pieces on Obama on their front pages the day before the primaries. It was hard to chose the lowest. A cable news service ran a "heart-to-heart piece on Clinton's lifelong work for the "people, beiginning in Texas, along with a live feed to the Chicago trial of an alleged Obama associate. The Clintons ran the dirtiest campaign we've seen since Bush in South Carolina, and absolutely no one called them on it. I really miss the days of a free press - when the mainstream press wasn't controlled by a handful of conglomerates. There's lots of easy questions. Here's a good place to start: what's all that about 35 years of experience? Senator Clinton: How many years were you a corporate attorney? How many months did you work for the Children's Defense Fund? Why doesn't Mark Penn resign his job? When have you ever answered a phone at 3am - at least for a call of any consequence? The dirty campaigning is appalling - but the negligence of the American press corps is far worse.

[elisabeth]

this is sad...it shows we Americans dont want change and recent history has taught us nothing. Ultimately, every nation has the government it deserves. Obviously the majority is as ignorant, arrogant and braindead as ever. But what goes around, comes around....history repeats itself and it is just a matter of time until the rest of the world leaves us behind. In every aspect.

[dave]

as we see the media bias shift to obama all but completely even in this infotaining outlet, last doubts as to who is - not... the designated, proposed, and prescribed candidate of your(?) choice are being dispersed.
even subtle or not so subtle messages, e.g. contained in the choice of pictures published (like this expressive edward munch- like portrait of hillary clinton), can tell you that. so what we might really expect is either a prolonged distractive staged, false debate between obama and mccain, or finally a real debate on the real issues between hopefully heroic obama/mccain and hopelessly honest ron paul.