Hillary Clinton's camp changes its tune

Remember how Hillary Clinton and her acolytes had been trying so hard to forget all those wins Barack Obama has strung together?

Clinton chose to publicly ignore some of Obama's more impressive victories. Her aides — as well as her husband, the former president — dismissed his caucus triumphs, arguing that only a narrow slice of the electorate has the time and the inclination to participate in these gatherings.

Well, Camp Clinton late last week decided to take note that Obama put together an 11-contest winning streak and "is riding a surge of momentum." But it acknowledged his successes with this in mind: trying to raise the stakes for him (however vainly) in Tuesday's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.

A memo put out by the Clinton press crew noted that Obama's torrid performance has enabled him "to pour unprecedented resources" into those states. It went on: "The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two-to-one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states."

Here was the kicker: ...

 

"If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem."

The memo then hikes the bar even further, saying that if he doesn't "score decisive victories," it means Democrats "are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer."

We have here a classic example of spin that ignores the basic political picture. But variations of this case, overstated though it may be, will probably be parroted by various Clinton surrogates as cable networks look to kill airtime until the votes start to trickle in Tuesday evening.

Here's the reality, which the Clintonites know full well:

• Vermont (where Obama is heavily favored) and Rhode Island (which stacks up as Clinton turf, as this Washington Post story walks through) are sideshows. Their outcomes, for the most part, will be duly ignored.
• Ohio and Texas are the end-all and be-all Tuesday night, and if Obama wins either — even by a narrow margin — the night will be filled with chatter about whether Clinton can continue.

— Don Frederick

Comments

[Hillol Sarkar]

There are many mathematical calculation about Tueday.
This is a very special year as I am living outside of USA.

What I see tremendous engagement by the people in this
election. It seems people like to have change, but why.

It is war, economy, health care or some other moral issues people are thinking about. What is that one thing
this momentum is all about. The numbers between Republican and Democrat does not show that Americans are ready to change White House to Democrat. We are missing something in the process.
Hillol Sarkar

[Beverly]

Keep on running Hillary because I will not vote for Barrack regardless. He is not experienced enough to run our country.

[Nod]

Why haven't you reported on *any* of Clinton's latest endorsements? She has recieved an extrordinary number of them in recent days from teh top military brass. Over 28 flag offficers including Gen. Henry Hugh Shelton and Antonio Taguba have publicly endorsed her and put their trust in her as the best candidate to be Commander in Chief.

But of course, the media fails again and again to *do its job* and choses to keep plugging along Obama...

Where are the pieces reporting on the extraordinary support from such a large number of Flag Officers??

Obama has .... one? Rice? Maybe? You don't think this is relevant to the American People as a National Security and Foreign Policy issue?

How sad. The Media used to be the 4th state or 4th power in this country. No more. It is becoming more and more irrelevant.

[Elise in NH]

There's been chatter about "whether Clinton can continue" for quite a long time.

She still has some money...and she still has a bellyful of entitlement and hubris. She might just keep going even if she loses all four races tomorrow. She's already shown that she cares little for her party, her husband's legacy, or the psyche of the American people. As long as there's still a 1% chance, she'll hang in there like Mike Gravel...

Meanwhile, the mainstream news media keep giving her free air time by having frequenct conversations about "What Hillary Needs to Do To Win". I thought she already HAD political advisors, folks...why do Wolf Blitzer et al need to pile on? It amounts to free air time. Why don't you all go back to covering THE ISSUES, such as...well, starting with why hasn't Hillary made her tax returns and her earmarks public? What is she hiding?

Elise in NH
The Obama Minute: quick, easy actions
to support Barack Obama's candidacy
http://www.obamastraws.blogspot.com