Tipping Point?

Seems like the Dem race has changed a lot in the last 36 hours.  Obama routs HRC in South Carolina.  Bill Clinton becomes more and more of the story, which diminishes HRC as the symbol of the campaign.  Kathleen Sebelius, Dem governor of KS and possible VP candidate is likely to endorse Obama after she gives the Dem response to the State of the Union.

And Ted Kennedy has endorsed Obama.  It’s hard to know how much any endorsement means in terms of actual votes, but at a minimum Kennedy’s endorsement is interesting theater in the context of the recent history of the Democratic Party.

Clearly, the Clinton Dynasty has suffered damage in the last two months, and the trend line is going the wrong direction of late.  Has anything gone right since she found her own voice in Iowa?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Tipping Point?

  1. Jim says:

    I wonder. I’m certainly finding Bill very, very off-putting right now, and I’ve come around to the idea of Obama as the true change candidate, but I’m not sure Hillary won’t sweep NY and CA in a week. It seems almost likely, which may make all of this guessing about trends irrelevant.

  2. Charley says:

    keep in mind the Dems do proportional voting in the primaries. Even if HRC wins those states, BO will be getting delegates.

  3. Kieran says:

    Proportional voting is the key. Even if Clinton wins California and NY in the range of 45% to 35% overall (which I think is unlikely) the delegate count will be within striking distance. And Obama should win handily in Illinois, Georgia, and the caucus states, which will make up the difference or at least narrow the gap.

    That means we are counting on Doug and Jane to get to the caucus in MN!

  4. david says:

    That proportional voting is going to be interesting… the Guiliani camp pushed for winner take all primaries in the Northeast, but I believe that’s for the Reps only.

    I’m also pretty annoyed by the HRC camp. I haven’t really been paying any attention to Bill, so all I’ve caught are the third hand comments on various blogs. I do have to say I almost blew coffee out my nose when I heard Teddy Kennedy comment on Clinton’s campaign tactics. Who could have guessed that teddy knew “moral” was a word and could use it in context?

    At this point, I’m starting to back away from HRC. I’ve always been a strong supporter of hers, and I still think she’d make an outstanding president, but I can’t condone all of the idiotic things she’s been saying to Obama. The whole Reagan argument was ridiculous (and Obama was correct).

    The Sebelius endorsement is interesting. Not only is she governor of Kansas, but her father was governor of Ohio in the early seventies. Nice opportunity for a young, rising star in the dem party.

  5. Steve C says:

    I think that the Clintons have always seen themselves as, and always have run as, underdogs, even when that wasn’t the case. They were always victims of something, and truthfully so. And I think what we are seeing is that they really don’t have a lot of experience running as the mainstream. And they are getting desperate in the face of a candidate that is “stealing” all of their tropes and positions (oft forgotten fact: Bill Clinton’s first sentence of his 1st inaugural was something akin to “I am here because you voted for change”) . It’s really been rather sad seeing how Bill has been acting lately. And brilliant strategy by Obama, slyly equating Bill Clinton with Nixon. That’s been getting under Bill’s craw, and it hasn’t been pretty.

  6. Charley says:

    Sebelius could be key. An Obama-Sebelius ticket takes away the gender issue to some extent, puts the midwest in play (a bit more than it had been anyway), and adds “executive experience” to the ticket. It’s time for change!

  7. bs says:

    i’m not certain that sebelius has much relevant experience to be on the ticket, but other than that i can’t think of any negative she brings to the ticket.

    I think the democrats will lose the general election. Harding is the only president that was ever elected from the Senate–all three viable democrats are current US Senators. Most presidents are either previous VP’s or state governors. Obama is the best candidate for the Dems b/c he has the shortest record of significant votes to have to defend. I don’t think HRC has any shot whatsoever of winning a general election. All this BS with “Billary” demonstrates that they cannot stay on message when the hysterics on the right stir the pot. Maybe they are on message, but we don’t hear it or see it because of the way they are portrayed in the media. So the way I see it, the choice isn’t between Obama and HRC, it’s between Obama and Mitt Romney. I just hope enough democrats realize this in California and NY.

    Maybe Edwards can force a brokered convention, and Al Gore will come to the rescue.

    my core issue in this election is debt, both private and public. HRC has some very fanciful ideas of “freezing adjustable rate mortgages for 5 years” and “90 day moratorium on foreclosures”. politically they seem popular; but they strike me as unwieldy mechanisms to govern the economics that are at play.

  8. Steve C says:

    I think if Obama gets it, and McCain is the opponent, that he goes with Jim Webb as a VP choice. Former SecNav, moderate to conservative on some isssues, and the left loves him because he has essentially told Bush to stick it on Iraq.

  9. david says:

    While there’s a lot of campaign left, it could easily be Obama v. McCain. If so, looks like Harding gets company. I’m very curious, now that Guliani is out of the race, whether Bloomsberg becomes a more serious 3rd party candidate.

  10. mrfares says:

    Ah, Bloomberg. America loves a rich guy from New York.
    Well, they loved FDR.
    I think part of the problem I have with Senator Clinton (D-NY) as a candidate is that she appears to have purchased her office, anmd by mail order from Arkasas no less. While he is a bona-fide New Yorker, self made gazillionaire Michael Bloomberg has been criticized as mayor for using his cash and clout as a political force representing the electorate of one citizen Bloomberg. He is not a poor politician or executive because of this but it is a thin point in his prospective candidacy. I believe it will be difficult for his “pay your own way to get there” political style to gain needed votes from the swing voters who are dissatisfied with Bush’s similar style of “Pay your own way and make your own rules..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s