The Democratic nomination was supposed to be very competitive, but it hasn't turned out that way, at least in the polls. Hillary Clinton has established a formidable national lead, and cannot be said to be behind in any of the early voting states, raising the "inevitability" question. Roger Simon of The Politico takes a look:
RealClearPolitics, which does an excellent job of compiling and averaging the polls, showed Hillary ahead of Obama by an average of 19.6 percentage points in February. Today, it shows her ahead of Obama by an average of 19.4 percentage points.That's not much slippage after seven months of campaigning.
* * * * *
What's that you say? National polls are largely meaningless because the nominating process is a state-by-state contest?
You are correct! So let's look at how Hillary is doing in the early-primary states:
In Iowa, Hillary is now ahead by an average of 2.6 percentage points.
In New Hampshire, Hillary is ahead by an average of 17.8 percentage points.
In South Carolina, she is ahead by an average of 11.8 percentage points, in California by an average of 22.3 percentage points and in Michigan by an average of 16 percentage points.
Read his whole column at the link above. Simon doesn't even mention her 20+ point lead in Florida . . .
Her strikingly large lead, combined with the inability of the main challengers to make a dent in it, have led many observers (including this writer) to call the race for Senator Clinton. It remains true that she has been untouched in the debates thus far and commands the most experienced organization of Democratic campaigners in the field. Her numbers form the icing on the cake . . .
So, then, WHO is capable of beating Hillary for the Democratic nomination? Both Edwards and Obama hit their ceilings in support relatively early, and Richardson's small gains mean little since he started - and is still - so far behind. Al Gore seems unlikely to jump in at this time, and there is no other Democrat with the national stature to make such a late entry with any hope of success.
Hillary's biggest threat is in her mirror. The Hsu scandal keeps mushrooming, with each day bringing a new and more striking revelation. The man who raised almost a million bucks for her is apparently a scam artist, convicted of fraud years ago before absconding on bail, absconded on bail AGAIN after being caught, operates a number of "companies" that are no more than mail drops, and many of the people whose donations he "bundled" either could not afford them on the basis of their income or say they were coerced into donating to "get in on" one of his "investments" (scams). And this is after only a few days of news, and before the FBI has even compiled a full list of the hundreds of people they need to question in the investigation.
The Clinton campaign was advised about Hsu by one of his victims in June, and took NO apparent action - despite the handwringing of The New York Times that such a scandal was her "greatest fear."
As far as defeating her for the nomination, the only thing Hillary Clinton has to fear is . . . herself.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Commentary, Democrats, Hillary, Polls, Primaries
Tags: campaign contributions, Democrat, Hillary Clinton, presidential campaign, scandal
Comments (6)
I think the question is whi... (Below threshold)1. Posted by COgirl | September 13, 2007 10:55 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I think the question is which Republican candidate can beat her. I agree with your assessment that she's got the nomination.
Dirty money goes a long way. How many more surprises about the Clinton dirty dealings are there? Somehow I don't think Hsu is the last of them.
1. Posted by COgirl | September 13, 2007 10:55 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 13, 2007 22:55
2. Posted by kim | September 15, 2007 12:13 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Romney can out money anyone; clean money, too. Thompson has the right message, Ruliani, look at that slip, has the pizzaz. How about a troika presidency?
===========================
2. Posted by kim | September 15, 2007 12:13 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2007 00:13
3. Posted by Jim Addison | September 15, 2007 12:39 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The problem this scandal presents for Democrats begins with Hillary's current strong position. She leads by nearly 20 points nationally. While Iowa is still essentially a three-way dead heat, Clinton has double-digit leads in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida. The "Intrade" futures market has her as the overwhelming favorite in all the early states, including Iowa.
This brings in the Fear Factor. You don't want to be out there calling for your party's frontrunner to step aside, or questioning her ethics, when she may well earn the nomination and the power over the party mechanism that brings, and might be the President of the United States for eight years. That's one powerful enemy to make.
There's the old saying: "If you set out to kill the King: kill the King!" It simply recognizes the consequences of failure may be dire.
So even Democrats who have strong doubts about Hillary's ethics (and where the scandal may lead once the FBI applies some Hsu leather to it) will hesitate to speak out. Since this sort of housecleaning invariably relies upon the force of numbers, the natural human reticence to take a big risk argues against a palace coup in the party.
Still, the FBI investigation may bear early fruit, and give the skeptical Democrats cover. The worst-case scenario for Democrat is if Hillary clinches the nomination with committed delegates won in primaries just before the FBI delivers devastating evidence against her campaign. She would control the convention, so they couldn't force her out, and you can't count on Clinton to do the honorable thing . . .
3. Posted by Jim Addison | September 15, 2007 12:39 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 15, 2007 00:39
4. Posted by kim | September 16, 2007 8:10 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I'll bet they are counting on MSM cover and FBI corruption to cover for them. Look to the lie Fitzgerald told about Libby with Eckenrode covering.
========================================
4. Posted by kim | September 16, 2007 8:10 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 16, 2007 08:10
5. Posted by bryanD | September 16, 2007 10:33 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"There's the old saying: "If you set out to kill the King: kill the King!"-ja
My favorite variation on the theme is:
"He who draws the sword against a prince must throw away the scabbard."
"Look to the lie Fitzgerald told about Libby with Eckenrode covering.
========================================
Posted by kim"
Howzabouta link? I mean, Libby could afford an A-list lawyer. Not like he's a Scottsboro boy.
As Ricky would say to Lucy:
"Joo has some 'splainin' to do!" (laughter)
5. Posted by bryanD | September 16, 2007 10:33 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 16, 2007 22:33
6. Posted by kim | September 16, 2007 11:06 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
All in comments, bD, during the trial, at JustOneMinute and MaineWebReport. Eckenrode's notes of his first conversation with Russert are lost, but a reconstruction suggests that Russert couldn't be sure Plame didn't come up in his phone conversation with Libby, an event he testified at the trial would have been impossible. That is perjury, Eckenrode condoned it, probably, and Fitzgerald suborned it. You could look it up.
I like the tangential, "Come back with your shield, or on it."
===============================
6. Posted by kim | September 16, 2007 11:06 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 16, 2007 23:06