Jackson Free Press

Politico seems to think so, exposing what it calls "the Clinton myth", and explaining why they believe Barack Obama already has the nomination in a lockbox:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning. Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party's most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

s it happens, many people inside Clinton's campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

Story Behind the Story
Why news gets covered the way it does

Politico's top editors draw on their experience at the nation's largest news organizations to pull back the curtain on coverage decisions and the media mindset.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists, for instance, have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

Previous Comments

ID

117740

Comment

Wow, If this is true, I must admit that I have been very nicely deceived as to the closeness of the race byTV, print and internet news sources. And I used to think I was smart!

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2008-03-21T14:53:07-06:00

ID

117741

Comment

And to cause further damage to Clinton, unless something happens at the last minute, it appears as if there will be no do-overs in Florida and Michigan, though I contend the Democratic Party needs to find a way to solve that because it doesn't look right to disenfranchise voters, especially from two big states like FL & MI.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-03-21T15:51:39-06:00

ID

117742

Comment

Voters were not disenfranchised, except by their own governors and legislatures. Now they're finding they can't use their size to bully the national party on how it will run its own process. And it's silly to suggest that, if these states legislatures don't get their own way, that the Democratic and Independent voters will refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate, simply out of spite.

Author

footsy

Date

2008-03-22T06:25:52-06:00

ID

117743

Comment

I hate to see anyone's vote not count (especially after the hanging chad debacle), but didn't MI and FL break the rules? Were they warned about what would happen if they held their elections too early? If so, why not heed the warning and move the date?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-03-22T07:43:55-06:00

ID

117744

Comment

Voters were not disenfranchised, except by their own governors and legislatures. footsy Umm... isn't that was governors and legislatures did for decades against blacks? Sorry, it is still disenfranchisement regardless. And, I hate to see anyone's vote not counted either. Yet, if a State is holding an election regardless of party rules aren't people still going to vote? It's not like you can expect them to boycott the vote. Also, this has only affected the Democratic party since the primary is so close and dragging on. It seems that the national party is the one to blame in the end because they won't come to a reasonable solution, say like counting the votes (delegates) or holding another vote with their own money! My guess they really don't have enough money to do it. The party is its own worse enemy in this one.

Author

pikersam

Date

2008-03-22T09:05:50-06:00

ID

117745

Comment

I think the Republican Party actually came up with a better punishment (lose half the delegates) than the Democrats, but participating in a political party's primary is not the same as voting in the general election (except in a one-party state, where the primary really determines the ultimate winner; not the case here). The national party has to keep some controls on the calendar, else Michigan could hold their 2012 primary election next year, if they thought they would get extra visibility and influence on the party choice as a result. If you're going to participate in a political party's process, then you have to go by their rules. Same principle applies to "superdelegates": if these people are empowered to vote the way they choose, then you cannot require that they must pick according to a particular rule (say, the biggest vote-getter in the popular vote "deserves" the superdelegate vote). If you don't like the party rules, then get involved in the party (not just in one candidate), and work to change the rules the next time around.

Author

footsy

Date

2008-03-22T13:34:10-06:00

ID

117746

Comment

I'll count her out when she gives up.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-03-22T17:40:26-06:00

ID

117747

Comment

If John Edwards were now to endorse Obama, then if Al Gore were to come out for Obama, then Clinton would have to fold her tents. Anything less than that would not be sufficient to keep the game going.

Author

footsy

Date

2008-03-22T19:56:09-06:00

ID

117748

Comment

I doubt Gore would endorse Obama over Clinton. The Gores and Clintons would never speak to each other again if that were to happen.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-03-22T20:19:11-06:00

ID

117749

Comment

I think they already split long ago, golden. I think Gore might endorse Obama over Clinton. I pray he does. I hear you, Iron. I think she would try to destroy the party before she gives up. Hopefully not, although it could use punches, but not from party stalwarts such as herself.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-03-22T21:16:25-06:00

ID

117750

Comment

I keep saying this but it doesn't resonate as it should with people outside the northeast. There's a schism in the country on a rarified level outside the public view. The Clinton's, Bushes and John Kerry are Yale. Gore, the Kennedy's and Obama are Harvard. It's the traditional Thanksgiving Harvard-Yale football game but the ball is the United States presidency.

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-03-23T10:23:39-06:00

ID

117751

Comment

It's the traditional Thanksgiving Harvard-Yale football game but the ball is the United States presidency. I remember you mentioning that before, will. That's hard for me to wrap my head around.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-03-23T17:05:54-06:00

ID

117752

Comment

The head wrap-around is that the players in the world dominance game didn't just appear out of nowhere, like a child without a mother, or a tree without a seed. Bush is the scion of that clan; bin ladin is the scion of that wealthy and powerful Saudi clan; JFK Jr was the handsome charismatic scion of that multi-generational powerful clan - but conveniently had a plane "crash"; Gore, Hillary, Romney...all descended from inherited wealth and political power. That old philosopher dude said that those that forget history are condemned to repeat it. These are the young princes, like in medieval times. And, in the US the seats of power are at least two separate factions, Harvard and Yale. There's other players, the British Royal family, the Vatican, the Japanese lineages. Political theater is like a shell game, or 3 card monte. We're looking in the wrong places. The medieval princes kind of history is the history we think of as antiquated and not relevant to modern times, but we're seeing new history in the making, that reads just like the old history. Yes?

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-03-23T18:58:39-06:00

ID

117753

Comment

JFK Jr was the handsome charismatic scion of that multi-generational powerful clan - but conveniently had a plane "crash"; Comments like that make it difficult to lend credibility to anything you say.

Author

QB

Date

2008-03-24T08:17:05-06:00

ID

117754

Comment

will, I always felt that money and power played a big role in today's politics - just not that detailed. Is this stuff written down somewhere?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-03-24T08:19:48-06:00

ID

117755

Comment

JFK Jr was the handsome charismatic scion of that multi-generational powerful clan - but conveniently had a plane "crash"; Comments like that make it difficult to lend credibility to anything you say. Back to the Home PageTop of the page.Post comment. Posted by: Fat Harry on Mar 24, 08 | 9:17 am Comments like that are a frequent topic of discussion and speculation by credible people in this region of the country - where we have longstanding sometimes personal familiarity with those families and what they've done in the past.

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-03-24T08:57:04-06:00

ID

117756

Comment

I fly the same type of aircraft as JFK Jr. flew (a PA-32-301R, although mine is not turbocharged). He flew at night over water in cloudy conditions. Furthermore, he was impaired by a leg/foot injury. He did not possess an instrument/IFR rating. Those actions were reckless and any pilot would have difficulties in those conditions. I'm sure a conspiracy theory is fun to think about, but the facts are not in your favor.

Author

QB

Date

2008-03-24T09:23:13-06:00

ID

117757

Comment

OK, I'm going to reel this one in. No more discussions about conspiracy theories about JFK's son on the Hillary candidacy thread, please. Talk about off-topic.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-03-24T09:28:43-06:00

ID

117758

Comment

Thanks laddie. You're always telling the other guys off, but you've never laid down the law and told me off. I appreciate finally being treated like one of the guys.

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-03-24T10:46:12-06:00

ID

117759

Comment

That's alright, will. Happy to oblige, although I don't think this amounted to the same level of scoldin' some others here have drawn. Hey, everyone veers off-topic now and then, but I could see that his one was approaching the point of no return. Start a thread about the topic if you want so people who want to talk about that can go there. I personally am not in the mood to worry about conspiracy theories about John-John's plane crash. As tragic as that was, I feel there are more pertinent things on our plate in today's world to worry our heads over. May he and his family rest in peace.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-03-24T10:51:51-06:00

ID

117760

Comment

I don't think my musings on John-John merit a thread of it's own. We'd like to find some ways to include Jackson people in our art project though. ('Scuse me for shamelessly self-promoting again.)

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-03-24T11:02:10-06:00

ID

117761

Comment

On the subject of Hillary Clinton: Why shouldn’t Clinton have to explain her membership in the “Family” which it seems has actually cultivated relationships with dictatorial murderers? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich What about McCain and Hagge, Pat Robertson and Falwell. Have they all been rejected and denounced in similar fashion or is it only Obama who must reject and renounce and explain past church membership with any and all around him who say anything unpopular or that is considered un-American? Is it 1954 again?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-03-24T13:44:23-06:00

ID

117762

Comment

I have been thinking lately about how bizarre it is that Hilary Clinton chooses to allow her husband to campaign for her. To me it creates an image that she needs her link to her "man" in order to appear viable.

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-03-24T14:02:33-06:00

ID

117763

Comment

On the subject of Hillary Clinton: Bill Richardson was doing his rounds on the Sunday and Monday morning talk shows and he was upset over James Carville calling him a "Judas" for not endorsing Clinton over Obama. From Fox News Sunday: "I’m not going to get in the gutter like that - and you know that’s typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.” This type of vindictiveness does seem to be a pattern from the Clinton campaign, though it may not be from the Clintons themselves.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-03-24T14:47:14-06:00

ID

117764

Comment

Izzy, that's because BJ is likable and still somewhat popular. Hillary isn't, which is why her campaign felt that he needed to be active on the trail. It also sent the coded message, right or wrong, that this would be a 3rd Bill Clinton term in a way that might have appealed to her husband's fans. They probably never anticipated that he would end up being a liability for her with his offhand comments in S.C. in January and his *patriotism* comment last week.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-03-24T15:24:04-06:00

ID

117765

Comment

Yeah, I see that, but I also see that as a mistake. When the first woman runs for president, people need to see that SHE is a leader, and not that she needs her husband to campaign or run interference for her. It's a liability as much as it is a help.

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-03-25T07:54:10-06:00

ID

117766

Comment

Did anyone else see her latest screw-up on the morning news? She was talking about how she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, and there was no greeting ceremony. But the tapes were pulled, and it just wasn't true. She's going to have a hard time getting out of this one. Story can be found here.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2008-03-25T08:08:20-06:00

ID

117767

Comment

Yeah, I see that, but I also see that as a mistake. When the first woman runs for president, people need to see that SHE is a leader, and not that she needs her husband to campaign or run interference for her. It's a liability as much as it is a help. THANK you Laurel. There are a lot of things that bug me about Hillary, but I finally figured out recently that this was the main thing. I want to see a female presidential candidate that got where she is by her own merit, not because of who her husband is. Not to say that Hillary isn't smart and ambitious, but I wonder if she'd be a NY senator today if her husband wasn't president in the past. I'd like to see a female candidate whose husband only serves as a support (just as Obama's wife and McCain's wife have done), not a spotlight-hogger or a distraction. Or hey, what about a single woman running for Prez? The media would probably implode. I'm sure they'd want to exploit all the reasons she isn't married, or something like that. All I'm saying is, I'd like to see a truly independent, successful woman run for President. And I don't view Hillary as such.

Author

andi

Date

2008-03-25T08:32:19-06:00

ID

117768

Comment

Right, and Lady, she also said that she had to run with her head down when she got off the plane. Imagine: A Clinton who lies. Imagine. More importantly, it shows that she is peddling B.S. about having more foreign-policy "experience" than Obama. She made this bed.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-03-25T08:44:37-06:00

ID

117769

Comment

James Carvillewill not apologize for Judas remark about Bill Richardson. I like Carville a lot, but he went way over the line on this one.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-03-25T09:43:49-06:00

ID

117770

Comment

Doing goodwill trips is kind of foreign policy experience, but more to the point would be something like UN experience, or international law, something of that kind. I think Obama's experiences in Indonesia count as he experienced first hand his mother's life in a foreign country - and her love of working to help poor people gain a foothold in that country.

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-03-25T09:45:33-06:00

ID

117771

Comment

I’m not surprised she lied. When I think about it, much of her campaign has been a shellgame, a strategy of advancing the idea that being the spouse of a popular president = experience. She didn’t misspeak, she was trying to earn brownie points by talking, bragging almost, about ducking sniper fire. That’s not a common thing, and given the amount of press covering her movements as First Lady she should have known better. But that’s typical of the Clinton campaign meltdown in the face of Obama. They still haven’t figured out that Obama does as well as he does because of his ability to inspire people and make them believe that there is a viable alternative to “politics-as-usual”. This drives Bill and Hillary INSANE because they are no longer Washington outsiders, and have become so integrated into the Washington establishment that they can’t mimic Obama’s style or produce an effective countermessage that resonates with Obama’s supporters.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-03-25T10:03:15-06:00

ID

117772

Comment

I'm not a Hillary fan but, in all fairness, she's traveled in an official capacity as First Lady and met world leaders. I think that counts for something. I stopped thinking of Hillary as a serious candidate when it became impossible to ignore how much facial cosmetic surgery she's had for this campaign. You don't need to compare current to ten-year-old photos to see she's had eyelifts, Botox and some chin and cheek work. With half the country uninsured or apparently under-insured, and the US health care system in crisis, it seems frivolous. Most of the women I know are highly accomplished academics, writers, and social justice advocates in the 55 to 68 age group. Aside from being a pretty intelligent bunch, a lot of them are pretty hot looking 60-year-olds. I can't see them embracing cosmetic surgery as a priority. People can do what they want with their own body. For me, it's a gut level thing about Hillary, superficiality and honesty. I'm just surprised more women haven't picked up on this given the broader social and political implications, but I'm usually looking at things from a different angle.

Author

willdufauve

Date

2008-03-25T10:03:42-06:00

ID

117773

Comment

I picked up on it, but I guess I thought that was a superficial thing to point out. In the light of her "healthcare for all" theme, though, plastic surgery does seem frivolous. I don't get the whole plastic surgery thing anyway, except for people who have been in horrible accidents or something. Grow old gracefully!! Take good care of yourself!! I think that's the key.

Author

andi

Date

2008-03-25T10:23:19-06:00

ID

117774

Comment

Her head looked pretty high to me in the footage. She should have known someone from the media would pull footage and doublecheck her facts.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2008-03-25T10:33:10-06:00

ID

117775

Comment

I'm not a Hillary fan but, in all fairness, she's traveled in an official capacity as First Lady and met world leaders. I think that counts for something. I think it does, but I also think she tries to makes it more important than it really is. But she was a very active First Lady, no doubt.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-03-25T10:49:37-06:00

ID

117776

Comment

"Most of the women I know are highly accomplished academics, writers, and social justice advocates in the 55 to 68 age group. Aside from being a pretty intelligent bunch, a lot of them are pretty hot looking 60-year-olds. " Can I just say that something about this post cheered me immeasurably?!! thanks

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-03-25T11:28:34-06:00

ID

117777

Comment

Hillary compares herself to Rocky. One small problem... Rocky lost! Oh wait, I guess she's misspeaking again because she's tired. BTW, Sly's a McCain supporter. I can't imagine he finds the comparison flattering.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-04-02T12:07:35-06:00