Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The Comeback Kid still faces an uphill battle

JOHN IBBITSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:58 PM EST 05/03/08

Not enough winnable states left for Clinton ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Duane Freemantle from writes: Yes, Hillary Clinton should put her party ahead of her own prospects. With John McCain securing the Republicans nomination, the Republicans can now focus on retaining the White House. This can put the Democratics at a disadvantage. With that said, it seems that Hillary has been very successful in Rhode Island and Ohio. Thus, this will drag out for two more months.
  2. R C from Canada writes: Give me a break Mr. Ibbitson. You, like many of your colleagues in the media had all but written Hillary Clinton off. This has the been the general tenor of much of the pundit reporting over the last several weeks, yours included. And now that Clinton has defied Obama's momentum and ACTUALLY won these two important states, all that you can do is make its sound like no big deal. Did this Clinton comeback upset you?
  3. Child of the North in Canada from Canada writes: Hillary Clinton is prepared to destroy the Democrats to get her chance of grasping the brass ring. If the DNC does not step in soon to defuse this situation both sides are going to enter trench warfare that will kill any chance of beating McCain in November. Clinton has every right to fight to the end, but at what cost to her party? If she thinks that she can wrestle the nomination from Obama then tell all the Democrats she has p!ssed off to join hands and sing Kumbayah before they vote for her in November she is dreaming. Her best hope is that Obama will decide to step down from this going nuclear and let her have her chance for the presidency. It would be a smart move. Clinton will lose to McCain and he can try again in 2012. Besides, whoever gets the nod in November will have one heck of a mess to clean up after Bush. The cleanup is not going to make them very popular (i.e. higher taxes).
  4. dwight steadman from Fort Macleod from Canada writes: She's won California, New York, Texas and Ohio. I think it's quite reasonable for her to go on to the end.
  5. John Stanton from Toronto, Canada writes:

    An Obama victory would be devastating. With his lack of developed policy, seasoning and experience, it would take 2 years for him to get up to speed, during which time his policy initiatives would be piecemeal and made up as he went along - generally in response to the most recent polls. Reactive rather than proactive. And all the while, the downward spiral of the United States would continue at an increasing rate, as the effects of the past Republican regime continue to surface globally.

    This will result in a Republican win in the election that follows, as Americans react angrily to their devastated economy, and the contempt in which their foreign policy is held by the rest of the world - by both friends and enemies. There is no way that a Democrat president can escape carrying the load for the Bush dynasty, and no way that Obama, as a complete neophyte, can manage that successfully.

    Lets hope the Clinton machine is as effective as promised. The only way to slow and (hopefully) reverse the United State's decline is a decisive win by Hillary. That's Obama’s ticket to the White House - 2 terms during which he becomes seasoned and his policies substantive, before he runs again , and this time for real.
  6. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Around coffee row we have all talked about a joint ticket of Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.....first African-American/Black...whatever the correct term of the day is and woman or femme if you prefer....would be a powerful combo. that McCain would be faced with!!! History making and media captivating...
  7. Vivaldo Latoche from Ottawa, Canada writes: Regarding American politics and to all of those who do not understand what politics and democracy is all about. May I tell you the following. First, those who argue that the DNC should step in and declare that Sen. Obama is the best person to lead the Democratic Party. They are missing the poit. In a full democracy, like that in the United States, competing parties must continue to the end. Why? Because it is the "best way" to test the future President. Whether we like it or not, the White House is the highest office in the world, therefore, it must be led by a highly qualified person. Not by a political inmature individual, like Sen. Obama. Why is he political inmature? Two import points among many others. First he said that he would cancel NAFTA because this North American agreement shifted American jobs overseas. Please advise Sen. Obama that Canada and Mexico are not located overseas. He is confusing Canada and Mexico with China and India. Second, Sen. Obama stated that as President of the United States, he would call the President of Canada to discuss NAFTA in full detail. Can those Obama supporters advise Barack that Canada does not a President but a Prime Minister? Those who argue that Sen. Hillary Clinton should give up because she is deviding the party. Well my friends, in a democracy, cadidates must fight to the end. Why? Because it is up to the person who becomes the leader to unify the party. If the leader is unable to unify the party then that person is not for the job. That is what democracy is all about. So Sen. Clinton do not stop. Go ahead test Sen. Obama and test yourself to prove who is the best person to be in the White House. Vivaldo Latoche
  8. Granger Cooley from Fonthill, Canada writes: The analysis coming from here in Canada has often been unintentionally hilarious but sad too. Ibbitson follows up on David Olive, who said last week Hilary should drop out for the good of the party?! As another posted pointed out this will play out regardless of the narrative you try and force on it. More importantly, the Canadians grossly understimate the lengths Mr & Mrs. President will go tom and their pathological need for power. No amount of YouTube videos can combat that. When Denver has come and gone, she will be the nominee, just watch.
  9. Joe Palooka from Toronto, Canada writes: Good on you, John Ibbitson. Far too many in the media - and among Clinton supporters - are wilfully blind to the reality: there is no way Clinton can over-take Obama in pledged delegate support. It is a statistical impossibility. Last night was in no way a "comeback" for Clinton. At best, it was a moral victory for her. Take Texas, for example. Once the caucus votes are determined, Obama will have received more delegates than Clinton from that state. So what if she won the popular vote there? It means nothing because the Democrat Party apportions delegates according to votes received. It's not winner-take-all, as in the Republican race. Obama will only strengthen his delegate lead in the coming primaries and caucuses. In fact, of the remaining states and territories, Clinton has advantages in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico; and, once Obama begins to campaign there, Clinton's lead will shrink - just as it did in Ohio and Texas. Remember, folks: just less than a month ago, Clinton was leading by some 20 percentage points in Texas and Ohio. Last night, she barely squeaked by in Texas, while won by only 10 in Ohio. How is that possibly a victory when you compare it to where she was a month ago? Please, look at the facts of the race. You will then realise that Clinton doesn't have a hope unless the illegal delegates from Florida and Michigan are seated and if Clinton continues to destroy the party for her own selfish agenda.
  10. PJ Casey Jardine from Canada writes: Heaven forbid - Clinton in the white house would be a disaster with Billy boy in the background
    Go Obama Go
  11. David Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: What's so disastrous about having the Clinton's in the White House? Bubba went out with a federal budget surplus and maintained a multilateral foreign policy throughout his terms. Now if you want to bring up that pantry across from the Oval Office, then any number of holier-than-thou types could see another Clinton Presidency as a disaster. For a good definition of a disastrous presidency, I suggest that you read up on the administrations of Republican Rutherford B Hayes; Republican Warren G. Harding and Republican George W. Bush.
  12. ravi patel from Thornhill, writes: Only HRC can take a 20pt lead in the Texas state poll, turn it into a life and death fight and be hailed as a great comeback winner. These are states that were gimme's for her. How does she get away with demeaning all of the states Obama wins while hailing her victories as the stuff of champions.

    The argument that she has won the big states is ridiculous. If you are going to discount the numerous states that Obama has won then why even have primaries and caucuses in those states? Just hold them in California, New York, Ohio and Massachusetts.

    Hillary is a multimillion dollar white heiress who is married to a former US president! The notion that should have a bigger obstacle than a black man raised by a single white mother is ludicrous. But not as ludicrous is her laughable claim of 35 years of experience. She left law school at 25 so every single moment of her life since then counts as experience?? But what is most laughable is her claim that she is more ready to be commander -in- chief. With all due respect to the position of first lady, handing out flynets in africa, pillow talk with your husband at night about his day and having tea with ambassadors hardly counts as "hands on" crisis experience.

    Hillary Clinton would get destroyed by John McCain (which does not bother me at all but would probably concern you Dion liberals). The 3am commercial is pathetic compared to the service senator McCain has put in. The math is so simple that even Hillary's high school dropout supporters can understand it. She can not catch him in pledged delegates. She only won 7 delegates more than him in ohio! The game is oooooooover. The only thing she is doing now is giving McCain fodder for the general election. Leave now and never come back.
  13. PJ Casey Jardine from Canada writes: Sorry that my opinion does not suit you and all your knowledge about our government but having Bush - Clinton - Bush we really don't need another Clinton. It is time that we get some new blood in Washington instead of the same old. As far as I am concerned the names you just posted are all republicans and in my view any republican is a disaster.
    Go Obama Go
  14. David Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: well, PJ, we're soul-mates after all! As for me, I just want the Dems to go into this with the best person to beat McCain and Hillary has won all the big states with those massive Electoral College votes. If Obama gets the nod, so be it and all my best wishes, which is all a Canadian can really offer here, go to him. My only fear at the moment is that the two candidates, or more likely their rotwiellers, could cause some schism within the party ranks.
  15. Peter The Not Quite Great from Edmonton, Canada writes: RC and others I think you're missing Ibbitson's point.

    The Democrats award delegates proportionally so no one "wins" a state unless they have a huge popular vote majority that translates into a huge majority of the delegates. So if you "win" in Ohio with 55% you get 55% of the delegates. If you "win" in Texas with 51% you get 51% of the delegates. (I know this oversimplified but the math is still instructive). If , say, you're trailing by 100 delegates and the remaining primaries have 500 delegates up for grabs, you will need to outscore your opponent by at least 20% in the remaining primaries just to draw even. It's a simple example but it shows the task ahead of Hilary Clinton. She needs to win big in the remaining primaries to catch Obama.

    Anything is possible but Ibbitson's right, it will be very difficult for Hilary Clinton to win now. And if the campaign gets negative it will divide Democrats and could weaken them for the actual election.

    And finally, I don't think the experience factor is that compelling an argument. JFK didn't have governing experience either and I don't think you'll find a democrat who will say he wasn't a great President. The US is electing a leader and that's not the same thing as a manager, which is what Hilary Clinton seems to be presenting herself as.
  16. C L from Canada writes: Hillary has already divided the Democratic party... if i had a vote, as an Obama supporter, i would NOT vote for hillary if she won the democratic nominee...

    id rather see McCain lead as president rather than hillary.. i mean, for hillary supporters who think experience is all that matters, they should vote mccain cuz i mean, if there is something he has, its experience!

    hillary would rather sacrifice her party's chances of winning the presidential race just so that she would win the democratic nomination.. thats the type of person and president she would be.. she would throw her fellow americans under the bus if it would prolong her stay in power
  17. Rob G from Calgary, Canada writes: Good article Mr. Ibbitson. I would add that the Tories did have an influence on the Ohio primary and that it will be remembered. As for all the Hillary supporters on this board, I would note their very poor spelling and grammar. Perhaps a sign of the level of education typical of people who support Hillary?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top