Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

You know it's over when...

The most unfortunate aspect of the much-maligned Lake County keeping Indiana interesting past midnight is that a completely befuddled Larry King has been forced to take the air while the results are still in question. But until that hair-raising spectacle, CNN's panels - normally a pointless exercise in partisan spin - offered some useful insight into the state of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

As pretty much every pundit in North America has already explained, it's wildly in the Republicans' interests for Clinton to stay in the race until the bitter end. The more she beats up the almost inevitable nominee, the better. And yet, even the Republican panelists can't quite bring themselves to claim that the results tonight mean that it's time to fight on. To a person, from what I've seen, they've assessed that Hillary had a bad enough night that for all intents and purposes she's finished.

No such qualms for the Clinton panelists, naturally, who remain firmly of the opinion that Democrats still owe her the nomination. Hopefully they're willing to personally fund the rest of her campaign, because it's hard to imagine who else will be looking to pour money into this sinkhole.

***

Update: After about eight minutes of airtime, Larry King appears to have been sent home in favour of more Anderson Cooper. Although it's entirely possible Larry is still talking, and they just haven't told him he's off the air.

  1. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Is democracy the winner in this USA Democrat leadership race? Why is it that in Michigan, Florida (one more time) and now in Indiana games are played to screw honest voting process. Are we in a banana republic here? Can we trust the intent and proprietary roles of Hillary Clinton now?
  2. Duncan Morris from Salmon Arm BC, Canada writes: Hopefully this democratic train wreck is finally over. Hillary "the fighter" should know a "sucker's bet" when she sees one and she's tapped out all the Clinton markers by now. Lower the houselights, queue the fat lady... now sing along with Roy Orbison "It's ooooooover.....it's overrr".
    Now cut the attack ads until at least September.
    The American Democratic nomination race is so last year!
  3. Ron Warwick from Sudbury, Canada writes: I agree, Hillary must realize that is OVER and start to heal the Demorats so they don't EVER see any further four years of BUSH follow-up, even though I fear for the free world with this totally inexperienced Obama........ hang on to your hats, the rest is still to come....
  4. Katherine R from Canada writes: There are rules in place for when a race is this tight. It involves superdelegates and the convention. Like it or hate it, those are the rules. Hillary is well within her right to continue on.

    These comments remind me of the vicious attacks on Nader that 'lost' the Democrats the election. He is well within his right to run for president and need not conform to your wishful thinking and invented election guidelines. If you don't like the rules, try to change them - don't blame people for following a set of rules established decades before they came along.

    I know it's frustrating, I know everyone is impatient, but this is democracy - it's a muddy, tortured process and that's how it goes. Put yourself in either Clinton or Obama's shoes - the race is so close and they have invested way too much to quit at this stage.
  5. Andrew Burke from Canada writes: Katherine R, that's a straw man. No one is arguing Hillary doesn't have the right to continue, what's being debated is whether her choice to continue is in everyones best interest.
  6. David Kanaschwiiz from Switzerland writes: pierre lefebvre asks why Michigan and Florida are so far not being "counted" (or "seated" at the convention).

    I think the press has done a poor job of explaining this.
    My understanding: the Democratic party organisations in those states insisted on having their votes earlier. The national party tried to prevent this by warning: "if you do that, we won't seat your delegates at the national convention." Michigan and Florida did it anyway. Some candidates (i.e. Obama) didn't run in those states because the rules were that they wouldn't count.

    No conspiracy, no anti-democratic forces at work, no Bush 2000 non-vote-counting... Michigan and Florida Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves for insisting on having their votes so early.
  7. Will Partridge from Delhi, Canada writes: It's not as simple as that as that. The early date was set by the Florida legislature, which has a majority of Republicans. The decision was then passed into law by a Republican governor. Here's some info I found:

    "CS/HB 537, signed by Florida Governor Governor Charlie Crist (Republican) on 21 May 2007, moves the Florida 2008 Presidential Primary from the second Tuesday in March (11 March 2008) to the last Tuesday in January (Tuesday 29 January 2008). Both the DNC and RNC have indicated that Florida will be sanctioned should they hold their primary before 5 February 2008."

    That last sentence is interesting. Don't know the details on that.

    I'm not excusing the Florida democrats entirely. They should have found a way out of this situation. But you can't deny it's a problem that was originally created by Republicans, who may or may not have been acting in good faith. Can't say one way or the other.
  8. Sissy Schuss from Canada writes: two things: as Wilde once said there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. As long as the Democrats are in the spotlight that is a good thing.

    Second, imagine the momentum that will have built from all this when Clitnon and Obama announce a joint ticket in June - it will put the United Colors of Benetton to shame.
  9. RJ R from Canada writes: The Democratic race was over after February's Super Tuesday vote. Going forward from that point Hillary C. needed to win 70% of the delegates in every state.

    An obvious message drowned out by cable news shout-shows. CNN and MSNBC (particularly) have been very effective at creating tension and a myriad of inane "what if" scenarios that "could" give Sen. Clinton the nomination.

    The Clinton's now need to realize there is a time to hold ... now its time to fold. That's politics.
  10. Robert Mason from Kingston, Canada writes: George Bush represents one of the best examples of someone so totally out of their depth, but unaware of their limitations, that it is hard to put any one of the current candidates for president anywhere near him. Obama represents the sort of hope and competence that spurred Lincoln and FDR to achieve what they did for the world as well as America. His integrity stands in stark contrast to his rivals, and his vision for a better future puts him with JFK. The Bushes and Clintons have nothing to offer but a continuation of the same old corruption and entitlement which has become a hallmark of Washington. Lets move on for everyone's sake!
  11. nigel martin from Canada writes: As much as the world needs a Democrat victory, the party should be ashamed of itself. The much-lauded American democracy is, at close quarters, totally Micky Mouse. Everyone is confused about the process, every state plays by different rules, many of which are designed to obfuscate. If it isn't shards, it's other vote-counting processes that seem to date from the 50's. I have no doubt that the will for democracy is strong throughout the country, but the means are ridiculous.
  12. Toby Maloney from Canada writes: As much as I'm not a fan of the US government, Canadians complaining about flaws in the US primary and caucus system should remember that we have a prime minister in power by virtue of a delegated convention where a tiny minority of Progressive Conservatives agreed to fold their party over the objections of even those delegates and merge with the Reform Alliance to make this dog's breakfast we have in Ottawa right now. A flawed primary looks pretty good compared to the backroom double dealing used to select our leaders.
  13. Gavin Neil from Canada writes: Katherine R from Canada writes: "There are rules in place for when a race is this tight. It involves superdelegates and the convention. Like it or hate it, those are the rules. Hillary is well within her right to continue on."

    Katherine you exactly miss the point. Of course she has a 'right' to fight to the end of the convention; Barrack will only have the 'right' to cancel the convention if he has 50% 1 of committed delegates which he won't. No one is talking about what she is allopwed to do or what the rules permit.

    This IS about democracy, you're right about that, and right now the ONLY alternative party to the present government is destroying itsself and its chances. Hillary has the right to fight it to the bitter end, but she also has the right to recognize what is good for her party and her country and to gracefully withdraw. Her failure to do so shows, in my opinion, colossal selfishness and poor judgement since she will wind up not only losing the bid herself but losing it for all democrats and consigning the world to another 4 years of a Republican White House.

    Next to he welfare of the entire world, which indeed is at stake, Hillary's "right" to stay in the contest is a right she should not be exercising.
  14. Gavin Neil from Canada writes: And PS - now that Ontario has followed our inept Federal government in establishing fixed election dates, we here in Canada will get to enjoy a political structure dedicated to constant campaigning, a treat we have only been permitted to watch until now. Yippee!!! Nothing says democracy and government like spending 50% of your time and 75% of your money just looking to get re-elected.
  15. Terry Maurice from Guelph, Canada writes: There are very few in Congress that are not in some way linked to war profiteering, both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans have more in terms of numbers of Senators invested in those war machine companies whose contracts they vote on, but in terms of total dollars invested in these companies, the Democrats are way out in front.

    http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=78&sid=1380058

    Interestingly, this was an AP article that is no longer in their archives.

    As an example of how bad it has become, Dianne Feinstein Democrat California, chaired the Senate MILCON responsible for defense contracts and voted for contracts worth billions to firms her husband, Richard Blum, owns.

    If you really think that a change of President to a Democrat is going to make a big difference you are dreaming. The US governmental and legal systems were bought out long ago by big business.
  16. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: To Andrew Burke from Canada writes: "Katherine R, that's a straw man. No one is arguing Hillary doesn't have the right to continue, what's being debated is whether her choice to continue is in everyones best interest."

    LOL, politics is really always about what's best for the particular politician in question ... sometimes it coincides with what's best for their party, sometimes not.
  17. David Harrison from Canada writes: Gavin Macneil, you've got it backwards. Ontario introduced fixed election dates before the federal government did, and we've already had our first "fixed date" election.
  18. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Osman Aboul-Nasr, PhD, Proud Canadian from South Carolina, United States writes: I was "leaning" towards Senator Clinton, but I think it is time for her to gracefully quit. It is her "right" to fight on, but who are the eventual losers? She for one, the part for another and most importantly the US, maybe the whole world. Can we take a third term? "Another hundred years"? "Bomb, bomb, bombiran"? Senator Clinton, you are a formidable candidate, and in any other year you might have won.

    Super-delegates are meant to obfuscate. If they vote like their constituency, they are redundant and what is the use. If they vote "their conscience," they are king-makers. Do away with the concept.
  19. C D from Burlington, Canada writes: To Ron Warwick from Sudbury, who says, "...even though I fear for the free world with this totally inexperienced Obama". He cannot possibly be any worse than the misguided, war-mongering puppet who is currently in power. Obama has ideals, vision, intelligence, and eloquence. I defy anyone to prove that Dubya has more than a small pinch (if any at all) of any of those four qualities.
  20. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Obama-Edwards would be the ticket I would most like to see. Edwards also has blue collar support to add to Obama's youth/black/white collar coalition. Hillary is not that much different from McCain in policy.
  21. J. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Edwards promotes programs to eliminate poverty in the United States, is pro-choice, and supports "College for Everyone" initiatives. He has endorsed efforts to slow down global warming. Although Edwards initially supported the Iraq War, he later re-evaluated his position and in November 2005 wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in which he said he regretted voting for the Iraq War Resolution, and discussed three solutions for success in the conflict.[56] He has denounced the "troop surge" in Iraq and is a proponent of withdrawal, and has urged Congress to withhold funding for the war without a withdrawal timetable.[57] Edwards argues in favor of creating one million housing vouchers over five years in order to place poor people in middle-class neighborhoods. Edwards has stated, "If we truly believe that we are all equal, then we should live together too."[58] Edwards has a universal health care plan that requires all Americans to purchase health care,[59] "requires that everybody get preventive care,"[60] and requires employers to provide health care or be taxed to fund public health care.[61] He supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants,[61] is opposed to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage,[62] and supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).[
  22. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Super-delegates have played a role in election of Dion in December 2006 LPC leadership convention. And see the resulting consequence. If there is anything Canadians should teach Democrats is that super-delegates can screw up the process.
  23. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Whatever.

    They're both Democrats.
    Democrats are flakes.

    Therefore, they're both flakes.

    McCain will eat them up.
  24. Rusty Brown from Cobourg, Ontario, Canada writes: Yeah, whatever, eh? All this primary election news that has saturated the airways for so long really seems like so much rearranging of politicians on the deck of the American Titanic.

    But I got a real chuckle out of RJ R from Canada referring to "cable news shout-shows". That's a wonderfully apt expression that will stay with me for a long time.

    RB
  25. gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Hillary is Stephen Harper in a dress. A raging, infuriated steam train composed entirely of filthy political drive (enormously talented in this realm, mind you) but with no interest in the actual impact of her politically-driven policies and little to no interest in what actually makes for good government policy.
  26. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: Overwrought juvenilia.

    " gary wilson from Calgary, writes: Hillary is Stephen Harper in a dress. A raging, infuriated steam train c..."
  27. Carolyn Bongiorno from Glenham, NY, United States writes: I don't agree that CNN's panelists give a "pointless partisan spin." I've found this cable network to be more inclusive of diverse opinions than its rival Fox. Larry King was out of his celebrity element. Why not give the younger guy the spotlight?

    Sen. Clinton refuses to throw in the towel. She will have to be nudged along by the party leadership. She ran a formidable campaign, but Sen. Obama's support ran deeper. It is time to concede.

    I expect Sen. Obama will make an offer to Sen. John Edwards to run on his ticket as the vice presidential candidate. Mrs. Clinton still has a place in the U.S. Senate. She made history, she helped rejuvenate and revitalize her party, but her challenger succeeded at doing these things even better. It's time for her to say so and offer Sen. Obama her support.
  28. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: Have we forgotten how GWB got into the White House in Jan 2000? You
    got to have the 'Class and Qualification' to achieve that;
  29. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Using names like Bin Laden and Farrakhan have no place in a political contest with a fellow Democrat. I believe some of the superdelegates who have already defected to Obama have indicated likewise. That really wasn’t very smart and it is about time we had someone smart in the Whitehouse. That makes two scores against her. She has lost not only the contest but her reputation which was excellent heretofore. Not the first time one of my heroes turned out to have feet of clay. She won’t get the chance to take it to the convention as it will be decided by the superdelegates before then.
    CYMRO
  30. Simply Red from Canada writes: Toby Maloney from Canada writes: As much as I'm not a fan of the US government, Canadians complaining about flaws in the US primary and caucus system should remember that we have a prime minister in power by virtue of a delegated convention where a tiny minority of Progressive Conservatives agreed to fold their party over the objections of even those delegates and merge with the Reform Alliance to make this dog's breakfast we have in Ottawa right now. A flawed primary looks pretty good compared to the backroom double dealing used to select our leaders.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Right on, TOby. Peter MacKay should be abused everywhere he goes for selling out to the Reformers. The COnsevative party is a pale shadow if its once great self. -- where it once was progressive, it's nasty and angry and a bully.
  31. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Hold the phone. This race is not what it seems. Several pundits estimate 10% of Obama's support yesterday was from confederate Republicans who think he will be easier to beat. If the whole race has been staged this way, Clinton could actually be in the lead if all of the fake votes were taken out. The convention is the best place to make an informed and educated choice. However, I'd like to see these candidates put some dates, dollars and committments to their generalized promises.
  32. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Milan Markovic from NY, United States writes: Adam:

    One overlooked moment in last night's festivities was when the mayor of a town in Lake County who favored Hillary accused the mayor of Gary, Indiana (a primarily African-American city) of vote manipulation. This was when he wasn't spinning madly that Hillary had garnered a big victory notwithstanding the margin because she had gone into Obama's "backyard" and beaten him. In any case, the votes came in right after the Democrat v. Democrat charge was aired, but no apology was forthcoming from the corruption fighter/ Hillary supporter.
  33. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Take a walk Hillary. You never know Stephane Dion might be closer than you think! Losers seem to follow same course of action. One of denial.
  34. Norman Lorrain from Canada writes: It doesn't matter. McCain will win. Both Democrats are much too radical, especially Obama.

    Hillary has changed focus. She's now running for 2012. She'll carry this as long as possible to ensure an Obama defeat in November, then step in as the hero for the next election.
  35. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne, I realize Hillary is a model for many educated, empowered, women in America, but the rules are as such that non-democrats can vote in some states. What she is doing is dragging out a process and is herself becoming increasingly detacted from reality. An example of this detachment was the gas tax holiday issue. To me it said "Damn educated opinions, damn the environment, I just want some votes." The convention in American politics is a multiday infomercial for the candidate that results in a "convention-bump" that the candidate uses to build momentom. By dragging this to the dems convention Hillary's actions will show a party divided and in disarray. A convention-bump will turn to a convention-crash and good ole McCain will waltz into the White House for 4 more years of attacks on common sense and the world at large.

    Sometimes, you have to cut your line and embrace the greater good.
  36. ken muenchkins from Victoria, Albania writes: what's the benefit to us mere mortals of giving two other mere mortals so much global face time?
  37. Michael Sharp from Victoria., Canada writes:

    "ken muenchkins from Victoria, Albania writes: what's the benefit to us mere mortals of giving two other mere mortals so much global face time?"

    The social progressive, having lost his moral compass, seeks ever more preposterous ideals to reassure his enlightenment.

    Clinton (gag) and Obama (snork) amuse the social progressive no end.

    Your garden variety citizen sees them for the sideshow they are and calmly and clearly votes Republican.
  38. B to the A to the R to the T from Canada writes: Michael Sharp...you're posts are starting to border on the absurd.

    You say "Your garden variety citizen sees them for the sideshow they are and calmly and clearly votes Republican." Tell me dude.

    Why would your garden variety citizen vote for perpetual war?
    Why would your garden variety citizen vote for failed economic policy?
    Why would your garden variety citizen vote for failed environmental practices?
    Why would your garden variety citizen vote for a continuation of the police state?
    Why would your garden variety citizen vote for the encroachment of church onto the state?

    It is not the social progressives that have lost their moral compass, it is the retarded regressive right, which your posts represent, that has lost the true meaning of the Christian faith; which is your rallying cry.
  39. Michael Sharp from Victoria., Canada writes:

    It gets worse, Bart.

    I'm not a Christian.
    No time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    But I have even less time for socialism, Bart.

    And your last post?

    Silly, silly, silly.

    Perpetual war?
    C'mon.

    Police state?
    Puhleeze.

    Now, finally, you apparently have no problem with the State being Church, do you?
    That meets your agenda.
  40. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: Micheal, again, your delusional. I never advocated for the state to be the church, merely common sense. The right wing of the US is bankrupt on that front.

    You doubt perpetual war? Many have said Iraq will need 100 years of tight US oversight with troops on the ground. Iran has also appeared on the horizon. What about other middle eastern states? The Republican war machine is very much set on using US military power to enforce foreign policy mans long conflicts and many of them. Basically perpetual war as I see it.

    You doubt the police state? But since 2001 we've seen a steady errosion of personal rights, increased survaillence, and a state that instills fear. I've seen this first hand in Eastern Europe in the 1970's and 80's. The state portrayed everything in terms 'us vs the west' and an extension of that being internal survaillence to put down decent and target state harassment. Trumped up and false statements we used to justify increase military spending by underfunding social and civilian infrastructure programs. Sounds familiar? The 'commies' had over-spent themselves into oblivion, I do not want us to do the same.

    McCain will be a foot note in history.
  41. Michael Sharp from Victoria., Canada writes:

    You are a monger of fear, Bart.

    You have become the very thing you despise.
  42. michael morris from Prescott, Canada writes: Is that lake county USA or Lake County, Zimbabwe?

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

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 Adam Radwanski

Adam Radwanski

Adam Radwanski is a member of The Globe and Mail's editorial board. He blogs on all matters political, with commentary and analysis of what's making news (and what should be making news).

Blogroll

Latest Blog Posts

On Soccer  
Knight: Vancouver steps up
Scene at Cannes 
Something to send home to mom
Witness: Kandahar 
Patience on patrol
Market Blog 
The close: Energy does its thing
Ingram 2.0 
Should pretending be a crime?
Number Cruncher 
It's not too late for commodity latecomers
Streetwise 
CC[amp]L sends invites to energy party
From Deep  
Game 7 BBQ
Blogolitics 
In Pictures: Washington
Adam Radwanski 
Well, that settles...not much, actually

Back to top