May 29th, 2008
02:13 PM ET

Clinton’s “I’m more electable” working?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Despite being hopelessly behind in pledged delegates and with only three primaries to go, Hillary Clinton refuses to give up. In fact, she continues to insist that she is more electable than Barack Obama.

Clinton told voters in South Dakota yesterday that her wins in swing states and her strong vote margins among certain groups make her more likely to beat John McCain in the general election.

At the same time, her campaign sent uncommitted superdelegates a letter with polling data showing how she could compete better than Obama in the fall. They pointed to her wins in states like Ohio and West Virginia along with her strong showings among older women, Hispanics and rural voters.

While Clinton has toned down her attacks on Obama in recent weeks, she has implied that if he becomes the nominee, the Democrats could lose in November. Clinton insists she's the stronger candidate against McCain "based on every analysis of every bit of research and every poll that's been taken and every state a Democrat has to win." Not true at all.

There are polls that show Clinton in a close race with McCain, many within the sampling error. And more importantly there are polls that show Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than she does. Sometimes facts are very inconvenient.

Clinton also claims to have won the most popular votes – but that's only if you include Michigan and Florida, states that were stripped of all their delegates after breaking the party's rules. Their votes don't count. Obama actually leads by 570,000 in the popular vote, and is now just 45 delegates shy of clinching the nomination.

Here’s my question to you: Has Hillary Clinton's continual drumbeat of "I'm more electable" gained her any traction?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Dale from Alexandria, Virginia writes:
Unfortunately, it has gained traction (just as anything that is repeated enough). Fortunately, how much traction it gains is immaterial at this point as it is impossible for Clinton to catch up no matter what type of bizzaro math you use.

Edgar from Los Angeles writes:
Of course, because it is the truth and nothing but the truth! She won all the Big Blue States and all the swing states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Florida! Can you deny her of the nomination? I don't think so.

Jeanie from Ava, Missouri writes:
Let's see, she's had solidly behind her the huge "Clinton Machine", former president Bill, BIG political operatives like Ed Rendell setting up the vote in Pa., FOX News network et al, Sean Hannity pumping the radio airwaves, ditto Rush Limbaugh, ditto Laura Ingraham, the militant feminist army, a couple whole states full of racists, pass after pass on subversive shots at Obama, campaign spokesmen that have stretched reason to the point our brains have snapped, Obama's been a true gentleman and given her wide berth. Point is: She should be ahead with all this "advantage". She's behind.

Sue writes:
Sen. Clinton is more electable and obviously more qualified and mature in her decision-making than Barack Obama. She should leave the back-stabbing Democrats and run as an independent.

S. from Amarillo, Texas writes:
Just because she is delusional doesn't mean we are.

Margot from San Francisco writes:
If she thinks she is more electable, then she just doesn't have a clue about how much most Republicans hate her and her husband. I'm a Clinton fan and I've seen the bugged-out, wild eyed, red-faced fits that Republicans always seem to have whenever the Clinton name is mentioned. It can be so bad that many times I've wondered if I would have to perform CPR!

Posted by
Filed under: 2008 Election • Hillary Clinton
soundoff (221 Responses)
  1. Mike, Syracuse NY

    Jack, It's probably true, but she's too far behind to pull this out.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  2. MD in Atlanta


    Not to me. That statement is mixed in with too many falsehoods that have come from the Clinton campaign throughout the entire primary season.

    Can she really not be stopped??? And if not, why not???

    May 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  3. Jenny


    Of course not. If Hillary were moe electable, then she would be ahead of Obama instead of the reverse. She has more baggage than Imedla Marcos has shoes and most people just do not want to go thru all that stuff again. They want something new and are willing to take a chance of Obama.

    Jenny Rome GA

    May 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  4. Sean Richardson Memphis, Tn

    Hillary you LOST. Except it! Clinton supporters, except it! Hillary was and is not the stronger candidate otherwise she would be the front runner. Also, Obama leads in every national poll in front of Hillary and McCain. Grow up, shut up, and start acting like adults. I am so tired of adults acting like children when things don’t go their way. No wonder the Democratic Party is in disarray. Changing rules halfway through the game. Hey parents who does this sound like?

    Much Luck,
    An independent

    May 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  5. Mary Johnson

    Just look at the results of West Virginia; Kentucky; Pennsylvania.
    It would appear to me its working. duh..... mary from sarasota, fl

    May 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  6. mark in arizona

    Here is one major elephant in the room regarding Hillary's ability to run a more effective campaign.

    She's 21 million dollars in debt.

    Obama has attracted massive campaign donations, and has also managed those funds quite well, in contrast to HIllary. And in the end, does anyone really think that if Obama is able to outraise McCain in funds by 3 or 4 to one, that McCain really has a chance?

    I think HIllary's money management of campaign funds is her weakest link in her electability, something no one is talking about. And in the end, money matters a lot.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  7. Michael

    Jack, my tireswin has more traction.

    King of Prussia, PA

    May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  8. Dave P.


    I don't see how. If she were more electable wouldn't she have WON more delegates?

    Iowa City,IA

    May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  9. Lorenzo, Atlanta, GA

    Only in the Clinton household.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  10. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    If she were more electable Obama wouldn't be the inevitable Democratic nominee.

    Even with Coulter and Limpbough's shenanigans, they still haven't made Senator Clinton the Democratic candidate.

    Americans have had enough of the old politics. We're helping Obama turn the page.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  11. Y in Georgia

    The prerequisite for being electable is winning. If Hillary can�t win the primary how could she win the general?

    May 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  12. Dave from Arlington, MA

    Somewhat. She has certainly succeeded in rallying those steadfast supporters of hers to help continue her fight, and she is probably succeeding to at least make the uncommitted superdelegates uncomfortable at the idea of an Obama-McCain general election. However, her arguments do not have a basis in reality. At this time in 2004, polls showed John Kerry beating Bush smoothly in the general election. The "electable" candidate of 2004 was not elected. So how about we base our decision on the votes that have been counted instead of hypothetical votes from the future?

    May 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  13. cory orlando,fl

    she is right, she has won more primary's than Obama and has more votes, yes Obama has won way more caucuses but in the general election there are no caucuses because that is not a good way to have a vote, also she has won more swing states that will matter more in the general election, so she should be it

    May 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  14. Mary Johnson

    BTW, polls are not "facts" they are just a moment in time. just ask any pollster, Jack. They will tell you., mary from Sarasota, fl.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  15. Jayne in NH

    If Hillary was more electable, she would be winning. Case closed.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  16. cory orlando,fl

    Sean Richardson, you are wrong Obama doesnt lead in every poll sorry

    May 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  17. Praetorian, Fort Myers

    Even if she were more electable–we're in the "cycle of the new". I predict not only will we have a new, fresh, and untainted by Washington President–but most incumbents (regardless of party) will be out on their ear in the House and Senate too.

    It's time we gave Washington an enema. But is Obama really the best choice to lead the charge for change in Washington? Or, will he just create a new dynasty of government hacks–this time of liberal leaning tendencies? Time will tell.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  18. alexa, Lovettsville, Va

    I don't think it has gained her any traction but as much as the Democratic party doesn't want to acknowledge it, it is true. Obama has in the last two months slid in the polling against McCain, especially in the battleground states. Clinton on the otherhand has increased her lead again McCain in the last two months. So what does this really tell us, that if Obama is the democratic candidate we will be inaugurating President McCain in January.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  19. karen

    no its not
    she lacks respect to her colleges.she is not better than anyone and the more people treat her with respect the more outrageous she becomes...she has turned to this old grandmother who refuses to accept any novelty or perception that is different than hers and complains all the time about how the world is not fair to her.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  20. Courtney, South Windsor, CT

    No, it hasn't. Like the Bush administration before them, the Clintons are now operating on the principle of "if we say it enough times, that makes it true." The constant claim that she's more electable proves just the opposite – she's deluded herself and many of her followers. Repeating blatantly untrue claims has caused the possibility of traction, as you call it, to result in bald tires for her campaign.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  21. Jerry -Roselle, Illinois

    If the polls show that John McCain is more electable than
    a Democrate, then America hasn't been watching the same
    war that I have for the last 7 years.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  22. Helen from Mifflin County, PA

    Maybe, but most people appear to be ignoring her – or is it just the media? It is as if everyone is allowing her to finish things her way, but she continues to insist she will win. Let me ask you, Jack, what kind of politics would allow that to happen?

    May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  23. major christian

    Jack I love wathcing you hillary can continue to play her drums but she is off beat she will never be able to play for the parade she is trying to win. by the way jack the people in virgina want you to endorse you for vice president with senator obama we like you jack.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  24. Nancy


    Clinton's argument does not appear to have influenced the Super Delegates nor given her additional traction. She reinvented herself too many times instead of acting like a strong corporate woman. Although she was not my candidate, I was saddened to see her bad behavior throughout this campaign season. There is a great difference between being cocky and being confident. I say she became a little too cocky about herself and forgot the American people she wanted to represent.

    Jackson, GA

    May 29, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  25. Wendy. San Rafael, CA

    If Hillary were more electable, then the voters would have elected her. They haven't!!

    It's only in her tiny mind that she believes this rubbish. Just like she believed that Florida and Michigan wound not count (she signed a pledge to that effect) but that was before she needed them.

    She is now out of the limelight with the McClellan story and hopefully we will not have to listen to her fanciful daydreams any longer.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  26. Cliff

    Only in "Bizarro" world. The truth has never been an impedement to the Clinton's before why should they be now? If this gains traction with the DNC it's welcome back politics as usual.
    Cliff, Ky.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  27. Richard/Nh

    Let's all agree, that Obama does have a problem with certain segments of the american population; however Hillarys recents claims usuing WV and Kentucky are alittle miss leading. First, both of these states will be republican in November. Alot of the votes she got was more of a vote against Obama and many of these same people, would choose McCain if Clinton was the other candidate. Unless most of the recent polls are wrong, Obama seems to be making progress in Michigan, Ohio, and Penn. I think we will get a better indication of his true electability when the primary is over.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  28. lou from Iowa

    At this point, the only people she needs to convince is the super delegates. They really shouldn't be swayed by polls for the general at this time. If you look at the polls from the last election, in the spring, Kerry was beating Bush by large margins....and we all know how that turned out in the fall.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  29. Peter Pan Fairview, Texas

    Your kidding right? Why would Hillary saying she is more electable make it so? It doesn't. Hillary is a legend in her own mind and is in denial. If she were the more electable candidate she would have more delegates and she does not. End of story!!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  30. Jon from Austin, TX

    Hillary has not gained any traction, but it has slowed the number of superdelegates from coming out in favor of Obama. Once the DNC rules on Florida and Michigan and these final 3 states vote, expect that the superdelegates will move quickly to support Obama and end this thing.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  31. AZM

    I think so but too late...

    Although I'll hand it to the Clintons... they fight to the end!

    My guess is Obama will win the nomination and lose the election... lot of hatred built up in the party right now... sad when this one should have been a cake walk.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  32. Kevin in Mass

    Not here Jack!!!, I wouldn't vote for her if she was the only choice. I don't like her. I don't trust her and nothing she can say or do will change my mind.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  33. Richard, Syracuse, NY

    Even though Senator Clinton is much more electable than Senator Obama it will do no good. People have decided to take the Political Correct road and go with Senator Obama even though a vast majority of people polled have no idea what he really stands for except nice sound bites and speeches.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  34. James in Cape Coral, FL

    I'm more electable would make some sence if she were winning. Electability is left completey to the voters to decide and with Obama leading in votes, states, delegates and superdelegates it would seem to me the more electable of the three is the one in the lead. But then I haven't understood a single one of Hillary Clintons arguments over the last few months.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  35. Shirley-Ohio

    Jack, she has not gained anything but a ticket back to New York to her old job. America is smart enough to know that if Obama is winning he is the one who is more electable. Hillary had a chance to get out of this race with her pride and dignity, now she will leave it with nothing but 30+ millions in debt.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  36. Ryan, Champaign IL

    It's a funny statement, coming from someone who is not being elected. It's like George Bush claiming to be a uniter and proponent of Democracy.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  37. cory orlando,fl

    No one has won the primary on their own and no one will, the super delegates will have to decide, and the reason they are there is so if no one pulls out the win they choose the best person who could win in the general election, not the one with the lead or he best speaker, but the one who can win it for the party, which means who can pull out the big states and the swing states that's how you win in November, and the person is Hillary, oh and one more thing one of the reasons that Obama is in the lead is because of caucuses which there are none in a general election so he also has that going against him

    May 29, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  38. Richard Canada

    Hillary has run out of time. In another week her candidacy will be toast. The DNC cannot put new Michigan and Florida primaries together fast enough to prevent Obama from winning the nomination. Obama needs only a small fraction of the delegates to reach his goal while Hillary needs an overwhelming majority of the remaining delegates to come up from far behind and it just ain't gonna happen. Time for her to say thank you and goodbye.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  39. David, Orlando, FL

    Sadly, she may well be “more electable,” but that ship sailed as soon as she began to get nasty with Obama. Our choice was change but possible defeat, or a probable win with the same old Clinton dynasty (read: politics as usual). It is the dilemma of two mutually exclusive Hobson’s Choices to find a Democratic candidate. Too bad she didn’t play nice. If she had, we would have had our dream ticket either way.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  40. Kelin


    Hillary Clinton should be in the guiness book of world records for the number of arguments she has come up with during this campaign and we all should get ear plugs so we don't have to listen to them anymore.

    She is more electable if we had republican rules, if this was the electoral college, if we only counted Florida & Michigan for her only, because caucus states don't matter, because she is winning the hardworking white vote, because she won texas, ohio, and Pennsylvania, and because she is, was, or will be winning the popular vote. Give me a break already.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  41. robert-New Jersey

    The traction it has gained in my mind,is that I CAN"T wait until this thing is over.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  42. Jerry from Fayetteville, TN

    I honestly can't blame Clinton for continuing her quest, now that she's backed off of the negative campaigning against Obama. I suspect she's positioning herself for an "I told you so" moment in 2012 in the event Obama loses. It surprises me when folks get worked up over things she says while she continues her quest – they don't seem to understand that what she says doesn't have to make sense or be true as long as it promotes her candidacy.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  43. Major Michael in Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: I think that Americans are exhausted from hearing Hillary preach the same rheortic, "I'm more electable against MCain." She fails to realizes that she is running against Obama for the Democratic nominee......and not McCain........and that it will take more than the "swing states" to achieve the Presidency. Nancy Pelosi said in an interview that it is obvious that Obama is offically the nominee...and that this issue will not be debate on the convention floor. This continuation cannot gain any more "traction" for Hillary, especially when Hillary is "stuck on stupid."

    May 29, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  44. cory orlando,fl

    if she cant win and obama can then answer this for me, why hasnt he closed it out, why does Hillary have more votes than him, why is she doing better than he is even though all the media is saying she cant win

    May 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  45. Holly in Raleigh, NC

    She is not more electable and she is NOT helping with the unity of the party in thinking she is. Can somebody please wake her up and let her know she lost??

    Being stubborn and obstinate are not winning brownie points with anyone. Neither is agreeing to something and then calling it unfair just because you are losing!! If you want Florida and Michigan to count then maybe next time they should follow the rules!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  46. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    No Jack, she has as much traction as a sled trying to go up an icy hill.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  47. DEE JAY

    No Jack none whatsoever.
    Simple if she was more electable, she would be winning.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  48. Lenore Z.

    I think her claim has given her a lot of traction with the media, who is still paying a lot of attention to her– in fact, lately, we see much more of her last-ditch appeals now than we do of Obama. And her claim has given her a lot of traction with her die-hard supporters.

    But with nobody else.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  49. cory orlando,fl

    Hillary is the better of the two and if Obama gets it he will not win

    May 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  50. Larry McCumber

    my guess is that she has a better shot than Obama. Obama put things out of reach before the wright story came out. To smart to late for many voters. Americans wanted someone they could believe in and Obama was fresh political meat. Now he's there for the Republicans to chew up and spit out.

    Larry in Florida

    May 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  51. Frank Canada

    Jack visualize this scenario:

    You have a 4 year old and a 3 year old who both want to play with the same toy so you make a rule that the 4 yr. old gets to play with it first then it becomes the 3 yr. olds time to play with it and both of them agree to this arrangement.

    Then after the 4 yr. old has used up their allotted time of playing with the toy you take it from them and give to the 3 yr. old but the 4 yr. decides she can bully the 3 yr. old because she's been around longer so the 4 yr. old threatens to break the toy so the 3 yr. old can't have it despite their previous agreement.

    The 4 yr. old rationalizes she should be allowed to keep playing with the toy because she is more capable of operating the toy than is the 3 yr. old.

    The question I guess everyone has to ask themselves is, as a parent, would you listen to and agree with the 4 yr. old's unsubstantiated logic and let her carry out her threat or would you take the toy from her and give it to the 3 yr. old to play with according to their previous agreement.

    The moral of the story would likely be the 4 year old's logic doesn't carry any weight and the 3 year old will end up getting the toy to play with. Hillary will not likely get any more traction with her assertions than the 4 year would.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  52. Betsy, Bartow, FL

    Jack, Hillary thinks she is more electable, especially with Bill by her side. However, others like myself, who were big Clinton supporters in the past, are very disappointed in the Clintons. I don't think she has gained any traction, just the opposite. I am a white middleaged woman in support of Obama. I just retired a year and half ago after working for the State of Florida. I will devote every moment to Obama's campaign should he become the nominee. I do believe the people will get behind Obama. They will see that McCain is just more of the same. Frankly, I don't think I have ever seen our Country in this bad of shape. "We The People" need to take back our Country.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  53. Rick in Florida

    About as convincing as Senator Craig's assertion that he has an unusually "wide stance".

    About as convincing as her "new math" which now only counts the Primaries, ignores all the Caucuses, and gives her votes which she already has agreed wouldn't count.

    About as convincing as her life and death run in Bosnia.

    Put a fork in her........SHE'S DONE.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  54. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    If you're learning how to use an adjective to describe a verb, "I'm more electable", then I'd say Hillary gets a gold star. Otherewise, I don't think people really understand exactly what she means.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  55. Cynthia

    Gaining any traction? She's had her tires rotated I don't know how many times (changing what should be the deciding factor in who should be the nominee). Right about now, her tires are bald – she just spinning her wheels.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  56. Stan from Smyrna, GA

    Apparently she need to change the beat of her drums to be more effective than what she is doing now. Then again the music she plays is a good add on for the fat lady singing.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  57. Eliot from Chicago, Illinois

    plain and simply "no". Even if 5% of America won't vote for Obama out of fear of him being different; 30% won't vote for her becuase her past (90's) and current comments. Forget the traditional maps of the last 16 years, Obama may be able to "change" the blue/red thing as Reagan did in the 80's. Virginia, Miss., Colo, Nebraska, South Carolina, etc.....

    May 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  58. James

    Hillary Clinton is not, has not, and will never be a "more electable" candidate than Barack Obama. The only thing that she could do to be of some use is to bow out and support the Jack Cafferty for vice-president movement!!! GO CAFFERTY!!!!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  59. Rosalynd Florida

    CLinton's argument has no traction with the Super D's are the voting public. The Democratic nomination is about pledged delegates not these other crazy Clinton parameters which are questionable to say the least on if she has any leads: Electoral College, Electability, Popular vote, White working people liking her better, Carl Rove Maps of approval and other nonsense.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  60. Cindy

    Nope. She's just playing spoiler in her own party. The electability issue is more fear mongering. The fact is, either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain in November.

    The Clinton supporters who scream they will vote McCain instead of Obama are acting out of a combination of fear-mongering and sour grapes. Hopefully when Hillary stops feeding the fire, they will come to their senses. Well, hopefully, most of them will, anyway...

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  61. Michael David Walla Walla, Wa

    No. Hillary is merely a legend...in her own mind!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  62. Eric Wayne

    At this point I don't care who is more electable, just give us a democractic nominee!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  63. Rachel Lucas

    To me, the fact that Hillary Clinton would claim to be winning based on the "popular vote" merely shows that she is willing to cheat.
    Since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, it is truly audacious to suggest that he would have won no votes at all. It is as disgraceful to discount the caucus states of Nevada, Iowa, Wyoming, and Nevada, all of which went Obama's way.

    Her comment about RFK's assasination was beyond disgraceful. Even if other primaries went into June, that was because the California primary wasn't fought until then. She lost my vote when she started using Republican tactics against Obama, and these latest claims and gaffes are showing me what she really is......and I don't like it one bit!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  64. Ken Deminick

    I can't beat Obama in the primaries but I can beat McCain in the GE six months from now. Yea...right.
    Six months ago Hillary was guaranteed the nomination, the McCain campain was finished and people were asking Barack Who?
    So much for predictions six months down the road.
    I can understand why Hillary would want to make that claim but I fail to see why the pundints & talking heads spend so much time on such usless speculation.
    We don't even know who Obama's running mate will be or how that may affect the eventual outcome.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  65. Robert Duarte

    Keep on trucking Hillary!!!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  66. Peahen


    May 29, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  67. Douglas -- Rochester, MN

    (I inadvertantly) "submitted my previous comment before I was finished typing).

    Hillary's new campaign slogan should be:

    RULE Changes We Can Believe In.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  68. Laurence Hornibrook.


    Based on Clinton Logic – I'm more electable than Senator Obama! (If you go with the logic that the person who's ahead of you is actually behind you – which doesn't happen unless you're going in a different direction).

    Could this mean that Senator Clinton is finally leaving the race?

    Chillicothe, IL

    May 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  69. LES

    Yes, her argument holds water. Polls show she would beat McCain in states like Florida and Ohio, states where Obama is way behind.

    Also, by playing political hardball, Obama is going to alienate Michigan voters and give the state to McCain.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  70. Zia

    If it was working them she would be attracting a lot of superdelegates, but except for that flip flopper Rodriguez from Virgin Islands, I dont see any significant moves.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  71. obama supporter

    plain and simple. if she is more electable,how come she is behind?
    if she can't beat obama,how can she beat some old sole that has been around all our life?
    simple math

    May 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  72. Andrew

    I do believe Hilary statement is our of date. Obama is leading on all points be it delegates, popular votes, and Super delegates. All Democrats should rally behind Obama. Hilary Clinton should just accept the knock out. Even if Florida and Michigan are included Obama will surpass the normination number. Hilary just accept or you are looking at age.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  73. *CW*

    this is crazy….
    the democratic goal is to clean the white house of the republican way of thinking….support your party… even if your canidate is not chosen!


    May 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  74. Susan O'Connor Fraser

    I think there's a lot of danger in her creating a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Whether she has traction or not, her (and Bill's) continual repetition of this concept of electability, the counting of only those contests that are convenient to claim she is ahead in the popular vote, her flip flop on Florida and Michigan (and call for protests this Saturday), accusations of sexism, and comments that there is some cover-up going on, is creating this sense that Obama (and his supporters) are trying to steal this election when just the opposite is true.

    I hope it's over next week.

    Scotts Valley, California

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  75. Tim, California

    I thought she lost back in February.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  76. Wayne, American Citizen in Espanola, Canada

    I think the Dems are going to win by a landslide this year. But I also think democrats really don't want to lose this time and Obama represents a lot of "unkowns" that people fear. The problem Clinton has is that she is like the boy who cried "wolf". We are just not listening anymore. Its too bad, there was a time when I think most people would have voted for her. But her "win at all costs" style makes her appear dishonest.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  77. Jan Davis, Knoxville, TN

    No, I think her continuing to make up stories has only further alienated Democrats against her. It is getting to the point of ridiculous that she continues to drag this out. The recent polls I have seen show Obama with a higher rating against McCain than her. I think she needs to go back to New York and take a class in Mathematics! She is trying to ruin everything for Obama. People will remember that in the years to come, why doesn't she realize it???

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  78. Bill

    If she can't even beat Obama, whom she accuses of veing weak, how on earth could she beat John McCain?? I think what we're seeing here is obsession. Let it go Hillary.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  79. Marc, Toronto

    Real Clear Politics has Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton by over a full % point in terms of beating John McBush.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  80. greg

    if she was more electable she would be winning right now and not be bitter

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  81. Lewis

    Isn't winning the primary a key criteria for being electable in the general?

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  82. Brian

    Well, if whoever gets to 2026 first, thats the stronger candidate and who I will back bottom line. Everyone has seen the rules and knew them before they got involved. Now, lets play by them! Its frustrating to see someone who agrees to sign off Michigan and Florida in beginning, then turns around and acts like shes a champion for them in the end. If only they (Mich.& Flor.) could remember the beginning of this process of when it happened. Last, what gets me is that she makes Obama looks like the bad guy in these states of why HE didnt resolve the issue by a recount. She is unreal!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  83. Unshrub

    No, I think it is costing her SD votes in the long run. The facts don't support her view, and by manipulating the facts, it will cost her the more informed SD vote.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  84. Chris Swansea, MA

    If Hillary wants to be considered more electable she should have gotten Oprah's endorsement way back when, but she didn't. Ever since then Obama has been beating her in the Election.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  85. Monica from Kingsland, Georgia

    Jack, If Hillary can't beat Obama, how in the heck can she think she can beat McCain. Obama has won the nomination and will win the election. Heck I can beat McCain in the run for the white house; and nobody knows who I am.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  86. Bob Tallahassee

    Out with the old and in with the new – enough already. She's at this point just a hinderance to the final chapter in the debacle of a government we've been saddled with for 8 years. Let's move on to something fresh.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  87. Clarence

    Jack, The Clintons seem to be winning the wrong race. In stead of winning the general she should be winning the primary. The Clintons are the only people I know who just make up their own rules. She loses the primary race, but insist that she should be the rep. for the Dems. I am sorry I do not want a President who does not know which battles to win. So no she has not gained any traction.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  88. Ray,Florida

    I'm so sick of hearing her say I'm more electable!

    12 month's ago most of the poll's indicated that Hillary would blow all the canidates out of the water in the primary! Even Obama!

    So how's that working out for you Hillary?!!!

    Poll's today mean nothing to the people voting in November!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  89. stuart kennedy

    no. she has been preaching this belief from the beginning. If it was working, she would be in the lead. plain and simple

    May 29, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  90. Michael Smith, New Orleans

    Perhaps her latest slogan has gained some traction toward the Vice Presidency. But since she's already lost the nomination, the question seems to be moot.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  91. Grady in Portland, OR

    I hope not. Presidential nominations should be based on votes, not polls. To me it's like she's saying "count every vote, then give me the nomination based on the polls and the demographics."

    May 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  92. Al

    If Hillary loses, I'll vote for McCain

    May 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  93. Karen, Nashville Tn

    I think people are starting to feel sorry for her, and we all know how she loves to work the "pity" thing.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  94. Mark Anthony - Lake Elsinore, CA

    Anyone running for office considers themselves more electable that their opponent, so she thinks her argument is valid. But what has to be considered is she is behind in everything that counts, plus she comes with a lot of baggage and a potential lawsuit in the fall.

    I honestly believe she is trying to damage the party and Obama so she can say in November. "See I told you so" and she can run against McCain in 2012.

    Her aides have be quoted as saying "Hillary first, the party second" I'm beginning to believe that.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  95. Lisa

    I don't see where it has made a difference, because she has not gain more delegates, or superdelegates than Sen. Omaba. I feel her call for being more electable is falling upon deaf hears. It's really sad when she makes comments saying her opponent can not win when we are supposed to supporting the same party.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  96. Scott

    Jack, its hard to say whether Clinton is more electable than Obama because Clinton hasn't fought two campaigns on two separate fronts. Obama has been battling both McCain and Clinton for weeks now. It is somewhat miraculous that he's still standing, let alone standing strong.

    I believe most objective observers see the storms Obama has weathered, the new voters he's brought into the process and the relatively high favorables he's maintained and conclude that Clinton's argument doesn't hold up.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  97. Jay

    If she is more electable, why is she losing? It will appear that the strongest democrat will win the most delegates. She has not because she does not believe every vote is important. That is why she have taken some states for granted. Now, it has cost her the nomination. Plus do we believe that someone that could not keep her campaign out of debt will actually get the country out of debt?

    Now, she says that she has more popular vote! But how can she say that is a fair statement when he get NO votes form Michigan. Give her Florida vote count because they both were on the ballot and he still has the lead there as well. To say he would have got no vote in a state is crazy and outside of logical thinking.

    Polls in May means very little! Let us not forget that her husband was behind in the polls ('92) and Al Gore ('00) and John Kerry ('04) was winning at this time in there elections. We ALL know how those elections turned out!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  98. IKE

    Of course she is more electable. Unfortunately the Super Delegates are more concerned with their own political future and not the party. It will be very disappointing to loose to McCain when the independents that voted in the democratic primary decide that they like McCain more than Obama. It is the responsibility of the Super Delegates to be sure that the nomination does not go to a candidate that wins on the backs of the unreliable independent voters. They are not doing the job that they were created to do and the media continues to shout the praises of prince Obama. It is as bad as the run up to the war when you all failed to ask a single critical question of Bush. Way to go media you screwed us again.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  99. Roy

    She is still running so maybe she can win in 2012 ,but she has to get Obama none electable in 2008.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  100. Todd Bradley

    She has as much chance as winning as you do Jack.

    Actually, you probably have a better chance – if you just let her do your math for you.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  101. sandra/alberta

    Dear Jack: The Presidency of the United States is the most powerful office on the planet. People do all kinds of things to hold on to that kind of power once they have a taste for it. The Clinton's are no exception and their comments over the last few days have shown a kind of desperation that is not very attractive.


    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  102. Delton

    If Clinton were more electable than Obama, then she would be the front-runner instead of the other way around. Wouldn't it? Hillary's real argument is that she is more entitled to the nomination.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  103. Ian in Houston

    After 8 years of Dubyah, it's amazing any Democrat has to appeal to the nebulous notion of electability. That said, the antiquated farse that is the electoral college may favor Clinton slightly. But a win is a win, and Obama should be able to handle McCain. Democrats can relax and go with the guy more people have supported, more people have voted for, and more people are excited about.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  104. Jerry B

    The Clinton spin has her looking like a better canidate. In reality she's building a wall of mud that will eventually slide back into her camp and make anyone associated with her look foolish. Clinton is out of touch with the mainstream political trends, this inability to see how sharp rhedoric will damage her standing and anyone associated with her, is a good reason why she will not be the next president.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  105. Douglas Zuniga

    Clinton knows how to play politics, there is not doubt about it. Her convenient math and contradictory arguments over time don't fool anyone. The interesting fact is that she may even be silently playing the famous saying, "if I can't have it, no one can't". She's quite determined to continue her ambitions at the risk of breaking the party and drastically reducing the chances of the democrats winning in November.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  106. John Ferebee

    It doesn't matter who the nominee is. If they both are on the ticket, the Democrats will win either way.

    I suspect that Obama will put her on the ticket.

    CNN is the best

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  107. Bruce

    No, Hillary's campaign is still slipping, her arguments are without merit and smell of desperation. Hillary is a legend in her own mind.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  108. Pam

    Little Rock, AR

    Jack, Hillary is done and should be out helping the Democratic Party prepare for November. Her logic is illogical and borders insanity. Campaigns can be hard on candidates and they begin to believe the crap that they feed to followers. Her logic about being ahead in the polls is an example of using polls to paint whatever picture is needed at the time. Her time has come to leave and stop tring to bamboozle people. The Obama campaign out manuvered her campaign and they should just admit it and move on to support the Democratic Party. Enough is enough.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  109. Louise

    No, I am tired of hearing her mantra, based on skewered figures. If she cared about the democratic party at all, she would drop out of the race and tell her supporters to drop the idea of picketing on saturday. It makes the democratic party look divided and in chaos.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  110. Royalprince of Ann Arbor, MI

    Hillary Clinton is more electable than Obama. She can win the key states that are needed for the Dems; Obama can't. Clinton can still win the nomination, but it depends on the outcome of the DNC meeting Saturday and may go beyond that, if Clinton appeals their decision. I predict Clinton will all the way to the Convention, just like Reagan in 1976 and Kennedy in 1980.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  111. Kate in Florida

    OK, let me get this straight. She is behind in the delegate count but that is because of sexism. Except that she is ahead in the popular vote? but wait, that's only if you count a state with no other candidates on the ballot. So if we can get John McCain off the ballot in a couple of swing states and throw out the electoral collage in favor of the popular vote then SURE, she is more electable!

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  112. Jordan, New Jersey

    Of course she is more electable, Obama has simply won more states that are going to go red in november anyway. if democrats really want to win, they should support clinton, who would be more likely to take california, ohio, and florida from John McCain, but too many people are caught up in Obamas empty rhetoric and it is too late now. I have heard Obama speak in person, and he is no different that any other politician. I hope that the clinton supporters hold true to their values and vote for McCain or not vote in november if obama gets the nod.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  113. Fred L

    Jack It's really unlear who has the advantage.

    If the situation was reversed Obama would be arguing Clinton can't win Illinois, N Carolina, etc.

    The fact that certain areas of the country refuse to enter the 21st Century is disturbing. Then again if the Democrats aren't grown up enough to get past that nonesense then they deserve 4 more years of the same.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  114. Carla-NC

    Jack, to answer your questions simply watch the behavior of the super delegates. Are they storming her front door? She may get a pebble thrown at her window every now and then .... but no real movement to embrace her or her outlandish ideas. She may be willing to ruin her street credibility, but they are not going to risk theirs.

    May 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  115. Vince

    Jack – what's going on down there and when will it stop!

    Am I one of the few that thinks Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is odd...if you think about it after Clinton there could be another Bush (Jed) and then another Clinton (Chelsea)...that would be fun...why have a process at all!

    If HC pull this off, it will be due to some backroom shenanigans, then I think BO should run as an independent – let's see how elect able she'll be then.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  116. Judy - MO

    If there is any traction made from HRC's constant drumbeat, it is to have awakened Pelosi to state she will END THIS fiasco before the convention. Clinton's "electibility mantra" will soon become, at long last, a more honest theme of this primary season and that is she is now ejectable!!

    Pelosi, I can't wait to send you flowers 🙂

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  117. sally

    Hillary's statement is not ture.Let review from the begnning when Obama was underdog, she had every reason should win, but she did not. Now she become a underdog and begger to win. Let's be reality. She missed that chance forever and refude to admit.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  118. Renee Welford

    I hope the DNC Rules Committee will FAIRLY decide the MI and FL delegates this weekend...From what I have been reading, they will probably do half correct? and that still puts her behind Senator Obama in the popular vote and pledged delegates. What then will be her argument....What does Hillary really want? Let's pray for a resolution by Tuesday and the Democratic party can coe together behind Senator Obama to beat John McCain in November.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  119. Charles

    Or to use another sports analogy, Obama and his campaign ran a 51 state/commonwealth full court press. Clinton and her campaign could only manage to run, at best, a half court press and could not handle that very well.

    In the general election, with campaign staff in place to run a full court press forcing a very disorganized McCain campaign to focus on all the states and not just a few, Obama is better situated to represent the Democratic Party. He has demonstrated he has the resources and the talent to run the full court press.

    Clinton has had to tap the resources of her own 100 million dollar wealth to stay up in just the few races she has chosen to run in. Would the campaign have had to sell the house if she had campaigned in all 51?

    It is the ability to manage a campaign that is just as important as 'electability', which is a debatable metric anyway.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  120. Bit, Alabama


    No because her message has changed so many times. One minute she's more electible, the next she's ready on day one, then she's the only one to beat McSame..........and the list goes on.

    Obama has managed to stay "on course" with his message of "change" and has not wavered from that. The "change message has caught on and that's what the people want.


    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  121. Elariia, TX

    Her electability argument didn't work in January, it didn't work in February, it didn't work in March, it didn't work in April, and it's not working now. The rules say the candidate with the most pledged delegates wins, not the person with the most contrived polls, the most convoluted maps or the most dizzying spin.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  122. Pat,Lexington, Ky.

    We won't know how much, if any, traction she has gained until after Saturday's meeting, and maybe not until after 6/3. I believe at that point the remaining superdelegates will commit and we can only hope that the Clintons' badgering will not pay off for them.

    I'm getting so tired of hearing her already – I can't stand the thought of listening to her for four years in the White House!

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  123. Mike

    Didn't Clinton say in a debate that Obama could win ?

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  124. Karen-NY

    I am a high school teacher and teach my students that just because you continually repeat something doesn't make it true. Reality is reality and it's important to deal with things you can change, but to accept things you can't. Barack Obama has won the poular vote, the delegate vote, the most states and the most superdelegates. Why does she think she should be the nominee? Sounds like she just thinks she should be, regardless of what the vote says. It always surprizes me when the Clintons complain about other people thinking they can play by different rules than the rest of us. They're known for it for many reasons, and lucky for them, a lot of middle aged women seem to have amnesia. I cannot wait until the primaries are over next Tuesday and the country can move forward with our two outstanding candidates. Enough is enough.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  125. Ed TX


    When you see the conservative "talkling heads" like Pat Buchannon continue to hype Clinton's chances, that should tell you who is the stronger candidate. Once the general begins in earnest and the women who support Clinton so stongly understand McCain's position on a "women's right to choose", they will flock to Barack, lol

    May 29, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  126. Annie - Atlanta

    That's all she have left. But when the time comes to vote for Obama VS. McCain, it will be Obama. Unless you love being in a recession.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  127. Politically Incorrect


    I've tried to be neutral in all of this. However, the constant ringing of Hillary's voice in my ears has me irritated, frustrated and annoyed..

    But you know what!!. I think it's working.. I'd hate to see Hillary get her way, however, the only way i vote for her is if she is at the top of the ticket and has Obama as the VP. AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!..

    That way, Obama can get his experience, which is his biggest knock! She can serve two terms, and then Obama can have a Clinton Free WHITEHOUSE come 2016.

    It all makes too much sense! Doesn't it!!!

    May 29, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  128. Jaime

    There's an old law adage. "If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table."

    She'll bang on this table as often as she can regardless of the facts or by-laws. We'll hear over and over because repetition turns lies into conventional wisdom.

    Someday we might ask ourselves, "Why do politicians lie to us?"

    The answer will be there, "Because we choose to believe the lies. because it works."

    May 29, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  129. Mawuli Dake

    Gimme a break. Even Ron Paul thinks he is more electable. It is a ridiculous argument to make when you are losing even the primaries. A lot of people think- by arrogance, illusion or rightly so, that they are electable, and that is why there is one and only one way to prove that- winning the primaries. Period.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  130. Jeanne, San Diego

    Jack, if you repeat something often enough, you're bound to persuade a few people but others are simply going to get tired of you repeating the same thing over and over and over again. The math simply doesn't support Senator Clinton. There are too many possibilities between now and the November election to know exactly how things will play out. One thing is for sure, if the Clintons continue to polarize the Democrats, it will hurt the party. The best thing Senator Clinton could do is suspend her campaign and work to unite the Democrats. She will then be in a much better position for the future.

    May 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  131. Paul

    If you have to tell people you are more electable then you probably aren't.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  132. Peter Whiteley

    It doesn't matter who's more electable. I could win against that war monger McCain and I'm Canadian.
    Aldergrove BC

    May 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  133. Brock

    The longer Hillary drags this out the less electable she is.
    People are ready to move on.

    San Diego, CA

    May 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  134. jeff maffett

    hey jack
    I'm on the dems team and i'd had voted for hillary to be the captain but since obama seem to be the choisen captain, i will be rooting and supporting him to win for our team.
    jeff m.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  135. Sly, NJ

    Yes, Hillary is the stronger canidate...that is you believe there's still WMDs in Iraq. Subliminal suggestion is a gimick that just wont work anymore...BTW we have already being fooled once!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  136. Charles from Houston

    No, because I don't understand how someone who can't even win in her own party can somehow pull off a stunning win in the general election.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  137. Mitchell in NJ

    Traction?... NO. Didn't we just endure 8 years of this kind of fuzzy math, false assumptions and skewed thinking??? Just imagining 4 or 8 more years of this kind of leadership makes me consider moving to Canada. Time to sit down and be quiet, my dear.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  138. CanadianJohn

    The saying "I'm more electable" may have some credence to it, it may even be correct. It is also irrelevant. She could be the greatest McCain killer we have ever seen, but Democrats have cast more votes for Obama. The Democrats may be making a very large mistake for choosing Obama over Clinton, but it will happen. One will just have to hope that the "less electability" of Obama is still good enough for them to win.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  139. Leo, Dallas

    If Hillary was so electable she would not be in the mess that she is in now. This is a last ditch effort to make a mess of the Democratic party in one of the most important elections in recent history.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm |
  140. Bob from Michigan

    Indeed Clinton's "I'm more electable" statement is working. It's working to destroy the Democratic Party.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  141. mary pinto

    Hi, Jack,
    Hillary Clinton is doing the right thing: staying in the race up to the end, to win it and to save America from imminent tragedy.
    Those who vote for her in the Democratic race are voting for SECURITY. Those who vote against her are voting for RISK.
    Simple as that. Surprised you don't seem to see it that way...

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  142. Tim L from Long Island

    Of course it has gained traction.
    With the Rules' Committee debating on Michigan and Florida, the idea of Clinton possibly deserving a chance has been given volition by the extension of possible delegates.

    At very least, it is something that warrants an extra look.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  143. Dan Bailey

    Hardly. Zogby shows her dead even with McCain, 43% to 43%. Same poll shows Obama ahead of McCain 48%-39%.

    It's time for her to hang it up.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  144. joe

    Hillary is NOT more electable. It seems that everyone knows that but Bill and Hillary. Not being a fan of either Obama or Hillary makes this a lot of fun to watch though. The continued silliness between them makes McCain more electable by the day.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  145. Tony Benitez of Phx, AZ

    Yes, I think it has. Besides there is still time before the democratic convention for minds to change. I like her attitude "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead".

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  146. Raman

    Clinton's assertion that she can win the swing states because she won those states against Obama is non sense.

    That assumes that people who voted for her will not vote for Obama. If so, the same rule should apply to Clinton if she were the nominee. I dont think she can win any state if Obama voters did not vote for her if she were the nominee.

    It was a close race and Clinton lost by a thin margin. That is all there is to it.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  147. Tom, Austin, TX

    It is just more spin from Hillary and her campaign. Frankly, all this "I am more electable" spin does for me is to make me even more exhausted that she is still in the race. Why is she still in the race anyway?

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  148. Waiting for this primary season to end

    It looks like she is "winning" only if you give her the 328,000 Michigan votes cast for her (and Obama gets 0 for not being on the ballot) and you disenfranchise the caucus states by not counting them at all.

    I used to support the Clintons – can't remember why at this point.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  149. TR-CT

    I think she is looking more desperate every day!!!!! In people I speak with who dont follow much politics, everyone thinks she went about 1 week too far and its really going to hurt her politically in the future!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  150. proudtobeconservative

    We really dont know whether she is more electable or not? Come Nov, if Obama wins, she was wrong and Obama loses, she was right. But as of NOW, Sen Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  151. Kevin

    It is not true but it seems she is going to do everything she can to make it true by not giving up and allowing the general election campaign to begin. It would appear she feels if she cannot get the nomination now she wants to do EVERYTHING she can to make Obama/the democrats loose. That way she only has 4 years to try again instead of 8!!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  152. David

    Its like I tell my kids, "If I had just been faster, I could have been in the Olympics!" and, "I could have had a 4.0 GPA in college if I had just known all the answers." Hillary needs to face reality, but for the rest of her life she'll be saying, "I could have been president if I had just received more votes!"

    The reasoning which she has displayed reveals that either her thought processes are flawed, or that she believes most Americans are easily deceived. Neither option is a Presidential characteristic.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  153. CJ

    No, I don't think she is more electable; people want change and she's not it!! Because she refuses to bow out gracefully, many people have lost any respect they had left for her; she now is an embarrassment!!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  154. Kimmyber, St. Petersburg

    Yes if she were running for president of Appalachia!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  155. W. John Funk

    NH – I find it embarrassing. She is tarnishing her reputation. She has lost the contest and is trying to redefine the game. She's sliding into the "poor loser" category and is undercutting the Democrats in the general election. I respect her right to complete the primary process, but please go away with some dignity.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  156. Jean in Texas

    The Law of Aerodynamics states that the bumble bee is not supposed to fly because its body is too heavy, and its wings are too light - It seems no one told the bumble bee. Well, Senator is not a bumble bee and she is probably not going to fly into the White House; her argument may be heavy, but her delegate count is too light. So she should act more like a butterfly and flitter gracefully on to the next flower.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  157. Vera, Florida

    Jack, . . . If elections were run on who we "THINK" is more electable,
    we would depend on fortune tellers, and not voters.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  158. Nick

    I find it odd that the person in second place keeps insisting that she is more electable than the person in first place.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  159. Trish - Independent in PA

    There is no way that she's gained traction. She is not winning the popular vote. Why should she be allowed to count the votes that are not to date being recognized by the DNC?

    As far as her winning PA, Kentucky and WV...these states along the Appalachian Trail have the largest population of people who will NOT vote for a Black man. Our Gov. in PA said it, and it is an unfortunate truth. Clinton is using these votes to sway the superdelegates towards supporting her? Meanwhile she isn't being questioned as to why she is accepting the support of self-declared racists. I don't believe she intends to support Obama when he gets the nomination. I believe that if she can't have things her way, she intends to be the demise of the Democratic Party.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  160. Jessica, Atlanta

    Her basic argument is that I can win every state my husband won. She thinks she can win by picking and choosing states, that is what Al Gore did and lost, that is also why she is losing the primaries. We need someone to compete in all 50 states not someone that will focus on just 6 or 7 big states.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  161. Keith from Villanova PA

    I just don't see Hillary gaining traction as Obama plows ahead and continues to get more delegates. If anything, it appears that based on the direction that the delegates have been moving, she is loosing traction. Like you said said Jack, you can't dispute the facts! And thats the fact Jack!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  162. Pat

    No I don't find her more electable. She constantly complains or has her husband do it for her that no one is treating her nice., and feels that all of our problems will be taken care of "once she is elected to the white house." She is whiney, unrealistic and plays dirty.. My vote is NO!!! , and I am an older white woman (all of 60) who has worked hard all her life and believes that we need someone who really cares about all of us no matter who or what we are and she wants to help us ....not just about being the first female president.....

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  163. brenda ,minnesota

    Bill clinton said it best, "it's a fairy tale".

    May 29, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  164. Mel Bakuy - Rancho Mirage, California

    Jack, all Hillary wants is to be on the ticket with Obama. I think if Obama wants to win the election he should pick her. Hillary has a very loyal group following her that might stay home during the elections if she is not on the ticket. She is also tougher than Obama to battle the GOP attack machine after all she's been doing just that all her life. Obama needs to pick her as his running mate and win this election

    May 29, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  165. Frosty


    If she were more electable, she'd be winning.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  166. Nancy... Cape Girardeau, MO

    I beleive either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama could win in Nov against McCain... 3rd term GWBush.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  167. John Smith

    I think that you have to consider Florida and Michigan and their factor in the general election. If Clinton would have won those states in a normal primary, then she has a better chance with those states in the general. Considering the states she has won, she is the more electable. The general election is more like the Republican rules for primaries, it's a winner take all, the delegates are not proportioned out. If the democratic campaign was the same, Hillary would have more delegates considering the states she's won. So seeing that those states are very rich in delegates, or electors: Because all of the electors from a state will generally vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in that state, U.S. Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally. With this, and seeing that Florida and Michigan will count in the general, I think Hillary is the more electable candidate for president.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  168. Larry

    Proof would be known if she would announce the possibility of running as an independent presidential candidate.

    A 3 way race involving these dynamics would make this U.S. presidential campaign one for the history books!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  169. Al


    Here's a simple question:

    If as a political powerhouse, she couldn't even beat a rookie Washington politician with a funny-sounding name in the Primaries, how can she beat Mccain in November?

    Also, history has taught us that the results in primaries don't necessary reflect a win or loss in November. She knows this.

    Good luck Hillary and time to say goodnight.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  170. William Lynch

    Actually, Obama ran a much better campaign. His team was better organized. He managed his money better. Starting with little name recognition, he has now accumulated more delegates. This has occurred even though there have been extensive efforts by the campaigns of Clinton and McCain to define him negatively. This shows me that he is a very talented politician, perhaps the most talented one since Bill Clinton.

    May 29, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
  171. Mario

    Why she is not winning???

    She must quit! ASAP
    We need change, real change. No more Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Please!

    May 29, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  172. Andy

    Her electability argument seems a little flat when one considers that despite her huge advantages in this race she hasn't managed to win as many states, delegates, or votes as a political newcomer. Six months ago Clinton's position would have been unthinkable. If you want to make the electability argument, Mrs. Clinton, I suggest winning more elections.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  173. Jason


    Looking at various polling data on the McCain match up, Hillary is as equally electable as Obama. So it's a non-question and a non-argument. I'm 36 years old. Since January of 1981, when I was 9, there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. I actually like Hillary Clinton, but I love America. Here's a better question: Isn't it time to end the Bush/Clinton power monopoly?

    Jason, Atlanta, Georgia.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  174. Chris

    I think that John McCain should pick Hillary as his running mate.

    He is famous for working across the aisles and would certainly bring in Hillary's substantial voter block that will never vote for Obama.

    What better message of change in Washington could there be?

    McCain/Hillary – now that WOULD BE change that I could believe in.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  175. Mark

    Wow, eight years as a Senator and she' the best qualified to beat McCain. What a load of crap. I'm a Republican and voted for Obama just so Billary wouldn't win in our primary. I'll take Obama any day over her. Reflect on your previous years in the White House Billary, because you're not going back 🙂

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  176. Cindy

    This 'more electable' argument is code for, "don't you see he's black?" Clinton thinks she's more electable, because she is white, and white people are more likely to vote for her. The problem with her argument is people of all colors have already voted for Obama. So, she really should just stop trying to divide the party and accept that Obama has beat her at what should have been her game. Obama has the vision, the imagination, the delegates, and the popular vote...it's time for Clinton to fall in line.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  177. kevin-Jacksonville FL

    Jack the last time I looked the more electable democratic candidate had the most delegates and votes without a cuba/soviet union type of primary/election, i.e. Michigan and Florida.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  178. Wayne

    Caucuses to Obama, real votes, the Primaries, go to Clinton.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  179. Bryan

    Hillary Clinton more than likely has a better chance in November. Although i do find it funny how CNN always up plays Obama and down plays Hillary. For example the article released on CNN today about Obama and his first run for office. Talk about playing dirty. The article was up for an hour and now is buried in the site. while articles about Hillary losing stay up for days. I for one hope Hillary stays in because she is much more honorable.

    Bryan Atlanta
    For Hillary 08

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  180. Jeff

    She may at this stage be more electable. The remaining superdelegates need to decide next week. With that, Obama will probably get the number of delegates he needs to clinch, even factoring in whatever the RBC decides this Saturday on Florida/Michigan.

    The real question is whether she will in fact bow out gracefully once he does, or whether she'll press on.

    I, for one, am scared of the answer to that question

    May 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  181. Jesse C

    If Hillary cannot manage her camapaign funds in an efficient manner why should we be so naive to think that she will handle the US economy effectively?

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  182. Dan Rich

    If she was more electable, she would be in the lead for delegates, rather than trailing Obama by about 200
    Dan in Phoenix

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  183. luke

    no, she's already lost and now she is just trying to mess obama's campaign up because she obviously has been told she will not be the v.p.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  184. Phil in KC

    The only thing it has done is hurt Obama in the general election. It will not make her the nominee. The superdelegates would be fools to give her the nomination at this point. It would cause a major rift in the party and turn off all those people that Obama brought into the party.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  185. Calvin-Chicago


    This may be a bit off the subject but when I read the messages you have here, it really makes me sad. I read some of the blogs and people actually say if Obama wins they will either stay home or even worst vote for McCain, what is that about? Are they really that upset that their candidate is losing or is there more there than meets the eye? How can a person who stands for the things that Senator’s Obama and Clinton stand for , all of a sudden decide they will go against everything this election is about and vote for McCain? Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture??

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  186. Nick


    She's better pray that Obama wins the general election. Otherwise, she will never be able to win a national election for dogcatcher. She's doing McCain's dirtywork. If he loses she will be the most hated Democrat on the planet.

    She just can't get over the fact that she lost to a freshman senator with the middle name Hussein.

    That fact, in and of itself, speaks volumes as to HER electability!

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  187. Jose'


    The Clintons' behavior during this campaign has been low and reprehensible. They have revealed themselves for what they are: political opportunists willing to use any means necessary for personal gain. I for one will be glad to see them walk off the national stage for good.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  188. Frosty

    The DNC lacks discipline and guts. As one of the main people in the architecture of the punishment for Florida and Michigan, Howard Dean should have been firm against Clinton in her claim to seat the delegates. He is weak...Pelosi is much stronger. Let's hope we'll have some people in the DNC with some conviction who won't be bullied by a Clinton or by any other democrat.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  189. sophia nyc

    In this late stage of the primary, why is she spewing her hate talk and lies? She can't even beat newcomer Obama. How can she ever beat McCain?

    Obama has an entire grassroots movement behind Hillary and McCain can only dream of.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  190. Robert W, NY

    As you indicated Obama has won the popular vote and most importantly the necessary delegates (at least that will be the case next week). Wrong or right, the rules say the on one with the required delegates is the winner.

    Anarchy – when a society ignores or has no rules and laws.

    The most electable is the one who wins. The winners in the playoffs, play in the big game; Period!!

    May 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
  191. john, New York


    I vote for the best person and unfortunately for her it's not her. Polls change more than the wind so why spin that as a legitimate arguement?

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  192. Tex'un

    I took a poll at happy hour among my buddies at the Billy Goat Tavern last night and Barack came in just ahead of Rolling Rock. Hillary got fewer votes than the picked eggs on the bar. This is solid evidence of his support among us blue collar guys.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  193. Brian G, Sugar Land, TX

    It is exactly her aggressive attitude and stance which turn me off to her. Her tenacity has turned into crybabyness. She is hurting the Democrats chances in November! Selfish b****!

    Granted, if she does win the nomination, I will vote for her over McCain, because we need no more Republican monkey business!

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  194. Dave in Dallas

    She does have more experience in the White House. Eight years of answering that red crisis phone at 3 AM saying "wake up, Billy, it's for you." She also has experience under fire when she and Chelsea had to run for cover from snipers. Then again, with the deficit this county has run up, she can always lend the U.S. some money, like her campaign.

    Is she more electable? I'd say just the opposite. Like Mike Huckabee, she doesn't know when to toss in the towel.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  195. Mike Sears

    To Jeannie from Ava, Missouri. Which are the two states that you refer to as being "full of racists"? Sounds like sour grapes because your candidate got clobbered. Did you ever think that maybe the people of those two states (Kentucky and West Virginia for example) just think that Obama has too little experience to be President and is too liberal for their tastes? This is just another example of the vitriol you get from the Obama koolade drinkers when things don't go right for them.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  196. Lynn

    Hillary and Bill make a fine couple. Although they both graduated from fine law shools, they were asleep during their ethics classes and are good at spinning out falsehoods. Hillary now clings to this one last misstatement that she's got the popular vote. It's quite obvious that she'll say or do anything to win, even trying to bolster her position using the timing of RFK's asassination in June. Yeah, I'm sick of hearing about her popular vote stats. But I'm sick of more than that with her. Thanks for asking.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  197. JustinA

    The only valid metric is the number of delegates won. Everything else is pure speculation and another desperate attempt to change the rules of the game.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  198. Jackson, NH

    It ain't working for me. Bad math, bad mispeaks, bad staffing and bad money management in her campaign doesn't make her a better candidate.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  199. Barbara

    If she's more electable, then why is she LOSING???

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  200. Orlando Welsh

    Hi Jack, Hillary does not understand the predicament that she is in. These primaries are not about what is going to happend in November, but who will be runnig against McCain in the general elections. These contests are about the popular vote, delegates and super-delagates. The winner of those contest will then advance as the parties nominee in November. What is so hard about the facts, even Stevie Wonder could see that. As far as Florida and Michigan goes, they broke the rules and those votes will not be counted. Rules are establish by the party leaders to make the playing field fair and balance for all candidates.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  201. aaron from MN

    The superdelegates have been lining up behind Obama at a pace of 4 to 1. He's even taking superdelegates who were once for Clinton. Her argument is gaining no traction. The only reason she's still winning OH, PA, WV and KY is because the people have been lied too and they've believed her lies and her gas tax gimmick. Even stole that one right from the republicans. She supported NAFTA in the white house but now lies and says she's against it. The middle class blu collar workers are the biggest population of people who rely on gov't assisted programs, they have to and need to vote democratic, the party bosses know that.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  202. Tom

    Of course she is more electable. As a republican I just hope Obama stays the nominee because he is too far left for the American people outside of the urban areas. If you look at the electoral map projections and the key state polling, you'll find that Clinton would be the stronger candidate. It's true a lot of people hate Hilary. I'm one of them, but I would vote for her over Obama any day. He is scary and extreme and that is what will sink him in the general election.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  203. Buh bye Hill

    16 years of Clintons and Bush... I am tired.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  204. jmel

    Jack, if all of the information in the public domain today were known on Super Tuesday, I doubt very much this blog would even be pertinent – Hillary Clinton would have already clinched the nomination. What many Democrats and Americans fail to see is that Obama has employed all of the "old school" political tactics that he eschews in his stump speeches. Candidate of change? I think not. Not only is he an old school elitist politico, he is a novice. A novice that is a persuasive public speaker. Well, the outcome of this election may very well end up an example of the old adage – be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  205. Mike A

    I would not put anything past the Clinton's. There history shows they will go to ANY extent to win. Plain evil in my eyes.......

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  206. Joe Smoljo

    With all this nonsense, Hillary should just bow out for the good of the party and let Obama assume the nomination..with all this fighting between the candidates, McCain is doing the right thing..he's on the sidelines watching them beat each other up and waste their energy while he gears up for the victory in November..

    May 29, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  207. Ryan

    Jack: it's these questions you ask that bring it to light so people see it as just that: A Drum beat. Thank you for pointing it out for people.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  208. Bill

    Her legacy will be that of a party divider. Both her and Bill will be forever known as the couple that destroyed the Democratic Party if she continues with her antics. Florida and Michigan broke party rules, and must suffer the consequences. For so long this country has been about giving those that follow the rules a break, a wink and nudge...and then they'll be back in it doing the same thing that got them in trouble in the first place.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  209. Johnny

    Her entire electabilit case is that Obama is black. And it has been said so often that everyone forgot that no woman has been elected to that position either.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  210. Joe in PA

    What happened to the 10 million Hillary got after the PA election? Did it go right into her pockets to pay herself back? Jim Carville says she proposed to pay for the election. With what? Has anyone done any financial scrutiny on her? She is trying to create any angle to WIN. What about the media explaining her financial responsibility? I would like to know if this campaign was reversed, would she be so hard pressed to allow her opponent to continue, and would the Dems allow her opponent to still fight on when math says you would have no chance, unless you use the math she invents. She is waiting for a catastrophe to Barack Obama, and she would even accept a fatal event if it meant she got the nomination. I also wonder if she would make the general election, would she ever concede?

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  211. ANN

    The woman is a disgrace,and a whiner who does not play by the rules. The women that support her, what do they teach their kids? she is a perfect example of saying and doing anything by all measures to WIN. Are we as a people not better than that?
    These are quaities of shame and disgust.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  212. Dave, Cali

    I doubt very highly that she'd be so concerned about the voters of Michigan and Florida if she was ahead and it was Obama who still clinging on to a pipe dream. This is a time when the party should be coming together and getting behind the nominee. This is all about Hillary... not the people....not the democratic party....HILLARY. And for the record, I said from the begining that I couldn't vote for her simply because I couldn't stand 4 yrs of hearing her grainy, nagging voice. She'd be every husbands worse nightmare in the highest office of the land. No thanks.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  213. Matt

    We have seen how 'solid' plegded delegates are. Many have switched camp form Clinton to Obama, however the opposite can also happen. So to call for Clinton to quit before there is an actual vote would be very undemocratic, shame on all who propose this.

    The same goes for Florida, votes should count. Michigan however was not fair since Obama was not on the ticket so should be left out.
    Do we live in a democratic country or not?

    May 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  214. Rose Ann

    Scott, thankj you for coming forward and telling what I think most peo;ple across the country already believed, my question is (and I do believed ) was Colin Powers also used to promote Bush and McCains war, and when will he come out with the truth so he can sleep at night, Bush and Channey need to be bougth up on criminal charges for raping the country.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  215. Karen from Arkansas

    I think she is trying to psych us out. If she says she is winning enough, we might think so, too.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  216. Ralph

    Actually Obama had lots of help from the MEDIA...one of his biggest fans being Jack and the whole of CNN. LOU Dobbs is about the only fair minded person on CNN these days. Go Lou!!

    Jack, biased, biased, biased!!!

    Take it all the way to the Convention Hillary, smack Nancy around a little when you get there. Sure hope her support of Obama causes her to lose re-election!!

    May 29, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  217. Vince, Jupiter, Florida

    No it's not working as a matter of fact it's kind of embarrassing to watch. I think the real problem with Hillary is that she was the likely nominee for so long that she truly believed she would be the first female president. Then, out of nowhere, comes Obama. I can see how tough it is to accept – – but – – although I’m sure she would do fine as president I would rather have a president in 09’ that was not fooled by Bush’s rush to war...

    May 29, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  218. Ryan Orgill

    Doesn't Hillary's claim of having more votes only count if you don't include states that held a cacus instead of a primary? How is saying people in Nevada (where I live) don't count any worse than saying people in Michigan don't count. The double standard makes me sick to my stomach. I am a democrat, but if Hillary steals the nomination from Obama, I will vote for McCain. Even though I don't agree with his politics, I think he is a person with more character.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:36 pm |
  219. Matt Philadelphia

    Imagine this If hillary where to become Obama's VP.and he where to win and serve two terms there would be a clinton or bush as president or vice president for 36 years. Now if after obamas two terms are up and she decides to run for president in 2016 and she happens to win after such a historic presidency of obama and her ability to get universal health care for all us citzens. Now if she where to also serve two terms that would make a clinton or bush in the white house for more than 44 yrs. a bit of a stretch but imagine that

    May 29, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  220. Sabrina

    Give it up Hillary. You have lost fair and square. Do yourself and your political career a favor and try to bring the Democratic party back together before it's too late.

    May 29, 2008 at 5:37 pm |
  221. Drew

    Nothing says "more electable" than losing in the primaries!

    May 29, 2008 at 5:37 pm |