Goodbye Huckabee. Hello Huckary! Why she lost.

It is easy for an Obama supporter to be down this morning. After all, didn't Obama lose Texas and Ohio yesterday? The real answer is no, he did not. Sure he lost the popular vote in those states, and if the primaries were decided on popular vote that would matter, but they're not. Hillary lost big yesterday, and gained a new nickname in the process.

The Clintons will bask this morning in the headlines that they won Ohio and Texas. Meanwhile in the back room they'll be lamenting that they cannot possibly win the nomination on this track. For while they won yesterday, they needed to do so by at least 20% in each state to make any real progress, and they didn't come close. In fact, when the math is all settled and the caucus numbers are in from Texas this weekend, it is highly likely that the Clintons will have accomplished a net loss of delegates yesterday, and there are now a whole lot less delegates left to pick up.

So although we lost Mike Huckabee yesterday (Sniff. Sniff. Wasn't he fun?), we gained his equivalent within the Democratic party, Huckary Clinton, if you will. Her continuation in the race now, though it it mathematically almost impossible for her to win the nomination, serves only to lessen the chances of a Democrat winning in November, as she waits for, and actively encourages, some slip-up by Obama that will throw things her way.

The difference, of course, is that Huckabee had more class. He knew that covering McCain in mud was no good for his party, and so he ran his campaign with dignity, running on his own merits, and not tearing down Republican chances in November for the sake of his own vanity. No such luck with Huckary.

It is tempting to say that Obama, moving forward, should go really negative on Huckary, but after listening to his victory speech last night I've concluded that that is both unnecessary (after all he's winning), and inconsistent with his message. I do believe he has to put some thought and effort into a few key areas.

He has to counter this email mumbling campaign of lies about his background, patriotism, and accomplishments. I think you saw a move to the more overtly patriotic Obama last night. Another email campaign needs to be started that counters the lies, and he needs to speak out forcefully on these issues. In addition, he needs to be even more ready (though his response time has been miraculous) to counter Huckary slime when it occurs.

Finally, I think he needs to strategically put Huckary on the defensive during the critical time 2-5 days before a vote, when we know she's going to throw the kitchen sink at him. If this takes a slightly more negative approach at those times so be it. That kitchen sink needs to meet another kitchen sink in mid-air. Personally, I think she is vulnerable on electability, and that people need to be reminded what a Republican campaign against the Clintons will look like.

So, Obama supporters. I don't want to hear any of this, "The sky is falling. It's the end of the world!" stuff today. Barack Obama is winning. Huckary Clinton is unfortunately decreasing the chances of a Democrat in the White House next year with every day she stays in the race. She is forcing the expenditure of what will amount to another $100 million by each candidate in the next 3 months. (Get out your check books... again, and again.)

Today will be tough to take I suspect. As Huckary and the main stream media play to the ignorant among us, but by the weekend the momentum will be back to Obama, and he'll still be on his way to the nomination.

•  Oh for FUCK'S SAKE

  So although we lost Mike Huckabee yesterday (Sniff. Sniff. Wasn't he fun?), we gained his equivalent within the Democratic party, Huckary Clinton, if you will.

  Jesus H. Christ, that's got to be the stupidest thing I've read here.

  Today.  So far.

  How would Barack feel about what you just said?

  by Plutonium Page on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:39:52 AM PDT

  •  I call them like I see them.

    She's become Huckabee without the class.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:07 AM PDT

    •  amazing

      Simply amazing.  

      by Plutonium Page on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:37 AM PDT

      •  Huckabee didn't darken his opponent in ads

        The vitriol directed at Hillary is a direct response to her nasty, destructive campaign.

        Huckabee is an extremist end days religious nut who has little in common with Hillary, so the name calling doesn't work, but the anger is there for a reason.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:58:33 AM PDT

        •  she didn't darken him much.

          As I saw it, it was more an aesthetic decision than a sinister one.

          Remember, not every HRC campaign action is evil and nefarious.

          by a synthetic cubist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:44:22 AM PDT

          •  Yes they are. ;-)

            by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:03:44 AM PDT

    •  Rather have Huckabee

      He didn't go around trying to kneecap the presumptive nominee of his party like someone else is.

      by marcvstraianvs on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:27:40 AM PDT

      •  Ah. No. I can do without Mr. Creationism

        But I will say he showed a certain class in both the way he campaigned and the way he left.

        by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:35:08 AM PDT

        •  I agree with you

          I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and say that she cares as much about her issues such as health care as Huckabee cared about his (as opposed to others who would say that she and Bill only care about winning).  If that's the case, she's in a very similar position to  Huckabee - not as far behind, taken more seriously by the press, but just as unlikely to win.  And her efforts are hurting the party while Huckabee's efforts helped his.

          by kosophile on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:50 AM PDT

•  Tips for looking at the reality.

  by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:42:21 AM PDT

  •  You know

    I just removed my hide rating, because that's too good for this diary.

    You're unbelievably ignorant.

    by Plutonium Page on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:43:59 AM PDT

    •  What deserves to be hidden? n/t

      by kosophile on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:11:28 AM PDT

  •  And donut was for which part of the guidelines?

    The part about what you don't like to hear?

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:09 AM PDT

•  of course the delegates matter the most and will

  decide it in the end.

  But what a perversion of a democratic process.

  Sure he lost the popular vote in those states, and if the primaries were decided on popular vote that would matter, but they're not

  by Osiris on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:44:39 AM PDT

  •  Hillary would trade both wins for an

    increase in delegates. That's the name of the game.

    The rules were clear going in. The MSM is presently off topic because they love the "news" of the Clintons staying in the game and filling their corporate coffers  with another 100 mill or so, but going in it was made quite clear that the numbers said she needed to not just win, but win huge. She failed.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:48:45 AM PDT

  •  Save that quote

    for next time Obama supporters start screaming about "the will of the people."

    by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:10:28 AM PDT

    •  This idiot does not speak for

      all of us. You keep making that mistake.

      And there is a huge difference between what Obama is doing- winning extra delegates because of the way the game is set up- and what the HRC campaign has threatened to do- coerce her way into the nomination even if she doesn't have the pledged delegates.

      by a synthetic cubist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:29:14 AM PDT

•  61% of Texas voters who decided in the last three

  days voted for Hillary.  The red phone ad wasn't aired in Ohio, just Texas.  HRC has lost all my respect and I will no longer defend her, but "Huckery" is way over the top.  Hillary and Bill need to go to Jamaica for a couple of days, lie on the beach and breathe in relaxing wafts of Mary Jane.  

  And speaking of Huckabee, his wife, Janet, never looked happier than she did at his concession speech last night.  

  by JFinNe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:52:46 AM PDT

  •  Why over the top?

    Explain to me how what she's doing isn't far worse than what Huckabee did? He stayed in to emphasize his issues, solidify his reputation for a future run, and did so without lessening the chances of McCain winning.

    Hillary on the other hand is staying in in the hopes of winning by some back room deal or forcing some huge collapse on Obama, and she's doing so by increasing McCain's chances to win in November.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:02:10 AM PDT

    •  See kevvboy for very apt definition n/t

      by JFinNe on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:14:01 AM PDT

      •  Well I would agree that Kevvboy is

        almost always over the top. :-)

        by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:20:22 AM PDT

    •  You don't get it.

      "Huckary" is disrespectful, delegitimizing, and belittling to one of the icons of the Democratic party. And you are inventing this invective because her campaign has been slightly less clean than her opponent's.

      You talk about how her actions are hurting the party, but yours are, too. The more Democrats are willing to refer to female Democrats as bitches, as defined by their husbands, the more Democrats are willing to spew such vitriol against any other Democrat, the worse off the party is.

      Be a part of the solution, not the problem. Be the change.

      by a synthetic cubist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:34:07 AM PDT

      •  Whatever respect she deserved once,

        she has proved she no longer deserves. Huckary it is. And don't you go assigning sexist implications to what I said. That's a Huckery tactic that also loses my respect. Nothing in my diary invokes gender, so leave it out of it.

        by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:06:39 AM PDT

•  Part of winning in politics

  is to communicate your message in a way that voters understand.

  We didn't do that in enough places; hence the popular vote loss (we did well in Dallas, Houston, and VERY WELL in Austin)

  Our side shouldn't whine and make excuses.

  Congratulations to Clinton and her supporters!

  (psst:  see you in Wyoming and Mississippi :-) )

  by onanyes on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:56:45 AM PDT

  •  But only part.

    The problem wasn't communication per se. The Clintons are playing to the ignorant, uninformed, and easily scared. Obama needs to tailor a message to that audience. He also needs to show that the Empress has no clothes, by which I mean that this "I have all this international experience." line cannot stand.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:06:05 AM PDT

    •  That's the most insulting

      thing you've said today, and that's really saying something.

      Clinton voters are "ignorant, uninformed, and easily scared?"

      Breathtaking arrogance.

      by Kevvboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:47:34 AM PDT

      •  ignorant, uninformed and easily scared...

        is pretty much how i would describe these hillary voters:

        It's also interesting to note that in Ohio, 1-in-5 Democratic voters said race was an important factor in making their decision. In that group, 8-in-10 voted for Hillary Clinton.

        link

        by joe shikspack on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:50:26 AM PDT

        •  Okay, so then the 80 percent

          of black voters who supported Obama are also ignorant, uninformed, and easily scared?

          I dont think so.

          Oh - I forgot.  Black voters never use race as a criteria when choosing for whom to vote.

          by Kevvboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:56:59 AM PDT

          •  fweet! false dichotomy... 15 yard penalty!

            motivation is the key to understanding this issue.

            the sort of racist anxieties that motivate people to oppose someone on the basis of race are not the same thing that cause people to vote in favor of a person that happens to resemble them.

            the people who voted against obama because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black person are different in motivation from the people for whom voting for a black person is a plus but have no particular bias against voting for white people (and likely have all of their voting lives).

            in the same way, women who choose to vote for hillary because they would like to see a woman president aren't (in any significant numbers) likely doing it because they hate men and couldn't bring themselves to vote for one of those creatures.

            by joe shikspack on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:49:38 AM PDT

        •  I saw that!

          I turned to my wife and said, "So they're racists?" How depressing.

          by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:07:53 AM PDT

      •  yes.

        by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:06:58 AM PDT

•  I love the smell of

  desperation in the morning.  It smells like victory.

  Obama supporters should try to emulate their candidate, who looked cool and unflustered just now on "Today."

  by Kevvboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:57:39 AM PDT

  •  Nobody's flustered here Kevvboy

    It's Wednesday, and your candidate is still losing by the same amount she was on Monday.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:03:18 AM PDT

    •  Well then,

      why is the diary list full of panicky diaries like your own?

      by Kevvboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:05:08 AM PDT

      •  There is not a line of panic in my diary

        On the contrary. I'm injecting a little reality.

        Have your celebration today Kevvboy. Reminds me of a team that holds a big party to celebrate they haven't been eliminated yet, but you're entitled. Hillary gets to go on if she wants to hurt our chances of winning in November. My bet is she will.

        by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:08:38 AM PDT

        •  "Huckary?"

          That's not only panicky, it's stupid.  She is nothing like Huckabee.

          How would you like it if I used any one of the insulting creative spellings of Obama's name?

          by Kevvboy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:10:27 AM PDT

          •  She is EVERYTHING like Huckabee, and I've shown

            that, minus the class. Huckabee knew there was no sense in hurting McCain's chances. She doesn't care.

            by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:21:24 AM PDT

      •  The kos diary list

        is not an accurate gauge of reality.

        ;)

        by a synthetic cubist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:37:57 AM PDT

•  The premise is incorrect wishful thinking

  Meanwhile in the back room they'll be lamenting that they cannot possibly win the nomination on this track. For while they won yesterday, they needed to do so by at least 20% in each state to make any real progress, and they didn't come close.

  Nope.  Unless Obama gets to 2025, she can still win the nomination.  You see, McCain got the magic number, so Huckabee left.  Obama did not.  Obama WILL not.

  At this point, they are both looking to make their argument with the superdelegates.  Obama's argument is "pledged delegates are the will of the people."  Hillary's argument is "Obama can't close the deal and I can."  The superdelegates are going to go to the convention and ask themselves "did Obama peak on February 29, or was Jimmy Olson Tuesday a blip?"  If the former, Hillary.  If the latter, Obama.

  by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:09:28 AM PDT

  •  OK. So she can steal the election. Yes. That's

    still an option.

    Face it. The superdelegates are NEVER going to overturn the pledged delegates. Not as long as Obama's ahead by 1. The repercussions for the Democratic party would be devastation for a generation or more.

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:22:55 AM PDT

    •  Steal is such a funny word

      for winning within the rules.  If you think superdelegates won't vote contrary to the pledged delegates ask yourself one thing- why are there superdelegates?  Remember, the Democratic Party is not Daily Kos.  You can be fooled into thinking this tiny microcosm is reality.  It is not.

      by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:24:39 AM PDT

      •  Since you asked

        The superdelegates are there so that if something really awful happens, like say a candidate gets found to be in a sex scandal with an intern, in the 11th hour of the campaign, and everyone knows they can never win the election but they have all the delegates, then the superdelegates can step in.

        The superdelegates were never intended to act in the way you suggest and they won't. It's not even a consideration.

        by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:37:21 AM PDT

      •  Travis, surprisingly enough, is right.

        More than that, though, they're to turn a slim lead into a decisive victory. If Obama comes into the convention with fifteen more delegates than she does, they could really duke it out- but if the superdelegates stepped in, they could put him over the top and minimize ugliness.

        by a synthetic cubist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:42:50 AM PDT

        •  Surprisingly enough? :-( n/t

          by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:09:08 AM PDT

•  The delegate count

  is in Obama's favor but what these wins do is serve as a catalyst for Hillary's "momentum". The press coverage will be more tilted in her favor.

  by TexasTD on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:42 AM PDT

  •  For two days. Tops.

    He's going to win this weekend, and he's got 50 superdelegate endorsements to parse out, and that number's growing. The press will play this up for a bit, but those of us who are echoing the "sky is falling" narrative this morning are helping prop up that story. Report to Huckary camp for your marching orders if that's the way you want to go. ;-)

    by Travis Stark on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:12:10 AM PDT

    •  Travis, I'm an Obama supporter...

      I just know the media loves drama. And yes I caucused. And yes Obama WON Texas. Yeah!

      by TexasTD on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:37 AM PDT