Wisconsin: Beginning of the end for Clinton?

With his victory in Wisconsin’s Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday, Barack Obama withstood an aggressive assault by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and gained new momentum for their high-stakes battle ahead in Texas and Ohio.

Obama’s win raised new doubts about the Clinton campaign’s strategy of casting the Illinois senator as a candidate whose soaring rhetoric masks a lack of preparation for the presidency.

And it showed that Obama is continuing to make inroads into Clinton’s coalition of women, the elderly, working-class white voters and other groups. And that, analysts say, spells potential danger for her in the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas.

“Her coalition just is not holding,” said Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance. “This could be — I wouldn’t say her Waterloo, but maybe the battle before the Waterloo.”

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Economics, Politics, US Presidential Election 2008

12 comments on “Wisconsin: Beginning of the end for Clinton?

  1. Wilfred says:

    But Napoleon [i] won [/i] the battle before Waterloo, at Ligny.

  2. azusa says:

    #1 That thought puts me in palindromic mood;
    ‘Able was I ere I saw Elba.’
    And now one for Hillary:
    ‘Amabo Obama!’

  3. Philip Snyder says:

    The question is will Hillary say “Ney!” to Bill after she goes down in flames?

    YBIC,
    Phil Snyder

  4. Harvey says:

    Casting aside the 8 questionable “..years of experience..” as the wife of president Bill Clinton; who then has more years of experience in the Senate – Hillary or Obama??

  5. Branford says:

    Good one, Phil! (speaking as a graduate of a college that has in its history the murky story of its founding somehow connected to Ney’s possible visit to this country – very ambigious, but fun!)

  6. Alta Californian says:

    Hillary has more Senate experience, Obama has more legislative experience.

    What amazes me is that all of the Clintons’ attempts to knee-cap Obama have failed. He’s become the new Teflon Man. Nothing sticks, partially because he’s out front about almost everything (Of course, I inhaled, that was the point. It was a mistake, but it’s all in my book!). Every attack they launch makes people question Obama, but makes them like Hillary even less. I think she knows she won’t win a positive campaign, because it is hard to get more positive (some say pie-in-the-sky positive) than Obama. As the pundits have been asking, “How do you run against hope?” Both Hillary and McCain have tried saying it is just empty, naive rhetoric. So far this hasn’t worked for Hillary. It remains to be seen if McCain will have any better luck.

    All that said, I wouldn’t count her out yet. The Clintons have ways of getting what they want. We shall see.

  7. Vincent Lerins says:

    These articles about Obama and Clinton make me laugh. I really do wish the best for Obama. Personally, I think he is a more likeable candidate than Hillary. However, Clinton does have more experience. Also, Hillary will win Texas and Pennsylvania on March 4th. I also think Hillary will win Ohio, but there is a chance it will go to Obama. Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee and she will be president. But, if by some weird fluke, Obama wins on Mar 4, he better get tighter security ASAP. He would have stopped Hillary from attaining something she has been working towards for decades and she will not be a happy camper!

    -Vincent

  8. yohanelejos says:

    Vincent, that’s a heavy charge! I can see Hillary’s people going to poach delegates from the elected delegations (as posited in a later post) — but taking shots at his life!? I would back away from that idea.

  9. Tom Roberts says:

    #1 but Ney didn’t win the battle at Quatre Bras, on the same day as Ligny, against the lead elements of Wellington’s army. I believe that the parallel was to Quatre Bras, despite Bonoparte’s absence. On the other hand, this author shows no comprehension of the complexity of the Napoleanic last campaign in the Low Countries.

  10. Harvey says:

    #6, Maybe it’s true what you said but my question still remains somewhat unanswered. Senate versus Legislature – how many years have Hillary and Obama each resided in their elected office??

  11. Little Cabbage says:

    Harvey: Senator Clinton is in her second term (seventh or eight year) as US Senator from New York. Senator Obama is in his first term (second or third year) as a US Senator from Illinois.

    Capitol Hill is a far cry from a state legislature, different players, different agendas, etc., as many a newly-elected Congressmember or Senator has quickly discovered. If you’re talking straight comparison of apples to apples, Clinton has more experience as an elected official on Capitol Hill. If you’re talking a comparison of ‘how many years in ANY sort of legislature’, (sort of apples and oranges), I think Obama is ahead by about 4 or 6 years (if that?? not sure). Of course, Clinton also was extremely active on Capitol Hill throughout her husband’s presidency. And Obama was extremely active for years in Chicago and Democratic black political circles

    Obama has ‘charisma’ and ‘inspires’. Clinton is ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘knows how to get laws passed’. Take your pick.

  12. Wilfred says:

    Obama is ‘naive’ and ‘platitudinous’. Mrs Clinton is ‘Machiavellian’ and ‘knows how to trade cattle futures’. Take your pick.