Can Hillary Stop Obamamentum?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


NEW YORK, NY—It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. Not long ago Hillary Clinton seemed a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. She led in all the early states and dominated the national polls. If you had to bet then, you might have assumed her Super Tuesday speech would have marked her victory over her Democratic rivals.

It didn’t turn out that way. When Clinton arrived at the Grand Ballroom in the New Yorker hotel tonight, everyone in the room knew that the Democratic race would go on. Hillary might not have known it before she began her speech shortly before 11 p.m., but minutes later it became clear that another candidate would win the majority of the Super Tuesday nominating contests and take close to half of the delegates at stake.

Really, it was not supposed to happen like this. After all, the Democratic nominating process’s rules favor a well-funded frontrunner—and that was supposed to be Clinton. But how could the Clinton campaign have anticipated the rise of an upstart freshman Senator from Illinois? How could they have guessed he would win two of the first three primaries and raise more than twice as much money as Clinton did in the month leading up to Super Tuesday? How could they have predicted Barack Obama?

She couldn’t have predicted it, of course, and her Super Tuesday speech reflected that. More than anything, it showed that Clinton remains unsure of how to blunt Obama’s momentum. Yes, the speech was tightly written, and it showed off her greatest strengths: plain, straightforward talk and a clear mastery of the issues. She certainly stayed on message.

But it’s important to keep Super Tuesday in context. In today’s lightning-fast media cycle, it’s easy to forget how far back Obama was just six or seven weeks ago. But he has made huge gains since mid-December. He is raising money faster and gaining supporters quicker than Clinton is. So a standard frontrunner speech—attacking the other party and laying off the same-party snipes—wasn’t going to cut it last night. This speech was an opportunity to cut Obama off at the pass.

Hillary needed to seize the moment. Her supporters knew that, even if her speechwriters didn’t. There were plenty of applause lines in Clinton’s speech. She thanked her mother, “Who was born before women could vote and is watching her daughter on this stage tonight.” She attacked Republicans: “Let me be clear—I won’t let anyone swift boat this country’s future.” She quoted Emma Lazarus’s poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. But it was her two most well-worn attacks on Obama—his failure to embrace health care mandates and his alleged inexperience, compared with what she says is her ability “to serve on day one”—that drew the wildest cheers. Criticizing her opponent was a good move. But many voters have already heard these critiques repeatedly, and they are obviously not resonating. Clinton needed something new. She didn’t deliver.

Obama, in contrast, pressed the attack last night. He hit Clinton hard—criticizing her on everything from her Iraq vote to her lobbyist support to her supposed waffling on torture. He was careful to reference his recent gains, calling his campaign a “movement” and “a chorus that cannot be ignored.” It has certainly become clear that Obama does better the more people know him. He has proven he can raise more money faster than Clinton can, and he certainly seems to have the momentum going forward from Super Tuesday.

Still, it’s important not to get too caught up in Obamamentum. Hillary Clinton will still be the frontrunner—but just barely—tomorrow morning. He’ll have the money and the momentum, but she’ll have more delegates and superdelegates—and delegates are what counts in the end. The big question going forward is one of time. There are about 450 pledged delegates at stake in the remaining February primaries, and just short of 500 up for grabs in March. Can Obama take advantage of his momentum and his cash to catch up in the delegate count before the calendar runs out? One thing is for sure: If Clinton can’t come up with some new criticisms or a good way to blunt Obama’s surge, she’s in trouble. As it stands, talking up her health care plan and credentials and attacking Republicans just doesn’t seem to be enough.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate