Custom Search

Monday, January 07, 2008

Drudge Dreaming About Hillary

He is either dreaming, desperate or drunk, take your pick, but Drudge is running a headline of "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS"... no way in hell, not yet.

No one is buying it and no one should.

Here is the Drudge piece because these things have a habit of disappearing.

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out."

"Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning.


Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.


Now the last bit under "MORE", I believe, they may think she has lost whatever chance she had, but I do not believe for a minute that she will will just give up, roll over and play dead for Obama, not yet, she will need to be humiliated far more before that happens.

As to Edwards saying her money is going to dry up? Eventually maybe, but certainly not yet. If Edwards does, indeed, think Hillary "could soon be out", then I would ask for his definition of the word "soon".

I did a piece this morning showing the problems Hillary is having and why she has reason to worry, but even wth all that, I don't buy this for a second.

Other reactions to this Drudge piece:

Michael van der Galien at PoliGazette:

Although she’s certainly in trouble, I’m - like Dan Riehl - not buying it. She’s competitive in several big states. She’s still polling well nationally; she has money; she has the connections; she’s an experienced campaigners… why in the world would she drop out? It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

AllahPundit at Hot Air has choices other than the dreaming, desperate or drunk ones I listed above:

(a) …the Clinton campaign, to give Edwards false hope of her exiting early and thereby encourage him to stay in the race until Super Tuesday so that he can continue to draw votes from Obama.

(b) …the Clinton campaign, to boost turnout among her supporters in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada by raising the stakes of defeat.

(c) …one of the other campaigns, to depress turnout in those states by suggesting that her campaign’s already terminal and they know it.

Outside The Beltway:

If, as looks increasingly likely, she loses badly tomorrow in New Hampshire, she’s going to feel as if the wind has been knocked out of her. She expected to win these two easily and then march on to a coronation. But the idea that she can’t afford to stay in the race through February 5th is just silly.

Blue Crab Boulevard gives his opinion right in the title "Doubtful".

Daily Pundit:

For those who think the Clinton “brand” is immune to defeat, recall what Jimmy Carter did to the Kennedy brand. And no, Teddy’s past history is no more checkered than that of the Clintons

I do not think she is immune to defeat, I simply think she is too egotistical to consider dropping out now.

Whoever is spreading this rumor has an agenda but I doubt it is going to help her either way.