Today’s Globe has an op-ed by Tripp Jones, the co-founder of MassINC and a self-described “supporter of Hillary Clinton,” who declares that
it’s time to get behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama.
Here’s his basic theme:
Our responsibility as progressive-minded voters is to show Americans a positive alternative to the toxic politics of race. Rallying around Obama now increases our chances of doing just that. Obama has run a positive and inspiring campaign, and has attracted a majority of pledged delegates. It is hard to envision a scenario in which Democratic superdelegates override the will of millions of primary voters and caucus participants. Obama will be the nominee.
An interesting argument, and one that I think we’ll hear more of soon. My basic prediction for how things will go from here is that one of two things will happen in PA on April 22: (1) [unlikely] Obama will win, in which case it’s over and Hillary will be forced to withdraw quickly; or (2) [more likely] Clinton will win, but not by all that much — say 6 points, 10 at the outside. In so doing, she will pick up a few delegates over Obama, but not enough to make a significant dent in Obama’s lead. At that point, we will start seeing more and more superdelegate defections, both from uncommitteds and even a few who had previously backed Clinton. Within a couple of weeks, the math will be impossible to ignore, and we will have our presumptive nominee.
Either that, or we’ll have a bloodbath at the convention.
if more voting can destroy the Democratic Party, then the party isn’t very democratic.
The calls to shut the process down early are getting more and more creative. Still doesn’t avoid the fact that the main hope is to silence millions more who may not vote a certain way, but it is creative…
who didn’t give to both Clinton and Obama? looks like he was hedging his bets back in January, according to campaign finance records …
Camp Obama doesn’t know how to attack, doesn’t know how to respond to an attack. Although the Big Speech did calm the waters afterthe Rev. Wright business among primary voters, the damage among independents seems permanent. We’ve seen over and over again that as soon as the message gets away from Obama’s control, it falls apart faster than a Ponzi Scheme.
<
p>Obama can’t hit, or hit back. Which is why I think McCain will eat him alive, especially with the press no longer kowtowing to the Hopester.
sabutai. Obama really has been terrible about dealing with the media. He needs to take a few lessons from the Clinton campaign. Here’s how she handled questions yesterday about her Iraq vote:
<
p>That’s how it’s done. Never mind that she’s just making shit up again (as Tapper points out). Independents love this stuff from Hillary. Can’t get enough, they’re flocking to her in droves.
<
p>You’re also right, that Obama can’t “hit back” with the Clintons. The only reason that he’s leading her in every measurable metric is because the media isn’t asking him the tough questions. As Hillary has pointed out, only she and McCain have passed the CIC threshold, and are Christian patriots to boot. With Obama, we just don’t know. Mark Penn is looking into it though.
<
p>But here’s some better news, I’m reading that Hillary is planning on staying in the race for 100 years. The surge is working!
I guess it’s easier to be sarcastic than to add to the debate. Ask Samantha Power, Jeremiah Wright, and now Randi Rhodes how well Obama takes a punch. His reply thus far has been “you’re right, don’t make me answer questions…here’s a victim”. There’ll be nobody left on his campaign by mid-October at this rate. Really — provide me with a time when Obama has handled an attack well. Go ahead. Even better, do so without relying on Jake Tapper, a “reporter” whose most crucial coverage of the race thus far has been trying to catch Obama sneaking a smoke.
<
p>If you sincerely think that the media is being even-handed between the two of them — as they spend two days on the Clintons’ unremarkable tax returns, for example — go ahead. Just remember to act surprised this fall when the media turns on him.
These haters are something else around here. Sniff, sniff.
<
p>Your analysis is spot on again. Obama may never recover from that Randi Rhodes gaffe, he’s tanking badly, it just hasn’t shown up in the polls yet. Rhodes will be forced to leave Obamas campaign any day now. Any day.
<
p>As for Jake Tapper, I’ll take your point and add him to the Enemies of Clintonism list immediately. Who does he think he is anyway, pointing out that Hillary is lying through her teeth about her record on Iraq, or anything else for that matter? That’s the kind of factual reporting that has no place in politics.
<
p>I agree with you completely that the media is being unfair to Hillary. The Wright brouhaha hasn’t gotten nearly enough coverage, in fact the Clinton campaign wants to know who’s behind the media boycott of that story. Stay tuned.
<
p>And yes, when the media finally turns on Obama, all those Hillary haters will be wishing that we had started smearing Obama earlier. Ungrateful bastards. If Obama can’t take a couple of friendly Mark Penn/Clinton attacks, how does he expect to stand up to Hillary’s pal John McCain? No chance. Obama can’t win. That’s why Hillary is leading, and why she needs to fight on!
Nothing to contribute. You made your point.
Mark Penn stepping aside as chief strategist. That 14 state campaign was really just starting to kick in too. A fine man. I understand that Lee Atwater was like a father to him.
<
p>Chin up though. We’re in this thing to win, and Penn will still be around, advising, making sure that everyone knows Obama is a Muslim, fighting the good fight and doing right by Hillary.
<
p>We’ll be seeing him when we get to Denver, count on it.
Mark Penn was an idiot, and as I said elsewhere, good riddance. I don’t think everything the campaign does is perfect — remember, Clinton was my fifth choice at the outset. Try turning the sarcasm off and debating like a grown-up.
prescience upthread:
<
p>
“God Damn America, God Damn America, God Damn America, God Damn America, God Damn America” with pictures of BO and his wife with their arms around the Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
<
p>And that will be the ballgame.
<
p>Hillary Clinton and Clinton Inc. are well aware of what the score is and if she doesn’t get the nomination there is zero chance of Obama winning. The republican party has mountains of ammunition to dump on the Obama’s. Oddly enough, people are numb to the machinations of the Clinton’s, they expect the Obama’s to be “above it all”.
in just Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, don’t you think the nomination would have essentially been “over”? Obama and all the rest might have lost donors and momentum and all of that phoney stuff we all talk about. And the other 46 states wouldn’t have “had their say.” That’s essentially what happened in 2004 when it was clear Kerry would win. Did Kerry “shut the process down,” then?
<
p>This isn’t about shutting the process down, it’s never been about shutting the process down.
<
p>But once it becomes clear who the nominee is going to be, it’s time to get around that nominee and start focusing our energy on the real prize.
<
p>Hillary Clinton has every right to stay in the race right up to the convention. I respect her and the tenacious campaign she’s waged. So she should run as long as she feels is appropriate to run. But party unity is important when it comes to defeating Senator McCain who will be tough for any Democrat to beat.
I’m all for as many people getting behind Obama whenever they decide to, especially people who have yet to vote in a primary for president this year, but let the process play out. The voters will (nearly) all have a chance to vote, and then through June most of the remaining superdelegates will rally behind our presumed nominee unless a radical shift occurs in the upcoming primaries. There will be a nominee by the end of June and we will have 5 months to unify behind that Senator.
Progressives, change and good government folks trying to force a telented, capable and tough candidate out of the race, and not to mention the first credible female is a shame and a stain on our party!
image having a dream in which you are in a fox hole under fire and there is only one other person there to help you survive the battle…and you turn and see that it is Tripp Jones… what a nightmare!
<
p>Because I consider myself a liberal, I always hated that old joke about “In a crowded room, how do you tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative?” Answer: “When the fight breaks out , the liberals head for the door.”
<
p>I know many tough and loyal and determined liberals who don’t check the odds before joining the fight…but Tripp Jones is not one of them, nor has he ever been.
We have two fine contender for the nomination at this point. But Hillary speaks for herself!
<
p>We all realize the concerns, issues, and, yes, spin out there.
Accept for a moment his whole dubious moral imperative argument. What are the poor souls who swallow this to do?
<
p>They’ve already voted. Should they feel really, really bad about how they did that? (How does that help?) Lobby super delegates to back Obama? (Many of them already do.) Use their Blue State Superpowers to…what?
<
p>Note to Superblue Mass. Moralizers: Voters in Pennsylvania are justifiably looking forward to exercising their franchise themselves. They are not going to make a decision based on what people in Massachusetts tell them to do.
<
p>BTW, Obama supporters of today, however they voted in the primary, should be glad that he’s dealing with some serious opposition here in the primary. Or would it be better for Rev. Wright’s sound bites to surface for the first time in October?
we have this push to disenfranchise voters. Why shouldn’t all states have a voice in this or any election? What’s the problem here?
<
p>There will be no bloodbath at the convention, Obama has the Dem insiders on his side, Hillary can’t really do much at the convention. Those who think otherwise is in la la land. But that won’t stop the “oh my gosh, Hillary is doing this or that” stories from blogs and the MSM.
<
p>This is the only thing that Obama supports are fighting against, the outside possibility that Hillary gets more votes than Obama. Now I don’t this that will happen, nor do I think that will change anything. If Obama has the delegates then it’s over. But if that does happen, it’s the whole Gore/Bush thing again, and they are on the wrong side this time.
Okay how is Obama Bush.
<
p>Lets recap. Bush won the least popular votes and probably lost the electoral college but the Supreme Court elected him.
<
p>Now lets look at this race. Obama has a big lead in delegates (the electors if you will) and the popular vote. Even if she wins all the remaining primaries by 20%, which is impossible, she will still be short in both votes going in.
<
p>So the only way she can win is with superdelegates favoring her over Obama. In this way they are the Supreme Court and your analogy breaks down.
<
p>If anything Clinton is the Bush figure in this drama, not Obama by a long shot.
“If anything Clinton is …. blah”, for god sakes don’t get you knickers in a bunch, no one is Bush. Well, other than you knocking Hillary. Nice job. But one would have more votes, but the other would have the win.
Your comment makes little sense, you compared Obama to Bush by saying his winning by forcing Hillary out is akin to Bush’s election aka undemocratic a phrase you have frequently used.
<
p>Yet this election has been democratic, the popular vote leader will be Obama, the delegate leader will be Obama, so how will Clinton be democratically elected at this point?
<
p>The only way she can win is through the superedelegates and that is something a supporter of democracy like yourself should hardly call democratic. Unless of course you only believe its democracy when your candidate is on top.
what I’m saying is Obama folks (probably like you) are pushing so hard for a Hillary’s departure is for this reason.
<
p>R e a d s l o w l y …..
<
p>Obama is not Bush.
I completely misread your post. Yes as an Obama supporter at this point I feel she is a wierd spawn of Nader and Bush for staying in even though she can’t win.
<
p>She can only hurt Obama like a Nader figure, or win through undemocratic means like a Bush figure.
Hillary needs to win Pennsylvania by around 15-20% for me to justify thinking this should really go any longer. That said, the two candidates are so close and this was so heated that I’m afraid the two camps’ supporters will be alienated if their side doesn’t win at this point, in sufficient numbers that it will have a very large chance of being a huge difference maker in the election – in a very bad, bad way. We can’t afford to have even 2% of our voting population stay home because they feel disenfranchised. Barack and Hillary would both be making a huge mistake if they don’t suck it up and unite the tickets, with what’s increasingly looking like Barack at the top and Hillary at Veep… which is fine. But we’ve got to keep that momentum, and avoid that hostility, at all costs.
But the pundits were perplexed and stunned that Barack Obama was not even considering Hillary’s olive branch of the VP slot. Of course you can just imagine how BHO would be treated in the Clinton White House. I’ll leave that to everyone’s imagination.
added to the Enemies of Clintonism list. By throwing his support behind Obama and encouraging Hillary to do the same, Jones has revealed himself to be an enemy of both Clintonism & Democracy.
<
p>It’s amazing just how quickly it happens. One minute you’re parroting Mark Penn talking points, about the importance of experience and snipers, why certain states and endorsements don’t matter, and then it hits you. Bang!… You actually hate Democracy! That’s the only reason why you might be thinking it’s time for Hillary to call it quits. There can be no other rational reason. You. Hate. Democracy.
<
p>So for any of you other Clinton haters (Judas’!!!), let this be a warning. Hillary will fight on, even if she tears down everything around her. She’ll be doing it as a Martyr for Democrats & Democracy, for you even, the haters. Although she isn’t appreciated in her own time (like GW), one day she’ll become the Matron Saint of the Democratic party, fierce in her unwavering loyalty to the Trinity of Clintonism, the DLC, and her own noble Legacy.
<
p>For Tripp Jones and any other haters, I weep for you.
You really don’t add anything to the conversation, do you?
and it’s emotional, but lift your voice and sing along:
<
p>Onward, Clinton soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Hillary going on before.
Bill, the Master Ego, leads against the foe;
Forward onto Denver see Her banners go!
<
p>Onward, Clinton soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Hillary going on before.
<
p>At the sign of triumph Obama’s host doth flee;
On then, Clinton soldiers, to every primary!
Truth’s foundations quiver from the spin of Penn;
Bloggers man your keyboards, piss & moan again.
<
p>Refrain
<
p>Like a zombie army moves the church of Bill;
Lobbyists, we are treading where the pols have will.
We are not progressives, all one mindset we,
One in aim and profit, for the DLC.
<
p>Refrain
It’s rooted in reality.
<
p>Here’s more sarcasm: Comments like “Geez dude You really don’t add anything to the conversation, do you?” are really constructive and DO add to the conversation.
You don’t see pattern?
I agree with rollzroix:
<
p>
<
p>Like, how, exactly?
Joan Vennochi and Madeleine Kunin fire back at the Tripp Jones broadside.
<
p>As for me I am going to duck until the sniper fire from both camps is over.
<
p>I see the activist and political junkies getting over this post Denver but believe it is the rank and file voters (who end up disillusioned year after year from this kind of squabbling by candidates, pundits, papers, commentators and consultants over who rolled the ball into the gutters) who will stay home with campaign fatigue syndrome because it’s no longer about lofty rhetoric or experience to them.
<
p>It’s just a lot of noise that won’t go away and I believe that’s what is driving the concern over the extended nomination battle.
Ok over and over again I have repeated this simple fact: regardless of ideology any party divided at the convention in the age of primary’s has gone on to lose the general election.
<
p>Dems: 68, 72, 80, 84, 88
GOP: 76
<
p>I challenge anyone here to counter that history with facts, not with rhetoric, not with calls that I am a sore winner, not by using examples from elections that occurred during the convention era when a divided convention was a norm and not an exception, but facts from the primary era. We will define that as 1972 onward when both parties got their delegates determined by primaries and not smoke filled rooms.
<
p>I also challenge anyone to counter the obvious signs that McCain has an edge now, a Republican in 2008, during an economic recession, with an unpopular incumbent, should not have an edge. Look at that gallup poll showing a lack of cross support between the candidates. Look at any electoral data. This is KILLING THE PARTY!
<
p>But I want to be proven wrong, I really do. Give me any valid counter and I will concede.
….always lost the world series over and over again for nearly 90 years, then they won..
<
p>And every President elected in a year ending in zero since 1840 died in office until Ronal Reagan..
<
p>And Susan Lucci was nominated for 18 Emmy Awards and always lost, until she won…
<
p>So what?
<
p>You have to be smart enough to know that historical coincidences, even ones that seem ominous or portentious, are, in fact, predictive of absolutely nothing. The fact that you present this information as apropos of anything, is frankly, comical. The fact that you call for it to be refuted, with facts, not with rhetoric is hysterical since you have not and, obviously, cannot support this silly little piece of dime store sooth saying as truthful.
<
p>If this is KILLING THE PARTY, let it die, I say. Of course, it isn’t. I will not concede one inch to Obama or his supporters, now or tomorrow, or the day after that and anyone who asks me will be told that I don’t want anyone getting the nomination but Clintion and that Obama doesn’t have my support. But, if it be the case, the day after he gets the nomination I will be right behind him. The same is true for substantially everyone on both sides of the party. It’s just like March madness. When your team is knocked out, you back another one, then another, and at the final round you’re cheering for someone. When the final round comes we will all be behind the nominee. Chill out.
<
p>The only edge McCain has is that he has some time to raise money, which by the way, he isn’t doing.
…that’s what happens when you don’t preview your post first.
<
p>Ooops.
I think your argument makes total logical sense. Plus, another argument deserves to be heard: this contest keeps the Democrats in the public eye, adds drama, and energizes the campaigns.
Its all negative press, people sniping each other, and the more negative it goes the more the average joe dislikes them. McCain having no opponent is running positive and he is getting free media coverage that is nearly all positive while the only coverage the dems get is of all the sniping and drama. I completely disagree with that line of reasoning.
<
p>Especially with all the historical examples.
..your historical example is the one pattern that will predict the future? Why?
<
p>Because it supports your candidate, no other reason.
<
p>The exchanges between Clinton and Obama are not negative in an objective sense. Politically speaking, they are playing patty cake.
<
p>McCain’s press is hardly all positive. He’s old, he isn’t raising any money, conservatives still don’t want him, he gets booed on the anniversary of MLK’s death, his support of the war continues to be criticized in view of the mounting violence in Iraq as of late…all subjects all over the press. Even the fact that he is going on a biography tour instead of dealing with issues is being criticized in the press.
<
p>So basically your argument is that a pattern you isolate which cannot possibly guarantee any future occurence must predict the future because you say so and that McCain is only getting good press while the dems rip eachother to shreds because you say so even though McCain is routinely criticized and the tenor of the conversation between the Obama and Clinton campaings is relatively benign.
The difference is those coincidences are just that coincidences, whereas I have demonstrated an established a clear historical pattern where the party that is divided at the convention in the post primary era has consistently lost every time.
<
p>Division, disunity, and opponents regrouping are all bad from a strategic standpoint for anything whether it be a battle or in this case a political campaign.
<
p>The Democrats in 1972 were so divided a large majority of them broke off and supported Nixon.
<
p>In 76 Ford was a shoo in, leading any opponent by nearly 20 pts in Feb 1976. In March Reagan challenges him and destroys Fords lead in the polls. The convention was especially dramatic, Ford was forced to drop his Veep from the ticket to placate the Reagan wing and the otherwise moderate Ford had to endorse a more radically right wing platform. His then was stuck neck and neck with Carter until the day he lost. Surveys showed most Reagan primary voters stayed home, Ford lost by just 2% and needed those votes.
<
p>The same thing in a nutshell happened in 80, Kennedy forced the platform leftward, he killed any post convention bounce, and most of his supporters stayed home or interestingly supported Anderson allowing Reagan the win.
<
p>Etc. etc.
<
p>Those are not coincidences those are direct correlations. The current campaign fits the model and the pattern and as a democrat I am quite nervous.
….clearly established historical pattern??? How is it any more clearly established than any other historical pattern or coincidence?
<
p>How have you demonstrated that there are direct correlations? That is an empirical term, where is the empirical data?
<
p>All you have demonstrated is that if you put parentheses around a historical period you can identify a pattern, that’s it, nothing more. You have given no evidence of correlation or provided anything other than paranoia to suggest that the pattern controls the future.
…what it’s like to work at the Discovery Institute.
This extended primary is driving up Democratic registration and turnout like you would not believe. That seems to bode well. Besides, take precedent with a grain of salt. No year is exactly like another. One “simple fact” is meaningless, otherwise we can just put the objective data into a computer and let it choose our President.
I’m going to stick with it.
Where is there democracy in a convention of superdelegates choosing the nominee? That is what you get with Clinton staying in until the convention.
<
p>The voters have already spoken. They overwhelmingly favor Obama in the popular count, they favor him slightly in the delegate count.
<
p>So by your own love of democracy you ought to want Hillary to drop out to prevent an election of either nominee by the cardinals college of politics-the superdelegates.
<
p>Yet I will also show you love something, democracy, that does not fundamentally exist in the Democratic party. while the country is a democracy the Democratic party is not, and its in its own interests not to be to prevent a fringe figure popular with the base but not the general electorate from winning the nomination. I am not saying either Hillary or Obama is that candidate, in fact I think neither of them are, but I would oppose pure democracy if it would lead us to another McGovern and a loss. That was the most open convention in our party’s history and it was a complete disaster. Even Mao Zedong got a delegate so many pinkos were delegates at that convention. And arguably the hijacking of the party by New Lefitsts lead to our generation in the presidential wilderness.
<
p>So if you like democracy Obama wins, within the party I dont like democracy but seeing that he is the more electable candidate even under my framework he still wins.
Under any equation their vote does not count.
<
p>World A: Hillary drops out, primary ends, those whose primaries are late have their voices silenced since the race ends before they can vote
<
p>World B: Hillary stays in, primary continues through convention, Obama denied majority of delegates, superdelegates pick nominee NOT primary voters, primary voters voices still silent since nomination decided by party insiders not voters
<
p>So in either situation democracy does not prevail! In BOTH situations voters are disenfranchised!
<
p>EVEN if democracy were to prevail it still is not worth the high COST to the party since the media positively defines McCain, they attack each other, their supporters begin to dislike each other, they waste money on the primary race, and McCain gets a free pass and can ride out the momentum to the general. No time for Dems to regroup, etc. etc.
<
p>Those COSTS are much higher than any benefit I can see from giving Montana a vote, that under either circumstance, is ultimately futile and worthless anyway.
you are already starting to see some Hillary supporters discuss, the possibility of her dropping out and in what circumstances she should drop out. Ryan has even posted it here. It slower than you would like but it has to happen naturally, not shoved down voters throats. At this point in this election, we are not there yet and people still need to vote. Whether we have a unity ticket or not the party will be united for November, all voters count, and with this particular election you have a significant amount of voters who are with the ‘other’ candidate.
I’ve held back talking about a Clinton drop-out because of the savagery of these calls for her to go away. It’s getting to the point where a drop-out could be taken more as a victory by the anti-democracy forces within the party than for the party as a whole. There’s an argument to be made for ending the contest after Pennsylvania, but I’m not going to try to make it in this environment.
I know that the author of the February 5 coronation strategy has just been deposed, but really, how much do you think he or the Clintons gave one damn about democracy before their little plan got shunted off the road? Fortunately, Obama was far more clever than she and penn, saw the soft underbelly of Penn’s strategy, and has now laid bare its inadequacy for all to behold.
<
p>Penn’s influence surely lives on in Sen. Clinton’s mind-boggling assertion that now the popular votes in Florida and Michigan must be counted in the name of democracy, even though one of the candidates was, er, not quite wholly in the race because the Democratic Party said it was a no-no. Is this not proof, for anyone who needs it, that Sen. Clinton and is utterly craven, utterly without any rudder other than her own bald political advantage? Tripp Jones’s argument is all very nice. But really, all we need to do is contemplate the sense of fairness informing Sen. Clinton’s assertion to understand she is deeply morally compromised, that her nomination would be an ethical catastrophe for the Democrats. How long is the docile national press going to tolerate this continuous shifting of the goalposts? Don’t these people have any memory?
In the long run, it’s more important to the Democratic Party that Florida and Michigan be treated in a timely and fair manner than any candidate. The Republicans stripped half of Florida’s delegates and that was that, it was still one of the most pivotal primary states for them. And given the diversity and importance of Florida, it should have been for the Democrats also. Lack of leadership.
their bets. This is Terry McAuliffe, the head of HRC campaign, posing over the weekend in Washington with some Obama supporters.
<
p>