So, we wait and hope she doesn’t continue to try to undercut our standard bearer anymore than she already has. And yet she then goes and does exactly that, following him to Florida to do nothing but rub salt in the wounds of voters there. It was fine that she wanted to prove to the world again and again how much Appalachians won’t vote for this guy. We all had to tolerate that because Kentucky and West Virginia actually had primaries there to contest. We had to watch her take to the stage in faux-triumph in those States, with all those really hard working folks, to see her claim again that she’s the most electable and is really the best choice for president, even as the (I guess) less hard working voters in 30 other states/provinces have said otherwise. The Party had to suck that up, and if it means West Virginia is even more unwinnable for us now then we just have to live with that unfortunate reality (and the fact is, she wasn’t sure to win there either).
But, this Florida visit yesterday was nothing more than me-tooism and narcissism and hubris, nothing more than sticking it in the eye of the very Party and rules that her own people dominated and approved again and again until she blew Iowa and all of a sudden realized that Florida and Michigan mattered. It was sore loserism. It really starts making me wonder about her motives here – either she is in such an advanced stage of denial about her prospects that she can’t stop campaigning or she just does not know what else do with her life and needs to follow the media scrum wherever it goes in a painful quest for relevance. I don’t know. Losing no doubt sucks. Losing a race you really should have won (and she probably should have if she and her campaign had actually run like they might not win instead of running like they had it in the bag from the start) must suck even worse. Losing gracefully is an oxymoron I know, but this Florida visit seemed deliberately intended to do damage.
But look Hillary its fine for you to go ahead on to Puerto Rico (and Montana and South Dakota where she likely will lose) and take your last winning bow in that sun-drenched Commonwealth. Go out with a big win in San Juan and thank the millions of people from the Rio Grande to the Poconos who punched your ticket. Just stop pointing fingers and blaming everyone other than yourself and your campaign for how this played out. Stop feeding the misguided conspiracies of your base. Sexism is a real enough problem without you using it as an excuse for the tactical failings of your campaign. Stop blaming the refs and the crowd when you owned the refs and the crowd never even heard of your opponent when the game began.
Hillary, I know you think that Obama can’t win, but don’t go out of your way to try and prove the point. There is too much at stake for our country, all those issues you say you care about and all those people you say you fight for. The Senate awaits your return where you can do so much more for both. You blew the race, now exit with some grace.
…to stay in this race for as long as she feels is appropriate. She has earned nearly as many votes and delegates as Obama, she has won landslide victories in two of the last three primaries, and if she wants to stay in until the convention, that is her right.
…that it is diaries like this that make me want to circle the wagons around HRC all the more. I may have peripheral concerns about Obama’s experience and ability to withstand the general election mud, but basically have nothing bad to say about him. Some of his supporters on the other hand, like this diarist for example, can be absolutely obnoxious in their treatment of Hillary. Maybe they should take a cue from their candidate and be a little more gracious.
You can’t say anything bad about him…..
<
p>The Obama folks like to play it both ways they can attack you but if you dare attack him you’re a racist.
This diary is nothing but respectful towards Hillary and actually has some nice things to say (like the fact she should have won had her campaign been run like it should have).
Is this what we are reduced to ? Acknowledging she lost is insulting her ? Is that what the problem is ? We are supposed to keep pretending to protect people’s feelings ? But then when does it end ?
I am really confused as to what your point is here. Trust me. If you want vicious commentary on Hillary Clinton, you don’t have to surf very far to find it.
This was merely an acknowledgement of the predicament she is in and the fact her behavior is making it worse for everyone.
making it worse for anyone but some Obama supporters? Hillary Clinton has a right to stay in the race. Saying that Hillary Clinton needs to quit for no other reason than that Obama thinks he already has the nomination (he does not) is being divisive. No one has the nomination yet. There is no reason for her to get out of the race. “Her behavior,” as you put it, is exactly what millions of voters and supporters expect from her; to stand up for us, to make sure every vote counts, and to allow people in the remaining states who want to vote for her to do so. Why are Obama supporters so afraid of that?
The problem we have is that by repeating falsehoods and pretending she is ahead or close or that there is any possibility whatsoever for her to win, she makes die-hard fans such as yourself believe there is a chance she could win the nomination.
It is just not true. But because so many people look up to her, they listen to her acting as if people are trying to steal something from her, when she just simply lost, and end up believing it which, if it was, would rightfully make you angry. But it is not true.
Pundits are not trying to get her to quit coz of sexism and Obama-supporters are not trying to get her to quit because we hate her.
We want her to drop out because she lost and the longer she makes this farce go on, the harder it will be for people like you, smart people who are going to be genuinely disappointed, to deal with what undeniably will be a tough process to switch to the nominee.
<
p>Fanning the flames of the situation in Florida, situation that she was very much complicit with before it became her interest to change her take on it, is unhelpful at the very least. Considering that Obama has already said he would find a way to seat the delegates, and considering the only obstacle to an agreement being found right now is her absurd positioning and grandstanding on the issue, she is making a complete mess even messier by injecting pure politics in it.
<
p>Those are two examples. It is unfortunate that the rhetoric has gotten so heated that people seem to have forgotten the value of simple objective facts.
There won’t be an official nominee until the convention. You could say the same thing about Romney and McCain. So what?
Barack Obama has not. So it is not a pointless observation. There is a reason why the Obama campaign wants Hillary Clinton to drop out, because she could still reach the magic number, just as he could. His campaign has done a masterful job with smoke and mirrors, but he does not have enough delegates yet to get the nomination.
McCain still has not “legally attained the necessary delegates to be LAWFULLY awarded the nomination” as MCRD put it, and he won’t until the nomination is voted on at the convention. Of course, it is highly probable that that McCain indeed will be the nominee. It is also highly probable that Obama will be the nominee. Even if Obama had gotten enough superdelegates to declare for him to put him over the top, Clinton could still validly point out that they could still change their minds at the convention. In fact, there has been some claims that the Clinton camp has been trying to turn pledged delegates to their side as well. So really, the only difference between the two is the degree of probability, nothing more.
<
p>I don’t understand your point about “smoke and mirrors”. Do you actually think there is any way that Clinton can win? If so, how?
<
p>
The super delegates are there to vote for the candidate who will ensure a win for the party in November. They are not there to mirror the pledge delegate count. Otherwise, having superdelegates would make no sense. And no candidate wins until they reach the magic number, which is much more than a majority. There is a reason for that rule too. Again, it is because Democrats want to make sure they will select the person as their nominee who will win in November. (This also is the reason why super delegates should examine which candidate got the most popular vote.)
<
p>The Obama campaign has done a masterful job of creating the impression that he already has a sufficient number of delegates to be the party nominee; he does not. First, there was the trickling of superdelegate declaring support for him over a couple of weeks, all of whom probably were for him all along. Then, there was the ridiculous claim that he had the majority of pledged delegates the night of the Kentucky primary, as if it matters. (Of course, Obama was not counting Florida and Michigan at all. God, I wonder what all the Obama supporters would be saying about that if it was Hillary Clinton claiming a majority of the pledged delegates without counting Florida and Michigan. The outrage, I am sure.)
<
p>The comparison of Obama’s delegate count to McCain’s delegate count is really not a valid one, but if it gives you some comfort, knock yourself out. Sometimes the Obama campaign’s spin sounds just like something out of 1984; i.e., it sounds simply Orwellian.
Yes, everyone understands that she technically she just needs to get enough people to vote for her at the convention. But you don’t have the slighest idea of how she is going to be able to do that. Her superdelegate lead is long gone and she falls farther behind in that every day. She is clearly failing to convince superdelegates to go for her and is even seeing delegates previously declared for her switching to Obama. No delegate so far has switched in the other direction.
<
p>While she has not officially lost yet, she is going to lose. There is absolutely no question about it. If it makes you feel better to pretend otherwise, go ahead, but you aren’t convincing anyone of anything.
<
p>
But then why are the Obama campaign and its supporters so scared? I mean if he is going to win anyway, why not let the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated? Why keep calling for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race?
And you can bet that the FL and MI delegations will indeed be seated in some form with the full blessing of the Obama campaign. Note that even if the delegates are counted exactly the way Clinton wants them to be counted and do not explicitly grant Obama the uncommitted delegates from MI, he will end up with most of them anyway and will still be far ahead of Clinton. But that is not going to happen until after the remaining states have voted and most of the remaining superdelegates have already declared their intentions.
<
p>Also note that you are lying when you imply that the Obama campaign is calling for Clinton to drop out of the race. They are not. Of course, many supporters are calling for that, but that is not the same as the Obama campaign. I personally am not calling for her to drop out either. I would just like her to stop undermining — however slightly — Obama’s chances in November.
“I didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles, and I stil l believe in those, too.”
also of New York, and also facing the perfect messiah, so why not Clinton?
can you be from Massachusetts and reference that in a positive light?
<
p>that one still hurts.
but if you read my post – my real issue is with her ridiculous claims about Florida, her continual efforts to make it seem like in some way this race was stolen from her and that she lost because of media bias and sexism. All of that is damaging to our chances going forward because it keeps you lot pissed off and will leave a lot of people with the impression that Obama did not fairly win this thing – when he clearly did. That is divisive politics and that is exactly what I don’t like about Hillary’s tactics at this point.
<
p>And I hate to tell you, Hillary’s staying in the race has nothing to do with you and everything to do with her. You are getting used to keep her own ambitions alive. Standing up for people – the best thing she could do now is play this race out positively and not keep beating the felonious Florida drum.
I happen to agree with Hillary. There was an incredible amount of media bias and sexism thrown at her, and there has been from the day she walked into the White House as First Lady, right through this campaign. I’ve never seen anything like it.
<
p>I also think that the votes in Florida should count. I think that not counting them is going to be even more damaging to the Democrats.
<
p>Finally, your comment that Hillary’s staying in the race “has nothing to do with you and everything to do with her” is untrue, unnecessary, and just helps to fan the flames.
<
p>- Is akin to what is happening in Zimbabwe;
<
p>- Follows on from the struggle for civil rights and suffrage movements?
<
p>Saying Florida should count is one thing. Saying it is analogous to all the above is quite another. Do you not agree there is a distinction?
And you really mean to tell me that Hillary is only doing this because she cares about the people. Then why did she sit back and let the DNC develop rules that would disenfranchise two states? Why was she not worried about then? Instead she endorsed the rules, put out a press release saying so. If is was so important that all these votes count she could have said something before the process began. She could have had her attack dogs Terry McAuliffe and Howard Ickes fight for Florida and Michigan instead of the other way around. They were there and involved. She didn’t do it. This is pure convenience for her (and has nothing to do with right and wrong) as she conveniently flipped flopped on the issue when it became in her interest to do so. Tell me how I’m wrong on that.
<
p>And if she wasn’t continuing to make this an issue because she is losing it would not be an issue. Florida will get seated, a compromise will be struck, but not the way she wants it to be and nor should it.
<
p>
I said that I think the votes in the Florida Democratic Primary should count…I didn’t say anything about Zimbabwe or the struggle for civil rights.
<
p>Please don’t read anything else into my post.
<
p>And, please, stop yelling!
<
p>You wrote that.
<
p>P.S. By and large, using bold or italics isn’t considered yelling. THIS IS YELLING. Big difference.
And I meant it. I do agree with Hillary. I sincerely believe that media and gender bias have adversely impacted her campaign, and I agree with her that the votes of those in Florida’s Primary should count.
<
p>However, lanugo took a quantum leap and suggested that I was referring to Zimbabwe and the civil rights movement, neither of which I mentioned in my post. That’s what I was responding to.
Yes, we all can see that you did not refer to that explicitly.
<
p>So what do you think? Do you think that Clinton’s analogies to Zimbabwe and the Civil Rights movement were in any way appropriate?
<
p>
Thanks. I do think, however, that the list you have in your post are analogous for many people to the Florida situation. In particular, I would bet there are a lot of people in Florida who would agree to the analogies. Every person’s vote should count and no one in the Democratic party should think otherwise.
<
p>Do you really think Barack Obama is opposed to counting the Florida vote as it stands because he cares about the voters in Florida? And how does he reason that? (Hmmmm. I think it is because he cares about Barack Obama.) If Obama is so sure he is already the nominee, what is the harm in counting the Florida delegates as voted by the people of Florida? Isn’t showing the country that we Democrats care about making sure every vote counts (i.e. democracy) more important than enforcing a silly party rule? Besides what better way to unite the party, and teh country, then counting every vote. And if we Democrats do not count every vote, then we have nothing to complain about from what happened in 2000 and we will have effectively disenfranchised large numbers of men and women, people of all colors. (Compare with the goals of the civil rights movement and women’s sufferage movement. See also Zimbabwe.)
How can you be expected to be taken seriously when even the title of your comment is not truthful? Who’s zoomin’ who here?
<
p>Read more, pontificate less. For a starter, http://www.kansascity.com/278/…
Let a black editor from the Kansas City Star help you…because to understand why Hillary Clinton CAN’T get out before the primary process is done, is to understand why Jesse Jackson could not leave the race in ’88 despite trailing by many, many more delegates than Clinton is today…quitting was no more an option for him than it is for Clinton…he was not running for a nomination, he was running so black boys (and girls) watching across the country from Chicago or Boston, or even Hawaii, would be able to broaden their own realms of possibility and dreams…..it took a black editor from the Kansas City Star to say it outloud this week in his Editorial commentary for those Obama supporters, media talking heads and others who can’t see the reason that stands clearly right in front of them.
and the rules were against him? Was he claiming he was the best candidate and that the certain-to-be-nominee was unelectable? Like Amy Winehouse says, “NO, NO, NO.”
<
p>HL – you refuse to answer those questions. You refuse to see a distinction between JJ’s candidacy and Hillary’s and the difference is massive because Hillary has been that much more successful and thus can be that much more damaging here.
<
p>Like you say – Jesse was running for a cause, to get to the stage and show people it could be done and he knew the Dukakis people would be uncomfortable with that so he had to use whatever leverage he had to make his point – it was not because he thought that by staying in he had some chance of winning?
<
p>What is Hillary’s cause beyond her own at this point? Is she fighting to show that a woman can do it and go all the way. I don’t think so. But even if she is, she has nothing more to prove. She’s proven her mettle – her guts, her capability, her competence. She’s proven a woman can be every bit as good a candidate as any man. She will given centre-stage for the rest of the campaign, at the convention and beyond. Jesse still had something to prove while she done so much to prove herself already.
<
p>And I said, good for her to stay in the race for the coming primaries, but don’t continue to fan the flames of division while you are at it. Time to heal and mend them.
<
p>HL, please respond to the questions I present and not to what some columnist I’ve never heard of said.
nt
It is touching. And I am not in anyway trying to suggest that Hillary’s candidacy doesn’t mean a lot to a lot of people – women and men the world over alike. No doubt it does.
<
p>It means something to me. I’ve expressed great pride in my party for elevating Hillary to front-runner status and considering her bid for the presidency on its merits. She had every chance to win this thing and if a few contests and decisions had gone the other way she could have done it. She ran into a very talented newcomer at a time when people weren’t much happy with the establishment, not to mention the fact that Democrats don’t much like front-runners anyhow. She has run an amazing race, into a headwind of cynicism and sexism, and come out with a heightened reputation.
<
p>Talk to my 90-year old grandmother. She’s an old-school party activist and always loved the Clintons – through Lewinsky and impeachment it only grew stronger for her, while for me, I grew disappointed and disillusioned to see progressive causes lose out to inter-familial drama. Every time I talk my grandma she keeps asking me why Obama can’t just wait his turn – that its Hillary’s time now. She’s up there in age and she knows she may never see a woman in the White House if it doesn’t happen this year.
<
p>I get all that. I get why you and others are so reluctant to see her candidacy end. But I guess I don’t think Hillary has anything more to prove here and I just hate how she has turned rules she actively supported and approved into a means to hit her opponent and divide our Party further. I just find that to be the most hypocritical position any politician has taken for a long-time and she just keeps making it worse by comparing it to Zimbabwe and 2000 and going to Palm Beach to get the retirees all jazzed up. Her stance on Florida has only confirmed for me what I never liked about the Clintons – the win at all cost, all about them attitude.
<
p>There was a time when I dabbled with supporting her – a lot of close political friends were, but I just remembered all the things I didn’t like about the Clintons first go around, how disappointed it all was, and decided that she was not the first woman I’d like to see in that office. That even when she looked inevitable, she was not right for the job.
<
p>Go on girl, take it to the convention, but I will never trust you cared about anything more than your own interest. History be damned.
<
p>
You have accurately articulated what so many people I know are feeling–both women and men. This whole thing has soured my respect for the Clintons significantly. For so long I was comfortable with either candidate as president–and still would be were the campaign circumstances different. But Hillary Clinton’s behavior in the waning months of her campaign is appalling. Her rhetoric of late is inflammatory, inaccurate, and irresponsible. This election is too important to be derailed by a candidate who refuses to face reality and who insists on exploiting the emotions of her supporters to justify her unwillingness to step aside. She is damaging the party and our chances for success in November.
“the difference is massive because Hillary has been that much more successful”
<
p>Yep, indeed, she has been. So according to your argument, she should quit because she’s been more successful than people who were nowhere near the nomination, and yet continued on anyway? The only thing I can say is WOW!
<
p>According to your logic, if today she was behind by 1000 delegates instead, she should totally stay in the race?
and the rules were against him? Was he claiming he was the best candidate and that the certain-to-be-nominee was unelectable? Like Amy Winehouse says, “NO, NO, NO.”
<
p>HL – you refuse to answer those questions. You refuse to see a distinction between JJ’s candidacy and Hillary’s and the difference is massive because Hillary has been that much more successful and thus can be that much more damaging here.
<
p>Like you say – Jesse was running for a cause, to get to the stage and show people it could be done and he knew the Dukakis people would be uncomfortable with that so he had to use whatever leverage he had to make his point – it was not because he thought that by staying in he had some chance of winning?
<
p>What is Hillary’s cause beyond her own at this point? Is she fighting to show that a woman can do it and go all the way. I don’t think so. But even if she is, she has nothing more to prove. She’s proven her mettle – her guts, her capability, her competence. She’s proven a woman can be every bit as good a candidate as any man. She will given centre-stage for the rest of the campaign, at the convention and beyond. Jesse still had something to prove while she done so much to prove herself already.
<
p>And I said, good for her to stay in the race for the coming primaries, but don’t continue to fan the flames of division while you are at it. Time to heal and mend them.
<
p>HL, please respond to the questions I present and not to what some columnist I’ve never heard of said.
I think that it speaks volumes that the Michigan and Florida state committees decided to flout the party rules and regulations, knowing in their heart of hearts that even if they defied the party they would still be seated. It goes back to the premise that there are no longer boundarys, everything is a gray area, there is no right and wrong and everything is negotiable. When in fact and in reality, no matter how much you torture it, there is in fact a line in the sand that you will not and cannot cross. Dean will be pilloried for years for his just and rightful stand.
<
p>That being said, if Michigan and Florida had played by the rules and their delegates seated, Hillary Clinton would now be the nominee or at least ahead of Obama.
She has earned nearly as many votes and delegates as Obama
How is that any different than the Celtics earning nearly as many points as the Pistons tonight? It's still a loss and in any one-on-one competition, there's going to be a loser.
Senator Clinton can do whatever she wants in terms of staying in the race but if the rationale rests solely on “she has earned nearly as many votes and delegates as Obama,” I think there's some seriously flawed reasoning going on.
nt
Let her run forever.
Let all Bloggers and “News” organizations, ignore her, and her handlers.
Let us all go forward, abiding by the rules Hillary accepted and advocated, and select our next President.
Those stuck in the 1990’s political style need not apply.
“Get a Blogger”!
I didn’t see this post make any claims about Hillary’s “right” to stay in. Clearly, whether to continue campaigning or not is her choice. But she has lost, and this diary says she is making the wrong choice. People who get all self-righteous about her “right” to stay until the convention (something that would truly do serious damage to our chances in the fall, unlike whatever’s happening now) make me shake my head and wonder at the level of willfull denial in our party. It feels like a portion of Hillary’s supporters have branched off into a Fox-news-style cult.
Jesse Jackson went all the way to the convention in 88…with far, far fewer votes…but the Dukakis supporters and the media were not calling for him to “get off the stage before it’s over because you are not going to win”…to the contrary, they were wise enough to know that they needed a united party walking out of Atlanta…Jackson was shown respect, his name was put in nomination, his votes were recorded in the roll call…he gave the speech of a lifetime…and so did Dukakis one day later…people left Atlanta feeling good (on both sides)…
<
p>Too bad the Obama supporters in the campaign, at the DNC and in the media aren’t as wise as the Dukakis team was before the 88 convention…rather that smoothing the road ahead, they are insuring it will be rocky with resentment..
was not running around the country telling everyone that Dukakis and the DNC stole the race and that the rules were unfair and that it was the media that made him lose. If he had been out there saying that, your damn right I would have wanted him to end his candidacy.
<
p>Jackson stayed in it because he wanted to affect the platform and have a say at the convention. Hillary and Obama’s policies are almost indecipherable and she is certain to have a major role at the convention and a major role in the campaign. Jackson could be assured of none of that while Hillary has it all. Hell, I’m sure Obama would give her the frigging keynote if she would just shut the hell up about Florida in some way being like the 200o recount.
<
p>You really have no idea. Smoothing the road. What has Obama done to disrespect Hillary? Name something. He has been going out of the way to compliment her for weeks, even as she continues to imply to everyone that he can’t win. Please, if you have an issue with me and other fired up Obama supporters then fine, but I am not a part of his campaign.
<
p>It seems like so many Clinton folks are taking out their anger at the media and the rules and fired up Obama supporters on the candidate when he has been respectful throughout. C’mon folks, don’t hold things that other people have said and done against him. That is truly unfair and childish.
<
p>
Perhaps a few of her minions and sycophants have grumbled that it has been less than alevel playing field, and I belive that is an accurate assessment, but Clinton herself has never said that she was robbed—-course if she is not nominated at the convention—then she can make the complaint—justifiable or otherwise.
implies strongly that HRC thinks the nomination was stolen. I do agree the playing field was not level- it never will be until we have a national primary, but the rules did not intentionally favor one candidate or another.
I don’t see this post calling for Hillary to be left out of the convention. I assume that the poster would want her to speak at the convention, and I’m pretty sure she would do so at an Obama-managed convention. It’s a big turn-off to see so many self-righteous pro-Hillary posts full of hyperbole like “you’re trying to force her out, it’s her right to stay in!” or “you’d kick her out of the convention!” or “what’s wrong with letting people vote?”
<
p>I personally have never called for her to quit the race, but this kind of cult-like self-righteousness from a significant portion of Hillary supporters on the blogs makes me wonder whether it wouldn’t be better for her to just go away after all.
Every time I see a diary like this, I have a momentary desire to see Hillary to take it to the convention…if for no other reason to prove the toughness and strength of the party and its nominee. With the current environment, after winning in Mississippi for heaven’s sake, with the GOP Congress running scared (literally in Sununu’s case) and McCain practically doing motorcycle stunts to get press coverage, I don’t think that the Democratic Party is “walking on eggshells”.
<
p>I think the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama, can survive the existence of an alternative.
Its great if Hillary stays in it – but just don’t lie about Florida and the popular vote and go out of your way to say Obama is unelectable.
<
p>Run out the campaign fine. But don’t try to undermine the candidacy of a good and decent man in the process. Don’t keep your supporters all ginned up that this race was taken from them. Hillary crossed the line the other day. I have huge for her skill and competence and her candidacy but when she does shit like this it does no one any good. And it would just be great to see a Clinton diehard recognize that for once. Loyalty is to be admired. Blind loyalty to be admonished and that is what you demonstrate.
How is Hillary lying exactly? I’m not a dittohead here…I expect proof of personal attacks on the Clintons, not just somebody’s say-so.
<
p>And accusing me of blind loyalty — considering she was my third or fourth choice heading into this — is rich coming from you.
Take away Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot, or Edwards for that matter, and she’d be losing the popular vote as well. If you count Michigan and gave each of them a little slug of the uncommitted vote which was 45% in Michigan, then Hillary is behind again. So it a dog-shit point. Its disingenous.
<
p>Her Florida shenanigans this week are all disingenous – the quotes are my post from below. Add it up and it constitutes untruthfulness or a perverse aversion to the facts. Or maybe she is just misspeaking here – like she did about the Bosnia sniper fire.
Obama and Edwards took their own names off the Michigan ballot, in order to play better in Iowa.
<
p>The DNC rules required no such pandering.
<
p>Obama and Edwards were rewarded for their maneuver – by placing 1st, and 2nd, respectively, in Iowa.
<
p>Now, even though they got a benefit for taking their name off their ballot, and even though their supporters actively campaigned for people to vote uncommitted (just a quick Google search away, if you don’t believe me), Obama wants all the votes for uncommitted to be counted for him.
<
p>So, in this scenario the unreasonable person is …
<
p>One more thing. Hillary Clinton did not do well in Illinois. What if she’d taken her name off the ballot, and sometime in April decided to demand that all votes not cast for Obama be counted for her. Would you stand with her and shout that it was unfair that her name was off the IL ballot?
<
p>When you answer the above, remember – nothing in DNC rules required any candidate to remove their name from the ballot.
everything in the DNC rules required that states which held contests before particular dates were to get zero delegates for Denver.
<
p>So, want to talk about rules? The rules make it clear that this is a non-issue. Michigan, Florida: No delegates for you! Next time, please take the rules seriously. Kthx.
You won’t. Cause you’re quoting a talking point, instead of the rules. Before you talk about the rules, READ THE RULES!
<
p>Here are the actual rules.
<
p>http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/808…
<
p>I’ll make it easier for you.
<
p>Scroll down to Rule 20. Section C(1)(a). Read closely.
<
p>Rules say: break rules? 50% penalty. Not zero.
<
p>Thank you, come again.
Check out:
<
p>21.a.3
<
p>
<
p>Florida didn’t play ball when the DNC tried a caucus. If they were in fact violating 21.a.3, then
<
p>20.c.6
<
p>
<
p>So, if Florida violated 21.a.3, then 20.c.6 allows their delegation to be reduced, without constraining that reduciton to 50%.
<
p>Furthermore,
<
p>20.c.1.
<
p>
<
p>An argument could be made that BHO’s FL ads violated this rule. An argument that HRC’s mugging for press on the tarmac in Florida when fund raising violated this rule as well.
<
p>If the rules committee decided that both actions violated 20.c.1, they could not allow BHO nor HRC to get the votes of any of the FL delegates, and while JRE might appreciate their votes, it won’t impact the race much.
<
p>
<
p>But you raise an interesting point, although your link source [akamai] isn’t reliable because its not from the host site. Not your fault necessarily. The doc is dated August 19, 2006. I have no idea if its been changed since then, but a Meet the Press episode quoted a letter from Dr. Howard Dean, stating that the August 2006 DNC meeting allowed for a 100% loss of pledged and unpledged delegates for noncompliance.
<
p>
<
p>Now, I have no idea why there seems to be a direct contradiction. Maybe the document you link to isn’t kosher — it’s been revised since the publication date, was a draft, whatever. That it’s not a link from a Democratic server is problematic. In any case, I have to wonder why neither candidate seemed to be too concerned about the 50% –> 100% transition back in Autumn 2006, or why any state didn’t raise a stink about the change then.
<
p>In any case, this Washington Post article claims that the rules committee used “the harshest penalty at its disposal,” implying that the penalty was permissible within the rules. It also points out that in 1996, Delaware was stripped of 100% of their delegates for the same rules violation. Side note: Bill Clinton took his name off of the Delaware primary ballot in 1996, and never cried out “disenfranchisement!” when Delaware was punished, nor did HRC or BHO for that matter.
And you all should rememeber – no matter who get the nomination – that the archetect of this process was Howard Dean, Mr. Third of June when HE Chose the Augut Date.
Akamai is a file hosting company used by the DNC.
<
p>Here’s another link to the rules page on the DNC website (same exact document can be found on it).
<
p>http://www.democrats.org/a/con…
<
p>Note: I never said that a 100% penalty wasn’t within the rules, only that it isn’t the penalty provided for by the text of the rules. The DNC, as a private organization, can set whatever internal rules it decides to have.
<
p>The default penalty, however, is 50%.
<
p>Keep this in mind. When they decided to penalize MI and FL, everyone knew that it was a wink-wink penalty. The nominee would simply graciously allow the delegates to be seated. No one saw the nomination battle requiring the votes of MI and FL, or it going this long.
<
p>If you don’t believe me, Google it. There’s plenty of coverage from back then, explaining the decision made to penalize the states, and what the likely outcome would be.
<
p>Furthermore: buried in the rules is a provision designating a) the Rules Committee and b) the Convention itself, as final arbiters of the rules. Arguing for MI and FL to be seated – that’s an argument made WITHIN the rules, not outside them. That’s why provisions exist for such an argument to be made!
Thanks for the link. Since Akamai is hired by lots of companies, it’s not always obvious that the owner of the document has supplied the content on an Akamai server.
<
p>In any case, you wrote
<
p>
<
p>and then come back with
<
p>
<
p>You seem to be staking out both sides of the argument.
<
p>
<
p>The default penalty listed in 20.c.1.a is 50%, but the DNC made it very clear that the penalty in 2008 would be 100%, making 100% the de facto default penalty. The rules allowed for 100% penalty, and the chairman of the DNC made it clear in August 2006 that the penalty for moving the primary or caucus outside of specified dates would be the loss of 100% of delegates.
<
p>It was crystal clear. Not at all ambiguous. You can claim that “it was a wink-wink penalty” all you like, but the DNC is on record very clearly proclaiming 100% penalty.
<
p>I’m not interested in what pundits in 2006 thought was the likely outcome. I’m interested in refuting your insinuation that the rules were changed in the middle of the game. The rules were clear. The penalties were clear. Florida Dems broke the rules. Florida Dems must live with the consequences. They should have learned from Delaware ’96. The DNC is no more guilty of disenfranchising Florida than a parent is guilty of stealing the toy that he has taken from junior after the kid defied instructions to stop hitting his baby sister.
<
p>
<
p>P.S. Modding a post a 3 because one disagrees with a post — a post free of profanity, aggressiveness, falsities, or other obnoxious behavior — is very middle school.
I suspect that the Democratic Party, and in particular its nominee, is the one that is going to have to live with the consequences.
NV and SC got waivers and I believe NH, while allowed to go first went even earlier than the DNC wanted, but it was not punished. Rules can only truly be respected if they apply across the board. Next time one date should be set, say March 1, 2012, before which no primary or caucus can be held, period. No favoritism for NH, IA, or anyone else and a 50% cut in pledged delegates and zero superdelegates for any state that goes earlier. I’m usually sympathetic to arguments that rules should be followed, but complete disenfranchisement is unacceptable. The candidates, party, and state leadership have no right to deny voters an opportunity to have their say.
<
p>Of course they do in this case. It might not be wise, ethical, or savvy, but the Democratic party certainly has the right to count or not count delegates in any way they see fit.
In my opinion they have no MORAL right to do this. The difference is like the debate about whether Parliament had the right to tax American colonists without colonial representation. Legally they absolutely did; morally, not so much.
NH at least was given a waiver because MI & FL were pushing the envelope. Their waiver was defensive, NOT offensive.
<
p>NH was bullshit that they only had 5 days after IA. The biggest complaints were coming from the Clinton-NH people because they didn’t have much time to recover from a pending IA loss.
<
p>Clinton did win NH, but they were sweating bullets from Nov. ’07 until CNN called it on primary night.
To claim that the only reason that Obama and Edwards placed ahead of Clinton was because they removed themselves from the ballot in MI is just plain silly and is not supported by the tiniest scrap of evidence. What percentage of the voters in IA were even aware of this? You don’t think that the fact that Edwards and Obama vigorously campaigned there while Clinton mostly ignored IA until the last moment might have had something to do with it?
<
p>And your comment does absolutely nothing to address the point about how bogus it is for Clinton to decry voter disenfranchisement and claim a “popular vote” lead when to do so she has to ignore everyone who voted in a caucus or who voted for “Uncommitted”.
<
p>
I dare you to find a place I said “the only reason that Obama and Edwards placed ahead of Clinton was because they removed themselves from the ballot in MI”.
<
p>You won’t, cause I never said such a thing. You’re spinning, creating a strawman argument, and then arguing against a strawman argument that I never made.
<
p>I would never claim it was the only reason. It was A reason … a reason to pander to Iowa.
<
p>Are you really going to make a claim that it had NO impact? In an Iowa race decided by tiny margins, it was a part of the dynamic.
<
p>Did you know that Clinton + Obama spent over 60 million dollars in Iowa? And over 60 million more in NH?
<
p>You think people in Iowa welcomed MI moving its primary with open arms? They were looking at losing tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars of direct revenue to the state. Of course taking his name off the Michigan ballot meant something to Iowans. Of course it had an impact. As did many other things.
<
p>Your comment does nothing to address the point that her argument doesn’t ignore caucus states. Or the point that some caucus states (the ones you’re talking about) don’t report the number of people who showed up, only the delegates allotted, making it impossible to determine their popular vote totals.
<
p>Other caucus states (like New Mexico), get counted, because they do report their vote totals, and counting them is not an impossible task.
You still have presented absolutely no evidence that Obama and Edwards gained anything at all in IA from taking their names off the ballot in MI. You did explicitly claim that they took their names of the ballot “in order to play better in Iowa”, and there is zero evidence that is true. You did not use the words “might have” or otherwise indicating that you are just speculating. It is an interesting speculation, but it has absolutely no ground in facts. You are indeed spinning.
<
p>I did know that Clinton spent a lot of money in IA, but only in the late phase of the game when it was clear that she might be embarrassed if she lost by too much there. In the early phase of the campaign she largely bypassed IA. Personally, I believe that if she had campaigned there early on, I think she would have won IA and probably would have been the nominee.
<
p>You still have not addressed the bogosity of Clinton’s popular vote claim, which does indeed ignore some caucus states and does ignore the “uncommitted” votes in MI, most of which would have been Obama’s. It is true that it is not really possible to accurately measure popular vote, but that just underlies how bogus her claim is. The entire point of her claim to the popular vote is a sign to the superdelegates that she is actually more popular than Obama, but how can you really say that when you have to totally ignore Obama supporters in five states in order to get a favorable number for yourself? No superdelegates are going to believe that, and at this point only die-hard Clinton supporters take any stock in her popular vote claim.
<
p>
<
p>Most profits from television and radio and billboard ads purchased quickly left the state since the major stations are owned by corporations headquartered elsewhere [often NYC] and owned by shareholders located outside of Iowa. The same goes for a tremendous amount of profits from the sale of gasoline, coffee, notepads, and so forth.
<
p>That’s not to say that the local economy doesn’t get some juice from the primary, but most of the profits don’t stay in Iowa long, since most of the money is spent on items owned by companies located outside Iowa.
<
p>P.S.
<
p>If it’s impossible to determine vote totals, you don’t just pretend that they’re zero. That isn’t kosher stat.
of the Kerry drumbeats during that primary. I stopped listening a long time ago. If the super delegates and convention process is so undemocratic then why the hell does it exist and why the hell isn’t the commentary about how it must be changed? This whole primary has become a study in what needs to change vs. misperceptions of reality. This is my last comment about any of it. I can barely stand watching the news or reading BMG at this point unless there is some real discussion about issues. I get daily emails from friends who are locked in this mentality. I just want it to end because it’s unnerving to watch from the sidelines. I have come to truly despise campaigns and may never participate in one again because I don’t want to ever be so morally outraged over something so meaningless in comparison to the real issues we face.
<
p>Please don’t bail. I would like to encourage you to post on election issues and what you see as the areas that need to be addressed. I would be delighted to see everyone get off the personality debate and onto the principles of the process that are flawed and in need of reform.
are hurting the Democratic party, not the fact that Hillary Clinton is staying in the race until all the people who want to vote for her have had their chance. Please tell me you are not a registered Democrat. The Democrats I know think letting everyone vote for whom they want for President is important and making sure their vote counts is even more important. The Democrats I know, who have been doing campaigns for years, believe Hillary staying in and keeping the press focussed on the Democratic race is helping the Democrats.
<
p>Why, then, do some Barack Obama supporters and some media
types who support him, think it is a bad thing? What are they afraid of? Yikes, could it be that they are afraid he could actually lose the nomination? That is the only explanation I can think of for why anyone would say Hillary Clinton should stop letting people vote for her and why she should stop arguing that people’s votes should be counted.
<
p>If Obama and his supporters really want to unite the party after all this is over, as they claim, they need to stop with the nasty stuff. It really is getting old and it really is not helpful.
Indeed. Like, don’t point out that Hillary’s advisor Ickes was on the committee that approved the sanctions for Florida and Michigan, she didn’t campaign in either, and now it’s some great matter of principle, and not expediency, that those utterly illegitimate “results” be counted.
<
p>But you’re right — I must be afraid that Obama could actually lose the nomination!
<
p>Goodness. It is time to start treating ourselves, and our candidates, like adults.
I have been posting nothing but praise of late. Then Hillary goes off about Florida in a way that can do nothing but keep us divided and I decide to point it out and all the Hillary people decide to ignore the meat of the post and just go into taunting Obama supporters for being afraid.
<
p>Obama is almost certain to win the nomination. I have no fear about his losing it at this stage. But, I do fear that Hillary is fanning the flames of division when she should be running as a positive voice for unity at this point. She is making it that much harder for us to build the coalition needed to win this thing. I’d like to hope come June that will end and she will become a champion of her once opponent, but it would nice if she started laying the groundwork now for the Party to come back together.
<
p>Not one Hillary poster has answered the charge about Hillary’s Florida comments. They ignored that because it is unanswerable or they actually in some twisted way believe this race was stolen and that they should take it out on Obama, even though he had nothing to do with the rules. I know Clinton folks blame him for not settling Florida to Clinton’s satisfaction but why should Obama have done something to harm his candidacy when he played within the rules that both he and Clinton agreed to at the get go?
<
p>Losing sucks but c’mon folks – even if he was not yourfirst choice, Obama is a pretty good friggin candidate no? Instead of disliking him, Clinton folks who are holding out seem to be using as their excuse for not getting excited about his candidacy – the media and sexism, bloggers like me and Obama supporters so-called nastiness, anything but actually things the candidate has done himself.
<
p>LET’S GET TOGETHER AND WIN THIS THING!!! EIGHT YEARS OF BUSH SHOULD BE MOTIVATION ENOUGH.
Hillary is absolutely right to go fight for the Florida votes and to talk about how they are being disenfranchised, because they are – it’s no different from 2000 and we all know it. Their votes should count and even more so now that the race is close. If there was a clear winner without their votes that would be one thing, but BO is not running away with this thing the way his followers would like to believe (or spin as the case may be).
<
p>They were both on the ballet in FL and he ran ads in the state (yes, I understand it was part of a national campaign – a 50 state buy, but he still ran ads in the state and HC did not.) Because of other initiatives on the ballet there was a huge voter turnout and the voting was competitive, yet BO (knowing that he would lose because polling told him so) talked about the race being a “beauty contest” (pretty misogynistic comment actually).
<
p>If you expect to win FL in November, their voices need to be heard now. It’s pretty plain and simple actually and if you listen to the voters in FL and MI, they want their voices to be heard. And it’s right for the future President to fight for them. When the last two national elections were lost, there was a backlash because it was perceived that the candidates did not fight for the disenfranchised voters (FL and OH) – HC gets kudos for fighting for them now.
<
p>As for your comment about, “Obama is a pretty good friggin candidate no?” I have to say no. I don’t think he’s a good candidate and I think he’ll make a lousy President. But BO supporters refuse to realize that anyone would feel that way. I guess that’s why where here.
<
p>Please, please, please, everybody- misogyny and sexism are NOT synonyms. Misogyny is HATRED of women.
<
p>If you think his calling the Florida primary “a beauty contest” is sexist- well I don’t agree, but you are entitled to your opinion. But if you think it shows that he hates women, then I really think you need to get a grip.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
<
p> – Inigo Montoya
The rules for the primary season were clear. Both Clinton, Edwards, Obama, et al and all 50 states knew the rules.
<
p>Florida broke the rules, knowing the consequences. They also chaffed at attempts by the DNC to do a re-vote later, with the DNC even offering to pay for a caucus [primaries are quite expensive]. Changing the rules in the middle of the game isn’t fair. It’s not fair to any of the candidates, and it’s not fair to any of the states.
<
p>The Democrats and Republicans are free to choose their nominee any way they choose. There is no legal “democracy” requirement for political parties when choosing their candidate.
<
p>So, to recap: it’s not like Florida because (a) Florida knowingly broke the rules, (b) the Florida Dems refused the DNC’s offer to pay for a caucus, and (c) there’s no obligation by the Democrats to count the votes anyway.
<
p>
<
p>As for there being no clear winner, BHO has had a commanding lead since March. The count was close, but it’s so hard to gain elected delegates by more than a handful per state due to proportional representation, and HRC’s superdelegate count has been stalled for months now. Since 2/12, HRC’s gained about 40 superdelegates; BHO has picked up 150.
<
p>
<
p>As for the “beauty contest”, I think your comments are the sexist ones. Why can’t men be beautiful too?
You know why primaries are expensive? Because they allow the maximum number of people to vote.
<
p>Caucuses on the other hand? Not so much.
<
p>As Democrats, I thought that’s we stood for. The more participation the better?
which is why I’m frustrated with Florida legislators — including Democrats — who insisted on moving the date of the primary resulting in Floridians getting no delegates.
<
p>Once the Florida Democrats blew the opportunity to use a primary to select delegates, the DNC did the best they could to remedy the situation by offering to pay for a caucus. Money that, had Florida Democrats not been so greedy and thick headed, could have been spent electing Democrats across the country.
<
p>First the Florida Democrats passed up the chance to use a primary to select delegates to Denver. Then the Florida Democrats passed up the chance to use a caucus to select delegates to Denver.
<
p>
<
p>As Democrats, we stand for participation. We also stand for following the rules. Don’t like the rules, cool. Change ’em. Don’t write them as you go, and don’t have a different set of rules for preferred constituents, be they rich and powerful or merely those in so-called “swing states”.
The original post demonstrates some bitterness or a point of view that is very bitter.
<
p>Obama has not won yet. Hillary has not won yet. People are energized, enthusiastic, and engaged.
<
p>Obama and his supporters cannot just spin Hillary away!
<
p>At some point there will be a nominee. The ultimate goal is to have a Democrat in the Oval Office! Let’s keep that in mind.
<
p>
although part of your post illustrates what I said above.
Nevertheless you are right that we all will be united in the end
<
p>Right.
<
p>Now with that in mind, examine the only way Hillary can get the nomination: She goes to the convention well behin in both pledged delegates and superdelegates, fights it, and somehow gets enough superdelegates to support her. extremely unlikely, but let’s pretend it happens…
<
p>Staying in the race until the last primary is one thing. But we do have a nominee, and staying in for a convention fight to try to overturn that cannot make Clinton president, but it can make McCain president.
<
p>Obama has won yet. Denial won’t change that. A convention fight might (very unlikely, but might) change that, but with disastrous results. If the ultimate goal is to have a Democrat in the oval office, then the path to that goal involves a pledge to live with the results when the voting ends, and not take it to a convention fight.
How very patronizing. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black on narcissism, entitlement, hubris, and hysteria.
<
p>What you’re really scared of is that she’s setting up to be the President-in-waiting even if Obama wins it narrowly, and that’s he’s going to be a disappointment. Funny how she’s becoming so much of a better bet in the General matchup. But hey, it’s all about Our Turn and how much smarter and more virtuous We are….
<
p>It’s not like people going to forget all the moralizing bullshit and all the selfcongratulatory backpatting, careerism, revisionism, and stupid resentment that’s being sold as “hope” and “change”. Or that periods of centrism and the politicians of centrism don’t last long, nor do they deliver much.
good for anybody but her?
<
p>When she says this below in Palm Beach County, home of the hanging chad, equating the dispute over delegates in Florida to the 2000 recount, how is that not pouring salt on the wounds:
<
p>
<
p>And what was Hillary doing in 2000 during the recount? I don’t recall her storming the state to advance the cause of Al Gore or democracy. She’d just won election to the Senate from a state she’d never lived in the same night as the Florida nightmare began to unfold. Susan B. Anthony she was not.
<
p>So then she conflates what is happening with the Florida delegation with the subversion of democracy in Zimbabwe:
<
p>
<
p>So who is Mugabe in this case? Obama maybe African but he started this race as the underdog opposition to the virtual Queen of the Party. Tragically, 50 elections have been held, the underdog is winning and the Queen is refusing to abide by the will of the people.
<
p>And from the NYT:
<
p>
<
p>This is a rules dispute – not Seneca Falls or Appamattox. Rules she had previously agreed with let’s remember. Obama’s campaign said they want to work to a compromise on seating the delegations. No need to turn this into a modern day civil war.
<
p>So please tell me, with Florida a swing state, how does Hillary following Obama there, and doing all she can to practially accuse Obama the Democratic Party of being slaveholders and election stealers, help us come together and win in November?
<
p>There is a great deal to like and admire about Hillary. I have said so many a time on this site. I will say so again. But, this behavior is selfish, nothing less. Obama is far from perfect. I know that and have said that many a time on this site. But just because you don’t like how the race has turned out does not mean you should choose to ignore when your candidate goes overboard and is being destructive. Hillary is doing that now and it benefits no one but her.
Obama in the role of Bush as the presumptive winner, with the burden being heavily on the opponent to take away that presumptive, but not yet real, victory.
<
p>Clinton in the role of Gore as said opponent insisting that every vote be counted and that nobody has really won until such votes have been counted.
<
p>Differences in the details to be sure, but if I were a GOP operative I would go into Florida and remind voters of how Democrats insisted on counting every vote in 2000, but this year didn’t count any votes. If that is in fact what happens then painting Democrats as hypocrites would just be too easy.
<
p>BTW, Clinton currently beats McCain in Florida 48%-41% while McCain beats Obama 50%-40%.
There was a piece in salon, linked on slate.com, showing how under even the rosy scenarios Democrats simply cannot afford to kick away any electoral votes.
Numbers don't lie. Hillary has the momentum and has had it since the beginning of March.
How come a recent poll showed her losing CA if the race was held again? Opinion polls recently have been showing Clinton sinking vs. Obama.
<
p>I don’t think those numbers show “momentum” as much as those states simply favoring Clinton demographically.
Superdelegate History Tracker
<
p>
<
p>
because she didn’t have a plan for those states did her in. The race was lost that month.
Wyoming is a caucus. Texas also had a caucus.
<
p>The popular vote isn’t relevant, and taking a sample of the popular vote from a slice in the race is meaningless, since neither candidate was competing for winning the popular vote.
the Celtics had momentum in the 3rd quarter last night. True, but meaningless.
Had an interesting conversation with my very republican sil yesterday. She’s amazed at the press coverage that BO and HC are getting – the fact that the media is hailing BO as the second coming and treating HC like dirt (her words, not mine). The fact that HC is taking all the crap they are throwing at her and not backing down is actually winner over her respect and she’s now revising her own stand on the Clintons and acting like the scandal was a big mistake (to investigate and who cares if he got a bj) etc and that BC would make an excellent ambassador for this country. I was shocked, not to hear her bash BO, but to speak so passionatly about HC.
<
p>She doesn’t like JM, so I asked her if she would consider voting for HC and she said yes, her and her (equally republican) sister both agreed that if HC were in the race, they would vote for her (they were more shocked than anyone that they were talking like this). That’s the soccer-mom vote.
<
p>So, while BO is looking at winning the battle – HC is working towards winning the war – and in my eyes at least, she’s succeeding.
“Front” as defined by the Urban Dictionary.
<
p>Mass. legislators call on abortion-rights group to rethink backing Obama
…is that Obama has been so gracious about Hillary staying in the race. He has said on several occasions that she has every right to remain as a candidate for as long as she wants.
<
p>If it’s OK with him, how come it’s not OK with you?
I said, many moons ago, that I was fine with the race going until mid-June,IF it was done in such away to deliver contrast between each candidate and political damage to McSame.
<
p>It is clear that going the distance would enliven the party, increase voter registration and participation and excite America in a good way. This is happening for the most part but there is a pall over the race.
<
p>As far as the intense aggravation that I feel about the state on the race, it stems from my firm belief that Barack Obama has one fair and square. All the claims to the contrary are, though founded on some truth, grossly exaggerated for partisan gain.
<
p>Moving the goal posts back to Denver is insane.
<
p>2008 should be about Us v. Them, not Us v. We.
<
p>McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain.
To me, at least.
<
p>Why? Because I don’t believe a word of it. Of course Obama is saying he thinks Clinton should stay in as long as she wants. He has no other choice. To say, “I think she ought to just let me win,” would be disastrous campaign strategy. But he’s lying.
<
p>Me, I’m not running for President. Hillary is not my opponent. So I can say that I think she should drop out of the race for the good of the Democratic party and our nominee’s chances in the Fall. This endless primary campaign and debates about FL/MI are boring the average voter, allowing the anger of Clinton supporters to fester, and undoubtedly delighting John McCain.
<
p>I don’t need, seek or desire to have this, my stated public opinion, be the same as Obama’s.
Translation: I need to stay in the race in case someone shoots Obama.
<
p>
<
p>Zimbabwe, Florida in 2000, and now this.
Her point was that Bill Clinton didn’t wrap up his nomination until June, and that in 1968, when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, the nomination had yet to be decided as well.
<
p>For you to “translate” for Hillary Clinton and say that she was implying that she needs “to stay in the race in case someone shoots Obama” is shameful.
I understand what her point was, but bringing up the assassination brings up the absolute worst thing that has ever happened in a Democratic primary campaign, and she does it right after Ted is diagnosed with a brain tumor. This is crass, to say the least, and it can only lessen her already small odds of winning the nomination.
<
p>
I think she was trying to make a point about the Democratic Presidential nominating process. I think you and I both know that there was no malice intended toward the Kennedy family.
<
p>You, HR’s Kevin, of all people, should be aware of how one’s comments can be misinterpreted. This post of yours earlier in the week about Ted Kennedy’s illness seemed to suggest that some Clinton supporters may not be wishing Kennedy well:
<
p>
<
p>Obviously, that was not your intention. I would think that you would think twice about calling Hillary “crass” for pretty much doing the same kind of thing that you did.
I totally agree that her comment was unintentional. But politicians are supposed to know not to say things that can so easily be misconstrued. But her comment was indeed “crass”, regardless of what she intended (contrary to your implication, I never called Clinton herself crass), and a professional politician is really supposed to know better. She has to know that this is exactly the kind of thing the press will jump all over, and unfortunately for her it does seem to be getting some traction.
<
p>And does anyone doubt for a second that the Clinton campaign would not jump all over this if Obama had said the same thing? They didn’t waste any time trashing Michelle Obama over some of her poor choices of words in the past.
to explain her point for her. Will you be by her side should she get elected so we’ll all know what she really means?
<
p>I’m not interested in a president who needs translation of any sort.
<
p>She is revealing a side of herself that is intemperate in the extreme.
<
p>And stop trying to shame me as if I’m the only individual on the planet who believes her comment beyond the pale in any context. Your interpretation or “translation” of shame is meaningless clearly not the same as mine. If there’s anybody here who should be ashamed, it’s Hillary Clinton.
…with a shred of common sense or without a strictly partisan motive, no translation is necessary.
<
p>You can blather on all you want, but your snide comment about ‘someone shooting Obama’ was indeed shameful.
First Huckabee makes a joke about someone shooting Obama and now Hillary drops this.
<
p>It’s way, way, way out of bounds, and because of our history of lynching, it should be twice as out-of-bounds when discussing Obama.
<
p>She wasn’t discussing Obama. She was comparing her husband’s and Bobby Kennedy’s races for the nomination with hers, and her point was that neither race was decided until June.
<
p>Do you really think that Hillary is so evil and/or politically inept that she would denigrate Bobby Kennedy, especially during this particular week, when the entire country was jolted by the horrible news about Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor?
<
p>She immediately apologized for her comments when she realized that some people were offended by them. Her point was obviously one of political analysis…she certainly wasn’t trying to offend anyone.
The assassination reference that is. And if taken seriously, it suggests Clinton is delusional: the logic is that she should stay in, just in case Obama gets shot (I’ll leave aside the more scary notion this could even encourage such an act). We’ve just had 8 years of a delusional president who couldn’t accept reality. People have been commenting that Clinton has the “right” to stay in the race. Sure, I agree with that. But I don’t want a candidate that has trouble facing reality, and dealing with the implications of reality as a result. We just had a disasterous presidency largely because Bush couldn’t face the music.
Q: Is this the sound of hair growing?
<
p>A: I believe, sir, it is.
<
p>Q: Sort of like crickets on a still night, eh?
<
p>A: Yes, ma’am, it is.
…appears that RFK’s son doesn’t think that anyone should take offense to what Hillary said.
<
p>Seems to me that should be the final word.
It was just stupid — and she’s not stupid. Her statement is just evidence that this race has gone on way too long. The only excuse I can think of as to why she said what she said is that she is exhausted and her mouth engaged before her brain.
And we’re at best at the halfway point. It’s a perfectly legitimate point, but it has a connotation — especially given Ted’s health problems — that would leave best avoided for the time being.
<
p>That said, if this is seen as the reason to leave her off the ticket, that would be a victory for pride over tactics…and a victory for John McCain. It would be like benching Kevin Garnett because Paul Pierce is taking more shots and getting more points.
There may be good reasons to choose someone other than Clinton for VP, but I don’t think this by itself is really one of them.
<
p>However, regarding your analogy, there can only be one VP, not five, so many good candidates for the position are going to need to be “benched” or offered a different role on the team.
I truly feel sorry for Hillary Clinton and, by extension, the Democratic Party.
<
p>Clinton had several opportunities to end this primary season on her own terms. She could have left on an upbeat note, set the stage for a united convention and put herself in position to become an honored party leader.
<
p>Had she suspended her campaign after WV or, even after, KY, she would have left a winner. Her gracious speech would have been covered by all the networks and she would have been editorialized as someone who ran a tough campaign and who, as a result, had made the nominee stronger. Her supporters would be tired and hurt, but with her blessing of the nominee, most Democrats would have come around. The party would be whole and ready to turn its guns on McCain.
<
p>Instead, Clinton has used these final weeks to say some of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard a Democrat utter. She has damaged her primary rival, Barack Obama, by means that may harm him in the general election. She has proven that she has neither the experience nor the stamina to be President. And, with this latest statement referencing Bobby Kennedy, she has shown that she has all the political grace of a bull in a China shop.
<
p>I understand why the Democratic Party gave her the space to end the primary season in her own way. However, when it was apparent that this wasn’t going to happen gracefully, the Superdelegates should have telegraphed to Clinton that they would stand up en masse to throw their support to the candidate ahead in pledged delegates after KY. Maybe they did warn her and she didn’t care. I am not an insider, so how would I know?
<
p>As an outsider, I do know this. It is too late for all that now. Hillary Clinton will go down, not with grace and future power, but kicking and screaming. Losing is sad. Losing ugly is pathetic.
Sure, Hillary Clinton will be vilified as the one who stood against Barack. She will never regain the support of certain Democrats because she did not get out of Obama’s way when it would have been convenient for him. So what?
<
p>But to say this will impinge on her legacy is kinda funny. Clinton spent 2007 riding “herd on the right wing” while Obama was visiting landfills in Iowa. She was leading the first high-profile fight for national health care while Obama was making cash. Sure, she like Obama have said some inartful things, the type of thing you say when running the presidential treadmill. But neither of them have approached Dukakis-in-the-debate levels of inanity.
<
p>And I think it’s way too early to make any judgments now. If Obama wins with 350 electoral votes in November, than yes Hillary will be “the lady who almost derailed this incredible victory”. If he loses with 260, she will be “the one who should have been the nominee” — except, of course, to the true believers who will blame her for the loss.
From Ben Smith’s Politico:
<
p>
<
p>You are right that no one can predict Sen. Clinton’s legacy at this stage of the election process. According to the LA Times, she has a few fences to mend with black voters back in NY, but she will probably be able to do that easily, especially if she throws her support behind Obama and he wins. She may eventually become a powerhouse in Senate and, when she’s been there more than 1 1/2 terms, she may even be offered a leadership position. Personally, I think her resume has been padded and her political astuteness has been over-rated, or maybe just outdated.
<
p>I don’t think that she should be vice president for a lot of reasons, but I could see her in a cabinet position or as a Supreme Court justice. Actually, I would love to see some of her toughness aimed at Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas. Maybe she could push the wimpy Kennedy back in line.
<
p>She may have a great legacy ahead of her. I hope so. She could be a valuable asset to the party once this mini civil war is over. First though, she should learn to stand up and admit her mistakes like a woman.
This was before I ever even new of BMG! During this time I was phone banking for HRC and commenting on the Huffington Post. I had been called a racist and a miriad of other names so many times that I thought I would never be able feel a genuine love for the people of my party again.
<
p>And by the way, Hillary Clinton had every right to carry it through to the end. I watched her “18 million cracks” speach with intense pride and tears. I am one of those 18 million cracks, I will be proud of it for the rest of my life.
<
p>
I was a Hillary supporter, too. đŸ™‚ It was tough to hang at BMG for a long time when this race was over.