Ickes intimated a credentials challenge will follow. Does Clinton stay in this beyond next week or a few weeks? Obama may have the numbers for the nomination by next week or soon thereafter, but will Clinton end her campaign then and endorse him or keep going?
Does she think something could still change the race, something that will swing the convention back her way, and therefore she wants to stay in it? Or is there something else she is holding out for? Maybe, the veep, maybe some policy commitments. Whadya all think about where this heads post June 3rd?
Of course, I’d love to see hugs and kisses by all by June 5th. That would be nice after all the beatings we’ve given each other. But, whether that happens is largely dependent on what Clinton does. Unity (or not) is largely in her hands.
It would be ridiculous…on the edge of insanity…to fight all the way to the credentials committee over such small stakes. This would only be about the four delegates Clinton claims in Michigan, as well as the Uncommitteds (which were largely for Obama anyway). I do think Obama did get away with something at that meeting, in that he’s being rewarded delegates that he chose to forsake by removing his name for the ballot. But it’s a minor thing, not worth a war.
<
p>Especially since, a complete Hillary victory at the credentials committee — whose composition is less friendly to her campaign than the composition of the Rules Committee — doesn’t put her into the nomination. If she wanted to fight to restore a full vote to Florida and Michigan, it could be worth it, but to fight over a shard of the Michigan delegation only?
<
p>It’s been hard to figure out the candidates’ motives through all this. As I’ve pointed here and on my own blog, Obama is losing more in the fight over Michigan and Florida than he’s won. The campaign is steadily alienating Clintonites (and many Floridians and Michiganders) in return for…what? For a campaign supposedly confident that this thing is over, they’re willing to stick it to a lot of people for delegates they supposedly don’t need. By the same token, the idea that Clinton would fight over that fraction of Michigan that would barely edge her closer to victory, doesn’t make sense to me.
<
p>I think that Clinton’s done on June 4th. I would hope that she will suspend her campaign, and decide not to challenge this decision at the credentials committee. Even if she won the decision, she’d lose far more in the eyes of other Democrats. I’d imagine this is a sop to her really hardcore supporters to get every extra vote in PR, SD, and MT.
<
p>Because the fact is — much to the displeasure of many Republicans and many Obama supporters — Clinton isn’t going anywhere. On November 5th, she will at least be one of the most prominent, influential, and savvy members of the United States Senate. And as the retirements keep piling up, she will only ascend that ladder. She may end up as another Ted Kennedy, another presidential candidate who barely missed the nomination and instead became a bedrock in the United States Senate. Hillary didn’t get this far by taking the short view. She knows the sun will rise on November 5th, no matter who becomes the next president.
<
p>PS: This may become the next post-modern primary struggle: in whose hands lay the obligation to unify the party? Obama’s people are consistently assigning it to Clinton, and vice versa. I think Clinton has a heavy obligation not to be a sore loser, just as Obama has a heavy obligation not to be a sore winner. One of the first parts of that is to very publicly offer Clinton the VP slot…and for her to very publicly say no.
At very worst Clinton is running again in 2012, when the country is farther left/liberal. When the centrist/moderate but anti-Republican national mood of the present is over and the Obama centrist/moderate/Left coalition has expended itself.
<
p>I think insiders in both campaigns realize this, which is why the Obama camp is so weirdly bitter and keeps on jabbing away at Clinton and Clinton support despite its claims of victory. And the Clinton team keeps moving along with one eye on the present and the other on ’12. He may have more delegates, but the basic picture in votes, polling, etc. shows a Party that never really made a strong decision and wants both in some order- or considers them complementary.
<
p>With a Congress (mostly the Senate) that will probably be taking power back from the Presidency and perhaps the Supreme Court, I don’t know whether Clinton will be in such bad spot in the upper tiers of the Senate if the Presidential run doesn’t succeed this year. More national policy might be set there than in the Oval Office.
<
p>It seems to me that Obama basically represents mandate for a bunch of fixes inside the Party, excoriation of Republicans, and some fixes of the country’s affairs. (Though he and many of his supporters may believe much more will be possible.) Clinton, to me, represents the post-1968 Democratic Party agenda. (Which is why Republicans so scorn her.) Which is about finishing off the Cold War with proper democratization worldwide. And finishing the Culture War off with social democracy domestically.
<
p>There are also a variety of strong parallels between the 2008 and the 1976 Presidential campaigns. The final candidates in 1976 were Carter, Ford, and Reagan- who refused to give up and took his case to the Republican Convention. You can match the present three with them. Their ’76 campaigns are fairly well described on Wikipedia.
By 2012, Clinton will have been in the Senate 20 years, which is plenty of time to take votes on conflicted issues that boil down to unpleasant sound bytes.
<
p>Far better to run on a whole four years in the Senate, on a record untroubled by the need to actually take stands on issues.
Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000. Barring a warp in the space-time continuum, she will have been in the Senate only twelve years by 2012.
Not only should 4 delegates be given back to Hillary Clinton, there is a really good argument that it was against the rules to give any Michigan delegates to Obama because he was not on the ballot. (His choice, by the way.) Under the rules, the delegates should have gone to “uncommitted” and then the candidates would have had to convince the uncommitted delegates to vote for them for the nomination. Instead, the rules committee just decided to assume that all the voters who voted for “uncommitted” were really voting for Obama. There is no way to tell that and that is not what the rules say should happen. It is this decision that has a lot of Democrats upset, probably more than the decision to take 4 delegates away from Hillary Clinton.
I’m upset that MI and FL got any delegates. They broke the rules, their state Dem parties embraced the new date, refused to work with the DNC for a caucus, and otherwise refused to play ball.
<
p>The ruling in Aug was no delegates. Now they get some? Pshaw.
<
p>
<
p>Welcome to compromise. You can embrace it or you can keep being a stinker. Your response after the compromise says oodles about you.
That is what the Democratic party should be concerned with, making sure that the voters who took the time to vote mattered. (Remember the 2000 election?) And allowing the delegates from both states to be seated and to have a vote acknowledges that concern. In addition, it would have been political suicide to have prohibited the Florida and Michigan delegation from being seated or from having any vote. Both states were punished because they lost out on lots of dollars spent if they had kept to the original schedule. The Democratic Party’s Rules committee made the right decision to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, they made the wrong decision in how they allocated those delegates.
and that’s why the state parties shouldn’t have insisted that breaking the rules was A-OK. The state parties knew the consequences of violating the rules, and instead of working with the DNC to avoid a problem, the state parties dug their heels in.
<
p>The beef lies with the state parties who insisted it was perfectly OK to break the rules and ignore the DNC’s efforts to find common ground before this past week.
<
p>
<
p>To be honest, I really doubt that there’d be the “suicidal” ramifications that people suggest. Ultimately in November it comes down to BHO vs. JMcC, not Dem vs. GOP. People vote the candidate for POTUS, not the party. I just don’t think that Joe Voter, who doesn’t know what ward or precinct number he lives in, really cares about the DNC and GOP conventions, rules committees, or delegates. I just don’t think they care about the insider baseball stuff.
<
p>Besides, according to electoral-vote.com, BHO is winning the race today while losing both MI and FL, thanks to pickups in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio.
Without doubt, if the Democrats did not seat any of the delegates from Florida or Michigan, the Republicans would have had an ad run repeatedly in Florida and elsewhere about how the Democrats dissed the voters. And Democrats would look ridiculous if they even hinted at the spector of the 2000 debacle. Also, it is the local parties that run the campaigns in the states during the general election. Although I have no doubt that the Democrats in Florida will work hard to make sure that the party nominee wins the electoral college votes there, they might have more trouble getting their worker bees to be enthusiastic about it if Florida was completely dissed by the DNC. And it is the worker bees who often make the difference between success and failure. Do we really want to take that chance? And shouldn’t we try to win every state that we can win?
and worth considering. I’m not horrified by the decision the DNC et al made. I suspected that they’d come to some 50% type term, and the details wouldn’t matter much. Those who pay close attention may or may not be happy with the actual allocation of delegates; nobody else will care much one way or the other.
<
p>I’m a rules guy. I hate the idea of changing the rules midstream, which is what has happened with the MI&FL compromises. I do see both sides.
<
p>I also believe that any more than zero delegates from MI and FL is a compromise that benefits HRC’s campaign, so when her supporters complain about the details of the distribution of delegates, my ears deafen.
<
p>shrugs
We’re already deep in the hole — particularly in Florida — for this. Yes, Florida and Michigan broke the rules. But we also need one or both of those states to win the general. So they get a bit of a pass, inconvenient though it is for the Obama campaign.
<
p>What some people are advocating is the equivalent of shutting down the town’s only employer because of the rush hour traffic that it causes. Sometimes you need something badly enough to deal with a slight headache.
MI and FL should not get more than half votes for going early, and yet Clinton’s supporters, including you think that is unfair. I think it is fine to complain that the rules don’t seem fair, but it greatly weakens your argument when you only are for or against the rules as they relate to how they benefit your candidate.
<
p>BTW, something like 30 of the “uncommitted” delegates had already declared support for Obama and Clinton wanted them stripped, so it is not exactly like Clinton was happy to let the uncommitted delegates do whatever they wanted.
<
p>In any case, the MI compromise was the work of the MI state party, not the rules committee. If the people of MI thinks the resolution is unfair, I am sure that they will punish their elected leaders accordingly.
that’s not the rules, that is an option within the rules. They could of also split delegates based upon vote. That’s part of the rules as well. Not something that I support, but just want to note that.
The rules state that the rules committee can only grant the delegations have the voting power they would have ordinarily have. That is, they can either allow half the number of delegates total or allow the normal number of delegates but grant half votes. I wasn’t saying anything about the allocation of votes between Clinton and Obama.
and DNC did neither in MI.
<
p>They in essence just made up a number.
Clinton contests the nomination until Obama wins.
<
p>Since Obama will not win based on pledged delegates alone, that means that Clinton will stay in until the ballots are counted in Denver. As in, hoping to persuade unpledged delegates to back her.
<
p>In this light, Clintonian outrage over the Michigan ruling is pure theater–another justification for her candidacy.
<
p>Barring a meltdown of Spitzerian proportions on the Obama side, she will fail. And, I say, no harm done.
<
p>Obamatarian hand-wringing about unity and scorched-earth this and that only reenforces the meme that Obama’s candidacy is brittle and vulnerable.
<
p>Memo to choir: You can’t control what other people are going to do during the campaign. Whining about that cedes power to the troublemakers. My advice is to get comfortable with the idea of this thing going to the convention–the convention that Obama controls–and think about how to turn the Obama-Clinton contest to advantage in November.
…why our convention was set for late August? Obviously we know a lot more now than when this was decided. It seems, however, we would have done better uniting if we got the official nominating over in mid or late June. That way we could have one ticket all summer rather than spend possibly another almost three months bickering over the last remaining unpledged delegates. As the non-incumbent party in the White House we go first, so it’s not like the GOP pushed us late.
Both sides get $75 million of public financing to last them from convention until E-Day. Given that the earlier convention in ’04 led to Kerry “going dark” while the GOP was still running off primary cash in late July/early August, it was decided to put it toward the end.
…after all, doesn’t he head the “grown up wing” of the Democratic party?
<
p>Yeah. I am biased of course, I have supported and paid attention to what Edwards has done in the realm of politics and governance since at least 2003 – but he knew when to bow out gracefully, and how to keep his own counsel for as long as it mattered. And I think Edwards has friends in both camps, and all over the country for that matter.
To be the uniter, you can’t have taken sides, as Carter, B Clinton, and Edwards have. But I can think of one guy to play “wise elder” who can promise that if everyone plays nice they get to hold his Oscar…
…sure not a lot of blather at that point about Edwards endorsement…he stayed out and above the fray in his own state. But, anyway, as I said I am biased and never one to hold on to my .02.
He broke that promise and a lot of Democrats are very unpset over that. As a result, he has lost a lot of credibility with a lot of people.
of hating on everyone who doesn’t line up exactly with the HRC camp. I’m not talking about HRC supporters, I’m talking about TheOpenSociety. It’s as if you’re running around looking for reasons to be upset with anyone and everyone who didn’t do everything in their power to give HRC the nomination, even though she really is losing in popular vote, elected delegates, total delegates, dollars raised, and national popularity.
<
p>Go figure.
really is unnecessary. If you dispute what I posted, then say so, but attacking me is just so old politics.
Also, I am not aware that Edwards made any such promise nor that there are indeed “a lot of people” who are upset that he “broke” it. Perhaps you could back up those claims.
but if it means supporting a political candidate for president who is not Barack Obama, I thank you for the compliment. Anyhow… here is a link to an interview the Edwards had with People Magazine. (I have to say, I think this is the first time I linked to something from People magazine). The last sentence says,
<
p>As for the “lot of people” who are upset that he broke this promise, I meant Clinton supporters, and there are millions of them.
You’re interpreting an interview in People magazine or some such, where the reporter didn’t quote JRE, as a promise.
<
p>That’s a bit strong methinks.
Just because he said that he was not going to endorse does not make it a “promise” not to endorse. That is not what “promise” means. He just said he was going to save his political capital for other causes. If he later decided to spend a little on Obama, how is that breaking a promise?
<
p>Furthermore, you still have not demonstrated that “a lot of people” are upset that Edwards broke this imaginary pledge. Yes, there are millions of Clinton supporters. Prove to me that millions of them think that Edwards broke a pledge and are upset about it. I count one so far.
<
p>
You were saying that my attacking you is “old politics”. I was simply pointing out that your attacking others is also “old politics”. Whether or not that represents a complement or an insult, I leave to others.
…who knows, maybe he meant, “the primary in MY state” – ?
there’s no way Obama’s going to actually do it – but, yes, you’re reasoning on why this convention is so late is absolutely, positively true.
start on August 8.
Dean thought Hillary would enjoy an early coronation, and the ten GOP candidates would tear each other apart all summer. BOY, did he get that wrong!
<
p>He really deserves to be replaced for such a miscalculation.
but it sure wasn’t an obvious situation, that’s for sure. Fire somebody for a miscalculation that wasn’t on anybody’s RADAR? I don’t see it.
Stomv – he tried to play too cute, and got burned by it. He’s likely to something else like it. He makes me think of some of the College Republicans – unable to think right-now, keen, subversive actions out to a possible eventuality.
<
p>But it’s your party, and you can cry if you want to…
‘Cuz Dean wanted Hillary to win. I know you guys are desperate to divide the Democratic leadership (since you don’t have one to call your own), but this is the best you can do?
<
p>Should Dean be fired for organizing a party that wins Senate seats in Montana and Virginia, or House seats in Mississippi and Louisiana? Or fired because he’s raised fundraising to level with the GOP? Or because of the dozens of Republican retirements?
He has manufactured a grave crisis that threatens the chances of his party’s nominee in an unloseable election.
Clinton and Obama themselves will do just fine in the promotion of unity department. I would assign the burden to the respective supporters of both of them.
<
p>I also don’t understand the comment about offering the VP slot. Why is Clinton’s turning it down more conducive to unity than accepting it?
It is the last paragraph of the first comment in this thread.
<
p>I quoted it to highlight it as an interesting suggestion, and to encourage people to leave additional comments.
The VP is a waste of Clinton’s talents, which stretch beyond going to funerals and cutting ribbons. I don’t think watching her struggle in a subordinate position would be good for the party, either.
<
p>It is very disrespectful to act as though someone has clinched the nomination. Barack has issues.
<
p>I am a solid Democrat! I believe Hillary has the experience and where-with-all necessary to be president!
She will be ready on day one!
<
p>We will all ne united once the party decides on the best nominee!
<
p>
get over yourself. The party has decided… and it’s decided on Obama. He needs 46 of the remaining 234 delegates, and there’ll be plenty between PR, MT, and SD, plus the superdels which haven’t come out but already support BHO that he’ll have the sufficient number of nominations by Wednesday.
<
p>So, yay unite.
I suspect that Peabody and his exclamation points are here intended as some kind of parody.
<
p>Alert: Sometimes it takes more than just hope. It requires hard work!
<
p>
tastes good!
<
p>No one wants to embarras anyone. But reality can sting!
<
p>News Flash: Hillary won Massachusetts!
<
p>Remember: Delegates control the convention in Lowell. You guys just run it!
<
p>Prediction: Ed O’Reilly will obtain his fifteen percent, and then some.
<
p>Note to File: Don’t believe everything you read! Especially when your press people are proclaiming your successfulness.
<
p>Marginal accomplishments remain marginal. Not withstanding how well you dress them up!
<
p>Is Deval asleep at the switch on Beacon Hill? Is John Kerry asleep on Capitol Hill? People notice!
<
p>
<
p>
He said Hill should chair Obama’s VP search Committee. I think its an excellent one and he should promote it here.
it would turn out like the last Republican VP search committee. Dick Cheney headed that one up…
ME!
…you are, lanugo.
Cheney ran a search committee and found himself..so I was just playing around.
<
p>Again, I think Hillary rocks. I like her a lot more now as a candidate then I did back when she was Ms. Inevitable nominee. As for some of her supporters though…Just kiddin.
she can leave her name on the ballot, of course, but she should just stop “running” and start standing. Then, she should lick her wounds, smile at herself for running what could very well have been the second best funded and fairly well run primary campaign ever, and call it a day. 4 years from now, heaven forbid McCain should win the contest, Hillary will be well poised to topple him over – though, I’ll personally hope for a better, more progressive and stronger candidate. In the meantime, if she’s offered the VP nomination, I think she should take it… and, honestly, I think Obama will be a fool if he doesn’t offer it to her.
In the short-term it may be a good thing for her to be on the ticket, but she has to think about actually having to do the job if they win and that is not very attractive if you ask me.
<
p>It is not likely for her to have a Cheney role in the White House – as a quasi prime minister/chief of staff. Cheney could do that because he was the ultimate inside operator serving a president without a clue and without much of his own interest or agenda. Obama will not be that type of president and thus his veep could not have that type of power. Gore is another model of how to be a veep and he was influential as an adviser and took forward some important initiatives. You could let Hillary lead on health care from the veep spot but that is a dejavu no one will want to repeat. I’d rather have her pushing the legislation in the Senate.
<
p>And frankly, I think Hillary is almost too good for the post – she’s too important a figure to be having to regurgitate someone else’s message as opposed to crafting her own agenda and pursuing it. She certainly does not need the veep post to remain relevant or in the front-runners post for 2012 should (and I pray this doesn’t happen) Obama lose this year. And she can still be every bit as aggressive in unifying the party and getting her folks behind Obama this year, particularly in the next few months between now and when he chooses his veep. I also think she will be more convincing as an advocate and more free to speak to her voters if she is not on the ticket.
<
p>Hillary has spent too long is her husband’s shadow. This campaign has set her free and given her a voice independent from Bill’s. She should use it and not revert to second-billing.
<
p>Obama certainly has to consider offering her the post. She should consider it, respectfully decline and then work her ass off to get Obama elected – leaving no one with any doubt that she did all she could to see him win. (Her supporters should as well. What better way to show how much Hillary achieved this year, then to help her bring the party together to elect a Democrat president). If she does that, her legacy and prospects will be undimmed and a future limitless – whether its to be a leader in the Senate or president – maybe in 2016.
there always will be doubt that she ‘did enough.’ There will be pro-Hillary supporters pissed off who won’t vote for Obama or even would vote for McCain. She’ll be blamed. I’d rather see this party unify by putting those two mammoth forces together.
<
p>In terms of being VP, they’ll get there when they come to it. Personally, making her the face of the admin on a key issue or two would be as useful as her being in the Senate, one of 100. Personally, I think it could be even more useful. If I were her, I’d take the job and run with it. She wouldn’t be my top choice, personally, because I’d rather someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party get in there, because I’m tired of these moderates running our party to the ground – and I’ve seen little from Obama to make me think he’ll be different, beyond the “hope” and rhetoric.
I guess the first question is whether Clinton backers need her on the ticket to support it come the fall or would it suffice for her to just be very supportive but off the ticket? If her presence on the ticket is deemed critical to bringing Clinton folks onside than maybe it has to be made to work.
<
p>The second question is whether she and Obama can find a way to work together once in office. Winning an election is one thing. Finding a way to work out responsibilities and roles for Hillary as veep will be important as she will need a significant remit in the job.
<
p>Obama often cites Doris Kearns Goodwin’s excellent book Team of Rivals, about how Lincoln brought in his competitors for the Republican nod in 1860 into his Cabinet, when asked about who he would want in his Cabinet. In that sense, bringing Clinton in, who is no doubt hugely talented and experienced, could be a win for all. I guess it can’t hurt to have our best people working in partnership – as long as they keep their eyes on the prize – which is changing America and not their own political interests. Thanks Ryan for opening my mind up to an Obama-Clinton ticket.
<
p>But one last thing about your Democratic wing point, I think its funny about the way people describe Obama as some folks (you Ryan and Paul Krugman for instance) who listen to his message of unity and reconciliation accuse him of off-putting moderation. Others than look at his record and see a pretty conventional liberal. I tend to think the man is doing something right because no one can peg him. All the great presidents from Lincoln to Roosevelt were claimed as being from one wing or the other by different folks. In the end, they got the balance right in keeping their diverse coalitons together. Obama will too.
<
p>
it’s his actions. Where’s the boundaries he’s pushing? I don’t see them. Not on health care, not on civil rights, not on paying for what we need and not even on pulling all our troops out of Iraq. He’s pushing a brand more than an agenda; I don’t think there’s a whole lot of differences between him and Hillary on the issues, but that’s the big part of the problem.
<
p>I wanted to vote for Obama all along; he gave me every reason not to. I’ll be voting for him over McCain, enthusiastically, but I can’t help but think we – as a party – allowed ourselves to awestruck by the celebrities of this campaign, instead of finding a candidate who was best for this country.
At the convention they will use every ploy imagineable to wrest the nomination for Hillary. Obama is really out of his league. The only thing that will save him is the covert animus that many democrats hold for both of the Clinton’s——for an assortment of reasons.
<
p>It’s going to be an interesting spectacle.
<
p>What will be of particual interest is how far the acrimony will go until November. Many democrats are espousing the “all or nothing” theory re HRC.
Hi guys, have any problem on saving money or untrusted Credit Cards? well, we can help you on that. We all make every day choices on how to save money. When it comes to credit card debt it is important to choose the right card. Rates can vary and the difference between 3% and 4% is huge. You could be saving hundreds of dollars each month by choosing the credit card with the lowest rates. Many banks offer different rates and are very competitive. It is important to look online through rate finder or some other online website in order to find the most competitive rate that will save you money. for more info. http://www.stop-credit-card-de…
<
p>_______
Rey
<
p>Don’t be a victim. Stop credit card debt now. We can help.
http://www.stop-credit-card-debt.com
Think about it, Hillary is running out of options in both the near and long term so her advisors will indeed push her to take her fight to the convention. Okay, some say she should drop out and position herself for a Senate leadership position and eventually become Majority Leader and run Washington. However, this race has been too divisive and there are too many old hats lined up in front of her, for example Dodd (who lost a close battle to Reed last time around), Durbin, Reed, etc. As an aside, since Dodd is broke (a story for another day), he may not run again in 2012 and enter the private sector. Though there is no love lost between Dodd and Clinton–which is strange in itself as former Clinton Advisor Doug Sosnik started out as Dodd’s driver and helped bridge the divide over the years– having Dodd out ofthe picture would help Clinton. Yet Durbin has been waiting and if Obama wins in the fall, Durbin can use his Illinois roots to help his cause…Obama would work hard to ensure the Senior Senator from Illinois defeats Hillary. So with Senate leadership murky at best, her only hope is that Obama loses in the fall so she can run again in four years. Therefore, the advisors are suggesting she fight on, hope some controversy/issue comes up between now and August that would change the Super Delegates mind where she can pilfer committed Super Delegates and overcome his lead. If she fails on that front, she has wounded Obama and done all she can to see that he loses so that she can become the presumtive nominee in 20012…claiming she won the popular vote in 2008.
and I hear it from a lot of Obama supporters. Hillary has made much stronger statements than Obama that she will support the Democratic nominee in the general. Yet I continue to see intimations that she is somehow trying to make Obama lose so she can run in 2012. The only indication of this seems to be that she has the temerity to campaign against Obama. For all the talk of Obama being the great uniter, too many of his supporters seem to have a “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality. To them the only acceptable way to run against Obama is if you promise to only say nice things about him. What Hillary’s doing is known as “campaigning,” and if people think this campaign is rough, then they’re really not ready for the general. For all of you who like to say that Hillary has thrown everything at Obama, I’d ask you to tell me how many Clinton commercials you saw with the Rev. Wright in them.
<
p>Hillary has done much more for the party than Obama ever has, including campaigning and raising money for many of the people now supporting Obama. To imply that she is somehow trying to destroy the party simply because she’s campaigning is outrageous. It’s this kind of treatment of her that has so many of her supporters outraged. I have never seen a primary candidate so unjustly vilified as Hillary has been.
<
p>So you’re wondering if she’ll “pilfer’ Obama’s superdelegates? When Clinton supers switch to Obama, do you refer to it as “pilfering”? I don’t think so.
<
p>To my mind, Hillary has every right to be extremely bitter at her party. But she has never intimated anything but that she will wholeheartedly support the nominee. Meanwhile, The Great Uniter has made it a cornetrstone of his campaign to denigrate the last Democratic President, whose administration should be the number one selling point for the Dems this fall. But it will be extremely difficult for Obama to gain much of an advantage from the Clinton presidency after the campaign he has run. He’s been calling her divisive and a candidate who will do anything to win since last year, yet all I hear about is what a positive campaign he’s run. Using canards like the Drudge photo and “as far as I know” to incite his supporters by trying to portray Hillary as spreading the Muslim rumor is simply disgusting. She tried to defend him in that 60 Minutes interview, and he responded by spitting in her face.
<
p>I guess Obama supporters can hope that he remains a teflon candidate in the Fall. But many of us already see him for who he is.
Please explain how he has denigrated Bill Clinton? That is a very strong word.
<
p>Maybe he didn’t worship him and pay homage to the 90s as our greatest decade or Bill as our greatest president, but there is nothing Obama did to denigrate him, nothing even close. To say otherwise is to promote lies and innuendo.
I disctinctly recall Obama asserting that Reagan was the most transformative Presdident than Bill.
<
p>Even if true (it is true) this is a pretty severe thing coming from another partisan Democrat.
<
p>Democratic activists believe that Reagan was among the worst Presidents ever, and Obama thinks that Clinton rates below Reagan. I commented at that time that it is remarkable that a Democratic candidate could short-shrift the only successful Democratic President in nearly a half century.
<
p>Following that, the Obama campaign and its surrogates have behaved as if Presdient Clinton runs around with a sheet on his head, brandishing a noose, because he campaigned for his wife.
<
p>FWIW, the inability of Obama and his campiagn to deal diplomatically and professionally with not getting what they want out of Hillary has convinced me that, even if the guy wins in November, he will not make a very good president. Better than McCain, probably, but not very good.
<
p>The nomination has been there for the taking for many weeks. By allowing himself to be perceived as petulantly demanding it, rather than simply taking it, Obama’s campiagn is inflicting wounds upon itself.
does not denigrate anyone? Saying that it does denigrates the meaning of denigration.
<
p>Denigrating Bill would have been if Obama had then gone on to say Bill Clinton was a shitty president, which he never did. Or if even he had said Reagan was a better president, which he also never did. Obama’s comment was not comparative, just observational, and actually correct in deeming that Reagan ushered in a conservative era where government was considered the problem and not the solution.
<
p>Bill Clinton tried to swim against the conservative current Reagan helped generate but he failed to, thus he was not transformative in anyway (which was not necessarily his fault given where the political winds were blowing). His health care plan failed and his chief accomplishments were welfare reform and a budget surplus, in both cases trimming the government but not exactly liberal totems. Remember it was Bill Clinton who said,” the era of big govermment was over.” – as close to a Reaganite statement as there could be. It was Bill Clinton who shifted the Democrats to the right on crime and tax issues in order to make us electable. His philosophy represented a political success but essentially ran with the conservative grain instead of turning it around.
<
p>If Obama get’s elected, and after Bush took the Reagan coalition and ran it into the ground, he can be transformative.
If you’re trying to suggest Obama was not making a calculated spin on Clinton, you’re fooling yourself. Something of this nature in politics is almost never done by accident…
<
p>I accuse blatant Hillary supporters of drinking the Kool Aid, this kind of spin on Obama’s statement is right up there too.
to describe it and Obama was 100% correct in describing Reagan as transformative versus Clinton as not being so. Reagan was, as much as we progressives hated him. And he didn’t say he agreed with Reagan or that what Reagan did was good for America. He just said Reagan was transformative because that is true.
<
p>The thing about Bill Clinton and his fans is throughout this race he and they have so easily taken offense at any perceived criticism of his tenure in office. And the reason why is because they know those criticisms are often close to the truth. I was a big Clinton fan as a youngin but ultimately felt his presidency failed to live up to its potential. I tend to think deep down Clinton knows it failed – that is wasn’t transformative – and that is why he has been so vigilant this year in trying to get Hillary elected. I know this is psychobable, but Clinton clearly seeks validation for a presidency that he knows didn’t deliver as much as promised. Hillary wins and he not only vindicates the strength of his brand but also in some sense, get’s another shot at the apple.
Obama was in a bit of a box here. On the one hand, the only Democratic two-termer since FDR. But he couldn’t say something too nice about Bill, because it might make people want to vote for Bill’s wife.
<
p>The circumstances called for a delicate bit of maneuvering, but Obama wasn’t particularly delicate about it.
ChrisO I am mostly with. In terms of pilfering I do agree that any Super Delegate that switches after committing is indeed pilfering whether it be by Obama or Hillary. However, it is the Super Delegates who are in the wrong. First and foremost, they should not have committed early in such a close race, especially before some of their contituents/stakeholders voted. Secondly, when one Super Delegate states their intent to support a candidate, they are stating their beliefs in an open forum and understand the consequences of their decision. The initial decision should not be taken lightly nor should it be out on a whim. Therefore, one would beleive that the decision to support one candidate over another was well thought out in terms of political ramifications, etc. The fact of the matter is that both campaigns are constantly contacting Super Delegates to try to convince them to switch. If someone calls my wife and asks her to switch to another dude I consider that pilfering…same thing.
<
p>Now I believe that she should continue to fight and campaign and that she has earned the right to take it to the convention if she so desires. She is down 100 something delegates out of 4000…in politics that is a small percentage. In full disclosure, I am a Hillary supporter and worked in the Clinton Administration so I have a vested interest in how things shake out. However, word from the campaign today is that they are shedding nearly all of their advance staff as well as many types of other staff as they return to NY…will it end where it began? I hope not.
<
p>Not for the switching itself, but really for
<
p>
<
p>and that’s absolutely true. Committing before knowing all the facts is important. However, personally I don’t believe that when
<
p>
<
p>means a hill of beans. These aren’t electoral voters; they are in no way beholden to the votes of their constituents or stakeholders.
<
p>Changing one’s mind isn’t the problem. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a SD changing his or her mind. The problem was in announcing support so early. That was the mistake, and the only mistake, in the process. The candidates are welcome to try to persuade the SDs to change their mind, just as John McCain or his supporters are welcome to try and change my mind at any time between now and November.
<
p>Finally, I quibble with
<
p>
<
p>That’s absolutely meaningless. What is meaningful is that she’s down 158ish delegates, but not out of 4000. Over 3350 of those 4000 are locked in [they are called pledged delegates for a reason], at least on the first vote. Many of those 4000 simply can’t change their votes. At this point, there’s roughly 600* delegates which can change, meaning she’s got to convince 25% of the possible mind-changers to change their mind. That’s a huge deficit. Being down 5 miles in the Indy 500 isn’t so bad on mile 10, but we’re at mile 495 here. Claiming “100 something out of 4000” is yet another example of the selective mathematics that the HRC campaign and her supporters are floating; the reality is “150ish out of 600ish.”
<
p>
<
p> * According to media reports, BHO’s got 333 SDs. There are about 200 SDs unpledged. I’m sure that there are other delegates that can change, ranging from JRE’s 26 to others of which I’m not too keen on the details. Bottom line: it’s far from 4000 because most of those 4000 are pledged delegates.
on the first ballot, although it is generally frowned upon. Didn’t one of the pledged delegates for Clinton declare he was switching to Obama a couple of weeks ago?
My understanding is that pledged delegates have to vote their pledge on the first ballot.
<
p>Now, some pledged delegates may be pledged to “unpledged” either because they’re JRE delegates or whatever. I have no idea how that works.
<
p>
<
p>Anybody around here know how first vote works?
Whether or not it’s true that H. R. Clinton is dropping out of the race,
it may well be too late for the Democrats, since they’ve spent such an incredible amount of time and energy bashing Hillary that McCain is loving every minute of it and getting a free ride, to boot. Sorry, Democrats, but you’ve turned lots of party members off and you’ve more than likely screwed up any chances of winning back the White House in November. You’ve only yourselves to blame. You’ve screwed not only yourselves, but everybody else too. Thanks!
<
p>Here’s another hot surprise for you all: Whether you like it or not, I’m seriously considering either voting for a third party, if there is one that’s viable, or just going to the polls on Election Day and writing somebody’s name in, because I’m really disgusted with the behavior that you’ve all exhibited, plus I can’t stand any of the presidential candidates that we’ve got. By your behaviour, you haven’t proven that Hillary Clinton is destructive and abnormal, but you’ve proven that you’re destructive..and abnormal.
but there will be a world of differences between Obama and McCain. I hope you’ll feel differently tomorrow. This country cannot afford a President McCain.
and I agree that we don’t want McCain in as president. However, I see absolutely no reason what. so. ever why I should trust either one of them. No matter who gets to be POTUS, whether it be McCain or Obama, they’ll screw you like they’ll screw everybody else. Plenty of politicians with sweet resumes like Obama’s have turned out to be real weasels. Why should I automatically expect and assume that Obama would turn out any differently, or that 200 some odd years of racial, ethnic and religious bigotry and hatred in this country will be undone in one shinining moment (I. e. 4 years of Obama as President)?
<
p>I’m tired of being pressured into voting for people that I don’t trust. Thanks.
You’ve made the choice to openly post your opinions online, in a forum that begs for comments, engagement and replies. You shouldn’t take offense by someone critiquing your opinion, because if that’s “pressuring” you, then maybe online disagreements with people you don’t know is too much for you to handle. Either way, that’s the nature of this forum, so I’m hoping you’ll get used to it.
<
p>That said, I want to address your point: that, like McCain, Obama will “screw” us over. I’m sure there will be MANY instances in which I get angry with a decision Obama has made, but that’s very different from having an incompetent fool at the helm of America’s army and soap box. McCain isn’t just a threat to “screw” us over, he’s a threat for 4 more years of utterly ruining this country. As I already said – there’s a world of difference between Obama and McCain. Obama may frustrate me and many other progressives, McCain wants 100 years of Iraq and likes to joke around about how he’ll “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” We can’t afford four more years of Bush, which is exactly what electing McCain will do.
I don’t disagree with the fact that McCain’s too dangerous a person to lead our country and keep us in a perpetual state of war. Our country is circling the drain right now, and I don’t think that even Obama has the ability to do what’s necessary to pull us out of the mess we’re in, because our system is so broken right now. Frankly, I think that both McCain and Obama have the capacity, in their own individual ways, of making already-bad situations in this country worse, because, as it’s agreed, McCain’s too much of an old warhorse, with an unstable temper, to boot, and Obama, in addition to being somewhat of a phony, is a posterchild for globalization, which has been a disaster for the United States or elsewhere.
<
p>So, when I say that no matter which of these two guys becomes POTUS, we’ll get screwed, I mean just that. It’s the whole way in which our system is set up, and neither one of them has the ability or willingness to do that. Moreover, neither one of them has suggested making drastic and necessary cuts to our overall military budget in order to pay for necessary programs that help our most vulnerable people to survive. So, if I decide to write in the name of somebody that I would like to see become president, I’m not doing any harm, and may well go and do that.