Clinton Must Drop Out Next Week

by: Chris Bowers

Fri May 30, 2008 at 15:00


This weekend, with the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee, the Puerto Rico primary, and the upcoming Montana and South Dakota primaries on Tuesday, election news remains focused on the nomination campaign. That is mildly irritating, since by my count Obama is only about one or two delegates away from securing the nomination even if Clinton somehow convinces the Rules and Bylaws committee to seat Florida and Michigan entirely based on the results of their January "elections." Consider the following:

  • Democratic Convention Watch currently lists Obama only 124 delegates from the nomination, and 111 delegates ahead of Clinton, even if Michigan and Florida are seated exactly as the Clinton campaign desires.

  • Current polling indicates that Obama is set to receive at least 42 pledged delegates from Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota. While the actual number could be one or two higher, let's just stick with 42 for now, and put Obama 82 delegates from the nomination.

  • John Edwards, who has endorsed Barack Obama, still has 18 delegates according to the above counts. Michigan still has 33 uncommitted delegates, according to the above counts. Currently, not a single John Edwards pledged or Michigan uncommitted delegate has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and all available reports indicate that none of them will. So, that is effectively another 51 delegates for Obama, putting his magic number at 31.

  • States that Obama won have still yet to name 22 add-on delegates, effectively putting his magic number down to only 9.

  • The Pelosi Club superdelegates will put another six delegates in Obama's column, moving his magic number down to 3.

So, even if Clinton gets exactly what she wants at the Rules and Bylaws committee, Obama still only needs about three more delegates to go over the top. This is clearly an exercise in kabuki theater, and the nomination campaign is completely over.

At the same time, I don't really understand the rage that is directed at Clinton for continuing her campaign through June 3rd. I don't really see any clear evidence that it is hurting Obama in the general election, as both national and state polls have fluctuated in the margin of error the entire year. For Democrats, the primary campaign has been overwhelmingly beneficial, putting at least five more Senate seats in play, delivering a huge partisan advantage over Republicans, and registering three million new Democrats. Third, since the system was overhauled in advance of the 1972 nomination campaign, the Democratic Party has never seen a primary season even remotely as close as this one. Several candidates, all of whom had far fewer delegates and party support than Hillary Clinton, took their campaigns all the way until the convention. In fact, there is no precedent for a candidate with as many delegates as Clinton dropping out before the convention. Fourth, Obama should receive a pretty big bounce when he officially reaches the magic number of delegates next week, a bounce he would not have received if Clinton had dropped out a few weeks ago.

Overall, continuing the campaign all the way through June 3rd seems to have far more benefits for Democrats, and even for Obama, than drawbacks. The only real problem is if Clinton does not end her campaign next week. Not only would this deny Obama the clinching bounce, but without any states left to vote it would remove all of the positive, party-building benefits of the nomination campaign on the ground.

I don't even know what the Clinton campaign would do after next week. Would she start a general election campaign against McCain? Her travel schedule has been entirely primary focused, and the only non-primary swing states that she has visited in the last three months are Michigan and Florida. Will she run ads against McCain? If so, given her huge debts, what would she do it with? It will be pretty hard to argue that you are the most electable candidate when you don't even have any money to run ads against John McCain anywhere at all. Will she even have a field campaign, like anywhere at all? Will the campaign be anything except a series of stump speeches on why Obama is unelectable?

There is nothing wrong with Clinton continuing her campaign through June 3rd. However, if she doesn't concede before the week of June 9th, then we will in fact have a big, big problem. Party unity will be extremely difficult to forge, as the Clinton campaign continues to make arguments about why Obama is unelectable, and as many Democrats understandably go nuclear on Clinton to force her out of the campaign. It is a thin, red line between continuing benefit to the party, and total disaster for the party. If Clinton concedes sometime next week, then everything is great, and worked out almost perfectly. If, however, she does not concede next week, then we have a huge mess on our hands.

Hopefully it will all fall into place, but there are reasons to be worried. In the extended entry, I have included a poll: will Clinton drop out next week? It is an important, and worthy question.  

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Must Drop Out Next Week
Poll
Will Hillary Clinton Concede Next Week?
Yes
No

Results


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Must Drop Out Next Week | 121 comments
I want Clinton to continue her campaign (0.00 / 1)
but I also want it to end as humiliatingly as possible for her  to minimize the possibility of her being given the vice-presidential slot on the ticket.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Guh (4.00 / 10)
Can we please not talk about a desire to humiliate Clinton?  Honestly, it's pretty sickening and it sure as hell doesn't help unify the party.

I don't care if you don't want her to be VP.  Proclaiming a desire for her to be humiliated is disgusting and, whether or not you meant it, it has some pretty sexist connotations--which is one of the big issues pushing against party unity.

[ Parent ]
Enough with accusations of sexism (4.00 / 1)
I don't agree with the OP, but why do you assume sexism has anything to do with his statements? What if he had wished the same for a male candidate?
[ Parent ]
"Whether Or Not" (4.00 / 8)
Hence my "whether or not" specification.  I don't know what he was thinking when writing the comment, but I know there are connotations of sexism in the comment and those connotations are a big part of what is alienating some of the women vote from Obama.  I don't know if the commenter is sexist or not.  I know the comment comes across as sexist.

Humiliation has been a big part of systematic oppression against women.  Openly advocating humiliation for a historically powerful woman who has conducted the first truly viable campaign for president is going to bring up some real--fair--concerns about the intentions of that advocacy.

[ Parent ]
How about expressing that same feeling about Bush? (0.00 / 0)
He's a two-term president and I hope he is humiliated by impeachment, a post-presidency indictment or anything else that would do the trick. Are these sexist sentiments? Whether the subject deserves it or not has really very little to do with it, because it's subjective to who's doing the wishing.
[ Parent ]
Demeaning Language is Context-Based (4.00 / 6)
Demeaning language is based on context and precedent.  So, sure, if I proclaim a wish for President Bush to be humiliated by impeachment, that's not sexist.  Of course it's not.  There isn't a long history of that language being used against men to oppress and subjugate them.

Similarly, if I call Bush a n*****, that's not exactly racist, is it?  There isn't a long history of that term being used against white men to demean, oppress and subjugate them.

If I call Obama that?  Bit of a different story, isn't it?  That's not because of the word itself, but of the meaning attached to the word based on contextual usage.

Obviously, "humiliation" isn't as clear cut a concept, but it is a tool that has been used against women throughout history to oppress, demean and subjugate them.  Therefore, it can come across as sexist, especially when you are using it in the context of a powerful woman who is breaking barriers of sexism and patriarchy.

[ Parent ]
Can I please have an approved word (0.00 / 0)
that allows me to express my complete contempt for the Clintons. I don't really care what it is and I definitely want to do the most to avoid projecting sexism. So I would like to know what I can use and that's what I'll use. Because for me it would be best if she were deported somewhere. Though I really wouldn't wish the Clinton's on anyone. Ok, maybe Putin.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 2)
People are free to converse as they want, and other people are free to point out concerns with what words, phrasing and ideas are used in said conversing.
[ Parent ]
what i really want (4.00 / 1)
is a way to be a jerk about it in a non-sexist way.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Like George Bush and Michael Bloomberg (0.00 / 0)
She makes me swear, a lot!  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
OK then.... (4.00 / 2)
...as a mental exercise, what constitutes a valid means of saying that you wish Senator Clinton's campaign to drive itself to the point where it is no longer a valid choice in the minds of most Democrats?

If "humiliation", in the context of being applied to an adult female, has more-than-usual nasty connotations, then what terms do not?

This isn't an attempt to be nasty of childish, but to comprehend how one can denote another in a power context, devoid of sexism, racism, etc.  Racism is relatively easy to see, at least for myself - sexism , since I didn't note the "humiliation" context, is apparently harder for me.

I don't have a problem with any female candidate that's competent running for President - and Hillary is that.  But I want to know how to separate criticism I have of her as a politician or as a representative of the Democratic Party from unintended criticism due to her gender.

[ Parent ]
I Don't Know (4.00 / 3)
Maybe a person could just state his or her dislikes of specific campaign tactics rather than wishing for abject humiliation.  Much as you did in your comment.

None of this is simple.  Identity politics aren't simple.  Embedded prejudices and biases in our society aren't simple.  There is a lot of language that minority groups are justifiably sensitive to--because it has been used as a weapon against them--and that majority groups often use with a certain cluelessness.

I'm not going to try to make conversational or vocabulary guidelines for people--it's stupid, I have no interest in it, and I don't, and shouldn't, have any authority to do that.  I'm sure my "Can we not talk about humiliating Clinton?" comment came across as such, but the comment I responded to came across as very sexist and disturbing to me and, I imagine, to many people who have studied sexism and patriarchy or been a victim of it.  And honestly, I think Clinton has run hard in this race and has been tenacious and I don't get a lot of the seeming hatred toward her--even though I do get and agree with a lot of the frustration and anger toward some of her campaign methods and arguments.

Frankly, this whole primary has been exciting but incredibly tiring and . . . depressing, in many ways.

[ Parent ]
Two points... (4.00 / 1)
First, my first paragraph in my last comment which you noted has one problem - it's too dry.  People often want to make comments with an emotional heft.  And while sexist or racist comments are a facile and lazy way to acquire that emotional heft, there has to be a way to do so more intelligently and, dare I say it, considerately - not in the "warm n' fuzzy" sense but in the "I don't trust this person, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give them a hook to hang onto" sense.

Second, there are a lot of emotional, exhausting threads in play.  How women can be treated in America, how people of color can be treated in America, the established party versus the new folks knocking at the door and demanding their share (and the battles that come of all that), the impact of ethnic immigrants for the first time in a while having an effect (as they transition from more conservative, traditionalist cultures to the general American culture).  It is exhausting.  But for what it's worth, it's also History.  ;-)

[ Parent ]
You're Right (4.00 / 6)
Moments sometimes call for emotional rhetoric.  There's no doubt about that.  Here's what I see as the problem.  I look around at a lot of the emotional rhetoric directed toward Clinton and I see a lot of sexism in it.  I think, honestly, that when we go for the emotional rhetoric to basically express a deep dislike or anger or frustration with someone, we often slip very quickly, very easily, into prejudiced language.  Hysterical, manipulative, conniving, bitch, etc etc.  They're emotionally loaded words and they're used commonly in society.  And I think it all harkens to an undercurrent of bias that is very much still with us.  We are a sexist culture.  We are.  And it sucks, and it's not something that's going to go away.

I've done this, too.  I've reached for the words, without conscious intention, and I've used them and some people will disagree with me, but I see that as a moment when sexism got me.  I see that as a moment when the sexism that permeates our culture snagged me, and I gave into it, and it wasn't conscious or intentional but the roots were in sexism.

As a male, and as someone who has done some studying and researching of the sexism and patriarchy that is still very much alive and well in this country and around the world, I am frustrated when I do that and I'm frustrated when I see others do it.  But at the end of the day, I'm still male, and I get over it.  I try to fight it, but I get over it.

I imagine for a lot of females out there, it's a hell of a lot harder to get over because it's effecting them much more directly.  And for every example I see, I imagine there are a lot of women out there who see five, or six, or ten other examples.  It has to be very frustrating and very demoralizing.

I think that's where a lot of the issues coming out of this primary are going to be at.  You will have Obama supporters reaching--usually unintentionally--for charged, sexist language out of a desire to express their anger toward Clinton, or her campaign-tactics, or both.  And you will have a lot of women who get really, really pissed off because they've dealt with that language all their lives--and they're probably extra-frustrated to encounter it in an area where they expect progressivism, understanding, inclusion, enlightenment.

So the cycle goes and this is where I get a bit frustrated and depressed because I think it will continue to be an issue as we move out of the primary.  People are talking past each other and--hell, even if they stopped talking past each other--this is too big an issue to solve over the next couple months.

My hope is that as the emotions die down a bit on both sides, the party comes together and we get Obama elected.  We'll see if that's what happens.

And you're right, this is History.  It's exciting and exhausting and . . . seismic.  Amazing.  It will be pretty incredible to look back a few decades from now and realize I was in the thick of it.  That will be cool.  Hopefully I'll be a little happier about it all then.

[ Parent ]
At a smaller scale.... (0.00 / 0)
....this type of drama is being acted out in my home.  My teenage daughter is in a rage at the moment with her boyfriend because he's gotten into the habit of using "gay" defined in pop culture as a silly or foolish or foppish thing to do, one of her best friends at school is gay, and things have reached the boiling point.

The boyfriend isn't getting the point - in fact, he's defending his right to use the word in that context.  She is saying that it contributes to an insulting stereotype.

And then he slipped and admitted that he's not much into defending gays anyway.

Uh-oh.

So now I get to hear a cellphone lament for a while, her staring intently at it and viciously pressing the "Ignore" option after every attempt to call her.  I've tried to explain (but not excuse) his behavior, but she wants nothing of it.

I hope he'll realize he's being an ass and needs to be a tad more considerate, but we'll see.  I know she isn't budging anytime soon, if ever.  (She is my daughter, after all, God help her.)

I think what will help most are folks like you and I who will get stuck, inevitably, with trying to bring them back together.  It gets exhausting, let me tell you, but I also think it's necessary to work through this and help both sides reach an accommodation with each other.

[ Parent ]
I like your daughter! N/T (0.00 / 0)


Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.
[ Parent ]
A former Clintonophile... (0.00 / 0)
who wishes complete humiliation on the Clintons today. That's me. I am not sexist - in fact, I identify myself as a male feminist. But the way the Clintons have gone about making galling accusations, trying to don victimhood which does not fit them, trying to fan distrust of Obama among women and Appalachians is just disgusting.

And, please, stop calling her "tenacious." Can you imagine what a joke we would be to nominate her, and then demanding a withdrawal from Iraq saying the war should be ended? The GOPers will ask us to be "tenacious."

[ Parent ]
I also want to humiliate (4.00 / 2)
Judas Lieberman.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
In any possible context.... (4.00 / 1)
....I'm afraid I agree.
[ Parent ]
Can't just hate Hillary for legitimate reasons? (4.00 / 2)
Can't I just find her completely amoral and horribly manipulative, and on that pray to the sweet baby jesus that she be kept as far from the White House as humanly possible, and wish all that harder precisely because she has a lot of support. As further proof its not sexism, the same goes for her blow hard husband.
 

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Sure You Can (4.00 / 1)
And the way you can phrase those feelings can come off as either sexist or not.

I've never said people can't dislike Clinton or not want her as president without being sexist.

[ Parent ]
I sense a trap (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Sexism has nothing to do with my disgust at (4.00 / 1)
Her George W. Bush-like preference for the politics of personal loyalty over competence and her Al Wynn-like sense of entitlement to the nomination, among other strikes against her.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Yah, who hasn't wished for Bush to be completely humiliated (0.00 / 0)
who hasn't reveled in every moronic statement, every stupid gaffe which shows him to be the idiot he is. Wishing for humiliation may not be nice, but its definitely sexistracistelitistwhateverist independent. I find its a wish by the powerless aimed at the powerful.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
actually (0.00 / 0)
you'd be the last one to know whether or not it does.
[ Parent ]
Why? .. (4.00 / 6)
while I don't think she'd make the best VP for Obama .. I don't think humiliation is the thing to root for .. I don't know who is going to convince her it is over .. but in the end .. she only has herself to blame(voting for the AUMF .. when Bob Graham told her to read the NIE and she didn't .. and hiring idiots like Mark Penn)
[ Parent ]
It is people like you who are (4.00 / 2)
crasing the party. Not Clinton. Not Obama. People. Like. You. Who say sh*t like this. I'm an Obama supporter and I think your comment is way out of line.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHAH! (0.00 / 0)
yah, pretty much.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Let it go... (0.00 / 0)
I think she's been humilated enough -- but unfortuantely she's still at it... only yesterday driving the stake though any VP changes:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljou...

So, maybe the time has come for those who love her best -- noting that's obviously not you or I to help her gently get off the stage...

We just enrage her more -- I know women like her -- ain't worth it - let her friends handle her.

[ Parent ]
chances but hey changes might work too. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I do not understand the significance of your link (0.00 / 0)
nt
[ Parent ]
Building up and praising McCain == giving a side swipe to Obama (0.00 / 0)
...again
[ Parent ]
She might want a chance at 2012... (0.00 / 0)
...but the SD's don't want to suffer under a McCain/Bush presidency for another 4 years...  They get it even if she doesn't/

Trying to bring down the ship I believe has consequences.
Humiliation is just the start.

[ Parent ]
It is hard to say ... (0.00 / 0)
given that Pelosi and Reid haven't done a great job standing up to Bush .. what are they going to say to Hillary?  The one thing I think people are forgetting .. is that if she suspends or ends her campaign .. doesn't she have a very short time frame to pay off her campaign debts(including paying herself back)?
The only hope is... (0.00 / 0)
I suspect most superdelegates will endorse one candidate or the other soon after June 3rd and Pelosi and Reid can help make that happen. It's a safe bet that after that, regardless of the RBC decision, Obama will have the majority of delegates. If she does not concede at that point, the only thing that could change her mind, and which could easily happen, is the defection of a large number of her supporters to the Obama camp.
[ Parent ]
The main objection has always been how she campaigns, not when she stops (4.00 / 14)
Chris,

I think you've momentarily bought into the faulty premise that people have been clamoring for Clinton to drop out, when they've really been demanding that she simply drop campaigning in a way that could be construed as negative or divisive.  No one would have cared had she taken the Huckabee approach to remaining in the race.

On the other hand, I agree that the story changes once the primaries have ended; for at that point, a failure for her to concede explicitly may fairly be deemed inherently destructive.

Exactly! (4.00 / 2)
You didn't see John Edwards in 2004 yelling that Kerry had not passed a Commander-in-Chief threshold.  Jerry Brown in 1992 wasn't challenging every single voter at the TX caucuses for the sole purpose of wasting half a day and hoping delegates went home in disgust.  And in 1988 Jesse Jackson didn't say he was staying in the race in case Mike Dukakis got assassinated.
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 3)
If she had spent the past few months fighting for the nomination by reinforcing Obama's attacks on McCain, there wouldn't be any complaining.

But she's spent the past few months reinforcing McCain's attacks on Obama, weakening Obama in the general.  She was perfectly capable of continuing the fight for the nomination in a manner that wouldn't alienate significant chunks of the Democratic base, either from her (e.g. AA voters) or from Obama (e.g. Appalachian state whites).  She just chose not to.

[ Parent ]
The "pretty big bounce" (4.00 / 2)
that you say Sen. Obama "should receive" next week will NOT be because Sen. Clinton stayed in the primary and "didn't drop out a few weeks ago".  It is because historically, when the primary produces a clear nominee that nominee gets the benefit of a realignment within the party and its supporters.  This [almost] always happens.  It isn't going to happen this time simply because Sen. Clinton decided to stay in the race.

I do not agree with you that Sen. Clinton's continuing diatribe about the unelectability of Sen. Obama is good for the party.  I also do not agree with the suggestion that Sen. Clinton is in this thing for the party, or for the American people.  Sen. Clinton is in this thing so that she can be president of the United States.  She has already lost.  Why continue?

If Clinton starts a general election campaign (0.00 / 0)
against McCain next week, that's it. I'm switching my support, and will back her enthusiastically. At some point this rises above politics and becomes art.  
LOL (4.00 / 2)
Yeah, if that happens it's documentary worthy
[ Parent ]
And Clinton becomes a (0.00 / 0)
hybrid of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.
[ Parent ]
That reminds me (0.00 / 0)
of Dennis Miller's crack during the impeachment days (before he became a right-wing nut) that watching Bill Clinton lie was like watching Michael Jordan shoot jumpshots or Michael Angelo paint the Sisteen Chaqpel, it was something he was born to do and was a thing of beauty to watch.  

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!
[ Parent ]
Art (0.00 / 0)
If they put her in a white room with soft lighting and charge $20 for a day pass to see here, then yeah, I could get behind that!  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
You don't see it hurting Obama ? (4.00 / 6)
Have you seen the Pew numbers among white women ?
Problem is not that she is staying. Problem is she is fanning the sense of grievance of her female supporters and that will create a surmountable problem that we don't need to have in a hard-fought election.
I think we need to drive home the point... (4.00 / 2)
...that vindictiveness has no place in responsible politics.  We as Democrats are a loose coalition that MUST stick together if we wish to see progress.

I often wonder if these people threatening to vote for McCain over Obama have really thought through the consequences of that, we have to make sure they do.

How would they feel if they had to explain what sexists Obama and his supporters were to a family who lost a kid serving in John McCain's war in Iran?  Or a soldier who lost a limb in the continued occupation of Iraq.  Or the next city that gets wiped out due to the effects of global warming ignored by a McCain administration?

Everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 owns some small part of the responsibility for what he has wrought.  We must take voting seriously, and not as a means of retribution.  It is the responsibility of our franchise.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
But her staying in the race and saying the things she said have made it necessary to take the time to make those cases, which we wouldn't have had, say, six months ago.
To give you a concrete example.
I am not fond of Webb but I understand there is potential for him to help with white blue collars. However his past misogynistic statements are now a huge problem in the context of female resentment that he probably won't be picked.
Obama will win. No doubt. But we have so many people to convince, I wish we wouldn't have to play footsy with female Democratic voters which should be a given and which are not because Hillary has fanned the flames.
[ Parent ]
could you please make that a little more condescending? (4.00 / 5)
I wish we wouldn't have to play footsy with female Democratic voters

promise me that you will do no voter contact that involves women

[ Parent ]
That was not meant to be condescending (4.00 / 1)
My point was that this should not be a constituency that requires a lot of work - the same way Clinton would have to do work with AA that, quite frankly, would be a waste of time since this SHOULD be a sure-fire constituency.
Any work he will have to do to win them back because Hillary fired them up against him is time he won't spend campaigning for independents for instance.

God. I hate how everybody is becoming oversensitive now.

[ Parent ]
You said: (0.00 / 0)
"God. I hate how everybody is becoming oversensitive now."

Troll-rated for taking God's name in vain.

(And I agree, though 'playing footsie' was perhaps a bad choice of words, given the  subject ...)

[ Parent ]
Yes, perhaps a case of (0.00 / 0)
poor choice of words, but there is a lot of overly sensitive feelings in public.

I think we could all do better if our focus was on understanding the intended meaning the writer is trying to convey.  After all, we all suffer, to one degree or another, an imperfect being.  

We could all do better.  Perhaps that is the healing path we need, now that the primary is almost over.  Even this site's diary writers suffer these shortcoming.

[ Parent ]
oh boy, here we go again (4.00 / 1)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
This Post (4.00 / 1)
Should be sent to anyone short-sighted enough to threaten voting for any Republican over a contested Primary.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Dude (0.00 / 0)
the Economy should be sent to anyone short-sighted enough to threaten voting for any Republican over a contested Primary.


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Oh (0.00 / 0)
and Iraq too.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I'm out. (4.00 / 1)
I am a lifetime Democrat.  I am disgusted at the way that the party has treated women, the Clintons, and the primary process.

I'm disgusted at the left leaning blogs, who started as critics of the Limbaughs and Hannities, and of MSM narratives, but became every bit as hateful and unhinged.

I owe no allegiance to this party.  It does not represent my ideals.  Institutionally, it is as corrupt as the Republican party.  Obama is no less corrupt than those that preceded him.  

The party does have less loathsome policies than the Republicans, but it is extremely inept at pursuing them.  The only thing it has to offer me is the slight hope that things will be different for two or three years, before the party brings another electoral disaster on itself.  The only way these scoundrels can coax my tepid, temporary support is by persuading me that the Republicans will continue to be psychopaths.  That will only work as long as the Republicans are psychopaths.  I can imagine McCain, as president, being no where near as destructive as Bush.  I can imagine Obama, as president, being far less effectual than Carter.  My decision is not to vote for either.  Not voting is a responsible decision.  This year, for me, voting is "only revealing my powerlessness and obeying the power of a party."

The Obama supporters, Olbermann, Air America, daily Kos, and two thirds of the media spend months demonizing Clinton and her supporters.  Then, when her supporters react as any sane person would - by withdrawing from the people who despise you and constantly lie and spread destructive propaganda - they are immediately set up to be blamed for soldiers dying in Iraq.

It really isn't about Clinton anymore, for me.  She's a part of this corrupt party as well.  If they gave her the delegates in Florida and the nomination, it would not fix my disgust with this "loose" coalition.  I think she's a better candidate, and will be a better President, but I can't support this party anymore.  If she were suddenly to become viable, I still would sit this one out.

Don't explain to me how important my vote is.  Tell it to Howard Dean.

[ Parent ]
I am sorry you feel this way (4.00 / 2)
but I don't see what can be done to change your mind.  I would just ask that you think long and hard about the consequences of inaction.

Inaction is not a responsible decision, nor does it absolve one of responsibility.

I'll admit, many in this campaign have overstepped their bounds, especially those in the media, and our political process is full of many imperfections and imperfect candidate, but in the end, it is the only tool we are given to bring about a change in course, and we have to make the best of what we have been given.

I sincerely hope you will reconsider.

[ Parent ]
Spare me .. (4.00 / 1)
And TalkLeft and Taylor Marsh haven't spent way too much time bashing Obama?
[ Parent ]
The classic partisan candidate supporter (4.00 / 2)
"You" did this to "Us", "You" are bad, "We" are good.

Whatever. Sit it out. Enjoy your puritanical/business biased SCOTUS, your average median tax, back ally health care plan, and war with Iran. Do it, sit it out. Tell your children you sat it out.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! (4.00 / 2)
As a lifelong Democrat, presumably you've noticed that rich, monied interests tend to rule politics.  You've probably also noticed that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate or a perfect party.  In a country of 300 million people, it's fanciful to imagine that anything close to a majority is going to be able to agree about anything, much less the way to run a country.

Politics is the art of the possible.  There's a reason the axion is so famous - it's because there's a great deal of truth in it.

So, in spite of all that, you were able to recognize that within the limited confines of what is available, there are stark and important decisions to make.  That real people were going to be affected, yourself included.

And now, the Democrats have chosen a nominee who has inspired millions of people to a level they've never before experienced, who tens of millions of people will vote for in November.  This doesn't mean you have to feel any of that, but still shouldn't it be encouraging to see so many others feeling it?  And yet, instead of being happy that a progressive coalition is building and gaining a virtually unprecedented amount of power, you decide that now, of all times, is the moment when your disgust is so overwhelmingly that you're out of the business.  You don't decide that you'll grudgingly vote for Obama while still identifying the changes in Democratic politics you'd like to see.  You just decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater and stalk away.

Pardon me if I question your motives on this one.  Why now?  Why would you be so involved on these issues so that you frequent progressive blogs and post passionately for months and then decide 5 months into the primary season that it was all pointless?

[ Parent ]
A couple points of disagreement (0.00 / 0)
1.  The Democrats haven't chosen a nominee.  The Democrats were divided.  There is no way to determine, in this mess of the system, that there is a clear choice of most Democrats.  

2.  Millions of people are inspired by Ron Paul.  I see signs all over the place for the guy.  Millions of people are inspired by Hillary Clinton.  Many of these people are inspired to a degree they haven't been before.  I don't see your point.

3.  There isn't any progressive coalition with an unprecedented amount of power.  There is a party that, despite following the most unpopular presidency in history, is barely beating the Republican nominee in the polls, and backs down from veto threats.

[ Parent ]
The Democrats have chosen a nominee .. (4.00 / 1)
and that nominee is Obama .. he hasn't officialy announced it ... but there is no realisitc chance of her winning at this point
[ Parent ]
Much of your post is an encouragement to realism. (0.00 / 0)
Which is appropriate.  But then:
And now, the Democrats have chosen a nominee who has inspired millions of people to a level they've never before experienced, who tens of millions of people will vote for in November.

You're talking as if Obama has won in a landslide.  He hasn't.    He's either winning or losing the popular vote by less than 1%, having established a small but significant lead in delegates due to a superior strategic approach to caucuses and other areas where number of delegates per vote could be maximized.  
And Tens of millions always vote for both major party candidates.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but he beat the biggest machine in Democratic politics (4.00 / 4)
to expect him to have gotten a landslide is unrealistic.

But he has unquestionably brought new people to the fold.

[ Parent ]
...and brought in a boatload of non-corporate money! (4.00 / 3)
Amazing accomplishment.
[ Parent ]
Unquestionably? (0.00 / 0)
Hillary won more primary states, which translates to more bodies voting.

There has been record turnout, and the voters have been largely divided.

How is it "unquestionable" that he brought more people into the fold?  I think Bush did that.

[ Parent ]
Umm Obama won 31 of 50 states (4.00 / 2)
You can question whether or not most of the activists who came out record numbers in caucus states were new or not, but it doesn't serve much purpose.

I know that among my own peers, that most of the newly-involved voters I have met are mostly Obama voters.


[ Parent ]
No I'm not (4.00 / 3)
And it's weird how a comment which is pretty clear in its meaning is misinterpreted so radically by multiple people.  I will try not to impute motives on you, but in the same way I would encourage you to do the same for me.  It seems to me that you are looking to start/continue a fight about who is the "rightful" nominee and therefore read my entire post in that context.

However, if you read it in the context it was actually written, it is an attempt to argue that politics is a messy business where very rarely will someone get a representative or system that truly satisfies them.  And so, rather than taking out our frustration in a petulant manner (making the best the enemy of the good), we have a responsibility to recognize that in a democracy politics will be run according to whichever set of overlapping consensuses is largest.  

This means that even while we register our discontent and strive to change things, we should also take the long perspective and try to take some comfort in optimism that others in our big tent feel, even if we cannot quite feel it ourselves.

So, Obama does inspire a lot of people, many of whom have not been this inspired before.  Clinton does, too. So does Ron Paul.  Obviously.  The point is not that this makes him the perfect candidate who should be unquestioningly supported.  The point is that by the rules and structure of our campaign he has won, and even if this does not completely satisfy you, perhaps you can appreciate that it does for many others.  You seek out the good, rather than accentuate the bad.

The exact same thing would be true if Clinton had won.  In that case, I would be reminding myself of all the many things about her that I love and have defended on many occasions.  I would be upset that "my guy" lost, but I would also recognize that the success of a democracy hinges on the willingness of the population to accept defeat and look to the future.

A final thing I'll say about this is that I think I'm one of the folks that people often reference tangentially but Clinton supporters sometimes seem to believe don't really exist.  I defended her (a lot) to my group of friends over the last two years.  I talked about how the subtle tendrils of sexism made it just as (if not more) difficult for a woman to get elected than a black man.  I defended her on the war - saying that she made a bad decision but that one act should not disqualify anyone.  I hoped that she would decide to run, and long considered voting for her.

I eventually decided that my fears about Obama were misplaced and that he inspired me in a way that Clinton couldn't quite match.  But when New Hampshire was over and it looked like she would very likely be the nominee, I was satisfied.

But I can honestly say that my opinions really have changed a lot.  I'm self-aware enough to recognize that some of it is simply a matter of group identification and tribalism, an "us vs. them" factor which calcifies over a long campaign.  That will fade, I'm sure.  But there really is more to it than that.  I was disheartened by Bill's comments after South Carolina.  I was discouraged by her claims about the commander in chief test.  I was saddened by her fear-baiting on negotiation with rogue states.  And I was disgusted (absolutely, completely, and totally disgusted) by her pandering on the gas tax.

And, given her behavior over the last month - when everyone who can do the delegate math has known that she can't win without doing irreparable damage to the party - I can't help but feel somewhat vindicated.  She is not behaving like someone who I would trust to run the world.  She is not responding to setbacks with grace and dignity. She is not accepting that sometimes there is a higher calling that matters more than our personal interest.  Even if I completely accept her framing, that Obama isn't fit to do the job so she needs to save us from ourselves, I still can't see much noble in this.

And it's frustrating that it's difficult to explain any of this because the "debate" immediately degrades to snippy back-and-forths and arguments about the broader functions of sexism and racism.  Those should be discussed of course, but not always from a perspective where there is no trust that enables you to believe my good-faith assertion that I care very deeply about these issues in the same way that you do.

I have stated in the past that I would strongly consider voting for a candidate I knew to be worse simply because she was a woman.  That's how much I care about the simple symbolism of a woman being elected president.  I think it's a travesty that it hasn't happened.  And in spite of all of that, I have to say that it might very well be for the best that Hillary isn't going to win the nomination.  Not because her policies are bad or because she's a bad person.  But because this period has revealed some very troubling characteristics of her personality and attitude that I would find troubling in a president.

It's possible that Obama would have reacted the same way.  It's possible he's got other skeletons of personal, political, or moral nature that I simply don't know about or don't see yet.  I'd like to hope not.  But all I can say for sure is that I would feel a lot less comfortable with President Hillary now than I ever would have thought 6 months ago.

[ Parent ]
As to "why now?" (0.00 / 0)
It is a fair question.  There are a couple of large reasons that are difficult to state briefly, but I'll try:

1.  This is an old story, and old failure, being replayed one more time.  The Democrats have had a struggle between the Truman wing (Clinton) and the Stevenson wing (Mondale-Obama) for my entire life.  I have a great appreciation for what the Stevenson wing can do, which is be a driving force for the rights of the oppressed and present nuanced ideas, but I also have an appreciation for what it has never been able to do, which is hold on to executive power.  The Clinton/Obama struggle is partly an age struggle, and partly a class struggle. In fact, the Obama supporters are (as the Stevenson wing always is) convinced that the age and class demographics finally favor them.  But the problem goes a lot deeper than the demographics.  I enabled the Democrats - voting for Mondale, voting for Dukakis. Clinton showed how Democrats can win.  And, once again, the party is going to commit political suicide.  I, for one, am not going to be party to it.

(By this I mean that I expect that Obama will win, but that he will not win re-election.)

A blogger who is eloquent on this subject (she's a bit too acerbic sometimes, even for my tastes), is here:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com...

2.  Obama practices the politics of Reagan.  Where you see inspiration, I see a flim-flam.  This is a bad model. I think it is an unnecessary step backward. On top of the incompetence and the lack of values, I find this shift unacceptable.

[ Parent ]
voting for candidates who don't win isn't "enabling" them... (0.00 / 0)
unless you vote for them in the primary.  If you think Obama is going to lose anyway, how is your trying to ensure it making a point?

This argument makes no sense.

[ Parent ]
Voting (0.00 / 0)
supports the party on the suicidal mission it's been on before.  No, I think he will win this time.  And that will make the coming disaster worse.  I prefer not to be a part of it, in any way.

Consider someone on the other side: an old school, fiscally responsible, humble foreign policy Republican.  If he really opposes the Democratic appraoch to governance, but can't support the right, who should he vote for?  Or, who should the hardcore anti-immigration Republicans vote for?  The religious right, who know that McCain in the end probably isn't on their side?  Or the committed socialist, who really believes there is no difference between the parties?

It is perfectly legitmate for people not to vote because both choices are unacceptable to them.  

[ Parent ]
Not a good argument (4.00 / 5)
"It is perfectly legitmate for people not to vote because both choices are unacceptable to them. "

No, it is immature and unrealistic.  If people who felt there was no difference actually had voted in 2000, we would have been spared our present disaster.

Our democracy is not perfect, but the whole idea is you choose who you agree with the most.  If you sit around waiting for a perfect candidate, you'll wind up never voting.  If you don't think about issues facing the country, and vote for the best possible outcome, you are abandoning your duty as a citizen, and enabling whatever failures result.

[ Parent ]
Not voting (0.00 / 0)
is legitimate.  To vote in a truly corrupt, single party system is harmful enabling.  A true pacifist has a duty not to vote in our militaristic society.  I think a truly committed socialist has a duty to not vote for a pro-capitalist party.  For a single-issue anti-immigration voter, both parties are equal.

Not voting can be a legitimate exercise of political power, or a legitimate protest against political powerlessness.  Whether my personal decision is a wise one is different than the question of whether such a decision is legitimate or responsible for certain people - and of course it is.

[ Parent ]
Whatever, socrates. (4.00 / 2)
You can form your political leanings from pie in the sky philosophy if you want, I want to get things done.

I never realized how many politically legitimate people our local trailer park has.  Hell, they even went the next step.  They are so offended by our current they aren't even registered!  And won't spare a second of their time for something so odious.

[ Parent ]
Socrates (0.00 / 0)
wasn't an ivory tower intellectual.  He died for his principles.  What will you do for yours?
[ Parent ]
How do 1. and 2. go together? (4.00 / 4)
As I recall, Reagan won reelection, and did so rather handily. And he accomplished almost all of what he came to Washington to do,  enrich his buddies and increase defense spending. And he's still held in high esteem by the population and by historians. Naturally, I was and continue to be appalled by Reagan's policies but if you mean to damn Obama by saying he's  going to do to Dems what Reagan did for Repubs, I say "Bring it on!"
[ Parent ]
Goodbye (0.00 / 0)
Don't explain to me how important my vote is.  Tell it to Howard Dean.

I don't think we have to. You have decided to throw it away. It's worthless.  

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
I've chosen to exercise my rights in an unpopular way.  Not voting is a political act.  I can't "throw away" my vote.  

Not sure what the "goodbye" means, but hey, to stay in the spirit: "goodbye to you, too."

[ Parent ]
Can be looked at a lot of ways... (4.00 / 3)
Yes, you are, of course, in your right to not vote.  However, unless something crazy happens, either Obama or McCain will be president.  Your vote is your way of saying which one you think would be a better president, and not exercising that is your way of saying that you don't think it matters.

So sure, you can just throw your arms up and say "I think they're about the same and therefore I'm not voting" in the same way many did so successfully in 2000. That's certainly your right.

I would ask you to, however, in a few months after this primary is over, simply reconsider your stance and just say "Who has the potential to be a better president?"  Of course we can all imagine for the next 6 months how Obama or McCain could be crappy presidents... but who has the POTENTIAL to be a better one?  It's not fair just to say "McCain could be better than we expect and Obama could be worse, and therefore they're the same to me."  If you really are a lifelong Democrat, I hope you re-take a look a the two candidates sometime and assess who you think would have a better chance at upholding the Democratic values that you have been fighting for your whole life.

Hopefully, we will meet (or blog, as the case may be) again under better circumstances in the future, and can join in working towards the ideals that we all strive for.  Safe travels.

[ Parent ]
Or (0.00 / 0)
I could take a longer view, and ask "what's best for the country in the long run?"  A Democratic failure of a presidency, another Carter, that will usher in a new, stronger conservative backlash, or hope that the party will stop playing the same suicide game, while the inept, hobbled Republican leader goes down in flames?
[ Parent ]
I get what you're saying, but... (4.00 / 2)
Like I said, I think you need to look at the "potentials" here.  Could Obama turn out to be "another Carter"?  It's possible... But that's really a worst-case scenario.  The potential for Obama to be a better president than McCain is far higher.  Why not give him that chance?
[ Parent ]
This Carter comparison... (0.00 / 0)
... just does not add up in my mind. People have been trying to raise that specter, but I don't see any similarity between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. There is a vague of that willingness to meet with those labeled "enemies," but Reagan met with the Soviets too (and after calling them an Evil Empire).

When I said goodbye, it's in sadness. I find it sad that people would ignore his record, and claim he is the same as Senator Bomb Iran.

Please explain this to me: One person started this race with 90+ delegates, swimming in cash, a former President's blackberry, and a name recognition matched only my sitting or former Veeps. The other was a freshman Senator no one took very seriously. The former is behind in delegates by all counts, and is broke. And yet, she is called the "fighter." How?

Ultimately, this is about our common goals. You have a stake in this as much as I do (in fact, being a non-citizen, I would say you have more than I do). If you choose to not vote, you will be abdicating your responsibility. I will hope that you will rethink your plan.

[ Parent ]
Two points (0.00 / 0)
but we are belaboring the same ground.

First, as to not voting being an abdication.  Foolishness.  It is a political act.  That's why you care.  It is 1/2 a vote for McCain.  It is a rejection of the current party.  It isn't irresponsible.  It is just disfavored.  I think it is always best to at least closely examine the disfavored course.

Unless we understand each other there, then we have nothing to discuss.  I gave some examples before.  Do you want people who are half-hearted about McCain to come out in force?  Wouldn't you rather the anti-immigration folks just sat it out on priciple rather than hold their nose and vote for McCain?  Isn't that the principled thing for them to do?  If they do in large numbers, their voices will be heard, in the way they intend.

This "abdication of responsibility" sounds to my ears like repeating something a teacher said.  I've been voting 25 years.  Never missed a school levy.  Calling me irresponsible isn't going to fly.

Second, I see the race, and the history of the party, differently.  Obama won because of the media elites and the party elites that reject Clinton.  They are the same people (ideologically) that Clinton defeated in the party twenty years ago.  They lost when they were in power before, and they will do nothing but ill for the party long term.  It has very little to do with Obama's skill as a politican or worth as a person, etc.  I do not bash Obama.  He seems like a nice fellow - no more or less ethical than other politicians.  It has to do with a coalition that works, and one that doesn't.  

We are living the seventies.  Stagflation is back.  The oil crisis is back.  A humbling military adventure is being concluded.  The government is in historically low repute.  That is exactly the world Carter inherited.  Obama isn't the same man, but he is the same lineage as Carter.  The idea that Obama will be another Carter isn't a given, but it certainly isn't absurd by a long shot.


[ Parent ]
He's no Carter Kanzeon (0.00 / 0)
...I hear and understand where you are coming from... but you seem to be basing your predictions on the old-world stereotypes...  prior to the internet obsession.  Too late in the evening to reply in full, but I really don't know why you are so pessimistic.
[ Parent ]
got nothing to do with Hillary (0.00 / 0)
when we see t-shirts with "Bros before Hos" or bumber stickers which say "life is a bitch, don't vote for one", when we see video's of Obama "giving the finger" or calling a female TV reporter sweetie our reaction has nothing to do with what Hillary said or even anything to do with what we think of her.

This has nothing to do with Hillary, some of us haven't even paid much attention to what she has been saying. It is just you see t-shirts or bumper stickers like that, you see Obama being openly disrespectful, and there is a visceral reaction that has nothing to do with Hillary. Her getting out of the race will stop this and might even make it worse.

I am guessing this will come to a head in the 2010 election, because this anger is way way way bigger than Hillary's candidacy.

[ Parent ]
I understand the anger (4.00 / 3)
I understand that many people are jerks, I understand that these ugly attitudes have been a historical barrier to women everywhere. I understand that Obama is an imperfect man, and I understand that despite who gets elected the world would remain imperfect.

What I don't see is how any of this begins to outweigh the absolute peril we ALL face if McCain is elected.

We as a nation are facing a very real threat of economic depression if we don't change course soon.  The situation with Climate change is getting worse and worse.  Millions of Americans desperately need health care than they won't get ANY chance at in a McCain administration.  We have men AND women losing life and limb in Iraq every day, and McCain is OK with extending the battle by a century, and going into Iran as well.

You're right this ISN'T about Hillary or Obama, or about me or you or any names people have ever called us.

It is about what kind of world our children, the next generation, will inherit from us, and the quality of life they will be afforded.  I don't see how ANYONE could think that standing in the way of change to get back at people who are mean and unfeeling can serve ANY PURPOSE whatsoever.

[ Parent ]
Alice (4.00 / 5)
I'm sorry you've experienced this, but let's be clear:  Obama does not advocate the bumper stickers and t-shirts you speak of.

Furthermore, giving someone the finger is not sexist, nor did he ever give her the finger.  (This has been thoroughly debunked).

So maybe you could find it in your heart to ratchet down the resentment a little?  As a member of a minority group myself, I couldn't imagine voting to give away civil rights because I was upset about someone saying "sweetie".

[ Parent ]
The "Finger" (4.00 / 6)
You do realize that was debunked?  Someone looked at footage of the same moment from a different angle and he was clearly using both the middle and index fingers to scratch his head?  It was just the camera angle that they were using at that moment of the live broadcast couldn't see the index finger.

--Dave

[ Parent ]
IF you believe (4.00 / 4)
that Obama gave the finger to Hillary when there are dozens of CLEAR SHOTS OF HIM SCRATCHING WIHT TWO FINGERS then I know I am right when I say some sections of the party have lost their moorings.
This is what I am talking about. You should not be angry to the point where you believe such obvious BS. He will have work to do to convince you you are wrong but this is work he wouldn't have to do if she had dropped out when it was clear she had lost.
She stayed in the race. Fine. It is her right but my point is I dont think it is a positive.
[ Parent ]
If Obama should be held responsible... (0.00 / 0)
... for the Tees his supporters were wearing, will Hillary own up the anti-"Muslim" bigotry (see http://gawker.com/389976/old-w... of her supporters? Please do think about it.
[ Parent ]
She's Not Going Anywhere (4.00 / 2)
I think we need to begin preparing for the eventuality of what we will do once all the states have voted, all the superdelegates have publicly endorsed, the Rules and Bylaws Committee makes its decision about Florida and Michigan...and Hillary Clinton refuses to concede.

Metrics on the ground (contest results, fundraising numbers, delegate endorsements, media narratives, etc.) haven't had any bearing on the Clinton campaign for months, in terms of overall plans, strategy, and tactics. Why should that change now?

I think those of you who are trying to figure out how to most gracefully usher Hillary out of the race next week are being extremely naive. She is not going anywhere. The sooner you come to grips with that, the sooner we can start planning real strategies to try to deal with the very serious problem that our party now faces.

It's not only Hillary who has to be convinced (0.00 / 0)
Honestly, I think it's going to be a lot harder to convince Bill to quit. He's the one who has put in much more time and effort on the campaign trail than Hillary, and quitting just isn't in his blood - particularly when it comes to political campaigns, which is what he relishes.

I think once Obama passes Clinton in the magic number (2,026, 2,117, or whatever the hell the number ends up being) - and I think that will happen almost certainly within a week of the MT/SD primaries on the 3rd - she has no choice but to fold up her tent. If she keeps going, she will simply become even more of a parody of herself than she has become at this point.

And, as you mentioned, it's hard to convince anyone to give you money to keep up a campaign when you will have lost.

Dowd says Obama has Bill covered (0.00 / 0)
enter Michelle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Based on history, this quote is questionable (0.00 / 0)
Chris writes:
"Fourth, Obama should receive a pretty big bounce when he officially reaches the magic number of delegates next week, a bounce he would not have received if Clinton had dropped out a few weeks ago."

I will write more about this monday, but the evidence from past elections is mixed as to whether this gives the candidate any bounce.  There is no evidence for this from the '04, '00, '92 and '84 data.  There does appear evidence for this in the '76 (for Carter) and Dukakis (in '88).

I am curious to see what effect it will have myself.  My guess right now is that the primary effect will be felt at convention time, when my guess is the Democrats may get pretty big bounce.

WWTSBQ (4.00 / 1)
So, even if Clinton gets exactly what she wants at the Rules and Bylaws committee, Obama still only needs about three more delegates to go over the top. This is clearly an exercise in kabuki theater, and the nomination campaign is completely over.

If that is true why should Clinton end or suspend her campaign? Why not let this play out until Obama gets the winning number?

No problem (0.00 / 0)
Fine, let her be a candidate.  The real question is, since this has been inevitable since IN/NC, why has Hillary kept pushing so hard?  She can't win, even under her best case scenarios.  There's been nothing to gain, and plenty for the party to lose.

There's no question that even under the criteria she herself has re-iterated time and again that she should drop out when Obama goes over the top.  But she's already sending signals that no matter what happens next week, she plans on going to the convention (where, again, she can't win).  There's no good reason for that.  It could be just a campaigning position, putting on good front to keep her base motivated for the last 3 primaries.  But again, once those 3 primaries are finished, and it's all about the Superdelegates, what good reason could there be to continue fighting this out in the media?

[ Parent ]
If Obama has the numbers on his side (4.00 / 5)
(which he does), and there are no further contests, you have to ask yourself, does Hillary's staying in further the interests of the Democratic party or does in further her personal interests?
[ Parent ]
I support Obama, (4.00 / 3)
and once he's won, he's won. But until he's actually won--at a time, like now, when he's only secured a 99.8% chance of being the nominee, instead of actually being the nominee--he's gotta cope with this. So must we all.

I find many of the statements coming out of the Clinton camp ridiculous, and many of them insulting, too.

But frankly, if the Obama campaign and supporters can't win back disaffected Clinton supporters, then they--and we--completely suck. More than a few Obama supporters are being sore winners; shouldn't be so hard to understand why more than a few Clinton supporters (and perhaps parts of the campaign itself) are being sore losers.

There's plenty of time to heal wounds, despite some of the extremely, erm, passionate things being said right now. The vast majority of people aren't idiots. They might not work for a candidate who beat their candidate (though they might) but in the end they'll vote for him or her.

This just isn't such a huge problem. In five weeks, it'll be a dim memory.

[ Parent ]
Nice Perspective, Joel (4.00 / 1)
And I don't just say that because we have the same name.

I hope your "in five weeks" optimism is correct.  I tentatively believe it is.

[ Parent ]
Most of the damage is already done (4.00 / 6)
Most of what Clinton could do to hurt the party is already done.  She's pushed up Obama's negatives, given McCain a 3 month head start (which, fortunately, he hasn't made good use of), and gotten a sizable chunk of her base primed to vote against Obama or just sit it out.  She's created a situation where one way or another, the Democratic party is going to be pissing off a sizable chunk of their base.

At this point, she can either follow through and try to burn the party to the ground by kneecapping Obama for the General, or act to reverse the process.  My bet is that she follows through.  We have to figure out how to win this in spite of Hillary.

Agreed (4.00 / 1)
We need to assume at this point that Hillary is functioning as a third party candidate. As you say, we have to figure out how to win in spite of Hillary...and that's not going to be easy.
[ Parent ]
We? (0.00 / 0)
The Obama campaign, brilliant strategists that they are, have to figure out what they can offer Clinton.  This will require negotiations, tact, and respect.  I suspect (and I certainly hope) that they will be somewhat better at that than the majority of Obama supporters posting on this thread.
[ Parent ]
That presumes that (4.00 / 1)
offering Clinton something will sway her supporters. Judging from some responses on this thread, I'm not sure some fraction of her supporters are swayable.

And the vast majority who are, I expect, will require just as much an enticement as Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, etc., supporters did. That is, running against McCain is sufficient for all but a fraction, and nothing is enough for them.

I moved from my favorite candidate to my second favorite. And then to my tied-for-third favorite, Obama. I expect that great majority of Clinton supporters, easily able to choose between 'better' and 'worse', won't have much trouble doing the same.  

[ Parent ]
Hillary no longer the solution (4.00 / 4)
Hillary is rapidly approaching the point where she can no longer be considered to be acting in good faith.  She is using her supporters as a bargaining chip, and has overplayed her hand.  If she doubles down after June 3, the only option is to stop hoping that she will be part of the process of healing the party, and assume that she will obstruct it.

Obama's campaign, and the party leadership in general, need to accept that there is no painless way out of this.  Some number of Hillary supporters are going to wind up defecting or sitting out.  Letting Hillary be the only one in control of how many that is simply cannot be the ground rules anymore.

Each voter makes their own decision.  The party leadership will need to unify behind Obama, and reach past the Clintons and directly to the voters.  The logical ones to take the lead on that are the other senior female leaders in the party, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein and McCaskill.  Hillary herself needs to be marginalized at the same time every effort is made to speak past her, directly to her base, and assure them that they are not.  This will not be 100% effective, many of her supporters identify with her, have whole-heartedly embrace her campaign's position that a rejection of Hillary is a rejection of them, and simply cannot be convinced otherwise.  It will be about damage control at that point.

Hillary's last chance to show good faith is next week, after all the voting is done and Obama is the presumptive nominee by any reasonable standard.  If she blows it, she becomes an obstacle to overcome, not a fellow Democrat to be negotiated with.

[ Parent ]
We'll see... (0.00 / 0)
My premise is that any strategy that does not acknowledge the fact that the same number of people, as close as can be determined, voted for each candidate, is doomed to failure.  My sense is that Obama's people understand this.  They may in fact hate Clinton passionately, but with a few going off the reservation exceptions (Samantha Power), you don't hear the same bs coming out of the campaign that people spew on the blogs.  So my feeling is that marginalizing Clinton will assure the alienation of her base and lead to an unnecessarily close election, if not a loss, whereas getting her to campaign for Obama would make a large victory more likely.  But then again, I don't think she's the devil incarnate.  We'll see what Obama's people think; they haven't made many mistakes so far.
[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
As much as I am truly, truly frustrated with they way Clinton has campaigned, I still believe that she will campaign hard for Obama after she concedes next week.

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
At the same time, I don't really understand the rage that is directed at Clinton for continuing her campaign through June 3rd... Overall, continuing the campaign all the way through June 3rd seems to have far more benefits for Democrats, and even for Obama, than drawbacks.

Even aside from ThomasPaine's point, I think that a lot of the people who are upset at the continuing actions of the Clinton campaign would not be so upset if they honestly felt like Clinton was going to be continuing the campaign only until June 3.

If the argument was "Clinton wants to keep going until her last chances to gain delegates are over, give her these last few weeks to get a full accounting", that is a reasonable argument. But that is not the argument we are really hearing and indeed, the Clinton campaign is in many ways indicating they intend to take this long beyond June 3. That might not even make sense-- as you put it, what would Clinton even do after june 3--? But it doesn't really need to make sense. Many Obama supporters probably see the intent of the Clinton campaign at this point as not so much to win as to damage and delegitimize Obama as much as possible on the way out (and if that's the goal then why stop on June 3?)-- which is probably a totally unreasonable reading of the Clintons' goals, but it's not like the Clinton campaign has done much to dissuade anyone of this idea either.

I think if anybody had ANY idea what Clinton was trying to do at this point-- that is, if anybody had a specific idea when to expect this will end, if anybody knew there was some clear limit to exactly how bad this is going to get-- then maybe a lot of these people wouldn't be so irate. But the Clinton campaign's behavior remains so erratic and mysterious that it seems relatively reasonable to expect they could do practically anything next.

To be honest (0.00 / 0)
I have no idea what HRC will decide to do.  But my strong suspicion is that the decision will be contingent upon the outcome of some kind of negotiation with the Obama campaign regarding the VP slot, either to give it to her or to allow her input into the process.  For this reason, I could see things dragging out further into June but on a very low key level as she refuses to drop out formally in order to retain leverage but effectively stops campaigning for a while.  This outcome would be fine with me as long as things get resolved.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
"For a while"? (0.00 / 0)
Why should she campaign at all after June 3?  Or whatever date Obama crosses the final post-RBC goalpost position and becomes the presumptive nominee?  If she's still campaigning, as in still appearing on TV, holding fundraisers, staging rallies, or running her astroturfing operation, after her only chance to be the nominee is an Obama meltdown or other force majeure event she has no part in, what justification can there be?
[ Parent ]
She'll stay in (0.00 / 0)
I'll be surprised if she drops out.  The reason is very simple: too many people have voted for her.  Most likely more people have voted for her than for Obama.  But if not, it's a difference of less than 1%.  The right thing to do is to carry those votes to the convention.  The same thing would be true if it were the other way around.  

Obama's going to win.  But for Clinton to concede before the delegates actually vote at the convention would be wrong.

Two questions: (0.00 / 0)
One: Why is that the right thing to do?
Two: Should all the candidates have stayed in, to carry their votes to the convention? I don't see why the number of votes matters--seems like it's the principle of the candidate representing voters all the way to the convention. (For what purpose, I don't know; I'll await your answer to Number One!)
[ Parent ]
because it's that close (4.00 / 1)
Edwards was right to drop out: he wasn't hitting the viability thresholds.  Representing 48.7 against 48.5, or vice versa depending on which estimates you use, if different from representing the 2.8 leftover.

Part of my thinking this, of course, is that I view the extended primary as a massive boon to the party.  And whatever the Obama campaign offers her and her supporters to make a "unity" theme work (and it is the winner and not the loser who needs to make the move) will happen most effectively at the convention, in the presence of delegates who are campaign activists.

I would have liked to see her campaign on domestic policy issues where I think she's superior, and to have left the electibility bs completely out of it.

[ Parent ]
Well, my belief is that (0.00 / 0)
she failed the viability threshold some time ago, but I agree with you (deleting the 'massive' and just leaving the 'boon') on the extended primary.

Also agree on domestic policy. At least health care, where she seems obviously superior. Though, to give him credit, Obama seems at least as superior on foreign policy.

[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1)
on Obama's superiority on foreign policy.  Also a number of good government type issues.  (One of the most irritating things about how people get hyper-invested in their candidates is their loss of ability to agree on some things and disagree on others.)  My feeling has long been that the primary came down to a choice as to whether foreign or domestic policy was more important.  I think that this explains the income split in the demographics: higher income people are more likely to prioritize foreign policy.
[ Parent ]
That's a v. interesting idea I haven't (0.00 / 0)
heard before. Income and domestic vs. foreign policy. Makes sense ... though I'm not confident that enough people actually know the candidates' policies for this to have such an effect.

And this is where you should've used that 'massive': "One of the massively irritating things about how people get hyper-invested in their candidates is their loss of ability to agree on some things and disagree on others."

[ Parent ]
It's Her Prerogative (0.00 / 0)
It's Clinton's prerogative to stay in till the Convention.

I'm interested in what "going nuclear" would entail exactly.

Remember the "asbestos pantsuit"? It may come in quite handy!

she probably should... (0.00 / 0)
but I don't think she will.  This is brinkmanship, and as much as I hate it, Obama never delivered a knock-out.  This is going to have to be a win by decision.

And as long as the Convention, and Rules and Credentials meetings don't descend into some kind of Brooks Brothers Riot I can't really argue with her reasoning.

Let's hope this ends well.

vodamusic.com

Will she, or won't she? (0.00 / 0)
At this point, I don't think it really matters. She could be magnanimous and do what is in the best interest of the party and its new standard-bearer: Sen. Obama.  Or she could continue to march to "the beat of her own drum", and publicly challenge the wisdom of nominating someone other than herself.

But, really, does it matter?  Does what she decides to do have any influence on what Sen. Obama will do?  That is the real question.  And the answer is revealed in what Sen. Obama has been doing and continues to do: campaign against the republican candidate, Sen. McCain.

Clinton Must Drop Out Next Week | 121 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox