Clinton to the Convention?
When the Democratic primary calendar ends on June 3rd, Senator Obama will have more delegates than Senator Clinton.
On what grounds could a candidate who is behind at the end of a race avoid conceding that he or she has been beaten? On the grounds that the race really isn't over!
After the primary calendar has ended, Clinton's campaign can only justify or explain her staying in the race if she makes the case that the Democratic Party still has not chosen a nominee conclusively. Clinton needs an argument that the game should go into extra innings. Overtime. Bonus round. Detention. Whatever. Clinton has now found that argument -- she says she will not stop campaigning until the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates is settled to her satisfaction.
The Florida/Michigan issue get settled, of course, by the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee... unless of course that committee's decision gets appealed to the Credentials Committee... unless of course that decision, too, gets appealed... to the floor of the convention.
Do you see where this is going? If there is an open, unresolved procedural issue involving the Florida and Michigan delegations, Senator Clinton will be able to cite that as her justification for staying in the race until the convention even though she is not ahead in the nomination contest at the end of the primary calendar.
If she can ensure that the Florida and Michigan issue stays unresolved until the convention (and by appealing it every step of the way, I don't see how that can be avoided), then Clinton stays in the race until the convention. Staying in until the convention buys her three more months of campaign time, three more months to make her case to the party and the country, three more months for some potential political unfortunateness to befall Senator Obama.
And it keeps the race for the Democratic nomination open, at least theoretically, for Senator Clinton to win instead of Senator Obama.
How could Clinton win at the convention? Seems to me that three months is a long time in this race, and if it gets that far, anything could happen.
Pffft! You say. Scoff.
Listen: you don't need a vivid political imagination to recognize that if what you really want is to be President of the United States -- a slim chance of becoming President (a fight at the convention) is better than no chance of becoming President (because you dropped out).
The Clinton strategy, as best as I can tell, is to stay in the race. You can't win if you don't play -- conceding the nomination is sure defeat, not conceding means there's still a chance.
The way for her to avoid conceding is for her to avoid conceding that the race is resolved.
As long as the Florida and Michigan dispute is alive, and it is being used as the basis of Clinton's claim that the nomination is unresolved, we should expect that Senator Clinton will stay in the race.
We should also expect that if the Democratic Party's committee system takes up the Florida and Michigan dispute through its rules as they stand now, Clinton's campaign will be able to keep the Michigan and Florida dispute alive until the convention. If there's a secret Democratic-insider plan to keep that from happening, it's time for that plan to become un-secret.
The pundit corps has been counting Clinton out and saying the race is over -- but saying it doesn't make it so.
If Clinton fights to stay in until the convention -- which seems utterly plausible to me -- then I believe the Democratic Party's nominee (Obama or Clinton) will lose the general election to John McCain. This last point is of course infinitely debatable -- but my take is that in November, the party that's had a nominee since February/March, beats the party that only got a nominee the last week in August.
So, how does the Democratic Party get a nominee before the convention? Seems to me there's three things that need to happen. One small, one big.
First, Obama's campaign should stop believing what most of the press says, and start believing what Clinton says -- she isn't budging. If they don't mind the prospect of a divided convention, then fine -- if they do mind that prospect, they'll have to fight for their desired outcome. Clinton is now arguing that taking the fight to the convention is OK for the Democrats -- even noble. This argument won't be defeated by ignoring it -- Obama's camp will have to rebut.
Second, if the Democrats are to avoid a divided convention, the Florida and Michigan dispute will have to be taken off the table -- settled in a way that avoids the risk of a rules dispute that stretches the nominating contest out through the convention. I can think of only one way to do that, but there may be others.
Here's my way: based on my read of NBC's delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination -- even according to the most pro-Clinton math -- if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.
If they so declared before May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws committee would have no reason to take up the Florida and Michigan dispute because it would be a moot point -- Obama's camp could concede every Clinton demand on the subject and still win the nomination.
Otherwise? I'll be the twitchy one on radio row at the divided Democratic convention in Denver... spooked by the ghosts of 1968, 1972, 1980...
Rachel
PS -- I should note here, briefly, that I don't have a personal preference between Senators Clinton and Obama as to who would run a better campaign against John McCain, or who would be a better President. I think both Obama and Clinton would probably be pretty good general
election contenders, and probably they'd each be a good President. (50% of my hate mail tells me I'm in the tank for Obama and 50% of it tells me I'm in the tank for Clinton -- the level of vitriol on each side has risen and fallen with the tide of the campaign, though).
- FILED UNDER: Host Posts
- May 21, 2008
superdelegates
Rachel------I 100% agree with you. Hillary has been hanging on to go to the convention.I read in Huffington today that Sadan, a Clinton supporters has been offering a million dollars to superdelegates to support Clinton. Why isn't the media reporting this???
I think now is the TIME for SUPERDELEGATES to come FORWARD and SUPPORT OBAMA
HE HAS THE PLEDGED DELEGATES!!!!! What are they WAITING FOR????
DO THEY WANT TO LOSE IN NOVEMBER???? ARE THEY WANTING REPUBLICANS TO WIN????
UNLESS THIS IS HILLARYS PLAN TO MAKE SURE BOTH HER AND OBAMA ARE OUT AND THEN RUN IN 2012......WHICH I HAVE A NEWS FLASH FOR HER ...SHE WILL LOSE!!!
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEEDS TO STOP BABYING THE CLINTONS AND PUT A STOP TO HER NOW!!!!!!!
end of race
even if this goes to the rules committee, won't the process stop as soon as Obama has the 2210 delegates that would be required if Florida and Michigan were included. Therefore if a decision was made the 21st, Hilary protested, and on June 4th Obama hit 2215 or above, wouldn't it be over?
By jbroache May 22, 2008 - 6:50am
wouldn't it be over?
---------------------
It's not over until a candidate receives the number of votes from delegates needed on the ballot in Denver, the votes are cast, the ballot is tabulated, the nominee is announced, and said nominee gives his/her acceptance speech.
Those who think otherwise aren't paying close enough attention.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08
Super Dwebs!
100% agreement here! The candidate with the most votes wins (got that 'Superdelegates'?).
Let's eliminate this whole drawn out process of choosing a candidate. One primary election, one date, all candidates on the same ballot, and the one with the most votes wins.
End this silly business now!
If you can get the rules changed for next time
then perhaps. This year already has rules. Everyone knew the rules before the primaries began.
The Rules
Obama followed the rules laid out by the DNC. All candidates agreed to the rules. MI has offered to seat 59 delegates for Clinton and 49 for Obama. HRC refused. The RNC is raising more money than the DNC because we do not have a nominee. McCain already has had a free ride. The Clintons will have to be taken off stage kicking and screaming. I agree with you, this must be settled in ten days or McCain wins. Notice that John Edwards and the other candidates left when they knew they couldn't win. They care about the party. The Clintons have proven otherwise. I am very disappointed. I initially supported HRC until she began fighting like Karl Rove. The hard working Americans, white Americans was the final straw. Thank heavens I came to my senses before we voted in Oregon. Obama 08. He will win by playing by the rules. Love your show. You are the smart one in the family!
Re: The Rules
Re: your comment "I initially supported HRC until she began fighting like Karl Rove."
If HRC or her advisers were HALF as good as Rove, Obama woulda been history by now and SHE would be the clear front runner. Instead, she's repeatedly "mispoken" (a politically correct word for lying), altered her "brand" to every single niche voting sector, and couldn't keep her husband in the closet (he's hurt her campaign as much as she has).
I, too, was a Hilary supporter however her continued effort is hurting the party. She doesn't have the judgment and grace my man Edwards has always shown.
I'm not sold on Obama. McCain and the Reps scare the beejeeesus outta me and we gotta restore this country's reputation and path. This election is the most important one ever and I feel we don't have the best candidate!
Rachel, you rock!!
I agree with you, Wilder
As you, I used to like Hillary until she started channeling Karl Rove. Her behavior led me to do quite a bit of research on her and Bill going way back and I don't like what I have learned. For our country to survive, we must end this Bush/Clinton monarchy and I, for one, wish that the Clinton's would just go back to Arkansas and leave us all alone. Their style of politics sickens me and you are right in stating that they don't care about the party. In fact, I wonder if they even care about our country. Seems that the lust for power is what drives them. By the way, this has become such an emotional issue for me that listening to Randi Rhodes on Nova M as well as Ed Schultz gives me so sort of validation. This is just all so maddening after these last 7 1/2 years of complete insanity ruling our nation.
rules
This is disgusting, this kind of action to try to keep two people and their egos satisfied. This is NOT about democracy, it is about demagoguery. I wholeheartedly agree with Rachel's analysis, we are toast in November if this keeps up.
I met Pat Tillman's mother tonight and I am reading her book about his death and the lies the military foisted on that family. She pointed out there are more families who have been lied to about their loved ones' death. The Democrats need to be reminded that they need to represent those families and the ones who cannot speak for themselves.
To think I used to be proud to be a superdelegate. I am ashamed of all my former colleagues' behavior and hope they can find their honor somewhere in their souls. Work for the country not yourselves or those who want to continue this parade of lies, manipulations and abuse. That very well includes the Clintons.
The Pledge
The Pledge ...
"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign OR PARTICIPATE in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)."
Her words ...
“… we all had a choice as to whether or not to PARTICIPATE in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn’t. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall."
Her pledge. Her words. She signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE. She then acknowledged that she chose to PARTICIPATE.
Now she wants us to act like all is well and pretend that she's been playing by the same rules all along, and let her have all those votes that never should have been cast. And she thinks that should then make her the nominee? Or, if not, that she should receive some big ransom to get her to shut up and quit destroying the party?
Thanks for bringing that up
That second word is ALWAYS missing when this is brought up and the Hillbots insist she didn't actively campaign, so it is OK.
But check this
I understand Rachel and Hillarywatcher's trepidation. I've been irked that, despite a pretty clear message ("Not this year; we like you but now's not your year") from the people whose support she needs, Hillary has in effect been campaigning for (*shudder*) McCain.
And I understand what draws Rachel to get on the tube at 6:00; I hope she continues to prevail in that benighted medium; tv needs the illumination she brings. I just wish it didn't mean sucking David Gregory and all the other gasbags into the once-blissful universe of the beginning of Rachel Maddow daily radio. I'm glad I don't need to participate in oddsmaking in the dead-serious exercise of democracy. But it's Rachel's calling. Guess somebody has to do it. Maybe.
Anyway, here's a perspective on Clinton's persistence from another handicapper:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-the-long-primary-batt_b...
Note to HillaryWatcher: I can shout; don't hear you. (with thanks to Firesign Theater)
Relying on Huffpo?
What one should never do is use Huffpo bloggers as a reference...ever...
Wha??? Why I . . . .
Huffington Posters. Yeah - buncha hacks and amateurs. Like Gary Hart, Nora Ephron (fun!). And Robert Creamer:
"Robert Creamer has been a political organizer and strategist for almost four decades. He and his firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, work with many of the country’s most significant issue campaigns. He was one of the major architects and organizers of the successful campaign to defeat the privatization of Social Security. He is a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform. He has also worked on hundreds of electoral campaigns at the local, state and national level. Creamer is married to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois."
Wish there were an indenter thing on this bloggie.
Pleasant dreams
- A
Not in the tank
Hi, Rachel!
Certainly I have never thought you were in the tank for any candidate. However, I do notice a similarity to the protagonist of Chicken Little.
Excessive negativity makes one vulnerable to foxes; sit back and contemplate that, quietly. Get an umbrella and use it, before spreading panic and disillusionment because an acorn fell on your head. And, instead of telling Barack Obama what to do, like some TV pundit, study what he does and learn how to make that part of your own life. Watch him, see how he avoids panicking; learn how to do the same.
barry schwartz
blogging: http://chemoelectric.org
free stuff: http://crudfactory.com
Oh, right on
We are the party of change and nothing that happens can change that. (Affirmation)
excellent analysis, Rachel!
Excellent analysis on *what* Clinton is using for Denver leverage to pry open a position of strength in the new administration... Its more than just the threat of an independent campaign or just chaos...
its real chaos... planned chaos...
doesn't that sound a familiar refrain?
They just keep coming, don't they? I hate to say I enjoyed Rachel's '10 Day' analysis, but it was really persuasive. There's no sugar-coating it, there's nothing to enjoy, merely a perspective to process & motivation to thwart...
"it takes a village": Clinton & a bicycle
Clinton's Scorched Earth extortion & the Judgement of Solomon
Man, I hope this all shakes out in a good way...
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
"Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!"
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @ ThisCanadian
Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced
Learn. Think. Believe & Act...
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
It's all about money
Hi Rachael,
I agree with you and have for a long while now. It wasn't until today, while I was listening to your radio show that something dawned on me. Very soon many of the super delegates in the House and Senate will be coming up for election. One of your listeners mentioned the letter sent from Hillary's fundraisers to Nancy Pelosi regarding their withdrawal of support should Hillary not be the nominee come the convention. It occurs to me that maybe this is the reason that so many loyalist are still supporting Clinton, even though she has made so many pro-RNC/pro-McCain comments as of late. This has also given me pause regarding those super delegates that are not taking a stand for Obama now.
While I am not certain that I buy the idea that Hillary Clinton is promising $1 MM to super delegates for their support, I do think there are some purse strings attached to their trepidation to actively endorse Obama. While he has managed to garner record breaking sums of money for his cause, I can see that they are still concerned that they will not be able to do the same when it comes time for them to run. Obama's support is strictly grass roots and not backed by large donors that would be able to help support fellow DNC members during their election times. I find it interesting that the DNC has already brokered a deal with Obama and Clinton to merge the two campaigns financially once a nominee is chosen and to use the money he has raised to help with other campaigns during the fall election cycle. My concern is that there have been some backroom deals where Clinton will in fact get the nomination despite Obama's insurmountable lead. They get the money, and she gets the White House and he gets kicked to the curb.
To be honest, the thought makes my stomach turn summersaults, but it seems to make the most sense. Talk about corruption in politics! I think that these guys would almost welcome defeat in the White House, if it means they keep their seats when their time comes calling.
I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am with the leadership of the DNC right now. After Clinton and her surrogates, like Gloria Allred starting claiming sexism as the reason for their poor showing in the delegate math, I wrote letters to a number of women in Congress that I know are supporting Clinton. To have a woman of her stature call "sexism" and not see her own fault in this diminishes all that she has accomplished for women in this race and taints what this could mean for women in the future. It makes me want to scream.
Then after listening to her in Florida today, I almost choked on my coffee. She will not go quietly into the sweet good night and politics will not change in Washington. Hillary Clinton will make certain of that.
I think you are absolutely right in your analysis, and I think that you need to bring a bell to Countdown and ring it a number of times for Keith, because you WERE right, even if he disagreed. She is going to do everything that she can to take this to the convention and beyond, even if she has to tear the Party down around her. It is so frustrating that there is nothing that we can do, but sit back and wait for a bunch of scared, hapless, immature super delegates make up their minds. And if McCain gets into office, which he will if Clinton has her way... God help us all.
Obama will clinch it by June 4
Obama's campaign has the private support of sufficient super delegates to wrap this up and most of them have told the campaign they will jump the day after the last primary. We will have a nominee by the end of the first week of June and that nominee will be Obama.
I don't doubt for a minute that you are correct in your assessment of Clinton strategy. It just ain't goning to work.
Which means...
Which means, as someone recently advised us, that we should look to Obama and emulate his response. Hillary is a powerful, fightin' Democrat who won't let go until the last dog dies. She is the leader of a significant and requisite faction of a winning Democratic Party. Let's let Barak finish his race, he doesn't need us to worry over him or doubt his capacity for leadership. Relax, boys & girls, just watch democracy happen.
10 Day Timeline
While you've created an interesting scenario, it ignores teh fact that Hillary could try to tie up the super delegates as well, and Obama would then need Michigan and Florida. And if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure Obama would want "all the delegates counted"
We have to realize that situation the DNC finds itself is self-inflicted. Their own rules have created the situation. You also have to realize that most of the Dems are sick and tired of our weenie leadership. Pelosi and Reid are weak and spineless. They have accomplished nothing for the party.
Now ask yourselves who has done more for the Democratic party at the local, state and federal level than the Clinton in the last 20 years? They have worked hard, raised money, campaigned and supported nearly 100 elected positions in teh last 16 years. Including Obama.
Hillary knows if she drops out, Obama will not have really won the nomination, but was "gifted" the nomination. Not a good thing for a candidate hoping to beat a war hero.
However, if Hillary really wanted the White House at any cost, she could easily launch an Independent ticket, offer Colin Powell VP, Patreus DOD, Lieberman SOS and Edwards AG.
She'd have enough support from frustrated voters from both parties, plus her own base.
I doubt Obama or McCain could beat Hillary in a general election.
Finally, McCain is getting no press or traction and has two candidates to battle. Don't under estimate the American voter. McCain is the Admiral Stockdale of 2008.
Obama supporters may not like the way politics is played, but that's the game he's chosen to play. There's already a playbook, and Hillary knows all the plays. She will play to win,
not appease the weak kneed leadership of the DNC and the DEM Party.
You are a dem, vworkman, right?
Criticise my party leaders freely. Please, however, wait until a more favorable opportunity; if you are the Democrat you claim to be. We are in the middle of a presidential campaign here. Leadership battles are for another place and time. I'm sure when the elections are over and Obama is the leader of the party we will have ample time to consider changes in personnel. Until then, let us rally round the party. Ya' know, that's what the old phrase is about. "Now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of the party."
I find your attitude suspicious. Dirty tricksters of the Rove Sengritti school are busy on the blogs, sowing discord. If you are one of them, you are very clever and not our friend. If you are one of us you do not understand the process and you are creating needless discord in our ranks. Please desist in either case.
Rachel is wrong
The issue is not whether Obama can get 90 more super delegates by May 31 or June 4th, the issue is he CANNOT get the number of pledged delegates by that time. Neither of them can, and while his having more super delegates to put him over the top makes no difference; the super delegates only count at the convention and can switch at any time up till then. So on June 4th Obama will be where he has been since the beginning, ahead of Clinton, but not enough to win on the first ballot at the convention without the super delegates and there is no rule saying she has to drop out. She has every right to stay until the convention to make sure the delegates really do what the "say" they will do. What the super delegates say is a verbal contract by politicians, so how much water does that hold?
Besides, Hillary has wanted to be president since college, and if she doesn't do it now she may never have another chance. She should have dropped out after the 12 straight losses, but as Rachel said she is post rational visa-via the benefits of the party versus her ambition, and it seems the longer she stays in saying Obama hasn't won yet, she is proven right; even if its with the help of the right wing voters and operation chaos.
dansama May 22, 2008 - 2:59am: WHAT THE HECK?
First off I would like to respond to your later point stating: "...Besides, Hillary has wanted to be president since college, and if she doesn't do it now she may never have another chance..." and say that JUST because someone may WANT something, doesn't mean they will or SHOULD get that something.
This kind of simplistic reasoning reminds me of when my 7 year old niece, who truly does think that just because she wants the latest software she should get it, and this leaves her folks seeming to be somewhat mystified that they can actually say NO.
YES YOU CAN! When we have a government we hopefully want it run by adults and when that is done as expected, we have RULES & REGULATIONS that govern our country, just like my sister's kid. Hillary, along with all of the other candidates agreed ahead of time that BECAUSE both Florida & Michigan broke the rules of the DNC, they would be punished. Heck, even Hillary's head hack (Terry McAuliffe) did that very same thing when he was the DNC Chairman all those many 4 years ago. I know, it was so long ago that perhaps he forgot what he himself actually did with those who broke Party rules.
And I would like to conclude that Obama DOES have more delegates than Clinton at this point in time and DOES have the majority thereof. It is highly unlikely (and so incredibly stupid) for the so called "super delegates" to overturn the voters will, no matter how much you might like that to be done. For you to have your wish, it WILL ensure the Democratic Party will go into civil war AND we can thus be ensured we WILL lose the election of 2008. THIS FACT ALONE, should be of prime concern for anyone who loves this country noting that if we have one more Republican Ruler right now, we will surely be forged into everlasting wars, a plummeting recession, an ever expanding LOSS of domestic jobs, the OVERTURNING OF ROE v WADE, along with a Supreme Court that will be so far RIGHT that it will take decades to correct the problems and so much more that this space limits.
I hope you might reconsider this kind of resistance for the sake of our beloved country!
not wishing
I was following up on Rachel's points which were to step outside of what we want and what the "experts" are saying and to look at the facts. The facts are that Obama cannot win on a first ballot without super delegates and they can switch their vote at any time. Hillary is running out the clock and her tone and speeches are not in a conciliatory, nor headed toward a graceful exit. Obama won this election 3 months ago, but Hillary is still fighting that because mathematically and technically she is right. I think it has been bad for the party and the country, but that is her prerogative, her right, and according to her, her duty. I was speculating on her motives based on what the facts versus her actions have been and it seems like its ego over common sense.
That aside, I am not wanting a brokered convention and I think John McCain will be a nightmare for this country as has been the war criminal we have now. I want the Democratic party to unify sooner rather than later so not only they win the White house, but the winner has very long coattails and brings in a super majority in the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Maybe even roll back the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretaps, the rendition and torture doctrine, the Military Commissions act and restore Habeas Corpus, end the money laundering scheme called the Iraq war, restoring the justice department to impartiality, etc.
You show your ignorance, dansama
While politicians are famous for phony "campaign promises" the truth is that promises made among themselves and pledges such as we are dealing with here are scrupulously kept by successful politicians. In the ranks of the political class there is nothing worse than someone who promises and then reneges. That's why the ragin' cajun was so fired up over Richardsons' defection. That is also why so many supers have stayed on the sideline. Early on they promised Hillary they would not publicly pledge against her until the primaries were over. She has counted heavily on that promise to keep her candidacy alive. Even though it would serve most of them to dump her early and go over to the winner they have stuck with their word because politicians live by their word. Once they have declared this race is done. Hill can suspend and wait it out but the fun is over and the race for the big chair will be on. If you are a Democrat, now is the time to act like one. Whoever the nominee is, the past will be the past. The White House is ours in November. Be with us, or be square.
Egos Before Anything
I agree absolutely with what you have to say. You have to remember that most people don't pay as much attention as we do and most people have probably already tuned out to everything - all they hear or see are the short snippets the media feeds the population. It doesn't matter what network you're talking about, all of them are spewing more garbage than most average people can handle. The result of this drawn out process which so many democrats refer to as "healthy" and "good" for the democratic party is that the danger is extremely high that the race will be lost.
It's amazing to me really because it's like a soccer game and you're standing in front of an empty goal and still manage to miss the shot. How DO democrats manage this?
I used to be of the opinion that no matter what democrat we get, we're better off but considering how Clinton is conducting herself, I'm really having my doubts. She will say anything that will help her in the short term and if anything, that's a big indicator of how she would be in office and I think this is why Obama has so much appeal to people because he isn't as big of a wh*** as Clinton is. He wouldn't throw his Rev. under the bus until it was clear he stepped over the line. He won't buy into any of the cheap election promises such as bringing OPEC to justice? Oh man that was hillaryous (anyone have a copyright on that term yet?) - Hillary said she would take on big oil - you go girl lol - let's not forget that the reason some this country's lowest voter turn out was during Bill Clinton's presidency, because everyone thought wow there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
I couldn't believe what happened in 2004 but I'm at the point where I believe that people will get what they deserve and if we get McCain - well I guess it's time for me to move back to Germany.
Rachael, keep up the good work.
My Blog: www.meranting.com
Agree on math - not timeline
I agree with Rachel's math that about 90 supers is what Obama would need to clinch - even in the scenario that FL and MI are fully seated based on the primaries. I also agree that getting those delegates before May 31 would make things go more smoothly at the RBC meeting that day. However, I think that if Obama gets those supers after May 31, it would still decide the nomination and render any credentials challenge moot in that regard.
Those 90 (a rough number) come from a pool of 241 uncommitted (or unnamed) superdelegates - that includes the FL and MI supers, who would be in play under that scenario I see little doubt that Obama will get that number, but it's unlikely before June 3.
Yup, Barak Obama: June 3 (or
Yup, Barak Obama: June 3 (or shortly thereafter).
Clinton
Boston Legal's closing episode mentioned the Clinton administration having out-of-country cites for administration "detainees" with questionable treatment of those being held. Tell us more, please ...
I'm tired of politics ... get it over and done ... if the question of a candidate goes further than June, I'm out of here ... you will have lost my vote ...
Mightymulch is Out of Here because you don't like politics-WHAT?
For goodness sakes, do NOT threaten to desert us merely because you are sick and tired of an overextended and disgraceful continuation of Hillary's campaign because Obama is winning this election. We NEED all of the votes we can get to make sure that another Republican does NOT get back into office.
IF you do not "like" politics, than perhaps you just need to watch different shows while maintaining your own stance in a National vote come November.
So perhaps you might reconsider your somewhat selfish (?) and untimely threat of a no vote and hang in there with the rest of the nation, who actually DO need you!
By Polly Tics May 22, 2008 - 8:21am
We would be wise to pay closer attention to the sentiment that mightymulch expressed. Point of fact, I'm hearing it more and more from the "man on the street" regarding the Democratic battle. More and more, I hear from folks who are saying that they had really wanted the Democrats to win but are now souring on them as a result of all this nonsense. More and more, folks are being turned off by the heat of the battle.
Thanks, Hillary.
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08
SJerseyIndy May 22, 2008 - 5:43pm
SJerseyIndy,
Whereas I understand being fed up with the ongoing fight that Hillary herself is intent on waging ,with the devastating effects felt throughout the Party, I will never be able to understand why anyone would give up on their own vote and their own country for a little agitation.
For goodness sakes people, many of us are furious at the ongoing antics of Hillary and her army of angry women who are oblivious to anything other than their own fury, are intent on bullying the country and Obama into obeying their wishes; BUT there is so much MORE at stake!
SJerseyIndy, you ask me to to pay closer attention to the sentiment that mightymulch expressed and I say that is nonsense! WE are the adults and the ones that will determine if we can actually right this nation of ours. The past 8 years of disgraceful, so called leadership has left a country and people wrecked in riches, spirit and in heart with a failing economy that is closing in on us all with such speed it is startling. Need I suggest that there is no time to waste especially with coddling those who do not seem to have the patience or adult foresight to actually put some tough time in for this place we call home!
Bologna, if we are to right this land of ours, we must unite and do our very best to fight against those who are insisting on leading us over the edge of no return. And if some of "us" do not have the patience or the willingness to fight for our nation, than that will be on their own conscience.
Polly, try thinking of them
Polly, try thinking of them as mere spoilers. They never were with us to begin with and many of them are just gloating trolls, for cryin' out loud.
Don't kid me, bub, we never
Don't kid me, bub, we never had your vote.
Something has changed in
Something has changed in Hillary this past February.
Her stance changed, her attitude suddenly seemed buoyed, her face a bit more secretive and her eyes became more protruding and glazed. I was once a Hillary & Bill Clinton fan, but those days seem to be eons ago; these days my feelings about these two border on how I feel about their fellow Neo-Cons.
What happened in February? Well, I (still) believe that is when both she and her campaign (Bill) decided to align with the infamous Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You know, that's the group with whom they now seemingly have Vast Connections. Hillary has proven herself to be friend and cohort with most of the Fox news team with her "people" praising FOX in their balance of news reporting, she has had a couple of high level meetings with one Richard Mellon Scaife (the main mas in the VRWC), has herself praised FOX and their "fairness" in reporting what she wanted them to report and let's nto forget Billie boy who actually made a big time appearance on the RUSH LIMBAUGH radio show. My goodness, even Lanny Davis the supposed once fair litigator who fought for the Clinton's has now immersed himself in the dirt that is FOX News.
All along both Hillary and her campaign have told everyone they are taking this fight to the convention, yet the media as well as most political sites, seem to not believe that threat. This woman has had full intention of taking this fight to the convention for many reasons; a few of which have to do with bloodying Obama beyond recognition to benefit herself AND McCain along with using her female followers as her own private warriors to once again threaten the powers that be.
Once a bully, always a bully...
Your analysis
¡YIKES! That was scary. If what you say is true, Hillary's character flaws are evident
and disqualify her from being president. I suggest you present this on Olbermann.
I Told You So...
Dear Rachel:
You said it weeks ago, when everyone of us was writing Hillary's post-mortum: She is not finished --- not by a long shot. What saddens me is that Hillary has become a toxic lightening rod: a rallying point for those who are voting against Obama and a magnet for those who don't want 'too much change' and the legions of women who see her as a role model. Sadly she has, and will continue to use, all of these constituencies to forward her Shermanesque March to the White House. I've always known that the Clintons are cheesy, but I didn't believe they could be this mean spirited. It really astounds me. And......like the wrecking ball of Rev. Wright's performance at the NPC, Barack Obama is again facing the greatest threat from inside his own family ---- this time the Clinton Democrats. Has Barack been tested? You bet he has? Has he had to manage attacks from within and from without? Indeed. Will he prevail despite all this vitriol? You just watch'em!
Hallelujah, sister.
Hallelujah, sister.
gi bill
i live in ohio. one of my senators, sherrod brown, is supporting the gi bill. the other, george voinovich, is not on the list. i called his dc office this morning. i was told senator voinovich has not released an issues statement about you, but my concerns would be passed along. i was then asked asked if i wanted him to support the bill or not. didn't rachel say the vote would be today. if so, what the heck is he waiting for. even representive mean jean schmidt is supporting the bill!http://myspace.com/travioli1976
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye.
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince
Noble?
I'm a first-time poster here but am SUCH a fan of yours, Rachel! I love the way you go "toe-to-toe" (ugh, did I just say that???) with Joe Scarborough who obviously has issues with strong women.
I also would like to comment that the dark blue border on the left of the blog (I know, it's Air America, not you personally) makes it really hard to read.
I totally agree with you that Obama needs to be very generous re: MI & FL. HOWEVER, I think MI's delegates should be halved, still giving HRC the proper proportion because it was a Soviet election. FL should be seated fully.
What I'm really fed up with is HRC turning this presidential contest into a women's movement, one based on the old feminism of victimhood, not a true LEVEL playing field.
Here's my Morning Rant:
Okay, I can't hold it in any longer.
Hillary needs to tone down the rhetoric about taking this FL/MI thing to the convention. It's making her look silly and making the party look silly. It's giving the GOP a potential talking point: "if Dems can't even run their own primaries..."
I am REALLY SICK of this bullsh!t. First of all, the supers need to step up today and begin endorsing Obama again. Six or seven would be nice. It would give a signal to HRC that her aggressive rhetoric will NOT be tolerated.
Secondly, for all the women on the comment boards and blogs who keep screaming "Sexism!" they need to re-evaluate what feminism really is. If Barack was in Hillary's position, he would have been forced out months ago. What HRC's supporters are deaf to is that it was Hillary's campaign that lost it for her. She didn't plan to contest caucus states and it's come back to bite her. That's NOT sexism and it's no one's fault except HILLARY's.
As for her women supporters who are claiming that ppl in the party are telling her to "shut up and sit down" well, no SH*T! It has NOTHING to do with her uterus. It's for the GOOD OF THE PARTY. If she was a male candidate, you better believe they'd tell him the same thing.
I am totally and utterly shocked that Hillary's supporters care more about being victims and touting HRC's victimhood than uniting the party to make sure a Democrat wins in the fall. Their short-sighted selfish desires for so-called "equality" serve only to hand McSame victory in November.
I want to make something ELSE clear: I'm a 37 yr old single mom who believes that feminism means EQUAL FOOTING, a LEVEL playing field. By HRC's desire to change the rules regarding MI/FL and claiming it's as vital to this nation as civil rights and sufferage, she insults those historical landmarks. Her own selfish desire for power is NOT equal to civil rights for all. It's insulting and disgusting.
Obama was VERY GENEROUS in Iowa when he said she was a role model for young girls.
Sorry for all the cussing, but I just had to get it out. I'm soooooooooooooooooooo tired of her!!!!
Actually I think what
Actually I think what Senator Clinton is doing is incredible, if you see it from her side she can't loose , she makes it to the convention she either gets the nomination or not.... if she does she believes she can rip mccain a new one and win or she looses and prays Senator obama looses.....4 years later she wiser and more cunning and wins in 2012 against the failed polices of McBush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Threats are not met well at this point, if ever
Ron, while your heart "may" be in the right place, your political savvy is not.
Senator Clinton is tearing up the Democratic Party even though you may be amused by the antics involved. Her actions are hardly without impact and her very aim at continuing this campaign, just may set the party into a civil war. Let us all hope and pray that will not be the case, but to think that is not one of the many potential outcomes of this aggravated attack is simply naivety.
yet poly you must see it
yet poly you must see it from the Clintons stand point...they have never cared for party unity....gop dems all the same to them in the centrist point of view.... these days for the clintons its the end game....tearing a party apart that won't happen and they know that ...see as a former rep/now blue dog dem/ ind i can see that the McCain of today is a shadow of the past and nothing short of a Obama scandal if he's the one or Clinton new aide "suicide" scandal can change the fact that one of them will be pres. if they just talk to the people and point out the past 8 years ...naive no rip party apart no..pundits need stuff to talk about and that's that""
Famouser
I think every additional day HRC stays in is priceless P.R. for her future recognition level in world history. Is there some way we can turn this around so that it becomes an embarrassment rather than an advantage? So much notoriety should be embarrassing these days but is still convertible into money.
Can Angela Merkel call her off? No, probably not Merkel's style...
Cheaters never win - Clinton will not win
I become amused & frustrated
I become amused & frustrated @ logical arguments premised on 'knowledge' of somebody's thoughts, feelings, motives.
Even if you've been personally told by HC (& I'll bet nobody here has), how can ANYBODY say they know what's in her (or anyone else's) heart or mind? Those kind of arguments sorta drive me crazy - @ best, it's guessing.
I think our dear Dr.'s made some excellent points - & I agree that both contestants are equally qualified. I'm leaning toward Obama, - he seems to possess more gravitas - & he certainly seems to've made all the right choices.
FWIW, I think Hillary Clinton would make a great Sec. of State.
I think she'd more effective
I think she'd more effective in Senate Leadership role, Teddy is going to have to spend time with his family and Hillary would have more impact there than in an Obama adimin. It'll be up to BO though, of course...
This was over weeks ago
If it weren't Hillary Clinton the media would have told you so.
What do ya think?
I agree with Rachel's analysis, but I think Obama needs to personally broker the deal. That way, the committees and superdelegates will look at it as charity from Obama, and even if it does give Hillary the popular vote, it would leave an indelible asterisk by her claims.
By flypaperMay 22, 2008 - 11:07am
I think more people in the media should inform people that Clinton is trying to disenfranchise more people with her "popular vote" argument than voters whose vote did not count in FL and MI.
FL and MI were told their results wouldn't count. What went into that decision is another matter. The fact is that you cannot use those results because they do not reflect an accurate count.
Clinton's popular vote argument is changing the rules. She is saying that those states that had a caucus only do not count.
Clinton thought this was hers because of who she is from the start. That is why she blew through her money so fast early on. She was careless. And now she will do anything to find a way for the party to hand her what she thinks is hers.
so
so true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it me or ...
does anyone else find Hillary just as annoying and grating as I do? I'm an Obama supporter but if she was the nominee, sure, I would have voted for her, however, since she's losing, and is doing everything possible to delay the inevitable, the more I hear her, the more I'm really, REALLY beginning to not only just dislike her, but hate her. The straw that's breaking this camel's back? Her sudden "change of heart" regarding MI and FL. Look, I want people's votes to count just as much as the next guy ... BUT ... it was the STATE legislatures (headed up by the GOP with a few Dems signing on) that moved the primaries up AGAINST WELL established DNC rules; the state legislatures were FULLY AWARE that the votes WOULD NOT COUNT - the voters went into the voting booth knowing full well (and if they didn't pay attention, shame on them) that the votes WOULD NOT COUNT; All candidates SIGNED AN AGREEMENT to not only not campaign in either state but acknowledging that ... THE VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT. Now that Hillary is losing, she suddenly wants the votes to count ... WTF? I can guarantee you this ... if Obama were doing this, Hillary would have her granny panties in SUCH a wad, they'd need to be surgically removed. The final kicker for me? When she likened her "struggle" to the Civil Rights struggle, the Zimbabawe elections and putting her "struggle" solely on the fault of ... sexism. Another WTF?? If it was such an issue, why didn't she ... BRING IT UP SOONER? Her timing is VERY suspect, to say the least.
In my mind, the DNC should, pursuant to it's rules, which rules were blatantly violated by MI & FL, the votes should not count and the delegates not be seated at the convention. To set the rules and then allow MI & FL to disregard the rules, sets a dangerous precedent.
Should the DNC choose to allow those delegates and votes count, it tells me that states can break well established rules, knowing full well that, in the end, the DNC will roll over, and not penalize those breaking the rules. And, what does that tell those who DO follow the rules?
In my humble opinion, Hillary is NOT doing herself - or the party - any favors by pulling a move right out of the GOP handbook, which is "win at all costs, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the rules." Selfishness at its finest, I suppose.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
By Pookie2112 May 22, 2008 - 12:19pm
Is it me or ...does anyone else find Hillary just as annoying and grating as I do?
-------------------------
Glad to see you've finally joined us.
;-)
What was it that put you over the edge?
Was it Hillary trying to compare this:
To this:
?
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08
By SJerseyIndyMay 22, 2008 - 5:53pm
LOL - It's been like a VERY long and VERY slow dragging of nails across a chalkboard! I've tolerated her bullshit for months now but her speech yesterday just pushed me right over the edge, ala "Mass Cow Suicide" (gotta love South Park!). I can safely say that IF she manages to steal this nomination, I will NOT vote. Why am I going to reward that bitch for being nothing but "Georgina" Bush?
Can you IMAGINE if this was Obama cheating his way to the nomination? Christ, knowing her and Bill, they'd be standing out in front of his campaign headquarters with a fucking NOOSE.
I've written to the DNC telling them that if they let MI and FL slide, EVERY election cycle will be just like this because if MI and FL can get away with it, why can't other states? Every election year will be a MAJOR clusterfuck.
What a fucking selfish and hypocritical bitch Hillary is.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
JUNE 3RD THRU AUG 25 POACHING SEASON!
JUNE 3R THRU AUG 25 POACHING SEASON!
(D-NY) US/Senator Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton, has no intent of Termination of the Clinton Campaign. In Hillary's mind it's Hillary's Presidency, having missed being in office in (2004-2012). Hillary is (61), the age at which Presidents are leaving office in general. Hillary will be running for office at age (65), if Hillary can make sure that (D-IL) US/Senator Barrack "Barry" Hussein Obama is so damaged by the campaign that the (INDEPENDENTS), see a stronger party in the (GOP) Grand Old Party, playing by the rules, and (REPUBLICANS) lockstepping, and having addmitted the mistakes of the last (8) eight year, have lost (3) special elections in a row, during the next (3) months laying out positive programs to create real change. And, Clintonistas, either voting (R-AZ) US/Senator John Sydney McCain III, or not voting at all.
This is Hillary's only time, the Democratic's never let a loser run again, and new blood will want there chance at the office. Hillary see's a win, win for Hillary, if Hillary wins the nomination, and wins its a third term Clinton Presidency, if Hillary loses it's do to the "Sexist" Campaign run against Hillary, the "Good-Old-Boy's-Club", it's the "Glass Ceiling" etc. etc. etc.
If Hillary doen't get the nomination, at least Obama is damaged goods with little chance of winning and no chance of bring the party together at all, to divided a party with to little time to bring it together. And, when Obama loses the "General" Election, Hillary can crow "I TOLD YOU SO", self justification.
But, between June 3rd and Aug 25, it is "Delegate Poaching Time"! Dealing with Hillary is like dealing with the "Red Chinese" right out the "Little Red Book", say anything, talk, talk, talk, sign anything but continue the struggle. So, it is with Hillary the "Non-Poaching Pledge", had a limited time frame, the length of time it took for the ink to dry. Hillary will have (3) months of poaching time to use on "Pledged and Super-Delegates".
In Hillary's mind it ain't over until the votes are cast, and not until. And, if Hillary is not the one, neither is it going to be Obama!
The most that Hillary will do is "Suspend" the Clinton Campaign saving cash, and building up reserves, cutting staff, retaining "Pledged and Super-Delegates" while actively "Poaching" Obama "Pledged and Super-Delegates". Hillary will neither Terminate, nor release "Pledged or Super-Delegates", the Super-Delegates who do leave will be facing the wrath of Hillary from that point on.
Superdelegates should vote in secret!
Why do we know who the superdelegates are voting for? My boss doesn't know who I vote for. IMO they should vote in secret at the convention. We all know there's promises being made and horses being traded to secure these votes. How is that democratic?
By AmyCarterMay 22, 2008 - 12:31pm
Superdelegates aren't democratic. These people are given the status of super citizen in terms of their voting power in the nomination process. It is small compensation that they do not get to vote in secrecy. I mean if you are to justify super delegates as being wise party leaders (laugh) that perhaps the voting public should look to for guidance on viable candidates then their votes should be public and early.
By AmyCarter May 22, 2008 - 12:31pm
Superdelegates shouldn't even exist!
Let The People have their say fixxy!
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08
No. They are acting here as
No. They are acting here as representatives of the party. Should your Senators vote on the GI Bill be allowed to be Secret? Of couse not. This is that kind of vote. Not like a citizen voting for candidates. See the diff? Easy error for a beginner.
There are no bad questions, just unanswered ones.
Florida and Michigan
I don't understand why it is so hard to determine delegates from Florida and Michigan. Just invite every elected democrat from those states to the convention, from the dogcatcher to the governor. They vote (in secret.) If the Florida caucus votes 55/45 in favor of Hillary, then apportion Florida's delegate count accordingly. Howard Dean has got to go.
Elections Cost Money and Take Time...
Amy Carter,
The idea of holding a second election in both Florida and Michigan has been discussed many times by the DNC, the States involved and each campaign, however what you seemingly are forgetting is the high cost of conducting such an election. The DNC does not have the money to do such a thing, nor should they since it was the states themselves who broke Party rules.
The states say they don't have the money for another election and neither do they have the proper time to do so in a fair and proper manner. So here we are, the two states that DISOBEYED the Party's rules and were warned they would be stripped of their delegates come the Primary, along with the candidates who ALL signed agreements to not campaign nor count the delegates in either state.
What none of us expected was a contested election such as is being conducted currently and in so doing all sides are trying to resolve the issues at hand. But please make no bones about it, ALL parties were warned ahead of time what would happen. Now I happen to hate seeing the voters denied their proper votes being counted, but that WAS THEIR OWN STATES DECISION. They were the ones who knowingly disobeyed the DNC rules. For a good lesson in what actually happened, our good friend Timmeh Russert has a piece on youtube that goes over the details.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg
There's no Plan B?
The DNC doesn't have a contingency plan? "Rules are rules. Suck on it." Gee, I wonder why Democrats in FL and MI didn't get out the vote in November? This is loser planning, or lack thereof. Here's all you need to know about Howard Dean: he dumped millions of dollars on a special election for a House seat in Del Mar, California. I know we're supposed to be competing everywhere, but c'mon! We don't need the districts where the residents actually BENEFIT from the GOP's policies!
Let's see what Clinton's campaign chair
has said in the past on the subject.
"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/26/42434/4239
A passage from McAuliffe's book, detailing his response to Mi Senator Carl Levin when that state wanted to do the same thing 4 years ago. I guess he changed his mind and rules aren't rules anymore.
I don't see how that's relevant.
Bad reasoning yesterday doesn't justify bad reasoning today.
Bad Reasoning? Irrelevant?
Clinton's campaign chair INSISTED that the rules were important then but now he wants to break them. Since when is Hypocrisy irrelevant? When did following rules become bad judgment?
Since we are already
Since we are already launching into a general campaign let's focus on what's wrong with John McCain instead of what's wrong with the Democratic Party.
Hillary's Nature & How She is Hurting Our Country
At one time I was a huge Clinton supporter, both of them were held high in my mind and heart; but that was then...
I fell out of love with Hillary more than 6 years ago when I began to see her true political "bent" but still believed her to be a successful senator for New York. No matter, I did NOT want her to be on a NATIONAL stage dictating policies for the country since I see them as far too Republican for my tastes. Nevertheless, I still believed Bill to be more true to our nation's interests than his wife; that is until this past year. What both he and his wife have revealed about themselves in this campaign process has been startling and frightening to myself and my family and have made us totally reevaluate their very center.
I will not go into all of the reasons why we feel this way, as I fear it just might produce more problems in a race in which the Clinton's have made painfully polarizing and extremely divisive. We will NOT be supporting any of the Clinton's ever again and if they continue to deny the RULES & LAWS of our party's elections, we will fight them tooth and nail right to the final vote!
Our nation is in deep trouble while sinking quicker than any of us would have ever predicted even 2 years ago and the manner in which this couple is conducting themselves, both on a national and worldwide stage, is continuing to keep this Party and Nation in painful and needless turmoil.
Hillary has already lost,
Hillary has already lost, we're just waiting for the commercial break to be over. (You know how long commercials last...)
She does lead a significant Democratic faction, however. This is a bad time to carp about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Terry McAuliff, Hillary Clinton or any fellow Democrat. Let her get it out of her system. Democrats will praise her perserverence, comment on the validity of her factions values (Remember, we want them to vote with us in the fall) or say nothing of her and spend our time talking about what a great guy our candidate is. What Democrats will not be doing is backbiting our own teammates, talking mean about the loser or otherwise contributing to the disharmony of the Great Wurlitzer. If you are one of us, Please stop shooting at your own guys....
Not voting for the other candidate
There is a big difference between people who will not vote for Hillary and those that will not vote for Barack in the general election.
Many, including myself, will not vote for Hillary and said so long ago before the nomination process really started. Some will not because they are not politically aware, consider themselves centrists and believe the talking points of the right wing noise machine.
Then there are those like myself that recognized long ago that the democratic party is not serving us. We feel that people like Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc. are too willing to listen to the interests of corporations and lobbying groups like AIPAC instead of the people. We recognize that voting for a democrat simply to stop the republicans is not helping. It merely slows the damage these politicians are doing. If the democrats do not use their power to reverse the legislation put forward by the republicans and also investigate the wrong doings of republicans so that these same criminals do not come back again and again then explain what good it is to vote them in? Its almost like the democratic politicians are often on the same team as the republicans. They step in when the republicans go too far and scare the voters. The voters think they have done something by voting in the democrat. But the democrats do not investigate the Iran-Contra affair or torture or misleading the public to go to war in Iraq. They sit by while the public calms down and then the republicans get back in power.
So I say it is better to deny the democratic candidates that are posers. Expose them. Fix the democratic party or replace it if you want to fix the country. Just voting blindly for a D instead of R will not do it.
The same people that got in office in 2006 and did little to investigate Bush told us through the media that Hillary was the nominee long ago. I don't feel like rewarding those people. And I don't feel like rewarding Clinton after she has proven my suspicions all along by coming out hawkish and using right wing strategy to campaign.
So you have two groups of people that said long ago they would not vote for Hillary because she is Hillary. One for good reason and one for not so good reason IMO.
The hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama adopted that strategy only when it started to become clear Obama was the nominee. These people are simply bitter. They have no good reason not to vote for Obama.
Seriously folks
When Hillary ran for senate everyone said it was to run for president eventually.
Am I the only one that thought that was a ridiculous notion? I mean we had just come out of an era where the right wing media had survived on criticizing Clinton. Most of their talking points were lies of course. But nonetheless they have more material to throw out in the media on the Clintons than every other democrat combined. It doesn't matter if its true or not. If you have to spend all your time educating the voters to the truth of every talking point the message never gets out.
Being from NY originally (and living there when she first ran) I was resentful that she could just move to the state and get elected to one of the highest political office the state has to offer. The only reason she was able to jump to that level of political office in a state she just moved to was because of who she was married to. And that is not a sexist remark. I would say the same thing had she been president and Bill had gotten elected to the senate in his first political race.
"And that is not a sexist remark."
You would be absolutely correct. The same scenario can be said of Robert Kennedy after his AG gig- he basically did the same exact thing, with the same exact results, so that kinda shoots the "sexism" angle down pretty quick.
"Bitch may be the new black but black is the new President, bitch."
Tracy Morgan, SNL
Hillary Clinton: the Bicycle and Video Game Thief
I’ve been forcing myself to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt but after her victory speech in Kentucky I am afraid my patience has run out. Let me start by making one thing absolutely clear: the only way Hillary Clinton could even think about winning the nomination is to get the delegations of Florida and Michigan seated as is and to take the fight to the Convention. Her claim to the popular vote is simply bogus, since we don’t know how many people voted in many caucus states, and that’s all she’s got.
The first thing that struck me about Clinton’s hubris is what she said in regard to the number of delegates needed to win the nomination: “Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination.” Required by whom exactly? Until the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee changes the rules on May 31st, the official DNC delegate number requirement is 2,025. Under exactly what authority is she making this claim? Nobody's but her own.
Clinton doesn’t stand a chance at winning the nomination. She and her supporters claim that there is still a possibility in the mathematical realm. Of course there is, but there is a difference between “can” and “will” (a nuance that also applies to her campaign slogan). This is how people are enticed to play the lottery: “you never know.” Yes, you do know. You can win, but you won’t because the chances of victory are so infinitesimal that they are not even worth considering. And this brings me to the second thing that struck me from her speech last night.
If Hillary Clinton knows (as she does) that she won’t win the nomination, why is she still running? Why is she misleading her supporters saying that she can win when she knows she won’t? Why does she continue to ask for money? What are her aims? No one knows but her. But there is one thing I do know: Hillary Clinton should stop bragging about “Dalton Hatfield, the 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and his video games to raise money to support [her] campaign.”
Dalton Hatfield is just one kid, and I applaud his commitment to the Clinton campaign, but does he know that Clinton won’t win? Right, not can’t, but won’t. Did his parents tell him that? Did Hillary Clinton tell him that? Of course not. And how many kids like Dalton are going to be pushed to emulate him and donate their bikes and video games to Clinton? How many single mothers will be compelled to donate money to her campaign instead of putting food on the table under the illusion that their candidate could still win?
Clinton should be straight with her voters and tell them the truth, instead of continuing to ask kids like Dalton to give up their toys for the lost cause of a candidate whose net worth is over 100 million dollars. And if people decide to keep giving her money after that, that’s their prerogative. What will she do next, ask retired people for their social security checks? There is something very wrong and immoral about this, and the only logical explanation I can think of, is that Hillary Clinton is simply a petty bicycle and video game thief.
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
More lawyerly
HRC definitely feels more lawyerly lately.
(My apologies to Mr. M., who must be one of the good lawyers, with a daughter like that. My apologies to essic as well. Append lawyer joke here.)
Disputing the premise
Rachael - I love your show ( Podcast, daily ) and if you ever make it back to the Keys, I'd be happy to show you the cool hidden bars.
I think you're right in predicting Senator Clinton's future plans, though i would limit how much faith you put in what any politician says about how long they'll stay in a race. It's over as soon as they show weakness, so they'll never admit it, even at the beginning of their concession speech.
However, I think you're making a mistake on the premise that if the Democratic primary goes until the convention - McCain wins. I know you can look back and see historical precedent for losses after primaries go the convention, but we laughed at Hillary's claim that a Democratic winner had to win in WV.
Here's why I think it's not necessarily going to turn out to be a McCain win. The polls don't show it headed that way. McCain clinched the Republican nomination at the start of March, so he's had nearly three months of “lead time” on this. What has it gotten him, versus the presumptive Democratic nominee? Not much.
Here's a link to a chart showing RealClearPolitics.com's average of general election polling between McCain and Obama. I regard the first part of this chart ( 2007 ) to be fairly worthless, since everyone was still in the race.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart
In early March, Obama was easily ahead of McCain, but McCain got a jump in the polls as he became the nominee and Obama took a hit as the Rev. Wright story broke. McCain then had the lead for a month or so, until the middle of April, when Obama took it back. He hasn't looked back since then, opening up a 4.5% lead and it's still trending his way.
If, in that time, John McCain was opening up a huge lead as Democratic voters get more and more polarized, it sure isn't showing itself in these polls. Rather, it's showing exactly the opposite. This gives me some hope that despite pundits and some other polling that says the race is so divisive that supporters from one Democratic camp will be unwilling to vote for the candidate from the other camp, I don't think that's the whole story. Sure, they will be some folks that will refuse, but generally, they'll vote for the person that most closely resembles their beliefs and values. And that's not John McCain.
Eric Udell
Big Pine Key, FL
Please don't kid yourself
Please don't kid yourself, E.--the Republicans own the media, the voting machines, and have underfunded heartland schools since the race for space. John McCain doesn't even have to be tall.
Topic change - caption call
Sorry that I'm not continuing the Hillary-in, Hillary-out conversation. I find it too depressing. She's gone beyond hoping for the "Final Exam miracle", and is on to the "I didn't get the grade I wanted or thought I deserved and now am begging for non-existent extra credit" strategy. Sigh.
Now, for some fun. Insert caption for this classic photo of Darth Cheney after his commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy (I wonder if RonNLC was there protesting?):
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hrt-hccgagrad120080521130608,0,2412033...
By chemgirlMay 22, 2008 - 3:47pm
I think he is saying "Coast Guard huh? We'll find a war for you too."
Either that or: "I wish I had a uniform. I missed my opportunity because when I was younger I was in my chicken phase. Too bad I didn't find my inner hawk until later in life."
chemgirl are you a chemist too? Just a wild guess.
Re: By f u bush2May 22, 2008 - 4:03pm
Phys. organicker here. And you?
By chemgirlMay 22, 2008 - 5:52pm
Masters in organic
Now close to PhD in p-chem/analytical
less than a year away hopefully
Re: By f u bush2May 22, 2008 - 5:56pm
>> less than a year away hopefully
You're almost there! Good luck and hang in--
chemgirl
Thanks!
Caption
"Four Suicide-Cadets Do Rock-Paper-Scissors to Decide Who Gives Noted Leering VP His Loofah Bath"
Ew; grossed self out.
:sick:
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman
Funny
Funny, to me it looked like he was checking out her butt.
Rachel, First of all, this
Rachel,
First of all, this idee fixe of yours that McCain will be the next President because he's had so much more time to campaign for the general election is nothing new to your listeners. That is all you talk about when you talk about the campaign, and it's been that way for some time. This was not something you had kept off the air before yesterday.
Second, it's fatuous. You seem to think that people are paying scads of attention to the campaign. Many are, and a handful like you are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do so. But most aren't paying attention to it at all, if for no other reason than their lives get in the way. They know McCain is the GOP nominee, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting over the Democratic nomination, and that Obama is likely to prevail over her. If anything, they're probably fed up with hearing about it. They'll assess McCain against the Democratic nominee when the time comes in the fall. There's no practical point in fixating on it now. Judging by television ratings and periodical circulation figures, most people don't pay attention to the news on a regular basis in any situation.
Third, if McCain says or does anything egregious against either Clinton and Obama, they will both come after him. The dust-up over Bush's appeaser remarks in Israel prove that. They are both unified against McCain.
In any case, what's wrong with taking it to the convention? The 1968 Democratic convention was a disaster, but Nixon only won the popular vote by 6/10 of a percentage point. The 1972 Dem convention was a disaster as well, but the Democratic nominee would not have beaten Nixon that year regardless; he was a popular incumbent, and the realignment of the South to the GOP column was in full swing--you know, the infamous southern strategy, which helped doom Hubert Humphrey in '68 as well. (Incidentally, George McGovern didn't win the popular vote in 1972's primary campaign; Humphrey did.) In 1976, Reagan challenged Ford all the way up to the Republican convention. Yes, Ford lost the election that November, but he was over 30 points behind going into the fall campaign, and he lost by less than two. If he hadn't sounded like an ignorant moron at one of the debates, he could very well have won. The Ted Kennedy challenge in 1980 didn't hurt Jimmy Carter, who was a demoralizing, ineffectual President who could only have won reelection by default. Even so, he was ahead of Reagan in all polling until the fall debates, after which Reagan took the lead and won. Unless a popular incumbent is running, the fall campaign tends to decide things even when there's a contentious convention.
A prolonged contest over the nomination will not, in and of itself, defeat the Democratic candidate. The biggest threat comes from the fracturing of the Democratic base. It's more important that Obama, who I fully expect to be the nominee, be seen as legitimate by the entire party. It may not be possible. He can only do that by handling the Florida and Michigan debacle in a way that's acceptable to Clinton's base of supporters. In practice, this means seating--as is--the two state delegations with their voting strength halved. This is actually what the DNC rules recommend, and what the states expected. Republican power in both state governments meant there was no dialing this back.
Obama cannot be seen as trying to have his cake and eat it too with regard to Michigan. He took his name off the original ballot and had his proxies in the state legislature block a revote; he needs to accept the consequences for that even though it's not in his favor. This pledge isn't an excuse. People are projecting meanings onto the word "participate" that aren't present in the full text of the pledge, which specifically prohibits "purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one’s candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question." There's nothing said about taking one's name off the ballot or otherwise not appearing on it; the specific prohibitions actually assume that the signatory candidate will appear on the ballot. There hasn't been one word of criticism or talk of sanction by the DNC against Clinton, Biden, Kucinich, or Gravel for keeping their names on the ballot, and the efforts by Obama, Edwards, et al. to remove their names was seen by most observers, including the rabidly pro-Obama Markos Moulitsas, as pandering to the Iowa and New Hampshire state parties. There are also a couple of inconvenient facts. One, the GOP-led Michigan State Senate blocked an effort to restore Obama, et al.’s names to the ballot last November, and two, Obama spent over a million dollars in Michigan media markets for advertising advocating that people vote “Uncommitted,” a clear violation of the prohibition against media buys.
It’s ultimately in Obama’s interest to be magnanimous here, even though it may threaten his grip on the nomination. If he arrogantly tries to maintain the disenfranchisement of these states’ voters, he’s creating big obstacles for himself in these states this fall. Michigan and Florida are battleground states, and no modern candidate has ever lost both of them and become President.
A couple of excellent blog postings about related subjects:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/legitimacy-not-unity.html - comments
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-can-believe-us-by-digby.html
I like this post PolC
& not just because you use the cool expression 'idee fixe'. I appreciated the look back at earlier late-ending primary contests. There does not seem to be an analogy with the current '80% wrong-track rating' political climate.
Its true that, for someone who studies politics, Rachel gets remarkably panicky in the presence of, uh, politics. But - good on ya' doc - you figured out Clintons strategy. Now it is up to Obama to work the backrooms (however that is done). The longer she keeps it open, the more of a favor she is doing for Al Gore. ;-)
Bull Connor is still running the Democrat Party?
Dear Rachel
Babe: There is no rules in the Democrat Party, only Traditions. This is the same party that once counted blacks as only 3/5 of a man, then poll tax, the denied women the right to vote. Howie "Bull Connor" Dean is at it again by disenfranchising Florida and Michigan. Now the Democratic Party is willing to just push Hillary out to pasture, just for the good looking Black Man.
Most of the "young voter" have no clue whats going on because they live under a "sense of a entitlement"
so all you have to blame is education for that on and Liberals run academia. I know the Huff Post crowd don't wanna hear this however this is America and this is a democracy so time must run it course, that means if Obama, Hillary or McCain wins come Novembers. You have yourself to either congratulate or yourself to blame.
Jibreel Riley (google me)
Demonizing Hillary and Losing the National Election
A great number of Democrats are Hillary supporters and remember the good days of peace and prosperity of the Bill Clinton's administration. The venom and demonization of Hillary is not taken well. It is remarkable that Obama speaks fondly of the "changes" of the Reagan administration, his being a force of change (of course that change brought us voodoo economics, the destruction of the anti-trust laws, a trillion dollar debt, and Federal and Supreme Court Judge appointments that have ruined America.) No praise for the man who by executive order brought back stem-celled research of the grave of GOP nonsense, erased the national debt, brought many minority politicians and judges into the fold of the National debate and power.
But more importantly, it is not the sin of omission, that Obama is guilty of it is the sin of commission by the likes of Chris Mathews, Olbermann, and he like, as well as you and your co-Air America hosts who have blamed Hillary for causing the Passport Scandal, "Proof Positive" claimed Olbermann, "the smoking gun" on Air America. One of the guests which was an obvious Obama supporter stated that the Clintons were behind the loss of the 2004 election because of the lack of support for Kerry. When pointed out that Clinton gave the key-note introduction which was wonderful....the response was yes, I have no proof, I JUST KNOW.
Your program last night which was already blaming Obama's defeat on Hillary is more of the same and is extremely distasteful, It is this Obama on the High Road, while he acolytes such as yourself do the "dirty work" of destroying a premier democratic candidate that will leave the supporters of Obama alone and in the vast minority. The "high road" of Obama and the low road of his supporters fools no one.
Looking of a friend of McCain...look in the mirror.
By open your eyesMay 22, 2008 - 5:15pm
Translation of your post: "This was Hillary's nomination from the start. How dare this young upstart not put in his political dues?"
Give me a break. Hillary was never a good choice for candidate. Unless you are looking to raise the ratings of Rush.
I'm sure when Obama takes the oath of office, Hillary will join Joe and Zell to start plotting their 'revenge'.
GAAH! Does nobody understand the math???
People suggesting that being ahead means Obama should win, and/or that Michigan/Florida should be split down the middle don't understand delegate math. Neither candidate is "entitled" to win at this point, and neither should be considered a spoiler for the other. I sincerely hope they do what they are meant to do (see below The Case for Superdelegate Independence). And I REALLY disagree with Rachel (It's the only thing, normally she's spot on...) about losing the election if this drags out to convention. What is going to throw this election to the other side is the induction of all the "new" democrats that Obama brought into this race. It makes it impossible to unite the base because these people aren't really democratic voters, they're members of Obama's personality-worshipping flock. The longer HE insists on not dropping out for the sake of the unity of the party, the more his followers will keep believing that he is "entitled" to the nomination because he is "ahead". HRC divides Reps from Dems, BHO divides Dems from other Dems. Think about it, then chew over this:
The Case for Superdelegate Independence (or "The Voters Couldn't Decide, So Somebody Has To")
It seems that some of the luminaries of our great Democratic Party and various lefty-liberal radio personalities (sorry Rachel Maddow) are insisting that the superdelegates should follow the popular vote and go as the pledged delegates go for their state/county/whatever. Intuitively, this sounds like a very democratic notion, right? If you got more votes, you should win, yes?
No. Under the existing rules for the primary process, asking the superdelegates to follow the pledges is very undemocratic and runs counter to their purpose. Here's why:
1. IT DISTORTS PROPORTIONALITY. It is the electoral college writ local. The Democratic nominating process allocates pledged delegates according to proportionality. If you require that the superdelegates vote, en masse, for whoever got the majority of the popular vote, then it is no longer proportional voting, it is proportional voting with a "winner takes all" bonus round. It gives the voters who happen to be part of the majority in their district a bigger say in the nationwide delegate tally than those who happened to be in the minority. The Democratic party rules calls for proportional voting to avoid just this sort of distortion and the "cherry-picking" of states that goes on in the electoral college in the general election.
2. Caucuses. (Can you ask for a more unrepresentative voting mechanism?) This magnifies the proportionality distortion problem, from planet-sized to galaxy-sized. It is a smaller voter sample, with even greater distortion of voting power.
3. Delegate independence. Though it's considered poor form to change a vote, pledged delegates are under no obligation to vote as they are pledged, only to make a best effort to represent the wishes of their state. Why should superdelegates not have the same perogative?
4. Endorsements. Superdelegates are often party VIPs, whose endorsements arguably have some sway. Why are we making the case that these folks can endorse one candidate, and be forced to vote for a different one during convention?
5. Having the "most" votes does not mean having "enough" votes. Whether you are ten votes from the "magic number" or 1,000 votes away, you still haven't "finished the foot-race". If there is a mile-long race, and nobody crosses the finish line by running the entire mile, you don't hand the gold medal to the person who came closest. Neither Hillary, nor Obama has reached the "magic number", so neither one is more entitled to be the nominee than Dennis Kucinich. Superdelegates were meant for exactly this purpose--to represent the interests of the entire party, especially if the voters don't settle on a nominee. (Imagine for a moment that Huckabee had managed to secure a near-draw with McCain like this on the Republican side. Do you think for a moment that the spotlight would be on McCain? No, it would be on the guy breathing down his neck.)
6. Voice of the Voters is Sancrosanct, except when it's not. If the voice of the popular vote is so important, why deny any delegates (FL, MI) seating at the convention? And why did those states lose their superdelegates too? And why would we permit the pledged delegates of a candidate who has dropped out (John Edwards) to vote for someone else at the convention?
7. Voter multipliers. You get to vote more than once. Superdelegates multiply your voting power, but fairly, because they are elected too. Unlike the proportionality distortion issue, these "S" voters multiply the majority voting power of all registered Democratic voters, not just the people who picked the winning side in the primary (or the teeny, tiny group that caucused).
8. Dump the "free-riders". Again, because they are elected by Democratic voters (and others with similar interests), the superdelegates help magnify the voting power of Democratic party voters. If your state happens to have a Democratic governor, and two Democratic senators, for example, and you voted for these fine politicians, then presumably they are more likely to vote the way you would in the primary. This adds voting power to you as a DEMOCRATIC PARTY voter, and helps dilute the voting power of those Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, Working Party, Green Party and Independent Party voters who switched party affiliation just to tamper with YOUR party primary. Take that, you party-poopers!
The Democratic Party is not a small-d democratic organization. It is not there to serve the interests of all voters, only the political interests of registered party members. The superdelegates are there to magnify the influence of Democrats. Therefore they must take responsibility not only for the majority interest in the primary, but for the interests of those Democrats (and others with Democratic preferences) who voted for them, as well as the long-term and political objectives of the party.
(Full Disclosure: I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, a life-long registered Democrat, a supporter of superdelegate independence, a supporter of the electoral college, and have worked on one Democratic Congressional Campaign in New York whose candidate did not make the ballot due to technical challenges. I support a single national primary election date, or rotating regional primaries, and same-day registration. By my calculation, less than 50% of my primary vote will count in New York under current rules without superdelegate influence).
===================================
I hope you dance.