Guardian: Obama Campaign Urges Clinton To Concede

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

(speaking for me only)

Barack Obama can convincingly win the Democratic nomination on March 4th. He can win more votes than Hillary Clinton in Texas and Ohio and let the voters decide that Clinton should concede.

Instead, according to the UK Guardian (other sources do not confirm this), the Obama campaign has decided to urge Clinton to concede before the voters in Texas and Ohio (and PA, etc.) have spoken:

Barack Obama's campaign team, riding a wave of 10 straight victories in the contest for the Democratic nomination after wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii, yesterday urged Hillary Clinton to bow to the inevitable and accept defeat.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, dismissed the Clinton camp's hopes of making a comeback when the power states of Texas and Ohio hold their primaries on March 4. "This is a wide, wide lead right now," Plouffe said in a conference call with reporters. "The Clinton campaign keeps saying the race is essentially tied. That's just lunacy."

If this reporting is accurate, this is a mistake. Moreover, the intimation is that the voters in Texas and Ohio have no voice in the nomination decision. Let the voters decide, Obama campaign. This attitude smacks of hubris. If I was the Clinton campaign, I would certainly use this. Something along the lines of "Obama says your vote does not matter." Read that somewhere.

More . . . NOTE Comments are now closed.

In the comments, Dalton Hoffine, an Obama supporter, reports this:

Our (BO's) call team has been getting some questions about this from our callees (particularly those in Ohio and Rhode Island), so they sent out a clarification e-mail to our call team about it.

It basically says that Mr. Plouffe DID say that the Obama campaign had a "big, big lead" (speaking specifically of pledged delegates), and did not mention requiring HRC to concede, but instead said that for the good of the party, if she had less pledged delegates, the votes of the people, then she shouldn't carry this on to the convention. Plouffe also went on to say that even with Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, there would not be a big enough difference there to offset the other small states as well as the current triple-digit delegate lead.

If this is accurate, then the Guardian reporting is accurate. Plouffe says Clinton should concede if she can not gain the lead in pledged delegates and then says she can not gain the lead in pledged delegates no matter what happens in the upcoming states.

I agree with the Guardian reporter if her report is based on such statements. Clearly Plouffe is calling on Clinton to concede as she can not, in his opinion, gain the lead in the pledged delegates.

It seems the Guardian got it right here.

(Update (TL): Comments well over 200, thread is closed now.)

< Tit For Tat | Karl Rove's Advice for Hillary Clinton >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
Contributors
- T. Christopher Kelly
- Armando Llorens
TL Alumni
- John Wesley Hall

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- Hosted by Scoophost
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Template Design based on WordPress Relaxation Theme
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2009. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com.
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
Stats
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Guardian: Obama Campaign Urges Clinton To Concede | 224 comments (224 topical)

Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM EST

Spare me your outrage. Just because Pflouffe is not quoted saying the words reported does NOT mean he did not say them, or words to that effect.

As you know, I'm not an Obama (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:36:23 AM EST

supporter, but I do not he didn't say HRC should concede, although the headline sd. Obama's team sd. that. Did they or didn't they? I demand journalistic purity.

[ Parent ]

Journalisitc purity (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:38:35 AM EST

does not require a quote for every bit of reporting.

If it was just the headline, I would question the headline writer.

But it is in the article and unless Plouffe denies it, it seems fair to assume that he said words to that effect.

[ Parent ]

Oh brother. (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]

where are thou? (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]

oculus, I agree with you here (none / 0) (#51)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST

USA today puts it this way:

The Clinton campaign continues to call the delegate race a tie and that's "lunacy," he said. "They need to win going away" to erode that lead, Plouffe said.

Given that others have estimated that Clinton would have to win Texas and Ohio and Pa, all by 65%-35% or more, it's not completely unreasonable to think that calling it a tie is lunacy.

But, sheeesh, that's a big stretch to say that it's a demand for her surrender.

That's as big a stretch as saying that Hillary called for the resignation of that MSNBC guy.

I emailed TPM about the latter to complain, and I equally complain here. Sheesh!

[ Parent ]

If the quote is the basis of the reporting (none / 0) (#97)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:10:25 PM EST

you have a point.

If it is not, you do not.

I assume there is another basis for the reporting and you assume there is not.

[ Parent ]

agreed! (none / 0) (#104)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST

However, when we read the same story in 20 other news sources, none of them draw that conclusion.

Which leads many of us, in return, to think that perhaps this one source went to far in making inferences.

[ Parent ]

I ave read two other sources (none / 0) (#113)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST

Politico, which is a shoddy source, not nearly as reliable as the Guardian, and the Houston paper, whose reliability is unfamiliar to me..

[ Parent ]

: Sorry (none / 0) (#124)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST

That simply doesn't hold water. An alleged gaffe on conference call that is (1) unsupported by a quote and (2) unreported by anyone else on the call should be presumed true?

[ Parent ]
: and those two other sources? (none / 0) (#203)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST

Do either of them even mention the word "concede" (or a synonym)?
That's my point. The Guardian made a big inference that nobody else seems to have made.

[ Parent ]

Journalistic purity does require a quote (none / 0) (#31)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST

when the story is what someone said.

[ Parent ]

Take it up with the Guardian (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:51:53 AM EST

That is not my view or experience.

[ Parent ]

: The Guardian is pretty crap (none / 0) (#167)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:37:44 PM EST

Residing part-time in the UK, it's pretty well known here that they purposefully write inflammatory headlines to drum up business (although they are hardly the worst offender in that regard).
It's because the London paper market is so competitive and driven by above the fold headlines.

[ Parent ]

Nope, there are levels -- (none / 0) (#123)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:17:21 PM EST

four, actually -- of attribution taught in j-school texts. For example, you often see "unnamed sources" who do not allow direct quotes, only paraphrasing.

[ Parent ]

Why is it fair to assume that? (none / 0) (#32)
by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM EST

Presumably if he had said words to that effect, a competent reporter would have quoted those words. So we're left with two possibilities: (1) Plouffe did not say words to that affect; (2) the reporter is incompetent.

[ Parent ]

I strongly disagree with you (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:51:19 AM EST

on that.

IF Plouffe did NOT say that she should concede then the story is wrong.

But if he did and then this quote is offered as to his justification for saying so, then this is fair reporting.

You do not know and assume that Plouffe did NOT say it. I assume that the reporting is sound and he did.

[ Parent ]

it sounds like you're saying (none / 0) (#52)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST

... that you don't know either?

[ Parent ]

I was not on the call (none / 0) (#96)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:09:25 PM EST

A reporter for a respected publication says he said it.

I like my position better than yours.

[ Parent ]

Will you agree (none / 0) (#111)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST

that if no other reporter on the conference call reports that Plouffe called for Clinton to concede, he probably didn't?

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST

I tell you what would work, Plouffe denying it and the Guardian retracting it.

That would be definitive.

[ Parent ]

With all due respect (none / 0) (#131)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST

that is an untenable standard.

[ Parent ]

: If You Were Grossly Misrepresented (none / 0) (#141)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:24:11 PM EST

In a newspaper, I guarantee that you would be calling for a retraction and if that was not done you would sue.
Untenable standard, utter BS. The standard is publishing a denial and then calling for a retraction.

[ Parent ]

II just re-read the article. (none / 0) (#174)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST

Given the length and the number of subjects it includes, should anything be attributed to Pouffe other than the paragraph containing the quotes from him?

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by muffie on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST

apparently it at least wasn't directly stated as a call to drop out:

He didn't come out and say it, but Sen. Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, came close this morning to asking Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the race.

Based on the quotes, sounds more like standard "inevitibility" spin.

You also have this quote from yesterday:

"I would not presume to tell her when to get out of the race. This is still a close race," Obama told reporters on Monday after touring a titanium plant in Niles, Ohio.

[ Parent ]

You often criticize (none / 0) (#6)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:35:14 AM EST

people for basing arguements on want Obama meant vesus what he said. I'm not outraged, just confused.

[ Parent ]

This is based on what Obama's campaign said (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST

according to the reporter.

[ Parent ]

What I said was based on what (none / 0) (#22)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:41:30 AM EST

you typed.

[ Parent ]

Then I am at a loss (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST

what you think you are saying and what you think I wrote.

[ Parent ]

This: (none / 0) (#42)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:49:13 AM EST

"Just because Pflouffe is not quoted saying the words reported does NOT mean he did not say them, or words to that effect."

If he said it, it would be in the acticle.

[ Parent ]

This is a more responsible report (none / 0) (#57)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST

On the same subject.

[ Parent ]

So did Mike Allen (none / 0) (#83)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:05:48 PM EST

ignore the call to concede? Or did Suzanne Goldenberg interpret too much? I'll keep searching for more articles...

[ Parent ]

: I do not know (none / 0) (#109)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM EST

I assume Mike Allen did not report it.
I would have.
Mike Allen is a crappy reporter imo so I am not sure what your point is.

[ Parent ]
: Suzanne Goldenberg interpreted too much (none / 0) (#243)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM EST

"Don't carry this on to the convention" is a far cry from "Concede now." Although Plouffe (and Goldenberg) are clearly trying to plant the idea that it's all but over now for Hillary. Just some run of the mill psychological warfare.

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute (none / 0) (#28)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:44:42 AM EST

All OB's campaign said was that Clinton's campaign saying it is close is "lunacy" and that OB has a "wide, wide" lead. While OB's team may want HRC to concede, I don't hear that in these quotes and the idea that OB or anyone major on his team is publicly saying she should concede based on these quotes is lunacy.

[ Parent ]

I would have to agree (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:49:10 AM EST

No doubt they would love HRC to concede (and no doubt she would love Obama to bow to her inevitable victory). But they didn't actually call for it.

They are trying to set up a sense of inevitability and it may be a tactical error. I do expect HRC to try and turn it on Obama.

[ Parent ]

You were on the call too? (none / 0) (#105)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: touche (none / 0) (#129)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:20:03 PM EST

LOL! No I was reading your excerpt. And if I misread, then I take my lumps.

[ Parent ]

Unless you were on the call (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST

You do not know what ALL the
Obama campaign said.

[ Parent ]

Lunacy" From "luna," for the moon (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST

-- ah yes, ruled by the phases of the moon, as we women are. Periodically, as it were. . . .:-)

[ Parent ]

And last night (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by oldpro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM EST

for a short time, 'the moon went missing!'

See how powerful we are?

[ Parent ]

Oh lord..... (none / 0) (#156)
by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:30:12 PM EST

you've got one helluva one track mind Cream City.

If we ever met I'd be scared to open my mouth:)

[ Parent ]

Nah, I 'm just a writer, so I know (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST

that words are never just words; they have derivations, denotations, connotations, etc.

Plus, I'm one of the last who ever had to take Latin.

[ Parent ]

As a writer.... (none / 0) (#205)
by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST

would you say there is a time and place for every word and phrase in our language?

Or are there any words or phrases you would never use in your work?

And one more q if you don't mind....would you allow others to tell you, as a writer, certain words/phrases are off limits?

[ Parent ]

: Let's see -- quick reply (none / 0) (#230)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:24:52 PM EST

to questions that deserve more discussion, but it's a busy day. First, yes, words are communication in context, and so the contexts of time and place can affect communication (which is not just talking to audiences, just the sending of messages, but also is ensuring that messages are received -- and received as intended).
Yes, there are words and phrases that I never use in my work -- words that can block communication.
Yes, of course, I "allow" editors, readers, etc., to tell me that certain words and phrases are off limits. I can't stop them from telling me so. And I often have learned from them connotations of terms of which I was unaware, and as they block communication with those audiences I want to reach, I do not use those terms again -- except if in primary sources and used to convey how insensitive and uncaring too many of us used to be about how are messages were received and about whether we communicated well in this country.
However, I also have been told incorrect -- both denotatively and connotatively -- definitions of terms. In sum, the receiver is not always right.
And to concede is to limit learning and discussion, which already are all too limited today. So then I have talked those through until we achieve understanding and can move forward, because I all for expanding vocabularies . . . if only so that others will share my delight in how many wonderful words and terms exist and are so often underused these days.
I.e., the average American's vocabulary is only 800 words. Compare that to the commonly held vocabularies of 19th-century newspapers, which I enjoy reading for phrases such as "kaleidoscopic tergiversations" to describe American politics.:-)

[ Parent ]

why isn't this "atrocious", too? (none / 0) (#7)
by mike in dc on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST

If there's no attribution for the campaign explicitly calling on Clinton to concede, then that's a misleading sentence. They are inferring something which has not been explicitly stated.
I don't consider it particularly outrageous(since there are now appearing multiple op-eds by various pundits essentially suggesting that Clinton drop out), but I do consider it presumptuous and misleading. Of course they want to present themselves as inevitable. Of course they'd love it if she just conceded. Of course they're not going to discourage that kind of "buzz" from developing.
But if they haven't specifically called for her to concede, they haven't called for her to concede, and the article is therefore misleading.

[ Parent ]

We always have to translate (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM EST

What Obama Really Meant, don't we?

[ Parent ]

Actually there is (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST

In the first graf.

What you are saying is there is no quote saying those words exactly in the article.

As I wrote, regurgitating quotes is not the only thing in reporting.

[ Parent ]

yes, and urging... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by mike in dc on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:45 AM EST

...an opposing candidate to concede is such a big piece of news that you'd think the reporter would actually bother to either quote someone by name, or say "one of Obama's staffer's called on Clinton to concede".

Do you have any other articles reinforcing this take on things? I'm assuming this was a conference call or something similar.

[ Parent ]

That is a fair point (none / 0) (#100)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST

But it s clear the reporter did not think it was big news.

Then again, the Times did not quote McCain denying an affair in its story, it merely reported that he denied it.

[ Parent ]

: Actually (none / 0) (#120)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:16:26 PM EST

It's clear that no reporter heard the word "concede", "quit" and anything to that effect otherwise it would be plastered all over the blogs right now. Instead, we're finding more articles describing the conference call and learning that the talking point of the day for OB's team is HRC's team is suffering from "lunacy" if it thinks the race is close or that she can easily pull out a win. It is clear that the spokesman who supposedly insinuated Clinton should quit also said that OB knows what's in store and believes it could get negative . . . perhaps along the lines of this interpretation . . . er, hit piece, on what OB's spokesman actually said.
If this is the best the HRC and her supporters can come up with at the moment, perhaps she should concede, quit, save face, fill in your own choice of words (I'm certain you'll understand what I'm saying better than I will anyway).

[ Parent ]

One step ahead (none / 0) (#8)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM EST

of me I see. I am not outraged, just unconvinced that he actually said it. When someone is supposed to have said something that constitutes a mistake, you've got to have the quote.

[ Parent ]

Every time I start getting used to the idea (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by liminal on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST

- of Obama as my GE candidate, they come up with this sort of crap. If Clinton were to lose Texas or Ohio, I could understand urging her to concede. Heck, I get the feeling - based on the remarks from her campaign staff and from her husband - that she WILL concede if she loses either contest. So suck it up, wait and see what happens, and try to WIN rather than demanding surrender.

Anyway, two more strong, substantive debates and on-the-ground campaigning in Texas and Ohio is NOT bad for the party. The Texas Democratic party will be invigorated by the attention, and a nice big turnout from Hispanic voters in traditionally red areas of the state would be great for the state party. Similarly, Ohio is a GE battleground. Having the candidates and surrogates criss-crossing the state is important, and good for the party long-term.

In sum, I have a really irrational dislike of this Plouffe guy, and he is also WRONG WRONG WRONG.

What a gift from the Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by xjt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST

I hope the Clinton campaign uses this. It highlights his arrogance, and is a slap in the face to Clinton supporters. Yes, rile up her supporters just when you are about to win the final contest. The only person this story hurts is Obama. Is he so afraid of debating tonight that he wants her to quit so he doesn't have to? I don't know how I will ever vote for this man, and this story hasn't moved me any closer to being comfortable with it.

: I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by sas on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM EST

He doesn't want his ass kicked in the Texas, Ohio and Pa primaries.
I'd urge her to quit too.

[ Parent ]
: Actually, (none / 0) (#209)
by tek on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:57:52 PM EST

Obama's campaign has trying to get Clinton to drop out since Iowa. Then, even after Super Tuesday, Howard Dean started pressuring her to drop out "for the good of the party." I guess what's good for the party is not what's good for The People. So sad.

[ Parent ]

I have edited this piece to reflect legitimate (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST

concerns voiced in the comments.

Thanks for your thoughts.

You are right (4.00 / 4) (#2)
by NJDem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:31:28 AM EST

and I have used the word "hubris" to describe him and his campaign before. It's even more ironic b/c the race still isn't over after 3/4--just not enough delegates. It's not like HRC is where Huckabee is in the delegate count.

Yes, I wonder if HRC will use this tonight. Speaking of which, will you be live blogging the debate tonight? I sure hope so b/c I'll be at work, so it would be great to keep posted in real time.

: Yes Jeralyn and I (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST

will live blog the debate.

[ Parent ]

hubris indeed (none / 0) (#4)
by Afofur on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:33:14 AM EST

Can you say "President McCain"? Keep up the half-cocked attacks on Obama, and you'll say that a lot!

Yikes (none / 0) (#5)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM EST

Calling for Clinton to succeed would indeed be a mistake. Is the story mischaracterizing what Plouffe said though? There isn't any quote where he says or implies she should concede before March 4.

Not all reporting is quotes (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST

But the quote given supports the thrust. Clinton has no chance therefore she should concede.

[ Parent ]

Only if you ignore the obvious distinction between (none / 0) (#38)
by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47:48 AM EST

"We're winning" and "You should give up."

[ Parent ]

You miss my point (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST

Plouffe had a call, he said MUCH MORE than that quote.

Suppose he said she should concede in so many words and then was asked why and then said the quote.

How would you report that?

[ Parent ]

I would quote the "so many words" (none / 0) (#71)
by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST

And follow it up with the bit about the wide lead. If I was going to report big news in the form of a paraphrase, I would want to make sure the reader knew the actual quote that I was paraphrasing.

[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0) (#94)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:08:33 PM EST

I understand your beef. I do not share it.

IF in fact Plouffe did NOT say it, then this is shoddy reporting. If he did, I think your complaint baseless.

[ Parent ]

: Guardian (none / 0) (#185)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:45:06 PM EST

Is known for pulling this exact ploy over and over again. They're in a competitive market and need to sell papers. All UK papers are known to "sex-up" quotes like this.
This is much different than the ability to do good investigative journalism.

[ Parent ]

That would be a mistake: (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST

Calling for Clinton to succeed would indeed be a mistake

[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0) (#34)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST

:)

[ Parent ]

I think you mean secede. If Obama starts (none / 0) (#54)
by derridog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST

calling on Clinton to succeed, that would truly be amazing.

[ Parent ]

: Guilty I plead (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST

for writing "succeed,"
when I meant not "succeed,"
nor even "secede,"
but rather "concede."
O! Horrible deed!

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0) (#11)
by NJDem on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST

Can't wait to read your insights.

What? (none / 0) (#12)
by along on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37:29 AM EST

The Guardian reporter's interpretation of that quote is simply flat out wrong. Do YOU read it that way? There's nothing else in the story from the Obama campaign to support that headline.

Plouffe is pushing back against the dubious spin from Penn that the race is essentially tied. That's all.

It is NOT an interpretation of that quote (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:41:26 AM EST

it is reporting on what was said on the conference call.

The quote supports the argument for conceding but it is not the extent of what Plouffe said on the call.

[ Parent ]

this is an interpretation of the quote, AND (none / 0) (#36)
by along on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:59 AM EST

whatever else was said in the call:

yesterday urged Hillary Clinton to bow to the inevitable and accept defeat.

if there was anything else in the call that actually supported that view, the reporter should have, and most likely would have, reported it.

I believe she is misinterpreting Plouffe,

[ Parent ]

It is NOT an interpretation of the quote (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:48:54 AM EST

And you saying so does not make it so.

It is reporting of what was said on the conference call with a quote demonstrating the Obama argument for WHY Clinton should concede.

Or let me put it this way, if it IS an interpretation of the quote then it is shoddy journalism.

Prove to me it is and then we can talk.

[ Parent ]

Just as McCain should not (none / 0) (#53)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM EST

have to debunk an unfounded NYT story that he had a sexual relathionship with a female telecom lobbyist while he headed the Senate Commerce committe, neither should Obama's surrogate have the burden of debunking the extrapolation of this reporter.

[ Parent ]

Sure they do (none / 0) (#65)
by Steve M on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:00:01 PM EST

If someone reports that you said something you didn't say, you at least have the responsibility to say "hey, I didn't say that." This holds true whether the article contains a quote or a paraphrase.

[ Parent ]

Exactly. Which is why (none / 0) (#78)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:04:08 PM EST

the NYT included McCain's denial.

[ Parent ]

: Not a QUOTE of it (none / 0) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM EST

You concede my point.

[ Parent ]

no, the mccain rumors (none / 0) (#73)
by english teacher on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST

are anonymous. this is not.

pflouffe is the source of the comment that clinton should concede. this is not an unsourced or anonymous comment.

[ Parent ]

How is it unfounded (none / 0) (#87)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST

The reporting is that Plouffe said it on the conference call.

If you disbelieve the reporting that is one thing.

But if the Times had reported that McCain said YES, I had an affair, then it would have been fine to report it.

Actually the Times did NOT use a quote of McCain DENYING the affair, it merely REPORTED he denied it.

Same thing here.

[ Parent ]

I believe it is shoddy journalism (none / 0) (#64)
by along on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:59:03 AM EST

Um, it's an interpretation of A quote, somewhere. If she's interpreting a Plouffe statement that she DIDN'T include in the article, that's shoddy journalism.

I'll look around for a transcript, but I doubt one exists. So I likely wouldn't be able to prove it. You're giving a healthy benefit of the doubt to the story; I'm not. And that's not because I support Obama, it's because the reporting is weak and not well supported with facts. It's par for the course in UK journalism actually.

Here's a question of just circumstantial evidence: If it is true, why aren't we reading this headline, or even a story about it everywhere, on Time, Politico, NYTimes, TPM, etc.?

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#82)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST

You say it is an interpretation of that quote.

You have no evidence to that effect.

[ Parent ]

I initially thought she was (none / 0) (#103)
by along on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST

interpreting that quote, because interpreting an entirely different statement, without including it in your report, is shoddy journalism. I quickly came to believe what we have here is shoddy journalism.
Take a look at the Mike Allen piece, which you state was reported from the same call, and see if you find any report, or intepretation of, a call to concede.

[ Parent ]

Mike Allen (none / 0) (#116)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:16:08 PM EST

and Politico are not my journalistic bible. I trust the Guardian more than them.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm. (none / 0) (#127)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST

Who posts on Guardian?

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#154)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST

I have a conflict. Should I disclose?

[ Parent ]

: Well, I kind of thought (none / 0) (#177)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST

you disclosed too much info earlier today, but, yes, I think so here.

[ Parent ]

Agreed, the Guardian has been (none / 0) (#139)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST

one of the best reads on this campaign, consistently. As it has been on covering much else in "the former colonies," as the BBC still likes to refer to this country. Reading overseas media, as we now can do so easily online, is a good practice in general -- a good wake-up call about world views of the war, too.

[ Parent ]

They have good coverage (none / 0) (#172)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST

But no one in the UK would ever accuse them of accurate headlines. It's a very common tactic in the UK for papers to write headlines that go significantly beyond what was actually said.

Try reading their Sport section sometimes. They take the most benign quotes (something like "I could be a real asset to my team on the pitch") to ridiculous extremes ("player x demands more playing time").

[ Parent ]

: There are types of papers there, too (none / 0) (#235)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:30:36 PM EST

and the Guardian is not one of those horrid British tabloids. Plus, headlines are headlines -- meant to be eye-catching but like soundbytes, more like mind candy. Anyone only skimming headlines, which ought to be used like a table of contents, or anyone only listening to soundbytes or ads, is going to get a skewed worldview, and deservedly.
As for sports sections, they're all apparently exempted from rules of journalism with their boosterism and puffery. I actually used to have to write sports news releases for coaches and the nonsense drove me nuts -- so many releases were not even intended to be printed but only to be posted on opponents' locker room bulletin boards as part of the gamesmanship. A waste of my time, of a printing budget, and of postage. So I switched jobs. :-)

[ Parent ]

point taken (none / 0) (#181)
by along on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST

but is he so bad that he'd ignore--or not understand--one of the biggest headlines of the past month staring him in the face? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[ Parent ]

Apparently yes (none / 0) (#195)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST

See my update.

[ Parent ]

: Apparently no (none / 0) (#197)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST

There's a big difference between calling on her to concede right now and calling on her to concede once the primaries are over and she's behind in pledged delegates (aka, taking it to the convention). But thanks for playing.

[ Parent ]

BTD.... (none / 0) (#88)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM EST

... it was a conference call, right? Meaning that there were other reporters on the call?

If there were other reporters on the call, then someone will have (or at least should have) the quote.

But from what was quoted, Plouffe didn't say anything about Clinton quitting. If there is a quote, it shouldn't be too difficult to produce.

And as someone above pointed out, Politico has a different perspective on what Plouffe said, never mentioning anything about Plouffe saying Clinton should quit.

Fox News covers the same comments, and says nothing about Plouffe urging Clinton to concede.

Same thing for the Sun Times, USA Today, and others.

[ Parent ]

Lots of posting about an (none / 0) (#99)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:11:13 PM EST

earlier conference call involving bloggers (including some from DK) and, I think Harry Reid. Lots of different versions of what was sd. and no transcript. Troublesome.

[ Parent ]

Let's let the dust settle (none / 0) (#121)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST

and see where this ends up.

[ Parent ]

dust has settled (none / 0) (#128)
by rootlessx on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST

and we see with no surprise that you will take any bait that feeds into your preconception.

[ Parent ]

: The dust has settled? (none / 0) (#151)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST

Oy vey.

[ Parent ]

That's fair... (none / 0) (#133)
by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:20:42 PM EST

... and I have contacted the Guardian to see if they have a quote.

But I find it very odd that only one reporter got the idea that Plouffe said Hillary Clinton should quit.

[ Parent ]

Feingold's almost endorsement (none / 0) (#13)
by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM EST

http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-news.asp?id=BFRH7S6LAPR

But the Wisconsin Democrat and prized superdelegate came extremely close Wednesday when he told the Leader-Telegram Editorial Board he was "highly inclined" to vote for Barack Obama after the Illinois senator's dominating performance in the Wisconsin primary.

Off topic (none / 0) (#33)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM EST

But how is this an endorsement, "almost" or otherwise? It sounds like Sen. Feingold is just telling us his view of the way he should cast his superdelegate vote, based on who won his state.

[ Parent ]

DDid you read the link? (none / 0) (#222)
by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM EST

And Feingold said he's confident the American people will reach the same conclusion as they learn more about Obama over the course of the campaign.

Granted only marginally on topic, didn't see a better place to post it.

[ Parent ]

: Thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#238)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST

It wasn't apparent from what you wrote.

[ Parent ]

Weak. (none / 0) (#14)
by GV on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST

"If I was the Clinton campaign, I would certainly use this. Something along the lines of "Obama says your vote does not matter." Read that somewhere."

Uh, sort of like Hillary said if you live in a red state, a caucus state, or really any state she lost, your vote does not matter?

I don't see the big deal in urging Clinton to quit. She is going to have a really hard time winning at this point. If she wants to stay in, that's fine. But I don't see the "hubris" in asking her to quit.

: It feeds into a narrative (none / 0) (#20)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:41:21 AM EST

that helps Clinton, i.e., that the Obama campaign is arrogant. We can discuss whther he actual called on her to concede, but if he did or it can be spun that way, that's bad politics on his part. It gives Clinton an opening, and why would he do that?

[ Parent ]
: Yes (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:42:22 AM EST

Tit for tat.
I was tweaking some people for twisting the words of the Clinton campaign, and you just provided my evidence of that.

[ Parent ]

Actually, Obama has another straight (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:42:48 AM EST

win, the overseas Dems. Some voted on line, some at an Irish pub!

: Heh (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: 7 delegates for (none / 0) (#244)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM EST

20,000 votes. Better bang for the buck than some other primaries. My state of registration was already a foregone conclusion anyway.

[ Parent ]

False! (none / 0) (#30)
by Seneca on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST

Totally misleading to claim that Plouffe called for Hillary to concede when he said nothing of the kind. According to his actual quote, he merely said that the race was not even and that they were far ahead.

Calling for an opponent to concede is a serious act, with major consequences. For this website to spread this out-and-out LIE is both intellectually dishonest and morally dubious, though in keeping of course with the Clinton 'say anything to win' school of political thought.

Please remove this post. It's characterization of what Plouffe said is blatantly and obviously inaccurate.

Were you on the conference call? (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST

I repeat to those of you who seem not to grasp this concept - reporting involves MORE than just regurgitating quotes.

There is one quote that provides the argument for WHY Clinton should concede.

The reproting of the call for Clinton to concede is straightfoward, unequivocal and clearly in the reporter's mind, uncontroversial.

If ONE of you was on the conference call, please let me know. Otherwise, you are talking nonsense.

[ Parent ]

No, the nonsense (none / 0) (#55)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST

is you trying to make a big deal out of something an OB associate said so that you can rally the troops for your preferred candidate, HRC. Nothing wrong with that, but just because some British reporter's editor decided to spice up an otherwise benign story doesn't mean that OB has done something wrong or even challenged her to a duel. Give this a rest. It's as pathetic as the plagarism schtick that ran earlier this week.

[ Parent ]

Ah well (none / 0) (#66)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST

As long as you agree that Plouffe said it.

[ Parent ]

I don't (none / 0) (#136)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST

And if you took that away from my posts on this subject it is no wonder that you believe that something was said that wasn't. You need to go back and read the article, minus the headline, because only in the headline do you see anything close to what you're saying was said on the call. And you, if you weren't on the call you don't know what was said doesn't really work. You weren't on the call either but seem gosh darn absolute that you're interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation is correct.

[ Parent ]

so you were on the call too? (none / 0) (#149)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:27:36 PM EST

Do you have a transcript?

[ Parent ]

Do YOU? (none / 0) (#171)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:35 PM EST

Thought not, or you'd actually have something to back up your unsupported opinion. Your bias is way too transparent on any issue related to HRC or OB. Just because you don't want to back down from reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into a word in a headline, don't start acting like a 5 year old or a poster on Stop the ACLU.

[ Parent ]

The Guardian reporter does (none / 0) (#202)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST

and it turns out she was right.

Check my update.

[ Parent ]

: Your interpretation of the update is wrong (none / 0) (#207)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM EST

He's clearly talking about what should happen on June 4th if Clinton is behind.

[ Parent ]

Is this true? (none / 0) (#44)
by jcsf on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST

How can we find out for sure? Assuming it IS true, the wrong thing for the Obama campaign to do. But if it's not true, you are right, BTD shouldn't do his hair trigger outrage thing, without more evidence.

Do you have any more information, or links?

[ Parent ]

I am trusting the Guardian (none / 0) (#79)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:04:14 PM EST

That used to be allowed in progressive circles.

[ Parent ]

The point is (none / 0) (#119)
by jcsf on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:16:13 PM EST

That different sources seem to have slightly different takes.

Also - "quit" versus "concede". In a way, that's a big deal - semantically, "concede" is arrogant, while "quit" because of behind on delegates, is a campaign making their points.

A bit too insider baseball, I think, to reach the authoritative conclusion you seem to have reached.

[ Parent ]

Truth (none / 0) (#175)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:41:17 PM EST

And the Guardian's headlines have never been close companions. Ask any Brit if you should put any stock at them and time how long they laugh for.

[ Parent ]

Dude (none / 0) (#196)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:51:53 PM EST

Read the article, instead of repeating the same comment ad nauseum. It is not just in the headline. And before you continue to trash the paper, check out the reporter, other stories to valuate her credibility. She is quite credible, not a tabloid headline grabber type in the least.

[ Parent ]

How often do you read the Guardian? (none / 0) (#199)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST

I read it nearly every day. They have pleny of good investigative journalists on staff, but they sex up the news all the time, "dude".

[ Parent ]

: An opinion (none / 0) (#217)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:01:19 PM EST

one others like me, who read the Guardian every day, do not share.
You are wrong, imo of course.

[ Parent ]
: They Are Not She (none / 0) (#219)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM EST

I have read the guardian selectively over the years, I skip the crap. Suzanne Goldenberg is an ace reporter who has never made me question her verity. On the other hand, based on your comments here, your credibility is weak. Obamania is your one note, very boring, song.

[ Parent ]

This is twice I'm agreeing with you (none / 0) (#39)
by jcsf on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST

Although I'm not putting it up to hubris. They are just looking at the numbers, and then doing what campaigns do.

At any rate, we can wait two weeks, for Ohio and Texas. Two weeks isn't going to hurt us, as Democrats.

Still, if Obama wins one - even if he wins the delegates for TX, and loses the popular vote by a small margin - Hilary really should start looking at how long we keep this going.

Yikes (none / 0) (#45)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST

"That's just lunacy" is a charming quote.
Add this to Obama's claim that his supporters will not vote for Clinton, but Clinton's supporters WILL vote for him, and the arrogance is unmistakable.
(Yes, I'm aware Obama did not say the "lunacy" sentence.)
Obama supporters, I have a question:
Why is your candidate's campaign so confident that Hillary supporters will take this unending abuse?

: Have Hillary supporters been claiming it's a tie? (none / 0) (#173)
by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:56 PM EST

Because that's the claim described as lunacy. If people don't want their absurd claims to be pointed out as such, they shouldn't make absurd claims. Reasonable Clinton supporters understand that.

[ Parent ]

Baseless hit (none / 0) (#46)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM EST

I just read the article, from a UK paper, no less. Only in the headline does it even come to saying that OB's campaign says she should "concede" -- the word it uses is "quit."

The article's take is that OB is trying to paint HRC as a nuisance candidate. Surprise, surprise. Who have thought he'd do that. He'd like her to quit, no doubt. He probably would have like to have been running for the Democratic nomination all by himself and not had any opposition. HRC certainly did. But with this little missive you're making a huge mountain out of a very little mole hill and might, yourself, be making a "huge mistake."

Same story (none / 0) (#59)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:57:21 AM EST

Different interpretaton.

Different story (none / 0) (#72)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST

Same conference call.

[ Parent ]

: Searching all other articles based on this call (none / 0) (#110)
by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:13:43 PM EST

No one else has a call to concede.

[ Parent ]

I Urge All Clinton Supporters (none / 0) (#60)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST

To question their support of Obama in the General Election based on the simple fact that his campaign is insulting to them.

In the end, everyone makes their own choice.

I know what mine is.

Obama still has to earn my vote in the General Election.

I View These Comments (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST

Within the context of earlier comments.

The first thing the Obama campaign can do to earn my vote is make the following statement:

"We would be wrong to assume Clinton supporters would automatically vote for Obama in the General Election, we take no votes for granted."

Not only cause it's the classy statement to make, but the most truthful too.

[ Parent ]

: No Apology Necessary (none / 0) (#132)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:20:34 PM EST

The statement above is just a suggestion.
Apology requires a loss of face. I don't want that. I just don't want to be taken for granted, and I think Obama does take my vote for granted in the General Election.

[ Parent ]

Once again (none / 0) (#77)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM EST

Obama has stated Clinton supporters will vote for him.
He assumes that.
It's a big assumption.
And getting bigger by the day, in this voter's view.

[ Parent ]

: If he's assuming everyone will vote for him (none / 0) (#148)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:27:32 PM EST

Why is he still campaigning in these democratic primaries and caucuses? Seems to me if its in the bag, he should just stay at home and rest up for his big fight with McCain.
Y'all don't want OB to be the Democratic candidate, that is clear. Everything else related to this story is wishful thinking and actually reads like I'm on some crazy right wing blog - absolutely crazy.

[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#108)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12:47 PM EST

Assuming the republicans run a candidate, you would actually consider voting against the dem nominee or not voting at all? Do you like the 4th amendment? How 'bout the 1st? How about habeas corpus? Myself, I've gotten kind of attached to all three, not to mention a multitude of other liberties we're on the road to losing.

[ Parent ]

C'mon (none / 0) (#125)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST

Nevermind. A full response would vere this Off Topic.

You ever run across an Obama supporter who pushed and cheered for folks who vowed never to vote for Clinton in the General Election? Ever run across an Obama supporter who made the same kind of statement I just made in reverse?

I bet you think you never did. But they have. Repeatedly.

Nevermind. I've seen the full arc of this campaign, I've seen the behavior of eneryone, including the candidates.

Feel free to reply again, I won't cause I know there's rules on this site I don't wish to break.

But I stand by the statement, and I stand by the fact that my statement doesn't even comes close to some of the things I've heard from Obama supporters over the last 6 monts.

Peace, man. Take care.

[ Parent ]

Uh, C'mon yourself (none / 0) (#152)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST

The next president will very likely determine (through nomination) the decisions of the supreme court for a while to come.
I don't think devotion to a single candidate should blind you to that.

[ Parent ]

If It's that Important (none / 0) (#159)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:32:08 PM EST

To you implore the Obama campaign to take a different attitude towards my support.

[ Parent ]

: Here's the thing (none / 0) (#168)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST

I'm an Obama supporter but I would happily pull the lever for Hillary were she the nominee...do you not see the importance of this campaign? BTW I'm on the phone right now imploring Plouffe to win your respect ;-) My point is that it should be extremely important to you that a dem is elected. That's why I'm so shocked by all this Hillary-or-nothing talk.

[ Parent ]

Were you on the conference call? (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST

If you were , please let us know everything he said.

were you? (none / 0) (#93)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST

If you were , please let us know everything he said.

[ Parent ]

: The Guardian reporter was (none / 0) (#145)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST

Sort of my point.

[ Parent ]

Whether he said it or not (none / 0) (#70)
by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM EST

I really don't see the big deal.

Hillary is trying to say that the race is still "essentially" tied. The Obama campaign is saying that it is "essentially" over.

Arguing that the Obama campaign is trying to silence the voters of Texas or Ohio seems completely unreasonable. They have absolutely no way of forcing the Clinton campaign to concede. This is no different than the argument that Obama was trying to change the rules by advocating for superdelegates to vote with the pledged delegates.

The Obama campaign wants to play the role of presumptive nominee. Hillary will spin that but I don't think it reasonable to suggest that the Obama campaign is trying to silence anyone.

It's mistake (none / 0) (#74)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:03:15 PM EST

is my view.

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (none / 0) (#95)
by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM EST

Nothing wrong with offering opinion. I just don't understand the argument that he is trying to take away the vote from voters argument. Is McCain trying to take away the vote from Texans by urging Huckabee concede?

[ Parent ]

Why yes (none / 0) (#144)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST

That is exactly what McCain is doing.

[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0) (#176)
by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:42:20 PM EST

I guess I just don't understand your logic.

[ Parent ]

Pretty straight foward (none / 0) (#198)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:53:49 PM EST

I think you do understand it but just do not like the clear obviousness of it.

[ Parent ]

No BTD (none / 0) (#233)
by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST

I don't consider political gamesmanship to mean much at all. Do you think that Hillary wouldn't push for Obama to concede if she felt it gave her a political advantage, or any other politician?

[ Parent ]

: No, she wouldn't dare do so (none / 0) (#237)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:33:45 PM EST

as it would be spun as racist. Seriously, it would.

[ Parent ]

Pardon me for saying so (none / 0) (#89)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM EST

But your post illustrates a certain arrogance as well.
For your candidate's sake, I would hope all the voters in Texas and Ohio feel exactly as you do.

[ Parent ]

: Good luck (none / 0) (#117)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST

with that.

[ Parent ]

My Take (none / 0) (#75)
by Dalton Hoffine on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:03:35 PM EST

Our (BO's) call team has been getting some questions about this from our callees (particularly those in Ohio and Rhode Island), so they sent out a clarification e-mail to our call team about it.

It basically says that Mr. Plouffe DID say that the Obama campaign had a "big, big lead" (speaking specifically of pledged delegates), and did not mention requiring HRC to concede, but instead said that for the good of the party, if she had less pledged delegates, the votes of the people, then she shouldn't carry this on to the convention. Plouffe also went on to say that even with Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, there would not be a big enough difference there to offset the other small states as well as the current triple-digit delegate lead.

: What Obama meant. (none / 0) (#86)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST

How about posting the entire email from Obama campaign?

[ Parent ]
: Sounds like he said it (none / 0) (#140)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST

Do you have the text of that e-mail.
Sounds like a confirmation of the Guardian story.

[ Parent ]

I was very surprised (none / 0) (#81)
by illissius on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST

when I saw this headline at news.google.com. I have seen the same quotes from this story as the basis for numerous articles around the web, but none of them said anything about them asking Clinton to concede -- only this article has that. Thus, I am very sceptical for now. You are right that Plouffe is likely to have said much more at the conference call than that which was widely quoted, but if he did ask for Clinton to concede, why did no one else report that? It seems very newsworthy to me.

I'm waiting until we know more before thinking any more of this, one way or another.

(As for saying Clinton has nearly no chance to catch up with pledged delegates, that's very likely true, but I'm honestly not sure whether it's good politics to say it. Perceived inevitability didn't work out so great for the Clinton campaign; but then, maybe she faltered in spite and not because of it. Who knows. Maybe Inevitability is helpful, just not a good thing to base your entire campaign on?)

actual quote from his campaign manager (none / 0) (#84)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST

in case anyone cares.

This is from CNN:

"This is a wide, wide lead right now ... I am amused when the Clinton campaign continues to say, 'Well, it's essentially a tie.' I mean, that's just lunacy," said Plouffe. "We have opened up a big and meaningful pledged delegate lead. They are going to have to win landslides from here on out to erase it."

Excuse me (none / 0) (#137)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:23:04 PM EST

Do you have a trancript of the entire call?

[ Parent ]

Do YOU?!? (none / 0) (#158)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST

if not, stop with this comeback. It totally weakens your already weak stretching of Mr. P's remarks. if so, publish it or, if you won't, we'll assume (like we would for anyone else feeding us a line of bull) that the transcript doesn't support your opinion of what was said between the lines any better than the actual quotes we're seeing in the article that has you so appalled and other outlets.

[ Parent ]

I do not (none / 0) (#162)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:34:24 PM EST

I assume the GUARDIAN reporter DOES.

Sorry none of you have any idea what was said on the call. That is my point. I am relying on a reliable new organization. You are relying on your desires.

[ Parent ]

reverse that (none / 0) (#170)
by rootlessx on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:25 PM EST

We are relying on the fact that a headline unsupported by the article and contradicted by direct quotes in other articles is an extremely tenuous support for a wacky-ass conjecture. You are so eager to believe bad things about the Obama campaign that you weave monsters out of figments and then demand proof the monsters don't exist.

[ Parent ]

: Wrong (none / 0) (#187)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST

Supported by the article.

[ Parent ]

Guardian will stretch any point (none / 0) (#178)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST

To sell papers. Stop using them as an authorative source of a reporter's inference. They are really well-known (well, all of the British press is actually) for doing exactly what people are suspecting here.

[ Parent ]

Guardian will stretch any point (none / 0) (#179)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:43:04 PM EST

Um, no (none / 0) (#186)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Um yes (none / 0) (#191)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST

I read them nearly every day for a good half of the year. How often do you read them?

[ Parent ]

I write for them (none / 0) (#206)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST

So um, no you are wrong.

[ Parent ]

How often do you read them? (none / 0) (#210)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:58:14 PM EST

I read them almost every day. I see them sex up the news all the time. How often do you read them?

[ Parent ]

: Every day (none / 0) (#232)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

you *don't* understand *my* point! (none / 0) (#200)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST

Sorry none of you have any idea what was said on the call. That is my point. I am relying on a reliable new organization. You are relying on your desires.

No I am not relying on my desires. I'm trying to rely as as objective logic as I can.

To be specific: I am relying on the fact that 20 different news organizations reported on it, and only the Guardian made that kind of inference.

If you claim that the Guardian reporter was the only reporter on the phone call I will publicly retract this line of argument and reconsider the whole thing.

But my understanding is that a number of reporters were on it.

And if that's the case, it seems to me that of the 20 different versions of the phone you, you took the one that was most damaging to Obama, and are defending that interpretation to the hilt.

[ Parent ]

To be fair (none / 0) (#208)
by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:57:50 PM EST

BTD,

A single reporter paraphrasing a comment isn't exactly an authoritative statement.

[ Parent ]

: Actually (none / 0) (#213)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:00:03 PM EST

a confirmation from an e-mail sent to an Obama caller, as I report in my update, is quite convincing.
I am now convinced the story is right.

[ Parent ]

Is Ickes also calling for Clinton to withdraw? (none / 0) (#98)
by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST

Asked about the Obama camp's boast that Clinton would have to win Texas and Ohio with as much as 65 percent of the votes, Ickes responded, "Sixty-five percent is a far reach. There's no expectation here that we're gonna hit that number."

: And Bill Clinton? (none / 0) (#107)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: No (none / 0) (#135)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM EST

What is your point?

[ Parent ]

The Guardian Reporter (none / 0) (#126)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST

Suzanne Goldenberg is an award winning ace journalist from the guardian. To suggest that she is making sh*t up is absurd. Were that true, Obama's campaign would immediately demand retraction.

To compare this to the NYT article is also absurd. Apples and Oranges.

: where is the quote then (none / 0) (#143)
by Jgarza on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:24:22 PM EST

saying he urged her to concede?

[ Parent ]
: I believe Judith Miller won some awards too. (none / 0) (#190)
by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Lord (none / 0) (#138)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM EST

See my post above RE: the lunacy of voting against WHOMEVER the dem nominee is. Please don't come crying to me when Justice Gonzales and Ashcroft rule that Miranda is outdated and unnecessary.

Claw, let me try and explain (none / 0) (#163)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST

In my opinion, alienating people who might vote for your candidate by insulting them is not a good
idea.

In my opinion, the Obama campaign is insulting me
by ASSUMING I will vote for him--automatically--
once he gets the nomination.

Why is it so hard to understand that Obama might need the support of Clinton supporters if he gets the nomination?

Why is it so hard to understand that it might be a good idea to reach out to those supporters?

After all, he's reaching out to Republicans and independents, right?

[ Parent ]

: Recent results suggest that he is (none / 0) (#192)
by JJE on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST

Reaching out to Clinton supporters. Quite effectively.

[ Parent ]
: Thank you (none / 0) (#194)
by Claw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST

Thank you for your explanation. Now let me explain how you missed my point and how these Hillary or bust posts are scaring the bejesus out of me. Nader II would be a disaster. We have a very old Supreme Court. We have a terrible war. We have terrible healthcare. Republicans will do nothing to fix any this. I am saying that supporting your candidate (who, btw, has a better healthcare plan than Obama) is fine, but taking your ball and going home is not. See?
Oh, and I never said it would be a bad idea to reach out to HC supporters.

[ Parent ]

If it's that Important (none / 0) (#146)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:26:09 PM EST

Obama doesn't need to take my vote for granted.

It's not my ego in question here.

Explain HOW exactly (none / 0) (#153)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST

is OB "taking your vote for granted"?

[ Parent ]

: It's already been discussed (none / 0) (#164)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST

At length.
The campaign has already put it out there that Clinton supporters will just automatically vote for Obama.
Then the statements above.

[ Parent ]

sounds like it (none / 0) (#155)
by rootlessx on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST

"Take my vote for granted" is 100% an ego issue. On my part, I have a responsibility to children in Iraq, so that even if Hillary wins the nomination by insulting me, I still have an obligation to vote for her. You can sulk on the sidelines and feel unappreciated if you want, but that's not an adult position.

[ Parent ]

You're Making it Worse (none / 0) (#161)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:33:39 PM EST

You won't get my support through some sort of blackmail.

If Obama takes my support for granted, and that puts me off voting for him, you can either blame me or blame Obama.

Take a different approach.

[ Parent ]

Stay home and pout (none / 0) (#182)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:44:07 PM EST

because OB has supposedly taken your vote for granted and your preferred candidate didn't get picked or get a Democrat elected . . . that's between you and your conscience. No one else's. I don't want either (was pulling for Dodd, myself, but HRC was "inevitable" and OB the "up and comer"), but will vote and it won't be for McCain or any 3rd party candidate. Seems that can't be said for HRC supporters. Too bad

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but (none / 0) (#188)
by kmblue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST

I disagree with your analysis.

[ Parent ]

: that's really not all that surprising (none / 0) (#215)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM EST

given what's transpiring on this site with this thread based on that conference call that no one here was in on where some here maintain, based on a silly "sexed up" headline, that someone said something insulting to their competitor in a political race when EVERYTHING else being reported on this call indicates otherwise. Oh well . . . do what you want for who you want. If HRC gets the nomination, I want an invitation, engraved, requesting the pleasure of my attendance at a General Election vote to be held on November 4, 2008 between the hours of _ and _ so as to do her the extremely high honor of voting for her and whomever she picks as her VP in the Presidential election. Otherwise, I think she'll be taking my vote for granted.

[ Parent ]

I See (none / 0) (#212)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST

The best reason to vote for Obama is that if I don't, I'm pouting.

[ Parent ]

I'm not here to convince you to vote for anyone (none / 0) (#221)
by po on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:07:27 PM EST

Unlike some here who apparently are dead set on convincing many of us not to vote for someone. You vote for whomever you like. I don't really care. Ii was here commenting on the absurd proposition that OB is going around saying that HRC should concede. He may think it, but he ain't saying it. Rest assured, HRC has thought similar thoughts. Who cares.

[ Parent ]

: Everyone Makes their Own Choice (none / 0) (#224)
by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:11:20 PM EST

Which is exactly what I said above.
I would urge Clinton supporters to consider that Obama isn't going to start being more respectful just cause he was asked nicely.
Obama can change here. He has nothing to lose and something to gain by doing so.
I hope to be supporting him in November. If I don't, I fully expect that his supporters will blame me and not their candidate.
It wouldn't be support if it was any different.

[ Parent ]

Wow. What a bad idea. (none / 0) (#160)
by LiberallyDebunked on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST

Not the pressure on Clinton which was probably aimed at her big 527 donors. No the suggestion that Clinton come out and say Obama doesn't want your votes to count is an insane idea. The Clinton campaign has repeatedly disparaged voters and whole states saying that they don't really matter. The response ad would be devastatingly simple and effective and for what? States this far along in the process are used to not having their primary votes count so the bump form some fake outrage ad would be negligible and she needs more than that right now.

: Sure (none / 0) (#184)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM EST

That's an opinion.

[ Parent ]
: Nobody has done more disparaging (none / 0) (#214)
by lorelynn on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST

of voters than the Obama campaign - they've slandered all of Hillary's supporters and refused to reign in the really outrageous levels of hostility and misogyny embraced by so many of the Obama-flock. No one has had to shut comments because of hostile, obscene abuse from Clinton supporters. No pro-Clinton website is suspending the posting privileges of Obama supporters for simply being Obama supporters as Daily Kos is doing. There is a huge difference between how the bases operate, and Obama supporters have nothing to be proud of.
Obama's biggest concern is that Hillary's stays in the race until the convention, and his bubble bursts. He and his wife say one two many idiotic, self-aggrandizing remarks, or he hits the broom closet with the wrong campaign volunteer, or he makes one too many mistakes in a debate - if that happens, Clinton is going to be standing there looking like the sanest, most rational choice for president we've ever had. That's what Obama is worried about.

[ Parent ]

No! (none / 0) (#165)
by chemoelectric on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM EST

Clinton should scrupulously avoid associating her name with the word "concede". She should just ignore it, it's bait. If she bites the talk of the nation will be about whether Clinton should concede.

: She's a fighter and (none / 0) (#220)
by oldpro on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM EST

she won't concede anything. She will fight to the very end as I expect a "fighting Dem" to do.
Christ...when did that become a bad thing?

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#189)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST

the reporter "sexed it up". It happens all the time in UK papers. You're silly to fall for it.

It seems you are wrong (none / 0) (#193)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST

Did you see my update?

You seem to be entirely wrong here.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#201)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM EST

You misread the quote. He said that she shouldn't take it to the convention if she is behind in pledged delegates. Implying that the race is not over until presumably all the pledged delegates are allocated. You know, on June 4th.

[ Parent ]

I did not read a quote (none / 0) (#211)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST

I read an article and a report from an OBAMA SUPPORTER confirming that Plouffe did indeed call on Clinton to concede.

You are just acting foolish now.

[ Parent ]

No I'm not (none / 0) (#216)
by andrewwm on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST

Your updated quote specifically said that Plouffe did not call on her to concede, but said that if she was behind in several categories at the end of this thing then she shouldn't fight this to the convention. You read it wrong.

[ Parent ]

: You must be kidding (none / 0) (#218)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:02:29 PM EST

Believe what you wish. It is clear that nothing will convince you.
I am convinced the story is accurate now.

[ Parent ]

Lordy (none / 0) (#204)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:56:10 PM EST

Here it comes again. You have to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter how you feel about them, no matter if you think they are competent, honest, or a misogynist because if you don't the big, bad, Republicans are gonna get ya.

And we all know how well that's worked out with the Dems in control of the House and the Senate. (I know, small majority) But somehow those evil Republicans seem to be able to accomplish what they want in spite of a Democratic majority.

Some of us just are tired of that same old "you have to vote for us" bee ess. The Democratic Party relies on that and thus does not do the will of the people.

Let's assume..... (none / 0) (#223)
by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST

the Clinton camp cares about this nation, and think a Democrat is the best option to lead. Then they should consider dropping out, from my view Obama has the thing in the bag at this point with his recent surge, what does their precious party gain by a continued political brawl?

*I say assume because I personally believe they care about nothing besides power...all 3 of 'em.

: That's ridiculous and offensive (none / 0) (#240)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST

Staying in through March 4 does not hurt the Democratic party. And suggesting the Clintons don't care about the nation is a completely unjustified insult.

[ Parent ]

Update also wrong (none / 0) (#225)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:12:13 PM EST

Since Super Tuesday, the Obama campaign has been saying they are going to win pledged delegates and if they do they should get the nomination. This is the same point, just more detailed.

the Obama e-mail (none / 0) (#226)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:16:07 PM EST

is incorrect.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#227)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST

It overstates the insurmountability of Obama's lead. It does NOT call on Hillary to concede.

[ Parent ]

Lets see the actual e mail. (none / 0) (#228)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:19:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (none / 0) (#229)
by AF on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:20:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

As described (none / 0) (#231)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST

it clearly does.

[ Parent ]

You are working on faith here. (none / 0) (#234)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Dalton is reliable (none / 0) (#236)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

None of the reports of David Plouffe's (none / 0) (#241)
by oculus on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM EST

conference call extend to him saying HRC should concede or quit. What does the email say?

[ Parent ]

: That he did (none / 0) (#242)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:07:15 PM EST

by arguing that if Clinton can not lead in pledged delegates she should quit and then arguing she can never gain the pledged delegate lead.
That seems clear as a bell to me.

[ Parent ]

And if Obama gets elected (none / 0) (#239)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST

with our votes, if reluctant -- you think he will have the support he needs from us for four years, if this sort of hubris continues.

The nomination is only a step, the election is only a step, the inauguration is only a step. If there really is to be hope of change, the tone taken now matters in terms of how well the next four years go. And without our support, there may not be success to win another four years. Clinton will be only 64 -- and we could spend the next four years not sulking or pouting but planning. Think about it.

Guardian: Obama Campaign Urges Clinton To Concede | 224 comments (224 topical)