Greta Interviews Hillary

Hillary Clinton gave Greta Van Susteren an extended interview tonight. She was very insistent that this race is going to be continuing for a long time. She said voters want it to go on, as indicated by the poll today saying 22% want each to drop out and the rest want the race to continue.

She said it's a very close race and we have ten states who haven't voted yet. As to Florida and Michigan, she said they will be seated at the convention in Denver -- the credentials committee will do it. Otherwise, the Dems will face trouble in November.

My question is, will they be seated and allowed to vote? Or will they be excluded from voting and then seated and merely allowed to participate in other party business?

Seating isn't enough. Their votes have to count. If you agree, go on over to Seat the Delegates and sign the petition.

[Update: Thread hijacked, being cleaned, comments now closed.]

< NBC/WSJ Poll: Oversampling | Late Night: Losing My Religion >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • They aren't going to seat MI delegates (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:28:46 PM EST
    from a primary where only one of the two candidates still in the running was on the ballot.  Not going to happen, no way, no how.  You can debate about whether they should, but it just isn't going to happen.

    They will be split 50/50.  

    FL may be different, since at least both names were on the ballot.  But I doubt it.

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:36:37 PM EST
    Obama chose to remove his name. He did not have to, there was no requirement. He wanted it this way and now he can deal with it. there will be no 50/50 split in delegates. His best bet would be to get behind a revote and fast.

    As a Florida voter I think Florida has a good case given their republican leadership did what they did,  can almost bet Florida gets seated as is.


    The MI Legislature is out of session; (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:42:29 PM EST
    there will be no revote.  There will be a 50/50 split, or they will not be seated for nomination purposes.  For the Dems, the former is far superior, and that is what will happen.  But if you want to continue to believe that some miracle will change that, more power to you.

    To be clear (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:55:56 PM EST
    No matter what Michigan or Florida did they would still need to get a approval vote from the credentials committee.   If they had a re-vote that would still need approval from the Committee.  This is the reason why both candidates had to sign off on the re-vote otherwise they could potentially scuttle in August which would have been very ugly.

    I doubt the delegates will be 50/50.  They will be 100/0 in favor of whomever is already the presumptive nominee going into the Convention.


    I think you don't know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:59:48 PM EST
    Michiganders, especially Yoopers, and how angry they are.  Tip: Steer clear of the UP with that talk. :-)

    They very well may be (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST
    incensed by all this.  But the truth is that they have no one to blame but themselves.  The Michigan legislature didn't act in a vacuum.  They moved the date up because it was a politically popular thing to do.

    I don't feel a great deal of pity for them.   My state moved up it's primary this year.  But they follow the rules as set forth by the DNC.  Thus, for the first time in decades, NJ voters had a say in the nomination process.  

    Why should Michigan and/or Florida get GREATER influence on the nomination for violating the rules?

    And, as I said, this ignores the fact that procedurally there really is no way for their votes to matter in a meaningful way.  Either Obama will retain his lead, which case he will control the Convention floor or Hillary will wipe out that lead and, with the aid of the SDs, she will have control of the floor and win the nomination regardless of Fl and Mi.

    At this point the entire FL and MI issue is moot.  Nothing can be done about it until August.  It is no longer a factor in the primary elections.


    Oh, I think you're very wrong that (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:21:54 PM EST
    nothing can be done about this until August.

    But let's leave it at that, to save you saying the same things yet again.  We'll both wait and see.


    Well the easiest way (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:52 PM EST
    to prove how wrong I am is to explain HOW I am wrong.

    What is the mechanism that seats the MI and FL delegates before the convention without the approval of both candidates?  


    So many ways . . . (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41:18 PM EST
    DNC changes decision again, based on needing funds for the Denver convention -- see story today on big donors/Clinton backers coming down on Dean, et al. -- and/or super-delegates commit in sufficient numbers, and/or Harry Reid does whatever he says will be done to resolve this in backrooms by then, etc.

    It can't do that (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    the DNC can't change their minds.  Here are the rules

    Section 20 Part D

    Unresolved Challenges and Report to the Credentials Committee. The DNC Rules and Bylaws
    Committee shall report its activities, together with all challenges and complaints, to the
    Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention. In cases involving unresolved
    challenges which are appealed to the Credentials Committee, the burden of proof shall rest with
    the party presenting the challenge.

    There is no mechanism for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, the guys who issued the punishment, to reverse it. So unless you are suggesting that the DNC will flagrantly ignore their own rules and simply decree that the state delegations be seated, there is no way it can be done.

    The possibility of that happening is vanishingly small.  And if they were to try they would get sued in about 5 seconds.  


    A total disregard (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:42 PM EST

    Even if Michaganers agreed it was their own fault, and not all of them are going to agree on that, they're still going to believe the punishment -- not counting in the most historic Democratic Primary of our lives -- did not fit the crime.

    That may be so (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:39:29 PM EST
    But there isn't much that can be done about it at this point.  The die has been cast.  

    Actually they do have (none / 0) (#80)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM EST
    Obama's obstructionism is an easy target,no?

    you are forgetting the (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST
    rules and bylaws committee which may decide the matter first and they have a lot of leeway. They are meeting in April.

    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:12:27 AM EST
    anything in the rules that allows for the Rules and Bylaws to hear any appeal at this time.  

    Section 20.C.1.A states that violation of timing incurs a 50% penalty. Section 20.C.5 states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee may impose harsher penalties if it so chooses.

    The Committee may certify, certify non-compliance, or require corrective action to be made to be certified.  

    There is no mechanism in the document for recertification after the delegates have been selected other than an appeal to the Credentials Committee.  I linked to the relevant portion of the rules in a response to CC upthread.


    No 50/50 split (none / 0) (#18)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:45:54 PM EST
    except in your fevered dreams.  By the way, your clairvoyance is not impressive.

    No fevered dreams, just hard cold logic (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    As for clairvoyance, you have me confused with Nancy Reagan

    why is a 50/50 split far superior? n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:48:25 PM EST
    Because nothing else will work (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    And it will make it easier to seat FL as is

    Both MI and FL (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:10 AM EST
    have said that their election laws do not allow for such a split.  That is why the DUMB 50/50 option suggested by Obama surrogates was immediately dismissed as a viable option by both states.

    As to fair?  50/50 is fair?  50/50 is speaking for the voting populace of a state?  If nothing else will work, if nothing else is fair then I this country should stop claiming to be a democracy.


    But it's not the will of the people (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:56:34 PM EST
    or has that line been dropped now?

    Of course, if the delegates get to vote, they at least aren't bound, so they may feel free to flip their vote . . .


    The will of the people argument (none / 0) (#32)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
    is a lot harder to make in MI, Hillary vs. a Dem to be named later?

    Not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    all the people who thought the DNC meant what it said and said what it meant, so they crossed over and voted (however, whether operation chaos style or honestly, in the GOP) who would not vote now.  No doubt, that would be a majority non-Clinton voters, since other major candidates were not listed.  This puts Obama at a re-vote disadvantage from the beginning.  The only honest thing to do is to stick with the August decision.  It was a dumb decision back then, but over turning it now is just not fair.

    This is correct (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    All the hand wringing on the blogs doesn't change how things work.

    As it stands Obama will have the majority of delegates at the convention.  That means that it will be VERY hard to get Florida and Michigan seated because you will need the Obama delegates to vote in favor of it, which they likely won't do.

    But that issue is moot.  At the very latest, we will know who the nominee is by the middle of June.  After all of the remaining states have voted the DNC leaders will go to the person that is perceived to be losing and tell them to bow out.  If they don't they will get the majority of Superdelegates to publicly support the presumptive nominee.  

    There is simply no way the DNC will allow a floor fight.  It is the one thing that can assure a Republican victory in November.  They will put TREMENDOUS pressure on the superdelegates to publicly support the presumptive nominee.

    Florida and Michigan are not going to save Hillary because, as it stands right now, the only way they can be seated is by waiting for the credentials committee to vote on it in August and the DNC won't let that happen.

    As it stands it appears that Obama will be the nominee.  That could change but it will require Hillary to win most, if not all, of the remaining states.

    I know a lot of you don't want to hear that but it is the simple truth.  


    I agree that the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:04:51 PM EST
    does not want a floor fight and will engineer a nomination victory for Obama.

    But I firmly believe that if MI and FL are not seated and allowed to vote it will create another fight. A large chunk of the 2 million people who voted in those states have already promised that if shut out they will retaliate against the Dem nominee in November. I believe them.

    As I've said before, I think this is the perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Shortsightedness at its best. And so very typical of the Democratic Party.


    I wholeheartedly agree. (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:16:33 PM EST
    Either Clinton or Obama will be the nominee going into Denver, and they will then seat those FL & MI delegations, but no way do they play a part in choosing who that nominee is.

    If Clinton sweeps the last 10 states, or if Obama just completely implodes, she'll be the nominee. Barring either of those extremes, Obama will get the support of Gore, Pelosi, and the rest of the major SDs in June if he continues to lead in pledged delegates and popular vote. If Clinton manages to win the popular vote, Gov. Bredesen's idea of an informal caucus among SDs will happen--either in person or by massive phone relay--and they will decide which candidate to back.

    Either way, Democrats will begin the task of reconciling their base by July 1 in order to avoid a certain loss in November.


    Clinton doesn't need to sweep (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20:11 PM EST
    Winning Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Puerto Rico by big enough margins might be enough, depending on how the "feel of things" plays out.

    We can sit here making predictions and speculating until the cows come home but too many things can happen.  Just think back to some of the past contests and how the spin looked before the voting took place and how the race felt the day after.


    Well sure (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:46 PM EST
    if she wins PA by 25 points and Indiana by 25 points she probably doesn't need to sweep.  But that doesn't seem very likely.  

    As it stands right now it would appear that NC and PA are going to be very close to a push.   WV only has 28 delegates so even a big win there isn't going to get her much.  Maybe 4 or 5 delegates?  Indiana has 72 so they could have an impact but still it is unlikely to be more than 10 delegates or so.

    So mathematically it is unlikely for Hillary to catch Obama.  So she needs a strong narrative to carry the day.  If she and Obama split the remaining states, more or less, then she won't have that.

    Puerto Rico is valuable because of it's delegates but it won't help the narrative since they don't actually vote in the general election.


    If they don't play a part (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20:26 PM EST
    Then Obama's victory is built on a foundation of disenfranchisement.

    And once you arrive at that point, blame doesn't matter anymore.

    It is what it is.  That's all anyone ever remembers is the guy who won cause states were left out of the process.


    Good luck (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:39:37 AM EST
    with reconciling the base. The Democratic Party has done it's utmost to anger a good part of their base and a great many "reliable" voters. They are convinced that no matter what happens all the little pointy-headed libs will come home in November and thus they must work hardest at wooing the Independents and and stray Republicans incensed at their own party and looking for a "stick-in-the-eye" vote.

    IMO the Dems are so split at this time that even a unity ticket will enrage half the voters. i.e. Clinton/Obama enrages Obama supporters and Obama/Clinton enrages Clinton supporters. Plus I don't see either one of them being willing to take a back seat to the other.

    Reconcile? As I said, good luck with that. Dean, Pelosi, Reid really copulated the pooch on this one.


    Full court press (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by mm on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    This full court press that's going on right now, the incessant, continual repetition of the "concern" of Democratic party leaders that Sen. Clinton has no chance to win is designed for one single purpose and that is to demoralize the Clinton supporters in PA to the point that they just give up and won't show up.

    I have voted for every Democratic candidate since George McGovern, but I have to say that this heavy handed, thumb-on-the-scales, behavior of the Democratic party establishment to force me to accept this clearly unqualified, inexperienced (he spent a grand total of 1 year in the Senate before deciding to start running for president) candidate down my throat - has pushed me and my family over the edge.  


    Exactly. It's attempting vote suppression (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    in psychological ways.  From afar, I'm quite angry that this is being done to Pennsylvanians, in particular, and hope they fight back but good.  (I know West Virginians and know they're tough, and they tell me they're much like western Pennsylvanians that way.  As for eastern Pennsylvanians, the Cradle of Liberty likes to go to the polls and demonstrate democracy, I would bet.)

    I hope (none / 0) (#163)
    by mm on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    I hope you're right and they're able to see through this, but it's very hard when you're being inundated constantly 24 hours a day with the message that you're irrelevant and the race is over no matter what you do.  You don't count.

    I have alot of friends and family in NJ and they all feel the same way.  JW's latest insult of the Italians didn't help either.  If they succeed in carrying Obama across the finish line, I would bet that NJ will be in play in the GE.


    i am one (none / 0) (#43)
    by sancho on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:16:50 PM EST
    of the florida dems who will not vote unless fla. is seated--and not as some symbolic after the fact seating. had fla. not been taken off the board, the nom. race would have gone very differently. obama and the dnc dont seem to care about my vote. why should i give it away--twice?

    What you don't realize (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:04 PM EST
    is that at this time there is no way for your vote to count prior to the convention.  There are 2 ways for the Florida delegates will be seated.  Well technically there is only one way but for the purposes of this discussion we can call it two.

    1. Florida comes up with some distribution of delegates in which both candidates find it acceptable.  This seems exceedingly unlikely.*

    2. Florida has to wait until the credentials committee votes on their delegates. And the credentials committee will seat them, but the race will already be over.   The DNC simply CANNOT let the race go to the convention.  

    * - technically option 1 also requires the delegates to be approved by the credentials committee but since both candidates would have approved of the delegate count that wouldn't be a problem.

    Can you provide a scenario in which the Florida delegates get seated that follows procedures and doesn't require the fight to be carried to the convention floor?  


    Silly Florida and Michigan Voters (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by herb the verb on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    Don't you know that you don't matter? I'll let you have a chance to vote for me in November. If you ask me very nicely.


    Barak Obama


    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:13:07 AM EST
    There is win, lose, and draw. The only way to get a win (and presumptive nominee crown) is by making the magic number of delegates. No one is there, nor likely will be. No one knows what the Superdelegates will determine their votes on, they stay a wild card. Behind and close doesn't mean lost. Just like chess, it means drawn. If Obama's chances looks bad for the GE, I doubt very much the Superdelegates will fall on their sword for your "math". Besides, if the "math" was the primary and determinative factor then it would make no sense to have such a huge percentage of Superdelegates, nor such a byzantine delegation process that waters down actual voter results.

    Actually (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:19:52 AM EST
    that isn't really accurate.

    Currently Obama has 1629 delegates, pledged and SDs combined.  He needs 2025.  So that means he needs 396.

    There are 566 pledged delegates delegates.  Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, a split of the remaining delegates.  That's 283 more delegates for Obama.  That means he would need 113 of the remaining superdelegates or 35% of the remaining delegates to reach the magic number.

    If Obama's campaign competely collapses Hillary will be the nominee certainly.  But so far that hasn't happened.  

    And that ignores the reality that the DNC will pressure all the remaining SDs to end the race immediately after the elections are over.


    See? It will be well before August (nt) (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:23:15 AM EST
    I don't understand your point (none / 0) (#89)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:24:09 AM EST
    What will be well before August?  

    Are you referring to FL and MI?  They aren't relevant to this post.


    There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions (none / 0) (#122)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08:04 AM EST
    in your "math". For one it assumes no erosion in delegates for any contestant. That is clearly not the case, else why is Obama's campaign jawboning Hillary's delegates in Texas? Second, Superdelegates are free to vote their conscience, and there is no guarantee they won't flip. They do not follow the popular vote, for example consider Richardson. Hillary won New Mexico.
       The reality is no one knows what the final delegate count will be, nor can they. All this math is smoke and mirrors, IMO, as there are too many unknowns to determine a solid prediction. Nor does anyone know what is the determinative reasons for the Superdelegates final choices. You may believe they should be based on "the math", but that doesn't make it so. Even so "the math" is unreliable, and what you are assuming is too simplistic.

    No (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:31:11 AM EST
    The math is the math.  

    The only way there will be significant defections of delegates from one candidate to another would be if one of the candidates became the presumptive nominee or one of the candidates became completely unviable.

    I don't get into mind reading.  I don't much care what reasons the superdelegates use to choose the nominee.  I don't care if SDs vote because of their state results, the national popular votes, or the national pledge delegates or because they like the way the candidates name sounds.

    What I DO know is how politics work.  


    If you do know how politics work (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    then you know politicians decisions are based on many things other than faulty math. Loyalties, stubborness, settling old scores, money, their perceptions of GE elections outcome in both the short and long term, etc., and etc. Face it-- your predictions are based on faulty assumptions due to lack of consideration of all the unknown factors.
      Besides didn't you also predict the Wright episode would be gone by now? Your crystal ball seems to suffer from need for repair.

    no 50/50 (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:06:27 PM EST
    The uncommitted were only 40% and other candidates, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, got 5%. Hillary got 45%. No way does Obama deserve 50%.

    Typo Above-- Hillary got 55% in MI -NT- (none / 0) (#62)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:36:04 PM EST
    They will be split 50/50 (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:31:02 AM EST
    over the loss of hundreds of thousands of party members.

    We are Democrats. We may not be organized, but we do not award votes and delegates to people who did not earn them.

    And if we ever do, that is the day I stop being a Democrat.


    But if Obama wins (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:33:59 PM EST
    And leaving out MI appears to contribute to that win, if that can be perceived as establishing the margin of victory, there will always be an asterisk next to his victory.

    I you're thinking short term here.  Winning the nomination is all that matters.


    He will take an asterisk (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:44:58 PM EST
    just like Bill did in 1992 when he won with 43% of the vote.

    I do concede that Hillary is thinking longer term, to 2012.


    I don't think she is. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST
    Not her style and if he loses or tanks as Pres, both will be blamed on her. Not good for running in 2012. I think she would be working this differently  for 2012.

    Base on your previous comments (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:28:27 PM EST
    I am not sure how that can be considered a concession?

    Slightly OT but (none / 0) (#19)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM EST
    if Hillary wins North Carolina, he'll take a loss.

    I agree with you on NC (none / 0) (#23)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    Were any states left out (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    In 1992?

    In the end, there wont be any states (none / 0) (#30)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    left out this year other.  Just a matter of how they will be counted.

    Split 50-50? (none / 0) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:36 AM EST
    I hope you realize that's the same as not seating them at all.

    ...just making sure.


    Obama 'campaigned' for "Uncommitted" (none / 0) (#119)
    by andrys on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:35:01 AM EST
    Since Obama, himself, and his staff were quite active in Michigan pleading with voters to vote for no one rather than vote for Clinton -- asking them to show their interest in not-Clinton that way, he campaigned for that.

    Give the guy then ALL the 'uncommitted' delegates.  How hard is that?

      Since he chose to take his name off and neither one campaigned otherwise there, he needs to take some responsibility and use some common sense instead of pretending to be a Uniter (what a joke) and Leader and being merely a passive obstructionist (his pattern for years).

      Florida and Michigan Dem parties should be fined $1 million each.  That ought to satisfy the blood lust for knuckling under to some arbitrary rules.  But Dean and the DNC and the now-clueless Pelosi need to remember that it's the VOTE of all citizens who bother to go do that -- that's the important principle here, though they'd love to forget that.  And too many Obama supporters seem to love and depend on the idea of no-revote if the vote might not go their way.


    It fits in with Obama's Unity Scheme (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:26:37 AM EST
    To appeal to Republicans, he is doing some of his own vote-tainting. That way they know he is on their side.

    Give Obama all the Uncommitted. That's better than he'd have gotten had he not taken his ball and stomped off.


    "Meet me in Denver" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    I love this Hill--she's a fighter!  The whole interview was great--you really must see the video.

    When talking about the need to invest in infrastructure which would also create jobs, she sounded as outrages about I-95 in PA being such down as the people I talk to.  

    Just common sense Democrat.  I feel like she also has a lot of Truman in her.  

    Is the whole interview on the video? n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:49:00 PM EST
    Yeah, baby, I'll be here! (none / 0) (#105)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:06:58 AM EST
    SO pumped about this interview! (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Universal on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    I haven't seen/listened to it yet, but I'm going to do so soon.

    Love to see HRC fired up and ready to go. I actually wrote a diary today to pump-up my fellow HRC supporters:


    But it seems pretty unnecessary now.

    With the new poll numbers cited in the diary, the new pushback on Pelosi from HRC's donors and this interview, I am feeling great right now!



    Yep, big HRC donors getting down (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:15:08 PM EST
    the DNC is big news -- word is that much money is needed to pay for the Denver convention, so the big Dem donors who are Clinton backers pushed back but good today on Pelosi's pro-Obama talk to the super-delegates, on Dean's screwups, on Donna Brazile's threats, etc.

    These may be the "party elders" needed to knock some sense into the Dems to let the people vote.  


    I heard someplace that the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    didn't have funds for the convention.  Kind of made my heart sing to think that Dean may have to cancel his own hotel reservations like he did the FL delegations.  :-)

    Did you consider the HRC donors' (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM EST
    letter to Pelosi to be "threatening"?  That was the headline I saw.  

    certainly hope so (none / 0) (#94)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:37:50 AM EST
    So big donors are (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    trying to blackmail Pelosi?

    So much for small donors and people power....It should be clear now that Hillary is the establishment candidate, true?


    Not blackmail... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:50:05 PM EST
    a reminder..."You push, we push back. We. Do. Not. Have. To. Give. You. Our. Money."

    I don't see this "base" (none / 0) (#173)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    Stepping up to fund the DNC convention. Do you?

    She's speaking the only language (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:01:00 AM EST
    that Pelosi et al are listening to right now: Pocketbook.

    Just because Pelosi and Reid don't seem to understand the 'power of the purse' in session doesn't mean it can't be effective when they aren't listening to their constituents. And they aren't listening at all.

    Hillary knows where all the pressure points are in Washington, and she's using them. I can't think of a better illustration of how she'll manage to get things done as President, and it certainly isn't relying on HOPE.


    Nonsense. Such hyperbole. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM EST
    These are the proverbial party powers that people have been wanting to step in to settle down everyone.  If you don't want that, why?

    That's not the poll is not what I'm worried about (none / 0) (#54)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:30:51 PM EST

    Both Obama and Clinton are well on their way to losing the general election. This is shaping up into a huge disaster. The democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again?

    IMO, one of the two candidates needs to drop out--hopefully after PA, latest after NC. At this point it doesn't matter much who it is (though I'm still leaning towards a Clinton/Obama unity ticket). A fight to the convention is unacceptable and will almost certainly result in POTUS McCain.

    The main problem here is the outsize egos of both Obama and Clinton, neither of whom is willing to drop out, as well as their legions of obsessed supporters who care more about the political fortunes of their pet candidate than of the good of the country.

    28% of Clinton supporters would go for McCain in the general election! 19% of Obama supporters! It's only March! Imagine what those numbers will look like in June, or worst case scenario in August at the convention.  

    As for most democrats wanting the primary race to continue, we are stupid. We are extremely stupid and politically inept. Every damn year we manage to find some way to screw things up somehow. I want to win the White House this year, dammit! If we can't win in 2008, with a political hurricane literally blowing at our backs, when can we win?


    It's not up to the candidates to drop out ... (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:28:36 AM EST
    ... it's up to the Democratic Party to manage the nomination process to produce a winning ticket for the GE. That process includes the highly visible public primaries, and all the less visible but crucial discussions and negotiations that must be taking place in parallel.

    Since the two candidates are essentially tied in the public's mind, why assume that you know everything when you see only the publicly visible activity?  Like an iceberg, 90% of the weight that will determine the final outcome is below the surface.


    That's not the poll I'm worried about (none / 0) (#57)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:18 PM EST

    Both Obama and Clinton are well on their way to losing the general election. This is shaping up into a huge disaster. The democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again?

    IMO, one of the two candidates needs to drop out--hopefully after PA, latest after NC. At this point it doesn't matter much who it is (though I'm still leaning towards a Clinton/Obama unity ticket). A fight to the convention is unacceptable and will almost certainly result in POTUS McCain.

    The main problem here is the outsize egos of both Obama and Clinton, neither of whom is willing to drop out, as well as their legions of obsessed supporters who care more about the political fortunes of their pet candidate than of the good of the country.

    28% of Clinton supporters would go for McCain in the general election! 19% of Obama supporters! It's only March! Imagine what those numbers will look like in June, or worst case scenario in August at the convention.  

    As for most democrats wanting the primary race to continue, we are stupid. We are extremely stupid and politically inept. Every damn year we manage to find some way to screw things up somehow. I want to win the White House this year, dammit! If we can't win in 2008, with a political hurricane literally blowing at our backs, when can we win?


    There are alternatives (none / 0) (#77)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:00:29 AM EST
    I think a big problem that is being expressed in the polls are each side feeling the other candidate would not be legitimate in their eyes.  We need to stop the talk about one candidate stealing the nomination or taking it by coup.  We also need to stop the talk about one candidate needing to drop out of the race and let the voters in the remaining states have a say.  Although it looks unlikely that it will happen, having a re-vote in MI and FL would help too.  

    I don't think anybody should be forced out (none / 0) (#90)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:25:59 AM EST
    That would be bad. One of them just has to drop willingly, in the name of party unity, or we are screwed.

    Also FL/MI delegates should just simply be seated (MI uncommitted goes to Obama). I would be really happy if Obama stepped up to the plate on that one and pledged to do so right now, but I doubt it will happen. Good for the democratic party, bad for Obama's primary campaign.


    why are you repeating this? (none / 0) (#114)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:28:51 AM EST
    once was enough

    Hmm.. (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by ajain on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    I think that if they take it away from Hillary Clinton now they will have a huge problem. If it goes to the convention - nobody knows what will happen.

    Dean, Al Gore and Pelosi are already seen as anti-Clinton. I don't know if they want to piss off her voters by doing anything rash. Also I think it was pretty funny that the Clinton donors beat up Pelosi pretty good. She was all for Obama because he had 'coattails' but I guess if you don't have the money, and now even the coattails seem to be vanishing, her pet project (expanding the Dem. House majority - which I think is a good project) may have some grave troubles.

    Nancy has done some things (none / 0) (#115)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:30:23 AM EST
    I'm already not happy with and she better not mess with this.

    Sen. Clinton was impressive, as usual. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:46:34 AM EST
    Greta, on the other hand, made a joke of herself. She played the ditzy cheerleader throwing softballs and pretending that some new revelation was actually going to be made.

    To paraphrase one instance:

    GV: You know, I follow the news pretty regularly, but there is one issue I'm confused about, and that is healthcare. Can you give me sort of a 30-second response so that I 'get it' as to what's different, why is your's better than his?

    HRC: Well, my plan does more to cover to more people, offer more coverage, and reduce costs more. Sen. Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people.

    Now, honestly: did Greta really think she was going to get any different answer than that same sound bite that Clinton has used for months now? If you had really followed the issue, did you really learn anything?? nah-ah.

    The whole interview followed a similar course. But good for Sen. Clinton for taking advantage of the cush Fox News appearance. She did well.

    OTOH, it just reinforced why I don't care for "On the Record."

    correct me if i'm wrong (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:51:10 AM EST
    (and it's certainly possible), but aren't the political parties essentially private entities? this is why the courts stay out of their nominating process, it's a private matter.

    as such, they can change the rules any time they want, they aren't bound by law. if it becomes clear (absent an implosion on someone's part, it is) that going into the convention the two are roughly even, the DNC can seat both MI & FL delegates as is.

    as noted elsewhere (ad infinitum!), all candidates were basically equal in FL. those who removed their names from the MI ballot did so of their own accord, they weren't required to. that was a calculated risk on their part. you win some, you lose some.

    so, in fairness, give obama the MI "uncommitteds", since i think, based on his actions, it's probably reasonable to assume most of them would have voted for him, had his name been on the ballot. as for the balance not attributable directly to either clinton or uncommitted, allocate them pro rata, based on the ratio of clinton:uncommitted. let the chips fall where they may.

    obama took a risk in MI. presumably, he knowingly accepted the potential adverse consequences of that risk. it's now time for him to ante up in the pot.

    that said, it's not really going to change his negatives: he hasn't won the historically democratic states, the big ones needed to win in nov. add rezko and wright (and god only knows what else!) to that mix, and this can only end badly, should he be the eventual dem. nominee.

    Obama will not win (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Grandmother on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    the state of Missouri.  Hillary could win but he's toast here.  I had another one of my day long drives across the 200 miles between St. Louis county and Springfield,MO (home of the Blunt family) and I was again reminded why Mo is a Red state and Bill Clinton the only Democrat to win here since Jimmy Carter.  Neither one of them exactly liberal left wing Democrats.

    This is the land of guns, anti-abortion and Jesus signs to keep you company as you travel west towards Kansas City.  Stop at the local McDonalds at any one of the little towns along the way and listen to what the people who live there are saying - I'm voting for McCain (this happened once in Lebanon and once in Cuba MO)

    As Claire McCaskill, senator from Mo. and Obama supporter, you cannot win this state without the rural vote. He will do fine in St. Louis City and County and Kanasas City but he is DOA in between.

    Also as one of those old baby boomers (and apparently a typical white person) that Obama has such disdain for (we refuse to give up the past)I would like to remind him that we are the base of the party.  We are the ones who have been voting for Democrats for a very long time and are ready to give up on the party now.  I am sick and tired of reading (and hearing) pundits say that Obama has brought so many new voters into the process, that he has energized the youth vote and what will happen to these poor souls if he is not nominated and elected?  Will they just go back into the hinderlands and no longer participate because their candidate was rejected and they no longer feel connected to the system?

    To those arguments (which I heard (again) on Talk of the Nation yesterday on my drive) I say "BULL."  How did those of us who have been voting for Democrats since the sixties start out?  How many times did we vote and end up a Democratic President - let me count the times: THREE: Jimmy Carter once and BILL CLINTON TWICE.  So did we give up?  Did we say goodbye to politics because Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis lost? And later Al Gore and John Kerry? If we "old" Democrats were of the same ilk as the "new" Obama Democrats then there wouldn't be a Democratic Party.  I couldn't even vote in 1968 as a 20 year old but I still worked on McCarthy's campaign.

    So when Obama loses in November, if he is the candidate, then all his "change and hope" folks can decide if they want to stay in the process. But more than likely many of them will join with Michelle Obama and say this is a one time shot for her husband.  As she has stated that if he doesn't get it this time, he's not going to run again.  Ah yet another sign of a true leader.  I'm going to run and pout if I don't get what I want.    

    As (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM EST
     a fellow "typical white person" baby boomer who lives in the St. Louis area I really enjoyed your post.  I have wondered too why the Party does not seem concerned about the opinion of the long-time traditional Democrats.  I believe the leaders are trying to build a different party that they will control--one that has totally trashed the Clinton legacy.  They are all jealous and can't compete with the Clinton's popularity.  If you notice, most of the people running the Party now are people who voted to impeach Bill Clinton--how would that go over with a new Clinton administration?  So they are throwing us to the wolves to try to get younger people and build a different Party.

    And just as the Clintons should be (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Grandmother on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    the party's standard bearers (as the first two time winners since FDR), so are we the ones who should be at our proudest moment as Democrats.  We should be rallying around the Clintons and with "Do It Again."  Our parents have either passed away or in their 80s and 90s. Someone has to carry on the torch and fight for those things are at the core (or at least at one time were) of what Democrats believe in and fight for.

    I just do not see it in Obama. I don't see a leader but I see someone who ducks hard issues and votes. Someone who is not strong and who has such a sense of entitlement that it speaks more to a Republican (George Bush) mindset than a Democratic way of thinking.  This country is not made up of elites.  And even though many of my generation, because of the policies of FDR and many Democratic congresses, have managed to rise financially beyond what our parents could have hoped for, we are still grounded in our working middle class, union mindset.  Many of us remember where we came from - me south St. Louis and a union bottler at AB, parochial schools and hard work.  Education and financial success came late in life but I still identify with those "blue collars" of my childhood.


    grandmother (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by noholib on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    You've really got it right about the threat to take one's marbles and go home if one doesn't win the game.  Parents recognize this little game all the time, don't we?
    Yes, perserverance is what it's about.
    Not trash-talking the Democratic party in the name of post-partisan unity.
    Standing up for Democratic values over the long haul and each and every time, for example, on health care and social security; not voting for Cheney's energy bill.

    I'm old school, but New Wave. (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    'Forcing the states'?

    You mean a re-vote in ALL the states?

    It is estimated that a Florida re-vote alone
    would cost $10 million.

    Does that come out of the Media budget of the DNC,
    or someone's arse?

    Do we want McCain to not only face a divided Democratic voting bloc, but DNC financial disadvantage, as well?

    The irony of all this (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    Is that because of Obama's actions regarding FL/MI, Wright, and his numerous issues with truthiness, he is making Hillary the Unity ticket by default.

    Hillary is attacked from all sides, so she has no problem talking with all sides. And because she and Bill now see no safe harbor anywhere, they are going on Fox, talking to a Rush flunkie, etc etc and appealing to people Obama and the 'progressives' wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

    It's the people who are decrying these things that are making Obama's UNITY PONUPPY a joke.

    You are NOT serious (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    I offered bets with good odds on other thread for Wright story if Obama is the GE nominee, with the "surprise new video" the week before the GE. No takers. Wannna play?

    I'm sure something like that (none / 0) (#168)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    will happen.  So what?  

    She didn't say "Trouble in November." (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ytterbius on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:35 AM EST
    She said that any Democrat would lose.

    This is not a good position for her to take; at least, not if she were a Democrat.

    She is specifically highjacking the Obama campaign, even in the case that he wins the Nomination.  She's playing in that case for a run in 2012 against McCain.  It's terrible.  She would put all of us through what we know will be an extension of the Bush Administration, just so that she'll get another shot at the Presidency.

    She needs to be stopped in PA.

    Not gonna happen. (none / 0) (#112)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:47 AM EST
    That doesn't make any sense (none / 0) (#171)
    by kayla on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    The only person who could believe this theory is a person who think Barack Obama is the King Of Everything Good who can only be taken down by an evil coniving witch.  It's not that grand a tale, though.  If this were the case - if Hillary had to "hijack" his campaign in order to win, if she had to think up some grand scheme to destroy him - then it would be a lot harder to do so.  This might be hard for some to believe, but some people don't think Barack Obama is that awesome.  About half the voters did not vote for Barack.  Some voters aren't a part of the "movement".  Some don't even understand it.  So if there was any "hijacking" involved, you're going to have to tell that to the average Joe in Pennsylvania, because they didn't get the memo.  They're just voting for who they think is the best qualified, and there's no reason why Hillary should ignore those people or her supporters who want their voices heard.  If Hillary is "hijacking" then one could make the case that Obama is too.  Get over yourself.  You, Chris Matthews, and all the rest with your wacky theorizing.

    ambition (1.00 / 3) (#167)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    It's time for Gore-Obama
    1.  Obama fans won't be quite so angry as if Hillry gets it.
    2.  Tonya Harding Clinton may have already trashed Obama too much for him to win on his own.
    3.  The Clintons will finally be out of our hair.

    Joe Klein is Floating This (none / 0) (#169)
    by Harley on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM EST
    Not sure how realistic it is, if only becuz recent polls show Obama to be more durable than the Clinton campaign hoped -- for example, he polls better against McCain in Cali than she does -- and the narrative has, as it tends to do, made another big shift, this one characterizing her in, well, Tonya Harding terms.  Which can't be good.  All of which suggests Obama will wrap this thing up after the North Carolina primary.  The only thing left to decide will be whether or not she is on the ticket.  Whatever the decision, she will have to do some major bridge-mending in the aftermath.  Her supporters can afford bitterness and outrage.  She can't, not if she wants the Majority Leader position, not if she wants another run at the White House at a later date.

    Sorry--you meant "22%" (none / 0) (#1)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:19:49 PM EST
    must be working downstairs :)

    how'd you guess? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    You're right. I'll fix it.

    great interview I thought (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    and shows Hillary for the fighting democrat that she is and I am so proud to be supporting her....

    Hey guys (none / 0) (#4)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    Over at Taylor Marsh you can see the video clip where Hillary speaks about Florida and Michigan and taking this fight to the convention.

    Thanks for posting about this Jeralyn!  You are always on top of the issues.

    OK - I signed the petition. (none / 0) (#5)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:23:49 PM EST
    I think there were some different numbers out today...

    22% - wanting HRC to drop out

    28% - HRC supporters that won't vote for BHO
    19% - BHO supporters that wont' vote for HRC

    22% want Obama to drop out as well :-) (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:25:37 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#14)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:41:06 PM EST
    Can you feel the love?

    That makes 44% that want Obama and Clinton to drop out

    Draft John Edwards !


    I believe his dropout number (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    was larger than 22%   :-)

    It was 22% for each (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    dropping out, not just Hillary. Big Tent wrote a post on it earlier.

    having seen the clip (none / 0) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    I believe she intends for them to be seated and for their votes to count.

    Irrelevant? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jpete on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:35:42 PM EST
    Oh, I get it, the states that have NOT had primaries are NOT irrelevant.  Sounds good to me.

    I don't think Fox has it up (none / 0) (#26)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    yet and YouTube is under maintaince, but it's at Taylor Marsh--I can't get it to work though.  It replays tonight at 1am est.    

    Rove said (none / 0) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:54:51 PM EST
    (Hey, you are citing Fox) said that Clinton's chances are around 60%.  You have to wait until PN.  So, he wasn't as pessimistic as many are.  Go figure.

    Rove thinks that come June Obama can score pts by saying to seat MI/FL as is.  He'll look gracious and the superdeez will jump on board.

    He didn't think much of Clinton's gaffe on the Bosnia issue and recited a list of Obama's gaffes and said it happens.  Go figure.

    I'm not saying I don't expect him to skewer the Dem once they have the nom, I was just surprised his attitude wasn't 'this is over.'

    Rush Limbaugh (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:17 PM EST
    says it isn't over too.  

    Say what? (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:36:54 PM EST
    Rove say that Clinton's chances are 60-40 of getting the nomination?  I find that VERY hard to believe.

    What exactly was his reasoning?


    Not 60% for nom (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:38:10 AM EST
    Not a 60% chance at the nom.  I'm not that much of a moron......   He said she needs 60/40 in the majority of the remaining states.... i.e. Obama's numbers fall.  Some opine that she doesn't need to sweep the remaining states, just do hugely better than expected.  No one expects her to win NC, but if she comes close, it may indicate a shift.

    I didn't mean (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:46:49 AM EST
    to suggest you were a moron.

    60% of the remaining vote won't overcome the delegate count or popular vote deficit.  

    So that would mean she would need to win by convincing everyone that Obama is damaged goods.

    Possible but unlikely.


    You like math a lot (none / 0) (#127)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:39:32 AM EST
    So here is some for you:

    From RCP, including FL: Obama +422,504
    PA: 4 million dems registered.

    Let's just assume she wins PA by 10%...

    Face it, whether you like it or not, she has a pretty realistic chance of overtaking him in the popular vote.

    Notice I didn't say anything about MI.


    OK (none / 0) (#129)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    She has a chance to catch up on popular vote, although it isn't that easy.  

    But popular vote isn't the deciding factor so Hillary simply catching Obama in popular vote or even taking a small lead isn't going to get her the nomination.


    For some one who (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST
    knows how politics work, you ignore the power of the popular-vote argument on super-d's at your peril.

    Feel free (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:42:31 AM EST
    to explain how that is going to work.

    Let's assume that Hillary obtains a minor popular vote advantage including Florida.  What happens then?

    You think 75% of the remaining superdelegates will then be convinced to vote for Hillary simply because she managed to gain a small lead in popular vote?

    A lot of you seem to think that the SDs are capricious in their voting decisions.

    The SDs that are looking for a reason to vote for either Obama or Hillary have largely committed already.  The remaining SDs will likely vote according to what the DNC leadership tells them to.  

    I don't know where this notion that the SDs are wholly independent of the DNC leadership came from but it isn't realistic.  


    Believe what you like (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:37:27 AM EST
    We all do. But keep in mind its your opinion that delegate lead will determine this election. That is a very simplistic view. It is likely, yes, but there is so much that could happen that I wouldn't keep stating it as fact.

    I think the odds are good Obama will get the nomination. But its disingenuous at best to keep repeating the same argument, specially as fact.

    And also you are incorrect that SDs committing to either is a permanent thing.


    his list of Obama's exaggerations (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:13 PM EST
    went on and on, I hadn't heard of a bunch of them. I'm looking foward to getting the transcript when it comes out tomorrow.

    first he had THE MATH, now THE LIST (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:21:03 PM EST
    Karl never forgets :-) (none / 0) (#44)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    Karl Rove may be a *&^%$ (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:12:43 PM EST
    but he is a smart man.  His analysis is usually concise and pretty good.  Since he doesn't have to spin this, I expect what he said was correct.

    If you think he wasn't spinning... (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Ytterbius on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:12:48 AM EST
    He was spinning, alright.  He wants to see Hillary stay in as long as possible so that she'll do his dirty work for him, while giving his team time to dig up their own scandals on Obama.  

    You trust Rove? (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:11 PM EST
    He has no bias at all?  He has been so dead on in the past?....Isn't he a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary decried?  Or maybe those guys aren't so bad anymore....

    I trust Rove (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:22 AM EST
    to have maintained an accurate list to use against either candidate for the GE.

    Maybe the last person (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:09:04 AM EST
    Who blathered on about the Lincoln Bedroom was Obama.

    Not Rove.

    I doubt people really change though.


    more than most crap on (none / 0) (#96)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:39:49 AM EST
    the blogs yes.  like I said, he doesn't have a dog in this particular fight so he doesn't have to spin.  

    take you own bias and ... well you know what to do.


    Stop (none / 0) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:44:19 AM EST
    Boy did I mis-speak (ha!).  Eval of the states, the STATES.  Not the nom.

    lol? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:35 PM EST
    60% chance for Clinton to win the primary? What is Rove smoking? I'm not saying she doesn't have a fair chance but Obama is obviously the frontrunner.

    This probably the same "math" with which our boy Turd Blossom predicated a Republican blowout in the 2006 elections.


    One (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    of Greta's comments was very interesting and one the Dem Party should be asking themselves.  If all the Obama skeletons had come out before the primaries started, where would Obama be now?  I guess this is why the Old Dinosaurs kept telling Bill Clinton to shut up and stop criticizing Obama, why they've tried so hard to trash Hillary and protect Obama and why they keep saying they don't want anyone criticizing him because he'll go into the GE "tarnished." He has plenty of dirt and they know it and somehow they think they can control that when he's just running against a Republican.

    Eval of remaining states (none / 0) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:42:31 AM EST
    this was an evaluation of the remaining states as to what would indicate a substantial change in the electorate.  NOT at 60% chance at the nom.  Jees, I support Clinton but come on.

    If she does great in the next states, she does not need to sweep, but if she does much better than expected.... Obama has a problem.

    Also... Rove discussed what Obama should do with MI/FL.


    i think he actually said a (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:45:04 AM EST
    60-40 blowout in PA would be a perception mover.  and we'd have to wait for PR to know the outcome.

    I just heard it; yes, that's what he said (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:51:10 AM EST
    (but he oddly kept referring, in the previous segment, to Wright as "Reverend Williams" -- and Rove is Bush's brain, so Dubya's memory bank must be in real trouble).

    Pull up (none / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:57:48 AM EST
    Pull up.  I am a die hard Clinton supporter, but come on... I apologize I was not clear in my initial post and was off doing something else so I didn't see the error I had made right away.  Of course I meant 60/40 for the remaining states not the nom.  Good grief, I need to have my posts rated down for not being clearer.

    apparently Dean has packed the committee (none / 0) (#40)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    with 25 loyalists to him and the rest apportioned according to standing...Not good for Hillary..Kinda a stacked deck...

    The fact that Dean (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    Is not an unbiassed actor in this drama is another strike against the legitimacy of the process.

    The real problem with Dean (none / 0) (#65)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:38:09 PM EST
    The real problem with Dean isn't that he's biased. It's that he's useless. The ML/FL mess is not helping anyone, not Obama and not Clinton. I seriously dunno wtf the DNC is doing.

    It's helping Obama (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM EST
    To win the nomination.

    I agree there is some shortsightedness there.

    He is setting up Obama to lose the GE.

    But Obama folks seem to think he can win without FLorida.


    And without Michigan (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:46:40 PM EST
    and without those who care about voter enfranchisement, and without 28% of Hillary supporters, and without those who take exception to wright's inflammatory statements. . . The GE is going to be a disaster unless reconciliation begins pronto.

    g. election (none / 0) (#116)
    by bigbay on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:44:42 AM EST
    Obama is going to get wiped out in the general. Democrats mostly don't care about the good Reverend, but Independents do.

    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:57:25 PM EST
    If the DNC had managed to use some common sense and set up a fair counting process for MI/FL when they should have (i.e. months ago, and I know BTD has been flying the flag for a long time), Obama would still be the frontrunner in the primary, since he would still have the pledged delegate and popular vote leads.

    Though frankly I think Florida is lost to Obama whatever happens now--for Clinton, too. McCain is leading by decisive percentages there.


    That's fine then (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:00:25 AM EST
    Count Michigan and FL.  And if Obama still has the popular vote after the last state votes, I will consider it a legitimate victory.

    Reminder for anyone still up (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:45 AM EST
    the interview will be on within the next hour. On the east coast at least, but I think it's everywhere.

    Well, our last best hope for a Gravelanche (none / 0) (#107)
    by eleanora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10:20 AM EST
    to solve this problem by uniting us behind a Gravel/Kucinich ticket has been shattered :(

    Mike Gravel is leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Libertarians.

    they'll seat the delegates (none / 0) (#118)
    by Harley on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:16:46 AM EST
    After Obama has the nomination in hand, an agreement will be struck that seats both delegations.  This is not rocket science.

    Tho' Werner Von Braun might be required to explain the enthusiasm generated by an interview with Greta in which Senator Clinton displays the fierce tenacity required to....well, to do what, exactly?  Alter the space time continuum?

    Might as well resign yourselves to it.  Hillary will be giving a big convention speech, it's true.  But it will be on the penultimate night of the convention.  And it will be as Obama's vice presidential nominee.  Heck, I'm resigning myself to this as we speak...

    If you believed this comment (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:59:22 AM EST
    you would do well to shut up and enjoy the victory in silence.  Otherwise, you're just gonna lose your guy a few more votes in November to President McCain.

    She (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    won't be his VP.  That would be stupid.  If he's the nominee, she'll wait til he destroys himself (an inevitability) in his first term and come back to run against him, i.e., John McCain and Dubya.

    OH (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    and she'll be running in a very different Democratic Party because if they nominate Obama, the leaders will be toast.

    really? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Harley on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    well, it's sweet of you to be hoping for that inevitibility -- who sez Obama has all the crazed supporters? -- but Hillary as Veep makes no less sense, and would be no less improbable, than Johnson taking the slot for JFK in 1960.   As an Obama supporter I'm not wild about the idea.  But there's a kind of, well, inevitibility that attends to a fight like this, and that seems a likely outcome.  If only to put the party back together again.

    Can anyone sign the petition (none / 0) (#123)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08:51 AM EST
    or is it just for Fl or MI voters?

    "Well ... hello?" (none / 0) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    My favorite moment in the interview.

    You can watch the interview here.

    Watched (none / 0) (#133)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    the interview at No Quarter.  Wow, just wow!  She even criticized Bush and no fallout.

    Good (none / 0) (#143)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    Stick with that, even though the Republicans are stating they will clearly use this in the GE. And with the new revelations that Wright has used smears against Italians.
      By the way, since MSM is now running with this so far how does this impact your assumptions about the math?

    Time to call 'Last Word' (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by blogtopus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23:00 AM EST
    and just leave the string. FH is going to get their last say whether you like it or not. There's better things to spend comments on than another session of Yeah/But.

    Good advice thnx =) (none / 0) (#162)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    I don't much care what the Republicans will use or not use.  If not Wright they will use other smears.  It is the way things work.  

    I have seen no polling that indicates a sea change in support.  Until such a time there is no reason to believe such a sea change will occur.


    Hillary the new Nader (none / 0) (#144)
    by Semanticleo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    Is she kidding?

    Is this race about HRC or is it about the country?

    Michigan and Florida (where rules matter so much that the Supremes have to step in) are unfortunate, but they are the PRIMARIES, NOT THE GENERAL ELECTION.

    No one is being disenfranchised. They are suffering the consequences of their republican legislature's scofflaws.  Should we give them a pass?  What precedent would be set?  The RNC is accepting HALF the delegates as retribution.  Would that make y'all happy.  Rules are rules.

    They will be able to vote in November, unless they carry through on their threat and DO NOT VOTE AT ALL.

    Petition, pheh.

    I'm guessing you are new here (none / 0) (#150)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    The rules allow and have always allowed a re-vote.

    Forcing the states to have a re-vote would be the perfect punishment.... stay in line or your votes will not count and you will be forced to go throught the process all over again.


    Sure (none / 0) (#156)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    And they will overwhelming vote for McCain.

    As someone said in an earlier post - Obama may win this battle, but he will lose the war.


    actually, it seems to be (none / 0) (#170)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    Is this race about HRC or is it about the country?

    all about sen. obama and his ego. should he be the dem. nominee, in a process not seen as legitimate, his will be a short lived ego trip, i'm afraid.

    i will vote for him. not because i think he's necessarily the best qualified, but because i think he's less dangerous than mccain.

    i suspect many other democrats will do the same, for the same reason. unfortunately, that won't be sufficient to keep him from losing the GE in nov.


    I shall not campaign (none / 0) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    I don't get your point.  She did not.  Obama on the other hand had a 'vote uncommitted' campaign in MI.  He also ran ads in FL while Clinton did not and Obama accidently had a press conferenc.

    The rules allow for a re-vote although time has now run out to be able to accomplish this.

    Now it is on to the credential committee where they can decide to seat all/none delegates any way they choose.

    Comments closed (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    This thread was about Hillary's interview. New readers, your comment must be on topic or take it to an open thread. And read the comment rules before commenting.

    Flyhawk, please refrain from trying to dominate the thread. You made your point several times, more than that it's chattering. You are also tending towards stating your interpretation of rules as facts. They are your opinions and should be framed as such.