The Folly Of The Campaign To Get Clinton To Drop Out

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

It is quickly being proven that the Obama network (NBC), the Obama pundits (the NBC pundits, Ed Schultz, etc.), the Obama blogs, the Obama endorsers (Leahy, Dodd, Casey) and the Obama campaign do not know how to close the deal in this race. (For those who want a more negative viewpoint on Clinton to leaven the point being made here, I recommend this post.)

The way NOT to do it is to attack Hillary Clinton at every turn. It does not exude inevitability. It exudes fear. It alienates the Clinton supporters who would have to accept and support Obama as the nominee. It is harmful and divisive. And more pragmatically, it STRENGTHENS Clinton. Todd Beeton explains:

Is The Obama Inevitability Campaign Backfiring?

Hillary Clinton is clearly winning the message war here. On the campaign trail in Indiana today, responding to questions about Sen. Patrick Leahy's call for her to drop out of the race, Hillary Clinton framed her staying in the race as letting voters' "voices be heard."

From The AP:

"There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted." [...]

. . .

And as if to prove her point, look at how the AP describes the crowds at her campaign events today:

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is feeling heat from pundits and party elders to quit the race and back Barack Obama, you'd never know it from her crowds, energy level and upbeat demeanor on the campaign trail. [...]
[. . .]

The Tweety Effect writ large. What these Obama supporters, from Olbermann on down, need to learn is that Obama needs to beat Clinton, not have it handed to him. What they suggest would be the absolute worst result for Obama.

NOTE- Comments closed.

< Saturday Reading and Open Thread | Rev. Wright Attends Chicago Church Service >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You're right about it strengthening her... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cosbo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    I also believe that she's going to get the nomination. I think that the Wright fallout is too far reaching and most Obama supporters are unwilling to face how devastating it will be in the fall.

    I think the Wright fallout (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    was some Obama fallout that came too late.  He was the media darling for too long and his team was never challenged with having to deal with bad press.  They have made every wrong move since then considering the "timing" they are up against, and I think he could end up losing the nomination too now.

    I think it depends on how much (none / 0) (#110)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    self-restraint the GOP shows on that front with Obama.  It is possible that they won't be able to keep their mouthes shut until after the convention and an attack that looks too tough to handle in the general I believe could trigger a reversal of the tide.  Now that theory is predicated on Clinton staying within a few points on the popular vote and within a reach on the delegate front as well.  If she tanks in the next set of primaries for some reason, I don't think any attacks will matter at that point with respect to nominating Obama.  People will just start trying to deal with Obama's baggage and not feel they can look back.

    I'm not sure about Wright fallout - (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:27:37 PM EST

    He is bouncing back in the polls nationally, and the Party seems stubbornly determined to have him nominated by whatever means necessary.

    So did Kerry in 2004 I recall, he rode high in the polls despite all the swift-boating - Dem folks said it didn't bother them. But on the day that counted? Well.. the rest as they say, is history.

    So, I think the major devastation will be the Clinton supporters just quietly dropping away, tuning-out and switching-off in the fall.


    I admire your faith (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    but it seems Obama has rebounded just fine for the primary. For now poll numbers look good for him in terms of the trends. Of course the GE is a completely different story, where the right will continue to hammer him as somekind of godless, unpatriotic anti American liberal. For this reason and many others I really hope Hillary pulls it out. When's the next tv debate?

    The "trends" always look good for him (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:36:42 PM EST
    ...and then he always under-performs.

    Given the demographic realities of the Democratic primaries, the increasingly strong rejection of the Republican party by younger voters and independents (because of the Iraq war), the adoring media coverage he has enjoyed, and the absolute obsession the media and significant, powerful portions of the Democratic establishment (a coalition of the most powerful Northeastern liberals and Midwestern mushy moderates) have with defeating or limiting the power of "the Clintons," Obama should have wrapped this up long ago.

    An interesting question is; why hasn't he?

    I know the Obama camp will answer "racism" but that doesn't really make sense in the context of the modern Democratic party. Polls early on indicated that among the general election population (more conservative than the Democratic base) race and gender offer about an equal disadvantage -- with about 15% of people saying the definitely would not vote for an African American candidate, and a similar percentage saying they would definitely not vote for a female candidate. In each case, about another 15% say they "don't know."


    PA is no better for him (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    as far as I can tell.

    In essence, we have unanswered questions.

    But I agree with you that Obama is the overwhelming favorite for the nomination. All we need to do is count the votes.


    Obama doesn't want to just win; he and his (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    backers want to destroy the Clinton brand.
    I'd like to recommend a post on Hillary and microfinance.
    Wonkity wonk wonk
    which shows how deeply involved Hillary has been in policy questions for decades. She has so much to offer.

    I (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by tek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:40:49 PM EST
    believe that is the whole objective of the Obama campaign, which was created by Tom Daeschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin.  These people want to destroy the Clintons and build a Democratic Party devoid of Clinton fans so they can get greater power.  Of course, they want the Clinton fans to reward them for their bad behavior by voting for their handpicked candidate, Obama.  That's why I will not do it.  These men are behaving just like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.  I won't support that.  I'm not sure why anyone would think Tom Daeschle should choose the next president, he couldn't even win his own seat back.

    Just watched Howard Dean's interview on Joe Scarborough.  He said very clearly the MI and FL delegates will be seated after we have the nominee.  That would seem to preclude Clinton.


    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    Barack Obama created the Obama campaign. You look foolish to me when you act as if he is someone else's creation.

    And the money? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    Obama's money doesn't really come from small donors.
    Yes, the number of small donors is large, but their contribution is dwarfed by that of the big hitters.
    He wouldn't have gotten so much money so early if someone higher up wasn't backing him.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by stillife on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    I agree with you.  I read about Vote Hope 527 that gave Obama an a**load of money before the campaign even kicked into high gear.

    Just like Emil Jones in Illinois, some people wanted to "make me a President".  


    money (none / 0) (#92)
    by noholib on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    I've been wondering whether there was early big money and from where.

    Yes, but (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    I did see Daschle on a few shows acting like he was all that.  Implying that he pushed Obama that now was his time, etc.  At least, that's how i saw it.

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    Look, he keeps talking about the party leaders who asked him to run, rather cojoled him to run.  I think Axelrove created Obama.  

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    Axelrod crated Obama.  T

    created... (none / 0) (#51)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    I guess "crated" works too.  Sorry

    I like that, Stellaaa - "Axelrove" (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:52:52 PM EST
    A perfect description of the kingmaker...

    And it helps when you have a client who is inventing himself as he goes along, writing his life to be the history he wants it to be - cannier politicians know how to feed into that and use it to their own advantage.

    I find it kind of interesting that so many of those who are so strongly behind Obama are people who failed to grab the brass ring when they had the chance - Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry for example.

    I think this has very little to do with Barack Obama for them, and a lot to do with thinking they have a chance to erase the failures of the past, and attain power they never had before.

    I hate to say this, but I think in many ways, Obama is to these old pols what Bush was to his own crowd of power-seekers...malleable and insecure.


    That's (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by tek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    is, I believe, a matter of opinion and research.  I READ that Dick Durbin DRAFTED him to run.  Read the coverage, these four men are the ones driving his campaign.  Three of them ran for president and didn't get it, Durbin's name was tossed around but he couldn't compete with Clinton just like Dodd couldn't.

    I don't see anything foolish about looking at the possibility, or likelihood, that these people in the DNC fear a Clinton presidency because their power would be diminished (I actually READ an article which stated that was Durbin's reason) so they are supporting a candidate who they could control as Cheney et. al. controlled Dubya.  Who would you choose to stop Hillary's momentum?  Only a black man could do it.  He could split the Democratic vote.  That's exactly what happened.  

    It's also interesting that these men and some other career politicians are pushing Obama at a time when they failed to impeach Bush and now there is greater presidential power on the table than at any time in modern times.

    IMO there is something very suspect about the party leaders' coalescence around Obama at a time when the country is in terrible crisis and he does not have the background to tackle the super problems we face.  Clinton has faults to be sure, but no one can doubt the success of the Clinton administration in creating a government that served all the people of this country, despite Obama's claim that Bill Clinton brought about no change and did nothing for black people.  He has to attempt to frame the Clinton administration as futile in order to convince voters that he's a better choice.

    My theory may differ from yours, but one need only to look back on the Bush machine and look at the determined favoritism of the D. C. Dems toward Obama to know that it certainly is not out of the question or foolish.  And I'll desist from posting on your site so you don't have to ban me.


    Many people agree with your take. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    I for one think that any suggestion to the contrary is preposterous. Yes, Obama has an enormous ego and thinks he was ready to be President yesterday, but no, he would have gotten nowhere without the party elders and their connections to money.

    Dodd and Biden? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:29:07 PM EST
    How does their efforts fit your narrative?

    Obama admits he'll be a GOP president (none / 0) (#31)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    on foreign policy. http://tinyurl.com/354foc

    All I have to say is - YIKES!


    Let's see his supporters (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    defend a Reagan and Bush senior foreign policy. Then tell us how progressive Obama is.

    Obama and REALPOLITIK (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    After reading the article the following comes to mind:

    Obama would:

    Continue an interventionist foreign policy complete with support for right-wing dictators in Latin America and Africa, overthrow left of center governments in Latin America and Africa, continue covert CIA operations to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign nations. Obama forgot about Kennedy sending troops to Vietnam or Reagan/Bush I interventions in Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, etc. Support for the right-wing Contras and death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, support for anti-western Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan. This would also mean continuing support for STAR Wars, etc. Yup, that's REALPOLITIK.

    Glad we got that straight.

    But we've known from the start that Obama's the DLC candidate so none of this comes as a surprise.


    The very successful business... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM EST
    my husband and I own made the transition from "micro" to "small" business thanks to a Clinton Administration microloan program -- that, at a very critical time, provided the modest sum we needed to buy out a supplier and expand to the next stage. A sum far too modest for any bank to consider lending.

    Right now, I am receiving treatment for breast cancer -- which my doctor, an Obama supporter (he didn't like Clinton's vote on the war) tells me is 100% curable because of Hillary; during her brief time with some control of health care policy she made sure that, for the first time, significant funds would be devoted to research into women's health care issues.

    I can't think of any other politicians who have in any way had such positive, concrete affects on my own life.

    Which doesn't mean I am uncritical of the Clintons. In fact, Hillary was far down on my list of "favorites" (and certainly behind Obama) when this campaign started out. But, it does mean that I abhor ugly characterizations of these two people who have devoted their lives to public service, and achieved much of merit -- things that have genuinely changed and improved people's lives.

    Why their fellow Democrats, liberals especially, can't give those achievements any respect is really beyond my understanding.




    I think (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    It's an American tradition to root for the underdog. For the one who seems to be facing the biggest obstacles to winning. Especially when they are counted out or dismissed by what we may perceive to be authority figures.

    It's the Jamaican Bobsled Team effect. The more unlikely the win, the more fond you grow of them. So painting someone as the underdog or pressuring them to quit, simply makes them more appealing to some.

    It's an american tradition to act like (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    and display the sexual development of a fourteen year old, nobody seems to be immune either.

    The other problem (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    is that this will make them all look worse when Obama loses PA, especially if he again outspends Hillary 2:1 (seems likely).

    Casey's endorsement was valuable for Obama (he probably has Dick Durbin and Chris Dodd to thank for making it happen), but it won't be enough to win the state.  

    You think so? (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    Unless Casey can change Obama's name to Casey, I think it is virtually worthless. There is no pol less lacking in skills imo than Casey. Here is a pol whose entire career is ONLY based on his name.

    One more thing (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    The Casey endorsement could further erode Obama's support among pro choice women. The Clintons might have a little smile about that.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    got that right BTD!

    The endorsements that mean something here in PA are John Murtha and Ed Rendell.


    HIllary really does have the vast majority (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    of endorsements. The only important people she doesn't have are Fattah and Pat Murphy. Only Murphy is worth very much as a campaigned, and Fattah's GOTV machine is showing signs of decay.

    I like Patrick Murphy (none / 0) (#43)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    donated to his campaign but, alas, he has endorsed Obama.  

    Stated he was in agreement with Obama about the Iraq war.


    You read my mind (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    I'm biased in this of course, so I didn't mention that a) RPC LOVES the until Shtick; and b) it's too bad for Obama that it's too late to change his name to "Barry 'Bob' Casey."

    And Ed Rendell, his mouth notwithstanding, it a much better surrogate.


    *unity* (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    and I fine name it is (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    but you are so right. I think someone else could have knocked out the nut, Santorum. It was him, right?

    Casey jr. (none / 0) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    Frankly, why would anyone be surprised by Casey's endorsement in light of the 1992 rejection of his father?  I think folks in PA must surely understand that.  If you are Casey Jr., other than keeping quiet, where else would you go from a family perspective?  While it is always nice to have an endorsement of a Senator, if you have to choose in PA, Murtha and Rendell have quite the effect and operation.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    Well, mainly because Casey Sr. rejected the Clinton/Gore ticket. THAT is why he was not allowed to speak at the convention. I am sure Bob Jr. knows that, so yes, color me surprised about Bob putting his foot in as the door is slamming. What a dumb move.

    I think that (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    the continuing attacks on Clinton make Obama look terribly weak. Every time someone like Leahy comes out and "encourages" Hillary to quit, it occurs to me that these Senate leaders support Obama because they can run his behind all around the Capitol and bend him to their wishes.

    But that's just my take.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by tek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:41:46 PM EST
    Why would that be bad? (none / 0) (#46)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    I mean, these are not Republicans...I think they are coming out just to end it earlier. Our negatives are skyrocketing against Mcain. That is one of the things supers must take into account. I think they have the interests of our party in mind in trying to end it as soon as they see a likely nominee.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    What you don't seem to get is that Obama's negatives skyrocketing has nothing to do with Hillary and everything to do with Jeremiah Wright and his abysmal handling of it. If Hillary dropped out today, it would be his worse nightmare, because then the press could spend even more time running those tapes 24/7, reporting on the vast amount of information that is coming out about Rezko, plus the other sleazy characters in his background.

    This is what drives me crazy about Obamabots. They don't seem to accept the reality of what our MSM is all about and how republicans win elections. They are saving up their knockout blows until the general. Personally, after Wright, I think he is unelectable. But let's get real - we haven't had even one primary since the Wright revelations. Doesn't anyone get it that it would make sense to see what these revelations do in a primary? If they hurt him in a democratic primary, then you know it will be many times worse in the general. Let's not throw out all our options before we know how much this is going to hurt us.


    Our interests... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by alexei on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:36:01 PM EST
    Don't think so. These guys have their own self interest in mind.  Ending it too early is not good for the Party - is catastrophic.  MI and FL go to McCain and many Clinton voters too.

    Pass GO and Collect $200 - (none / 0) (#88)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST

    A puppet President.

    It does not show strenght (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:41:10 PM EST
    to have to say:
    In order for me to win - I need for someone to step down.  Because I cannot get the required total votes by myself.
    (and - in this case a woman will have to step down)

    So Obama will need to win - and I think that PA will need to be it.

    I am at the "pox on all their houses" stage.  I am not happy with Hillary's campaign, how it is being run - and I am not happy with Obama's inability to put this issue away/win.

    So where is Gore when I need him.

    However the high point of my week - was to hear that Alan Keyes is going to run as an independent - this will give the nutjobs from both the left and the right someone other than McCain to vote for - yeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

    oh great news! (none / 0) (#48)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    I wonder if the DNC paid him to, like I am sure Nader gets money from the NRC

    I would have no problems donating (none / 0) (#50)
    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    to this great cause myself.

    Just to be able to listen to his drivel - will be worth the money.

    Alan Keyes has a way with words - they do not make sense - but they are entertaining.


    Problem is (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    Keyes won't even be able to get the nutjobs.  My bet is he sets some kind of record for futility.

    The audacity of the Obama campaign amazes (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    me.  Twelve million people still need to vote and they want to call the game before the 4th quarter begins.  I say finish the game and then crown the winner.

    They want to GIVE the nomination to Obama (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Xeno on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    The whole "drop out" campaign is unwise on a lot of levels. As pointed out, the continual calls for Clinton to concede before the race is over bespeaks fear rather than confidence on the part of Obama's supporters. It seems pretty clear that they have little confidence in their candidate's ability to win on his merits. Otherwise, they would be content to allow the race to play out, assured that Clinton would eventually be forced to concede based on the results of the voting.

    The fact that Obama's people cannot wait for the voting to end is a sign of weakness and fear, in my opinion. They wanted Clinton out before New Hampshire, Super Tuesday and March 4th; when she won big contests then, they wanted her out even more desperately. Each time Clinton has a good showing at the polls, the Obama fanatics get even more desperate for her to drop out. Without exception, every good development for Clinton (or bad development for Obama) is immediately followed by shrill demands that she concede the race. Why would that be true if Obama has already wrapped up the race and Clinton's efforts are futile?

    Needless to say, the calls for concession are just solidifying support from Clinton's base. They are also having the effect of causing some of us to wonder at the unseemly rush to end the primary process. What are the Obama folks so damned afraid of? I, for one, would like to know the answer to that question.

    Look (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    they know he's going to get his ass kicked in PA, W Va and Ky.  He's probably going to lose Indiana.

    He'll win Oregon probably, and North Carolina.

    Then we'll hear from the three Democrats in the state of Montana.  Two will be for him and 1 for her.
    Then she'll pound him in Puerto Rico, as his chief supporter there just got indicted.

    Basically, this race is close, and they don't want anyone to see the Anointed One looking like anything but a sure thing.


    theres an excellent calculator online (none / 0) (#56)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    here that you can plug in different wins between them for the remaining states, and assign different %'s of superdelegates to see how either can win:
    what I found is that she would need to average 58% wins in each remaining primary (and get 54% of the remaining supers: that would happen if she'd gotten 58%) to eke out the win. Theres 10 left.

    It is a very close race, but obviously it is harder to get 58% than the mere 42% wins that Obama now needs to average.

    In fairness, I think the calls to drop out are more based on that mathematical reality which has been increasingly favoring Obama winning ultimately.

    From that realistic point of view that we on the left need to start putting our time and money into defeating the fascist continuance of the BushCo regime, and freeing up money for all the Senators and congresspeople we will need, I am willing to overlook the nasty campaign tactics we have nbeen hurt by and get behind Obama.

    This helps ius Dems to enact the bold legislation that Senate Majority Leader Clinton will put forth and President Obama will use his considerable propoganda-catapaulting skills to get the country behind enacting over the dead bodies of the flatearthers like Inohofe that we still must bypass to get it done.


    You have to keep in mind (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jen on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    I would bet a large majority of Hillary supporters don't believe Obama can win the GE. This is why we can't and won't give up.

    Your idea of putting our energy and $$ into building up the Dem majority in Congress is even more important to us, because we know if O is the nominee, we'll see McCain sworn in next January. But  unless Obama is willing to concede now, the race goes on.


    just plugged in that math link above again (none / 0) (#65)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
    heres another option: if she gets 55% avg of the remaining races and 60% of supers(she already has more supers) she would win

    And What It Also Does (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by The Maven on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    is clearly demonstrate a fear of starting to lose the bulk of these later contests, which might seem to show that the surge towards Obama had crested and perhaps begun to ebb.  To legitimately claim that Clinton was merely prolonging the inevitable, Obama would have to have his current pledged delegate lead and be winning consistently in state after state after state by margins of 10-15% (and growing), while also lagging behind in national polls by similar margins.  Then, one could at least say that her chance had passed and the futility argument could be made.

    But this is obviously not the case, so why the rush to effectively disenfranchise the voters of the remaining states (not to mention MI and FL)?  Wasn't it supposed to be the Clinton campaign that was being so obnoxiously dismissive of voters by implying that the small states don't matter?  Yet now, dismissing much larger states vital to any Democratic road to victory is apparently seen as vital.  I don't get it.


    Well, this just shows more of the inspired (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    leadership that Daschle et. al. have provided for the last years.
    Isn't the right way to get Hillary out to praise her to the skies? Say what a wonderful campaign she's run, and how priviledged Obama has been to run against her? Etc.

    Obama's turnout is way down in PA according to this diary

    He's going to win Philly (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    but he won't pile up the Rendell margins he needs in the burbs. Old white people won't  vote for him.

    you (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    got that right kiddo.

    He's going to get pounded in PA.


    Man it's getting so ugly out there (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    I just got one of those auto emails from Bill Clinton too giving all the arguments why this race is neck and neck. And with the Clintons standing their ground I find myself feeling ever more loyal because I'm so tired of Dems that don't stand their ground and don't know how to fight when a fight is what the situation calls for.  Hillary seems like my answer for what has ailed my military family even more so with all this going on.  I'm not for Obama and you are, and I couldn't agree more that what is happening is strengthening Clinton's stand and shoring up and strengthening her support.  The line in the sand is being drawn and it looks like there's going to be a war on American soil this time!  How stupid.....starting with Howard Dean's own numerous stupidities followed by fresh stupidity from pundits and pols growing like Kudzu!  I always like it better when the Republican leadership is being the out of their minds stupid ones but it isn't looking like Christmas around here so I'm not likely to get what I like.

    I dont know what is going on in their heads (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:00:06 PM EST
    I think it is quite ballsy for Obama-ites to first accuse Hillary Clinton of feeling entitled to the presidency and then complain about competing in upcoming states so that they can actually win the nomination instead of just looking for a coronation.

    Also its got the air of being deeply sexist.

    Sexist? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    How so? Because they're men?

     It wasn't sexism that hurt the Clinton campaign in the first place, or elevated the Obama campaign.  President Clinton's comments on SC did hurt her campaign among progressives and among the young.  That, and misstatements and Carville, Penn and other surrogates reminded voters of the more unpleasant aspects of the Clinton presidency.  Also, after Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign made the crucial mistake of downplaying (or insulting) Obama's supporters and voters, which probably resulted in the lopsided results in Wisconsin and Virginia.  

     You have to remember that it isn't Senator Boxer or Governor Granholm or any number of strong female candidates running for president.  Were that the case, this election would be quite different.  It would also have been different if Senator Clinton had not voted to authorize the Iraq war.  


    So downplaying the successes of the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    other candidate is bad? Wow, Obama must be DOOMED now!

    Well usually... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Alec82 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    ....you don't have people running around insulting your opponent's supporters by calling them "latte-sipping" liberals...in the primary.  Or refer to voters as members of a "cult of personality."  Just saying...

    Nor do you (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    call people who voted against you Archie Bunkers or racist baby boomer women. In my book, those are far more incendiary than "latte-sipping liberals." You might also want to remember that it was the media who coined that term, not Hillary supporters. Incidentally, when you call people racists for not voting for you, it is probably true that they aren't going to return the favor by voting for you in the general election. Obama is really shooting himself in both feet by continually insulting voters. He will not be able to unite the Democratic Party after doing this.

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    It wasn't anything said or done during the campaign that sank Hillary here, rather the rotten policies olf Bill's administration. Forcing the Death penalty into the 1996 platform played very badly here.

    Also, young voters (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    With our at the polls registration, we always get the heavies turnout from gthje youngest eligibles, fostering a more politically engaged youth culture.

    See this account of Bill's appearance in Madison from the Wisconsin State Journal
    Time passing by Clinton generation


    And videogame censorship (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    we take the 1st amendment seriously here.

    "I'm from Milwaukee, and I oughta know" (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:52:24 PM EST
    it's not so.  But media analyses and I have said before here what happened in Wisconsin.  Cheers.

    Well, we can at least agree (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    on the State Spreme Court race Tuesday.

    Go Louis.  


    Downtown Madison and Eau Caire (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    campus area wards 3 and 5 to 1 for Obama.

    Digging in (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    I agree this is absolutely the wrong approach.  As a Clinton supporter, these attempts to make her quit only make me dig my heels in deeper. A more affective approach would be to praise her to the skies, thank her for her service and leave it as an implicit suggestion that she quit.  Harry Reid could sweeten the pot by stepping down as Senate majority leader.

    If Obama had taken that approach between Iowa and NH instead of being arrogant and condescending, this might have been over a long time ago. He could have reached out to her supporters at the same time, and made us feel like part of his movement, instead of some kind of hope-haters. There would have been no need for this almost reflexive defense of Clinton that a lot of us feel.

    I keep hearing (none / 0) (#67)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    this suggestion that Clinton be offered Senate Majority leader in turn for letting Obama win. YOu keep forgetting something, though, the Senate Majority leader is elected by the dems in the senate. And Harry Reid has not said he wants to step down.

    I haven't forgotten that (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:41:47 PM EST
    I just think that if they are asking Clinton to 'take one for the team' and quit this race, the least some of the rest of them could do would be to reciprocate - Reid step down, and Senate Dems, superdelegates all, pledge to support her for Majority Leader.

    I know that I would feel better about her not being president if she were to have a major role in policy-making going forward. Maybe other Clinton supporters would feel the same way, and whole-heartedly support Obama in November.


    Electoral Votes (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by View from a broad on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    Obama fought to make sure Florida and Michigan's votes did not count.  If he is the nominee, there is no way he will win Florida or Michigan.  These two states comprise 44 electoral votes.  This is huge, we cannot just write these states off.  Clinton can win both of these states in the general election.  The superdelegates will want to know who can win in November.  The must win states are PA; OH; NY; Fl; MI; CA, Hillary has won them all.  She will also carry AR, a red state if ever there was one.  

    Also, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    TN, WV, and MO. I really don't see any plausible argument that Obama could win in the battleground states. And don't forget that if Gore would have taken TN or WV, the Last 7 years would have been quite a different story, to say the least!

    Visual for this Folly (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    The Simpsons driving with Bart and Lisa yelping:  "are we there yet, are we there yet".  

    All I have to say, is get some stomach and stick around for the ending.  People are voting.  If you don't like it crash the gates.  

    i love the smell of (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    "please, oh please, please, pretty please with whipped cream and a cherry on top, drop out now!" in the morning!

    it smells like..................victory!

    sen. clinton is going to clean sen. obama's cleats in the rest of the primaries. sure, he'll get the AA vote in philly, so what? philly isn't the entire state of PA, last time i checked. she'll pound him by double digits there, probably elsewhere too.

    the more sen. obama and his cohorts whine, the less "inevitable" he looks. his campaign is starting to tank, at the worst possible time. it appears to be "amateur night" with him and his supporters, versus the grizzled veteran that sen. clinton is.

    i'll take grizzled veteran over bewildered amatuer any day of the week.

    This AP wire story... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    ...demonstrates how successfully Obama's campaign has framed the race to the finish: Link.

    While noting that party elders like Carter and Gore are wisely calling for the party to not prematurely bury Clinton's candidacy, the story goes on to repeat every tired meme about Clinton's attempts to destroy the party in the name of bringing down Boy Destiny--including the specious claim that Clinton is helping a McCain win in November so she can run against him in 2012.


    I've resigned myself to the fact that the national press will do everything it can to promote Obama at the expense of the party's (and country's) longterm interests. And since the majority of voters don't want to back a perceived "loser," this heavy drumbeat of bad press and toxic talking points has started to affect her standing in national polls, which to some degree will trickle down to the results in the remaining states.

    Sorry to be so downbeat; I'm just weary of the pile-on and avalanche of bad press she's gotten for having the nerve to want people's votes to count.

    Couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    The saddest part is that it was in the cards from the moment she announced her decision to run.  Despite my initial reaction of 'Oh Hillary, what are you thinking?' I had the audacity to hope the press would give her fair treatment.  I guess she did too.

    The only unknown was which opponent the media would adopt as their darling. In all likelihood they will now have to decide which is their strongest love, McCain or Obama.  Will they tear down the guy they have built up all these years?  I doubt it.


    Popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    Every calculation for the poplular vote int the  primaries ...states that Sen Clinton can not get it without MI & FL.

    What is wrong with the calculations.... record numbers of voters in the DEM primaries.  The calculations do not factor the increase.. like in PA alone......

    "It's the first time we know of that a party in Pennsylvania has gone over 4 million."

    A total of 4,044,952 people are now registered to vote in the Democratic primary; a total of 3,215,478 are registered for the Republican primary.

    That is a real fear for the Obama Campaign.  

    The calculators I've seen (none / 0) (#121)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:45:45 PM EST
    use 2004 turnout numbers for PA and other states. Increase that 60% to the 80% we're seeing lately, and Obama loses the popular vote if PA votes for her in the number shown in the polls .... and that would have an impact on the remaining neutral superdelegates.

    And that includes all methods of calculating the vote count (with or without FLA/MI, and whether or not to include caucus states).

    But that comes down to PA, and turnout. That scares the Obama supporters, which is why they're calling for her to drop out now before they lose it.


    This election season is like a bad game of tennis (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    Where Hillary hits a powerful serve and instead of Barack trying to hit it back, he just stands there and misses it, and then whines about how Hillary is hitting the balls too fast and she should just drop out of the competition for having a good arm.

    He's like the Anna Kournikova of politics.

    He's getting a lot of mileage of this tactic, though.  I don't know if I should respect this new kind of politics in all its effectiveness or shake my head in shame for him.

    the Pa. Gov. Rendell was on Larry King last night (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    and said he got a phone call from Obama, who told him "you know I am going to win the nomination" to which Rendell replied "ummm yeah"...and then Obama went on to say, "I just want to make sure nothing is said or done to lose Pa in the fall election since I am the nominee....

    Isn't that a bit of a threat???

    What exactly does Obama think (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    Clinton is saying about him that the right hasn't already come up with on their own? He really does seem to be setting her up as a fall guy for his loss in November, should that happen.

    Dodd and Leahy should not be telling (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by 2 Cents on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. Talk about the height of audacity -- check out this great post by "Independent" who posted on CNN.
     Posted by blogger named: "Independent"
    March 29th, 2008 9:54 am ET
    LEAHY AND DODD: These Obama cronies are from two tiny states (who represents about 4 million people in Vermont and Connecticut) are lecturing over 70 million people [(Pennsylvania (>12 million), West Virginia (>1.8 million), Kentucky (>4 million), Oregon (3.7 million), Indiana (> 6 million), Guam (0.17 million), Florida (>18 million), Michigan (>10 million), North Carolina (8.8 million), Puerto Rico (3.9 million), South Dakota (0.7 million), Montana (0.9 million)] that their voices won't count. What arrogance. This is democracy not dictatorship. What right these two people (Dodd couldn't even gain a single delegate in presidential election) have to tell over 70 million people that their judgment is inferior. Give me break. Let the people vote

    I think he has stalled (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    ...and his campaign knows it. There isn't anything he can (that he will) do to change the dynamic from here on out -- they will slug it out, neck and neck, to the end and whoever ends up on top will do so by only the tiniest of margins. His campaign has been so negative about her personally for so long, that there isn't really any more intensity they can put into that effort. And taking a more gracious attitude toward her (which could benefit him) appears to be something he and his staff and supporters simply can't bring themselves to do.

    If he wins, it is no longer likely he will do so looking like a hugely popular candidate. Forcing Clinton out is the only way to maintain the illusion that the excitement hasn't actually been mostly drained from what was initially an extremely exciting candidacy.

    I believe that if he hadn't been seduced early on by the media negativity heaped on Clinton (thinking it provided a bigger advantage for him than it actually does) and had instead acknowledged the obstacles to, and the huge gap that remains to be closed before, women can be considered to have achieved anything close to equal participation and representation in the political life of the nation, and celebrated the genuinely historic nature of Clinton's campaign (instead of insisting, ludicrously, that she was running from, as if any woman, no matter how famous her husband's name, at this point in our history could run from, some unusually advantaged position of "entitlement") he would have put the nomination away long ago. (I know, I know, there's that supposedly all powerful "Clinton machine" -- but Obama started out with a machine just as, if not more, powerful; the combined financial, staff and organizational resources of Kerry, Daschle and Gephart and, shortly thereafter, the support of the Kennedys. Obama started his campaign as the best financed primary candidate in HISTORY, with more initial funding than anyone before him, long before he got his internet fundraising effort up and running.)

    Woman aren't willing to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. But many think it foolish to vote for a man who so consistently gives the impression he doesn't genuinely respect the important, additional responsibilities women have shouldered over the last 30-40 years, the important contributions they have made and make to the welfare of their families, to the economy, to the public life of this country -- and to his party -- or understand the still unequal and often difficult environment in which they, especially those outside the elite circles in which he dwells, work to meet those responsibilities and make those contributions.

    A little bit of graciousness and respect would have profited Obama a great deal. The great mystery to me is why he has never been able to muster any real semblence of graciousness toward or respect for Clinton and her supporters. In fact, he seems to, in some weird way, see himself as a victim of both Clinton and her supporters, most especially her female supporters.  

    I love your last paragraph (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    I've tried to say the same thing, but have not managed it nearly as well!

    And Yet Oddly, Somehow (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by KnightErrant on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    attacking Barack Obama at every turn is a sign of confidence and builds party unity.

    Oddly ernough (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    It is not a sign of confidence if you mean the Clinton campaign. They would have little to be confident about it seems to me.

    If you mean me, what do I have to be confident or not about?


    I totally agree (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by stevenb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    If Obama has this nomination "all sewn up," why is everyone worried about finishing out the primary voting for the rest of the states?  Calling for Senator Clinton to drop out ALSO is a call to not recognize that many states still reserve the right to cast a vote.  

    Even if Clinton doesn't win in the end, she will have shown that nearly half of the Democratic party is behind her, which in itself shows that Barack barely has a majority.

    It also makes a case that Obama and his supporters should be begging for Clinton's support from her and her constituency, instead of demanding her resignation from the race.  If they don't start asking nicely, Clinton's base is going to feel cheated and make a show to teach Obama a lesson about what happens when you are arrogant.

    Questions Surround Obama's Candidacy:

    For perspective and as a warning: (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    I had a political science class this very morning and here is the video we watched as part of it:
    Tweety and Ed Schultz calling for HRC to drop out

    BEFORE Ohio and Texas. They are saying almost verbatim exactly the same thing that they are saying now. And I told a class full of men that the more they do this the more money I give her. The more times they act like misogynist fools attempting to bully her out I react.  I had the 10 women in the class talk to me after and tell me they felt the very same way.  

    It makes Obama look chicken. And it thwarts the process that the majority of Democrats want to see continue. And have they not learned? Every time they do this she shows them who's boss. One guy said "well, that Hillary sure is tough"  Damn right she is.

    Absolutely Right About It (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    the level of frenetic activity by the Obama supporters is indeed alienating the voters Obama needs. Only, here's the problem.... every time I've tried to talk to an Obama supporter about it in my online communities (even when I was known Edwards supporter), I got a backlash from it that amounted to what I could only call hysteria.

    Granted, my experience was generally with the grassroots type supporters who don't understand you have to persuade the voters. There seems to be some sort of group think that you can shame the voters (the voters, not the candidate) into thinking your way.

    I saw it on DailyKos too (before I decided I was now a Hillary supporter and joined the boycott).

    Maybe it's a function of extreme anger. Maybe it's a function of the level of people I've dealt with, and a certain lack of, shall we say, tolerance for other people's thought processes, but it was one of the reasons I decided for Hillary and not Obama when Edwards dropped out.

    After Obama gets the nomination they seem to think Hillary supporters will simply fall in line and realize what a great guy this positive, politics of hope candidate is, even though they are running an extremely negative netroots campaign. And that leaches into the mainstream press.

    Excuse me? We are talking about Blue Dog Reagan Democrats. These are the people you have to persuade, and they are far more likely to think that if the campaign is immature, the candidate is as well.

    I held my nose and voted for Carter in 1980, I'm that loyal to the Dems, but I got a serious feeling Obama supporters are leading the way to defeat in November.


    relax (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    life is way too short to worry. I am a obama supporter, but I belong to the 62% who are patient. I would have selected Hillary but luck had it that the year she ran, she had on or rather against her a more congenial, more appealing opponent.Not fair but that is life. Salieri was a great musician, but sadly for him Wolfgang was there also. So us Democrats have two strong candidates. That is life. If I have any suggestion to both campaigns is both to lash on McCain and forget about the other guy or gal...Stick with your themes , campaigns , ideas and your very own charisma or lack of thereof. I like Obama , I would have like Hillary and if Hillary wins in Denver I shall vote for her, just like I hope and indeed think any intelligent Obama or Clinton would do. It reminds me very much of 2002-2003 when we were very very few of us against the Iraq war. Boy the blogs were nasty. Now at 50something, I have learned and hopefully the young clintoniacs or Obamabids will learn; tolerance

    Interesting Take On the Drop Out Call (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    and its misogynistic underpinnings at Shakesville.  Which is starting a similar watch to Corrente, only Melissa McEwan calls it the "take your boobs and go home" watch.

    I know there's a lot of male entitlement out there, but are guys like Leahy and Olbermann so used to getting their way that they cannot even see how it looks to have a bunch of men telling Hillary to be a good girl and step aside?  Do they think there will be no negative effect among Hillary supporters, especially women voters?  Because, if so, WOW.  

    It seems to me that there are only two things that could really damage or split the party:  1) FL/MI and 2) trying to force Hillary out of an essentially tied race so that Obama can be annointed.  Everything else is easily fixable.  I suspect the Obama people are willing to risk 2, to try to avoid the issues around 1 (which I'm beginning to suspect they fear losing if Clinton pushes the issue, which is one of the reasons they want her out of the race - Obama isn't ahead by much if FL/MI are seated).

    And if Obama is such a good uniter, if the very force of him can bring together Democrats and Republicans to solve huge problems like Iraq and healthcare, why do they think he can't unite democrats if he's the nominee?  This is a man whose face - his face! - is supposed to bring peace to the Middle East.

    That's what I don't get either (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:58:54 PM EST
    If these magical unity powers won't work on fellow Dems, who will they work on?  And why is he not even trying? Telling Hillary to drop out and accusing her of splitting the party is supposed to be a unifying message?  

    Here's an example of a unifying message.  Obama and his spokes-Senators can feel free to borrow it:

    We are confident that after all the votes are counted Obama will be the nominee. We honor Senator Clinton's efforts to bring the voices of her supporters to bear in this campaign, and if we do win the nomination we promise to work hard to be standard bearers for the Democratic Party and  will ask for the support of Senator Clinton, her delegates, and supporters all over the country.  Only unified will we beat John McCain.

    I'm sure Obama can say it better than that. Maybe it "starts with a whisper" or something,

    Then just chill out, forget about Clinton,  and start running against McCain as if you were already the nominee,


    Makes Obama Look Weak (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by BDB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:22:25 PM EST
    In addition to energizing her supporters and creating a backlash, it also has the effect of making Obama look weak.  Why does he need Leahy, et al, to demand Clinton drop out?  Can't he win it on his own?  What's he so afraid of?  

    None of that is good for Obama.  

    At first the calls for Clinton to drop out infuriated me, now they make me smile.  Because they will only backfire and help Clinton and because they have the opposite effect on me than they inted, every time I hear someone demand Clinton drop out, it makes me think that they don't think this thing is really over, if they thought Obama really had this thing sown up, they wouldn't bother making these appeals, especially publicly.  It's not Clinton they're talking to, its remaining voters and Super Delegates.   Which makes sense, if polls stay the way they are in Pennsylvania, it will be the fourth time Obama has had the opportunity to knock Hillary out and failed (the fifth if you count potential revotes in Michigan and Florida).  No wonder they need to tell the Super Delegates it's over, Obama is unlikely to show them on April 22.

    the greater folly is the house of clinton (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    getting more and more sideways with the very super delegates they need to maintain their long shot, back door route to the nomination.

    obama is not in control of leahy anymore than he is pelosi.  the supers are starting to close ranks and if super tuesday forward is a guide the house of clinton is about to fall.

    it was only a matter of time.  when you base your case to the nomination on a half baked idea of super delegates are free to choose regardless of the results, which they are technically.  you are relying on technically, and technically's will not get it done.  

    sooner or later the supers had to speak up.

    when you insinuate they are in it with you, well you have a problem if they are not.  

    when you are hanging on by a thread, it is the better course to not hand out scissors.  

    If it is really that inevitable (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    Why all the fearful handwringing from Obama's supporters? Why not just let the inevitable fall? I think your point is just bluster, and the stench of fear exudes from the obama campaign anticipating his getting busted in Pa. and other states. If he crashes and burns he just might lose the nomination.

    If (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    those supers decide to back him before all the votes are counted, Obama is toast.

    For Hillary voters, Florida and Michigan must be decided before there is a superdelegate vote, or they will feel she has been ripped off.

    That, combined with all the vitriol against her buy the MSM, the A list Blogger Boyz, HuffPo, etc will seal the deal.

    He's toast.


    citizen sas, what about the ninety supers (none / 0) (#44)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    that declared for the house of clinton before a single vote was cast?  the double standards, the deflections and the changes in subject will not get it done.

    the back door is closing is all.

    obama only needs thirty five percent of the supers.  i doubt the house of clinton is going to win the sixty plus percent she needs by calling them names, challenging their principles and raising money on their comments.

    as a strategy goes, if you want to win super delegates, then you usually do not pick a fight with them.  


    Agree with your last points (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:04:45 PM EST
    This week's tactics were not a good strategy by Clinton.  I don't think browbeating will work  with the superdelegates.

    All both campaigns should be doing right now is showing they can beat McCain.  That is all that really matters. They should just ignore each other and go after him, and let the superdelegates watch and decide who does a better job.


    it confounds the house of clinton that old (none / 0) (#62)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    friends are going to vote for what is good of the party over the assumed loyalty of the past.  stirring up the deciders makes no sense and is less likely to persuade or assuage those they clearly now need.

    if you are a supporter, i would be more focused on making the case why supers might vote for you, than challenge them with biblical references.

    just like bill stuck his foot in it in south carolina, it is happening again.  only this time, the crowd they must have to maintain any chance to win are the ones turning their backs.


    IMO, it is Obama who doesn't care (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by allimom99 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:57:29 PM EST
    about the good of the party. Hillary is not the one encouraging R voters to register as Democrat for a Day so she can win a Dem primary. I can't understand why the party would stand by and let Obama openly encourage others to pick the Dem's nominee for them.

    I'm an independent and was toying with the idea of registering Dem, but if they are telling me that someone with his record and associations is the person they think is their best shot at the Oval Office - I'll just stay put.

    I supported Edwards because I like his policy ideas. I now support Hillary because she is closer to him than Obama, and also because I DO think he's an empty suit. We can't afford to take a chance on a newbie at this juncture.


    i voted for hillary (none / 0) (#116)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:08:27 PM EST
    and now acknowledge the situation for what it is.  i voted for big papa twice.  i just refuse to put the house of clinton ahead of the party.

    Well you are (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:55:50 PM EST
    lying by simply stating that her staying in the race is some "back-door" way to the nomination. How is it back door to say that All Votes Should be Counted. Including the millions and millions left to vote. That is not back door. That is Democracy. And y'all are trying to squash it.

    Again, I say, be warned. We are not as gracious as the woman we support. I will quietly let go of her candidacy if she is forced out but I will NOT forget it in November.  Or ever for that matter.  If Obama is the candidate he purports to be he will prove it by allowing the remaining states to vote and if he wins then and ONLY then will I feel totally comfortable with him being the nominee. And I will vote for him gladly.

    If he succeeds in his misogynistic quest to punch HRC in the face and force her down, I (and many many other women like myself) will NOT forget it.


    Dropping out of mudslinging is good enough for me. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Publicus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:34:35 PM EST

    Obama has been slinging mud (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    More so than Clinton imo.

    But you are likely fine with that.


    No way. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Publicus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    The unfair "attacks" against Hillary are nearly all fabricated in the minds of her faith-based supporters.  The unfair attacks on Obama are clear as day.

    hmmm. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    Weird.  When I reverse the proper nouns and pronouns, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't think that's possible (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by dianem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    Every time Clinton (or anybody who supports her) criticizes Obama, even in the mildest way, his camp brings out the "mudslinging" charges. When there is nothing for them to grab onto, they reinterpret something to imply that it's mudslinging (i.e. the Clinton "patriotism" comments). The only way Clinton could stop "mudslinging" would be to not compare herself to Obama in any way and to somehow convince everybody who supports her to not say anything negative. It's not going to happen.

    The only thing Clinton has left is mudlsinging (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Publicus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:44:03 PM EST

    All manner of memes come to mind. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    but I'll go with:

    You don't "likable" Hillary very much, do you?


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#29)
    by AF on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    I agree with you 100% BTD.

    Another problem with the strategy is it creates a boy-who-cried-wolf effect, which could prevent Clinton from conceding the race in May or June, when it might actually make sense for her to do so.

    Follies Bergere continued (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    Reading in New York Book review an Elizabeth Drew pro-Obama piece.  In the end she lists the reasons the Super Delegates that Obama support is based on three things as described by a "Senior House Deomocrat:  

    1.  Concern of the animosity of Republicans towards Hillary.
    2.  Obama attracts indies.  
    3.  The AA vote.  

    That is it? #1, the Wright thing has brought Obama to the level field with Hillary.  #2. The indies from what I have seen are not sticking around.  #3.   The AA vote as the deciding factor?  Excuse me but the core Dems getting peeved may be a bigger voting block.  I don't know about these sort of things--but my gut says.

    When will people get it, there is no clear winner.  There is no runaway train.  And whoever wins will still have to battle McCain and frankly, what made us all collectively giddy, the woman and black man option, makes the other third collectively nauseous.  

    The idea that the Obama miracle will bring down the house, look, it did not bring down the Dem house.  It's a squeeker.  

    point #3 (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sumac on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    is the one I find most confounding. Democrats had the AA vote before Obama ever hit the stage.

    I find it so sad that this party has turned what was once one of our greatest strengths (our racial diversity) into a liability.


    Yes, the reports of the AA vote are so odd (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    this year, showing that media -- so sad that Drew just is getting shallower, not deeper -- don't even look up basic background.  Obama's percentage of AA voters is not that much more than for Dems before; it's that he has increased turnout at primary time to general election levels.

    So some watchers (see pollster.com) argue pretty effectively not only that this is not much more than the standard AA vote in fall but also that it has pretty much maxed out already and will not grow more.  That also means that a lot of pollsters using usual models for an increase from primary to general election time as predictors are over-estimating the AA vote by a lot.  (There is a little more potential growth in the women's vote, btw, but as it is so much more split between Dem candidates and between parties, it is nowhere near the problematic predictor that is the AA vote.)

    But Drew and her super-secret Senior House Democrat don't know this.  No wonder the media and the Dem leadership look dumber by the day.


    read that first one (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    "Concern of the animosity of Republicans towards Hillary" as "concern for the animosity of male voters toward Hillary"

    An awful lot of male Democratic leaders are ashamed of being labeled "the mommy party" --  they really hunger after all those men who have been voting with the Republicans since the early 80s, and they are afraid that presenting the nation with the first woman presidential nominee will more than ever make the party seem like the party of women and wusses. (Which, considering their behavior may be exactly what it is. Because too many of them are wusses, they are acting in ways that are more likely to diminish the number of women in the Democratic coalition than increase the number of men).

    Those leaders seem to see Obama as the political Michael Jordan --  a man who other men will be attracted to as a powerful (race-transcending) representative of masculine strength and skill.

    The problem with that idea is that Jordan's popularity was based not on an idea or an image but on a powerful record of performance.

    While Obama, at this stage in his career, has just barely put on the uniform and got onto the court.


    This explains a lot (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    If these really are the 3 reasons, it sure explains the ineptitude of House democrats over the last 10 years (minus the last month on the FISA bill- i'll give them credit for that).

    #1 is just faulty reasoning - there is no evidence that Republicans will come out in any more numbers against Hillary than they will Obama.  They will come out based on whatever local ballot initiatives they manage to get put out there in the battleground states.  

    2 and 3 have the potential to cancel each other out if the Obama campaign carries the South Carolina model into the GE.  If his spokespeople act like they did before South Carolina,  pretending every criticism is some kind of a race-based attack, they will lose.  Independents flee from that kind of politics like  their hair is on fire, and Republicans just don't care - in fact, that will get them more votes.

    Why do they have such little faith in solid Democratic principles that they won't nominate the person that stands most firmly for those? Why do they insist on playing this game of second-guessing the Republicans and playing to the right-leaning Independents?  (I say right leaning, because I assume those are who they mean - the truly left leaning ones won't vote for McCain anyway.)  

    This "Senior House Democrat" must have been a Bush Dog.


    Another kind of indies (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    swing between Dem and Green.

    Yes, that is true (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    But would they vote for McCain if Obama is not the Dem?  Or just stay home?

    Sounds about right. (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    I agree with your post and the Kos post.  If Obama supporters keep banging the drop out drums it could really backfire.  At this point, it seems inevitable that one of his bigname supporters will say something pretty stupid that gets him bad press and reflects poorly on his campaign.  I also think Dean's recent idea is stupid and reflects badly on the Obama campaign - superdelegates should declare who they support now?  Why exactly?

    Doing that makes it seem like the room is filling with smoke.  It will indeed alienate Clinton supporters for the GE.  If that happens, a nice little pocket of small donors will be out of reach to Obama for the GE...and most likely in THE MOST IMPORTANT AND CLOSE STATES IN THE RACE!  I also feel as though it reflects badly to the public on the part of Dem Congress(wo)men as they scramble to undermine the campaign of one of their own.  10 years from now (or whenever), I hope we will not be saying, oh he or she was an OBAMA SUPPORTER or a CLINTON SUPPORTER therefore they are no longer fit to serve.  

    If it appears we are the party of tiny egoists, if it appears the Dem Senate spends more of its time campaigning for Pres candidates than doing anything, that's just not good for our image or our country.

    I would add: (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    the truth is, it seems, that Clinton supporters hold the power over Obama right now.  Not Clinton herself, but the people who have voted for her and plan on voting for her.  Polls already show that they could bleed to McCain, and as I said above, her supporters exist in the greatest numbers in important EV heavy and swing states.  P*ss them off, and he will lose.  He needs a strategy to win them, for their $$, activism, and votes in Nov., and his campaign has given off some funky signs of disrespect to them thus far. Or perhaps better than a strategy, a message to win them, to include them in his tent.  It also means, and this may be inevitable, that he needs to start giving in policy wise and throwing bones at healthcare and other issues that are seen as Hillary's signature.  It's clear a significant part of the Dem electorate doesn't want to see itself as part of an Obama 'movement' so saying 'join us' isn't going to work.  He is going to have to come down to being a Dem, being the voice of this party, being part of a political tradition - this party.

    So, so true (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    It is the Clinton supporters that are keeping her in the race.  We are the ones Obama and his pals need to convince that she should drop out, not her. She will not drop out until her support dries up, no matter what Leahy, et al say.  Obama has not done one thing even try to convince us he will stand up for what she stands up for - core Democratic principles - so that we could trust him to be our standard-bearer.

    You and the Kossack (none / 0) (#98)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    are both absolutely right. Unless Sen. Clinton makes her own decision--and unless the voters validate Obama's position--this thing will not end the way it has to in order for Democrats to still win big in November.

    Sen. Obama should start urging his surrogates and supporters to put their energy into to voter turnout instead of inserting themselves into Sen. Clinton's decision to drop out.

    That is the best path to an Obama presidency.

    So if sealing the deal (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jgarza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    means her losing her base, and losing states she is supposed to win, then that means destroying her.  So do you want Obama and his supporters to be meaner to her and try to destroy her as a candidate, or point out that there is not a reasonable path to the nomination?

    But see (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    you again lose your argument when you claim you are simply trying to be "reasonable" You are being wholly unreasonable by explaining she has no path to the nomination.  There are ten states left to vote. If she does not do well in those states then yes, Obama will be the nominee.  But there is more than a reasonable chance of her winning. Just because Obama and Kossacks repeat it constantly on a loop ---the idea that "we're just being realists people"---the worse you make it.

    Believe me. If Obama wins this free and clear I will vote for him. If he wins this by managing to bully Hillary and getting all the powers that be to call for her to drop out, well Obama better be prepared to get a LOT of write-in HRC votes.


    And you are (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    being disingenuous in saying that she's lost her base. She absolutely has not. Her base of women, lunch bucket dems, and hispanics has been there for her since the beginning. They are the ones being told to get over it and STFU already.  They are the reason she is still here.

    Who is Leahy, he's irrelevant that's what (none / 0) (#128)
    by IKE on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    Leaky Leahy should just keep his mounth close. What has he done, where are his accomplishments, would he still be a senator had be not been from Vermont. This guy is a loser. The race should and will continue. MSNBC has become a joke of a network. I will never watch that network again. Keep this up and fox's ratings will quadrable.

    Check this out! (none / 0) (#129)
    by sander60tx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:11:59 PM EST
    Reutors reports that  
    Obama said Clinton "obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best president, and I think that she should be able to compete and her supporters should be able to support her for as long as they are willing or able."

    It seems that he is following what Howard Dean said the other day about sticking it out until the last primary and then calling on the super delegates to state their preference by July 1.  

    No way (none / 0) (#130)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    There's no way that Hillary will drop out before August, and we all know that.  By playing Mr Nice Guy (can you say Mike Dukakis?) while Hillary throws the kitchen sink, Obama just adds to the myth that only Hillary is "tough enough" to beat the "Republican attack machine".  So Obama has to fight back.