The One Group Who Should Not Urge Hillary To Drop Out: Obama Supporters

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

The Obama-favoring site TPM points to this NYTimes article titled "Obama Backers Urge Clinton To Exit If She Loses." TPM turned this headline into "Clinton under pressure to drop out if she does not win big in Texas and Ohio." But with Josh Marshall doing his best Ann Althouse imitations, that kind of misleading spin is not surprising.

But I want to make a different point. The last group of folks who should be pressuring Hillary to drop out is the Obama camp. It will be counterproductive AND unseemly. It would be more likely to get Clinton's back up to hear these calls from the likes of Dick Durbin and John Kerry, fierce Obama supporters. They are not likely to be taken at their word that their concern is "the good of the Party" as opposed to Obama's candidacy.

More . . .

My own view is that if Clinton does not win both Ohio and Texas, she SHOULD drop out but I also think she has every right to continue. And if she wins both, calls for her to drop out will look ludicrous and fearful.

I long called Bill Richardson the worst serious Presidential candidate I have ever seen. He just seems a stupid man to me. His call for Hillary to drop out was of a piece with everything I saw from him in the campaign. He said:

[W]hoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee.

So Richardson is saying no matter the results on Tuesday, including Clinton wins by 10 or more in both Texas and Ohio, Clinton should drop out. So the voters in Texas and Ohio would not matter according to Richardson. Well done Bill. The guy is as dumb as a bag of hammers. What he could have done was just endorse Obama. At least that would make sense.

Ironically, Karl Rove understands how unseemly this talk is:

Karl Rove, the former senior political adviser to President Bush and architect of his presidential election victories, said such calls from Democrats for Mrs. Clinton’s withdrawal were unwise and unbecoming.

“I think it’s a mistake for his campaign to be calling for her to drop out,” Mr. Rove said on Fox. That would be seen as “rubbing her nose” in the fact that she is trailing, he said. “It’s up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses,” he added.

Here is some advice for the Obama camp -- if you want a unified Party, let Clinton make her decision with dignity and without the gloating. The only thing folks like Kerry and Durbin are accomplishing is enraging Hillary's supporters and dividing the Party. Of course, there is a way the Obama camp can hasten Clinton's decision - win in Texas and Ohio. That will end it on Tuesday for sure. Why not try and do it that way?

< Cleveland Plain Dealer Poll: NAFTA Not Defining Race | Politics As Usual: What Obama's Advisor Meant >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ricardson owes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:05:37 AM EST
    Bill plus Hilary won New Mexico.  I guess that doesn't count?

    Heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:06:54 AM EST
    What CAN you do for me lately? is the rule of politics.

    Particularly If You're Richardson (none / 0) (#60)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:04:04 AM EST
    I saw the man's campaign, he's unlikely to achieve anything on his own.  Stupid and inept people need jobs, too.

    Dumb and disloyal (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:08:28 AM EST
    is no better than smart and disloyal. A lot of that around these days.

    Good Lord (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:25:07 AM EST
    Hillary said like 10 different ways that she has no reason to believe Obama is a Muslim.  What is wrong with people?  What is wrong with JMM?  It's the Obama Rules again - imagine if Obama's every utterance got picked apart for multiple layers of meaning like this.

    Undoubtedly (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:40:34 AM EST
    it is to Obama's benefit that the Clinton-hating MSM and the Clinton-hating Right-wing and the Clinton-hating Left-wing all have Hillary Clinton as a target.

    The reason some of those on the "A-List" blogs may want Clinton to get out is that they see some really serious kiss-and-make-up fence mending to do in the liberal community.

    Maybe all us "old white women" and the "low-income/low-information" voters are no longer quite as irrelevant as they were telling us?

    excellent point (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:43:42 AM EST
    One of my biggest worries is the left's words being used against a Dem candidate in the fall. A lot of folks will be eating crow if she wins. That is one of the reasons I try not to speak negatively about Obama. He may win and we need to get behind him if he does. And the fact is he is likable enough.

    This "old white woman" (none / 0) (#73)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    is going to have a very hard time lifting a finger for Obama in the general.  Whether I vote for him depends on if he makes a commitment not to privatize social security, which I think he will try to do.  Of course my vote will be meaningless, since I live in MA--unless Obama is the second coming of Walter Mondale.

    Well, she is not dropping out, so (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:33:20 AM EST
    what are they going to do after Tuesday---set their hair on fire?
    BTD, what did you think of JMM's piece on Hillary and the Muslim question?
    I thought he was way too harsh on Hillary.. yeah, I know, that's shocking.
    I don't think it's her business to comment on Obama's religion. And defending him from the "slur" that he's a Muslim? What if someone----G_D forbid---called Obama a Jew? Would she have to defend him from that charge too?

    I mention it in this post (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:34:57 AM EST
    Josh Marshall's Ann Althouse imitation.

    I off-topically posted this in the other thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:11:30 AM EST
    I thought the answer Clinton gave on that question sounded like something Obama would say if he was asked about a rumor regarding Clinton.

    I mean, what exactly was she supposed to do, tear her clothes and wail about the injustice?  This is politics, not daycare.  She said it was wrong, that she didn't believe it, and tried to move on.


    If she answers then she should answer it properly (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:13:09 AM EST
    not with a weaselly "as far as I know".  The answer as she gave it looks like she is trying to have her cake and eat it doing her bit to keep the "Obama is a muslim" smear alive.  The analogy I've sean elsewhere is as if obama was saying that "Hillary didn't kill Vince Foster, as far as I know" etc etc.

    Did you look at her next line? (nt) (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:15:22 AM EST
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#39)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM EST
    Fair enough,  I would have preferred a clear cut of course not and for her to leave it at that.  I agree with JMM that this incident is a bit of a Rorschach test & I'm not sure that there is a parallel between his articly and Ann Althouses ridiculous freeze frame analysis of the Hillary Clinton 3am spot.

    I think it is a Rorshcach test (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:27:51 AM EST
    and it take quite a bit of Clinton hatred to come up with this perspective.

    It takes Althousian thinking to try and make this an issue.


    It takes a low opinion of politicians (none / 0) (#46)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    not necessarily Clinton hatred.  It has been to Obama's advantage in the contest so far that he has managed to avoid being defined as a "politician",  or as you would call them the Obama Rules.
    You can take the view that it takes a particularly tortured reading or interpretation of the comments to read them that way,  and predictably Drudge has pushed that spin.  I am just saying from my perspective that if I was in Hillarys position I would like to think I would have been able to give a one line definitive answer and move on.  

    Ah Drudge (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:56:26 AM EST
    What more do you need to know?

    She did give a one-line, definitive (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    answer. Read/see the full interview. And then she was asked again and gave it again. And then she was asked again and gave this one. But then she was asked again and gave a great answer, as she had done again and again. It's a classic of media not moving on but trying to get her to hang herself. Frankly, no matter what she said, Hillary haters would have gone after her. Look at the last line, which I think is great (in reply to "Is it scurrilous") -- but I already had an email from someone this morning saying that she was trying to make it all about her again, rather than that she was saying she sympathized with Obama on, yes, these scurrilous attacks.

    Big Mistake By Obama Supporters (none / 0) (#47)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:37:54 AM EST
    I think Josh and other Obama supporters will be making a big mistake if they try to push this issue.  It will just make them seem ridiculous to non-crazed folks, including Obama supporters.

    When I watched the video, which on Josh's site didn't include the last part of the exchange where she again essentially denounces it, I was struck even harder by how ridiculous he's being.  The "as far as I know" came off to me as if she were basically asking Kroft if he had different information, like "you keep asking me this, do you know something I don't" and not "hint, hint, wink, wink, he's a Muslim".  I didn't get the latter at all and, while I'm admittedly a Clinton supporter, I don't think I'm so disconnected from reality I would've missed it.  


    I agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:55:55 AM EST
    and doubt they will go further than Josh did. Maybe not even that far. I frankly was shocked by his post and I have quite a low opinion of him now.

    Me, Too (none / 0) (#56)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    He's done some good work in the past, but he has little credibility with me right now.

    ditto (none / 0) (#59)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    but don't you see (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:16:05 AM EST
    that is EXACTLY the kind of two-sided answer Obama gives to everything.  Every. Single. Thing.

    Why is she held to a different standard?


    You know the answer to that Kathy. (none / 0) (#40)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:23:12 AM EST
    Because she's Hillary Clinton. And there are no excuses for anything she says of does. Meanwhile back in Obama land we are told again and again and again what he "meant" by what he said.

    Um parse much (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    She gave answer. She repeated it and wondered if Kroft had something HE KNEW that she did not.

    This is Clinton Derangement Syndrome writ large.


    why Richardson? (none / 0) (#3)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:36:00 AM EST
    There were three major Dems quoted.  Two of them were Obama supporters.  Yet the one you quoted, and  the one who made the stongest statement, was Richardson, who has not declared -- you neglected to mention that.

    Maybe we should get Byron White (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:40:47 AM EST
    to review his suggestions.

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:45:19 AM EST
    I neglected to mention Richardson IN THIS POST?

    Hmmm. I felt for sure I discussed him and called him as dumb as a bag of hammers. Let me check my post and see if I imagined that.


    You neglected (none / 0) (#9)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:47:30 AM EST
    to mention that Richardson, who made the strongest comments, has not declared for any candidate.

    Did I? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:58:43 AM EST
    I am pretty sure I suggested that he endorse Obama and be done with it.

    What part of (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    "What he could have done was just endorse Obama. At least that would make sense" do you not understand? What are you trying to say?

    No insults please (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:06:07 AM EST
    Sorry, not trying to insult -- (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:16:40 AM EST
    really trying to figure out, since you did say that, what Wonk means (as Wonk is often not clear to me until the third or fourth reply in an exchange).

    sorry for being unclear (none / 0) (#70)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    It seems to me that BTD was criticizing Obama supporters for uring HRC to leave the race, and the most damaging statement that BTD quotes is from somebody who hasn't endorsed anybody.

    The NYT article does quote two Obama supporters, on the other hand, and neither of those statements, it seems to me, warrants much criticism.  They are not saying things that are all that different than what Bill Clinton said a week or two ago (that HRC has to win Texas and Ohio).

    In short, while Richardson's comment deserves criticism, I don't think "Obama supporters" as a general statement deserve criticism from the facts in this article.


    Richardson's statement is a defacto endorsement (none / 0) (#38)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:16:48 AM EST
    of Obama.  i.e. He is saying he will support whoever is the pledged delegate leader after Ohio and Texas vote.  I'm not even sure it is mathematically possible for Hillary to overtake Obama's pledged delegate lead on March 4th,  so he is effectively endorsing Obama.

    Ah.. I didn't click or get the reference (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:38:10 AM EST
    , but that's a nice dig.

    I thought so (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:44:00 AM EST
    What's Really Going On? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:46:50 AM EST
    1. Make the 50-state strategy apply to the primaries.  Do some states really not matter?

    2. Ask the voters not yet heard from whether they want to vote or not.  PA?  NC?

    3. Why are those who lament the existence of superdelegates so eager to end the primary season - before all the "real people" have voted?

    4. An unvetted candidate should not be given an early nomination.  Danger ahead.

    5. Even Obama supporter should want the Rezko laundry aired before the primaries end.  Trial is just starting today.

    6. Beware of those who are "tired" of the democratic process.  The primary season was designed to run through June.  Change it in 2012 if you don't like it.

    Could not agree with you more (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:54:49 AM EST
    Besides it would be against Obama's campign beliefs that every votes counts.  One of Obama's whole campaign theme is its all about you and the importance of you. It would be hypocritical if he agreed to end it now.  Also the longer the primary runs the more things you find out of both candidates that you did not know and which could be critical in you making the best decision.  You never know what will happen between now and June. There could be a scandal or what ever and that's another reason that the superdelegates should keep their powder dry until then.

    Are you familiar with his career? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:03:26 AM EST
    He himself has sued to get opponents thrown off the ballot. Obama has benefited greatly from scandals that cleared the field for him. He lost his only tightly contested election. If he can deny the election going to the voters he certainly will.

    Good point -- it's certainly true (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:05:23 AM EST
    that Obama does not like to and has not had serious competition at the close, except for the one he lost.

    TPM's derangement (none / 0) (#10)
    by eric on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:50:02 AM EST
    Speaking of TPM, what about the post addressing Hillary's answer about Obama being a Muslim?  Josh seems to think it's "iffy".  Wow.

    I thought it was weird (none / 0) (#12)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:52:16 AM EST
    that HRC added "as far as I know" to her otherwise good comments.

    Well, as far as I know (none / 0) (#19)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:59:47 AM EST
    Obama only started attending a Christian church after he entered politics. I know nothing about his previous religious experience.

    And as far as Obama knows (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:06:28 AM EST
    Clinton is and has been a Methodist. Because she says so. He has not attended services with her.

    exactly correct. (none / 0) (#62)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:05:05 AM EST
    Evidence for Obama not attending church? (none / 0) (#24)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:06:02 AM EST
    Interesting claim.  Can you point to some kind of source for implying that Obama started pretending to be a Christian when he entered politics?



    He said so (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:07:10 AM EST
    Is that classy enough for you?

    Apologies, I think I misinterpreted MarkL's point (none / 0) (#52)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:48:04 AM EST
    Having said that,  I still can't find any reference to Barack Obama saying he only "started attending church" when he became a politician.  From his Senate Bio he "moved to Chicago in 1985 to work for a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment." He would have been 24 yrs old then and 2 years out of Columbia University then.

    Of course working for a church based group doesn't mean he was necessarily attending church.


    He wrote his parents were atheists (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    and he chose to be churched in his late 20s -- so apparently after (or perhaps in part because of) beginning to work for a church-based organization.

    He is hardly (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:39:07 AM EST
    the first politician to join a church as a way of establishing roots in a community.  No one said he is pretending to be a Christian.  Settle down.

    If he says he has always self-identified as a Christian since he was old enough to make a decision, that's good enough for me, good enough for Hillary Clinton, and good enough for pretty much any mainstream Democrat.  Not that it would make a difference to me if he was a Zoroastrian instead.  Religion is private.


    Yes, I meant what you said.. (none / 0) (#63)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    however, to me this means that you can make some issue of the beliefs of the pastor (about Farrakhan,  e.g.).

    Of course, it does (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:08:29 AM EST
    but even more so because BO says that his pastor was and is his mentor (although MO downplays that by saying, well, he's like your grandfather who has weird ideas, so you just go along to get along with grandpa -- which would suggest that, actually, BO is closer to the church and pastor than MO is).

    The pastor (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    is a total non-issue for me, although I freely accept that he will be an issue for some other people, whether I think it ought to work that way or not.  I simply don't believe we can divine anything from Obama's choice of pastor, as though he once thought to himself, "Gosh, this minister strikes me as the sort of guy who might laud Louis Farrakhan someday.  This must be the church for me!"

    It is a small issue to me, but (none / 0) (#68)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:13:13 AM EST

    Agreed, it's not that he's BO's pastor (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    as I disagree with my pastor on some issues. To me, it's that BO id's him as a mentor. And another is Lieberman. The list of mentors is worrisome -- but a list of mentors is telling.

    its not "someday" (none / 0) (#82)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:46:57 AM EST
    but during Obama's "grassroots" experience that Rev Wright was buddies with Farrakhan

    In 1984, Rev Wright and Farrakhan traveled to Lybia with to meet with Colonel Gadaffi


    Your response is strange. (none / 0) (#61)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:04:51 AM EST
    If what I wrote was in error, please show me.

    Sorry if my post was confused. (none / 0) (#72)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    I don't know whether your writing was in error or not, though I'm informed upthread by Cream that Obama has at some point in the past said something along those lines -  i.e. that he started attending church in his late 20's.

    I was potentially being a little thin skinned at what I took to be an evidenceless implication that BO is some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate who decided to pretend to be Christian when he got involved in politics.  As I said,  thin skinned.


    Not thin-skinned, I think (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    if that's your motivation -- as I agree that the accusations on Obama's religion are ridiculous, and not only because he gets to say what church he is (and to which church he donates a lot, I saw, which is more evidence) but because I agree that it is more shameful for anyone to suggest that it is a bad thing to be a true follower of that ancient and fine faith. To confuse the misguided followers with the true followers and faith is about the same as still not voting for a Catholic because of the Inquisition. Or because of pedophilia today, for that matter -- or because the Catholic may disagree with his church on abortion . . . which is one of the factors that hurt Kerry, with threats of excommunication. That some Catholics went along with that in their votes was appalling, just as it is for anyone today to not separate church from state in their vote. I have a lot of problems with Obama as president, but that is not one of them. He seems like a fine man, and in no small part because he embraces his faith, especially as it helps one with an unusual childhood find guidance as a husband and father. He's just not a fine president for me -- and it would be no different if he followed the Koran instead of the Bible. I don't think those are his sources of guidance on the issues that matter to me.

    The sad fact is that history in US politics seems (none / 0) (#79)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    to show that it is not possible for a Muslim or Atheist to hold national elected office.  It shouldn't matter,  but as far as the American electorate is concerned is does seem to matter.  I'm from the UK and in general we seem to be alot less likely to wear our religion (if any) on our sleeves and we are less comfortable with it having a public place in politics.  

    Ann Althouse imitation (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    Ironically Ann Althouses interpretation of this (none / 0) (#74)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    seems to be coming down more on Hillary's side.  i.e. That the piece was shoddy journalism by 60 Minutes.



    "Why ask Hillary what Obama blelieves? " (none / 0) (#13)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    I totally agree.  I wish Hillary had said that.

    No profanity (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:57:06 AM EST

    Here is my question (none / 0) (#16)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:57:22 AM EST
    If Obama is the front-runner, and clearly he is, has spent so much money, has won 11 straight victories, gotten many endorsements and unions are boosting him up - why should he not win handily in Ohio and Texas? Why is so worried about Clinton? I mean if her chances are so distant that it makes her the Democratic Mi Huckabee(as seems to be the implication Obama supporters and the Candidate himself) why bother if she remains in the race?

    If Hillary wins Ohio and Texas (none / 0) (#30)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:10:25 AM EST
    then she should not be dropping out regardless of what Bill Richardson says.

    Having said that I can see the logic in it being healthy for the Democratic Party to have a presumptive nominee sooner rather than later to unify around and start training some fire on McCain.  Even if Hillary wins Ohio and even Texas narrowly,  it may well be that Super Delegates or Automatic Delegates, as Hillary's camp prefers to call them, may well still start to cascade for Obama as it becomes clear that she has no credible path to the nomination.  If that happens then I think you may well still find she withdraws in the weeks following 4th March.


    excuse me-- (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST
    when did  Obama get a credible path to the nomination?  From what I have gathered, neither candidate will have enough delegates to seal the deal.  That is why the super delegates were invented.  You could just as easily make the case for the candidate who mostly wins in red states, or states with a specific demographic, should drop out.

    Everything will depend on Superdelegates (none / 0) (#44)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    and it appears clear to me that Superdelegates are currently trending in Obama's direction based on his 11 wins on the bounce and significant pledged delegate lead.  So you're right that this is why the Super Delegates are there.

    If Hillary wins both big contests tomorrow,  and manages to cut Obama's pledged delegate lead by a non-trivial amount then there is an argument that she will have stalled his momentum and I think the contest will continue.  Superdelegates will largely continue to sit on the fence.

    If she wins both,  but by narrow margins and the outcome is virtually a wash in terms of delegates then I think there is a danger for Hillary's camp that there will be a rush amongst uncommitted Super Delegates to seal the deal and select a presumptive nominee.  i.e. You could see  a rush of superdelegate endorsements swing the nomination obama's way.  Hence the recent move in strategy from Hillary surrogates to pressurise SuperDelegates not to rush into endorsements.


    What's everyone's hurry? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:12:22 AM EST
    We thought the compressed schedule would give us a nominee by late in the evening on February 5, and we would spend the next 6 months holding our collective breaths in fear of buyer's remorse we could not undo.

    Well, it didn't happen that way.  We have two strong candidates who are nearly neck-and-neck, the extended race has allowed for more conversation, more analysis, more interest.  That the post-February 5 contests have been as relevant - and maybe more so - that the pre- Feb. 5th races has meant continued record turnouts and more newly registered voters.  This is not a bad thing.

    After March 4, there are still some states left to vote; why shouldn't they get to participate at this same level of relevance?

    And the longer this stays close, the greater the chances that the DNC has to deal with Michigan and Florida, two states Democrats have to win if they are to win the presidency.

    As far as I can tell, Clinton and Obama having to keep delivering their message, honing their arguments, making their way into the lives of more voters, are good things.

    I hear the arguments that this race is getting too divisive, that the candidates' supporters are or are not going to vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination, but maybe this is an exercise we will actually learn something from.

    And really - if Mike Huckabee can keep on truckin' when McCain has it in the bag, how much sense does it make to be nagging at Hillary to get out when she is as close as she is, has won states Dems have to win in November, and neither candidate can get enough delegates in the remaining contests to win the nomination outright?

    The Audacity of Hope (none / 0) (#45)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM EST
    that Hilary could win should not be allowed.  Is this where we are today?  

    Richardson (none / 0) (#49)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:39:12 AM EST
    Before last March's Dem debate I didn't really know too much about Richardson, but a lot of what I heard was how great he was.  BTD, I'm glad you called him the worst serious presidential candidate, because I thought I was the only one who thought this. I mean he seems affable and nice, but he never, not once impressed me with the content of his words. I kept thinking is that all there is? What does everybody see in this guy? There must be something I don't know about him.

    As for tomorrow, I don't know if she can pull it off, but if she does win the 3 out of 4, she will be the nominee. She will have stopped Obama's momentum and his popularity will start trending the other way. She's beginning a mini surge that will grow if she wins tommorrow.  Her surge may be a little late, however, as she really needs those 3 states, otherwise I believe it is over.

    I think you overstate Hillarys chances with 3 of 4 (none / 0) (#58)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    If Hillary wins 3 of the 4 then that would presumably be Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island,  with Obama taking Vermont.  If that happens (popular vote wise) then I think she has a much improved chance of the nomination,  maybe 50% up from 20% currently.  Having said that it is quite possible,  if not likely that even such a result still leaves Hillary with a virtually identical pledged delegate deficit as she has currently.  With Texas hybrid system she could win by 5 points in the primary and still come out badly losing the delegate race due to the caucuses.

    Then it's really down to who the narrative favours and what way the super-delegates jump.  


    Maybe (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    But I believe if she wins 3 of 4 tommorrow, she will win Pa. and the sheen will continue to be rubbed off Obama, which has already started to happen. I just don't know if enough is rubbed off by tomorrow. If she pulls it off tomorrow, there's plenty of time for Obama's sheen to rub off even more. I'm not saying he will completely collapse, he just won't look like the god he's been annointed to be by so many.

    If she loses Texas (none / 0) (#71)
    by english teacher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    it will only be because Republicans voted for Obama.  I find it interesting that Republican cross over voters in a deeply red state would have so much influence over the thinking of some democrats as to who the nominee should be.  

    So Texas doesn't count now? [nt] (none / 0) (#75)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    Agree also (none / 0) (#80)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:08:42 AM EST
    There is a taint that comes from oppo party votes. We need someone who is chosen by the majority of Democrats.

    She's In It To Win It (none / 0) (#76)
    by Kate Stone on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    The LA Times pretty much buried her this morning with a piece on the warfare within Clinton's camp.  I think she is in in to win it and reports of her demise are premature.

    I thought the rules were (none / 0) (#77)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST
    that a candidate needed 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. I find it really annoying that Obama supporters think that has been changed to "whoever has the most delegates, regardless of the number." The only reason being given for her to drop out is that a contested convention will "destroy the party." I think what Obama's supporters mean is "we'll destroy the party." In other words, all of these college students who have been Dems for about a month will be so damaged by their candidate losing that they will abandon the party, so let's change the rules for them.

    There have been many contested conventions, and as far as I know none have destroyed their party.

    As for 60 Minutes, I know when I ask someone a question, and their response is "Of course not," I'm completely befuddled. Is that a yes, a no? Why can't they just say what they mean? Damn their equivocating.

    I swear many Obama supporters have more in common with right wing talk radio listeners than they care to admit. They both seem to spend an inordinate amount of time sitting around waiting to be outraged by something. Over at TPM I have seen commenters interpreting "as far as I know" to be a slimy, Bush-like smear. What are these people going to do with all of their hate once the election is over?

    Obama supporters on the blogs are so mean (none / 0) (#81)
    by DemBillC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    spirited and smug that many Clnton voters will be voting for McCain.