home

Hillary on Sexism and the Race Going Forward

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

After her anticipated win in Kentucky tonight, despite the turning of some superdelegates in recent weeks and the media proclaiming her candidacy doomed, Hillary Clinton will have won four of the last six primaries. Her supporters are not accepting that the nomination has been decided and she insists she's going forward.

Whether she succeeds or not, it's clear her supporters are particularly upset about the sexist coverage of the campaign.

In Kentucky Sunday, Hillary Clinton was asked about sexism and racism in this year's presidential campaigns:

In an interview after church services in Bowling Green on Sunday, Clinton for the first time addressed what women have been talking about for months, what she refers to as the "sexist" treatment she has endured at the hands of the pundits, media and others. The lewd T-shirts. The man who shouted "Iron my shirt" at a campaign event. The references to her cleavage and her cackle.

[More...]

...."The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

The article continues with a discussion of how Hillary has "found her voice" in the past several weeks.

"She has totally found her voice," said a longtime adviser, "but what is so frustrating for her is that there isn't enough runway to get anything done."

No one is quite sure when Clinton hit her stride, when she stopped caring about the polls, when she took her campaign to the people and gave voters a window into her soul.

Hillary says the electoral map favors her. She says the popular vote favors her and MI and FL have to be resolved.

On May 31, MI and FL may be resolved in terms of delegates. What should the superdelegates then consider in terms of the states' popular vote? Shouldn't they go in Hillary's column?

June 3 isn't here yet. Hillary has promised to stay in the race until then. Realistically, after tonight, the only big win she may get is Puerto Rico.

Here's a question for her supporters: Do you think Hillary should stay in the race after June 3? (If you are not a Hillary supporter, feel free to respond to her supporters' arguments, but this question is for them so limit your comments to responding to their arguments.)

Comments now closed.

< Kentucky Prediction Open Thread | A Feel Better Story >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary on Sexism and the Race Going Forward | 227 comments (227 topical)
    Stay in (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by SeaMBA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:32:41 AM EST
    She should stay in.  If the Democratic party can't stand a contested primary election then it is not strong enough to lead this country.

    I am tired of gutless Democratic leaders being afraid to fight for Democratic ideas.

    Take it to the convention (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    by all means!  The convention is where we can recount delegates who want to change their minds.  And there may be some doing so, since many of O.'s delegates were pledged before the real O. and the real H. took center stage.

    I'd like to once again hear: "The great state of -------, home of the -------, casts its votes (20 votes for O and 100 votes for H!) hopefully.

    [ Parent ]

    I wish the Super-Ds would answer (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST
    your question.  Why are they flocking to the person whose changes in the GE are not as good as Clinton's?  Why flock at all at this time.  Why not wait until the convention?  

    [ Parent ]
    $$$$$ And Fear n/t (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the SDs got the memo before Obamamites (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    that the Washington establishment supports Obama.
    The SDs rolling out for Obama after Hillary's huge wins in states Dems need to win in Nov - imply they're being pressured.
    Usually their press releases mention nothing about Obama's positions on the issues - but rather his media-created image that dupes voters.
    Hollywood celebrities have the same appeal.
    Britney for President!


    [ Parent ]
    I Would Like To See This Go To The Convention (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM EST
    Why should it be alright for Kennedy, Jackson and others who seriously trailed their opponents to take it to the convention and not alright for Hillary who is extremely close not to do the same thing? Establishing a different criteria for Hillary will not unify the party but cause further division IMO.

    Also, it provides the party with options. If it becomes apparent that Obama is unable to win the GE, then the party can go with Hillary.

    Having stated what I think should happen, I do not think this is what will happen. From all indications, the Dem leadership is against this going to the convention and appears bound and determined that Obama will be the nominee regardless of the outcome.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree, she should stay in. (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Geri on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    I've been sending her campaign messages of support regularly asking her to stay in and keep fighting, even if it means taking this all the way to the convention. Hillary has the better chance of beating McCain in November, she is by far the more qualified candidate, and will most likely maintain the lead in the popular vote after June 3. She can stand up to anything the GOP throws at her, whereas I see Obama wilting and continuing to stumble - (he doesn't know which states border Kentucky; he doesn't know Persian and Pashto are the official languages of Afghanistan; he's just embarrassing whenever he tries to talk about foreign policy, etc.) Hillary has a legitimate moral claim on the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    I think if she wins the popular vote (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    INCLUDING Florida and Michigan, she should stay until the convention.

    The SD's cannot, and should not, argue with the voice of the people.

    What are you (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    the May 20th party planner?

    [ Parent ]
    RULES? Oh, you mean the rules (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by vicsan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    that state all Super Delegates must vote for the candidate THEY THINK CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER and NOT the candidate that Barack Obama thinks should be the nominee? THAT rule? I agree. The rules should be followed. 50 states vote, that includes MI and FL, one person one vote and the Super Delegates vote for the candidate they believe can win in November. PERIOD.

    [ Parent ]
    that person doesnt mean the rules (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    the mean the "rules"

    [ Parent ]
    No they are not (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by vicsan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    lining up behind Obama. If they were, he would be the nominee already. Nice try though. Pledged delegates mean nothing. They can change their minds whenever they choose to. They are not a for sure vote for Obama and the RULES state that the SUPER DELEGATES are to vote for the candidate THEY believe can win in November. They do NOT state they should vote for Obama because HE wants them to. Sorry. Your guy will not be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Let them line up. (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:34 AM EST
    I think they have to vote at convention.  If they support him so much, they can do so with their votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny how (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    the Main Stream Media and Obama supporters were crying about the unfairness of Super Delegates until it started working in their favor. Keith Obamamann in particular kept making fun of "Sooooooper Delegates".

    The rules are always the rules what HAVE to be followed when they work in BO's favor. They are unfair, wrong and worthy of riots in the street when tehy are not. Hypocrisy much?

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama had enjoyed a big majorit then YES (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:54 AM EST
    FL/MI would not matter.. but THAT is not the case.. in such a slim lead (depending on what you count and what not) there is NO real winner.. THAT is why FL/MI are important..

    [ Parent ]
    Minds were meant to be changed. (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicsan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    DEAL WITH IT. Obama is going to lose. It's best you learn to handle the truth NOW before it actually happens. Living in reality is a good thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Please note troll "Artoo" giving all (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by chancellor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    pro-Hillary comments a "1".

    [ Parent ]
    his ratings have been erased (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    for improper use of the ratings system.

    [ Parent ]
    "The Voice Of the People" (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    The SD's cannot, and should not, argue with the voice of the people.

    Yes, they should.  The superdelegates exist because there's a chance the people will get it wrong in the early going.

    If I were a gamblin' woman I'd give you ten to one that Iowa would never have gone for Obama if Rev. Wright's diatribes had been known at the time of our caucuses.  When they came out weeks later a lot of Iowans were horrified.  We don't take kindly to "G-D America" here.

    Superdelegates are supposed to be the pragmatists...the people who can figure out who has the best chance of winning.  That, IMHO, would not be Mr. Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    No one campaigned (2.00 / 9) (#13)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:41:09 AM EST
    in MI and FL.

    If the UN was monitoring an election in which neither candidate campaigned and one was the spouse of a former President, they wouldn't call it a fair election.

    That's obvious.

    We can respect the votes and voters of MI and FL and work to acheive a solution to seating their delegations at the same time as we acknowledge that the primaries in both states were ones in which no one campaigned.

    That does not generate an outcome we can call the "voice of the people."

    In the states and territories where all the candidates camapaigned, Barack Obama has decisively won the pledged delegates and the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, that's just pathetic. (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:46:57 AM EST
    I'm sorry.

    Obama took his name off the MI ballot in order to render that election illegitimate.

    When voters vote, it's the voice of the people. Period. (Delegates are a different story, of course.)

    There was no legitimate reason not to count those votes. Nevertheless, HRC was happy to re-vote in Michigan AND Florida. Obama wouldn't let it happen. What is he, the self-presumed nominee and choice of the people, afraid of?

    He's afraid that HRC really is the people's choice. That his coalition won't hold up in the GE.

    His fears are well-founded.

    [ Parent ]

    No (2.66 / 3) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    The DNC rendered the Michigan election illegitimate.  Obama pulled his name to prevent precisely what you guys are doing in Florida, using a flawed election in which one candidate has vastly superior name recognition to argue that the delegates should be seated DESPITE both candidates accepting that the primary was void.

    There certainly IS a legitimate reason to not count those votes.  They were OFFICIALLY ruled void.  

    I always love when people argue that the winner is scared of the loser and that's why he won't let the loser change the rules in their favor.

    [ Parent ]

    The votes in FLA and MI (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Geri on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    have been certified by the Secretaries of State in each state. They count. Period. If the DNC refuses to count every vote, it will be beyond ridiculous and undemocratic.

    [ Parent ]
    Explain to (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    we poor ignorant folk why Obama stood in the way of re-votes in MI and FL AFTER stating that he would abide by the DNC's approval of the re-vote plan.

    A demonstration that his word is more like sewerage than gold.

    He had a chance to settle the dispute, to get the DNC off the hook for its imbecilic decision but chose instead to use scorched earth methods.

    The 800 pound gorilla in the room is those 2.3 million votes cast in MI and FL that are ignored at great peril.

    Much of the Obama following is too dense to understand that.

    [ Parent ]

    Name recognition? (4.91 / 12) (#151)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    WHy is it Obama can still claim to be an "unknown" whenever it suits him (WV, Kentucky)but on the other hand say everyone has seen enough, no need for debates, people have TV and the internet dontcha know.

    And why do you and kidoakland parrot this nonsense. Support Obama, by all means. But not everything his campaign does or says is gospel.

    [ Parent ]

    Why Helllo, Man of Straw (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    Where did I say anything about WV or KY?  He's losing those states because Hillary does well in Appalachia and he chose to make only a token effort to campaign in those states.  Name recognition arguments are no longer relevant.

    But they certainly were relevant in January and it would be utterly ridiculous to claim that Obama was as well known as Hillary in January.

    [ Parent ]

    It was only a week (none / 0) (#201)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    Before superTuesday, he was not an unknown, unless somehow he campaigned across the entire country in a weeks time, enough so that he won more states.

    He has not been an unknown to anyone paying attention since Iowa and NH.

    [ Parent ]

    In fact (none / 0) (#269)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    he, with major assists from the press had been making his name known for some time.  He had been gifted the keynote address at the 2004 convention. He'd been running around the country building recognition for nearly a year before the Iowa caucuses.

    As a racially identifiable new kid on the block he had better name recognition than Dodd, Biden or Richardson.

    [ Parent ]

    Man flyerhawk, you are just the Don Quixote of (none / 0) (#214)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:58 PM EST
    blogs.  I used to enjoy reading you over at RS.  You have a great deal more patience and tolerance than I do when dealing with those whom you don't fully agree.  Now I see you doing it here.

    Be of good cheer.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe (none / 0) (#233)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    that the best thing about blogs is finding people to argue with.  Going to a mutual appreciation blog doesn't really achieve anything.  We already agree.  

    I'll go back to RS once the elections are over.  They are too full of teh crazy right now.

    [ Parent ]

    Void? (none / 0) (#209)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    The state certified them. And there is an appeal process. If, on May 31, they are officially recognized by the DNC I expect you to lead the campaign to convince the Obama mob that they are legit. OK?

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (1.00 / 0) (#246)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    If the RBC officially certifies them as-is that would mean that the race is over.  

    Howard Dean would need to resign if that were to happen in a contested race.  

    But they would be officially recognized at that time.  Currently they are NOT officially accepted.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not true. Obama (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by vicsan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    cheated and ran ads in Florida. He also made the decision ON HIS OWN, which was NOT required by the DNC, to remove his name from the MI ballot. Hillary was NOT the only candidate on the MI ballot either. Dodd and Kucinich were also on it. Obama made the choice to remove his name. HE should be punished for that, NOT Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Same thing from you (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by standingup on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    just a different day.  Why continue when you are not convincing anyone and only causing more ill will instead of good will that might eventually unify some to vote for Obama if he is the nominee?  

    [ Parent ]
    If fellow Democrats (3.40 / 5) (#109)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    make non factual arguments that hurts all of us.

    By disagreeing and debating on the facts I am showing respect.

    It would be easy to dismiss TalkLeft from a "blog battles" point of view. I don't. I take this community seriously despite the fact that my comments have been deleted here.

    Jeralyn and Armando are lawyers and Democrats. They understand that reasoned, respectful, arguments are important whether one persuades anyone or not.

    In my experience blogging, it is the readers who make up their minds. Links and facts should always  be welcome.

    [ Parent ]

    this is off topic (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM EST
    Please do not redirect the conversation. You made your point in response to her supporters arguments. That's enough.

    [ Parent ]
    My point was (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by standingup on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    that many here don't take you or your opinion seriously.  So at this time, all you are doing is making the situation worse instead of better.  But if you can't help yourself, continue digging.  

    [ Parent ]
    Uh huh (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Nadai on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    Links and facts should always  be welcome.

    How's that been working over at DKos these last few months?

    [ Parent ]

    I think Hillary should have (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by blogtopus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    taken her name off every ballot she wasn't going to win. That's what Obama did in Michigan, and people call him noble for it, when all it does is pi55 on Democracy.


    [ Parent ]
    Cherry picking. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:50:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh??? (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by Inky on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    If the UN was monitoring an election in which neither candidate campaigned and one was the spouse of a former President, they wouldn't call it a fair election.

    Are you actually trying to suggest that Obama wasn't getting a lot of free media coverage, or that voters in Florida were not informed about who he was? Aside from the fact that Obama did in fact run ads in Florida, everyone know who he was and what his campaign was supposed to stand for. Do you think that Floridians don't have TVs, newspapers, or computers? Where do come up with this stuff?

    [ Parent ]

    Thank You (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    I was so angry when i read that completely moronic "UN" comment that I wrote a reply, then decided not to post it because I would get banned.  Thank you for putting into "civil discourse" language what I'd tried to say.  

    KO's comment demonstrates just how dangerous the Kewl-Aid cult is --- he actually thinks that his "UN" argument was intellectually honest!

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder what (5.00 / 9) (#76)
    by lilburro on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    the UN would say about caucuses?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh come on! (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM EST
    You can say this without shame?
    In the states and territories where all the candidates camapaigned, Barack Obama has decisively won the pledged delegates and the popular vote.
    So, Obama did not campaign in PA or OH, huh? He didn't campaign in CA or MA, I assume? Yeah, right -- I didn't think so. Further, as others have pointed out -- Obama ran ads in FL & actively campaigned for people to vote "uncommitted" in MI. Nevertheless, what is so often missed is that not campaigning evens the playing field even better because that way the election is not about who has the most $.

    [ Parent ]
    New Talking Point? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by gaf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    If the UN was monitoring an election in which neither candidate campaigned and one was the spouse of a former President, they wouldn't call it a fair election.

    Pray, tell me - what's wrong with being the spouse of a former Pres?

    Did I miss a rec list diary on dKos with title "OMG BREAKING : WIFE OF FORMER PRESIDENT - UN SAYS NO" that I missed?


    [ Parent ]

    x (none / 0) (#231)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    They better tell that to the President of Argentina...(where they have a female president and they got rid of an Electoral College - go figure....)

    [ Parent ]
    Pandering to Iowa & NH (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by gaf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    Markos calls it pandering to Iowa & NH.
    Link here

    What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

    So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.



    [ Parent ]
    Obama campaigned in both states (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    through surrogates and commercials.  Radio commercials made it very clear that a vote for uncommitted was a vote for Obama.
    In addition your argument is nonsense because we have states voting every four years where they are never visited by a candidate or sent a mailer or see a commercial.  We call them NY, CA, ID, UT etc....

    [ Parent ]
    Why did (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Evie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    Obama take his name off the MI ballot, but not Florida's? I mean, if it's the RULES, then why doesn't the RULES apply to both states that were penalized? If Obama were really taking a stand on principle (following the RULES), then he would have taken his name off the ballots of BOTH states.

    Was he violating the RULES then when he left his name on the FL ballot? If not, then it would not be against the rules to leave his name on the MI ballot.

    Fair elections depend on being fair to the VOTERS, first and foremost. Giving voters the choice. In Michigan, Obama voluntarily eliminated that choice for the voters. He forfeited that contest.

    [ Parent ]

    kid oakland (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    that "logic" is ludicrous.  To be unfair one of the parties would have to have been GIVEN a special advantage.

    That situation just does not exist.

    Obama executed a cynical ploy in Michigan, pulling his name off the ballot to taint a certain Clinton win.

    In Florida no candidates, except Obama, campaigned. What could be more FAIR than the fact that no money was involved (except for Obama), no chance of 'buying' the vote.

    And I'd like to know when YOU decided that people casting secret ballots in a state operated election doesn't constitute the "voice of the people," especially when 2.3 million people participated.

    And no, Obama has not won anything decisevly or otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, but (4.63 / 11) (#66)
    by outsider on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    if UN election watchdogs were monitoring this primary process in general then they would surely refuse to sign it off as free and fair.  When you have a situation where a candidate can win the popular vote in a state yet lose in the delegate count because of arcane districting arrangements, where the delegate tally following a state's primary can be overturned by a causus "two-step" later that evening, where the number of delegates a candidate can obtain from a caucus state depends on how many of their supporters can cram themselves into a church hall and barricade out their opponent's supporters... that kind of stuff would shame a banana republic.  *If this were an election.*   A very risky line of argument for an Obama supporter to make, methinks...

    [ Parent ]
    Obama had campaign ads in Florida. (4.33 / 6) (#25)
    by MMW on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    That is an established fact. Both names were on the ballot. Lying about a proven fact derails your argument. I didn't get past that statement.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the thing... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    the reason that I wrote to Jerome and Jeralyn in the wake of their inflated claims that Obama campaigned in Florida based on Jerome's misreading of Center for Responsive Politics data was that I knew this would happen.

    Jeralyn corrected her story here. Jerome added a faint correction and then censored my post.

    In fact, Obama did not campaign in any sense of the word in Florida. There were no events. There were no local expenditures or literature or canvassing or offices despite initial and false claims made here on TalkLeft and at MyDD.

    Obama did purchase one national ad that appeared on some cable markets in FL. That is it. That is not campaigning.

    If Clinton is hanging her "popular vote argument" on the basis that Obama campaigned in Florida and the two most prominent blogs supporting her had to print retractions over false claims regarding Obama's expenditures there, that's a pretty weak reed to hang such a powerful claim upon.

    The fact is, Obama has won the pledged delegate and popular vote count in the states where every candidate campaigned, hands down.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 8) (#122)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    According to the DNC definition of campaigning, which was explicitly referenced in the pledge signed by all candidates, running those ads was most certainly campaigning.

    Here is a link to the 2008 DNC delegate selection rules.

    A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

    It is beyond dispute that Obama purchased electronic advertising that reached a significant percentage of the voters in Florida.  Your claim that he did not campaign "in any sense of the word" is based upon nothing more than your own made-up definition.  The rules, the sacred, sacred rules, conclusively demonstrate that you are wrong.

    I don't expect you to acknowledge that you were incorrect, as it seems I have seen you spreading this misinformation for quite some time.

    [ Parent ]

    he also held a news conference.. (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    in Florida in violation of those same rules.

    While both Clinton and Obama held fundraisers that were within the rules, only Obama advertized and held a news conference there.

    IMHO, the florida delegation should be seated without the Obama delegates because of his violation of the DNC rules.

    [ Parent ]

    No he didn't (1.00 / 0) (#213)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    He went to a fund raiser and when he left the fundraiser some reporters asked him some questions.  Hardly a press conference.

    All of this has already been addressed by the Obama campaign and the DNC was fine with it.

    Your desire to squelch the votes of Obama supporters  is duly noted but it isn't going to happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#232)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    "the DNC was fine with it?"  Are you referring to how Obama claimed he had permission to run the national ads based on the opinion of one state party chair who is now an Obama superdelegate?

    I am not going to let you guys continue making these myths.  Kid Oakland wants to make speeches about how important it is to be factual, fine, then stay factual.  I quoted the rules, there is no reasonable argument about what they say.

    [ Parent ]

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by MMW on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    Campaign ads equal campaigning that's why they are called CAMPAIGN ads.

    He outspends by how much and can't close the deal?

    On your premise, he must not have shown up in either PA or OH, cause he lost there too.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes I must have missed him (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by DJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    in California and Mass too.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Radix on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    but the popular vote for both MI and Florida have always counted, according to the DNC. The Dnc only stipped those states of their delegates, as per their rules. We all want to obey the rules, now done we?

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#186)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    What did the DNC say they counted for?

    [ Parent ]
    So? (none / 0) (#96)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:57:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Big deal (none / 0) (#216)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    Are you telling me that Obama's name was not known right after coming off a huge win in South Carolina?  And after being in the race for almost a year?

    If that's the qualification, then we need to throw out the last several elections because the Dem nominee was probably chosen without having campaigned in any state past Super Tuesday.

    Silly argument.

    [ Parent ]

    I think she's got to stay in until the convention (5.00 / 15) (#3)
    by katiebird on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    For one thing, no other candidate has been forced out before they were ready of their own accord to suspend their campaign.  For Hillary Clinton to be forced out as insignificant while virtually HALF the party supports her is an insult.

    Also?  I don't think Obama can make it through the summer.  McCain is already attacking him hard.  And I don't think Obama (OOO I can't run in Kentucky) can stand up to him.

    We need Hillary to pick up the pieces of his shattered campaign.

    I agree, with this proviso. Those of (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    us who strongly urge Clinton to stay in until the convention should be backing up our words with $$ to enable her to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by katiebird on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    You're absolutely right.

    [ Parent ]
    "forced out"? (none / 0) (#60)
    by seesdifferent on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    how could anyone force her out? it's a free country. Nobody is going to clap her in irons or take away her checkbook. This is a political process.

    [ Parent ]
    (snort) (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by katiebird on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    What a laugh!

    [ Parent ]
    All the way to the convention! (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    No matter how things stand on June 3rd. The popular vote can be counted in so many ways that each camp is going to claim it.  The facts will show that Obama's campaign peaked early and has been in decline in the last few months.  Hillary's campaign is only getting stronger.  I say that she and Bill and Chelsea should take a much needed vacation and come back strong for the convention. Who knows what the summer will bring?

    Absolutely. She's won 435k votes (5.00 / 19) (#6)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    more than Obama since the beginning of March.  Obama peaked in February.  I think he will continue to bleed support over the summer.  She's gotten stronger, he's become weaker.  I'd like see the SDs to vote for Obama, if that is what they want, and not just pledge to support him.  Hillary has become an incredible candidate for the Democrats and she knows how to win.  Really, we don't need to nominate someone who is limping toward the finish line simply because he had the better caucus strategy.  Hill has won the swing states, the swing groups and the large electorals.  She's the superior candidate.  She has the character and strength to be one of our best Presidents.  Who else could continue campaigning against narrative and win the swing state of West Virginia by 41 points?  This country would be best served with a tenacious, hyper-intelligent, well-informed policy wonk.  I just think we need Hillary.  Among the three remaining candidates she's best prepared to lead out country. And, for the sake of women, it's important she doesn't throw in the towel.  This race is too close.  She needs to see this through.

    Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:45:30 AM EST
    has only fallen further behind in the Gallup tracking poll.

    And Obama beats McCain by 8pts in Pennsylvania per the latest Survey USA poll.

    That directly contradicts your argument that she is getting stronger and he is getting weaker.

    Clinton runs better than Obama in Appalachia. That is clear. It is not, however, an indicator of momentum or strength in other parts of the country.

    IN and NC proved that.  Oregon will likely show that again today.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm talking about votes. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    She's claimed far more votes than when BO peaked in February.  

    [ Parent ]
    But --in Gallup -- she still does (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    better against McCain than Obama does.

    The Obama/Clinton number reflects the media narrative.  The McCain matchups reflect what the public actually wants.

    Face it.  You've nominated a candidate who is going to lose.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly: (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    "The Obama/Clinton number reflects the media narrative."

    [ Parent ]
    Gallup (none / 0) (#217)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    might be way off because of the number of people who have left the party and gone independent.

    [ Parent ]
    She wasn't supposed to win Indiana. Obama (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    was by his own estimates.  She did extremely well in NC with non-african american voters.  Obama had near monolithic support from african americans who made up at least 35% of the primary electorate.  

    [ Parent ]
    So I guess we really don't (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    need Appalachia to win the GE!

    Wow!

    We've only needed it every OTHER Presidential election. But not this one!

    This is the bestest GE strategy EVAH!

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#118)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    Clinton runs stronger in Appalachia than Barack Obama.

    That's what I wrote. It's a pretty simple point.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that point... (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by gmo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    ...has been dispelled enough times on this blog to no longer call it "Appalachian" problem, and continuing to call it such is getting a bit offensive.

    BTD has posted several times how the problem is not simply in "Appalachia" but also across many other states as well.  Where the "white" problem isn't prevalent is in the west, where many of the contests were held before the Rev Wright fiasco, etc.

    Just pointing out that you shouldn't limit your description of the issue to "Appalachia."

    [ Parent ]

    It's Obama's weakness that is worrisome (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST
    there and in many areas of the country.  It's not just that Clinton is stronger there -- it's that Obama is weak there to the point of near-oblivion.

    It's Obama's weakness, Obama's problem -- and his solution is to stick with adoring crowds coming for rock concerts and avoid areas where he needs voters.  That's not a solution that wins the White House.

    [ Parent ]

    How sad that you would quote a gallup poll (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by wurman on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    with George junior so far in the GOoPer'z tank that he'd drown without even being flushed.

    C'mon, please.

    [ Parent ]

    Electoral Maps Show Obama Losing To McCain (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    and Clinton beating McCain. The Roolz say the GE is won by electoral votes.

    [ Parent ]
    CLINTON (none / 0) (#150)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    says something different to what you are saying and not reporting the true poll. People should go there and read the first paragraph and it says that Obama is tanking in many of the swing states. So since you can't believe the media, pundits, nor what you read Clinton should stay in until the end. I support her all the way and it will be a miracle if Obama can secure my vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Polls, shmolls, (none / 0) (#153)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    they only count when they support your position.  The only "polls" that matter are the ones that tally up the score when voters vote.

    [ Parent ]
    ummm (none / 0) (#260)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    that's a one for the "Appalachia" remark.  That's just another way of saying "racist" these days and I am tired of being called racist.

    National polls are not very meaningful.  Hillary is much stronger in terms of winning voters over since February and she is much stronger in terms of the electoral map.

    [ Parent ]

    Stay in! (5.00 / 14) (#7)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    HECK YEAH.

    Taylor Marsh has an interesting Nightline clip about women who are ticked about the sexist treatment shown during this campaign.  The media keep glossing over an important fact, though, and concentrating on HRC instead of the anger we all feel not just toward the media, but toward the DNC and Howard Dean.  They have not stood up against any of the misogyny.  Dean personally called McCain to ask him to pull the NC Wright videos, but when the Chelsea "pimp" comment came out?  When the "stay in the bathtub" Fatal Attraction comment came out?  Crickets.

    They're so blinded by anti-Clinton sentiments that they fail to see the real issue here, which is that by not taking a stand against sexism, they have firmly taken a stand against the core of the party: women.  

    I think she should stay in (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    until MI and FL are resolved.  if that is christmas.
    gee (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    proud to be in the company of all these "1" rated comments.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm giving 5 to all whom (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    Artoo is dinging with "1s" -- doing my part to show how meaningless they are! lol

    [ Parent ]
    Stay in of course (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    The media, in coordination with the Obama campaign, have tried to short circuit the process.

    Keep in mind that the calls for Clinton to drop out became loud right after the DC-MD-VA primaries, and that was on 2/9 (I believe). That was way before OH, TX, PA and so on.

    Moreover, Hillary supporters want her to stay in until we have a final resolution acceptable not to all, but to most Dems.

    If the Obama campaign wants to do want the likes on Andrew Sullivan is ordering them to, good luck.

    I see no reason (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by standingup on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    for not allowing the remaining states and Puerto Rico their opportunity to vote in the primary.  The people have expressed a sincere desire to vote and be heard.  I am tired and disgusted with the pundits, media and party elites lack of respect and interest in the voters.    

    absolutely stay in until the convention.... (5.00 / 10) (#92)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST
    Clinton absolutely has to refuse to concede... its absolutely essential that she maintain at least a skeleton organization for November until the convention, because Obama will continue to decline in the polls against McCain over the summer, and Clinton cannot just "step in" at the last minute and run a successful campaign in November.

    She should also stay in so that she can have maximum impact on the party platform, and the future of the party -- especially when it comes to how nominees are selected in the future.  

    (and, I really hope she stays in and challenges lots of the caucus delegates from states that failed to follow/enforce their own rules.)

    [ Parent ]

    I Agree About Not Conceding (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:20:47 PM EST
    But I think she has to publicly suspend if Obama reaches a majority of delegates.  Otherwise all we're going to hear all summer is how Obama will unify the party, but can't because of Clinton.

    If she publicly suspends - I agree keeping a skeleton crew together - then the things she's now being blamed for, Obama will get questioned about.  Whether the tone and nature of his campaign were ultimately divisive, why he's weak in swing states against McCain, his weakness in Florida.  

    Sure, some folks will still blame Clinton, but if she's "gone" in mid-June and Obama is struggling at the end of July, plenty of people are going to start asking why.  And that's going to be even truer if he gets a little unification bump after she suspends.

    [ Parent ]

    After the Convention (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:50 PM EST
    We cannot allow Obama to kick the can until after the convention.  I can't unify now because of Clinton, so trust me, it'll all work out after the Convention.  Because if he's wrong, after the convention will be too late.

    [ Parent ]
    Stay in untile the convention! (none / 0) (#191)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    I wholeheartedly agree with your statements.


    [ Parent ]
    Complete the primary and keep her candidacy (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    completely viable -- The SD's may come to their senses, and we need a backup in case Obama melts down.

    Seat FL and MI.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it is the best thing (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by TomP on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    for eventual unity for her to stay in through the primaries and then make a judgment on what to do.

    Perhaps, like John Edwards, she found her voice when she exiled the consultants and spoke from her heart.  Getting rid of Penn was key.

    I also am glad she is talking about the sexism that exists.  She is exactly right: sexism and racism are wrong.

    Hillary Clinton is doing a great service to all by talking about the sexism that still exists.

    [ Parent ]

    The Rest Of the States (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    I, too, want to see the rest of the states have a voice.  I am sick and tired of Iowa swinging so much weight so early in the campaign.  We caucused this year before the news of Rev. Wright came out.  It's hard to believe that we would have gone for Obama if we'd known about Wright.  We wound up giving him the momentum he needed to make a race out of something that should clearly have been no contest.

    This extended campaign has been a breath of fresh air, IMO.  It's long past time the people of the later states assumed their proper place in the process.

    Now, if any state would like to take over being first, you have my vote. Iowa's not doing too well lately.

    [ Parent ]

    I had the very same (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by standingup on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    thoughts on Iowa just the other day.  The record on choosing a winner leaves something to be desired.  I like the idea that someone had floated on breaking the primaries into more of a regional contest.  

    I am frustrated that more are not recognizing the apparent changes in the electorate since Obama has undergone more vetting.  The prolonged primary should be signaling she is a stronger general election candidate yet many want to overlook that point.    

    [ Parent ]

    Voters Always Get to Vote (none / 0) (#130)
    by Niffari on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
     
    They will be holding elections just as the Republicans who have long since determined a winner will be doing as well. The problem is one of perspective. The Dem Party will not hold onto or forward the idea that Clinton is a viable candidate for the nomination unless she can overtake the delegate lead. It's just not happening. What many here clearly want is some radical change in nominating procedures at the end of the game. That's not happening either.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Radical Change (none / 0) (#225)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    in nominating procedures.

    That may not be happening now, but it's quite likely to happen later when it becomes apparent to the super delegates that the party is about to nominate a loser.

    Obama should be praying that Hillary stays in the race.  If she gets out, the Repubs will turn their sights on him and he will fold like a two-dollar suitcase.

    [ Parent ]

    Sexism aftermath (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    It was unmistakable.
    It's been bubbling for months.
    It's reached the start of a crescendo recently.

    This is just the start...
    Now the first female vice presidential candidate in U.S. history, Geraldine Ferraro, just hinted that she may not vote for Obama if he's the nominee. It's quite a signal to send.

    ... .. Some even accuse Mr. Obama of chauvinism, pointing to the time he called Mrs. Clinton "likeable enough" as evidence of dismissiveness. Nancy Wait, 55, a social worker in Columbia City, Ind., said Mr. Obama was far less qualified than Mrs. Clinton and described as condescending his recent assurances that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race as long as she liked. Ms. Wait said she would "absolutely, positively not" vote for him come fall.

    Ms. Ferraro, who clashed with the Obama campaign about whether she made a racially offensive remark, said she might not either. "I think Obama was terribly sexist," she said.

    Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. ...

    Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton's Hopes Dim. Don't think Clinton's female supporters aren't listening.

    One thing is certain, Senator Obama has made a mess of this, as has his campaign. Early on, arrogantly pronouncing that he could get the vote of Clinton supporters, while he wasn't sure she could get his was the starter, with Mrs. Obama making it worse with her remarks. Obama's supporters didn't help either, attacking Clinton supporters with profanity and worse.

    There long ago began a hardening of hearts and attitudes on the Clinton supporter side, with women now determined to stiff Obama if he's the nominee (taking myself out of the equation). But they're not just going to sit out the election. Many of Clinton's supporters are planning to vote for John McCain. It's hard to believe, I know, but it's a fact.

    It's all about principle. Clinton's supporters don't understand why the woman with the big vote total is being pushed out. Brokering a nominee who refuses to count Michigan and Florida is not their idea of democracy from the Democratic Party, which they've supported for decades. Barack Obama stands for everything they've come to loathe this primary season, the sexism, his silence about it, his own complicity in it, the disrespect of Senator Clinton, the list is indelibly marked in each Clinton supporter's brain.

    There are many in the pundit class pontificating that all this rancor from Clinton supporters will go away (if Obama is the nominee). That it's just the way people feel today. They couldn't be more wrong. I should know, because few people have easier access to what Clinton's voters are feeling and saying than me. Frankly, after what I've seen this primary season, I don't blame them. It's not like Senator Obama has made any effort towards them at all. Oh, he's now asking his supporters to play nice with Clinton's 17 million plus base, because he's going to need them (if he's the nominee). I'm afraid it may be too little, too late.


    Justice (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Sunshine on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    It's not so much about Hillary anymore, it's about the women that plan to run in the future... What woman would want to set herself for this kind of treatment....  It must be stopped now!!!

    [ Parent ]
    History repeats itself in those (5.00 / 4) (#249)