Clyburn: Clinton Should Not Drop Out

Some have learned a lesson:

There's clearly an effort not to appear to be forcing Clinton out of the race and Rep. James Clyburn -- formally uncommitted, but recently critical of the Clintons -- said on MSNBC this morning that it's "absolutely not" time for her to drop out.

Good for Clyburn.

By Big Tent Democrat

< McCain on Judicial Appointments | A Drug War Outrage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No lesson (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by gaf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    They don't want HRC to drop out now because Omama would look silly losing WV by 30% to someone who is no longer active.

    Yes it always looks bad to lose (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    to "uncommitted".  Don't worry, as soon as the primary race is over. they'll be out in force calling for her to leave, and to take her people with her.

    Ah, but "uncommitted" = Obama (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    ....at least he thinks so for MI.  

    Since he wanted all the uncommitted vote delegates there.


    He also (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    wanted nearly 6 points of Hillary Clinton's vote as well as the votes for Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel. An additional 5 points.

    Makes sense though.  Obama has a history of getting what he doesn't deserve including his legislative record in the Illinois Senate.

    That the Obama campaign wanted what it had not earned and called it 'fair' tells us a lot.


    It's that ENTITLEMENT problem (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    they keep trying to get to stick on the Clinton campaign.

    Well, that will be a bruising loss (4.50 / 8) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    unfortunately for Obama, the media can't control the voters.

    Less bruising now (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    as the campaign is perceived as over.

    Frankly, I think that makes it worse (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    because it highlights the problems Obama will be stepping into in the next few months.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:34:00 AM EST
    The voters don't care about the media. If they did, Obama would have won every state.

    And HRC would never have won her NY State Senate seat.


    Not in terms of the Media (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    How do you see it playing? (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    Barely covered (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:40:10 AM EST
    An afterthought.

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:46:21 AM EST
    Doesn't matter. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    The media does not influence this election, or the superdelegates, the way BTD thinks they do.

    Otherwise Obama would be the nominee.


    He is (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    Oh please. (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    No he isn't. He won't be until August.

    Big of him.... (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    ....after the damage he inflicted spending the whole campaign painting her as a racist.

    One problem (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    Obama is a niche candidate.

    Still is.


    Thanks for giving us (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    the standard Obama spin on the race-baiting, which has been proven to originate with his campaign, and without which he would not currently be competitive with Clinton.

    You're not going to convince anyone that up is down here.


    Don't forget Michelle (none / 0) (#167)
    by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:35:35 AM EST
    ...who told the assembled to "wake up!" because Barack was their man for obvious reasons.  

      Add Brazile's gleeful jumping on to purposefully misinterpret the "fairy tale" remark about Obama's Iraq voting record as a U.S. senator, making sure for a full week that Blacks would believe (because she said so) that Bill was referring to obama's "campaign" ... that was shameful and disgusting.

      Her ploy worked.  She continues to be blatantly dishonest, acting as a CNN 'analyst' who's "undeclared" for a candidate but every utterance from her is a declaration.  NOTHING said by her is free of the campaign bias.  Embarrassing.

      Here's a more detailed description of ObamaTeam's playing of the race card (New Republic), with which Obama supporters won't agree.  Of course not.

      But I did appreciate the more civil laying out of the old theme.  Ask Jesse Jackson what he felt about that SC statement.  Only racists would consider it 'racist' to point out that he had won in SC, and he liked the reminder, from the time he won 11 states himself (forgotten and dismissable by Obama supporters).  Bill Clinton also won there but it would have been a bit self-centered to point that out.  He was doing regular campaign spin on a big loss and we can always talk about big Hispanic blocs but not dare mention the black bloc of voters until it became obviously a factor as in North Carolina and it was, of course, in South Carolina too.  I'm glad that whites are not voting 91% for Clinton -- now that would indicate some racist tendencies.  

      This election on the Dems side presents candidates who are both going to face heavy biases.  I wish they could have run together in a configuration that would have made sense, from experience of the structural functioning and Clinton's immense command of details due to her high interest in the actual issues rather than dependence on deliberately vague concepts.

    They would have had a huge vote ensuring no McCain admin and much for Dems to be glad about.


    Hmm (5.00 / 8) (#84)
    by daria g on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    I disagree - Wright didn't come up because of anything the Clintons did or said.  I disagree that rural, working-class white males are racists.  And even if you think the Clintons would run such a strategy, which I can't imagine as it's immoral and divisive and unjust, it would only hurt them to lose the votes of African-Americans.

    Again.. what troubles me greatly is the assumption here that working-class voters are racist, and the way to appeal to them is to play on that and exploit that. They were going to vote for someone in the primary.  Clinton's economic message and specific plans appeal to them more than general talk about hope and change, I would say.


    Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    the niche candidate of the blacks.  Read the numbers.  The ploy was that of the Obama campaign, btw.

    Playing the race card (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    Without reading your comment, I had inadvertently talked about the race dimension and reaction immediately above...and, come to the opposite conclusion.  I truly believe that the Black community has coalesced is mostly related to the Obama campaign's forceful use of demagogic symbolism (we v.they) added to the expected, genuine pride in seeing the first Black man succeed in seeking the Presidency.  The difference between you and me on this? I perceive the first public move to have come from the Jacson Jr. remarks. (Later, of course, strong pressure is reported to have been exerted on some key Black congressional leaders. I recall, especially, in southern Missouri and in Atlanta.) In any event, the bloc voting is at its strongest during a Democratic primary.  What will we see in November?  And, what about the Hispanics vis-a-vis McCain (see Ariz.,Nev.,CO, N.Mex. & Fla.)? And, what about us "women of a certain age" who vote...and, previously, volunteered time and money? And what about the 40-60 yr old voting white males who can be expected to find oneness with McCain? And what about the interesting Catholic demographic?  And?

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    completely wrong about the racial aspects of this contest.  The racism came from the Obama camp.  But this little gem informs me that you've mainlined the Kool-Aid:

    "Hence the "Angry Black Man" Jeremiah Wright ploy"

    So it was a Clinton plot all along to get Rev. Wright to spew hatred, got Obama to sit in his church for 2 decades, arranged for Wright to expose Obama on Bill Moyer's Journal and then enticed the NAACP to give Wright a platform.

    Clever those Clintons.

    Coming to this site and dumping that outrageous spin doesn't cut it.  The people who comment here regularly are better informed than you.


    Black people were lied to (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    about Clinton and his statements about Obama's chances at winning and his "fairy tale" candidacy.  

    It was the MSM who blew it up.  As an African American, I understood what Bill said and wasn't offended (since I can't stand Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson can't stand Obama either, trust me).  

    Instead "Tweety" Matthews and "Frank-n-Olbermann" helped promote the attack strategy from the Obama camp and protected Obama from any early criticism.  

    If you asked the average black person in NC what Clinton said about black people, I can assure you they don't know because I've asked them (my family is in NC).  The media hyped something to make Bill look bad to a group of Americans that he went out of his way to help.  African Americans have had more success during the Clinton Administration than any other time in the United States.  

    But this strategy will backfire BIG TIME in November.  Sorry Brazille, the AA's and the eggsheads will not get Obama in the Presidency in November.  


    Yep it was the Clintons (4.50 / 8) (#73)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    that told black people Bill was ridin' 'em dirty all those years.  

    exactly! (3.75 / 4) (#9)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    smearing the "first Black president" and his wife as racists was the only way Obama could get the black vote.

    This has got to be a troll comment. (none / 0) (#61)
    by DodgeIND on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    Right?  Or did I miss the sarcasm?

    Previous behavior of O campaign (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    It isn't just trolls that take offense at things. I, for one, a Democratic woman voter for 40 years (and, a party activist and one of those money-type contributors for 20+ years) found myself offended to the point of crossing the line from support for Hillary to all-out deep resentment with the Obama campaign.  Why? Starting with J Jackson Jr's baiting comment the day after the NH primary conflating "tears" and "Katrina," and witnessing the Clintons essentially being termed "racists" was more than I could take. (And, you should know that in my IU days, I learned a lot about the voting maneuvers so apparent in Lake Cty, Ind. because I had the experience as a state delegate and precinct committeewoman at various Dem state conferences.  Thats for starters. So, I don't take umbrage at political acts easily.)  What I have seen so far is a campaign (Obama's) that went beyond the usual Chicago-style hardball tactics...and, played race every step of the way through a tremendously successful bait&switch strategy. First, I cried; then, I (and many of my friends--the type that themselves have been longtime party supporters and activists even to the national delegate level) became increasingly resentful for that reason alone.  The other stuff--e.g., moving the goalposts to both states needed on May 6th from the original she needs to win Indiana--is "pure" & acceptable politics.  Now: Obama has maximized race, pushed off the white middle class, and thinks that a bouquet of roses or somesuch will be ok later on. As his new endorser, G. McGovern, will show him, it may well be as mathematically impossible in the fall to win with a coalition of AAs and wealthy intellectuals (together with the 10 to 12 percent 18 to 30 contingent) as some say it is ultimately for Hillary in the summer.  Think McGovern and Dukakis and Kerry.  Then, think about chess.

    Ditto for me (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    I was a precinct chairperson in Terre Haute, IN, which is actually all about Chicago politics, so I, too, know what you mean.  And it also takes a lot to offend me politically.

    But this year has been a doozy.

    I do not dislike Obama as a candidate.  I am flummoxed because of clear reasons:

    1.  Bullying of a viable candidate.  That was inexcusable on the part of Dean.

    2.  Lying to the public.  I don't care if Obama wanted to make it all about delegate count, but when Pelosi pretended to be neutral and started pushing that misinformation, she lost me entirely.

    3.  Bashing of the only successful 2-term Democratic president in our history and using Republican slams to divide the party.

    4.  Running character-bashing campaign, while pretending not to do so.

    5.  Using the DNC itself to back-door the nomination.

    6.  Comments made that dismiss the traditional party base, acting as though they always go to REpublicans anyway.  So not true.

    For these reasons, I'm in a quandry.

    Hear, Hear.... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by kc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    exactly.  Well said AnninCa.

    I'm in (none / 0) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    no quandry whatsoever.  This old bread and butter Democrat knows exactly what has to be done.

    Vote in new leadership? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    That's how I'm thinking.

    We all put too much into the presidency, anyway.  They aren't nearly worth this much effort, either way.

    I'm thinking it's the congressional seats.


    Yes,and I am only supporting Hillary backers. (none / 0) (#162)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:27 PM EST
    Same here. (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    I am young but am sorely dissappointed with party.
    Time and time again they have let me down.
    I am a moderate at heart.  If a moderate party existed I would join them.
    I don't like Republicans or conservatives, but I have no love affair with the Democrats.
    I am an independent.
    I do not like what Mr. Obama and his surrogates have done.  He played the race card to the hilt.
    Let these McGovernites/Mondalites/Dukaukisites try to win with the left wing only.  Let's see Obama do it.

    Not a troll (none / 0) (#166)
    by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:19:40 AM EST
    The writer was referring to Bill Clinton being called "the first Black president" because of the extent of his perceived empathy with blacks.  He later opened up his main office in Harlem.

    No, you didn't get it right.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    The blacks didn't support him early on because
    (1) The Blacks didn't think he could win
    (2) The Blacks were afraid of what happened to MLK would happen to another black man

    Once they see many whites are willing to vote for him and he wasn't scared of being killed, so they vote for him without any condition.


    Methinks (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    maybe the Obama camp thinks it's better if Hillary stays in because the media will focus on her instead of him.

    McCaskill is also saying it's "inappropriate" and "Awkward" and "wrong" to force her out (no link, but from Ben Smith)

    Call me cynical.

    heh (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    So now they are ALL singing a different tune.

    By guess is they FINALLY realized that when they tell her to drop out, she gets more votes.


    Whose "We" (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    Gotta mouse in your pocket?

    Me......former Dem.



    Me.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by MichaelGale on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    member of the "cult of personality". :-)

    No sale.


    Your hostile posting manner (none / 0) (#168)
    by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:42:47 AM EST
    will be part of what ensures that Obama will "throw" the contest in November.  But there is more to it than that of course; it's just that you're indicate of his type of "hope" and "change"... No thank you.   But I hope his loss is worth it to you to have fun in this way.

    Poor performance among biased bloc (none / 0) (#169)
    by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:53:31 AM EST
    Both Hillary and Barack face that while you simplify to make meaningless points.  

      From what I remember, in North Carolina, exit polling shows that 91% of the 33% African-American bloc voted for Obama while he was able to pull about 35% of the white voters.  That's all it took to win by the 14-15% margin.

      Obama's usually fairly accurate spreadsheet of expectations showed him expecting to win Indiana by 7.  

      He was wrong by 9 points.  In the last 10 days he had said that Indiana was "a tiebreaker" and he was going after it.    
      Not only did he miss by 9% points, Zogby also showed he was going to win it by 2 points.  Not true either.  That's because the polls showed she did have an upswing in the last few days.  Luckily, the race won't have to go on much longer due to all those 5% attended caucus states.

      Why be here carping and why not "follow" Obama in a better way and try a more "unifying" manner (even if it is not easy  for your mindset-- Obama has been concerned about people like you and all that dividing you strive to do when entering a Clinton-friendly site.

      One would not expect his mantra of Hope and Change vs Division would be so quickly mangled by those who say they are "inspired" by him.  But it has been all too typical, and I see it continues.  It proves that what he wants will take a long time to achieve because of natural inclinations of his own supporters being difficult to curb.  You can't even be nicer when your guy has just become the presumptive nominee.  No, much better to come in here and alienate the people he'll need in November.  Congratulations.


    Heath Shuler (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    today pledged his superdelegate vote to Hillary Clinton, who carried the popular vote in his district.

    Interesting...that's the second NC super today who is either going for Clinton or keeping their powder dry.

    Cool (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    Ed Shultz is fulminating about 12 SDs who will come out for Obama this week.  I would love to see Ed Shultz be wrong as often as possible. He sounds more like Rush every day.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#122)
    by vigkat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM EST
    Is he really a Dem?  From what I've seen, which is not a lot, he appears to be one of the most stridently hateful people on any panel, regardless of the topic under discussion.  And that's saying a lot, because I've only seen him on MSNBC.

    Schultz used to be a Republican (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by shoephone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    just like Kos, like Josh Marshall, like Arianna...

    Like Aravosis (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    It was a nice (1.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Amabo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    pity endorsement, sure.

    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    Because that's what politicians who are up for re-election do - "pity endorsements"

    It Was Because He Values The Seat He (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    now holds and prefers not to lose it by going against the wishes of his constituents.

    Back to true colors. (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST
    Honesty is always the better course, IHMO.

    Needlessly divisive (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    Not really... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    Last week he said this is what he'd do.

    And it's what he did.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by DFLer on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    What a reaction! What happened to "the will of the voters" ?

    He had already said.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    ....that he would vote the way his district did.

    But thanks so much for your kind concern


    Obama (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
    spelled backwards. My my how cute.

    By the way, pity endorsements don't exist.


    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    Contrast this with Tim Russert, who practically called Hillary's campaign the Night of the Living Dead last night.

    An awful lot of Obama supporters on the blogs have been trying their hardest to damage their candidate's chances for November with classless gloating and taunts.  I feel for the cleanup job BTD and Jeralyn have had to perform in the comments.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    Maybe she'll just position herself for 2012, since she'll be running against McCain.  It's what she's been accused of, so to paraphrase - "if you're gonna do the time, might as well do the crime."

    No. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    I realize you're snarking, but still no. The notion that some Obama supporters have that Clinton will sabotage him so that she can run in 2012 is just as ridiculous as the notion that Obama should be her VP so he can win in 2016.

    It's now or never for both of them. It always has been.


    Why is it now or never for Obama? (none / 0) (#68)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    Seriously. I've never understood that. Can you elaborate?

    I get it for HRC because of her age (60).


    Once your hat is in the ring... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    You either make it to the top of the tower or you're out. Second chances are virtually non-existent. Since the moment he declared his candidacy, he's been locked in. Either he gets it now, or he never will.

    If he hadn't declared at all, then maybe he could have preserved his viability for future races, but let's face it...if you're a Democrat who wants to be president, this is the year to run. It's no coincidence that the GOP field was miserably weak this time around while the Democrats have simultaneously produced the two strongest candidates we've had in decades.

    It's unfortunate that only one of them could win.


    What! (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    "You either make it to the top of the tower or you're out. Second chances are virtually non-existent.

    Someone above mentioned Reagan who lost in '76 only to return and win in '80.

    Barry Goldwater lost nomination in 1960, won nomination in 1964.

    Grover Cleveland won, then lost, then won.

    Multiple nominees include William Jennings Bryan, Adlai Stevenson, Andrew Jackson, Thomas E. Dewey, HW Bush.

    That's just a quick run-off.

    Second chances are virtually non-existant is incorrect.  


    With the exception of Ronald Reagan.. (none / 0) (#75)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    (and Nixon), no one has been successful at running a campaign, losing, and coming back to win the presidency (we can't count Al Gore, although he came close).

    This is why I think John Edwards didn't do very well - old news, and if voters didn't buy your message the first time, what makes you think they'll buy it now.

    If HRC decided to run again, it could be under the theme "see, I told you so".


    There's another reason, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    namely that Obama's candidacy is highly fueled by his youth and perceived vigor. Obama Girl won't dance for a 50-60 year old man -- only Bill Clinton had that kind of appeal!

    Vigor, eh? (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM EST
    He is the one who has to take the "time outs" and looks like he's about to fall asleep during half his interviews and stump speeches.

    Um I am on the same side (none / 0) (#172)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:02:22 PM EST
    as you -- I said perceived vigor. But good points, and funny too :)

    Thanks everyone! (none / 0) (#102)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    VP losers (none / 0) (#142)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    Franklin Roosevelt ran as James Cox's VP in 1920 and lost big.  Then was elected President four times.

    Very interesting (none / 0) (#147)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    I think if Obama wins the Presidency, it will be a one-term Presidency, like Jimmy Carter.  Just my IMHO.

    You may have something there.


    Because Michelle said so (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    I don't think either of them like politics at all.  They don't have the appetite for another run at it.

    It was clever (none / 0) (#171)
    by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:06:12 AM EST
    and also rather vain to say that the voters would get only one chance to have them.

    Because, he wont be a political unknown. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Radix on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    If he looses, he will go back to the Senate, we'll have a record at that point, no more mister amorphous.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    And then (none / 0) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    he'll go absolutely nowhere.

    Because Michelle won't let him (none / 0) (#165)
    by wrkn129 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    She said in one of her speeches that this is the only time he's going to run, so we have to make him president so our souls will be saved.

    I'm glad he said that. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
    I'm very mad at the party. They have got to learn to stop spitting on half their base. This at least is a start.

    BTD is too kind (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by dugan49 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    Clyburn is in the same duplicitous class as Brazile. The sudden urge to make nice with the 'enemy' will now become nauseating. And make no mistake, most of the bloggers, leftists and race grievers who have pilloried Hillary Clinton are the enemy to the TRADITIONAL base of the Democratic Party. There IS a fracture in the Party that will get worse before it gets better, and it won't be this year.

    BTD is all about the carrots and sticks (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    And when they follow he'll stop with the stick let them nibble a little on the carrot.

    Yes.  He's being nice here.  It's part of his master plan.


    Kerry touting Hillary won IN because of Rush (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    but he ignores the Repubs and Indys who helped Obama win primaries and caucuses via his "Dem for a day" ploy that Obama began a year ago!

    Way to go, John. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    Stroke that fat blowhard's ego based on anecdotal evidence.

    Anything to pretend that Obama is a viable candidate in the GE.


    Re: Kerry (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    I don't think we should let him forget he wanted McCain as a running mate in 2004.  Judgement, anyone?

    And when (none / 0) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    I think of the money I contributed and the volunteer work my wife and I did for that ....

    I want to vomit.


    Yeah, me too. (none / 0) (#155)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    Money and time and effort and... just gah.

    Yes, Rush has such profound (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    influence that McCain is the Republican nominee despite his best efforts.

    Whatever, John.


    So Clyburn (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    is back to pretending he's uncommited. That's nice.

    Curious... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    when is the media going to start talking about Obama's Dukakis like coalition and the resulting resounding loss in the general. And more to the point, is the Clinton Campaign going to bring it up?

    Paul Begala brought it up on CNN last night (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    Maybe that will start the ball rolling.

    Sounds like something that should be (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    brought up over and over again on the blogs.

    you have an extremely (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    swiss-cheesed memory, or perhaps you were just not around, if you truly think that about Dukakis.

    Leftcoastliberal (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    you're going to have to pick it up a notch or two.

    I suggest paying closer attention to the most recent demographics and becoming a little more familiar with the past few decades.


    Oh, how kind of him (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    Nice old black man telling Hillary it's okay if she stays in the race.

    Screw you Clayburn.  When they get your ass outta office, let's see how much Obama will protect you.

    Those were my sentiments to a T! (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    "To recover a fumble ... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    you have to be on the field."

    Best reason I've heard so far (from some forgotten pundit).

    Looks like TeamObama is (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by brodie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    going into post-primary Heal Party Wounds mode with his nomination about 95% certain.  They'd rather the calls for Hillary to drop out come from others -- the MCM (daily/hourly) and some of her former soft supporters like Geo McGovern -- and they don't want their grubby fingerprints on this "organic" process.  And from a political pov this is probably the right strategy.

    A doubly disappointing showing last night by my candidate, then another today with the news about her loaning her campaign more millions, then loser McGovern's statement.

    Btw, McG voted for Gerald Ford in 1976.  Thanks again, George.

    Can Obama still (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    secure the nomination before the convention? Everyone's screaming about how Hillary can't get the magic number, but if Obama can't do it either ... then what?

    Neither (none / 0) (#148)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    can get the magic number by the convention unless the rules are changed to force SDs to vote before the convention.

    Neither is ASSURED (none / 0) (#161)
    by independent voter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    of getting the nomination before the convention. Either one can if enough SDs endorse. It could happen tomorrow.

    Video: Lake County Mayors McDermott & Clay (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    I hope the case is being made that Hillary still manages to win despite all obstacles, like the chicanery in IN.

    In case any body hasn't already seen this video, take a look it's strong stuff. Mayor McDermott is so clearly outraged and Mayor Clay is so obviously evasive, even Blitzer gets POed.

    VIDEO from CNN with Mayor Clay of Gary and Mayor McDermott of Hammond (both Lake County, IN). Heated discussion of the delay in counting the votes in Gary.

    Sen Clinton will be the first female US President (1.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Albert Judah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    'Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.' , John 14:13-14
    Jesus, please let Sen Clinton defeat Sen Obama, for I have made a deal with Mohammad who is a muslim and he supports Sen Obama's bid for nomination, and if Sen Obama wins, I have to go to a mosque and learn more about Islam. But if Sen Clinton wins, Mohammad would have to go to a church and learn more about you. Nothing is impossible for you my Lord, please save me my Lord because I really don't want to go to a mosque.

    This post is unbelievably hateful - Delete button (none / 0) (#113)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:35:46 PM EST

    I hope that was snark, (none / 0) (#114)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:15 PM EST
    because we don't need that crap here.

    Freak Troll On Board (none / 0) (#158)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    please delete.

    she is helping out obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by Amabo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    Anyone with a brain knows that she knows its over, but right now she is wisely going to try and get Obama elected. That's why she is staying in so he doesn't lose big in WV to noone. I'm happy Hillary is going to rally behind Obama, she fought a good fight but its over.

    Oh good lord (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    I'm all for freedom of speech, but come on.
    All these Obama supporters are coming to TL to
    say it's over (over and over).  IMHO, it's because they can.
    If I went to Orangeland and tried to say something negative about Obama, my remarks would be disappeared so fast my head would spin.
    Can't you guys get a new hobby?

    Please tell me (none / 0) (#15)
    by Amabo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    Please tell me how she has a clear path to the nomination. Realistically. You know that the DNC is not going to rule in favour of seating the delegates of MI and FL unless its fair to both campaigns.

    Tell me, because I would love to know.


    What I know (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    is that you don't want Obama to
    run against no one in the next two primaries.
    In my opinion, that's your SOLE motivation
    for showing up here and attempting to make nice.

    Uh, isn't that his favorite way to run? ;) (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM EST
    Cool it (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    Indeed, take a few days away from THIS SITE.

    you do no one any favors with your attitude.

    I am asking nicely.


    you are a chatterer and (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    are posting here with the intent to annoy the readers. You are suspended.

    Path to Nomination (none / 0) (#119)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    If Superdelegates act on the basis of "is one a winner in Nov and is one a loser or are they both equal" in the political electoral college odds, then the path shifts one way. If Superdelegates act with a first concern being their own coalition or faction of the party (and, we definitely can now see the two factions), the path points another way.  To me, it seems that the ? is: Which states are assured and which are most attainable in electoral votes--the Va,N.Mex,CO,Nev,Ariz,Carolina combo OR the Ohio,PA,Mich,Fla,Ark,NMex mix. (Pls note that I placed N.Mex in both places because of arguments relative to the Latino vote.  Hillary excels there; and, McCain doesn't do too badly either.) So, pathway? There are different variables.  One thing is sure: The old McGovern and Dukakis coalitions haven't worked in the past (Hey, I supported both of them with sweat and money.)

    I supported McGovern too. (none / 0) (#170)
    by andrys on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:00:17 AM EST
    Nice guy.  But I suspected he'd lose because of that nice-guy sound.  Repubs are suspicious of nice guys not named Reagan :-)

      His appearance today was almost ghoulish though!  I've always liked him, one of the sincerely good people, but in a strangely shaking manner today, he told Hillary it was time to quit because the primaries choice was now clear.

      All it did, though, was remind me of how he himself had won the primaries long ago and was the clear choice.

      And then he lost 49 states.  That was what his announcement made me remember, at least.

      And then it made me remember also, that this was why the superdelegate function was created.  So we wouldn't nominate another nice-guy McGovern, leading us all to defeat.


    Obama (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    spelled backwards, please tell me how Obama gets over 2200 delegates by the last primary?

    You can't because he won't.

    So what's that business about clear path again?


    Guess what? (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    Hillary is a great candidate and an incredibly talented p[olitician but I don't think she will have the ability to undue the damage of the bridges that Obama burned to obtain his "win". Good luck with your "new coalition".The "creative class" is going to have to get very creative IMO.

    You are suspended (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
    We really do not need what you are bringing today.

    No more commenting please.


    You underestimate (none / 0) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    how deeply Hillary Clinton feels about her commitment to the people of America. She is continuing her campaign because her character is that of a true president with the stamina to weather every storm.

    I am so proud of the superdelegates from my state who are sticking with her and those who are remaining undecided/undeclared and letting this nomination process go naturally to conclusion rather than through feeding the talking heads.


    I wonder about the change of heart (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    To honor her supporters? I'd like to think so, but then again I believe that all the votes should be counted.

    Yes, of course (none / 0) (#38)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    and Obama will be saying that as well as his surrogates.

    They only were bullying her to get out when there was a chance she could win.  Now, they will be nicer.

    It gives Hillary's very strong supporter base a chance to adjust.


    I only beat you, honey (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:35:09 AM EST
    because you wouldn't do what I told you to.

    I'm so glad they're going to be nice now.  They're not really like that, you know.  They love us, they really do.


    Donna (4.00 / 1) (#47)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    made the real sentiment quite crystal clear, though.  

    Lordy, I'm still reeling from the remark that Latinos really aren't relevant anymore.

    That will come as a huge surprise to the Western States!

    And what the major of Gary did?  I'm just so glad I didn't stay up for that fiasco.  Good gosh.

    I'm disappointed for Hillary, of course, but I always just wanted most of all for her to get one fair shot.  It's so disappointing that it didn't materialize into votes.  Really, really disappointing.

    But I'm a competitive person, so losing is part of the game.  Can't win if you're not willing to lose.

    But now, my attention is on what America will do to give voice to the working class.  This business of being out-spent by the richer class is a problem.

    That means that working class people really have lost voice.  What to do?

    I dunno.


    Don't forget the Hispanics in NY & FL (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    and a few of the other states ove on this side of the map . . .

    Obama is a freakin' nightmare for the working class.


    I'm not even talking (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:26:19 PM EST
    electability.  It's the sheer audacity of her remarks.

    The Latinos are facing HUGE issues that MUST be resolved.

    How can we just say they don't matter?



    Reasons y Hill should stay in (none / 0) (#22)
    by marie3548 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST

    Check this out and pass on

    stupid (none / 0) (#131)
    by DFLer on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    stupid site

    I can't see a good reason for her to stay in. (none / 0) (#36)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    Obama closed the door in Indiana.    Hillary needed to run the table with big wins in contested states to make her case with the superdels.   Time to bow out and try to help Obama keep from getting clocked in WV and KY.

    I can't see any credible way to deny him the nomination  after last night.   He's the Democrats choice for 2008.

    And as usual (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    the Democrats make the wrong choice.

    The end of the Democratic Party is near.  Hillary is trying to save it, God bless her, but sometimes, a society gets the government it deserves.


    She is trying (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    but I don't think the party elites will let her. The voters don't seem to matter too much to them.

    I just can't shake the feeling that Obama's coalition is artificially inflated by the caucuses and the overwhelming AA support. I saw nothing last night to change that feeling; in fact, I think it was validated and enforced.


    Obama was the "perfect storm". (none / 0) (#98)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    By the time Hillary's campaign figured out what was going on and adjusted course, it was virtually too late to stop him.   He had the black vote to rely at the polls and the backing of almost all the important liberal media to rely on in the court of public opinion.

    I'm optimistic about how Obama might govern but pessimistic about winning in November based on what I see here in Pennsylvania.   This is going to be a real tough state for him.   I'm skeptical about the new electoral map he hopes to create.


    Electibility.. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by daria g on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST
    There's a blogger who's been running simulations based on polls so far and is VERY pessmistic about Obama's chances vs McCain (10% chance at a win).  Hillary gets 75%+ chance by his numbers I believe.

    Something to consider..



    I think he'd (none / 0) (#128)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    be led by the nose by the likes of Pelosi and Kennedy, both of whom are such power-grabber types that the notion makes me feel a bit queasy.

    But then......I'm a moderate.  I loved the mayor who talked last night about the voting stuff in Gary.  That's my kind of politician.  Good golly, I know they have to pander, but they don't have to be thugs!

    So I'm not at all convinced Obama is right for the country just because he's a Democrat.


    Run the table (none / 0) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    with big wins in contested states?

    Tonight's contests were in two states that have consistently gone GOP in Presidential elections for some time. They're hardly contested states. Indiana has gone Democratic three times in the last 19 presidential elections.

    If by contested states you are refering to the primaries the they're all contested.

    Hillary Clinton lost NC by a smaller margin than polls indicated a few weeks ago and won Indiana, a state she had no chance to win a few weeks ago.

    Probably most people who comment here regularly would love to see Obama get clocked in KY and WVA.

    I know I would.


    The AAs discussion on Obama's as the 1st Black (none / 0) (#37)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    President and what it means in the view of the more militant AA segment of the AA community may be the reason for this guy saying that Hillary should go on.  The longer the primary goes on, the longer this discussion will not come to the surface.

    Running to the Right: Barack Obama and the DLC Strategy:

    Hillary live (none / 0) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM EST
    from WV on Fox streaming.

    McGovern...... (none / 0) (#48)
    by michitucky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    Announced today he is switching his endorsement to Obama and is encouraging her to leave the race!

    Superdelegates... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    Are free to do as they please with their endorsements.

    But I don't agree that she should drop out. At least not right now.


    McGovern is not a SD (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:50:42 AM EST
    Yes, I just learned that. (none / 0) (#63)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    I had assumed he was because he was a nominee, but I guess that doesn't bestow permanent SD status.

    In which case, he's entitled to his opinion, but I disagree with it.


    That's one endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    I wouldn't want if I was Obama. Its a little too close to what is about to come.

    This will happen daily (none / 0) (#109)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    now.  Ugh*

    That's why I initially said:  concede.  Get out.  Spare the pain of this all.

    I really am so done watching Hillary get bashed.

    I'm a toughie about losing.  You lose, you lose.  That's the deal.

    But I'm not sure I"m up for another month of non-stop bashing of such a fine person who has given so much to our country.

    It's just nauseating.


    Ann, stop being so bummed out (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    What has changed since yesterday?  She's not on life support.  Two weeks ago, she was projected to lose IN.  Go look at Obama's spreadsheet.  It is tightening, and when she blows it out in WVA, it'll be even tighter.

    If it was time for her to drop out, she would drop out.  The SDs would send a message.  That message has not been sent.

    Other than the media blowhards, give me one reason why you think she should drop out.  It's not impossible right now.  If you had a 10% chance to live, would you just lie down and say, "eh, odds are against me," or would you be packing for Paris?

    Clinton will be in Paris, WVA, tomorrow.


    Oh, Kathy (none / 0) (#117)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    I've so enjoyed you, btw.  Great fun posting.

    But here we part.

    She can't win.  No popular vote argument.  Behind even further in delegate count.

    Short of some huge unknown big story that blows him away......it's over.


    Hillary can still win the popular vote (none / 0) (#137)
    by jfung79 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:40 PM EST
    She just needs to win big in West Virigina, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, and keep Oregon close or win it.  All still doable!  Don't give up.

    I'm bummed because (none / 0) (#118)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    ...her only chance for legitimacy was to get ahead in pop vote. She lost 200K+ last night.

    How is she going to close that gap now?


    West Virginia (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    She has to survive until W.Va....and, despite some pretending to ignore it, that combo with Kentucky could prove more than embarassing to the Obama campaign. It brings home (without distraction) the working class demographic.  What is our party willing to do with its "eyes wide open?"

    and she should take advice from McGovern (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    since he was so successful.

    Do Dems want to win elections or not? Oh never mind.


    :) Well Said (none / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    and, same with Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Richardson, etc.

    Obama is out saying he only needs 200 more delegates to win....he's apparently standing firm on not seating any delegates from MI or FL, or he'd know that number is short.


    Well, since Obama is McGovern 2.0, (none / 0) (#49)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    I'm not surprised.

    Me, either...... (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by michitucky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    But find it disrespectful, nonetheless.

    Me too. :-( (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    yah (none / 0) (#53)
    by CanadianDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    this superdelegate doesnt mean anything count just like that Andrew judas.

    Still no nominee (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    And still an electoral process in no way credible or secure.

    Our heads are firmly in the sand awaiting another fixed General Election.

    And Lake County was fishy, to say the least.  It decided the state, and the results came in in three huge chunks, each of which knocked Obama down 20 points.  Not a very likely reality, even with Gary's votes coming in first.

    'Clinton heading for the exit' (none / 0) (#87)
    by outsider on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    My understanding is that probably today, but certainly within 48 hours, about 30 super-delegates will endorse Mr Obama. That should give him further momentum.

    We hear this over and over and over. And yet the wave never comes.

    I admit, I don't really see what changed last night. Obama won the demographics we expected him to. So did Clinton. Demographics was destiny, once again. But if that wasn't a problem for Clinton 3 days ago, I'm not sure why it is now.

    However, many people who know more about this stuff than I do and that aren't in the tank for Obama have started making clear signals that Hillary lost big last night, so maybe there really was a sea change.

    I guess we'll know if the Supers really do start moving en masse. So far, the only endorsement I've seen has been for Hillary.


    This is how I see it too. (none / 0) (#100)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    They each held their coalitions. Obama was expected to win Indiana just a little while ago, yet he didn't. A 12-point win in NC, a state that is incredibly demographically favorable to Obama, is not a surprise.

    What changed was... (none / 0) (#124)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
    ...she failed to keep things close in NC and win big in IN, which she needed to do to have any hope of gaining the lead in the popular vote.

    That was her only claim to legitimacy and that's pretty much out the window now.


    But expecting her to do both those things (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    was not reasonable given the demographics, despite what SUSA projected.

    Her argument stands.

    And let's not forget that the popular vote count is in dispute because of Florida and Michigan.


    Ah well (none / 0) (#95)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    I will watch things play out with interest.

    They have nothing to fear now (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    But when they had something to fear, how they handled it is still noteworthy.

    Maybe she should drop out. (none / 0) (#103)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    Would the GOP unleash the machine then, or wait until after the convention? I don't know of any other situation like this one to compare.

    If the GOP started the oppo stuff they've collected before the convention, at least there'd be a shot at undoing the damage.

    How odd. I think now is the time for (none / 0) (#115)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    Hillary to drop out. Do SD's want her to finish with dignity, or are they having second thoughts about Obama?

    It's about (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    pretend of allowing her to exit on her own terms.

    (After having abused her for over a year.)


    Yes, I think that's right, like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:58 PM EST
    finally congratulating Hillary on a win last night, to appear gracious.

    Good column by Craig Crawford


    on the role of the super delegates.  Obama's campaign keeps saying they have them waiting in the wings.

    They don't want her to drop (none / 0) (#160)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    for purely selfish reasons. She is going to wipe Obama's ass in KY and WV and it wouldn't look good it Obama lost to nobody.

    I threw some cash down for Hillary. Hope you can too. I feel good. This has been a long shot, it still is but we have the right argument. Obama is unelectable.