Hillary on Campaign Plane Today: It's Not Over

Watch for yourselves. What's your take?

Despite the media predictions she will suspend her campaign Wednesday, is she saying she will stay in longer? Or is she just trying to make sure the people in MT and SD have a reason to go out and vote and she has an opportunity to meet with superdelegates when the voting has ended? [More...]

I think Hillary will pull an upset in South Dakota -- just my sense and the poll that BTD reported earlier -- but MT, which has more people, likely will go heavily for Obama.

My position: After the last contest, people need to give Hillary some space and time to make her case to the superdelegates. They can decide or change their mind any time up until the convention.

Maybe she'll rally a large number behind her. It's a few days more, and calls for her to end the race in the name of party unity are both premature and insulting.

As to all the reports about staff layoffs and schedules, keep in mind the states all will have voted tomorrow. There are no more states to go to. There is is no reason for either candidate to maintain the state advance teams used for the primaries. Whoever gets the nomination will put a general election team in place.

This is the closest presidential primary the Democrats have ever had. Let it play out. It's not over until Hillary says it's over or until August.

Comments now closed.

< Supreme Court Narrows Money Laundering Law | How About Clark? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't think she is quitting...it is going to the (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:51:19 PM EST

    This is what I think too (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:49:38 PM EST
    And I think it's a brilliant idea.  The race isn't really over until the convention and the delegates actually vote.  

    Bravo!! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:54:07 PM EST
    If only the media would start reporting the news instead of making it up.

    The Primary Season failed to choose a nominee. It goes to convention.

    The votes and delegates are currently a virtual tie and the democratic SD's must now analyze, review and use their best judgment in making sure the candidate who can win in November is the candidate on the ticket.



    Don't Forget History (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    This is a historic campaign for women that needs to go all the way to Denver.

    Hillary is now at the helm of the most successful female-driven Presidential race in history.  She needs to understand how historic this run is, and why it should not be terminated lightly.

    I have no doubt that the months from May to August wlil result in further political involvement by women across the country, with beneficial consequences for years ahead.  And the consciousness-raising that is going on is accelerating the political development of women as a force in American politics.

    This is just too historic to end because some people are tired of democracy.


    keep those letters emails going to the SDs (3.00 / 2) (#229)
    by thereyougo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    folks, they do matter!

    More than once we heard this weekend of the  thousands of emails/letters they received
    so it made an impact.

    hey this drama is better than any soap opera, thanks Hillary!

    she will rise from the ashes like the Phoenix! (-:


    Who's lost the momentum?!!! (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:02 PM EST
    Holy crap.

    How about putting the (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:45 PM EST
    country ahead of the party? Novel idea!!!

    This is the same (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:20:19 PM EST
    stuff we used to say about the republicans.


    Just wow.


    No. He does not become the (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:22:01 PM EST
    nominee until the vote is taken and completed in August in Denver!!

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:22:53 PM EST
    if by wednesday he has the required delegates, then the nomination is his.

    what if he doesn't have them by Wednesday?

    Then we can go to the convention.

    Nancy Pelosi, you've been enough of a disappointment.  Don't make it worse, sweetie.


    He's getting really bad press (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:41:56 PM EST
    from both Democratic guests and Republicans on TV now. The criticisms are valid, and his numbers are going down.

    You will not like the results of doing that (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST
    For decades to come your candidate will be analyzed and characterized in the very worst of terms.

    This looks like something out of The Godfather, you know.

    Spend time at the library when school lets out and study the nomination rules and processes and history. Not only is it fascinating, it will allow you to converse with others with credibility.

    You must not have read the post before you started commenting. Jeralyn spells out why this primary is not finished really clearly.

    Scroll down and read some of the other very interesting factual comments, as well.


    It P'O's me how they try to take the info about (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:53:26 PM EST
    staff, i.e., state advance teams as a clue she is quitting...

    Jeralyn...if she does suspend her campaign, does it hurt her in any way?

    Supposedly (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    Big announcement coming from Chappaqua tonight or tomorrow.  Hopefully she tells everyone to go pound salt, as my dad says, and that she's staying in.

    MSM reporting she is not going to concede (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    or suspend in New York.

    We've seen it on both Fox and ABC.  


    If she wins S. Dakota, she's stronger (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    to take her case to the convention.  Your post, Jeralyn, is most rational.  This phase is so close to the finals.  There is no reason for her to quit now.  "Let their be an official tally" for the nomination.  I think this clearly points to the convention. Go Hillary!

    Hear, hear (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:02:31 PM EST
    I second your comments.

    With an Addendum (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:08:56 PM EST
    I'm for whatever HRC is for.  Whatever she decides to do, she has my support all the way.  Outside of making phone calls on her behalf and donating to her campaign, it's the least I can do for this great leader.

    it breaks his plains state reboubt. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    It shows he's tanking in areas he promised us he'd carry.

    Rise, Hillary Rise! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    I hope she takes this to convention.

    Obama doesn't have the delegates. (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:20:27 PM EST
    He needs to have 2118 Pledged Delegates.  There aren't enough races left for him to get that amount.  

    Super Delegates can switch their allegiance at any time!  


    Hillary's campaign has already said (none / 0) (#223)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:40:53 PM EST
    that they don't accept the 2118 number as legitimate.  Terry McAuliffe said that yesterday--it's at Politico.  ABC news reported this afternoon that Hillary is not quitting on Tuesday night.  She will continue on.  They are calling superdelegates, including some who have endorsed Obama but who are reported to be wavering.  For links, see my post at The Confluence (riverdaughter).

    You mean what will it (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    take for me to realize the Democratic party insists on driving itself off a cliff? I won't be puting the party ahead of anything(I changed my affiliation when it begame apparent they were more about kabuki then actually doing the wil of the people). If Obama is the nominee I will be staying home. I want absolutely nothing to do with a campaign that has to cheat and slur its way into power.  

    what will it take for you to show some (none / 0) (#214)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    respect for hillary and her campaign. why is it i keep thinking we have a heiress here and her family keeps trying to send her to her reward while she is still having dinner.

    I think her remarks that it's not over until (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by kempis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    there's "a tally" and "a nominee" are key. She'll suspend her campaign as soon as enough Superdelegates lift Obama up and stick him in the high chair. Until then, she's going to make her case.
    Jeralyn writes:
    Or is she just trying to make sure the people in MT and SD have a reason to go out and vote and she has an opportunity to meet with superdelegates when the voting has ended?

    That's what I'm thinking.

    But who knows....All I know is that I'm terribly sad.

    She won't suspend! (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM EST
    Because if the jeering squad could be so quick to interpret Bill Clinton's comment about this being his last campaign as a sign that Hillary is quitting, what more if she suspends?  Edwards did that and it was bannered as Edwards being out of the race which it is.  He has endorsed Obama after all.

    Hillary doesn't have to do anything until after the convention.  Why sabotage her own position?  She knew that the RBC will not give her a fair hearing or do her any favors.  But she got what she wanted:  acceptance of the popular vote numbers.  Now she can truthfully and definitely claim her lead in the popular votes.  She is an incrementalist.  She learned this method in the Senate to push through her agenda. She does not focus on issues until it is time.

    After S. Dakota and Montana is the time for her to execute her pre-convention strategy; not before.


    But that is a truism (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    It is his last day of campaigning.  So, I'm not reading into Bill's words any more than what they factually mean.

    Besides, it's up to HRC not Bill and he knows that.

    Bill's too savvy to tip her hand like that (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    anyway.  It'd be a pretty oblique way for her to concede.

    I like your prediction Jeralyn about MT (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    on NPR they talked to a MT dem party person.  She said half the state is rural and Hillary would do well there, but that Obama will win. When asked if Obama could get Clinton's votes in the fall in the rural areas, she hesitated and then said, well, I think a lot of those people might go with McCain, he is not the typical republican.  I thought that was an interesting admission for a state party person.

    actually I meant I liked your prediction (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    about SD!

    Bill's last campaign; but of course! (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    the primaries are over.  But amazing how the Hillary jeering squad is quick to characterize it as a sign that Hillary is throwing in the towel.  Heh!

    They WISH...part of the fairy tale n/t (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Boo Radly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:29:41 PM EST
    She must be exhausted and (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by camellia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:04:42 PM EST
    in need of a break, but I really hope she will continue to the convention.  It upsets me a great deal to think of her pulling out and leaving the field to Obama.  At the risk of repeating things already said over and over here, he is a lightweight, with very little knowledge and no foreign policy experience, his Indonesian grade-school years notwithstanding.  (My daughter went to nursery school and kindergarten in Indonesia, but then she went on and finished elementary school in Belgium -- does that make her presidential material?  I must remember to tell her.)

    I am trying to not be obsessive about this, but I am extremely disturbed by the DNC's actions, by the press's anti-Hillary bias, and most of all, by the incredible hatred toward Hillary displayed by Obama's supporters.   If you can, send her some money; if you can't, then at least send an email of encouragement.  There are many of us behind you, Hillary.

    i'm about 34 (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    I'm getting old enough to know that I'll survive the win or the loss of my favourite political party.

    I suspect that is why the SDs are so blase about Obama's chances.   They are not hurt either way.


    Incredible hatred cuts both ways, though (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM EST
    To be fair: there's an awful lot of "incredible hatred" displayed towards Obama by commenters (though not bloggers) at this very site, too.  There's lots of flaming to go around; I don't see either side really winning that warn.  It's the nature of politics: people get ... attached to specific candidates and view their competitors as more the enemy than they really are.  Both sides have perceived as attacks what is best explained as hard campaigning.

    All of this leaves folks like me, who would be happy  supporting either candidate a little perplexed.  By way of disclosure: I voted for Obama in Oregon, more out of a desire to end the race as decisively as possible than out of a policy preference for either; I tend to like Clinton's health care proposal a little better, but Obama's stronger stand against neoconservative idiocy.  Their judicial choices and economic policy directions strike me as likely to be a wash.

    But the point being: I'm voting democrat because of policy desires, not personalities.  Even if your favored personality isn't on the ballot, her policy goals (or at least a close representation thereof) will be.  It might not be what you want, but can't it be good enough?


    Obama won't do much in Iraq. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:45:52 PM EST
    No one will.

    But heh, if he loses the loss is partly your fault now. You own him.


    "own" ? (none / 0) (#163)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    I understand you don't think he can win, really I do.  That, after all, is presumably one reason why you didn't vote for him.  But let's just agree to disagree here: that's the whole point.  I made one choice, you made the other.  That's what an election is.

    But the assigning of blame, again, just leaves me perplexed.  I didn't vote for Kerry in the 2004 primaries, but I was still (very) sad when he lost the general.  The fact that he wasn't my first choice didn't change that, and I didn't feel tempted to "blame" the second Bush term on Kerry's primary supporters.

    In the end, we only get one candidate, and one president.  Neither is always going to be our first choice.  Even if Hillary pulls the proverbial rabbit out the hat here, almost precicely half of democratic voters are not going to get their choice on the ballot.  Isn't it time to start talking each other off the ledges?


    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:02:37 PM EST
    The responsibilty for his success or failure, is on your shoulders now.  And on the head of Pelosi Dean and Kerry.  Plus Daschle.



    I'm not on a ledge (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    and you wouldn't be on one either if it weren't for folks like Brazile, Daschle, and their ilk. I wish you lots of luck getting your candidate over the finish line.  

    Are you on a ledge? (none / 0) (#188)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:13:00 PM EST
    Are you sure about (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by camellia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    this:  " Even if your favored personality isn't on the ballot, her policy goals (or at least a close representation thereof) will be.  It might not be what you want, but can't it be good enough? "

    So, we should settle for good enough.  Well, I don't think that I am ready to do that, especially since I do not know for sure that her "policy goals (or a close representation thereof" will be on the ballot.  I do not feel that Mr. Obama has shown us any verification of his principles, any real indication of his policy goals (yes, I know about his very brief voting record), nor anything that would tell us that he would be a strong and determined candidate for the presidency or, indeed, a strong and determined president should be be elected.  What I need from him is more than assurances that he will show me these things during the GE, and that I should trust him until then.  Well, you know what they say about people who say "trust me"?   What they are really saying is" (not permissible on TL) you" .


    Yes, we have to settle (none / 0) (#172)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    See my other post above.  I'm really trying to be conciliatory here.  But the answer is a resounding yes: half of all democratic primary voters are not going to get their first choice here.  If the situation was flipped by just a handful of delegates, I'd be posting right now on Obama "side" (sigh) blogs trying to talk their posters into walking back the rhetoric a little.

    Frankly, (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    You SHOULD have been talking the Obama bloggers back in their rhethoric long before now. They are part and parcel of why I won't be voting for Obama come November. The horse is already out of the barn and now that KNOW their position of how "ignorant, racist and unimportant" I am, I have no intention of unifying with them. I worked a Dem booth and have done a few get out the votes but I won't be doing that THIS election cycle. I'll not be ay part of a bunch of boorish bullies without manners.

    Conciliation (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    Your tone is far, far better than most posts we see here discussing the same points.  I appreciate  that.

    But I disagree with your premise.  This is not like Dukakis and Kerry and Gore.  I voted for all of them, even though none of them were my first choice (not even Bill was my first choice).

    The DNC leadership made this about the direction of the party, and that direction is: they don't want me.  I am not important to them.  They want my money but not me.  These are messages I never heard from Dukakis, Kerry or Gore.

    It's not about not getting my 'preference'.  Obama et al unleashed the perfect storm of misogyny with their oh-so-hip connections to the net roots.  They cried havoc and let loose the dogs of war and have only now just realized they can't be called back.

    I fully expect this from Republicans, but not from my own team.  This is not about calming down, or taking a break, or getting over some momentary anger.  It's about the fact that my own team went after me with smiles and boos and laughed while doing it.

    If John Edwards were the nominee over Clinton, I'd be voting for him.  If Biden (who I really don't like at all) were the nominee over Clinton, I'd vote for him.  Hell, if Kerry were the nominee again over Clinton I'd vote for him.

    But not Obama.


    you are failing to see or hear what we (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    are saying to you. this is not an ordinary campaign with the horrible way we and hillary have been treated. the racist dog whistles, the joy that the obama campaign took in demeaning hillary and through her us won't be forgotten. we have been told we aren't needed or wanted in the democratic new party. then we get obama fans coming on her telling us to shape up or ship out. many of us just might ship out. the unity pony is ill and at the vet.

    Actually this is a 50 50 site (none / 0) (#176)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    BTD is an Obama backer.

    he's just not suspended his critical faculties.


    Not hatred. But disgust, yes (5.00 / 5) (#197)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    at the corruption from which one candidate benefits.

    He talked of being good enough to not take the 50-50 split in MI that he could have won with the majority of the committee on his side -- but instead, he was so good as to "give" Clinton 69 delegates instead of the 73 that she won.

    Those were not votes that were his to "give," as he wouldn't even stay on the ballot but opted to screw the other candidate -- and the voters.  It is that arrogance of his, that any votes are his to give, that disgusts me.

    But I don't bother to hate him.  He doesn't deserve such strong emotions from me.  I am moving toward total apathy -- I just turn him off when on tv -- so as to care less when the Dems lose, as they will with him.


    what you fail to acknowledge is that (none / 0) (#217)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    that hatred or anger as i prefer to call it is a direct response to the campaign of barrack obama. we don't appreciate lectures to us like we are political dunces who don't get it either.

    Why the hell shouldn't she keep going? (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    She's won the popular vote and nothing is ever going to change that.

    Why would she quit now? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by befuddled on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:05:08 PM EST
    The super dees can run around all they like, but whatever anyone says, there still isn't a nominee until the convention. She can get a rest and organize for the convention while Obama and McCain spar. Seems like she's made a great case and now can step back and let it seep in. Meanwhile, Obama has been able to accumulate a scandal a week, it seems like, and if he keeps it up that too would be to her advantage.

    I think what happens to Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by chancellor on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    depends on us. The SDs need to hear from as many voters as possible that we want Hillary to stay in the race. At this point, she has the majority of the popular vote, and any attempt by fellow senators to freeze her out, or in any way deny her a complete opportunity to compete, will be viewed as nothing but obscene by me and many other Hillary supporters. I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, but, at this point, if the Democrats want me to vote for down-ticket races, their behavior to Hillary from here on in will be one of the measures I use by which to make my decision. Every SD needs to hear us say this.

    She's Not Quitting (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by melro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:08:13 PM EST
    It's obvious someone has asked her about it. She said they've been trying to get me to quit since Iowa, (so she's used to it). Then she was pressed again and said you know it's not over until the votes are in. Then she was pressed again and said it's not over until someone takes a tally and somone is awarded the nomination.

    What's unclear?

    Hillary has to go to the convention. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:08:40 PM EST
    She's won the popular vote.  She has so many delegates.  She has to go and let those delegates vote for her.  Has to.

    She could just take a vacation (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST
    Work on supers until the end of the week and then go to the islands. make no anouncements except that she will make a decision at some point after she returns but that in the meantime she would turn her attention to the ge.

    go to convention, SD women say (5.00 / 12) (#38)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    Hmpf, I lost my last post.

    Women in SD are saying convention.  Even my Republican mother who I just got off the phone with says Hillary will tromp Obama tomorrow.  

    Women running for office over there are thrilled with the campaign on the ground Hillary has run - at 16% of the legislature it sure as hell helps to have a prochoice woman showing how it can happen!   For sheer force on the ground Hillary deserves SD and has promised over and over there, after outlining her proposals for SD and rural America, that they can hold her accountable once in office.  How refreshing, at the state or national level.  We will.

    Whupping Daschle/HildebrandTewes would be icing on the cake.  Keep your eye on SD tomorrow!  We've got some good stuff cookin' over there and its an environmental hotspot to boot.  I've got 22 prochoice Dem women candidates for the SD legislature who say we'll show everyone wrong about SD!  

    What? (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by hlr on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    Women running for office over there are thrilled with the campaign on the ground Hillary has run - at 16% of the legislature it sure as hell helps to have a prochoice woman showing how it can happen!  

    You mean women in SD aren't heeding the ALL-IMPORTANT Naral for BO endorsement?


    we're working hard in SD (5.00 / 9) (#155)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:54:25 PM EST
    We've had an uphill battle, with more women 40 to 49 voting for the ban last cycle than for.  Aiee!
    But there's a strong Independent streak with 70,000+ registered I's.  We love our underdogs.

    We're banking on defeating this new ban on the ballot which is just as nasty, reads like a police state for the uterus.  

    Having had Clinton in the state as heavily as she has been with a great campaign only helps us and the progressive women trying hard as hell to get a chance at the legislature.  

    Its trickle-down when it works.  Hereth-Sandlin is in with Obama like Johnson but both got the Superdelegate payoff from Hildebrand Tewes and everyone there from the SDDP to H-S and Johnson are still dependent on the old Daschle "machine" to get things done rather than how the Clintons did it, voter by voter.  

    Bless them for that.  Whatever anyone can say about Hillary as a President she's done a tremendous favor for women in the rural states.  As it should be.  


    Nettle, God Bless You (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    My feeling is that she should drop out. (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    At that point the GOP will smash Obama into the ground. Then the party comes back to her begging. Like dogs. The dogs that they are.

    Tell it like it is Salo! lol (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:16:56 PM EST
    The only suspense is (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:15:16 PM EST
    will Obama push enough super delegates to endorse tomorrow afternoon so that he can get 2118 after tomorrow night.

    Interestingly, I think Obama has been too worried about that and not enough about making sure he wins in South Dakota.

    A big celebration in Minnesota (Next to South Dakota of course) when you LOST South Dakota is kind of stupid.

    The Obama campaign has been too busy planning victory parties instead of doing the hard work of unifying the Party and working for votes.

    He'll win the nomination of course but he has had a bad month imo.

    Because you should have known this was over the moment Clinton conceded 19 net delegates from Florida choosing instead to make a big show about 4 in Michigan.  

    At that point, you knew the delegate counting was over for Clinton.


    BTD, I think they settled because they knew if (none / 0) (#63)
    by Teresa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    they pushed FL, they would get zero from MI and she needed those votes counted, not the delegates as much.

    p/s Can you get me an accounting job in PR? That place looks like paradise.


    She got 5 from Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    Not following your logic.

    Better to pocket the 19, take the split in Michigan and have the 19 to fight about. Now she is fighting about 4 in Michigan?

    Plus the Florida fight was better ground - in terms of the rules and fairness.


    Please stop blaming Hill. (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM EST
    It was reported she thought she had the votes on RBC to get FL seated in full and seat MI as is.  Really, the Rules and By Laws Comittee is nominating Obama.

    The RBC hasn't the authority to nominate (none / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:50:27 PM EST

    The RBC didn't have authority to (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:53:18 PM EST
    apportion MI delegates.

    Uncommitted delegates, I mean. (none / 0) (#151)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:53:45 PM EST
    But . . . it did. (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:22:43 PM EST
    And what is Obama going to do about it, about such a flagrant violation of the party charter, if he is such a party leader?

    Uh huh.  I thought so.  That leaves Clinton to do it, and to get pilloried for fighting for party principles if she does so.  Nice how that always works out for him that way, wouldn't want to make him do any harrrd worrrrk.  Who does that sound like?


    Yeah, they're (none / 0) (#168)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    really like so many Scalias.

    Weren't the Obama people threatening (none / 0) (#103)
    by Teresa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    to not count MI at all? She needed the popular vote there to be accepted as legit (in some manner).

    Sorry BTD (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:37 PM EST
    I don't agree.

    I sent you an e-mail (none / 0) (#170)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:51 PM EST
    What is this new number? (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    Did I fall asleep?

    What does Obama have to celebrate for this month?  His autoexcommunication from Trinity?


    Clinching the nomination (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    when he garners 2118 delegates.

    The Clinton campaign has accepted that as the number.


    ah (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    The number shifted again.  

    Everything may be on the verge of a wrap party.


    According to ABC (none / 0) (#143)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    they haven't accepted that new number  FWIW

    ABC (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    reported the Clinton campaign does not accept the 2118 number.

    I think he will. (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    The numbers have only been going up all afternoon. Esp with Jim Clyburn's official endorsement, I think he's just cleared the path and signaled for the other SD's to go ahead and endorse tomorrow.

    Completely agree that this has been a bad month for him -- it's actually been tepid since March 5th, but May was particularly bad.  He needs to get working for that Unity, though I think Hillary's going to do a fantastic job tomorrow night and give him a huge leg up.


    Absurd (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    Clyburn virtually endorsed Obama in SC.

    You think him saying it means a damn thing?

    That's nuts. Hell, Pelosi endorsing means nothing at this point.

    Let's face it, if they were lined up they would all gone TODAY, so that Obama could have a big victory party tomorrow night.

    The Party is off until Wednesday or something.


    Symbolic gestures. (none / 0) (#180)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    Yes, he certainly did effectively endorse Obama after SC, but not officially, which is what I think tomorrow night is about: the "official" end of the primary season.    Maybe Clyburn's not as important as some others, but it's still symbolic, IMO.  

    She will not endorse for a while (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    She is not rash like this. She is also pretty coy. She may suspend to placate Senate colleagues and Pelosi.

    Terry McAuliffe said the campaign is calling unpledged and pledged superdelegates because they've "heard" things.

    She'd be silly to endorse now (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    She holds a lot of power with her endorsement.  The entire GE could hinge on her endorsement, whether Obama supporters want to believe that or not.

    what "things" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:28:36 PM EST
    what is that supposed to hint at?

    She's been very clear that she has a (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:49:17 PM EST
    good case to bring to the SD's. Suspending is a financial decision and has told all staff to submit their expense reports.

    Why would she endorse another candidate when she is still trying to get the SD's to vote for her?


    Maybe (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:55:22 PM EST
    the expense reports thing is to close down the primary and prepare for the general?

    I don't know what the law is, but it's possible that once the primaries are over, you can start spending from the general account?


    Yep -- and she has $24 million (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    banked by donors for the general election, last I read, compared to Obama's $8 million for it.

    I'm sure there is an element of (none / 0) (#210)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    accuracy in that. Obama is continuing to campaign even though it is for the GE. I wonder if he's allowed to use his primary donation war chest for this part.

    I don't know enough about these rules, just repeating what I heard from the analysts.

    Which side of the mountains are you on? I noticed tonight on the local news they gave a list of WA state SD's and who they endorsed. Mine are all Hillary.


    She already has implicitly endorsed him (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:57 PM EST
    if he is the nominee, unless I misunderstand the meaning of "campaign my heart out for him."  I don't see the sense of of even saying "I endorse him" at this point.  Those words are meaningless in this context. Endorsements are for putting a stamp of approval on someone for a future contest. There are no more contests until the GE.

    IMO (none / 0) (#67)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    she's already endorsed if she drops out. She is already on record saying she will suppot and work for the Democratic nominee. I also think that her "endorsement" ill not mater to about a third of her supporters who have been mocked, ridiculed and offended by the Obama camp.

    No way. (none / 0) (#70)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    After all she's said about how important it is to get a Democrat in the White House, there's no way she's not going to endorse Obama immediately upon suspending her campaign.  She may put in a sideways word here or there leaving the possibility of anything happening, but by and large, I believe she's more of a hardcore Democrat than anything else.  

    And I don't think there would be anything "rash" about that -- it's been a long primary season; there's been plenty of time for her to form an opinion about what she'd do in this scenario.


    Edwards said the same thing... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by citizen53 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:19:21 PM EST
    then quit the next day.

    The die is cast.  Like Bill Clinton said, it's a roll of the dice.

    If only I felt that the Obama campaign was not an illusion, using its millions for viral marketing and media manipulation, the I'd feel a lot better.

    Instead, I see much of the same.  An aura of change will be presented to blur the reality of things remaining the same.

    One thing that is... (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    ...going to be interesting from the marketing point of view is the clash of the GOPs tried and trusted method of election winning vs O's spanking new experimentation.

    The GOP have been steadily racking up win after win on us and we've kicked out the only team that have cracked their winning record at this level.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM EST
    Go Girl!  

    People should never pay attention to the media.  Idiots all.

    Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:36:20 PM EST
    all the usual canards are flying around in the media, rumors of tons of superdelegates flocking to Obama, stories about Hillary reducing staff, etc.  Every time this tale has been told so far, it turned out to not be the end after all.  So I'll believe it when I see it.

    Today's reporting lends credence to Hillary's refusal to accept the 2118 number:

    While the delegate count was resolved on Saturday with Michigan's delegation of 157 people getting seated but with only half a vote each, some people were hoping that Obama would restore full voting rights to the delegation once he officially becomes the nominee.

    He didn't address that issue during his speech or in the question and answer period that followed, but Democratic officials in Michigan have said they've gotten assurances that those voting rights will be fully restored by Obama once he becomes the nominee.

    If those delegates are only half-delegates for the time being, then that makes a difference.  Obmaa is conceding that it would be legitimate to restore MI to full voting status, which impacts the state of the race.  There is no special significance to the "magic number" - it is solely designed to represent the point at which it's not possible for the trailing candidate to end up with more delegates.  The prospect of counting MI and FL in full puts more delegates on the table.

    Obama has a problem... (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Mrwirez on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    the old catch 22..... Seat FL and MI fully and the number goes up and out of reach again..??

    I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    Obama should have seated them fully, and yes I am saying Obama could have told his people on the RBC to vote for it and they would have, and a week from Tuesday, he would have had the Supers sufficient to get 2210.

    This was utterly mangled.

    What is one week to the Unity and legitimacy that would have garnered?

    Obama just blew it at the RBC.


    I don't know how familiar you are with radical ... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    ...political organizations.  I don't know enough about you to tell.  But the RBC was a theatre of cruelty--deliberately set up to crush the Clinton loyalists.  it had all the trappings of purging the moderate centrists who are personally loyal to one candidate.  This sort of thing went on a lot when labour kicked out Militant. Only this time an American version Militant is cutting loose an American version of Kinnock.

    You have to recall that Clinton went about the same sort of thing in 1992 and to some extent that is what the DLC was about---it immitated New Labour under kinnock.

    Now the test is, will the electorate buy into having a radical movement controlling the Democratic party and the White House?

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    it was Mission Accomplished for Obama at the RBC


    If the idea gets out that a radical movement (none / 0) (#216)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:31:27 PM EST
    is in charge of the Democratic party, I'd bet on a McGovern style blowout in November.  The vast majority of Americans are moderates and don't want either fringe in power.

    That I believe is the real danger of Wright, Ayers, the hatemongering priest, etal.  


    Well (none / 0) (#127)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:48:21 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

    I do not dispute that Obama could possibly lock this thing up soon, but I think it will be messy if he tries to do it at 2118.


    Convention Power (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by denise k on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:38:30 PM EST
    By sheer number of delegates, she is going to have a lot to say at the convention no matter what happens. Who knows?  A lot of "priest-eruptions" can happen in ten weeks.  She'd be smart to suspend, sit back and wait for the chips to fall where they will -- nicely, of course.

    I pray she doesn't quit (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Terry M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:40:39 PM EST
    There are a lot of supers who are really having a hard time making up their respective minds.  The longer she stays in, the harder it will be for them to fold to Obama.  So many KNOW he is the weaker candidate.

    Yes, she should take a break.  Yes, she should consoldiate her campaign in NY (Why be all over the country now?).

    But, she MUST NOT CONCEDE until the convention - IF EVER.  She loses all her clout, all her power if she throws it in now.  She can still pull this out - August is a long way away.

    And who gives a rat's as* that Clyburn endorsed BO today.  Was that ever in doubt?

    This is far from over.  Hang tough Hillaryland!  Never surrender!  

    If she does as well tomorrow night (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    as I think she is, I'd say we are going to convention.

    I agree with Turkana et al (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    The signs are that this is over after the last votes are cast. Winning in South Dakota would be a cherry on top of an incredible campaign. It will also make the VP position hers if she wants it, and I hope she does. If not I agree with Matt Stoller that Wes Clark would be an excellent choice.

    Obama would be wise to actually find enough SDs to put himself over the top before Wednesday, to eliminate any uncertainty.

    And contrary to others here, if Hillary suspends, I hope it will be with some certainty. Like her, I want a Democrat in the White House in January, and leaving suspense about the nomination until August will not further that goal.

    Neither will nominating Obama (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Davidson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    Obama cannot win the GE.  Period.  Any Democrat would want Clinton if not for any other reason than simply because she actually can--and will--win.

    I know it's bleak for her, at least, but then it is for our Party.  The problem with Obama's candidacy is Obama himself.  Nothing can save him.


    I think he can win, but it will be difficult (none / 0) (#165)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:58:40 PM EST
    In the event, it's quite clear that the SDs have made their decision.

    They Made It In February (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    That's where many of them are still living with Obama and his sky-high approval ratings and his winning streak.

    But, yes, I agree at some point in the next week or so, maybe even tomorrow depending on what number you use, Obama will become the presumptive nominee.  

    Then I think Hillary suspends or at least gives some speech about Democrats winning in November.  Then I think we all wait and see what the summer brings for our presumptive nominee.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's likely Obama will be the nominee when the convention closes in August. But I also think two months is a very long time.  I give the presumptive nominee a 10-20% chance of melting down over the summer.  Whether the Dems would stick with him even so, I'm not sure.


    I Don't Think She'll Advertise the Uncertainty (none / 0) (#192)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    I think that will be private, out of public view.  She won't want the blame if Obama loses in November.  

    But there's a lot she can do to make herself viable if Obama melts down between now and August that wouldn't necessarily create problems for Obama.  Like campaignign for other Democrats, raising money, and bashing McCain.  She can do all of that even if she has "suspended" her campaign.


    I think you're dreaming (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:40:40 PM EST
    Davidson is right.

    Obama will not win the GE. You are listening to the media instead of the voters.


    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:11:42 PM EST
     I don't think she will suspend/concede until Obama has the 2118, and it seems that the senate Dems are lining up to make that happen this week, perhaps tomorrow, if CNN reports of a meeting today were true.

    They will look really silly coming out tomorrow though if she wins in South Dakota. They better at least wait a day or two and look like they thought about it.

    I also saw Matt Stoller's post about Clark and agreed with it.  That would be my second choice to Hillary being VP.  I was astounded to see his commenters say another woman would be acceptable to mollify Hillary supporters.  I did my best to disabuse them of that notion.


    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by vicsan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:35 PM EST
    That's my gal! What a fighter! I love people who fight for what's right and that is exactly what she is doing. G-d love her.:)

    I can see the steam coming out of Obama's ears now! The DC elites and the DNC must be steaming mad too. ROTFLMAO. What's it going to take to get this woman to drop out? Ha!

    Hillary will drop out when she's ready to drop out and not until, obviously.:)

    Once Obama Has the Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    I'm don't think she will dispute that he's the presumptive nominee or keep publicly arguing for SDs.  She may even go so far as to "suspend."

    But I don't think she'll concede.  Or that she's necessarily giving up.  I suspect she'll take a break, campaign for other Democrats, attack McCain, raise money for other Dems and the party (and maybe to pay off her debt). She'll probably also keep a staff, although one that is significantly smaller and cheaper than her current staff.

    Then, she'll wait and see what the summer brings. Both in terms of offers of power in return for her support at the convention (her pledged delegates aren't going anywhere and she has enough of them to be a real pain in the ass in Denver if she wants to be) and in terms of Obama's electability.  She has finished the season strongly and Obama will be limping across the finish line even if he wins both contests tomorrow.  There is a lot of unhappiness in the party and with the party.  And two months is a very long time, especially now that Obama will have to face the MSM's true love John McCain and, depending on when the GOP starts, a real smear campaign as opposed to the fake one they accused Clinton of launching against him.      

    I'm Don't Think? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    I'm don't spell either.  Sorry about that.

    I'm think you're right (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EST

    Also a lot depends oh how badly she wants to be the VP selection. If she stays out there and visible she will have more leverage for that.


    I hope she doesn't want to be VP. (none / 0) (#206)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    It would be lowering herself and many people won't vote for Obama anyway.

    Please stay on topic (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    this thread is not about Obama or McCain. It's about Hillary and what she may do.

    your forgot her phone number (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    She scared me!

    The blue collar union men will not vote (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Mrwirez on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    for Obama en masse. It sucks because Hillary owns the union building tradesmen. At least 50-55% or more imo will go to McCain. In a weird way I think the construction guys thought it would be cool to have a bad-a$$ woman in charge, that is the feeling I get at work. She is definitely tougher than Obama, and he has the testicles.... what a bummer after such a strong finish too..  I Blame Mark Penn and Obama's slime machine!

    FIGHT ON MRS. CLINTON... Fight on

    my peeps (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by pompmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:13:18 PM EST
    dear jeralyn, i have been searching for my peeps for 8 years.  for some reason, i thought they were on huffpo.  arianna hates hillary and always has been so envious of her. her site has always been so anti hillary. but i couldnt find my peeps. then i discovered taylor marsh.  today, i discovered you. i just want to say how thankful i am to find that i am not insane and my peeps are out there. xoxo

    media pundits (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    continue "the loser must unite the party" meme.
    The "unity" candidate could only win the nomination by dividing the party via race-baiting and sexism. And now Obamedia claims it's Hillary's responsibility to unite the party.

    Comparing this primary to previous Repub and Dem primaries is nonsensical. During THIS primary, Obama called voters "racists" for not supporting him.
    Then Obamamites and Obamedia bashed Hillary for citing exit polling data indicating the "white working class" wasn't voting for him.
    Geeeez, I wonder why.

    Obama's arrogance and elitism is reflected in his sexist remarks and his character assassination of certain voters that reflects Wright's disdain for certain Whites.
    And Hillary is supposed to fix all that?

    I say she sticks in ... (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    till Denver.

    Let Obama claim he has enough Supers.  Let's see if he can hold them for three months.

    She knows he is volatile (none / 0) (#226)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    Shoot, do ANY of us need to be reminded of the tailspin his campaign has been in since February/March?

    She has to stay in or at least not give him her delegates / concede until the convention. If Obama can staunch his bleeding persona, then maybe it's worth it.


    she suspends (4.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    tomorrow night or wednesday.

    is that a fact (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    or your opinion? I have no idea what she will do. Not a criticism, but if it's your opinion, please say that's what it is so people don't get mislead. Thanks.

    opinion (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    based on several articles hinting at it. i think she's keeping her game face for tomorrow, and if arg is anywhere close to accurate, she even goes out on a high note. but it's clear that the powers-that-be are moving to end this. as much as i agree with some of your arguments, the superdelegates don't seem to be listening, and hillary's nothing if not a pragmatist.

    You should know (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    by now the "articles" in the media are precisely objective and have been beating Hillary down like....forever.

    i'm very aware of it (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:11:34 PM EST
    i write about it all the time. but the storyline is clear.

    Storyline is being pushed to (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by my opinion on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    reduce turnout for her tomorrow.

    Has this worked before? (none / 0) (#88)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:33:28 PM EST
    I think it worked in Puerto Rico. (none / 0) (#134)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    If the storyline was clear (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:33:34 PM EST
    then there would be no doubt.  You have to admit there's doubt.

    there's doubt that it will happen this week (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:45:52 PM EST
    there's no doubt that it will happen.

    Then (none / 0) (#137)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    Obama is in big trouble.

    that may or not be the case (none / 0) (#193)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:18 PM EST
    but clinton's campaign will soon end.

    The storyline is clear? (none / 0) (#52)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:18:41 PM EST
    I don't get that.  This is why we're in the mess we're in!

    She must have a trigger point, after which she gets out.

    I don't know what it is, and either do you.


    Denver (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by LeftyFan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:21:03 PM EST
    She must have a trigger point, after which she gets out.

    Maybe her trigger point is when she actually loses.  :P


    She has a good chance (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    of winning in Denver.

    Denver, Baby! (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by LeftyFan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:34:50 PM EST

    And that's why I hope she takes it there.

    I don't give a sh!t how that distresses other politicians or political pundits.

    If she loses in Denver, so be it.  At that point, she will have done everything in her power to save the Democratic party from it's own stupidity.

    I don't think she'll lose there, however.  And that's the reason for trying to force her out.


    The media (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM EST
    and party "leaders" have been trying to sell the public a story-line since day one. I don't know what will happen. But the only story-line worth listening to is the one told by the people; the voters.  

    Meant "aren't" of course.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    People have got to be exhausted, and can't see anyone trying to make a decision tomorrow.  I saw Jake Tapper say .... this.... which is true.  Obama might look silly as the fact is it isn't over until the convention.  Also, I just watched Obama's quotes shown on Fox.  If we could get a clip of that, that would be great.  

    He was outside in front of media people and said (my memory) that he will be meeting with her at the time and place of her choosing and I could have sworn he said they would have further conversations.  The talking heads had their own definition of what he was saying.  I didn't get that from him, and believe me, as someone who doesn't care for him... I think it says something for me anyway.  

    Clinton says it's over when there is a nominee not when there is a presumptive nominee.


    Shades of Burr! (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM EST
    at the time and place of her choosing

    sounds like setting up a duel :)


    Ha! forgot my link (none / 0) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:13:32 PM EST
    What does that mean... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Chimster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    "suspend"?. That she will stop but not concede? Therefor, if some big anti-Barrack story breaks before August, she'll be able to jump back in?

    They all do that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    Romney, John Edwards, etc. They suspend rather than end. It got financial benefits of some sort. And, I assume they could always resume if events warranted. But it's what every major campaign does I think.

    Suspend (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:07:23 PM EST
    means two things.

    You can continue to fundraise and you can get back into the race at any time. it does not release your delegates nor cahnge your status in the race. It does not have to mean that you are out.


    Suspend (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Athena on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    I urge Hillary to suspend.  

    This is a historic campaign - the most successful woman candidate so far in American history.

    Hillary should enter the convention as a nominee, have her name put into contention, and let the balloting happen.

    As I've said before - August 26 is Women's Equality Day in the U.S. - during the convention.  It is historic to have Hillary as one of the 2 remaining candidates on that day.  

    The DNC designated August 27 for their balloting.  Hillary has every right to see the entire process through.


    It means it really can't be over for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    either, because by suspending, she retains her delegates -- and he has run out of pledged delegates to truly be the presumptive nominee.  Even if he got all the pledged delegates in tomorrow's primaries, he has run out.  He can declare himself king of the world all that he wants, but no nomination ever is cinched unless and until a candidate has the requisite number -- now 2118 -- of pledged delegates.  

    Because super-delegates can switch at will for months to come.

    And he cannot get enough pledged delegates if Clinton does not release hers.  Of course, that probably could have been negotiated -- until his hubris overtook him again this weekend at the RBC meeting, with the abuse of the rules as well as the will of the people . . . and, of course, toward Clinton.

    So if she suspends, it puts him in a sort of suspended or stalled campaign, too.  And as ever in this campaign, he will have brought it on himself.  Ha.


    That's right. (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:12:39 PM EST
    That's why they're pushing for her to concede.

    Yep! (5.00 / 0) (#228)
    by IzikLA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:52:52 PM EST
    Yet another media fallacy that it is pledged delegates of 2118, not including Supers.  As stated here time and time again, Supers can change anytime up through August.  They can claim it all they want but it just will not be so.

    The problem is that I think the SD's and the party want her out.  I wish they would change their minds but I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence that that might be the case.  I'm not sure how smart they all are at this point.

    I want her to stay in til the convention because I actually do believe by then she could win too.  Then again, I'm so over her being vilified to an unhealthy degree by all media and Obama supporters.  It's bullying to the worst degree.


    same thing edwards did (none / 0) (#15)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    it's a technical issue.

    It was technical (none / 0) (#75)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    when Edwards did it, when he did it. Much later, he endorsed Obama.  He couldn't get close to either one of them.

    Obama suspends (none / 0) (#145)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:52:26 PM EST
    come on, she has no more reason to suspend than he does.

    nope (4.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    it's not over.  As for letting go of Staff, I'm sure Obama is doing it to (as there aren't any States left to vote), but we won't hear about that on the Newz, will we?

    The narrative has always been that Hillary is dropping out, dropping out, dropping out.  Any glimmer of anything that could maybe support that was trumpeted as a sign she was dropping out (remember her reaching over at the debate to tell Obama how proud she was to be running against him?  trumpeted as a sign she was dropping out ... two months ago, or something)

    But she really is in it to win it and, with those Undecided Senators meeting behind closed doors tonight, don't think for a moment her Electoral Strength (and Obama's Electoral Weakness), the DNC's shameful decisions this past weekend and Barack's downward spiral (as well as rumored trouble in the road up ahead via tapes and such) wasn't discussed.

    Unlike Brazile, there are Senators and SDs who DO want to win and may (gasp!) decide to back the stronger candidate.  The one who has shown time and again that even outspent and with a rabid media standing with shovels ready to bury her, she STILL manages to win those States we need.

    So, no, she's not dropping out.  She has all this time to convince SDs of her Electoral Strength while watching Obama stumble and gaffe his way toward August.

    Closed doors (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:31:51 PM EST
    I'm really wondering about those closed doors.  If Pelosi/DNC/whomever really had the gazillion SDs 'just ready to go' that they've been threatening us with for weeks and weeks, why would they need a meeting?

    This might be a strange place (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    to make this comparison -- but, in a way, her campaign has been similar to McCain's.  McCain ran out of money, everyone thought he would drop out; but no.  He kept going.  Now he's the nominee.  

    I want to see the two fighters standing tall in September!!  Clinton vs. McCain!!  

    She can do it!  She can get in the ring too!  C'mon Hillary!!


    I disagree (none / 0) (#55)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    Obama won't be letting any staff go - they probably have a GE to gear up for.  In fact, what is typical, is that some HRC staffers (all assumptions of course) will roll onto his staff.

    Different skill sets can be needed (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    in different phases of the campaign.  In ones in which I worked, some people were let go at this point to bring in others with needed, different abilities.  And some left, of course, from sheer exhaustion and wanting to restart their lives.

    It may be that Obama has so much money that he brings on new ones while keeping on those who wish to stay, letting them sit around and do little as in the case of Brazile when Gore pushed her aside but didn't want to let her go . . . and now, we can see why.  Anyone would not want to let her run loose.


    We all have a job to do (3.00 / 1) (#212)
    by blogtopus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:28:22 PM EST
    After tomorrow night, Hillary's job is to convince the Super Delegates that Obama is mortally wounded, limping past the primary finish to be DOA for the GE.

    My job is to gather my as much talking points as possible, boil them down into concise, witty and attractive slogans, and make them available for people to make the best bumper stickers, tshirts and coffee mugs in their offices. :-)

    Your job is to use your strengths to Hillary's advantage. Contact and cordially debate SuperDelegates*, lobby local press (and national) about untold stories of Hillary's battle, write your own and send to the editors, use what gawd gave you to make this country a better place, starting with convincing enough people that Hillary is the best thing to happen to us since Roosevelt.

    And Jeralyn's and Armando's job is to keep doing what they're doing - publishing the best and most honest justice blog out there (perfect for addressing the massive injustice of the primary season and beyond).

    *Don't you think it would be a good idea to build a super-d database and assign yourselves to one or more that you talk to in a more personable way? That way you don't have to use cut and paste talking points, you can read their history online and use that to make your points stronger and more angled to them in particular. I have absolutely no skills for this, however!

    Be an Optimist (1.00 / 4) (#29)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    HRC should be focusing on what she can do to get Obama supporters to vote for her in November.  HRC's campaign and her supporters in the blogosphere have not been acting in properly conciliatory ways,  which will make it that much more difficult for HRC to unify the party and get Obama supporters to vote for her in the November general election.

    Just yesterday, Atrios was taken to task for implying that Puerto Rico -- having no electoral votes -- wasn't really all that important.  This would piss off Puerto Ricans who live in New York and Florida.  Many of them are likely to either stay home or vote for John McCain

    So HRC should be thinking about repairing the similar damage her campaign has done to the self-esteem of the people who live in states like Wisconsin.  Wisconsin is a swing state and there are plenty of former Wisconsonians in other swing states.

    This is the kind of work Senator Clinton should be doing right now if she expects to win the general election in November.

    As it stands there are large numbers Obama supporters and people who live in (or are from) belittled states who are unlikely to vote for Clinton come November.

    Personally, I'll be happy to vote for Senator Clinton if she is the nominee, but there are lots of Obama supporters out there who have had their feelings hurt.

    Could you link me (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    to whatever Hillary said to damage the self-esteem of people in Wisconsin?

    It sounds like a joke really. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:40 PM EST
    ho hum

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#220)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    she declared herself a Chicago Bears fan!  ;)   (s/with layers of snarkatude)

    Impressive (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    I am always impressed (or at leasted awed) by these politicians ability to keep their game face on when it is ending/ over.  They have such a mastery of their emotions and what comes out of their mouth (generally).  I personally would cry like a baby.

    Take it to the Convention?? (1.00 / 1) (#231)
    by freethinker25 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:35:37 PM EST
    Imagine if you will Clinton takes this fight to the convention and manages to overtake Obama. Do you really think she could then win the election? It would be suicide for the Dems. The anger and division in the party would take alot longer than the few months from convention to election to heal. Mccain would win in a landslide. I know many of you have grave doubts about Obama, but the only way for us to win in November is for Hilary to gracefully drop out and campaign in full force for Obama. How can anyone who professes to believe fervently in all that Clinton advocates vote in favor of Mccain, the antithesis of all Clinton believes in?

    What Bill said.. (none / 0) (#10)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    it would be his last day to campaign.  Any campaigning from this point forward would have to be done by her or her surrogates directly with the delegates and not the voters.  I wouldn't read too much into what Bill said.

    That being said, I don't know what she plans to do.  If she concedes and endorses Obama tomorrow night I would be very, very surprised though.

    Actually Bill said (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    this was the last day he would be campaigning in "this type" of campaign.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    You are right.. he did say this type of campaign.  

    He's (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:40:28 PM EST
    trying to fuel the press gossip?  I don't know why.  However he is the master word-smith, so you have to parse each word AND intonation for the meaning.

    So amusing.


    "could" not "would" (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:35:29 PM EST
    I'm sure it was a MIGHT BE comment when I watched the clip of him saying it. If she is the nominee, you can be sure he will campaign for her.

    The analysts/strategists who I saw last week say that she would suspend on Wednesday indicated it was a financial decision.

    They went on to say she would then go to the credentials committee just before convention and revive her candidacy.

    My understanding is that Romney also suspended with the reasoning he could step right back into the race in case information came out that would discourage the Republicans from putting McCain on their ticket. McCain is always called the Presumptive even though he has almost twice as many delegates (PLEDGED) as he needs. Of course, Repubicans don't have SD's.


    1) the primaries aren't over until tomorrow, (none / 0) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    so I am sure she would like to see the results before adding any staff.  2) I believe Bill was referring to the last day of campaigning for primaries; I could be wrong, but that is my take, FWIW

    The way he has been treated by the Obama (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Teresa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:13:45 PM EST
    campaign and the media...if she does lose, I hope it's his last day campaigning period. I wouldn't lift a finger to help them. I am not a vengeful person but there's only so much one should have to take before turning away from it.

    Teresa....I am with you. I would not be inclined (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:18:07 PM EST
    to help obama to cross the street, let alone campaign for his sorry butt.  But, then again, I am not as gracious as Hillary... :)

    Well, I'd lift one finger (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    That was snark (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:35:14 PM EST
    Ha Ha (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by LeftyFan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:38:11 PM EST
    And it was awesome!

    Reading her expressions... (none / 0) (#45)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    ...I feel it's going to effectively be over tomorrow or Wednesday, with a suspension of the campaign after all the votes are counted.

    Her argument has always been that she's going to fight for every vote, and to me that means every primary/caucus vote, not every SD/political vote.  I think the avalanche of SD nods will begin tomorrow.  I'm sure she already knows the numbers, and hasn't persuaded any new SD's.

    I think suspending after every state vote is cast makes for a fair narrative to the endgame: "I gave it my all and said I would fight til the end, and here we are."

    Do not compare her to Edwards. (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    I really hate when the losers compare themselves to Hillary, as Dean always does.  Hillary has won the big electorals, the swinf states, and the swing groups.  She didn't lose.  It's a tie(and I'd give her the edge).  The supers are nominating Obama.

    The Irony is that what was done to Edwards... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    ...has only been slightly magnified by the media and directed at Clinton.

    I tend to think Edwards may have gotten out after the Florida vote because he thought she deserved to win.  I know that my strategic mind saw the Hispanic vote break toward her and I thought she probably deserves the nomination if she can replicate that in the general (Hispanics being the true future of the party)

     Then the anomaly of the caucus states started to manifest itself in the supertuesday  states to Obama's benefit and he won a string of votes pre wright and the whole thing turned into a mess. So don't get bitter about Edwards.  he could could have done things very dirty and ugly if he were that way inclined.  He seems to have played his hand without cheating or bitterness.


    Did I inadvertently compare her to Edwards? (none / 0) (#80)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:29:54 PM EST
    Or say she "lost?"  

    Yes, the supers are nominating Obama, I agree. But those are the rules; that's what's come to pass, and I think she respects that.  I think she'll say something along the lines of "here's where things stand today" and then essentially walk through everything that's happened in her historic run, culminating (factually) in the choice of SD's to pick Obama instead of her.  


    The supers will be the final say, but (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    we won't know for sure who they have chosen until the convention.

    Is the media unwilling or incapable of understanding this?

    I am guessing the Obama supporters are just parrots for the media, but maybe they get instructions from the campaign.


    Yes, that's true... (none / 0) (#116)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:43:56 PM EST
    ...which is how I think she will leave the "door open" to re-enter the campaign if necessary.   But I don't think she will intentionally create chaos by alluding to the fact that she's "taking it to Denver."

    I agree... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    ...and just want to point out that given the closeness of the contest, were Clinton to win, it would've been the SDs that would've given it to her, too.

    It's over Wednesday. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:27:55 PM EST
    It's over. Too many wanderings off message for any other conclusion. Hillary is, rightly, keeping her own personal message on-track until the voting is done tomorrow. If she all-but-conceded today her insistence that this run the course over the past few months would've been undermined. But even McAullife said today that once the delegate number is reached the Democrats have a nominee. And since that number will be reached by Obama, well, it's clear. It's very clear.

    As you asked Turkana above whether she was stating her opinion or not, obviously we're all stating our opinion. But she'll give a gracious "thank you" speech on Tuesday night and suspend her campaign on Wednesday. Potentially Obama will go over the new magic number tomorrow night with some Congressional SD pledges, but for the most part SDs will wait until Clinton is out officially (if they haven't endorsed yet, it's clearly not going to happen before she does so).

    Also as Turkana said, it won't necessarily be a concession -- and there may not even be any more than a vague endorsement of a Democratic president (as opposed to a specific Obama endorsement) forthcoming in the near future -- but more in line with what Edwards (very, very, very stupidly, given the early date and the situation, in retrospect) did. A mere suspension.

    We may still see a principled credentials committee fight, but as far as taking it to the convention, that's fan fiction. That will not happen. I cannot fathom what form such a tactic would take, and how it would benefit Hillary or make her president. It would be a sheer emotional response to a cold truth. It would not be useful for Hillary. She can't win given the current circumstances now, and she can't -- for many of the same reasons -- win by taking it to the convention either. So she won't.

    We will not have an official nominee until ... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    ... the superdelegates actually vote at the convention. Until then, every quoted delegate count is an estimate based only on current SD preferences, and that estimate will change every time a SD changes their mind.

    So even if Hillary agrees that the current estimate favors Obama, she has not actually been defeated until the convention, provided that she only suspends her campaign.

    By suspending now and letting Obama maximize the estimated count in his favor with three months to go, Hillary will ensure that if (or, in my opinion, when) Obama starts dropping in the polls the news will start to be focused on SD's switching away from Obama and to Clinton. If he's losing to McCain in the polls, it may not take many defections to trigger a flood of them.

    At that time, I look forward to seeing a cartoon of Pelosi cracking her whip and snagging Obama by mistake.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    ...she should merely suspend her campaign. And she will, in some fashion, do just that. She can fight the credentials fight, even, with a suspended campaign. Bill and Hillary still would, presumably, have a home phone line after all.

    I agree with everything except... (none / 0) (#86)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:32:16 PM EST
    that the SD's won't push him over by tomorrow.  I think Clinton is classy enough to know what happens here, and will basically say "the superdelegates have picked this nominee."  Because that is what has happened, and she wants that on record.   That is different enough from Edwards' position, IMO, to make her stand out.

    I think that's up in the air... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:38:06 PM EST
    ...I, specifically, think that for once the "flood of SDs" stories are true, and that they're waiting for the networks to call the states for Obama. Or, rather, for him to have officially gotten X amount of delegates from those states. Not all the Congressional SDs he'll eventually get, of course, but he's only 39.5 down now, so he doesn't need tons.

    I think the idea that Clinton will note the superdelegates in her speech is questionable, after all, since she would have to win by the same method and she really shouldn't degrade it.


    The flood of supers has been coming for months (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Terry M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:45:38 PM EST
    Geez, when did I start hearing about the flood?  Wasn't it after Texas that Judas Richardson said the flood was coming?  No flood.  Wasn't it after Indiana/NC that the DNC was pulling the plug by going en masse to Obama?  No flood. It is always talk, talk, talk with BO - he never delivers.

    This situation... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    ...is clearly qualitatively different.

    Only 31 PDs in Montana and SD (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    Obama gets what 17 at best?

    He gets 23 SDs tomorrow?

    When? All morning they announce?

    Obama lost out on 7 delegates he was expecting in PR. sort of messed up the strategy.

    Especially if he actually loses SD.

    Besides, it is gonna  be Midnight by the time the votes are counted. I think the event tomorrow by Obama was sort of a mistake. HE should have celebrated a victory in Montana and kept doing what he is doing yesterday. Make his speech.


    The problem of time zones... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:02:16 PM EST
    ...is definitely a problem. But yes, I think he gets 23 SDs tomorrow and/or Wednesday morning. I would imagine the timeframe of those announcements will impact the exact content of the speech.

    If he loses SD one would imagine a speech talking about the end of the process and not the beginning of a new one. And an angry phone call to Daschle.  


    And/or (none / 0) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:19:38 PM EST
    Um, Wednesday.

    I don't know what this comment means... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:21:19 PM EST
    "And/or" merely means that we could easily have a situation where the delegates were pledged to Obama personall on Tuesday night and announced podiumwise on Wednesday.

    Though I happen to agree that Wednesday is the big news day.


    I don't think it degrades it... (none / 0) (#110)
    by gmo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    ...just an acknowledgement of fact. And I think it was your point earlier that yes, had she won, this is how she would have won as well.  So I think it's fair of her to say that, and she'd probably say it in that way explicitly so that it's -not- degrading the win.    It also sort of factually gives her the "sideways" open door into saying that this is sort of "not over" or that something could happen -- and that essentially it would be up to the SD's to take care of things from here on out.

    Just my 2 cents. :)


    Clinton spokesperson (none / 0) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    Clinton Spokesperson: She Is Not Conceding

    I find it interesting that the Obama supporters, even the tepid and/or nice ones are certain she's conceding.  But you're being so nice about it, aren't you, but yeah, it's just time.  Will you please admit that she's a fighter?  When has she ever left anything on the table?

    And Jake Tapper
    Clinton Considering Challenging New Magic Number of Delegates

    For McCain. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST

    Neither Gore nor Kerry (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST
    knew how to fight to gain the Oval Office.  I'll cut Gore some slack, but not Kerry.

    She knows how to, but some people cannot deal with that.  She's even won over people who used to believe the hype.

    Too bad.  Obama will go the way of the losing democrats.


    She won't suspend until Obama has (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    2118 committed delegates.  If that happens tomorrow, it happens. I don't think she will ever use the word 'concede'.

    I want her to keep fighting (none / 0) (#177)
    by stillife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    but after watching this clip, I got the feeling that she's just waiting for the final primaries to play out.  Whatever her decision is, I respect it.  But I'm not gonna be jumping on that Unity Pony!

    Um (none / 0) (#178)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    You want me to call this woman at home every 15 minutes?

    1997 and 2001 (none / 0) (#230)
    by whecht on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    I did a little research and the 2001 and 1997 World Series are almost like the Democratic nomination.

    In 2001, the Yankees and the Diamondbacks were tied 3-3. However, the Diamondbacks had outscored the Yankees 34-12 in the first 6 games. Unfortunately for the Diamondbacks, the Series was tied 3-3.

    Do you hear that Mr. Ickes?

    The Diamondbacks won the 7th game 3-2. The record book shows the Diamondbacks won the Series 4-3. It took some work to find out that they outscored the Yankees 37-14.

    The 1997 World Series shows a different result.

    The Indians outscored the Marlins 42-34 in the first 6 games.

    No one said the Marlins had to beat the Indians by more than 8 runs in game 7. I guess that was good for the Marlins because the Marlins only won by 1 run. The final score was 3-2.

    So the Marlins won the World Series even though the Indians scored 42 runs and the Marlins only scored 37 runs.

    Do you understand Mrs. Clinton?