home

Clinton Campaign Denies AP Report That She Will Concede Obama Has Won

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: Statement from Clinton Campaign:

The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.

Update: The Clinton campaign has sent out a press release denying the AP report. She will not suspend her campaign tonight nor will she concede Obama is the defacto winner. I just got off the phone with her internet communications director who told me he just received a copy.

So now the AP is falling for a story the only effect of which would be voter suppression in two states? How do these things happen? [More...]

****

The Associated Press is reporting that Hillary Clinton will neither suspend her campaign nor end her bid for the nomination in her speech tonight but she will acknowledge that Barack Obama has enough delegates to get the nomination.

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. Obama is 40 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, but he is widely expected to make up the difference Tuesday with superdelegate support and votes in South Dakota and Montana. Once he reaches the magic number of 2,118, Clinton will acknowledge that he has secured the necessary delegates to be the nominee.

She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.

I think whatever she does will be driven by the response she gets from superdelegates.

We will wait until Hillary publicly announces her decision. No one knows what she is going to say, except her closest advisers and speechwriter, and I doubt they would tell the media she is going to suspend her campaign just as polls are opening in two states. That would kill turnout. As long as Hillary remains in the race, we don't have a winner, only an apparent one.

If and when she ends her campaign and throws her support behind Barack Obama, TalkLeft will as well. But not before then.

Comments now closed.

< Tuesday Open Thread: An American Storm | Second Tuesday Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Campaign Denies AP Report That She Will Concede Obama Has Won | 262 comments (262 topical)
    Jeralyn... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    the Clinton campaign seems to be denying this story very strongly.

    I just got off the phone with them and have (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:41:19 AM EST
    updated the post and made that clear.

    [ Parent ]
    I hear Hillary is asking Obama to change (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    his health care plan to the one she has.. 100% universal .. ONLY then can she endorse him!

    [ Parent ]
    Doubt that (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    Edwards wanted Obama to change his policies too. And Obama told him to take a hike. Edwards ended up groveling on his knees to kiss Obama's ring. In fact all of the former candidates are now shining Obama's shoes for free. They got nothing.

    Even if Obama says its ok to put true universal heath care in the platform, there is absolutely nothing Hillary can do to see that he follows through. Platform planks are for losers. We saw in this primary that the new Democrats are not big on principles.


    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn - HRC has already (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    completely and flatly denied this rumor.

    See the open thread.

    Woo-hoo!

    If there is anyone here (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:05:27 AM EST
    with access to the Clinton Campaign, could you please suggest that Hillary needs to make a DEFINITIVE, CATEGORICAL STATEMENT THAT SHE IS TAKING THIS ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION?

    A statement that cannot be construed as anything but waiting for the verdict at the convention.  These stories are coming out because the campaign continues to make nuanced statements that make it vulnerable to spin and twists.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    A statement like that would make some people happy but upset some other people!  I don't think they want to spook the superdelegates with a categorical statement like that.

    [ Parent ]
    Spook? How? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:43 AM EST
    Nothing is official until the convention.  Anyone can declare their preference now and change their mind at convention time.  If she's going to fight, fight all the way. It's her fighting spirit that has increased her support.  It's her supporters she should be concerned with; not those who have been expressing disdain for her ever since.  

    [ Parent ]
    What Steve M means is that a (none / 0) (#197)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    significant chunk of Hillary's superdelegates would jump ship to Obama if she made a statement like that, and they believed that it was anything other than political posturing.

    As Steve M said, she doesn't want to spook them.


    [ Parent ]

    Worded that poorly in comment above (none / 0) (#211)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    I mean that was my interpretation of what I "think" Steve M meant.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll one up you (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by Chimster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    Dear Hillary Campaign,

    Not only should you take it all the way to the campaign, which would be enjoyable to watch as Pelosi blows a gasket, but the campaign is in the worst possible position right now, playing defense against people wanting her to drop out. That is not how to become the president at this point in time. She MUST flip the tables and change the narrative.

    One suggestion is to ask Obama to concede.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah! If anyone, it is Obama who should (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:41:53 AM EST
    CONCEDE.  He hasn't won anything significant sin Texas and Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    oops. "all the way to convention" (none / 0) (#150)
    by Chimster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:20:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    John Edwards (1.00 / 0) (#102)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    insisted he was going all the way to the convention the day before he dropped out of the race.

    [ Parent ]
    She's Hillary; not John Edwards (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    and she's ahead in the popular vote; and robbed of pledged delegates.  She has all the reason to go to the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that would be an astute (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    move on her campaign's part no matter how much you want to hear that from them.  They may be planning to take it to the convention, but to make that declaration right at this moment might create a backlash against her with super delegates who are still uncommitted.

    You have to keep in mind that these candidates are juggling the task of speaking to many different audiences with very different perspectives and motivations.  Supporters may want to hear rallying cries for do or die, but supers may recoil from that notion.  There are clearly a lot of professional pols who are scared to death of the notion of having a brokered convention.  Senator Clinton's camp is going to try to walk a very fine line of trying to keep her supporters engaged whilst trying to avoid upsetting delegates who are still up for grabs.

    I haven't even bothered to talk about the media's reaction, but you know that drill all too well I imagine for me to take up space discussing that audience.

    [ Parent ]

    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    It allows super delegates to defer any opinions until the convention.  It frees them from the pressure of having to declare early and be subjected to harassment.  Besides, by August, there will be a much clearer reading of the political winds.  Then they can vote according to electability.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's just get real here... (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    I don't think that there is a single delegate at this point who does or will feel "free" between now and the convention no matter what anyone says.  Particularly, the supers - they're the ones getting angry letters from constituents and being threatened with primary challenges etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards was dropping in polling data (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    She's actually got a robust case for herself.

    [ Parent ]
    clapclap, you are chattering (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM EST
    and blogclogging. 10 comments in 24 hours is your limit and insults and drive-by snipes will be deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    By my count (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    this is number 7.  If I've insulted anyone, I apologize.  If I'm blogclogging, I'll shut up.  If I'm sniping, I'd argue that my discourse is less offensive than outrageous shouts of "OMG! Voter suppression!", but I'll try to be more civil.

    [ Parent ]
    you are looking for trouble. (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    You might want to admit that.

    [ Parent ]
    of course they are (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    look at the screen name

    [ Parent ]
    I think that she should say that... (none / 0) (#282)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:59:59 PM EST
    ..." I will be taking the theft of my delegates in contravention of party rules by Obama's supporters on the committee, and the disenfranchisement of Jewish voters, Hispanic voters. elderly voters, and women voters who turned out to support me in record number in Florida AS DEMANDED BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ITSELF, to the convention."

    she should really stick it to Obama.... campaign season is over.  He engineered the RBC atrocity, and he should be held responsible for it.  The only way that this party can be unified is if it excises the cancer that is Obama from its collective system, because if the Party doesn't do it, the gop will have a field day.

    [ Parent ]

    I Knew It (4.50 / 8) (#29)
    by talex on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    I Just Knew it!

    Hillary will not let the country or her supporters down. Ever.

    That is why she belongs in the WH instead of some grandiose self-centered neophyte who doesn't have the experience to sneeze in the WH without 10 advisers telling him how to sneeze. If Obama gets in we will have a country governed by committee. How sad it will be to have two Presidents in a row unable to lead.

    [ Parent ]

    Why the attitude (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    Obama hasn't even been in the WH for one single day and you are already judging his performance there. Odd.

    [ Parent ]
    Actions speak louder then words, dear n/t (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She already has (1.00 / 13) (#107)
    by lgm on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    Clinton already has let her supporters down, and the Democratic party and the nation.  If she had conceded when it was clear that she was not going to be nominated, she would have prevented much of the polarization we read on this site.  But she chose a different path.

    She made it less likely that a Democrat will win in November.  

    Denying reality is not evidence of good leadership skills.  

    [ Parent ]

    McCain Will Concede... (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by santarita on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    as soon as Sen. Obama is nominated.  The opinion polls and pundits will show that he beats McCain.  So why bother to have the election?

    [ Parent ]
    That certainly would be a change in (5.00 / 7) (#179)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:30:32 AM EST
    American politics.

    And I'll expect my pony to be delivered right after McCain drops out of the race.  I want a red pony by the way.  Very important that my pony be red.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't know what polarization means. (5.00 / 12) (#131)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    You simply wish to see people suspend their critical faculties for the the political illusion of winning in Nevada and Nebraska.

    All across the rightwing punditosshere they are starting to remove their masks--Dick Morris, Mike Barnacle, David Brooks all guys who have been quite nice to Obama so far--they are all chuffed  that teh dems fell for the games.

    AP are deliberatly participating in disinformation.  That's how lousy this press is.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, No. (5.00 / 15) (#140)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:03 AM EST
    At the risk of feeding the trolls, Clinton is not the one who has divided the Party - Obama and the Party have!  When Obama praised Reagan - no friend to the AA community; when Obama said he wanted to return to the Foreign Policy of Bush I, i.e., Donald Rumsfeld's policies; when Obama and the DNC engaged in rampant sexism, classism, race-baiting, and elitism; when Obama's supporters strong-armed and bullied Clinton supporters in Caucus states; and when the DNC engaged in VOTE stealing, THEY divided the Democratic Party.  Clinton has done everything she can to hold this party together, to her own detriment, I think.

    My 77 yr old mom called me FIRST thing this morning abt this story - she was VERY upset that Clinton was going to drop out.  I assured her it was not true, and that Cinton will fight for us because we are fighting for HER.

    I am sick, sick, SICK and tired of the MEDIA trying to throw this nomination!  When did we stop living in the USA???

    (Sorry to the rational folks out there for the diatribe - I have just had it with people blaming Clinton without looking at the things that come out of OBAMA'S mouth!  He does not seem like much of a Democrat to me.  And one more note - he could have freakin' Wonder Woman as his VP choice, and I will NEVER vote for this man.  Ever.)

    [ Parent ]

    Once More, With Passion (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:29:18 AM EST
    Just kidding :)  Dont' be sorry about having passion.  It's a good thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    I appreciate that!  (And yeah, I am mighty passionate abt politics.  And baseball!)

    [ Parent ]
    True (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    he could have freakin' Wonder Woman as his VP choice, and I will NEVER vote for this man.

    Me neither, but her convention outfit would be great, wouldn't it?  :)

    [ Parent ]

    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#249)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    Yes, it certainly would!  I bet ALL of the networks would cover the Convention, from start to finish, too!!  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Stand your ground (5.00 / 5) (#218)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    and make your case the way you have here.  Millions feel the way you do.  If this is "Obama's party" as what HuffPo had on their front page yesterday, it will take OBAMA to bring it back together.

    No. One. Else.  He, the great Divider, er, I mean Uniter.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks Again - Write a Super (none / 0) (#260)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    Thanks, TX!  I appreciate the kind words.

    This is O/T, and I apologize, but it is also improtant.  I just got an email from Hillary's Rapid Responders that Jon Ausman said he is picking his candidate TODAY, and will announce it this afternoon.  His email address is : ausman@embarqmail.com.  

    [ Parent ]

    Diatribe? Hardly (5.00 / 2) (#262)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    I agree with everything you've said, but I put in much, much harsher terms.

    [ Parent ]
    Not helpful (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    Please stop throwing gasoline on flames, you do your candidate more harm than good.

    [ Parent ]
    Baloney (5.00 / 9) (#168)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:26:09 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton has brough excitement to the campaign.  She's won more votes than any candidate in American primary history.  And she's gifted the party the only dignity it has left by not being pushed out by a rigged process and hostile media hell-bent on banishing her to political obscurity.  If the Democrats lose, it will be because Obama and his supporters aren't interested in courting the 51% of the party who supported Hillary.  If so, we come back of 4 years and work our asses off again.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, you should check your facts. (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Radix on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    It's not all the caucus states, just 4. Why is it that IA, NV, ME, and WA are the only caucus states not to report any actual numbers, the others have. You did realize that there were more than just 4 states which held caucuses, right?

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    Actually Michigan (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by Evie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    couldn't have meant much to Obama considering he didn't give those voters a chance to vote for him.

    But let's just GUESS how they would have voted and make up votes to give Obama! It's completely dishonest.

    But then, I guess I'm just a bitter, gun-toting voter clinging to my Democratic principles.

    [ Parent ]

    You Dead Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    or just being dishonest, I don't know which.  Hillary has won more votes than any other candiate, even after giving Obama estimated votes for caucuses that didn't count votes, and estimated votes in MI that he didn't recieve.  

    Be very careful who you call a liar.  Check the facts before you look foolish again.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    she has the popular vote if you count the caucuses, give her the votes she got in Michigan and give Obama 75% of the uncommitted votes (which he didn't really get) in Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    Back In Four Years (5.00 / 2) (#264)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    That's my reasoning behind not voting for Obama.  If McCain is elected we can come back in four years and run a decent candidate (if the party recovers from its current case of dumb-ass by then).  If Obama's elected we'll go through the third term of George W. Bush and then be stuck with him as the incumbent.

    I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain in November if Obama is nominated but I will be proud to write in "Hillary Clinton".

    [ Parent ]

    What an ugly comment (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    And could you please refrain from calling Senator McCain, mcsame? We may differ with him politically, but he deserves more respect than that after his service to this country.

    [ Parent ]
    51% of the party who supported Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    51% of the party who supported Hillary
    I'm very supportive of the Democrats who voted for Hillary, and I think Hillary has created a movement of her own, perhaps in response to the Yes We Can movement. But it's clearly not 51% of the party.  I wish it were.  But the truth is, there could be hundreds of thousands of Republicans voting for Hillary in our primaries.  

    Superdelegates are smart people, and they are well aware of the Limbaugh Chaos effect.  This is still a close race, and the Clintons still have strong sway among Superdelegates. Hillary won most of the big states and is still polling better than Obama against McCain. Obama is still not getting the votes of core Democratic constituencies that are likely to be easily tricked into voting for McCain:  Hispanics, blue collar white men and low information voters.  (Not saying anyone here will get tricked; if you're already supporting McCain and just posting here as a fake Hillary supporter, I consider you a troll undermining the Democratic party.)

    But clearly, we still really don't know how big Clinton's support is within our party.  If I was sure that all or even most of her recent votes were from loyal Democrats, I'd be right there supporting her, given she'd have a better chance of beating McCain.  If she really had 51% of our party, the best choice would be Clinton as Prez, Obama as VP.  But even the Superdees don't seem to be able to tell which candidate has the most support, and they are the real deciders now.

    [ Parent ]

    Your ilk and your candidate (5.00 / 10) (#172)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    really have to take the responsibility for the loss of the White House this fall.  He has divided the Dems with his racism charges as well as the sexism aimed at Clinton but felt personally by many of us.  If he is the nominee, he will lose a significant share of the largest sector by far of the Dems, women.  

    And if Clinton is the nominee, your candidate has damaged her throughout the campaign to the point that it also has made what ought to have been a shoo-in to the White House more difficult.  Your candidate's waging of the most disgusting and cynical campaign of modern times has set back the Dems for decades to come.  And we will see the effect downticket, too, I think.

    [ Parent ]

    That's an IF (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    is possible that Obama will win if this sort of Meadia propagandizing on his behalf holds up.

    But yep, if he loses...in the face of all the evidence put forward against him by the polling data as it relates to his performance in the EV map--Dean, Pelosi, Daschle, Kerry and certain members of the press Corps should be HOUNDED from public life. And their careers deposited shallow grave in a corn field in Iowa.

    It's possible that Obama can defy the odds and the historical shortcoming of the party in Presidential contests that stretch back 40 years. He won a map that looks startling similar to McGovern's.

    It's possible, but i'm not counting on it. He falls too easily into the same political category as Dukakis, Kerry or McGovern.  And he's got some unique drawbacks with his associations on the Southside that we have not really explored in a serious way yet--we will leave the GOP to do that.

    So if he loses in November, let the heads roll.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget Brazile (5.00 / 4) (#221)
    by akaEloise on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    IF any heads are going to roll -- please don't forget Brazile.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately if McCain wins (1.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    there will be plenty of blame to spread around among partisans of both campaigns.  There is not a lot of clean hands. The candidates have been mostly good, some of their supporters- not so much.

    However, all is not lost, whether or not McCain wins in the fall is still in the hands of the voters and Democrats of good will can still come together.

    [ Parent ]

    Only weaklings concede (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by miriam on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:31:57 AM EST
    before the contest is over.  Granted, we've had a lot of wimps in the Democratic party, but Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Back To (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by talex on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    The Orange Satan with you. I hear the school bell ringing - wink wink.

    [ Parent ]
    You are the ones dividing the party (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by BigB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clearly, this is the message (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by suisser on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    that Team Obama would like voters to buy, but you'll find few takers here.
    HRC has earned the right to continue to stand up as a fully legitimate candidate.  Truth is, if Obama had stepped aside when it became clear that he could not, and will not carry the GE, we would not be in this insane situation of even considering the nomination  of such a categorically unqualified candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Baloney! (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This was response to lgm #107 (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama peaked in February (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    What didn't he concede when it was clear he couldn't get the nomination on either the pledged delegates or the popular vote?

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    is angrily denouncing this story and refuting it strongly. Ickes, Wolfson, Caputo et al are out in force and mad as heck.

    You might want to update this. Most MSM sources are walking it back quickly.

    Reminds me of (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by rnibs on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    Tricky Dicky.  It's dirty tricks like this that make me unable to support Obama in the GE, if he becomes the nominee.  I just can't support this type of behavior.  I still hope that the SD's will come to their senses before August, though I doubt it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see how you blame this on Obama (3.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    The AP's report is what Terry McAuliffe said on the Today show this AM

    QUESTION: If Barack Obama reaches that number today or tomorrow do you believe that Sen. Clinton is prepared to concede?
    McAULIFFE: Yeah, I think that if Sen. Obama gets the numbers, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him, and call him the nominee.

    Seems to me this was a result of a Terry McAuliffe misstep, not dirty tricks.

    [ Parent ]

    She can humor him (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by befuddled on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM EST
    and "call him the nominee." That's a calculated deflection answer, doesn't say he is the nominee, but gives the Obama crew something to crow about.

    [ Parent ]
    That is an interesting interpretation (1.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    I prefer a more straight forward approach.Terry McAuliffe made a political miss-step.  Hillary has always said would support the nominee. She is a good Democrat and I expected nothing less from her. If Obama becomes the nominee, her support will not  be mere humoring. That is just shy of insulting Hillary IMO.

    However,today of all days,  McAuliffe could have (and should have) side stepped that question.  

    [ Parent ]

    The context was not tonight -- (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    and McAuliffe was laughing at Obama's claims.  See it for yourself.  And there is more in the interview that is news.  Fouhy and AP blew it.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for the link (3.00 / 2) (#254)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    I did review it. At about 1:35 into the video Terry McAuliffe said:

    QUESTION: If Barack Obama reaches that number today or tomorrow do you believe that Sen. Clinton is prepared to concede?
    McAULIFFE: Yeah, I think that if Sen. Obama gets the numbers, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him, and call him the nominee.

    The context of the question is TODAY or TOMORROW. Terry is not laughing at that point in the video. I think Terry was restating what Hillary has always said- she will support the nominee. I think it was a miss-step for him to answer that question today when is voting today. He should have found a way to side step it. This is just my opinion. I don't see this as a dirty trick, just a political miss-step.  

    [ Parent ]

    You Had To Watch (5.00 / 2) (#275)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    that interview.  When McAuliff made that statement it was obvious to me that it was simply a generic repeat of what has been their position all along...when Barack Obama gets the numbers, Hillary will acknowledge.  In fact, he carefully does not use the word "concede".

    I feel like yelling here...Nothing has changed!  Barack Obama doesn't HAVE the numbers.  That's what McAuliff was saying.

    The reporter badgered him throughout that interview...constantly returning to the "Hillary should be out" meme.  It's disgusting.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep -- I just read the official Clinton camp (4.71 / 14) (#15)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM EST
    announcement:
    The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.
    Methinks the "source" behind this story is Axlerod -- trying to surpress voter turn out in SD & MT -- just like every other primary since March. Can't have those pesky voters turn out and vote for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    He's upset that (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by rnibs on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    they're not caucuses and is trying to make them as caucus-like as possible by suppressing the vote

    [ Parent ]
    This is what I mean: Statements that can be spun (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    "The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

    Maybe tomorrow?  By the weekend?  

    this is the sort of statement that gets twisted.  Why not just say:
    "She will not concede until the decision is reached at the convention?

    [ Parent ]

    I hope it is (4.66 / 9) (#42)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    Nothing would piss off Undecided SDs more than low-down Rovian tactics which not only indicate an alarming sense of desperation but also an undeniable intent to suppress voting.

    If it is, in fact, the Obama Campaign behind it, it really does point to how deep a hole they're in and how they're NOT the confident, we're the nominee campaign they've been selling themselves as for the past 3 months.  

    Confident campaigns don't do stuff like this and, if they did do it, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the flood of SDs they thought they had are now officially back on the fence and no longer returning Axelrod or Barack's phone calls.

    And his numbers must be flat-lining at an alarming rate if they chose -- and who knows if they did or not -- to pull this smelly rabbit out of the hat.

    [ Parent ]

    I hate to burst the bubble (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by mbuchel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    But there are certain journalistic standards that go into reporting a story like this.  I understand that Obama is satan and Axelrod his demon henchman, and they are guilty of all the evil in the world, but the only reason the AP would write the story is if THEY HAD A SOURCE FROM INSIDE THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN!!!  ARRRGH!!!
    With the lack of message discipline from the Clinton campaign throughout the primary, how can you find it surprising that there are multiple messages coming from inside the campaign?  It's been a consistent problem for her throughout, down to the last day(s).


    [ Parent ]
    I hate to burst your bubble mbuchel (5.00 / 5) (#235)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:48:20 AM EST
    but those "certain journalistic standards" you are talking about have not made an appearance thus far in this election (at least not in the msm). I say, with no irony, that the Fourth Estate has become the Ministry of Truth.

    [ Parent ]
    When it's anonymous, how can you be (5.00 / 3) (#244)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    so sure?  

    I think anaonymous sourcing is a great way to advance an agenda - we've seen it over and over - and yet people are still falling for it.

    How many times did we hear that "anonymous sources inside the Bush administration" said things to advance their case for war and a hundred other things - things that turned out not to be true, but which the media dutifully transcribed and which served Bush's agenda?

    For all you know, the AP's source is as flimsy as "I heard from my cousin's babysitter's brother, who's hooking up with someone who knows the guy who delivers the pizzas to the campaign that..."

    If there's no way to verify, there's no way to trust.

    [ Parent ]

    Like the journalistic standards (5.00 / 3) (#252)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    used to promote the Iraq war?  To cover up Bush's spying?  Those journalistic standards?

    Clinton's consistent problem is that the media lies.  Journalistic standards, my a$$.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think (none / 0) (#268)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    that voter supression or disenfranchisement is an issue for some Democrats these days, or were you on the shuttle that launched Saturday and missed the FL/MI debacle in DC?

    [ Parent ]
    The lower the turnout, (4.63 / 11) (#23)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    the better he does.

    Just like Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    funny that (4.60 / 10) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    and somehow really telling. And sad.

    [ Parent ]
    Pretty horrible (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    if it was true.

    [ Parent ]
    Here ya go... (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    the more voters, the worse Obama does in many cases.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link (3.00 / 0) (#116)
    by clapclappointpoint on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    I'll check it out.

    It's always nice to get a clear, sourced response like that.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a wonder (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    how asking politely can get you what you want.

    [ Parent ]
    It is true... (4.00 / 4) (#67)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    Jeralyn has posted numbers and analysis to prove it.

    I'll see if I can find it in the archives.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey Don In Seattle...why are you lurking and (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    troll rating on here??  Go back to Dkos and Huffpo, report your findings and call obama for your check!!  In other words...GO AWAY

    [ Parent ]
    yea, I get that sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    from a few of our favorites (this guy, flyerhawk, a few others). I take it as a complement. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    That's no lie...right now these guys are (5.00 / 3) (#250)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:54:38 AM EST
    rating each other...daringgrace, doninseattle, spindoctor, clapclappointpoint and lord knows how many others.  Watching obamatrolls on here would be an all day job.

    [ Parent ]
    Beth Fouhy is the AP beat reporter that (3.00 / 2) (#105)
    by KristenWinters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:08:54 AM EST
    has covered the Hillary Clinton campaign from Day 1.  She has access to the inner Clinton circle.  You are now accusing her of a nefarious plot in which she spoke with Axelrod but purposefully misidentified him as a member of the Clinton campaign.  Outrageous and libelous.

    http://www.journalismjobs.com/fouhy.cfm

    Beth Fouhy covers Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and state and national politics for The Associated Press, based in New York City.  


    [ Parent ]

    However, the Obama campaign has (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    said the Clinton campaign and theirs have not been in touch.

    [ Parent ]
    Have we come to the point (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by KristenWinters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    where we need to write accusatory posts which are potentially career damaging to a terrific female journalist like Beth Fouthy in order to make ourselves feel better?

    One generation ago, other than Helen Thomas, you couldn't find another female reporter with the acesses that Beth has.  Now some are trying to destroy her career by accusing her of a plot with Axelrod to suppress voter turnout.  

    [ Parent ]

    Do. Not. Dare. Compare (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    Fouhy to Thomas.  I have watched AP's work throughout this campaign, and so have other media historians, and it has been well below standard.  I do not necessarily fault Fouhy, as there are filters -- editors with agendas -- between reporters and what gets into print; have you even read Boys on the Bus?.  She undoubtedly has her own battles in the infamous AP, too.  But AP's work already has been analyzed and found quite faulty, so give it up.  Fouhy will not be enshrined in the National Women's Hall of Fame as Thomas is, believe me.  

    [ Parent ]
    Is there proof (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    that the Clinton campaign said this?

    If so, why was no source named in the story?

    [ Parent ]

    Here are your options. (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by KristenWinters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    1.  The campaign source that Beth Fouhy is referencing is from the Clinton campaign.

    2. Beth Fouhy, the female AP beat reporter for the Clinton campaign, has committed the worst breach of ethics that a journalist can commit, and should be fired or resign in disgrace immediately.


    [ Parent ]
    I'll take number 2 (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Nessuno on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    Ethics and the American press core haven't frequented each other much lately.

    [ Parent ]
    I accuse you! (none / 0) (#215)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:37 AM EST
    of distorting my words -- I suspect (different from "accuse" -- haven't you ever played "Clue"?) Axlerod is behind this because of the history of the Obama camp of trying to suppress voter turnout with their "it's over" and he "is announcing his win of the nomination tonight" etc. etc. that has been going on since before TX & OH. So, if the shoe fits.

    [ Parent ]
    Chuck Todd just said that (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    a close Clinton advisor said she will change her mind 5 or 6 times before tonight...they appear not to be backpeddling.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC is a joke (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    When everyone else was walking it back they released this:

    From NBC's Mike Viqueira and Mark Murray
    Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe just told CNN that the AP article is "100% wrong." He said Clinton will NOT acknowledge Obama as the nominee tonight.

    Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee also emailed NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli that the piece is "not true."

    That said, Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes has told at least one top Clinton backer in the House that "it's over," according to an aide that was privy to the conversation.

    Per the aide, Ickes told the Democratic member yesterday: "It's over and the end will be gracious, beginning with HRC's comments at Baruch College tonight. This will be over by Thursday at the latest. There's a large Obama fundraiser in NYC on Wednesday night that will include a bunch of bigtime HRC donors (I bet he raises $300K if not more) followed by a DNC event where big bucks will also be raised. We're guessing HRC will at least appear at the DNC event with Obama and use that platform to being to unify the party. (Ickes) agrees...that HRC has more leverage between now and Thursday than after."

    Now they are saying a 'close Clinton aid' spewing that Clinton will change her mind 5 or 6 times before tonight. Does that sound like Hillary clinton? Hardly.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#257)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    you know how those women are.  We never can make up our minds.

    [ Parent ]
    The Huffington Post (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    has already had to change their headline. Hillary's not conceding-- she might concede that Obama has the majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. But that's not conceding.

    What's the difference? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Gabriel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    Isn't that like Kerry recognizing Bush had the EC votes but not conceding?

    If she concedes Obama has the votes for the nomination then I'm not sure what's left to acknowledge.

    [ Parent ]

    The entire story is false. (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    Read what the campaign says and not what HuffPo interprets it to say.

    [ Parent ]
    The campaign (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    is calling this a voter suppression false story.

    However, in the event that Hillary suspends, can we have one thread at some point to talk about where those of us who don't support Obama can meet?

    (Maybe we can form a Yahoo Group or something.)

    Group (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by formerhoosier on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:45:23 AM EST
    Like the idea.  Used to post on articles on Yahoo before it was taken over by the groupies (call it the slashdot effect).  

    [ Parent ]
    Later (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    If and when she ends her campaign and throws her support behind Barack Obama, TalkLeft will as well. But not before then.

    Yay!

    I applaud this decision by Jeralyn.  But I do think those of us who plan to write in Hillary whether she's the nominee or not should come up with a Plan B as to where we can continue to meet up later.

    [ Parent ]

    TalkLeft is a member of the Democratic party (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:59:18 AM EST
    and will remain one. Calls to abandon the party will  be chattering. When they are posted in threads on other issues, they will be deleted.

    TalkLeft will not be used as an organizing ground for those who choose to oppose the eventual nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    You are a great progressive, Jeralyn, and (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TomP on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    a good Democrat.  I really enjoy reading you and BTD here.

    [ Parent ]
    while supporting the party and the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    please please please, continue to keep a check on the outrages found in the kool-aid bogs (KAPs), and about the health of the party. We've seen some serious problems with the party, party leaders, and supporters that do not make for a strong healthy party. I would very much like to see continuing discussions of those issues. In addition to all the legal issues you guys cover. Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'm a card-carrying Dem, too ... (5.00 / 3) (#265)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    ... but I've always held to the belief that political loyalty should be a two-way street. And to be perfectly honest, my political obligations will always be tethered to my own conscience, and not to my party card. I'll state for the record that I cannot in good conscience support John McCain, and my efforts will be directed accordingly toward opposing his election.

    However, my conscience also dictates that as far as our presumptuou-- excuse me, presumptive Democratic nominee is concerned, he and his campaign are on their own. What happened at Saturday's Rules & Bylaws Committee Saturday night was a real covenant-breaker for me.

    To be blunt, we as a party stand for nothing whenever we allow expediency to trump principle.  And as of Saturday night, the party leadership has officially planted its feet firmly in mid-air.

    This, of course, is nothing new. Our party leaders have chosen expediency over principle repeatedly on matters both great and small since the 2006 election, starting when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table, continuing with the Senate approval of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and including the leadership's approval (albeit temporary) of Bush's draconian domestic surveillance policies.

    I'm sorry if this post offends you, Jeralyn. I'm not one who'll call for people to abandon the Democratic Party. I will work especially hard to support downticket Democrats.

    But I will always reserve my right to criticize -- bluntly and vociferously, if need be -- our new de facto party leaders from the Obama camp, whenever they prove so willing to abandon bedrock principles we profess to hold dear, i.e., one man, one vote. If they can't respect principle, then I in fact owe them nothing in return -- and most certainly, that includes both my loyalty and my vote.

    "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?" -- Matthew 16:26

    Nuf ced. Aloha.

    [ Parent ]

    good position to take (none / 0) (#230)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    I would like to see some threads about the party and it's rules and regulations and efforts to fix the mess. Because the party clearly has some problems.

    Of course I wouldn't mind someone starting a different blog that's more about the dire state we find ourselves with a new power structure in the party that is aggressively pushing out core constituents. And perhaps how to battle that new wing which may or may not include not supporting Obama. But even with that bolder stance, I would like to see it from a pro democratic party stance.

    [ Parent ]

    That is why Plan B is necessary (none / 0) (#272)
    by RalphB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    I certainly wouldn't feel right organizing here knowing your wishes.

    [ Parent ]
    Teresa, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MMW on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    I'm with you, just let me know where!

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:06:37 AM EST
    Yeah, I believe that would be called joining the McCain campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Noquarter (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    Ha!.... maybe if enough milder people go over there the tone would change.  Again... Ha!

    [ Parent ]
    True. (none / 0) (