Fighting On

Today Hillary Clinton announced that in no uncertain terms she would fight on toward the nomination. Perhaps I should have expected nothing less. She added a public event in West Virginia today and said in a press conference:

"Well, I'm saying in this race until there's a nominee. And I obviously am going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee."

While, as I wrote last night, I don't think she'll ultimately be the nominee, I support her decision to continue. The rest of the states deserve to participate in this historic election and seeing as on MSNBC last night Howard Dean refused to ratify 2,025 as the magic number of delegates needed to win the nomination pending the results of the Rules Committee meeting on May 31st, it would appear Clinton has a credible case to make that the race goes on even if superdelegates put him over the 2,025 threshold in the coming days or weeks, at least until that committee decides what to do about MI & FL. So, fight on, Senator.

On a call earlier today, the Clinton campaign boasted of her success among white voters as sort of a rationale to continue in the race. Certainly, looking at North Carolina exit polls, it's clear Hillary Clinton did do very well among white voters, winning 61% of the vote. According to Insider Advantage, 60% was the magic number she needed to win the state, although this presumed that Barack would get under 80% of the African-American vote. He got over 90%. PPP was closer, saying that Clinton's winning 60% of whites would put her within 10% of Barack Obama, but this again presumed that 80% of the black vote would go for him. Clearly a good chunk of black voters told pollsters they would vote for Hillary Clinton but then voted for Barack Obama. Interesting that this phenomenon continues unabated.

But perhaps even more dramatic was how she did among independents in NC. As I've written before, since Feburary 5th Barack Obama has been gradually bleeding support among independents to Hillary Clinton in open or quasi-open primaries. Last night in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton had her best performance yet winning them 50-45. Barack Obama reversed that trend in Indiana, however, winning them 54-46, so Clinton can not credibly claim out of last night that she is eating into his base. In fact, as Jerome wrote earlier, in Indiana, he ate into hers.

What the Clinton campaign is doing, in my mind, and what is at the heart of her continuing on in the race, is to demonstrate how crucial Hillary Clinton's presence on the ticket is to Obama's victory in November. The longer she is able to continue in the race and the better she continues to do among white working class voters in states such as West Virginia and Kentucky, the more compelling the rationale for offering her the VP spot becomes.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

118 Comments

Re: Fighting On

What she is doing is making it more difficult for Obama to win in November and more difficult in getting the party as a whole to unite. She has no chance to win at all at this point. Further the idea of a Obama Clinton ticket is awful. There are way too many people who will never vote for her on the ticket under any circumstance. She gets on the ticket, I vote McCain.

Obama needs a strong candidate with Foreign Policy experience....that aint Hillary.......although she once wore a bullet proof vest in Bosnia....

by adb67 2008-05-07 12:22PM | 0 recs
Come off it

Rubbing salt in the wound isn't helping anyone.

Yes, Clinton should concede. No, mocking her campaign isn't helping anyone.

You'd vote for a 100 more years in Iraq because you don't like the VP? Really? That's something beyond silly, and stupid.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-07 12:52PM | 0 recs
Ugh

There are probably good reasons why Clinton shouldn't be on the ticket, but not yours.  I'm an Obama supporter, but I wouldn't flinch at voting for a Hillary Clinton - Alfred E. Newman ticket over John McCain.  She's a good person and would make a good president or vice president.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-07 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Ugh

I dont see evidence of a good person in someone who has used political power to destroy the lives and reputatiosn of others as the Clintons have done....its like saying despite his racist background Strom Thurmond was kind to blacks because he hired them to work in his yard.....

by adb67 2008-05-07 07:12PM | 0 recs
Too many right wing

trolls acting like they support Democrats and Obama.

You vote for McCain, even threaten it, and you are no Democrat.

by TomP 2008-05-07 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I tend to agree with you. I don't want to see that Hillary anywhere near the ticket as it would be a great diservice to this country to put her in the whitehouse in any fashion. I really hope if she asks for the vp slot Obama tells her to beat it.

by GeeMan 2008-05-07 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Agree a Obama/Clinton would be bad, but from a different perspective.I think Hillary is too smart to agree to VP spot. Obama may not win the GE, and IMO he doesn't have much of a chance, and if he doesn't, Hillary needs to stay FAR away from the taint of a loser, so she can make another run in 2012. Besides, there really isn't an upside for her to accept a VP slot, nothing to gain. She'll be considered too old to run in another 8 years. Better to wait for Obama to flop, and try again in 4 years.  

by muggle 2008-05-07 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

"She'll be considered too old to run in another 8 years. Better to wait for Obama to flop, and try again in 4 years.  "

So basically, you're arguing she'd prefer the
Democrat candidate to lose in November, right?

I agree that's indeed probably her preference, am just not sure it'd be the position that a Clinton supporter should be supporting, if you're indeed a Clinton supporter.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-07 11:01PM | 0 recs
Logical fallacy

The fact that she has better appeal to working-class voters than Obama does not mean she is crucial to the ticket. Rather, Obama should be looking for someone who has even greater appeal than hers. Remenber, the primary and general electorates are not the same universe of voters, and results from one cannot be applied to the other.

by PantherDem 2008-05-07 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Logical fallacy

Actually, Obama should be working on a better way for him to appeal to those voters.  VP canidates don't do much.  People vote for the one on top of the ticket.

That's why West Va. and Ky. might be good for Obama, even if he loses.

He is a far better campaigner now for facing Clinton, Edwards, and the rest then he was in early 2007.

by TomP 2008-05-07 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Logical fallacy

Absolutely a better campaigner.  All Obama supporters (myself included) should be THANKING HRC for the kind of campaign she ran.  She got him into shape and made him fight for the nomination.  

I'll admit that her campaign made me cringe often, but we have a better candidate now because of it.  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-07 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Logical fallacy

Im working class,white male,blue collar from Michigan and I don't know any fellow workers that like her. Of course we aren't unionized, maybe it's the union blue collar workers that will vote for her--cause it sure ain't us.

by GeeMan 2008-05-07 04:23PM | 0 recs
Don't see her on the ticket...

and she wants is BAD.

Barack Obama's campaign has had one message, CHANGE.  That is not what the clintons are.

Let's be candid.  You have to deal with both, not one.

Barack Obama is about uniting this country together.  Sure, he and Hill's tiff can be fixed, but the question is this, "is she the best VP candidate?"

I say no.  There are too many other talented Dems, including women with far more experience than Hillary Clinton.

Right now there are negotiations, maybe pay her debt, her wanting on the ticket.  But this is Barack Obama's call.  Yes, he may have to take her, but he just may not as Tim Russert outlined last night.  He has a different path to the presidency than the same old 50 + 1.  In other words, they don't need her.  

But in this election it has always been like that, she is just realizing it now.

by Edna Howard 2008-05-07 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't see her on the ticket...

Come on this is BS.  BO wants to win.

Please.

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't see her on the ticket...

Exactly. But Edna "Icebergslim" Howard has always been on the fringe.

by KnowVox 2008-05-07 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't see her on the ticket...

You are insane.  He sealed the black vote when he won Iowa .. because it proved that he wasn't just a one hit wonder ... besides .. you could say the same about Hillary .. if she didn't get the women vote .. or the senior citizen vote .. she'd be toast

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-07 01:09PM | 0 recs
It's over

Didn't you get the memo?

Obama is a racist separatist didn't work.

Nor did the smear he's a black panther christian Muslim Manchurian candidate

I know you guys pushed the 'Obama is a racist' a couple of weeks back, as a push back to the generally perceived (and genuinely believed) meme that Hillary was pandering to a white bigoted minority.

But please. Read the diaries. Turn of the auto response insults. The days of this kind of mud slinging are over. It didn't work. Move on.

And if you truly believe what you say, seek some help

by duende 2008-05-07 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's over

Geraldine Ferraro is not a racist.  Bill Clinton is not a racist.  Hillary Clinton is not a racist.

I find it interesting that a man who's spent 4 years in the Senate can beat up on these people, who have championed African-American causes for decades and actually brought the community material results, gets to call them racists because they are white.

David Axelrod should never be the moderator for a national discussion on race.  It will tear the country, and this party, apart.  And if YOU cannot see that, YOU must seek help.

by hornplayer 2008-05-07 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's over

Please refer to rebuttal 304.13 posted in March 2008

No, Bill and Hillary are not racists. Obama never said they were. He even defended Ferraro from that charge in his Philly speech.

Done this argument so many times. You're stirring and old cold and mouldy pot. The reverse racism charge is dead in the water. Move on.

by duende 2008-05-07 01:33PM | 0 recs
George Wallace wasn't racist either

He was arguably just an opportunist who exploited the racial divisiveness of his time, sorta like some other politicians.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-07 01:50PM | 0 recs
the only way BO could get Blacks to

vote for him is to paint HRC as racist?

Do you really believe this?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-07 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't see her on the ticket...

I find this speculation absurd.

Why would the most famous woman on the world political stage be interested in the VICE presidency , especially with someone of lesser experience and zero accomplishment at the top of the ticket, not to mention the fact that it would be a waste of her talents.  

by Tolstoy 2008-05-07 03:46PM | 0 recs
Does Hillary really want to be Obama's VP?

I doubt it.  I think she would rather that Obama lose to McCain in the Fall so she has a chance for the presidency in 2012.

Also, the Obama campaign is very much aware how hard this will be to win the presidency so he is going to do a MAJOR voter registration drive over the next 6 months in all 50 states to increase the number of Democrats even more to win some of these swing states.

by puma 2008-05-07 12:55PM | 0 recs
I don't think that's helpful

Clinton is a Democrat.  If she did as you suggest, she'd never get elected as a Democrat again.  She has a statistically better chance of being the VP and coming into office because something happens to Obama.

That said, it's not going to happen.  She can make the case all she wants, but Obama will use qualifications and sincere desire to implement his policies and strategies of transparent government by and for the people to choose his running mate.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think that

Clinton has any interest in VP.

I suspect she's rather be the Senator from NY.

by TomP 2008-05-07 01:30PM | 0 recs
She's better off there certainly

The only reason I can imagine that she floated that unity ticket stuff in February is because she wanted to be VP.  She didn't really expect him to forsake the lead and be her VP.

I think she's better off in the Senate, but I also think that she wants to be as close to the presidency as possible.  

Consider this: The people that Obama has most often had traits compared to are: Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Bobby Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy.  What do all of these people have in common?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: She's better off there certainly

they are dead.

seriously, with the exception of RR, who was shot at, all of them were killed.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-07 01:41PM | 0 recs
Yes, they were all shot.

Anyone who doesn't consider the possibility that Obama will not make it out of his first term has not paid careful attention to how we treat our inspiriational leaders in this country.

I'm not saying that it will happen, but Obama's no fool.  He'll make sure his legacy is in as safe hands as possible.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:53PM | 0 recs
She wants on this ticket.

Look at who she is.

A former first lady, married to a president.  The senate was a jumpstart for the presidency.  She want the spotlight, national stage.  Going back to the senate as a number, because that is how the senate is, senority, is a nothing to her.

by tracey webb 2008-05-07 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: She wants on this ticket.

and Obama didn't use his senate seat for a jumpstart for the presidency.  He didn't even have the decency  to wait a couple of years.  He was in the senate, what 1 year????

by colebiancardi 2008-05-07 01:43PM | 0 recs
dumbest conjecture out there

Hillary Clinton is too damn saavy and smart to do anything but throw all her energy behind Obama in 2008.  To do anything less would be political suicide.  Not only would the party turn it's back on her in 2012, she blow any chance for an appointment to anything and possibly lose her Senate seat too.

Get real.  I know it remains chique in some circles to demonize Clinton but
A. she's dedicated her adult life to the Democratic Party
B. she's as much or more concerned about the immediate future of the country as anyone here
C. she's not that GD dumb, far from it.

no.  really.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-07 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I really don't think she is doing this to get the VP nod?  

Really? Why?  Unless she is CONVINCED Obama will lose, and this is her way to make ammends (read:win back the black vote) for a run in 2012?  If so, I would be very wary of her if I was the Obama camp?

But, I seriously thinks she doesn't want VP.

I think she is doing it to leave on a high note, retire some debt, and JUST BE THERE if Obama is revealed to be an Alien Warlord from the Planet Krell and loses the nomination in Oregon?

Oh, wait, I read a diary here about that last week...Guess that secret is out already?

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-07 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Planet Krell polls well in Oregon. It just depends which alien warlord he is and whether or not his alien pastor said bad things about Krell.

by wengler 2008-05-07 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Obama would never pick Hillary as his VP.  Not after the divisive and race baiting campaign the Clintons have run.  Also, Obama needs someone less showy than he is.  Also, Bill Clinton would be a nightmare to run a campaign with.

by Spanky 2008-05-07 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Well to me the only candidate that is running a race baiting campaign is BO.

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

So if Obama had not engaged in this (unexplained, undefined) race-baiting, then black people would have not voted for him in such great numbers? Or are you offering some other, less obvious but more rational, explanation?

by LandStander 2008-05-07 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Did i say that?  Try not making things up.

The memo after the NH primary says it all.  Unless that memo is a fake.

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

The memo laid out the case that the Clinton's (mostly via surrogates)  were trying to minimize Obama because he was black. Ferraro then came out and expressed it explicitly. Sorry....be disappointed in Hillary and stop projecting.

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-07 01:26PM | 0 recs
From what I can tell...

The memo was a hoax.  Most people are mystified about it.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

So, Obama used race baiting to win this race, according to one memo. Unless this memo is a fake, then Obama did not engage in race baiting.

Have I figured it out yet? I sure wouldn't want to make things up and look like an idiot.

by LandStander 2008-05-07 01:26PM | 0 recs
race-baiting ...

how has BO done so??

by DailyKingFish 2008-05-07 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Well to me calling someone out for race baiting is not race baiting. I know the Clinton's thought they were toooo 'slick' to get caught but it turns out .... not so much.

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-07 01:22PM | 0 recs
HOW she runs, not WHETHER she continues

The critical issues is how she runs her campaign from this point onward. A slash and burn approach would undermine her and Obama.

Is her new rationale for continuing the race to win the VP slot? It makes sense, but it's a dramatic change if that's the case.

I too support her decision to continue, even knowing she has virtually no chance at winning. She owes that much to her supporters, and the more effective and graceful bow-out would be once the primaries conclude.

by wolff109 2008-05-07 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: HOW she runs, not WHETHER she continues

She told her supporters she would finish this thing out for them, and she owes to them to continue. But as you say, from now on this should be a relentlessly positive campaign.

Run like a Huckabee until Obama reaches the clinching number of delegates.

by wengler 2008-05-07 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: HOW she runs, not WHETHER she continues

Wholeheartedly agree. She should stay in until Oregon (or even June 3rd) and run a positive campiagn with a focus on bridging the divide and attacking McCain.

by LandStander 2008-05-07 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

First, I'm an HRC supporter to the end, but I don't want her on the ticket with Obama.  I don't think even that could make me vote for him.  

Second, I don't think that would be his best ticket anyway.  Sure, it would get back some of the HRC supporters who his race-baiting has infuriated, but he needs a lot more help than that to win.

Third, I think he's going to lose and I don't want her to be part of that, or to get the blame for it.

Fourth, it's hard for me to believe she would want to be on the ticket with him.  It's so likely that he will lose, in which case she could run again in 2012.  But not if he takes her down with him.

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

When did Obama race bait?  And Bill Clinton didn't?  And Hillary didn't use George Bush talking points last week?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-07 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

"When did Obama race bait?"

Are you kidding?  It's been the core of his campaign.  Any time HRC made progress, his surrogates would trot out some phony charge of racism.  It started at least as far back as the phony furor over the Martin Luther King comment.  It's really ironic because, as we now know, it's Obama who should be ashamed of his racist connections.

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Yes - you any ever other rabid Hillary fan here accuses Obama of race-baiting this entire campaign.

I want concrete proof. I want links to reputable media sources documenting this race baiting. How is it that only rabid Hillary fans can observe this phenomenon, and the rest of us see something entirely different.

LINK PLEASE.

by LandStander 2008-05-07 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Absolutely. I'm so tired of this, and any Hillary supporter who expects respect and conciliation, and still tries to accuse Obama of being racist (against his own mixed race self) actually has no interest in conciliation but is either

1.) Working through some very big guilt problems
2.) Is an agent provocateur
3.) Understands nothing about how racism works - i.e. by MAJORITIES against MINORITIES.

by duende 2008-05-07 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I think it is probably best to just ignore those posts for now.

Someone else was posting all over the place this morning about how the Democratic party hates white people according to Donna Brazile.

Just not worth the energy right now to engage because there does not seem to be a desire from the Obama-is-racist crowd for dialogue, just a desire to vent.

Not saying this to minimize the issue of racism or smears against Obama, and I do appreciate your posts on this.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-07 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

You're right. And the great thing is this bs didn't work with the voters

by duende 2008-05-07 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Concrete proof is all over the Internet and in dozens of threads right here on MyDD, including some of my own diaries.  Just look for them.  You do know how to use the Search function don't you?

Of course, you have to have your eyes open to the truth.

I'm not going to waste time on you.

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I ask for proof and this is what I get?

What I actually wanted was for you to link a couple news articles (no pro-Hillary diaries) that discuss situations where Barack Obama used race in an unfair way to the detriment of Hillary Clinton. Can you not offer this type of evidence?

by LandStander 2008-05-07 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Why don't you just demand that I produce a signed confession by Obama?

It is sufficient to cite facts that are widely available. You're just playing the Show Me game. People who disagree with you are supposed to waste their time trying to convince you of things you would not acknowledge if they were shoved up your nose.  Nobody has to show you, especially when it's so clear that evidence does not matter.  Again, all you have to do is look at evidence that is already out there.  There are diaries and posts full of facts all over the internet, and right here on MyDD.  You just have to be willing to see them.  You aren't.

I'm way past caring what the Obama babies think.

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

But you are forgetting one important fact - we are all Obama babies now. He is our nominee and we had all better find a way to get used to it!

by LandStander 2008-05-07 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

But you are forgetting one important fact - we are all Obama babies now. He is our nominee and we had all better find a way to get used to it!

by LandStander 2008-05-07 03:14PM | 0 recs
find an objective observer

Is there anyone who thinks Obama is the Genesis of the racial sniping who isn't a HRC partisan?

For people outside the HRC bubble it seems like HRC campaign and surrogates were the origin of the racial tensions.

For example, it was a HRC surrogate who raised the possibility Obama dealt drugs.

It was a HRC surrogate that said Obama got to where he was b/c he was Black.

Presumably, the Obama campaign didn't exercise mind control over Geraldine "Archie Bunker" Ferraro.

Finally, the idea of Obama playing the race card fails the common sense test. Obama wouldn't want to polarize voters along racial lines, there are more "White" Dems that Black. He wouldn't want to polarize along gender lines b/c there are more female Dems than male. He wouldn't want to polarize based on age b/c there are more senior voters than youth voters.

From my perspective, the complaining about racial polarization from the Clinton camp looks like HRC surrogates engaging in low blows and then pleading victimhood when the HRC campaign was called on it.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-07 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: find an objective observer

"Is there anyone who thinks Obama is the Genesis of the racial sniping who isn't a HRC partisan?"

Yes.

You've made some baseless charges, but that's what we're used to from Obama supporters.  I'm not responding to trash.

As for Ferraro, I've already written a diary about that.  The charge against her is phony.  I don't have to write another diary for you.  Read the one that's already on MyDD.  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/13/1910 15/780

I think most Americans realize that it's Obama who played the race card, and it will come back to bite him if he's the nominee.  Heck, we are already seeing the reaction in his loss of more white voters.  And that, as far as I'm concerned, is justice.  

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: find an objective observer

Your responses are mean, trite and evasive.

by LandStander 2008-05-07 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: find an objective observer

Yours are without substance.

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 03:07PM | 0 recs
Go join Red State where you can

continue to bash on the democratic nominee all through 'till November.  

"Third, I think he's going to lose and I don't want her to be part of that, or to get the blame for it"  
- Actually, HRC on the ticket would would ensure his loss, 1) apathetic Repubs will jump at the chance to vote against hillary as opposed to staying home b/c their candidate sucks; 2) 60% of the US thinks she is dishonest, 3) All the staunch establishment dems that are voting for HRC will vote for BHO in the GE, they don't vote Repub.  4) BHO gets the undecideds, independents, and soft repubs in the GE
5)BHO does not want HRC on his ticket for all the above reasons and because it goes against his theme of Change; she is the old politics and her time has come and gone,

There there now, you'll feel better in a few days

by KLRinLA 2008-05-07 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Go join Red State where you can

"Eyes are like the groin of the head."  

Your sig tells a lot about how you think.

by PlainWords 2008-05-07 03:08PM | 0 recs
That I like the Office and have good humor?

Thanks for another attempt at an attack, your racking them up today, sore loser, go take a cold shower

by KLRinLA 2008-05-07 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

It can helpful to Hillary, her country, her party, and Obama if she fights on -- against McCain and the GOP rather than Obama. And from what we saw in speeches last night and today, that seems what she intends to do.

It would even be worth it to Obama to pay off her campaign debts if she'll tag team with him against McCain in the rest of the primaries.

At this point it doesn't matter how much she touts herself or sticks to failed arguments like gas taxes (with the exception of exploiting the divisive "white/black" and "common man/elitist" trash talk the GOP employs against Democrats -- which also goes for the diarists here too) so long as she doesn't attack Obama in a quixotic cause.

by Kobi 2008-05-07 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Sometimes the simple explanation is the accurate one:  she soldiers one because she believes she owes it to her supporters, who represent nearly half the party.  Other factors (ego, desire to be VP, etc.) are likely part of the equation, too.

As for the Fall, there is a problem with Obama-Clinton in terms of "change."  On the other hand, who else in the party has such strong appeal to core constituences such as working class whites (read, "Reagan Dems" and therefore at risk to McCain), Latinos and elders?  To win, we need to COMBINE the segments of the party to which each Senator appeals.  

Ultimately, VP is Obama's choice.  But he needs to appeal to those whom HRC has shown the greatest strength.  For the Party, a combo may be worth the downsides to Obama partisans.

by borlov 2008-05-07 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

you forgot one thing ... rightly or wrongly .. if Hillary is on a ticket ..  the mouth breathers on the right will come out .. why do you think OxyCotin man is engaged in "Operation Chaos"?  Do you really think he is doing it to see Hillary win in November?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2008-05-07 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

To be frank.  I find this narrative BS.  Look we are either standing up to the right or letting them make our decission for us.  I guess i am not a true democrat but i say fuck Rush and what the mouth breathers on the right think.

And the right is not going to do the same thing to BO that they hane done to HRC.  Seriously when are dems going to kick some ass rather than going around saying "we cant do that it will make the right upset".

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 01:24PM | 0 recs
Amen to that.

No slam on Obama, no doubts here on getting behind him now.

But anyone who continues to promote the notion that somehow Clinton could stir up more rightwing mouth breathers than Obama seriously has their head up their ass.

The Clintons are yesterdays news to the right wingnuts.  The new enemy, the guy to dispise and skewer, is Barack Obama.  Get used to it because they are about to open the floodgates on him.

If Jesus Christ ran as a liberal Democrat they'd all suddenly become supporters of the Anti-Christ.  That's just how that works...simple really.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-05-07 03:31PM | 0 recs
I don't doubt they will try & skewer Obama

but you just suggested I have my head up my ass when the Indiana exit polling appeared to prove that Operation Chaos worked and some believe that had it not occured, Obama would have won.  

So I respectfully disagree with your opinion; I think many will Rs will stay at home if HRC is not on the ticket.  I would vote for her if she was the nominee, but I do not want her as VP on  BO's ticket for a myraid of reasons, one being that she will drag BO down and mostly because he doesn't need her on the ticket; he could get more votes and less "hazard potential" with other VP choices.

by KLRinLA 2008-05-07 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't doubt

There is no proof that Operation Chaos worked this is nothing more than another attempt to smear HRC.  Unless someone could produce some proof and not opinion or guess.  I mean real proof.  And by ever saying this you are help rush when you should be saying fuck rush.

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 03:48PM | 0 recs
Well I guess you are convinced unlike

other Dems like John Kerry.  But you are correct in that I do not have any smoking gun that it worked, I am no analyst in reading or interpreting exit poll data, nor can i read the minds of voters polled.  However, I am not helping that f'n pig Rush by admitting the fact that a lot of Rs would feel more compeled to vote against HRC and bc of that I am against the idea of a joint ticket.  It is just an observation and yes, of course, FUCK RUSH

by KLRinLA 2008-05-07 05:06PM | 0 recs
Endgame

I have no problem if Clinton stays in the race until the last primary is run, but at that point, unless something big changes, she should concede with grace.  She's not going to win by seating the MI delegation as its currently constituted (FL and MI combined, after any fair apportionment, would mean a swing of, at most, fifty delegates).  She's not going to win off of superdelegates (she'd need to win the popular vote by a large margin to get that argument off the ground).

If the race ends in June, the Dems will have four months to prepare for the general.  Four months (and a unified convention) is doable.  Two months (and a fractious one) is not.  

And the VP slot?  Obama should run with Richardson or Sibelius.  Clinton as VP, let's face it, would satisfy virtually no one.  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-07 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Endgame

Dont you mean everyone except 48% of the votes in the primary.

david

by giusd 2008-05-07 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Endgame

That is a good point, and Obama supporters like myself should not forget this

PS. Hi David. It's Brit. You were one of the two people to post on my diary last week about the rec list manipulation before I was banned - in two minutes - and my account suspended. You should get some kind of prize

by duende 2008-05-07 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Endgame

I am sorry to hear that and i will remember "duende".  I hope you stay around and i hope that with the "real" end of HRC campaign last night that emotions will run a little lower.

dg

by giusd 2008-05-07 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I don't really want to see her on the ticket.  If he wins, she will have no position to do any good.  If he loses, she is forever tarnished.  Let her stay in the Senate where she can make positive change.

by jarhead5536 2008-05-07 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

She will NEVER be offered the VP slot.
Her negatives are too high.
She would detract from the top of the ticket.

Now she very well may be offered a Supreme Court nomination.
Ginsberg is ready to retire.  A Pres. Obama would likely pick HRC.
But if Clinton continues this useless charade ad nauseum,
she'll be offered nothing but the back door -
By Obama and the rest of the Dem Party.

It's time to concede gracefully.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-07 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Its better if he chose a younger progressive. Say around late 40's. That means that person would have somewhere around 30 years in the bench.

HRC is 60 and at age where she would serve only a decde or so.

by MissVA 2008-05-07 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I know -
But it would have to be part of the "deal".
Such is the political world.

PS - Until Bush, Jr. started packing the court with youngsters, rarely did anyone get nominated who wasn't sixty or so.  Of course, Dubya did it to keep his reactionary appointees on the court as long as possible.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-07 01:36PM | 0 recs
She is still in it


I never in my life had seen the media want someone to drop out of a race like they do with Hillary.  Somehow they do not believe in letting democracy take its course.

She won IN, which was a sure victory not so long ago  (see the Obama spreadsheet).  It was an important upset if you look at from pre-PA days, as it is a neighboring state to Obama and independents voted.

If you count FL (no doubt that vote will stand) she is only about 300,000 votes behind in the popular vote.  She can make that up in the remaining 6 elections.  She is expected to win big in WV, KY, and RP.  MT and SD are small.  If she wins OR, which could be challenging, she is right back in the game.  OR has high participation as it has mail in votes, so Obama GOTV may not be as important.

Anyway with the lead in popular vote, more delegates from FL and MI than Obama, and ahead in the equivalent electoral vote, she would have a case for the nomination.

Remember no one is taking anything away from Obama. Winning a plurality is not winning.  They both have to earn it with the help of the super delegates.  She is probably is the strongest candidate in the general election as she easily could win OH, FL, AR, and possibly MO and WV, where Obama can't.  He only does better in the former red state of CO and VA, but the last one is a long shot with its heavy military and veteran presence and it hasn't voted for a Democrat for 44 years.

by edonyoung 2008-05-07 01:08PM | 0 recs
The Obama Spreadsheat is not gospel

David Axelrod does not have a time machine.  They expected to win Indiana if things remained the same as they were in early February.

Clinton was ahead in most polls in Indiana when they started campaigning there.

Clinton was ahead all night.  It was not a come from behind win.  It was almost a come from behind loss.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:30PM | 0 recs
No

See if Barack was in her position the media and the Clintons would have screamed for him to get out back in Wisconsin. One of HRC's own advisers admitted that this thing was over back in February. Of course it was over back in February we all knew that, the media knew that but they want to increase their profits.  The race is no longer profitable so now they have decided that it is time for it to end so that they can focus on the next horserace between Obama and McCain.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-07 01:32PM | 0 recs
She's in it to pay her campaign's debts!

You know how some Congressman in serious trouble with the law pretend they'll run for re-election just so that they can collect more money to pay their legal bills? Well, I thing Hillary is doing a close cousin of that strategy:  Staying in the raise in order to get more money to pay her campaign debts to Penn et al.  I doubt she'll spend much money in the upcoming states.

by adilla 2008-05-07 01:13PM | 0 recs
Hillary as VP

While I did pen a unity ticket post a few months ago, at this point, I can't see it happening.  

I see Obama picking ABH ... anybody but Hillary.  Time will only tell.

by DailyKingFish 2008-05-07 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Great Post!  Reality hurts Obama supporters.  McCain will get a MAJORITY of the White and Independent Vote in states won by Obama.  So as I posted earlier the Super Delegates must be very careful not to give away another election UNLESS, Obama improves his poll numbers with the 50 and over vote!

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-07 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Bill Clinton won without a majority of white voters.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 01:20PM | 0 recs
Technically

Bill Clinton won without a majority of voters.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:31PM | 0 recs
Heh.

True. Go Bob Barr!

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 01:32PM | 0 recs
Oh yeah.

Barr/Paul '08!

by Dracomicron 2008-05-07 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yeah.

That could work!

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Ross Perot ain't around, buddy.

by hornplayer 2008-05-07 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

There's always a Ross Perot.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Why is the onus always on Obama to improve this-or-that demographic or win this-or-that race to 'close the deal'? Why do people always attack the frontrunner like he is some neophyte, idiot loser who has to prove himself before he is legitimate? I think during the course of this campaign he has proven himself, and how.

Hillary has, has always had, and will always have higher negatives across the board compared to Obama. Why does everyone act like this is not a fact?

by LandStander 2008-05-07 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Is this a serious question?

HRC is still winning contests. I am a Hillary supporter, though I do think that Obama will come away with the nomination. And I'll happily support him in the general.

However, he does need to close the deal. It's not attacking him to say so. He needs to win over the voters who are continuing to support HRC. He needs to win me over. He hasn't yet.

If Hillary really does have such high negatives, how is she still managing to win contests?

I ask the same question of Hillary, why isn't she able to close the deal?

My answer to both questions is that we have two fantastic candidates. Equally matched in almost every aspect. Similar platforms. Hard, dedicated campaigners. Energized and loyal supporters. etc. etc. on both sides.

Were one of them a tad weaker, the race would be over. But they are both very strong. I think that Hillary is the stronger of the two -- by a smidge. But she made some strategic errors near the start of the race that she's not recovered from. The reason she hasn't recovered, is that Obama is just as strong as she is. So, he ain't going anywhere. And neither is she.

Good on 'em both.

by carrieboberry 2008-05-08 02:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

actually, obama's problem is less with white voters than it is with OLD white voters, especially older white women. If you study the exits, he does fine among the under 65 crowd - not always beating hillary, but not losing big by any means.

it's a generational issue, and one he'll have to address. i think in some cases there is a sort of latent racism, in some cases these women want to see a woman president in their lifetime, but for the most part these are people whose values more closely aligned with hillary than obama, which is how elections work.

i think that's something he does have to address, either over the next two months or via choice of running mate. i don't think that hrc is an advantageous veep for him, and i think she knows that.

if, as some hrc folks believe, obama is an electoral disaster, she can easily come back in four years and say, "i told you so," whether she's the 2008 vp candidate or not.  

by jbill 2008-05-07 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I think you have to pretty much be a Hillary Clinton partisan to not realize the complete disconnect she has created with 1. Democratic activists (MoveOn, netroots, etc.), 2. Democratic youth (see exits), and 3. the most reliable of Democratic voting blocs, African-Americans.

The notion that she is either planning or going to waltz into a Democratic presidential nomination in 4 years -- as the 'front-runner with all advantages who lost' the '08 Primaries -- and despite the fissures with activists, youth & African-Americans...

You have to be pretty deluded.

If she only wants power and prestige and glory, she'll go for Senate Majority Leader.

If she insists to be in the WH and in the executive cabinet, nothing less, then we may have a convention fight for the VP slot on our hands (UGH!).

by miguelpakalns 2008-05-07 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

If HRC has really created such disconnects, how is she still managing to win contests?

by carrieboberry 2008-05-08 02:02AM | 0 recs
Others can bring her positives and

leave her negatives at home..

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-07 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

If her intention is to further stress the racial divides in this country then I wish she would get out now.  You can cut apart the demographics however you wish - I think the most compelling statistic is Obama won Indiana by 7% from those 65 and younger.  Her support is not White, it's Old.  She is not making a case for herself as VP.  She's making a case for anybody but her.

by Piuma 2008-05-07 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

It remains to be seen what Hillary's intentions are. The speeches she's given since yesterday's voting indicate she wants reconciliation in the party.

But it's obvious that some who support her (or are pretending to be in some cases, perhaps) are trying to keep alive the old divides and wedges that only serve McCain and the GOP.

What matters is that Obama has an uncatchable lead in delegates because more PEOPLE voted for him in primaries and caucuses sanctioned by the Democratic Party -- not more black, white, young, old, upper or lower incomers. Breaking people into demographics is just the old divide and conquer strategy that's been used for ages to get people to serve against their own interests.

by Kobi 2008-05-07 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

In the South, Obama tends to do better among registered Democrats than independents (and especially Republicans) because African-Americans tend to make up a good number of registered Dems (being one of the most loyal groups to the Democratic Party), whereas Southern independents tend to be white moderates who aren't comfortable voting for the rightwing Republicans.

Elsewhere in the country, Obama does better with independents than registered Democrats because registered Dems tend to be more working class white union members.

by Skaje 2008-05-07 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

sorry, missed rest of comment:

Elsewhere in the country, Obama does better with independents than registered Democrats because registered Dems tend to be more working class white union members, which have obviously favored Clinton.  Independents tend to be more upscale white voters who may have been moderate Republicans in the past but are now leaning Dem, and this is a group Obama does well with.

Earlier in the contest, Obama also did very well with registered Republicans, while the GOP still had a contested primary, because he was bringing disaffected Republicans (people who weren't interested in ANY of the Republicans running for president) to our side.  Once the GOP contest ended, real Republicans who intend to vote for McCain in November decided to crossover to vote on our side as there is nothing for them to do on their side for now.  Crossover voting always happens when one side is uncontested, in 2000 Democrats and independents propped up McCain for quite awhile until Bush's advantage among registered Republicans proved to be too much to overcome.

by Skaje 2008-05-07 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

nzubechukwu:  You're reading the tea leaves entirely wrong here.

You can't look at Dem. Primary results and try to extrapolate into a general election against John McCain.  Voters in earlier contested Primaries ('68, '72, '80, '88) also said they wouldn't rally behind other candidates:  And, for the most part, Democrats will rally behind the Democrat and Republicans behind the Republican, in the end.

Barack has consistently beaten Hillary among Independents, the true 'swing' category, throughout these Primaries and Caucuses in virtually every State, often by large amounts (esp. in Feb.).

Re: Clinton dropping out --

As has been pointed out, I think the fact that Hillary probably wins W. Virginia and wins Kentucky whether she stays in or drops out pretty much means Barack is greatly helped if Hillary stays in for 2 more weeks of 'campaigning,' but doesn't attack him and makes no real attempt to drive up her numbers in either State.  

If she wants a graceful exit, that's the most graceful exit option:  Wait until after Kentucky/Oregon on May 21, assume loss in Oregon, then call it quits.  Slightly less graceful is waiting until June 3 (after her likely lopsided victory in Puerto Rico on June 1 and losses in Montana & S. Dakota on June 3).

It's not the best option for the Party or the involved parties for Hillary to concede this week and then win big in W. Virginia next Tuesday.  If she drops out this week and still wants a chance at being BO's VP, she'd have to plan to begin campaigning for Obama in Wheeling this weekend.

by miguelpakalns 2008-05-07 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Voters in earlier contested Primaries ('68, '72, '80, '88) also said they wouldn't rally behind other candidates:  And, for the most part, Democrats will rally behind the Democrat and Republicans behind the Republican, in the end.

Incredible.  You didn't quote a single election that Democrats won.

This, I think, is the crux of the argument at hand now: how do we win?  Because we have an almost-nominee with whom the election is nigh unwinnable.

by hornplayer 2008-05-07 01:38PM | 0 recs
Offer

If Hillary will drop out I will pay her bar tab (Crown Royal boilermakers only) for an evening.

by AdrianLesher 2008-05-07 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Offer

Best offer all day!

by johnnygunn 2008-05-07 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

I think she'll stay in the race for a little bit but for all the wrong reasons, she'll probably just try and hit up her supporters for some more money to cover the loans she gave her own campaign, then she's out, kinda sad.

Clinton at this point is damaged goods and would NOT make a good VP choice for Obama. She would not add that much to the ticket and would in fact mobilize republicans to come out and vote, she has very high negatives.

Richardson is a good choice, he could deliver New Mexico and win the Latino vote making the South West and Texas potential pickups.

by montana36 2008-05-07 01:40PM | 0 recs
Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth

Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) endorsed Hillary Clinton today.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-07 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth

And they would have endorsed BO if he had won their districts.....

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-07 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth

But he didn't because he can't close the deal.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-07 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On
Sorry, forgot to add the link
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-07 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

And the longer and ungracefully she refuses to concede, the less acceptable the idea of a unity ticket becomes to most Obama supporters.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-07 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Another day gone and another day of speculations on who will be the next President. Another round of mud slinging and unfounded rumors. And I am not talking about those running to become the next US President. I am talking about the American people - or at least some of them. I am astounded to read some of the things people have to say about those leaders who are willing to put their hand up in a difficult time in the American history. What is it that makes people dig so deep to find their own worse self in the way they speak about the candidates? It's like being in South Africa all over again back in 1994 when we had our own first democratic elections. The doomsayers lived large. But the truth is that all three would make fairly good Presidents - and all have their flaws. It won't be the end of America. Can't people just focus on what makes America great instead of scrapping the bottom of the barrel of humanity in the way they talk about their potential future leader? http://angryafrican.net/2008/05/07/novem ber-is-coming-start-stockpiling-baby/

by Angry African 2008-05-07 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

Hillary Clinton will not stay in the campaign until the convention. She will either drop out of the campaign in the next couple of days (unlikely) or in the first week of June (likely). After May 31st, she will have zero chance at the presidency and will only hurt herself in continuing to pursue it.

by guyminuslife 2008-05-07 02:16PM | 0 recs
VP not her style

The problem with Hillary-as-VP is that the Vice Presidency requires a subservient role in the campaign. That's not Hillary Clinton's style. She is an incredibly strong politician and would effectively compete with Obama for message control. Even if she agreed to "fall in line" with Obama's message, the media would not let her.

As Lori mentioned last night, maybe the best thing is to offer her the VP slot and she should politely refuse it.  Then Obama can work on using the VP pick for more working class white and Latino voters.

by elrod 2008-05-07 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Fighting On

The people who want her to drop out are afraid of the numbers coming out of WV and KY. It's as simple as that. Hillary dropping out won't solve Obama's demographic problems, it will only paper over them.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-07 03:52PM | 0 recs
VP?

Oh please no.

While I think in the new Cheney mode of VP (not Cheney as in lord of evil but Cheney as is in serious power broker and policy hammer) she would excel.

But as others have noted there are issues with this, mainly, Cheney is happy to work in the shadows and not compete for attention.  He praises chimpy to the high heavens and does everything to appear he is doing the will of GWB (not acting as the puppet master of GWB).  I dont see Clinton doing this.

Clinton is a politican at heart and she would not be content with subverting her status openly to Obama (and I mean no insult here).  Normally, VP picks are up and comers of the party (those who are being lined up for 'bigger and better'), old hands on their way out (to provide steadying influence), strategic picks to shore up weaknesses, etc.  And Clinton doesnt fit this mold best in any of the scenarios for Obama.  She is a star in her own right and having her a second would just not fit.

But my biggest problem with her as VP is Bill.  With Hillary as president, you would get the two-fer, her and Bill.  Bill would be a great 'ambassador at large' in the world and almost be a co-pres.  This would be a great role for him.  He'd have a long leash and he could do great things.  He and Hillary would easily work in short hand and they would counter each others excesses welll.

But having Bill publically and power-wise a further step down and also having to be subservient to Obama just isnt going to happen.  Again, not denigrating Bill or slamming him, but having the elder statesman of the party, most widely loved 2 term ex president as the VP's husband and having to toe the line the current president sets?  I just see too much friction.

The Bill/Hillary versus Obama dynamic with Obama as president would create way too many dramas.  How would Obama reign in Bill if he shoots himself in the foot?  I mean Bill is a two term ex president?  I just see too many dangers against very few positives.

by pattonbt 2008-05-07 04:50PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads