Obama's strategy for the General Election:  "McCain! Drop Out!"

Not gonna happen!

If we want to unite the party. Someone needs to drop out and fully endorse the other.  The General election train is leaving the station.

Everyone is hearing the whistle accept for a certain someone...

After Lieberman lost the primary in 2006, did they all call on him to drop out of the race for the good of the Democratic party?

My recollection is that they continued to support him, even as he ran against the Democratic party.

And that has worked out SO well...

Here is how Clinton can win, legitimately, the only way:

Her super delegates have to declare right now.  Dean has been calling for it, there is no need not to.  

Listen carefully, this is the ONLY way cautious super delegates can excuse themselves from voting with the pledged delegates without a backlash.

Dean has called for it, so why not?

If they all declare we will know how this is going to end one way or the other.

**Obama is not the reason that FL and MI lost their primary votes, why should he be the one to solve it.  The FL and MI dem leadership are to blame.  They wanted to give Hillary a big head start, and they broke the rules.  Why the hell should FL get to vote before other, bigger, states?  They knew the risks, and placed their bet.  Now they're whining like babies.  Clinton has run one of the lousiest campaign's I've ever seen, and you want this person to run the country?

Everything is getting very pro Clinton. The reality is she has brought this on herself by the manner in which she has campaigned. There are very negative consequences for the party, and for either Democratic candidate who is victorious. As a result, with her possibilities of victory so slim (popular vote and pledged delegates beyond her reach) the urgency with which people want her to withdraw is greater.

If this was a positive campaign and Clinton was trying to win on her own merits, rather than knocking down her opponent (for example bring up the reverend wright scandal the other day) than nobody would be pressing like this for the race to end. A good example is Huckerby who did no harm to either McCain or the Republican Party by staying in as long as he did because he was a class act, politics wise, compared to the Clinton's.

Obama has not called for Hillary do drop out, and in fact said the opposite.

see the problem diaries have is you are leaving out the key reason why they want her to drop out.

its not that they want her to drop out.

they want the kitchen sink to stop because yes it IS hurting Obama, and why the hell does anyone in the party want the likely nominee to continue to be hurt by a fellow democrat?

and its not going to the Convention Dean said it himself today

a Supes, need to decide by July 1st.

her OWN supes are saying it will be based on pledged delegates
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs. dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS03/8021303 84/1002/local

Joe Andrew, like Parker, a Hoosier superdelegate to the Democrats' nominating convention, says his commitment to Clinton is "profound."

Nevertheless, if Clinton and Obama head into the August convention with an equal number of delegates from state primaries and Obama has amassed more votes in those primaries, Andrew sounds less wedded to his commitment.

"I want to vote for Hillary Clinton, don't get me wrong," said Andrew, a former chairman of the national Democratic Party. "My commitment to her is profound, but I would be troubled if either she or Barack Obama actually became the nominee because superdelegates decided, opposed to actual voters going to the polls and pulling the lever."

no one wants her out, but how do we get the kitchen sink to stop? how do we get her to stop bringing down the likely nominee?

we get her out of the race.

Todd you said it yourself
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/27/1729 34/507#commenttop

if she would stop with the kitchen sink and focus on Mccain then EVERYONE would be happy,

but do you think its likely?

Well as much as you dissagree, I think she should drop out for her own good.

If she keeps this up she will destry her own career.

Look at her negatives they are higher than ever.

Look at the tracking polls, Both Gallup and Rasmussen agree that Obama in on top.

He will crush her in NC.

She maybe will win PA but surely by single digits.

Indiana goes to Obama.

After May 4th, the supers will commit to Obama and this thing is over.

Then you guys will start to try to heal the wounds that you caused by writing all these things.

Richardson did it in early '04 to Governor Dean to make way for Kerry.

Governor Richareson screwed himself when he made that deal back in Iowa with Obama.  Hillary nixed any possibility of him being VP when he did that.  He wants to be VP....do anything to get back to DC.

They love to not give a choice and then we can end up like in '04.  Kerry 'I promise to have every vote count'.  ...within hours of the election with calls of lines 5-7 hours long, people not voting, over 100 machines left in the whare house, votes switching to Bush......Kerry, I called to congratulate Georg Bush.

The problem with Hillary is that she wants MI and FL count, but only on her own terms.  She wouldn't even be claiming the two states if it weren't for the fact she is in desperate need to catch up.  The two states broke the rule and now it's too late to fix it.  We could just split the delegates but noooooo, we wont do it because it doesn't give her an advantage.  Remember folks, BO did not campaign in those states and the name wasn't even on the ballot of one.  Give me a break!

are  trying to push Senator Clinton to drop out before the Pennsylvania primary.

If i were a supporter of Senator Clinton i would be pissed off.

There is no rational for her to drop out now. Absolutely NO rational whatsoever. She's got money, she is ahead in Pennsylvania and she is hoping that she can do some big change that would trigger something, even though it is unlikely. So why would she drop out?

And all these declarations such as Lehay's statement is doing more harm than good. It is radicalizing and hardening Senator Clinton's supporters against Obama. I see it in my mother who just called me this morning and cuss me out because i am an Obama supporter. My 68 mom who has a Ph.D in economics and worked 25 years in Department of Treasury is as mad as i have ever seen her in my 45 years of existence. She told me that she wrote a check of thousand dollars and sent it to the Hillary campaign after she heard/read Lehay say something on TV this morning. She thinks that all these and I quote here, "all these men standing next to each waving their penises around is nothing more than ganging up on Hillary. They would have never done that to Obama because they would be called racists."

Some people need really to shut the hell up, and let this thing unfold. If she wins big, so be it, if she does not win, do the damn talking behind CLOSED DOORS AND AWAY FROM THE CAMERAS. WE ARE BEHAVING WORSE THAN THE REPUBLICANS OF 1990S. What are we afraid of? One more primary or the party to crumble. Well, we are doing that very well and Hillary isn't the culprit here. If a substantial portion of women stay home on November, well, kiss this election GOODBYE.

We all know there are exactly three ways Hillary makes up ground:

(1) She outperforms in the primaries that remain. At this point, a reasonable guess is that the candidates roughly split the remaining delegates.

(2) FL & MI are seated, even though she agreed before they voted that their votes would not count. We had rules for the primary, and changing them in the middle isn't any more fair than excluding them entirely. If the votes were held now, Hillary would be luck to go +25 between the two, and her margin with Obama off the ballot in the voided election is +63.

(3) Superdelegate coup. I don't know how important it is if there is a tiny margin in pledged delegates - say, 5. But right now Obama is +166. That's a lot. That's +6.2%. Even if you seated MI and FL AND didn't give him the uncommitted, he'd still be up over 100. That's too big of a margin for a superdelegate coup to overturn without disaster ensuing.

Of these 3, Hillary will need to have at least 2/3, and probably all three. So I think everyone knows it is at least theoretically possible to win. But it's highly improbable.

(1) is going to take a sea change in sentiment, but Obama just tied his best ever performance in the Gallup tracker, now +8% nationally. It doesn't look like buyers remorse.

(2) Simply isn't going to happen logistically. Yes, it will suck to disenfranchise MI and FL. On the other hand, if Hillary conceded now, we could agree to seat them as is, and that's that. Obama would still be ahead in states, delegates, and votes.

(3) Will not happen without at least one of the other happening. And if it does happen and the superdelegate swing is more than +25 to +50 for the person who was otherwise behind, there's going to be hell to pay.

Ultimately, if Hillary's campaign hinges on going to the convention because of FL and MI, it's for selfish reasons. Had she spoke out against their being stripped of delegates before the contests, I'd still say: they broke the rules, but I would completely sympathize with her crusade to change them. But agreeing - and having her supporters vote in favor of the sanction - and then turn around and decry it as unfair - is preposterous. If she wants them seated, she could simply drop out now, and they could be seated.

As we saw yesterday with the candidates' respective speeches on the economy, this primary race does not preclude running against McCain and as we also saw yesterday, if Clinton does choose to try to win by tearing Barack Obama down instead of making her own case to voters in a constructive way, the superdelegates, which hold the key to both candidates' paths to the nomination, will turn on her.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Clinton running until 2010 if she runs against McCain.  It's the kitchen sink strategy and the effect it's had on both candidates that has people nervous.

  That is absurd.  Thinking that Michigan would have heavily favored Clinton is also absurd.

hold w and cheney accountable or you resign Senators.

These failed Senators trying to block the American people votes is unAmerican and an outrage.

They should STFU and let the people vote.

Dean has it right and the votes in Florida and Michigan will count.

They are scared of losing but will if Obama wins.

Ultimately, I imagine FL and MI WILL be seated in some way that doesn't overturn the results from other states. In other words, they won't be completely pardoned from moving their primaries, but they won't be denied seats at the convention either. So the hand-wringing over not seating them is rather silly in the end.

But that isn't really the point of it, is it? The point is to find some way for Hillary to eke out a victory. Not gonna happen.

It's absolute nonsense Clinton is making Obama a better candidate.  Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with how Obama handled the Wright situation - it is what he would have done whether it came out at this time or later.  She has nothing to do with pushing him to deal with the issues - he is doing that at his own volition and more a part of the GE campaign which he's simultaneously running with his nomination campaign.  No, the only thing Hillary is doing is bringing bitterness into the democratic party and wasting money and energy on a fight which is mathematically over.  If this was any other candidate they would have suspended their campaign a long time ago.  

Well said.  

It's true, and it's also just not legitimate to win without FL and MI in this close contest.

Obama can't win pledged delegates to nab nomination either.  Hillary and Howard Dean have already asked Obama to come to the table and start considering a Unity Ticket.

Obama's insulting response?  Go to Mississippi and start saying "she tryin to bamboozle ya, she tryin to hoodwink ya."  So, for you who don't like Democratic division (and race games) why would you let your candidate show zero class like that?

A simple "those talks may happen at some point, and eventually the Party will certainly be united, but right now is simply too soon" would have sufficed.  That is what they teach at Harvard.  I don't recall "she tryin to hoodwink ya" as anything but a low way of creating division.  Not unity.

Next---------God these calls for her to drop out are getting to be quite the pattern.  

1) NH  -- seemed ridiculous at the time to call for her demise since only ONE contest had preceded but EVERY OBAMA BACKING NEWSPAPER, NETWORK AND MAG DID IT.

What a sad end to Chris Matthews' sanity was realized on MSNBC that night when Hillary staged a win!

2) BEFORE THE VOTING OF MARCH 4th--OH and TX -- why did Obama say "I'd have to drop out if I were her," have Axelrod release a memo calling for Hillary to drop out, and have a coordinated effort of John Kerry and Bill Richardson calling for her to drop out on news shows?  Who do you think you are anyway?  

WELL WHEN THE VOTERS VOTED, THEY WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

3) Now, Pat Leahy and Chris Dodd insult all of us with this same strategy BEFORE PENNSYLVANIA?  And anybody supposed to be shocked that he OBAMA pundits are pushing this bull?  Too bad, she's not dropping out.

So how about this one.  Let the voters vote, let the superdelegates vote, and COUNT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA.

And NOT ALL SUPERDELEGATES or ANTI-WAR people back Obama.  Ever heard of Jack Murtha and Joe Wilson?  Just because the news blacks out good news for Hillary doesn't change a thing.

She's not going to win the nomination, not without doing serious harm to herself and the party.  But in the meantime, I don't see a need for her to drop out before Pennsylvania or North Carolina, just as I don't see a need for her to be shut down by Superdelegate edict.  She will lose after North Carolina, but it's much better if it happens in a way which causes the least harm to the party.  Either her dropping out, or enough Superdelegates pledging to get Obama over the total delegate mark (even if MI and FL are included in the math).

This has to be done in such a fashion as to promote the (true) idea that Clinton had a fair shot at it but just didn't pull it off: that this was a battle between giants where only one could win and the other lost it fair and square.  If Superdelegates jump in right now and virtually say "Clinton's already lost, so don't bother voting in Pennsylvania 'cause it won't matter" it won't be perceived as a fair contest.  I think it's fine to wait for PA and NC to vote and then for them to start making real pledges towards one candidate or the other.

They should, however, be talking to Clinton privately and telling her that they will announce their support for Obama if she continues to make personal attacks on him, that the scorched earth approach will cost her considerably.

Interestingly, if the roles were reversed, and it was Obama trailing on the delegate front but in a position to win a long-shot chance at the nomination, the full-court press from the Clinton campaign would be much louder and much more aggressive.

The Obama campaign via surrogates has been quietly trying to put pressure on Clinton to get out. But they haven't flexed the muscle I'm guessing the Clintons would have if their roles were reversed.

While I don't think it's incumbent on Hillary to drop out now, she should drop out after NC and IN in my opinion - for the good of the party.

History has shown that taking the fight all the way to the convention is a sure way to make things tougher in the GE. We already face a tough fight against McCain and can't afford to be crippled by a convention fight as Hillary is suggesting. What possible goal could that serve? Is a 5-10% chance of Hillary prevailing really worth a near 100% certainty of crippling the party?

An Obama victory in either NC or IN, or both will be the next opportunity for Hillary to drop out, therefore it makes sense that the calls for her to do so are starting now, to lay the groundwork for that.

...out.  Which is why I am shocked that one of the party Elders, Patrick Lahey did just that.  Shocked, so I am.

It may be the beginning of the end...if for no other reason that it is going to negatively impact her ability to raise funds. Simply MAKING the call hurts Hillary, to say nothing of the stature of the voice who made the call.  

How badly/deeply it hurts I cannot say, but it's hard to get that kind of herd back in the barn after the doors are opened.  

Why did he do it now?  Do you all think it was Hillary's PERSONAL use (rather than by her surrogates) of the name "Wright"?  Was it just the proponderance of things inclusing Obama's "Union" speech,  Obama's numbers rising?  Why?

Todd,

At the time that the DNC took action, all the candidates (including Hillary)assumed that their delegates would be seated at the convention because the result wouldn't matter.  As a result, people didn't think it was a huge issue.  

That outcome remains likely:  they'll be seated, but they won't be allowed to be decisive.  What has changed about that since October, other than the fact that HRC no logner looks likely to win?

The way I see it, there is no choice, the race is too close for anyone to drop out. It won't happen.

I listened to Howard Dean today: He said basically that the most important is to have a fair process where the loser believe they have been treated fairly.

If Hillary were to drop out now, I don't think it would play well among her supporters: I know it wouldn't play well with me.

Even if she is awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida, she is still going to lose.  She is down by 166 pledged delegates (latest RCP count). She CANNOT catch up.  It's mathematics.  

She would have netted 38 from Florida, and 73 from Michigan, 55 were uncommitted.  How many of those uncommitted would end up going to Obama, probably most of them but for purposes of this exercise, we won't even count them.

166 - 38 - 73 = 55.

She would still be behind by around 55 pledged delegates.  

It's extremely difficult, if not impossible to make up 55 delegates with the schedule remaining.  The Slate calculator is not accurate by the way.

She has natural advantages in PA (158), KY (51), WV (28), and PR (55).  He has natural advantages in NC (115), OR (52), MT (16), SD (15).  Indiana (72) is a tossup and Guam (4) is irrelevant.

Bottom line:  Obama will be ahead in pledged delegates after every vote is counted whether you count FL and MI or not.  

And do you really think the Democratic Party is going to sacrifice itself by overturning the will of the people and alienating African-Americans and young people?  That adds up to a 10 point McCain win in November, and the superdelegates know this.  For the sake of the party, they will fall in line and cast their votes for the pledged delegate leader: your 2008 Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

For those Hillary supporters who profess that they will support McCain or not vote in the GE

5 things to remember,

1. The 100 year Iraq war

2. The 100 year Iran war
   
3. Continued tax breaks for the big companies and the wealthy.
   
4. Joe Lieberman as a high ranking cabinet member and thus on the TV news nightly
   
5. replacing John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg with more Scalias, Thomases, Roberts, etc.

Those are my personal 5 big ones but there are others.  If that is what you want for your country, then go ahead and continue to tear apart BO for your own enjoyment.

Just to be clear - the argument from MyDD and Clinton is that the DNC should have no say over when primaries are scheduled, what order states go in etc.

That should be completely up to the states - even if in so doing it moves contests into the preceeding year, resulting in a process that stretches longer and longer, out of control.

We think we have a long drawn out process now (not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion) - but how about if the voting had started in Dec 07... or Nov.... or say August.... as states continued to leapfrog one another to gain "relevance"

the great irony being that if Florida and Michigan had stood pat they would have been far more relevant than they were by trying to move up...

But that's the issue in this - that's why the DNC passed the rules and all the candidates, including Clinton, signed off on the rules that resulted in penalties to MI/FL - it was an attempt to control the primary calendar (and long term, to be able to change it) by the DNC - the Democratic Party we are all a part of.

We need to find a way to reap the benefits we've seen in enthusiasm and voter registration from this extended cycle without states leapfrogging to be "first"  Regional primaries, rotations, a national primary - there are lots of ideas and pros and cons for reform - but in order to seriously consider ANY of them - including, say, getting rid of those pesky irrelevant caucuses so many Clinton supporters have dismissed and bemoaned... - the Party, the DNC, has to be able to enforce the rules it (read we, via party delegates and precinct officers, etc) pass.  If the DNC cannot enforce the rules, change is out the window.

The woe over disenfranchising these voters - and I agree that is what has happen and it's bad - but the woe did not start until AFTER the invalid contests.  I would think a sincere concern for the voters would have been stated before...    but nobody at the time thought it would matter - because it was all going to be wrapped up by Feb 5th... y'know...

when that failed, suddenly MI/FL voters were a priority.

Personally I wish they would have worked out a revote - frankly I think Obama would have been closer in both states - but either way, I wish the states had worked within the system instead of violating it.

Because it's about longer term issues than just this election - as important as that is.  It's about being able to revise the process.

Which, I think all "sides" can agree - needs to happen - this is a mess of conflicting rules and sloppy processes.  Democrats refusing to tell other Democrats where caucuses will be ratified - that sort of thing - regardless of who does what - has no place in our process.  It should be transparent and trustworthy, responsive to the will of the people.

Yes - MI/FL voters got screwed this year and that could even be near term harmful - but being unable to enforce the Party's rules for how we will select our candidate is long term more harmful.

and that's really what this is needs to be about.

well, the Chicago sun-times claims that Hillary is in a world of hurt money wise but that Edwards might be close to endorsing her.

the endorsement would be a boost for her. if it happens. If nothing more then positive news.

The call for the end of the campaign is not about whether or not either have right to stay in, or how much stronger it makes both candidates.  The argument is about the further polarization of the Democratic party.  Right now 28% of Hillary supporters and 19% of Obama supporters will not support the opposing candidate if their preferred candidate does not win the nomination.  This number has risen from January and can only rise as the campaigns go for months more with only character flaws to attack instead of substance (since on substance you could split a hair between them).

Not only will the number rise and the hatred become entrenched, but less time will be available to assuage the losing side.  Having such a divided party for so long hurts our chances in November, plain and simple.  Not because independents won't vote for the nominee, but Democrats themselves won't be behind the nominee.  That's not a good thing.

Let me get this right.....Hillary will convince everyone she is more electable than Obama and thereby grab the nomination.  Sure, she has the highest negatives of any democrat, she won all the big states where her people control the democratic party machinery and her 8 years as first lady gives her all the experience she needs......of course she is the most electable -- for what? dog catcher?  

And if the roles were changed, well Obama or any candidate for that matter could not endure 14 straight losses except a clinton whose sense of entitlement is greater than anyone except a bush.  And of course, the clinton's have never met a lobbyist or embezeller they didn't just love and her fat cat friends wield SO MUCH weight --

Of course she should drop out --- there is no way she can unless she steals this thing and that is not going to happen.

-- is Leahy jockeying for some 'elder Democrat' role? He should take a cue from Gore and butt out.  Gore knows what it is like for the residents of Florida and Michigan who have not had their votes counted in 2008. Count the votes.

Gore, and we, had to pay the price of Republicans using the Right Wing Corporate Media soapbox to shout down counting all the votes in Florida 2000. Now Obama supporters are trying to use it.  Sheesh!

 I am stunned that here we are in the post blog, post Media Matters world and people like Leahy know they will get a lot of press from CNN, FOX, NBC, etc... for calling for Hillary to drop out when this goes against letting the actual voters of the party have their say.

Not to mention how sexist this is - given that this is the first time a woman has been 'dangerously' close to seizing the White House - you'd think Leahy could hold back just a tad....

Obama supporters like Leahy insist that Hillary drop out so that Obama might remain electable. Yet they turn right around and reject emphatically using electability as a consideration in selecting our nominee.

Well, if doing the right thing for the Party is supposedly to drop out to make the nominee more electable, why isn't doing the right thing for the Party allowing superdelegates to choose the candidate who is the most electable in the first place?

In short, if electability of our nominee is important enough to force someone to drop out of the race, why isn't it important enough to use as a basis for selecting our candidate?

Just a little, a very convenient, double standard, don't you think?

While i agree that having obama supporters call for hillary to drop out might be a bit disingenuous, i feel the need to point this out:

Does anyone think that these folks would be calling on Hillary Clinton to drop out if there was a string of primaries or even one that it looked like Barack Obama would win  in the next 30 days?

also, there's this oddity:

if Clinton does choose to try to win by tearing Barack Obama down instead of making her own case to voters in a constructive way, the superdelegates, which hold the key to both candidates' paths to the nomination, will turn on her.

Let me clarify my previous post -- Obama has won.  Hillary has lost --- get over it.

Hey, if both candidates do nothing but tear down McCain from here on out, they can campaign all they want, in my opinion.  That is the one scenario in which this neverending primary is actually good for us, because McCain would be double-teamed and unable to focus on either candidate.  If they both do that, fine.  Of course, yesterday Bill Clinton had to compliment McCain yet again on his stance on global warming, so I have my doubts, though I'm open to persuasion.

First, I don't think people should be weeping and moaning and calling for HRC to drop out.  It is still March.  Long time to mend fences left.

However, it seems that the only realistic path for HRC to the nomination is for Obama to falter.  Yes she could make up ground in the remaining primaries, add in FL & MI, etc.  but none of that is looking too likely.

The most likely scenario for HRC to be the nominee is that she comes in as the party savior if Obama does become toxic.  The paradox is that she can't be the one making him toxic.  It has to come from outside.

Seems like the best strategy for her would be to publicly suspend the campaign.  If Obama truly is as radioactive as some would have us believe, then the obvious choice for his replacement would be HRC.  Not very likely, but it would drive her positives up.  By staying in the race, Clinton seems to be dragging her own popularity down more than Obama's.

I agree so much with this post.  Thanks for posting.   Very well said.  

If Hillary and Bill had the chutzpah to offer Obama the VP slot while he was leading in every metric why shouldn't Obama super delegates offer Hillary the opportunity to bow out with dignity?

The Clinton campaign is not the only campaign that can attempt to skew the narrative and distract the press and the other candidate with ridiculous suggestions.

I think May 7th is the date when people should start to demand that Hillary drop out. After that point she will have had one last chance to shake the dynamics of the race by winning all three of PA, IN, and NC. This is a very big long shot of course but at least it guarantees her supporters that she does have one last shot. After that point there are not enough voters or delegates left to garner to substantially change the dynamic so unless she wins all three of the above states by substantial margins she can't even the delegate count (and even then this is arguably impossible).

In re Michigan and Florida, people should stop blaming Obama for that debacle. This was a team effort of incompetence and impatience that was wrought by the whole national party. Obama and everyone else played by the rules that were on the table at the time and now those votes are in limbo. I think, given the situation, that a 50/50 split of the Michigan votes is fair, as is counting the Florida votes as is but giving them half-delegates as a punishment for the original infraction, which we should not lose sight of. These states did not need to buck the system to have influence. As it turns out they would have had much more influence on the process if they had just stayed put. Imagine a contested Florida primary right in the middle of the heat of the season! It would have been amazing. But to blame this on Obama or suggest that he is disenfranchising people is ludicrous. And even to suggest that he needs to fix the problem for the party is out of line.

There's only one primary in the next 30 days. And in 38 days there's one Obama will win with almost certainty. Even Clinton's advisers anonymously say her chance for winning is minuscule. Personally, though, I think they could afford to ease up a bit on the calls for disarmament, as long as Hill stops employing a kitchen sink strategy and sticks with her more recent turn back to her "Experience" mantra.

Does anyone think that these folks would be calling on Hillary Clinton to drop out if there was a string of primaries or even one that it looked like Barack Obama would win  in the next 30 days?

Because there's exactly 1 primary within the next 30 days.  In the next 40 days, Obama is expected to win in Guam, Indiana and North Carolina.  This has nothing to do with a narrowing lead or Clinton catching up or lack of momentum.  Its about the soon-to-be presumptive Democratic nominee for President getting attacked by McCain and a fellow Democrat who is simply using the exact same line of argument.  Obama is the one getting double teamed.

if Clinton does choose to try to win by tearing Barack Obama down instead of making her own case to voters in a constructive way, the superdelegates, which hold the key to both candidates' paths to the nomination, will turn on her.

Finally

two states that early in the process would have gone handily to Senator Clinton

In General Election head to head, Obama beats McCain and Hillary loses.  How is that a state that would have gone 'handily to Clinton'?

Its a state that did go to Clinton but not in a legitimate contest.  Thats how Obama can claim a clear win.  That and the fact that he wins even if you include those two states.

Why is Barack so afraid?

Who do you think kept the Democratic party going for so long, through Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II??
When men were turning to the Republican party, who were the reliable Democratic supporters?

That's right - WOMEN.

Obama comes along with his change mantra - BFD. How many times have we heard this crap before? How is a man who has barely served at the national level going to change anything? He has no institutional knowledge. He says the same thing over and over - "You voted to go to war, Hillary." OKAY. We get it.

But this is where we are. Shouldn't Old Barack be looking forward?

Beware what you wish for, Obama supporters. Rev. Wright might just be the tip of the iceberg.

Bad move on Leahy's part. Just from talking to some of my female Democratic friends well they are pissed about this comment.

"It looks like a bunch of old men pushing her aside"

"Obama hasn't won the nomination yet, no one pushed Huckabee out until McCain won the delegates to actually WIN!"

"Obama cannot mathematically win either without a huge infusion of superdelegates support, where is it?'

If Leahy and his boys club buddies keep making these kinds of comments they will see the number of HRC supporters voting for McCain increase. Just let the primaries play out don't act like Bush supporters did in 2000

Yeah, could you imagine a week when Senators Bayh, Feinstein, and Schumer all told Barack that it would be better for the country if HE dropped out.  This is absolute, utter, bullshit and I am so worn out by the Obama campaign's methods.

Regardless of who the eventual nominee is, I'm still voting for Hillary.  I'll just write her in instead.

A few months ago, I would have voted for Barack but the way he has contributed to the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters has pushed me completely away from him.  You would have thought we Dems would do anything within our power to prevent disenfranchisment of voters in Florida once again.  Very troubling.

A few months ago, I would have voted for Barack but the way he has contributed to the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters has pushed me completely away from him.

Seriously, I don't see how someone who wants to follow the agreed-upon rules is so horrible but someone who wants to count bogus elections is so great.  From my point of view it's exactly opposite -- Clinton's intellectually dishonest, self-serving change of course on FL/MI turned me off from her completely.

running out of money?  Does that matter?

I don't see a reason for Clinton to drop out but I would really appreciate it if she and Bill stopped talking about how great McCain is, just that?  Is that okay?

He's not better than any Democrat, that's it.  We have the supreme court, the war and the economy at stake here.  McCain is not an alternative to a Democrat no matter who you supported in the primary.

I think the concerns have more to do with the perception that Clinton will stop at nothing to win and it could cost the whole party.  Of course people who believe this would call for her to drop out and they will use any flawed logic possible.

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's rediculous to call on her to drop out now, expecially when the next state is a big state that looks very good for her. It's some three and a half weeks and Obama could always make some kind of major gaff, or another Wright-like controversy breaks out. It may be unlikely but it's always possible. The odds are still against her, but just because she's now the underdog doesn't mean she should quit.

"The latest Gallup Poll finds Sen. Barack Obama with an eight point lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, 50% to 42%, giving him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy."

Oh, wait.  That isn't a reason he can't win.  Sorry.

I agree that calls to drop out "for the good of the party" coming from Obama supporters seems disingenuous. She's put everything into this campaign and she has nearly equal support. I'm a BO supporter, but I think the "good of the party" stuff rings hollow.

On the flip side is HRC and her people calling to seat FL and MI, lest they "disenfranchise" voters. Right. That's what its about. The good of the party and voter disenfranchisment. No. Its about winning--for both sides. If the Dem powers that be really want this to be over, then the super's should quit riding the fence and pick a candidate. If the numbers aren't going to move appreciably in the next 3 months, then what the F are they waiting for? Shit or get off the pot.

Lastly, regarding FL and MI. The results as is are a sham. First the candidates didn't campaign there. Next, BO wasn't on the MI ballot. And who knows how many voters didn't show up because they figured their vote wouldn't count (I might not have voted either if I knew it would be pointless). The blame falls squarely on the leaders in MI and FL. Yes, I'd like a fair revote, but it doesn't seem like that's likely but I would support one whether my horse was ahead or behind. All the What ifs and Yes, but's are pointless.

Mark J. Penn presents another unbelievable tale from Hillary Clinton: the sequel to Hillary ducks sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia

Coming to a superdelegate near you Summer 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCmKkLdC uA&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/stor y/2008/3/28/134518/720/978/486159

Nobel winner: "Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims"
By Toby Harnden in Washington

"Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht ml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

And do you really think the Democratic Party is going to sacrifice itself by overturning the will of the people and alienating African-Americans and young people?

Yeah, it's MUCH better to alienate the Baby Boomers, the blue collar workers, the elderly, Latinos, and women by tossing Hillary over a cliff.

The reason they are calling for her to drop out is because they know he's going to lose PA. The narrative will then be "Obama's damaged goods". They're afraid. Of course, it's better to realize that now than in Nov. Obama's passed the point of return.

Clinton should not drop out until at least half of the Florida and Michigan delgates are counted, and when she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination.

I think giving Florida and Michigan a one-half say, as prescribed by Democratic Party rules adopted in 2006, is worth the fight, and thus, Clinton should keep fighting on.

from continuing the Primary contest.And the Clintons of course.  For the democratic party it is best for Clinton to quit now. We need to focus on McCain.

It's hard to understand this diary.

Who will you support in the general election?

The Democrat, Barack Obama, or the Republican, John McCain?

FL and MI should have thought about this before.  It's really not our problem.  The DNC layed down the rules and everyone chose to follow this path (including Clinton).  Dean is standing his ground.  He knows there won't be a revote and he knows the delegates won't be seated.

I believe as Dean does, that the superdelegates will make their decision by June.

... explain to me why Hillary and all of you found religion about the 'disenfranchisement' of MI and FL only after those elections?  Still haven't heard any proper explanation of the contrast of Hillary's statements before and after things didn't quite go how Hillary expected.  Do you really think she'd be making such a stink if she was ahead, or those states were, say, Illinois or Vermont (safe Obama states)?

Five mistakes in this diary:

1. Learhy, Richardson and Pelosi are not anyone's "surrogates." Two of them are supporting Obama while the other is undeclared. It's insulting to them to treat them as mouthpieces, and it's false to attribute their opinions to the Obama campaign.

2. Whatever they are, they are not "concern trolls." A concern troll is one pretending to care about something or someone they are in fact trying to harm (eg., those expressing "concerns" about the electability of one candidate or another, while one is in fact trying to tear that candidate down). But these people are expressing concern for the Democratic party, and they aren't insincere in that concern. Beaton may mean they are not objective in their analysis, being influenced by a desire to see Obama win, but that would not make them "concern trolls."

3. Beaton assumes Clinton would have "won handily" in FL and MI, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that would have been the case. Nor can we assume Obama would have won handily, or the races would have been close, or anything else. We just don't know.

4. Florida and Michigan do not need "a remedy." They broke the rules, and there was a remedy for that -- they lost all their delegates. We don't need a remedy for a remedy. If Clinton wants these delegates seated, she needs only drop out of the race to make that happen. Uncontested contests will not influence the nomination, but when the contest is over, bring them on. So the "remedy" is in her hands.

5. Clinton is not making Obama a better anything. He thrives under adversity, but that is hardly to be credited to her circulating a picture of him in a turban, comparing him to Jesse Jackson, and promising to go after pledged delegates. Unless you discount every poll on every question and in every state, you have to acknowledge that McCain is gaining from this process while both the democrats are being damaged. We know why Clinton is doing this; she's an egomaniacal narcissist who cares about nothing but her victory, which no one in her inner circle dares to tell her is now impossible. How her dwindling band of supporters justify themselves is another question.

...to split the FL & MI delegates 50-50. Only a hack would fault Obama for something the state officuals did to themselves. If they'd left their primary dates alone, there'd be no mess. But the reneged on their agreement and made a major mess of things.

...to split the FL & MI delegates 50-50. Only a hack would fault Obama for something the state officials did to themselves. If they'd left their primary dates alone, there'd be no mess. But the reneged on their agreement and made a major mess of things.

Sorry, but it's over.  Does one of the D's in MYDD stand for "diehard?"

The primary should not be decided until all votes are counted.  Only then will the electorate view this as a fair race.  Handing the nomination to a candidate while screaming that the other get out now is not how democracy works.  From what I see, it is still close but let all votes be counted and there is a clear winner.  

I love your quote "if Clinton does choose to try to win by tearing Barack Obama down instead of making her own case to voters in a constructive way..."

What do you mean if? It's been going on for weeks. She has no other possible way to the nomination other than to tear Obama down and hope he implodes. No other way. She can't win the pledged delegate race. She can't win the popular vote - for the simple reason that caucus states must be counted in any popular vote scheme. She agreed that Michigan and Florida weren't going to count. The only way she has to scoop the prize is to keep on doing what she's doing - tear the prospective nominee down. That's all she has.

It's clear that she's in this to destroy Obama - if not in the primary then in the general. If she somehow succeeds in either, she will never be President. Her negatives are through the roof. Her serial lying has has taken a critically ill campaign off of life support.

The idea that Barack Obama can claim a clear win without two states that early in the process would have gone handily to Senator Clinton is absurd. This IS her rationale for taking this to the convention...

It's not her rationale.  It's her rationalization, and what's worse, just one of many.

There are two conflicting ideas at work in the Clinton "rationale."  

One is that the superdelegates (and the elected delegates, too) should choose the candidate who should get the nomination based on their own opinion, regardless of everything else.  Like primaries and caucuses and voters, etc.  This is, indeed, part of the rules, and they CAN do this, but the Clintons have taken the position that this implies they SHOULD do this... and then they are eager to offer their own shifting guidelines for how delegates should best make this decision.

And yet doesn't this conflict with the idea that she's going to take it to the convention to make sure that voters in Florida and Michigan aren't disenfranchised?  Here they have staked out a position that would disenfranchise every Democratic voter in all fifty states (including FL+_MI) because Hillary is the best candidate and she should win, regardless.

Now how do you reconcile two positions like that?  You don't.  They only have one thing in common.  They all try to justify Hillary winning.

If Hillary really gave a crap about FL+MI being counted, she wouldn't have signed on to the agreement that decertified their primaries.  No, it only matters now because she thinks it might help her get just a little closer to Obama, close enough to pull off a superdelegate coup.

It was stupid to completely decertify the two states.  I think it would be sufficient to cut the two states of their delegates in half, strip them of their superdelegate votes, and split Michigan 50-50, because, really, Hillary was the only name on the ballot.  There's nothing democratic about an election with one name on the ballot.

If enough senior Democrats were seriously convinced that only Obama can be the candidate and that this race is doing damage, they would have mobilized enough super-delegates to come out to bring this thing to an end. They haven't, presumably because enough of them are still worried about Obama and they are very anxious about what a lot of Hillary supporters are going to do especially if she were to be forced out before she has a a good chance of a string of victories. To blame Hillary for not wanting to quit at this particular moment as if she is not concerned about the Democratic party is absurd. If enough people (voters and super-delegates) thought that Obama was a good thing for the Democrats, this thing would be over. It isn't because there are real grounds to doubt this.  

On Michigan and Florida, the question of why Hillary's campaign didn't protest earlier is a massive red herring, She was wrong earlier but that doesn't mean that she is not entitled to complain now (although she could acknowledge that she called it wrong previously).  The issue here is what the Democrats are doing trampling over voters in Michigan and Florida when the DNC took such an arbitrary decision in dealing with them in the first place. These states already had reason to be angry when they were denied waivers that others had and then the punishment was disproportionate to what they could have reasonably believed would have ensued in taking their decision. Toss in that this was the Republicans' doing in Florida, and not the Democrats', and I can't see any reason why Democrats in Florida should stir themselves to come out in November let alone contribute money.  Sorting out this issue should have been for Howard Dean way above any consideration of which candidate would have won these seats. It is elementary politics that you don't hand your general election opponent this kind of ammunition. Obama supporters who can't see this  and think that the issue here is Hillary's sincerity rather than the good of the Democrat party are either being willfully self-serving or just not thinking.

As we saw yesterday with the candidates' respective speeches on the economy, this primary race does not preclude running against McCain

And their attacks on McCain will largely be a footnote in the media coverage.  That's the problem.

The more time we have to define McCain rather than letting him define himself, the better off we are.  But until this circus is over, efforts to do so will be lost in the noise.