Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton

On Meet The Press yesterday, Barack Obama supporter and surrogate Tom Daschle said he expects Barack and Hillary to share the stage "soon," expressing absolute confidence that Hillary would endorse Barack as the winner of the nomination and that the "party would be united." When this unity gesture would happen is far from certain, however as we're getting some messages that the Clinton campaign intends to go on past Tuesday even if Barack hits the 2118 delegates needed to clinch the nomination and declares victory.

From Ben Smith:

Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe tells my colleague Ken Vogel in San Juan that Hillary Clinton  will "probably" continue a retail-level campaign operation after Tuesday's primaries regardless of what happens in them.

Team Clinton also won't necessarily consider the campaign over if rival Barack Obama soon reaches the 2,118-delegate threshold necessary to clinch the nomination.

"No, it's not it," McAuliffe responded when a reporter asked if securing 2,118 delegates would mark the end of the marathon race. "We'll see. We're going to get through Tuesday's votes. We're going to see where we are, and we're going to look at all of our options. Every option is on the table."

He also said that their primary strategy right now is to go after the uncommitted superdelegates and even some of those who've committed to Obama.

"We're calling the uncommitted ones, primarily. But we've heard things. You know, you pick up stuff. So we're following up on leads that we get," he said. "Just remember: No superdelegate is bound until they vote at the convention."

Hillary herself suggested as much to reporters on her campaign plane.

The AP's take:

The former first lady enters this week with an insurgent strategy not only to win over undecided superdelegates but to peel away Obama's support from those party leaders and elected officials who already have committed to back him for the nomination.

"One thing about superdelegates is that they can change their minds," she told reporters aboard her campaign plane Sunday night.

And in an effort to prove just that point...

Clinton invited Virgin Islands superdelegate Kevin Rodriguez, a recent convert, to travel with her to South Dakota where she planned to campaign Monday. Rodriguez had initially supported Clinton, switched to Obama, and recently returned to her camp.

But on the complete other side of the coin are some signs that would seem to point to Clinton's imminent departure from the race.

Marc Ambinder catalogs the clues:

(1) She's going to speak Tuesday night from New York, not from South Dakota or Montana.

(2) The Politico reports that members of her advance staff are being recalled to New York and being given hints that their employment is over; yes, Clinton won't have any more states to campaign in, but the Obama campaign is not shedding its advance staff after Tuesday

(3) Cheryl Mills, a very senior Clinton adviser, intends to return, full-time, to her job as senior vice president at American University.

(4) Junior members of the staff are making plans for vacation, and they're not receiving any push-back from their bosses.

What Clinton does is at least in part determined by what Obama does and when he does it, of course, but he has indicated repeatedly that the same does not go for him. In other words, Barack will declare victory when he reaches 2118 delegates regardless of whether Clinton concedes or not. I personally am hoping there is as little time as possible between his declaration of victory and her concession. The longer the gap between these two events, the more likely Clinton will be portrayed as Don Quixote chasing windmills. That would be a sad way for Senator Clinton's historic campaign to conclude.

Update [2008-6-2 11:20:29 by Todd Beeton]:Even more mixed messages, per First Read:

While there are plenty of hints today from some of her top supporters (like Ed Rendell and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) that Clinton won’t take this to the convention, it’s also clear that she and her campaign aren’t leaving without a fight. Examples: 1) Harold Ickes declaring that Clinton reserves her right to take that fight to the convention over four Michigan delegates; 2) the campaign implicitly linking Obama with George McGovern by stating that the last time the Democrats didn’t give the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes was in 1972; [...] and 4) her victory speech yesterday from Puerto Rico, in which she said in the end: “Let’s keep fighting. Let’s keep fighting. Let's keep fighting. Let's keep fighting.”



Display:


I do think she'll concede Tuesday or Wednesday (2.00 / 1)


by slinkerwink on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:30:55 AM EST

Re: I do think she'll concede Tuesday or Wednesday (none / 0)

Me, too.  All of the "she's staying in" messages could be construed as the rhetoric candidates use to claim they're not going anywhere even when they've already planned their departure.  

On the other hand, campaigns that are sticking around don't shed staff the way Clinton's is doing.  If she is going to try to fight on, she'll need her advance teams unless she's not even going to be scheduling rallies--in which case she'd just look silly, with Obama campaigning for the GE and her mostly hanging around in DC or NY.


by deminva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do think she'll concede Tuesday or Wednesday (none / 0)

More pieces of evidence:

1. "Clinton Campaign staffers and former campaign staffers are being urged by the Clinton campaign's finance department to turn in their outstanding expense receipts by the end of the week. That's a sign, to them, that the campaign wants to get its affairs in order soon. If Clinton were staying in the race, there'd be no real reason to collect these receipts now; she'd still be raising and spending money from the same primary campaign account. The campaign is in arrears to the tune of about $11 million."
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2008/06/more_clinton_clues.php

2. NBC News reports Bill Clinton, "acknowledging the campaign's likely fate," said in South Dakota that "this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind."


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)


Tentative contacts have already taken place between Obama and Clinton aides over the endgame, but there have been no formal talks. Mrs Clinton's aides, while acknowledging that she will have to abandon her White House dream, do not feel they are in a position to negotiate on her behalf. "She has not surrendered in her own mind yet and until she does it's very difficult to have these conversations," the second strategist said.

Dee Dee Myers, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said: "It seems clear to me from watching her, and talking to people, that she doesn't really know what she wants."

Tim Shipman - Hillary Clinton to be offered dignified exit Daily Telegraph 1 Jun 08


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:31:58 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

I think this whole issue is a little silly. What would a reporter expect McAuliffe to say? Yes, we're going to give up immediately? This isn't exactly unusual.  Up until the moment John Edwards exited the race, he was in it all the way.  I would expect him or his campaign to say anything different - it would be dumb beyond belief to telegraph your intention to leave the race until you actually do.

She'll concede this week and endorse Obama, and that will be that.  I expect both Obama and Clinton will be very classy in the way they handle this, and that will go a long way toward easing the tensions on both sides.

I have zero doubt that informal talks are under way right now, and both of our stellar candidates will come out of this with the respect they've earned.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:21:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

very good point about Edwards.  I always think the same thing when I hear the various quotes.  Not saying I know what she will do, just that vowing to fight on does not preclude a mind change at any moment.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

Right. and then certain people here will accuse her of being a flip-flopper.
No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

I agree and honestly expect Hillary, having demonstrated an impressive tenacity and fighting spirit, will have earned herself an enhanced, and more independent, role in our national politics.


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

She's always been offered a dignified exit, she won't take, I am convinced of that by her and her surrogates own words. Sorry I just don't see it coming from Clinton herself at all.


by Wary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 4)

I hope the Obama camp is sensitive to this very hard fought campaign.  I do hope they talk to the Hillary camp to find out what they plan to do once Obama reaches the number.

Most people do wait for that phone call.


by colebiancardi on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

I agree that some communication between Obama and Hillary before Tuesday night would be a smart move. He should not try to surprise her with a declaration that comes out of the blue. As we would expect her to be classy and concede when he hits the number we should expect him to be classy and keep her in the loop as to where and when he declares victory. Good point Cole. You are one of the people who will do a lot of good on this site once the primary is over.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you but I cannot believe for one second that they haven't had these talks on MANY occasions.  The writing is all on the wall and Senator Clinton is in full control of the dignity with which she exits the race.  If, however, she chooses (and it is fully her choice) to push and push without concession, he is in no way obligated to wait forever.  He has made clear signals both publicly, and almost certainly in private, that Tuesday night will be a symbolically important night for him.  If she doesn't take control of her own exit that is not his fault.  He now has a General Election to win.


by oliver cromwell on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Agreed. And I am sure that they have had these discussions as well. I just want him to make doubly sure that he has done what he needs to do in terms of communicating to her personally before he declares on Tues (and I completely support his declaration).


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:52:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Right on.  Since he has been so meticulous about these things during the vast bulk of the campaign.  I think it is a safe bet that he will do the right thing.  


by oliver cromwell on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

I don't. I think she keep going in some fashion until August when everyone votes at the convention. There might be a congressional hearing regarding FL and MI and who knows what could happen on the way to August. I think it would be foolish for her to hand over her coalition so soon.


by Iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

What sort of congressional committee would have any sort of oversight over the rules and bylaws of the DNC?

To my knowledge, the only recourse that Clinton has to fight the RBC decision is to make a motion before the Credentials committee -- a committee which happens to be chaired by the same two people as the RBC.

My feeling is that Obama will have enough superdelegates to come out for him that it won't matter either way.


by theMill on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

What sort of congressional committee would have any sort of oversight over the rules and bylaws of the DNC?

Oh, gee, I don't know...maybe the same ones who spent my tax dollars investigating Major League Baseball?
No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

That's a good point... though I can't remember what the committee was called.


by theMill on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

Something like, "Let's spend an absurd amount of time and money looking into the goings on in MLB locker rooms while kids are getting killed in Iraq" committee.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Isn't the DNC (and the RNC for that matter) private organizations? They're free to make up and follow, or not, any rules they care to make. I don't see how congress gets involved.


by BlueOrigin on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

 The elections in FL and MI were legal and verified by the Sec of States. There may be rights that were violated according to Specter. I am not a layer and I was just relating what I had read.


by Iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Well, I am, and I don't see it.


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

We will have to wait and see. I called Specters' office and gave my support for the inquiry. I also called all my reps here in California and asked them to do the same.


by Iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, thats smart (2.00 / 1)

Give that asshole Specter some reason to try to bash the Democrats.   The GOP did the same thing, but no-one cares there because they have lined up behind their nominee.\

Glad to see more Republicans coming online here.


by monkeyga on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, thats smart (none / 0)

He can't convene hearings. He doesn't chair any committees.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

Specter? ... you mean Scottish Haggis? ... the same guy whining about the Patriots?  Specter is a joke


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

This is correct.  The DNC is a private organization and they make, enforce, or amend their own rules.  They are not a public agency.  This has been confusing for some people during the primary; however, the primary is under the auspices of a private organization to select their nominee, while the general is a public (governmental) matter and subject to different standards and review.  This is a firmly established point of law.


by whognu on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Parties are private (none / 0)

Congress can say nothing about it.  The parties don't have to recognize any of the votes, if they don't want to.
In fact, when they get to Denver, they could nominate Yellnick McWawa and prove Cliff Clavin correct.

by monkeyga on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

It should be handled very carefully.


by Bobby Obama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Go Hillary!


by Pericles on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:38:14 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

Well reasoned.


by deminva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (2.00 / 1)

Not arguing w/her supporters here, but as someone who has been personally very disappointed with how she chose to run her campaign, I look forward to it ending so she can let go and start being the Hillary Clinton I used to respect, again.


by 2501 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

Yeah!


by wolff109 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

I continue to be VERY disappopinted with Obama supporters and people who think that Hillary ran a campaign she needs to apologize for.

For three months she has beaten the pants off Obama, has picked up the votes of over 750,000 MORE people than he has, has beaten or tied him 8 out of 13 times, some by absolute blowouts.

She has won all the big states but IL, won all the swing states, won the popular vote, won in the Deep South, in the New West, in Dem strongholds, in Dem break-through states.  She is better than Obama against McCain on almost every level.  Yet the Superdelegates are going to kowtow to Obama's lobbyists and hand the nomination to Obama, the weaker candidate.

It defies reason.

The media-fed perception remains that Obama beat her down.

To me, Obama is crawling into the finish of this nomination out of gas, and out of answers.  Were it not for Republicans and early victories in places that will have little or no impact in the Fall, he would have been a footnote.

I encourage Senator Clinton to fight on, the game is not over until the last day of the Convention in Denver.

I will continue to support her and send in my monthly donations, and I would encourage all those who admire, respect, and stand in awe of the independent warrior's spirit of this streetfighter to do the same.

THAT is what we need in the White House, not some vapid, poll-driven, system-gaming politician run by the Daschle-Daley machine.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

"vapid, poll-driven, system-gaming politician run by the Daschle-Daley machine".....?

I hope you are not referring to either of the Democratic contenders for the nomination for President of the United States, although I suspect you are.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

It defies reason.

I think you misspelled "defines". ;-)

Look, the fact that Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates pretty much trumps everything else.  Clinton would have a HUGE legitimacy problem if the superdelegates overturned the pledged delegates.  The superdelegates know this.   Clinton can argue "big states", she can make specious "popular vote" arguments, she can point at GE maps that show her with a slight advantage over Obama.  Doesn't matter.  The SDs aren't going to overturn the PDs on an argument that thin.

Yes, she's had a good couple of months and they'll end up effectively tied through the last couple of months.  But that's largely an artifact of the primary schedule -- Obama's demographically-favorable states were packed in February, and hers were spread throughout March/April/May.

At this point, the race is effectively over.  Obama's going to cross the threshold this week, and the ball is entirely in Clinton's court regarding how unified the Democrats are going to be in November.  Obama's done pretty much all he can -- he's been absolutely nothing but complementary for many weeks now.  He's said nothing negative about her at all, and immediately helped squelch the "controversy" regarding her RFK comment.

As an Obama supporter who once supported Clinton, I'm exhausted of being disappointed in her.  I want to respect her.  I want to like her.  But at this point I'm pretty livid at how divisive she continues to be when she's lost the nomination.  Saturday was an embarrassment, and she did absolutely nothing to stop it.  It's going to be very, very difficult to take her seriously at this point when she attempts to support Obama.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

Obviously, we currently inhabit different universes of thought regarding what happened in the primary.  I happen to agree with the original poster you were responding to, but that is water that is almost completely under the bridge at this point.  I sincerely hope that you will give a serious amount of concerted effort to comparing Obama's record and positions with those of Senator McCain and recognize the importance of having a Democrat elected in November.  We would appreciate your support and I would humbly submit that Obama isn't nearly as weak as you might think right now.

He would only grow even stronger with the support of you and other strong Clinton supporters once we all rally behind his nomination in the effort to keep the GOP from further ruining our country.


by oliver cromwell on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Deep South? (none / 0)

Where in the Deep South did Clinton win?   She hasn't won over 40% in any of the Deep South states.   Nobody down here is going to vote for her.

Don't give me some crap about Arkansas being deep South, it is not.


by monkeyga on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deep South? (none / 0)

I'm an Obama supporter, but Tennessee has to qualify as the deep south.

The most glaring error in the original post was the statement that Clinton won all the swing states.  Missouri, Colorado, Iowa and Wisconsin have been swing states for a while now, and Virginia - which will have 2 democratic senators and a democratic governor this fall - surely is now.  We'll forget Mississippi until several months of polls confirm the initial trend.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not officially (none / 0)

The Deep South is only the belt of states LA, MS, AL, GA and SC.  Tennessee is "upper south" or "outer south".


by corph on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not officially (none / 0)

I'll respectfully disagree with their characterization.  Tennessee is at least as much the deep south as Louisiana


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deep South? (none / 0)

Arkansas and Florida and in My Old Kentucky Home.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

What "defies reason" is your ability to parrot every single meaningless Clinton dead-ender talking point in under two paragraphs.

Let's see, cherry-picking timeframes that include the most favorable results, a lie about "all the big states," some nonsense about "popular vote" (however you choose to measure it), followed by some bullshit about how "Obama's lobbyists" are the reason why SDs are going his way?  He only won because Republicans voted for him?  My bullshit-o-meter is going off the charts.

I'd suggest getting back in touch with reality.  John McCain and the Republican party are the enemies here, assuming, of course, that you are a Democrat.


"I am like a Rorschach test...even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something." -Barack Obama
by tastycakes on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really want to respect Senator Clinton again (none / 0)

Let's see, the last three moths is "cherry-picking time frames"?  

Big states?  Clinton beat Obama in every state that had 100 or more delegates except for Illinois, his home state, and in NC.

Swing states?  The last two Elections have swung on Florida and Ohio and PA and Michigan, which together command 85 Electoral votes, almost one third of the EV total all by themselves.

Popular vote?  What specious?  Go check REalClearPolitics'charts.  If you include Michigan, and all the caucus states estimates, she wins by anywhere from 24k to over 300k votes.

If you look at the vote spreads for the last three months, she beats him by 750k votes.  It's been a month since OBama said a word about thepopular vote" he was all up about.  WIth good reason.  He lost it after being ahead by hundreds of thousands.

Go look at the diary Jerome wrote about the REAL insiders' vote before they came back from their closed-door luncheon, and what was settled there if you want to talk lobbyists.  GO look up and see what happened in the Michigan State Senate when Democratic leaders and millionaires offered to PAY FOR A NEW ELECTION in MI, and Obama's people lobbied to  shut it down, screaming "privatizing an Election!!" when all they were doing was ensuring that the RBC's vote would go their way this past weekend.  

Get our bullshit-o-meter back in gear, friend.  With the Obama candidacy, you're going to need it.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tuesday? (2.00 / 1)


Her angry defenders were chanting "Denver!" on Saturday, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is headed to Chappaqua late tonight for a somber and potentially momentous homecoming.

Clinton will huddle with advisers and husband Bill Clinton at her mansion tomorrow, according to people familiar with her plans. She will monitor results from the final 2008 primaries in South Dakota and Montana and decide whether, how and when she will end her campaign as Barack Obama nears the nomination threshold.

"The only real counsel to Hillary is Bill; it's not a wide circle, so we're not sure what they'll do," said one of Clinton's top supporters in New York.

The return home after 17 months of campaigning is likely to be an emotional one for Clinton. The former first lady's spirits had been buoyed by cheering, affectionate crowds and friends said they are unsure how she will react with the primaries behind her.

"But she'll have to make a decision either way on Tuesday," said a senior adviser.

Glenn Thrush - Clinton expected to decide her future The Baltimore Sun 2 Jun 08


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:41:43 AM EST

Re: Tuesday? (none / 0)

here's the thing.  I feel like Clinton has "huddled" with Bill and the gang on numerous occasions ready to end this thing and each time she comes away wanting to fight.  

I really think Bill wants back in the White House and he won't stop


by ab03 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 1)

If he gets to 2118 by Tuesday night or Wednesday morning what is she going to do anyway? It would be so much wiser of her to concede if he hits the target than to try to soldier on and divide the party further. I agree that this would be a very unfortunate way for Hillary Clinton's campaign to end, as a sore loser and drag on her party. I very much doubt she will choose this route.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:43:22 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (2.00 / 2)

I don't see any reason for her to continue on to the convention after he hits the threshold.

If she does, I honestly hope that her career is ended, as she just chose her personal ambition over the good of our country.


Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:17 AM EST

Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Was Ted Kennedy portrayed as chasing windmills in 1980 when he took it to the convention? Did it destroy his legacy?


by gaf on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST

Re: Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

Didn't hurt him personally, but what about the general election that year?


by nwodtuhs on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

Bingo.

The wrong person gets the nomination, you lose.


by Juno on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

So you are suggesting that Kennedy would have been a better choice and would have beat Reagan?  That is an interesting perspective but probably not even close to an accurate description of reality.  Carter likely would have lost anyway, but having a challenger so late in the game sapping energy and sowing seeds of doubt were not a positive outcome for the party or the INCUMBENT president.  The lesson to be taken isn't linked to nominating the wrong person but dealing with someone whose ego doesn't allow them to step back from the challenge to allow the party to unify and strengthen.  So while you point to this as some reason to allow Senator Clinton to continue, it seems all the more likely that the proper lesson should be that she should be prevented from continuing to foster divisions that could lead to a loss in the general election.  While you would certainly scream...see, I told you so...There are millions of others who would recognize a different phenomenon at work and make sure that she doesn't get anywhere near the nomination in 2012 because her antics may have been a decisive factor in the loss.

Fortunately, I have every confidence that it won't come to that.  This nomination battle will be coming to an end within a couple of days and we will dig in and work hard to make sure that we elect President Obama in November.  

Will you join us?  Would you prefer a President McCain to continue the legacy of the last 8 years of GOP rule?  I certainly hope not.  


by oliver cromwell on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well we better not nominate (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton, then.


by corph on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

He certainly wasn't celebrated for the move and it did take him some time to rectify his legacy after helping to take down a sitting president. He is beloved now but this is not a route I would choose for Hillary. Teddy's Kennedy roots and persona probably made it easier for him to rehabilitate himself than it would be for Hillary who doesn't come with the same built in positive aura.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

You'd think with Obama's magical abilities to unite people, which we've actually yet to see, it wouldn't be a problem.

And who won that year anyway?  Maybe Kennedy was right to keep going?


by Juno on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Your logic is so backwards and twisted I don't even know where to begin. You are saying that since Carter lost Kennedy was therefore justified? While there were other things going on that year (Afghanistan, oil crisis, hostage standoff etc) having a fractured base was certainly not a help to Carter.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Oh, so it wasn't that Kenney took it to the convention!

Hmmmm....


by Juno on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Hello???


by Juno on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Touché, Juno.  Obamans are easy to confuse, since they just rely so much on emotion.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

I vowed when I came on the site today to work especially hard to promote unity in the party as this nomination fight comes to a close.  Please read over your post and know why I am having a mighty struggle to keep my pledge to myself.  Unifying requires commitments on both sides.  Please start to work with us to make this happen.


by oliver cromwell on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Sorry. Didn't see your response and not trying to dodge a good argument. I did say that Kennedy taking it to the convention was partially responsible for Carter's loss. But it is highly likely that Carter would have lost anyway. It was a time, looking back at it, where the Repubs were in ascedancy, much like Dems are in ascendancy now. Whoever wins the dem nomination this year will be the next President, that is the difference between 1980 and now. And that is the reason that Hillary is taking the battle so far.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:29:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0)

Someone doesn't answer within 15 minutes and it is because we are all confused.

I still have not seen a single Clinton supporter tell me how Hillary is going to stay popular once she actually goes under the microscope that Obama has been under for 6 months.    She is NOT fully vetted.

yeah, everyone knows everything the Clintons did from the 80s through 2000, but no one has really paid attention to what Bill has done since that time.  The Obama camp has not made issues of this, but the RNC will.

Yeah, she also did really well by winning the white vote in places like WV and KY, but do you really think she can hold on to them in November?  Obama has no trouble winning white voters anywhere outside Appalachia

And OK, so she won PR, but again her strongest support was among the supporters of Statehood, while Obama was strongest in those who support commonwealth status.  If those commonwealth voters really don't care about who the President is, they obviously are not going to go out in droves to vote.   Then again, really nobody went out to vote in PR compared to most elections, because it seems that so few really cared.


by monkeyga on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

Yes, Carter was damaged by Kennedy taking it to the convention. Was it what ultimately what caused his loss? I don't know, there were other factors.


Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Yes, Carter was damaged by Kennedy taking it to the convention. Was it what ultimately what caused his loss? I don't know, there were other factors that certainly contributed.

On the other hand, I don't think that the Kennedy vs Carter fight had reached the level of market penetration that this Clinton vs Obama has, so it would follow that Clinton would be far more damaging than Kennedy was.


Hell yeah we did.
by Darknesse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

How does this work?

When it helps Obama/hurts Clinton, it's taking it to the convention?

when it helps Clinton and destroys the Obama argument, it's other factors??

And you say my logic is twisted?


by Juno on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:23:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Responded above....but I don't see what you are talking about here. IT will never be good for any potential nominee to have his primary opponent take the fight to the convention. This would deprive whoever the nominee is of two months of GE campaigning and give them less than two months to unify the party. So if the tables had been turned I would be advocating Obama to concede. They are not turned so I would like to see Hillary concede as soon as Obama has the required 2118 delegates.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

I would say its a false argument on its face.... Clinton is not Kennedy... this is not 1980...

There is no comparison....


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

It certainly did ruin his chances to win ever again.


by 2501 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:50:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

Well, you know, if certain other events didn't destroy his legacy, nothing probably would.  But, I don't think history has treated his conduct in that election well.


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, how'd that election turn out? (none / 0)

Yeah, how'd that election turn out?


by alectimmerman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

I agree she should maximize the opportunity to bow out gracefully as soon as Obama hits 2118.

It would be sad indeed for her to otherwise engage in chasing windmills. It would only undermine the prestige and good-will she's built, while accelerating ill-will against her.


by wolff109 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:28 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

QUOTE OF THE DAY

"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."

-- Tom Vilsack, national co-chairman of Sen. Clinton's campaign, quoted by AP

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/0 6/02/quote_of_the_day.html


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST

Clinton Supporter Gov. Tom Vilsack Says It's Over (none / 0)

Vilsack, who was briefly a presidential candidate himself last year, told the Associated Press it's "pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee."

"After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him," Vilsack also said

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/06/02/vilsack-says-its-over/


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST

this is the last week (2.00 / 1)

Many of her prominent supporters have made it clear they are only with her until someone reaches the winning number. At that point they expect her like them to line up behind the winner. They will not follow her over a cliff. Hillary does not have the power to hold together her coalition past the end of the primaries.

Obama has refrained from responding to Clintons agressive rhetoric and has been praising her and her campaign on the stump. However he is not going to encourage her to attempt to continue once the contest is over and he has the needed delegates to be declared the presumptive nominee. That was clear on Saturday when he could have gotten his 50/50 split in MI as it had the majority support but he met Clinton half way but was not going to concede enough to give Clinton any hope. Probably enough of the supers made up their minds after North Carolina to put Obama over the top but have held off in respect of her and her supporters.

Hillary has already been extended the courtesy to bow out  on her own terms only after the last vote has been counted and the delegates choose a winner. Beyond that it will be her turn to step up and do the right thing. The super delegates who have stood by her and who waited until the primary was finished will owe her nothing more, it will be Hillary who owes them at that point a dignified finish and a unified party in thanks for their loyalty and forbearance to the end.


by hankg on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Bush never did either.  He also had surrogates do the dirty work for him.

Hillary has the guts and integrity to fight her own battles.

The way she and her supporters have been treated only shines a light on the arrogance of the Obama camp when they insist she'll come around and support him (she will) while at the same time accusing her of destroying the party and other nasty things.

A lot of people are not going to rally around Obama, and with good reason. The irony is that Obama is supposed to be the great unifier.


by Juno on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (1.50 / 2)

I peg you as a troll. Making potentially self fulfilling prophecies about your lack of interest in supporting the nominee won't fly too well around here.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I peg YOU as a troll. You have no right to speak for "what flies"  around here.

Juno is the clearest voice I read here.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Dude or Dudette: Juno is saying that he/she will not support the nomineee. By site rules that is what does not fly around here. I don't make the rules but this is a site dedicated to getting Democrats elected and screaming that you will not support the Democratic nominee is not what this site is for. There are plenty of other places to post such stuff.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

It's best to ignore them both.  They don't listen and the responses only become circular.  I've wasted my time with them in the past.  Don't bother.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Thanks Spanish Fly. If you look at my comment history you will see that I am a very positive commenter generally speaking. I need to not take the bait. Thanks for reminding me.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

No problem.  I'm guessing they're the same person, actually.  Seems like one chimes in to defend the other on almost every thread.  McCainbots, me thinks.

They'll be banned, eventually.  That's the tough part about still being involved in the primary at this point, it's tough to sanction anyone who pretends to be a Clinton supporter, particularly on this site.  Once the GE race starts, things ought to change.  Trolls will be easier to spot.

Peace.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

The same person eh? That's intriguing. I can't wait until we are all moving in unison towards the blowout over McCain.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Sure thing, Spanish Fly.  Let's just shut them all up, let's sanction them or something and move on.

True Obama followers' philosophy.  Been hearing it for months now.

I am not Juno, and she is not me.  I have nothing whatsoever to do with McCain, his campaign, or his followers.

I am a decades-long, solid, unwavering Hillary Clinton supporter, and will always remain convinced she would make a much better leader and President than your Obama.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

As long as I don't see you espousing the virtues of John McCain here, I couldn't care less who you supported during the primary.  More power to you!


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Dang it.  I meant "extolling".  No matter.  John McCain is the enemy now.  


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I couldn't care less who you supported during the primary.  More power to you!


Flashlights rc helicopter video game
by anasky123 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

> I don't make the rules but this is a site dedicated to getting Democrats elected

Not only do you not make the rules, you do not seem to realize that getting Democrats elected is not in the rules. Check them out yourself. There is a link to the guidelines on the right frame.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Take issue with what I have written on semantic levels if you wish, but stating your opposition to the Democratic nominee is certainly against the spirit of the rules of this site.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

This is more than just a matter of "semantics". I have been pointing this out because it has become some kind of talking point lately. You are not the first (or even the tenth) Obama supporter to try to slap down some Clinton supporter on the grounds that the site is dedicated to electing Dems. It just isn't.

MyDD is a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power.

You called Juno a troll for not supporting Obama, and then backed that up by stating it is a violation of the rules not to support the nominee of the Dem party. You are simply wrong about that. If Juno honestly thinks Obama will lose, or that electing Obama would be bad for progressive causes, then Juno has a perfect right to say so and not be labeled a troll.

I do not happen to agree with Juno, nor exactly agree with you either, but I am not labeling anyone a troll.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Then you, sir or madam, are a dolt.

And if I'm a troll, then I've been trolling here pretty well concealed since 2002.


by deminva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

The way she and her supporters have been treated

You say this a lot, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about.  Do you have specific examples?  Stuff that's backed up with actual quotes or citations?

From my point of view, Clinton's been orders of magnitude more divisive than Obama.  Just look at how Obama played down the RFK comment and how she pounced all over his bitter comment.  The difference is night and day.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (2.00 / 3)

Yes, they downplayed it by taking the Mudoch NY Post misinterpretation as gospel, making a contentious statement to the press without looking at the tape, mass emailing KO's rant to reporters after evne the NY Post had backed off their original story. Then Obama came out after the damage was done and made a statement that amouts to "As far as I know, Hillary is not planning to assassinate me."

All very gracious and coalition building.

Look, if you check my diaries, I have been working for unity and trying to suppress the bomb-throwers for months here. It is really unhelpful though, to have Obama supporters come on these threads claiming his poop don't stink and she's the devil incarnate. If you want unity, and you want support from Clinton backers, help us want to support Obama. Hint: insulting our intelligence does not help.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (2.00 / 1)

Look, if you check my diaries, I have been working for unity and trying to suppress the bomb-throwers for months here. It is really unhelpful though, to have Obama supporters come on these threads claiming his poop don't stink and she's the devil incarnate. If you want unity, and you want support from Clinton backers, help us want to support Obama. Hint: insulting our intelligence does not help.

And if you look at my post history, you'll see that I haven't claimed that Obama is perfect, or that Clinton is evil.  I do think what she's doing now is incredibly damaging to our party, and I find that enormously frustrating.

I think people on this site (or political sites like this one) overplay the whole "backchannel" stuff.  Even if elements of Obama's campaign did play up the RFK story as it broke, you had both Obama and Axelrod on the Sunday talk shows effectively killing it.

Seriously, compare that to the full-court press Clinton made with the "bitter" comments, or how she continues to try to delegitimze Obama's uncatchable lead, or how her supporters publicly sowed unrest on Saturday and she didn't lift a finger to discourage it.  

I'm just not sure what more Obama could do.  He's been utterly positive for weeks.  He's helped squash the only recently controversy far more than he helped fan its flames.  It's really up to Clinton at this point on how unified we're going to be.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

"Even if elements of Obama's campaign did play up the RFK story as it broke, you had both Obama and Axelrod on the Sunday talk shows effectively killing it."-ChrisKaty

But then, Stephanopoulos also got it right when he challenged Obama chief strategist David Axelrod. He began with a question about Hillary's Clinton's recent reference to Robert Kennedy. Axelrod didn't quite answer:

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Clinton campaign clearly thinks that the Obama campaign are part of that group that is deliberately misinterpreting her statements. And in fact, your campaign's original statement on Friday afternoon said that Senator Clinton made an unfortunate statement that has no place in this campaign. Do you think it would have been better to give her the benefit of the doubt?

AXELROD: Well, in fact, she--a few minutes after we issued that statement seemed to say she herself felt it was unfortunate and was misinterpreted. We accepted that, as Senator Obama said yesterday. She said, you know, that's not what she meant, and we take her at her word and, you know, it's--we're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up.

Hmmm--that's wasn't quite an answer. So Stephanopoulos tried again, two more times:

STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): Senator Obama did say that we should move on. You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list, I have the e-mail here. Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?

AXELROD: Well, Mr Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned--

STEPHANOPOULOS: But your campaign was sending it around.

AXELROD: As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said. As she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward.

He even tried a different fourth question. No direct answer there, either:

STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): So your campaign won't be sending around any more commentaries like that?

AXELROD: As I said, as far as we're concerned this is--this issue is done. There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this.

Should Obama's campaign have done what it did? Different people will have different views. But Axelrod never quite answered that original question. Stephanopoulos was right to keep asking.

In modern, chummy press corps culture, moderators routinely accept non-answers; in each of these cases, Stephanopoulos persisted, doing his job correctly. Meanwhile: Was something wrong with Axelrod's answers? Did Obama's campaign do something wrong? Those are matters of judgment--though it seems clear that Obama's campaign helped initiate the press corps' reaction. (There's nothing automatically wrong with that.)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052708.shtm l


by mdana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Sure, he danced around the question a bit, but he certainly was playing it down.  I mean, look at all these quotes:

"She said, you know, that's not what she meant, and we take her at her word"
"we're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up"
"as far as we're concerned, this issue is done"
"Let's move forward"
"this issue is done"
"we're not going to spend days dwelling on this"

He didn't bring it up, and he tried to move Stephanopos off the topic many times.  


by ChrisKaty on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Weak.

As fully documented above, with actual statements from Axelrod, the truth is the Obama campaign jumped all over the RFK comment as soon as it broke.  They may even have helped break it.

And it's not the first time.

Their surrogates usually disseminate the stuff for a news cycle, and then turn over to Obama for the gesture that is supposed to make him look like he's trying for a "new kind of politics".

They've been doing it for months:  Hillary's supposed MLK "gaffe", Bill's manufactured "Jesse Jackson in 88 gaffe", digging up Ferraro's interview with some sleepy California paper from weeks before to throw the BS up against the wall.

It was dirty politics, and I don't begrudge it, but Obama followers remain convinced their campaign has been conducted with honor and restraint.  

It has not.


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I'm sorry, again, the point is to compare this to how Hillary's team has acted with similar gaffes.  You can't claim that this is even close when they poured water on it after a day or two.  Hillary played everything to her advantage for months while Obama pulled back almost immediately.  I mean, she even when so far as to say "he's not a Muslim SO FAR AS I KNOW."  Pathetic.  

Obama has clearly been far better at playing nice than the Clinton team has.  Chalk it up to his being in the lead for quite some time now or whatever you want.  But the facts are clear.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

You are missing the forest for the trees here. How does it help Obama's unity cause to scold Clinton supporters about how much of a big meanie their candidate is?


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (2.00 / 1)

Obama has never accused her of destroying the party and he has not called into question anything she has accomplished. Hillary has however been whipping up resentment in her supporters by intimating that Obama's win is some how not legitimate and that the election is being stolen from her.

Obama is winning every metric including the popular vote. He has been respectful and courteous to the Clinton campaign as we reach the end. That is not condescending that is reality. He told supporters not to come to the DC meeting even though he could have swamped the numbers of Hillary supporters who showed up and he insisted that those who had tickets behave with civility even if they were provoked.

Hearing Hillary supporters chanting McCain 08, booing and interrupting speakers was not a credit   to their candidate.


by hankg on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:48:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

This is what we're up against...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE 3s

OH

MY

GOD!

Sickening.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

That's only part of what you're up against.

Do you have any evidence this woman had any connection to the Clinton campaign, or is this just like a, like a, generalization for effect?


by dembluestates on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Well, she showed up to protest in support of Hillary and she said all sorts of things that weren't exactly kind to Senator Obama.  Are you suggesting she was a McCain or Limbaugh plant?  

Of course, this is possible.  But, as you say, weak.  I seriously doubt anyone from Limbaugh's group could act out the script this well.  She's representative of a certain group of Hillary voters, whether you want to admit to it or not.

And many Democrats cringe when they see it.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats support our nominee (none / 0)

By not supporting our nominee you are defining yourself as being outside of the party.

Progressive blog sites like this are dedicated to getting DEMOCRATS elected.

If you cannot support our nominee that is a shame.

Please take your support for McSame over to Redstate.

Thank you.


by denniswine on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

This is the kind of crap that just infuriates Clinton supporters.  Your comment takes condescension to new levels with your suggestions that Obama has somehow done Hillary a favor - extending a courtesy.

Your contempt for Hillary Clinton is apparent, but many of us don't share it, thank you very much.  Hillary worked hard and earned her position.  Moreover, the candidates have been quite solicitous of each for the last month, so I have no idea what aggressive rhetoric you're talking about.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I'm sorry but what "position" did she earn?  There isn't a prize for #2 in this contest.  And your comments about being condescending are out of line.  This is political reality,  not reality TV.  She's done and she needs to figure that out.  She needs to do so in a manner that best helps the party.  End of story.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Whatever you say.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I agree with Spanish Fly here but I must say that Denny Crane is a Clinton supporter who will support Obama in November, at least based on what I have read in the last couple of days. SO lets all of us reasonable people try to find some common ground eh?


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

In that light, let me be the first to apologize to Mr. Crane for my previous reply.  


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I just happened to notice that Denny Crane has recently  been commenting in a way that suggests a loyal democrat and somebody willing to rise above the loss of their favored candidate. All good.


by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (2.00 / 1)

I suggest you're hypersensitive, as many Clinton supporters seem to be.  The poster offered plenty of facts amid his or her opinion.  I happen to agree.

The "etiquette" here isn't unique to this race.  When a political challenger loses, the winner usually gives him or her time to concede publicly, on his or her own terms.  If the loser refuses to concede, the winner almost always declares him- or herself what everyone knows.

By the same token, I would argue that, if Clinton refuses to concede once Obama hits 2118, we'll begin seeing supers switching their allegiance from her to him--to reinforce the point that she has lost.  If she persists in refusing to concede, we could easily have the spectacle of her superdelegate count fall considerably, expanding the gap between the two candidates and emphasizing that the party is turning away from her.  

I'd prefer not to see that happen.  I'm not gloating.  This is politics, and it's not anything particularly new.  If Clinton refuses to concede once Obama passes 2118, it will be neither presumptuous, arrogant, or sexist for him to declare himself the presumptive nominee.


by deminva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

Many of her prominent supporters have made it clear they are only with her until someone reaches the winning number. At that point they expect her like them to line up behind the winner. They will not follow her over a cliff. Hillary does not have the power to hold together her coalition past the end of the primaries.

That was proven this weekend when her own "coalition" didn't hold on the Michigan vote.  Very good point.  Further, you'd expect that they'll start sending a message to her very directly by switching sides if she doesn't concede.  I'd be particularly interested in watching the African American SD's in her fold.

Obama has refrained from responding to Clintons agressive rhetoric and has been praising her and her campaign on the stump. However he is not going to encourage her to attempt to continue once the contest is over and he has the needed delegates to be declared the presumptive nominee. That was clear on Saturday when he could have gotten his 50/50 split in MI as it had the majority support but he met Clinton half way but was not going to concede enough to give Clinton any hope. Probably enough of the supers made up their minds after North Carolina to put Obama over the top but have held off in respect of her and her supporters.

And for his efforts, he was still accused of stealing from her.  At some point, if she won't use logic and reason, he'll have to put her out of her own misery.  I agree she should be given time to do so on her own, that's the best answer.  But if she won't do it herself, he'll kick her out and he'll be justified in doing so.  He needs to be careful, however, only because out of spite, she could mount a third party run in swings states and screw him.  I seriously doubt she will but it'll be her only bullet left in the gun once her campaign is pronounced dead.

Hillary has already been extended the courtesy to bow out  on her own terms only after the last vote has been counted and the delegates choose a winner. Beyond that it will be her turn to step up and do the right thing. The super delegates who have stood by her and who waited until the primary was finished will owe her nothing more, it will be Hillary who owes them at that point a dignified finish and a unified party in thanks for their loyalty and forbearance to the end.

If the SD's had any inclination to switch, we'd have seen some evidence of that over the last 2 months.  We've seen none.  This is her last gasp.  Imagine if you were a SD and you figured you had the opportunity to side with the future President or stand by the loser, basically after it was already decided.  I know what most politicians are going to do.  Obama will be 100+ delegates above the 2118 within a week of Tuesday.  Hillary becomes irrelevant whether she bows out gracefully or not.  One would expect that'll become clear to her (and Bill) and she'll choose to do the right thing, even if it's just a self-serving move.  


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

> if she won't use logic and reason, he'll have to put her out of her own misery.

Alert the media! He's going to have her assasinated!! Time for a KO "Special Comment"!!!!

;-)


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (2.00 / 1)

> he could have gotten his 50/50 split in MI as it had the majority support but he met Clinton half way but was not going to concede enough to give Clinton any hope.

Obama supporters, please take the advice of a unity minded Clinton supporter and drop the bit of spin from your arguments. It really only serves to piss us off by reminding us that Obama's campaign chose to steal 4 measly delegates from Clinton's MI delegation. And now here you are trying to tell us how gracious it was. It's like saying "We could have cut off your whole hand, but instead we only cut off your thumb - see how nice we are?"


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I just go back to the point of an election, that both candidates should've been allowed to run there and the sanction of 50% delegates would've been known then, before the fact.  Nobody will ever know for sure but my guess is Obama would've won Michigan at the time.  As it was, 40%+ voted against Hillary and she didn't have anyone else on the ballot. So, in my mind, Obama actually lost delegates here by not being able to compete for them.  At the end of the day, Clinton probably got more out of Michigan than she would have.

Again, that's just my opinion.  Then again, it's just your opinion that something was taken from Hillary.  She said the election wouldn't count but then it did.  So, we'll just have to agree to disagree and deal with what the DNC and the Democratic Party of Michigan actually decided to do.  Each state decides how to seat their delegations and this is what they agreed to do.  Until very recently, it appeared the Clintons held the votes on that panel to get what they wanted.  It didn't happen.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (2.00 / 1)

First of all, those were not her 4 delegates.  The election was never validated.  Despite what Clinton claimed, she never had any delegates from MI until Saturday.

And honestly, he probably would have given her what she got plus those 4 if she hadn't insisted on constantly pushing her specious popular vote meme that included zero votes for Obama in MI.  If he'd given her what she wanted, it would have given some validation to that absurd claim.  It was her own insistence to give him zero votes in MI that meant he couldn't give her the delegates she wanted.


by ChrisKaty on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

"It was her own insistence to give him zero votes in MI that meant he couldn't give her the delegates she wanted."

Precisely.  Kos has a great post up about this very thing right now.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the last week (none / 0)

I don't think the Obama campaign had anything to do with the actual numbers of the MI split... it was the MI Dem party that suggested the plan.  From the chatter I've heard, they could have suggested a seating based on Clinton's actual vote with uncommited going to Obama and the Obama campaign would have been OK with that also.

This whole idea that Obama 'stole' four delegates is silly.  It was the MI Democratic party that suggested the compromise.


by protothad on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kabuki Theatre (none / 0)

and sound and fury.  The little details of advisors returning to their day jobs tell the truth, in spite of the rhetoric.

This campaign is furling it's flag.


You haven't seen impatient until you've seen a monkey waiting for a donut.
by bjones on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

Boy this is puzzling.  Do you think a lot of this is saber rattling in an attempt to get the best deal possible to exit the race?  Do they really think they can win the nom, fundraise enough to have a viable campaign between now and the Convention without losing ground to McCain?

I guess we will see.  I hope this is saber rattling and not an extended Alamo like fight that she will not win.  


by yitbos96bb on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:26:47 AM EST

Rally around Democratic ideals! (none / 0)

  There is no question that the culture of privilege is scared to death of this election, as both candidates represent the unfairly underprivlileged segments of our society. Hillary has been treated unfairly and in an extremely sexist manner, and Obama has been treated in rascist ways.
   The typical strategy of the culture of power is to redirect anger towards a scapegoat and distract us from the real culprits. That way, we attack each other instead of the real culprit, and they laugh all the way to the bank.
   Examples of this are endless. Corporate America sends jobs overseas, busts unions, and lawmakers vote against labor every time, but they distract us by making many believe it is the minority taking their jobs because of quotas.
   Corporate America is exploting immigrants to increase profits, but the country focuses their rage on the powerless brown people because they are the redirection target of choice.
   And here in our campaign, the culture of power and privilege has schemed to have two underprivileged classes attacking each other while the establishment of power, rich, white, male gets off scot free.
   It is pathetic how easy this is done on our society, but people at forums like this are and have to be smarter than that. When Obamans attack Hillary or Hillarians attack Obama, it is exactly what the culture of power wants.

Thanks for listening. Full disclosure I am a white, middle class male who supports Obama but knows he has beauty and warts, just like HRC.

Take care,
Alec


by alectimmerman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM EST

This is what you do... (none / 0)

...when you think you have to exit, but at the same time want to leave a window open just in case.

Her campaign's running out of funds and doesn't have a lot of resources left, but donations may still yet come in as long as she's in the race, so firing some advance staff while still taking in donations makes it easier to repay the debt after the fact.  In the meantime, if something does happy that makes Obama less qualified to run in the G.E., you still have been public about the fight aspect of it and can claim to be in it and ready to go.

I think she's getting ready to exit the race, but doesn't have the strength to face it yet and is still clinging to possibilities.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST

Prolonged Primary is good for the party (none / 0)

It has engendered tremendous enthusiasm and voter turnout. Channeled positively, it is a boon to our efforts. Unfortunately Juno wants to ruin everything HRC, Obama, and the Democrats stand for. It is sad, and they are playing right into the hands of the rich, white, powerful males who still hold undue and undeserved power in this country.


by alectimmerman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST

I think you can look at it two ways (none / 0)

Here's the other way...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE 3s

It sickens me to think there are people out there like this lady.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This sounds like one of Hitler's exhortations (none / 0)

from his bunker for the troops to die for the Fatherland.

The difference being that Hitler had at least once fought in a war and knew a little bit about it. For a draft dodger like Bush to do it is not only insane, but beyond mere hypocrisy.

It's too bad one of those brave generals didn't stand up and punch his lights out.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:40:21 PM EST

Oops. (none / 0)

The above comment was supposed to go on another thread about Bush's maniacal rant to kill the enemy.

It's NOT about Hillary.

(Although a differenly worded version of it could be since she's in a bunker mentality herself these days.)


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Some Mixed Messages From Team Clinton (none / 0)

What we're seeing is a fracture betwwen the Clinton campaign and it's politician supporters.

Those inside the campaign bubble are in full never-say-die/tear-down-the-temple mode. But politicans like Nelson, Wasserman, and Bayh, are backing away from a course that will only damage their own careers.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST

Just some clarification (none / 0)

If you argue for your candidate, it does not neccessarily think they do not have warts.

If you believe in Democratic ideals, you should be pretty comfortable with both candidates from a strictly policy stance.

From a personality standpoint they both have beauty and both have warts.

If you want women's rights set back about 100 years, you will vote for McCain.

Do you really think someone as opinionated and strong as Michelle Obama would let someone get away with being sexist?


by alectimmerman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:20:41 PM EST

Finishing this off... (none / 0)

Per CNN

Most of the seventeen Democratic senators who have remained uncommitted throughout the primaries will endorse Barack Obama for president this week, CNN has learned. Sources familiar with discussions between Obama supporters and these senators tell CNN's Gloria Borger that the senators will wait until after the South Dakota and Montana primaries to announce their support for Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/06/02/sources-most-uncommitted-senator s-to-endorse-obama/

So, it seems, Obama needs about 43 now and he'll get about 20 on Tuesday night.  With the 17 from the Senate and the Pelosi group, isn't this over?  By the end of the week, Obama will be at 2200 or so, it would seem.  Queue Dandy Don Meredith.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:14 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.