but I also think you are right.

-chris

Call me a hopemonger.

It's not a bad thing, you know.  Just duck because I'm sure troll tomatoes will be coming your way for this post.

Wow. Thanks for your ringing endorsement of Clinton's candidacy.

So instead of using donations to campaign against McCain, Obama should use donations to pay off Clinton's debts?

Classy.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt?  So gracious of you- giving the person with more experience, more votes, and better polling numbers (vs. McCain)- the "benefit of the doubt".  It's this attitude that will lose the election for Obamafans.  Sorry.  

I'll declare a personal two-day moratorium on any criticism of her in that eventuality. But if she continues to gnaw the ends of her old plots after that I'm coming after her again with all the dogs.

Will sanity return to Mydd after she does? What will this site look like after Tuesday?

Really that is really big of you

"Giving Clinton The Benefit Of The Doubt".

But you dont hate her?  Please give me a break.

Is she aware you are giving her the benefit of the doubt.  Will she be calling you?  Will you be telling her if she is still a democrat?

daivd

I think conventions are for different candidates and different constituencies to fight it out. Floor fights are good for the party. I don't think all this unity helped us in the last convention--it was boring and I don't think all my favorite issues (Gay Rights) were necessarily discussed. It was all biography and inspiration, like a TV commercial.

And there is something that I feel was unfair about this nomination fight. The legal maneuverings and the attacks on Hillary were bizarre. And she won the most votes.

As for losing to a young up-start, I think losing in a campaign to anyone is depressing. Egleton needed electric shock after losing a senate campaign. Kerry was nearly crying. It is depressing for a candidate and depressing for their supporters. Especially when it was so close.

I don't understand the last part of that excerpt.  What exactly is supposed to happen in situations where one downticket candidate supports Clinton and the other Obama?

But in the end, I think there's reason to believe that this primary will conclude civilly.

Her own best interests were served by dropping out long ago.  Since a good portion of her top people get their power and credibility by being Clinton people, they can't really abandon ship.  And she has certainly her hurt own ambitions unless you believe 2012 conspiracies.

And if she didn't want to "divide the party further", she could have not actively worked to divide the party whether through her white/hard-working people comment or her attacks on "activists".  She's shown no real desire for unity.

I think she might drop out this week, but maybe thats just optimism too.  There are some minor signs but HRC hasn't gone after McCain, hasn't stopped trying to delegitimize Obama and is still trying to turn declared Obama supers.  

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/06/clinton-spokesp.html

BC News' Kate Snow and Eloise Harper Report: Clinton spokesperson Mo Elleithee came to the back of the press plane as Clinton flew from Rapid City to Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

He was asked about Clinton's definition of when a nominee would be determined -- because she has refused to accept the new 2,118 delegates number that the Democratic Party says is needed to clinch the nomination.

"I think its pretty clear that she is not conceding." Elleithee said, "I think its pretty clear that she is staying in this race. She is going, in the coming days, to be aggressively courting uncommitted superdelegates aggressively courting unpledged delegates, making the case to them that she is a candidate best ready to take on John McCain."

When asked directly when Clinton will step aside, Elietthee told reporters, "as she has said dozens and dozens of times she is in this race until we have a nominee...Until there is a nominee she is going to try to win support."

He continued "until there is a nominee we are going to still work to become that nominee. When asked when they would determine a nominee would be selected -- because the Clinton campaign has refused to accept fully the 2,118 number -- Elleithee said, "we're exploring -- she has said before she wants to have this to be resolved before the convention -- we are reviewing our options."

Eliethee continued, "We do not expect that a nominee will be clear tomorrow night ... she is mostly going to be working the phones and meeting with these delegates."

When asked why Clinton was spending tomorrow in New York at an event the campaign is calling a "victory party," Clinton's spokesperson said, "it's a good way to close out this phase of the campaign is come to New York bring all of her supporters together, have a big celebratory election night party as we move into the next phase of the campaign which is obviously the courting of these delegates."

But I also think it would benefit everyone involved if Hillary didn't rush into this on Tuesday night.  A little distance from her comments on Sunday is needed, IMO.  I watched her speech Sunday; the first one I've made a point to check on in a while, hoping to see a switch from the rhetoric of a few weeks ago.  I saw no such switch.  To have her flip this soon after that will seem forced and insincere.  I think she should take a day or two, regardless of what the Senate plans to do.  Perhaps Obama can hold them off.  

This is a critical moment.  It shouldn't be rushed.  Her concession needs to be one of her best speeches ever and needs to be real.  I'm not a fan of hers these days but I think she deserves to at least be given the time to get it right.  If she chooses not to bother, it'll be clear she doesn't want Obama to win.  I pray she has a change of heart and it shows in what she says.

Democrats of america have spoken and they prefer Clinton. Thanks America for your vote of confidence.

Josh, are you ever going to apologize for that embarrassing post about Clinton's RFK remarks?

It makes a great deal of sense and I hope you are correct.

Clinton has not divided the party.

How awful that a person legitimately vying for the nomination in a primary contest is considered to be dividing the party because she didn't just hand it to her opponent.

And if Obama were the master at unity he and his supporters claim, there shouldn't be any division, but there is a lot of it.

And I could have told you that Clinton would be gracious in her exit but I'd have been mocked. IT was always made up, just another (ironically) graceless assault on Clinton by Obamans.

I hope she runs in '12.

I've graduated from Hopemonger to Hopium Dealer.

That said, while I do hold out hope that Clinton will concede after tomorrow, Rachel Maddow has said that all signs point to dogs & cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA.

I'm not sure going against Rachel is a great idea at this point.

She deserves the benefit of the doubt. She's a loyal dem and will be one in her support of Obama for prez.  What her loyal fans don't understand is that the rancor goes away the minute she announces her support for Obama.  Some of the crazies will carry on about Obama thinking that is what Clinton wants.   That is NOT what she wants. She wants unity, and she wants her place among Party poohbahs.  She's a fighter and she's earned a spot: either as VP (as long as this is Obama's choice), a cabinet member, Supreme Court Justice (can you imagine, Hillary a life long appointment on the Court?!  Heart attack city for Scalia, Thomas!!) Think of the good she could do for YEARS!  There's also Senate majority leader-- and yes, she's earned it over Harry Reid.  

Her campaigning for Obama will be the start of unification of the party.  For those who were so emotionally invested in her campaign, I offer condolences, and I urge you to use Clinton as your example to follow in pulling our party together.

bye bye McSame!

You can only hope for unity. It would have been great if Sen Clinton had won. But I think the stronger candidate prevailed.

Sights on McCain.

"And after Clinton's remarks in South Dakota, I lost patience with this contest going on."

You lost patience when Clinton referenced "assassination" in an answer to a question on why she's being forced out of the contest by many.

The connection you made was tenuous, and not many shared your views about what it all really meant.  Not even the Obama campaign (at least officially) shared your analysis.  Only the violent fringe hyperventillated with you, causing so much more racial tension than you claim Clinton herself started.  This is irresponsible.

I favor this going all the way to the convention. I am not sure if any of you all here have walk along the streets getting public opinions of Clinton's supporters or even working for her campaign. But it's really depressing right now and worst of all too many view this election stolen from Clinton, illegitimate, and with the constant sexist and racist strategy against them, many people are really angry. They want this to go to Denver. You have to remember that a big chunk of Clinton's core supporters are what you call Reagan Democrats and this means they have voted for Republicans more times than for Democrats and they don't mind voting for Republican this fall because of the treatment that Clinton receives. And unity will begin in the convention when the public sees that the nomination is not stolen from Clinton but that Obama ran a more efficient campaign. If the supers decided to in anyway kick Clinton out of the race, many more will take this personally and since i truly believe that this race is unlike any other in the history of this nation, i cannot say that unity will automatically come once we have a nominee.

For unity sake, look at the situation from Clinton's point of view. You will understand what the problems are and thus able to bridge the divided gap.

If one takes a cynical approach to this, Clinton has very good reasons to step down this week.  Can we agree that she's someone who has cautious instincts? (and I don't mean that as a slur, slow and steady, don't count your chickens, and all that).

Here's the calculation I suspect she's making.  If I take this to Denver the chances are extremely good that I'll lose (who would give her more than a 10% chance at this point?).

If I take it to Denver, Obama gets the nomination, and loses two months later, my fingerprints will be all over that loss (the three months he spent fighting inter-party battles could have been spent uniting the party and presenting his case).

If I get out now, and Obama loses, I'll have a good shot to come back in 2012 (because she could make a good argument that she stayed in the race until everyone had finished voting and then gave the Obama the time he needed).

One could set this up as a formula.  If P is Obama's chances of winning the general (let's say it's 50/50), and A is the fraction of Democrats who would back Clinton in 2012 if she took her case to Denver, and B is the fraction she'd get if she stopped her campaign now, and A < B...

Which would you choose?  The 10% shot or the 50% shot?  And if one thinks Obama's chances of winning are smaller, that just bolsters the case for getting out now.

If the Dems were holding their convention in early July (as occurred in '92), I think the chances are greater than Clinton would try her luck (she'd have more chance to distance herself).

Since it's being held in late August, there's really no way she could fight to the bitter end w/o then being partly responsible for any defeat in November.

I'm not so sure she's dropping out.  The option of suspending her campaign is there and she cna hope that something drastic happens to make Obama unelectable between now and the convention.  I just can't see her saying it's over, especially with all the back-and-forth we're hearing.  Back in mid-May it was early June it would be over and now we're not so sure.  

I have come around to your position and I think she will end this gracefully.  AAOS (As An Obama Supporter), I also hope she does put some pressure on his health insurance plan.  It is one of the only things I don't love of his positions, and I think taking on a plan more like hers would help him with Hillary's rational supporters.  The miniscule amount of irrational ones can not be helped at this point.

After the way you guys treated her, I wouldn't help you tie your shoes if I were her.  

Of course, iff she endorses, it will be much more than you deserve but her supporters would just as soon get on with our own lives rather than worry about Barack Obama's political career.  Have fun in November with half a party.  

Hillary Clinton is both a loyal Democrat and pragmatic about her future, both are reasons she will endorse Obama at the very latest early next week. And I trully believe she'll work her heart out to get Obama elected. She and her husband will be a valuable asset on the campaign trail.

If Hillary tries to continue after Obama reaches the winning number her super delegates will dump her overboard and she will go in the publics and party's mind from fighter to sore loser and spoiler. She will go down to a humiliating career ending defeat without the support of the SD's who have stood by her until the end of the primary.

Hillary will become Obama's biggest and most vocal advocate. It will allow her to maintain what she has built in the primaries and move forward as a force to be reckoned with in the party with all options open.

I predict some time very soon she will appear on a stage with Obama at a campaign event and be greeted with wild enthusiasm by the Obama supporters. The press will go bat shit crazy over the imagery of Hillary and Obama standing in unity ready to hand McSame his head. In a few weeks posters at Daily Kos will be falling all over themselves in praise of Hillary and what a great Democrat she is and what a great asset to the Obama campaign she is.

Mount up Democrats time to kick some Republican ass.

Truly, I can't believe that you are bringing up, still again, Hillary's remarks in SD about the RFK assassination as if that is something that Hillary should be ashamed of.

Really, given how absurd the "argument" is that Hillary meant anything sinister by it, I simply can't accord you any respect as a commenter on politics.

You know, the aftermath of Hillary's remarks in SD mentioning RFK also are a bright line for me, but showing something quite different: that the Obama campaign was utterly shameless in its need to smear Hillary, even when it was clear that the odds against her were extremely long.

It's one thing to lash out when your candidate is very far behind, and you need to do something desperate to catch up.

It's quite another to knife a political opponent in the most vicious, vindictive way when you know they have close to zero chance of catching up with you.

And that is what the Obama campaign chose to do. A week after its leader told his supporters to be "nice" to Hillary supporters, this is what they did.

I will never forget that or forgive that. It was simply gratuitous and vicious, and could not show worse character.

Your credibility went into the crapper with the RFK thing .

One would think you would have realized how absurd your post was on it and apologize for it.

I suspect that would be asking for too much.

However " I would give you the benefit of the doubt " .

That should be clear enough.

The spirit of generosity you display by giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt knows no bounds, considering all the damage the Clintons have done to America over the years compared to all the good that Obama has done for us.

All you people attacking the Clintons are just playing into the Reep strategy to delegitimize the last successful two-term Democratic presidency.  No presidency is perfect, but you'd have to be brain dead to see the Clinton years as anything but a stunning success.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishme nts/numbers.html

Your hero Obama should put a stop to Clinton bashing, and it's very disturbing that he doesn't.

***A

Funny, like others, "arrogant" is the first word that occurred to me too after reading this post. Why would you imagine that anyone cares about your arrogantly dispensed, and oh so conditional, generosity of spirit, your flimsy predictions, or your lost patience?

"Hillary Clinton will help us beat John McCain."--Josh Orton

Does the great armchair General Obama plan on doing any fighting himself? Or is he content to just issue orders to his new "great asset," Nimitz-like Hillary, to do all his fighting and leading for him?

I am not sure if any of you all here have walk along the streets getting public opinions of Clinton's supporters or even working for her campaign. But it's really depressing right now and worst of all too many view this election stolen from Clinton