but I certainly agree with you. I'd also (and have) made the point that our current leader has become an international joke for misspeaking with such frequency. I think people are going to want to avoid that in the future, and this could play into decisions.
This from her interview with TIME Managing Editor Richard Stengel, published March 6:
TIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?
CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithe just said to a group of reporters in South Dakota -- including Memoli -- that this is "one of the more ridiculous" issues that has come up in a long race. The campaign, he said, will soon send out an official comment.
* UPDATE * Here is the official statement from Elleithe: "She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby kennedy in 1968 as historical expmales of the nominating contest going well into the summer. Any, any reading into it beyond that is inaccurate."
I saw her on the NewsHour the other night, and she said, "Well, I will endorse when we have a nominee. And we may see that in June. And if that's the case, then I would endorse then. If we still don't have a nominee, I would want to be a fair broker between the two at the time of the convention."
This seems to suggest that she won't endorse until Clinton drops out, since we've already passed the majority of pledged delegates threshold.
This is, of course, the same interview where she said of the "dream ticket": "In all honesty, I do think it is not likely. They haven't asked me who I think should be their running mate. You have. And I don't think that would be the ticket that will win for us.
Let me say it another way: I don't think that's the ticket that is going to happen. If it is the ticket that happens, it will be the winning ticket, but I don't see it happening."
At least you give some ground by saying "it would have been tough,"-and I'll agree with you-but it wasn't impossible, especially if her campaign had been willing to build the ground level structure necessary to compete. She ran a strategically inept campaign from even before day one, and it cost her the nomination.
I'm just going to have to disagree with you on your momentum theory. She never really built any momentum in the primary season, and you can't blame that on decisions that were passed down months before.
BTW, Terry McAuliffe wasn't on the RBC, only Ickes, though he and four other of the Clinton supporters on the committee maxed out their donations to her campaign in Q1/2007 (during the "exploratory" phase), so I have a hard time believing that those five weren't communicating with her campaign at the time the decisions were passed down in late 2007.
As for the dream ticket, I wouldn't hold my breath. The Field reported yesterday that they have confirmation that the Clinton camp approached Obama about the VP slot, and he said no thanks. If he was to accept her on the ticket as a conciliatory measure, he would start off in a position of weakness having not been able to make his own choice; plus, Clinton on the ticket totally undermines the change message, and I've seen several polls (including the Quinnipiac from yesterday) that show there isn't a majority support for her on the ticket.
Thanks for the civil discourse. I think we'll all get there soon enough.
Obama could pick up as many as 7 superdelegates this weekend.
There are 7 new superdelegates being named this weekend, all in states that Obama won: Alaska (1), Georgia (2), Wyoming (1) and Hawaii (3). Obama has a good chance to pick up all 7.
that I think the Philly columnist missed, though I think the turnout is generally closer to 82%. This isn't the ritual timing for elections in PR, and in other cases, such as referendums, they've seen a 10-20% dropoff in participation. And don't forget the patronage factor, as well. There are a huge number of people in government jobs in PR (over 250,000), and they tend to vote in heavy numbers to insure a continuance of their employment.