Hillary's Delegates

This is an earlier post that I made some changes.

Hillary has a few options in front of her. I hope she takes a week off before she makes any decisions. I remember the enormous pressure put on President Bill Clinton to sign the special prosecutor law.  Hillary, please take you time.

The pressure you have received to drop out is plain wrong. Especially since no has enough pledged delegates for the nomination, and the nominee has to rely on super delegate support for the nomination. My hero FDR, came into the convention of 1932 with the most delegates, but did not claim the nomination until he was nominated at the convention.

If you suspend your campaign, like John Edwards, you can keep your delegates until the convention. During the next 3 months the GOP will begin its attacks. I remember Dukakis was 20 points ahead of Bush in August of 88.

Team Hillary, I hope you consider suspending your campaign, but keeping your delegates. The important thing is not irreversible unity in June, but rather a Democratic victory in November. We never know what the next 3 months holds. That's a lifetime in politics.

Tags: Convention, Hillary, Pledge Delegates, Super Delegates, suspend (all tags)



Still hoping for the Meteor? n/t

by parahammer 2008-06-06 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Still hoping for the Meteor? n/t

"FDR, came into the convention of 1932 with the most delegates, but did not claim the nomination until he was nominated at the convention."

FDR did it right. He was truly gracious.  Obama NOT.  Frankly, he appears overly greedy declaring victory before he really has it.  Super Delegates can say who they will vote for, but don't actually cast their vote until the convention.  Obama has NOT crossed the required delegate threshold number.  Too bad he doesn't have the grace of FDR.  If he did, maybe he'd start to win oversome of the 18 million Dems who did not vote for him.

by moevaughn 2008-06-06 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Still hoping for the Meteor? n/t

perhaps if Obama was running in the 1930s, then he too could take his sweet time.  But in case you haven't noticed, we live in a 24 hour TV news-network society.  McCain is already running anti-Obama ads in border states.  How long should the democrats wait until we actually decide to run a campaign against the republicans?

by the way, in the 1930s, the nominees were actually chosen at the conventions.  Today they are merely free ads for the candidates.

lastly, I'm really sick of you people whining about Obama.  He wasn't my candidate either, but he's shown nothing but class in this race.  Get over Clinton losing.  It happens...

by Dont tread on me 2008-06-06 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Still hoping for the Meteor? n/t

The Great Depression ensured that if the Dems appointed a dead duck, it would have won.

Using FDR as an analogy is not only dumb, it belittles the tragedy the was the Great Depression.

We really don't understand History.

by IowaMike 2008-06-06 06:42PM | 0 recs
Where to begin?

1. Obama does have the majority of delegates. He has the majority of pledged delegates and the majority of super delegates.
According to MYDD's delegate count:
2117 is the majority.
2167 is what Obama has.
If you look into that number more you will find that even if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated as is with full votes, Obama would have the nomination.

Maybe you haven't noticed but most in the party leadership are eager to have a nominee and unite. Now that the primaries are over that is what they are doing.

2. If you knew your history or were trying to relate all of the relevant facts, you would have noted that in those days you needed 2/3s of the delegates to claim the nomination. You would also mentioned that they didn't have the primary system we have now. Because in 1932 the delegates were all free agents on all ballots, there was no way for anyone to claim the nomination. Not so with the current system. The pledged delegates are bound for the first two ballots and Obama has more than enough super delegates to carry him over the top.

Had you studied FDR as a politician you would certainly know that FDR would have claimed the nomination as soon as he possibly could have.

I would recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/Defining-Moment-FD Rs-Hundred-Triumph/dp/0743246004/ref=sr_ 1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212809 048&sr=1-21

3. Hillary does not have all of the time in world. The entire world acknowledges Obama as the Democratic Nominee. For Hillary to withhold here recognition of Obama's victory only makes her foolish.

4. At this point in time the disposition of "Hillary's voters," is much more influenced by Hillary than Obama, and Hillary's theatrics Tuesday night makes many who either can not or will not adjust to the current political realities cling to the false hope that somehow Hillary will be the nominee.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-06-06 07:34PM | 0 recs
Roger Stone isn't

a guy you should be putting your hopes in.  He founded Citizens United (I shouldn't need to put the rest).

by Student Guy 2008-06-06 04:16PM | 0 recs

what does it mean if she suspends exactly?  that she keeps her delegates?

by canadian gal 2008-06-06 05:14PM | 0 recs
They all do this, suspend

and keep their delegates. And for the future of the party, for Obama's future, she should.

by catfish2 2008-06-06 05:38PM | 0 recs

no i get the idea that if she suspends - she can get back in should disaster strike.  but i dont understand exactly what that mean logistically...  does that mean she doesnt endorse or campaign?

by canadian gal 2008-06-06 05:46PM | 0 recs
I don't get the point of suspending

if lightning did strike, I think it's pretty obvious they'd turn to her to be the nominee.  And by lightning striking, I mean that literally.  Even if the supers reversed themselves now, there'd be such a backlash in the AA community, FDR would lose...

Clinton will do the appropriate thing and go all in for Obama.  It's in her best interest now for him to win (or at least run full strength), so that she can run again in the future.

by Dont tread on me 2008-06-06 06:16PM | 0 recs
unless i am missing something...

i dont get your comment at all.  why would she give up her delegates if he has what he needs to acquire the nomination?  the whole thing is v. confusing to me.

by canadian gal 2008-06-06 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: unless i am missing something...

well whether she keeps the delegates or not is essentially meaningless now, because the party (and I mean the whole party, at least all the major players) have accepted that he has one the contest.  So there really isn't anything she can actually do with her delegates, beside make the democratic party seem less unified.  But she does not want to do that, because it would hurt her in the long run as well.  Obama and Clinton need each other if they are ever to get elected at a national level, and Clinton understands that she may have another opportunity.  So basically, she hurts herself image wise by not releasing the delegates.

Furthermore, she does not actually lose anything by releasing her delegates now.  As I said before, Obama has been declared the winner.  The only way he will not be the eventual nominee is if some scandal or incident happened that was so great, he could no longer do it.  In this case, he would have to release his delegates as well.  This would create an open election at the convention, and Hillary would be the natural choice.

Now I should point out that the incident/scandal I describe above would have to be something pretty serious.  Not something like a comment (bitter), a reflection of polls or even another J. Wright story.  We're talking about a Mark Foley type thing, in which the pressure from dem. insiders would be so great Obama would have to decline the nomination (and remember, those same insiders got Hillary to concede).

so the bottom line is this: Clinton gains absolutely nothing by holding her delegates.  She hurts her image and chances for future support from Obama's wing of the party if she keeps them.  therefore, she will release them...

by Dont tread on me 2008-06-06 07:15PM | 0 recs
If he's being an ass on universal

healthcare she can hold her delegates. It's called party platform. It's called negotiations. She wants universal healthcare. He says universal is too hard and does not want mandates.

by catfish2 2008-06-06 07:04PM | 0 recs

Suspending the campaign will not hurt Obama at all. There's no hurry.

by soyousay 2008-06-06 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Well actually if she suspends, but endorses her delegates are released to do as they see fit.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Then she should not officially endorse, but say she endorses the democratic nominee. And she wishes Obama the very best with his campaign against McCain.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

If I am correct, the nominee is not selected until the convention.

She should have an influence at the convention, even if she suspends her campaign and wishes Obama the best. She has too much support for her to simply leave right now. She still can help us Democrats win by her continued influence.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

True Blue,
My sense is you missing something.

She will come out tomorrow and fully endorse Obama and start campaigning and working towards his election in the GE. You are correct the vote at the Convention will make it official. However as far as the party, Hillary and her delegates  are concerned it will be official on Saturday. For if it wasn't he couldn't  start running his GE campaign.

As to her influence I am sure she will have input on the party platform and I would bet the opening Keynote which is a highly coveted slot. And I am sure numerous other things.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Thanks for your comment. My goal is simple: a democratic victory this fall. And it is based on the fact that Obama is about 400 delegates short with Pledge Delegates. The supers are supporting him. I expect him to be the nominee. But, I don't see any harm done if Hillary keeps her delegates. She will have a positive influence for the Democrats.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

She will have positive influence with or with out.

Seriously I know what you are quietly hoping, fine. And it will not matter whether she has her delegates or not. They all can come back and all the others can come over.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 05:13PM | 0 recs

I'm sorry, but you haven't actually made a case here.

If something should happen that keeps Obama from being able to serve as the nominee (and fretting over poll results is frankly not going to be enough to overturn the strong plurality of pledged delegates), then Hillary is the natural choice for the top spot.  But that's the case whether she has the delegates in her pocket or not!

Put it another way: everyone is completely open about the fact that the delegates can change their mind down the line should circumstances require it.  So why would she need to keep her delegates pledged to her?  They're her strongest backers, and if the situation appears where she is needed as a surrogate nominee for Obama, there's no reason why they couldn't then vote for her.

But look at it from the other direction: if she insists on retaining them, then the OBAMA delegates who would have to acquiesce to a Clinton surrogacy are likely to be turned off to the idea and would likely deadlock the convention.

So if the idea is to set the stage for Clinton to be the nominee should shit happen, then the way to go about it is to gain the goodwill of as many delegates as possible, not to horde the minority of delegates she already has.  Her best bet, by far, is to release her delegates, secure in the knowledge that if the unthinkable should happen she's heir apparent.

Stop thinking of this as a delegate fight--it stopped being that once the last ballots were cast in Montana.  Now it's about intra-party politics, and winning that game takes a very different strategy than what you're advocating.

by Jay R 2008-06-06 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Or she could get on board (which I believe she already is) the express train to fixing this country.

It's not about Hillary anymore.  She lost.  She knows it- why don't you?

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-06 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

No need to be mean. If Obama has won, then there is no hurry for Hillary to quit completely. I think she can be great help at the convention. No harm done.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

No disagreement there.  But when you raise the spectre that "nothing is permanent until the convention", you give ammo to the REAL Democrat-haters out there who seek to exploit this as party division.  It's not helpful, and frankly, it's not going to happen.  

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-06 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

I disagree. I think it is disrespectful for Obama to call on Hillary to quit. He should respect her 18 million voters.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Why do we have these conventions anyways?

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

It's a week long infomercial.  Valuable free airtime.

by HillarysDesire 2008-06-06 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Balloons are fun, aren't they (at least, when they drop as planned)?

by Jay R 2008-06-06 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

But in that case, one could argue, she should respect his victory.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-06 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Mind you- I'm sure she will.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-06-06 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

EXACTLY!  The reason this is so inane is that the delegates are clearly free to vote for whomever they want, regardless of their pledged status (nobody actually disputes this point, right?), so if the goal is to preserve her viability as a surrogate for Obama should he be unable to serve as nominee (God forbid), then the strategy should be to curry the favor of as many delegates as possible, not to try and retain as many as she can--that just makes her less likely to win the support of Obama's delegates down the line, who could deadlock the Convention.

by Jay R 2008-06-06 05:22PM | 0 recs



No wonder so many Clinton supports rant how "aweful" Obama was to her. Anytime anybody says anything negative about Hillary, you attribute it to Barack.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-06 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

I'm sorry, when did Obama call on her to quit?  Last I checked it was Charlie Rangel and Diane Finestein leading that charge - firm Clinton backers...

by Dont tread on me 2008-06-06 06:19PM | 0 recs
Hillary IS quitting COMPLETELY......

True Blue, you don't seem to get it that Hillary is, in fact, quitting completely.  That is, in fact, what she's doing.

What's confusing you is what confuses so many people, including in the media, about what the party rules are.  Those rules don't recognize any such thing as "suspending" a campaign, or "releasing" delegates.  What happens is that a candidate "suspends" the campaign as an informal signal of continuing residual activity, such as fundraising to retire debt.  But "residual" activity is all it is.  And pledged delegates are never "released" under the rules.  Rather, as Hillary tried to argue in her spin but very disingenously some time back, the rules give them an "out" to vote for anyone at the convention.  In practice the only time pledged delegates defect in any numbers is when their pledged candidate SAYS they have the candidate's moral permission to leave the candidate.  This is why Edwards' pledged delegates moved toward Obama after Edwards' endorsement; there was nothing in the rules, it was just the customary practice that once your candidate endorses someone else, you're morally free to go to anyone.

The problem was that Hillary was promoting this delusion that pledged delegates really were free for the poaching as a matter of practice.  That's not true.  Pledged delegates are stalwart loyalists who don't defect except for the rare, isolated individual unless their candidate says it's OK to go.

If Hillary endorses Obama on Saturday as expected, some of her pledged delegates will take that as a sign they're free to go to Obama as a matter of unity, but of course Hillary's delegates are more loyal than most candidates' pledged delegates and many might choose to stick with Hillary through the first convention ballot.  It's anyone's guess what they'd do, and of course what Hillary tells them to do would have great sway.  But Hillary has no ultimate control over them either way, they can do what they want.

by DCCyclone 2008-06-06 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

If Obama has won, why the all the pressure. McCain has won. I didn't see an once of pressure by McCain to call Huckabee to quit, even after McCain had enough Pledge Delegates for the nomination. Even where all the supers where to vote for Huckabee, McCain would still be the nominee.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Because as soon as McCain reached the magic number Huckabee dropped, congratulated and endorsed the same night.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

When McCain reached the magic number of Pledged Delegates? Is that correct.

I see your point, but I think this is different. I see this rush to unity as a sign of disrespect for my vote, and those of 18 million other Democrats. I think we should all be sensitive after this incredibly tough campaign.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

why does your vote matter more than mine?  I voted for Edwards.  He lost.  Now we move on and support the winner.

Clinton came very close to winning.  But she lost.  I'm sure that has to be frustrating, and as someone who's candidate has never won, I can't say I know it feels like.  But I find all this hoopla and 'I'm being disrespected' talk to be ridiculous.  And the more it helps mccain, the more it pisses me off.  Democrats are once again eating their own, and it will wind up giving us more years of Rep. mismanagement...

by Dont tread on me 2008-06-06 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Delegates

Has Obama actually passewd the magic number?

by moevaughn 2008-06-06 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Delegates

Yes on Tuesday nite. He now has enough delegates even if MI and FL were fully seated

by jsfox 2008-06-06 05:22PM | 0 recs
from earlier diary by Texas Darlin:

...Let's review the DNC's rules for winning the nomination.

It's not complex.  In a nutshell (and I will attempt to fill this in later with official sources for those who really have time on their hands):    If a nominee does not win a sufficient number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination, the automatic (or "super") delegates must determine who the nominee will be.  The automatic delegates, who are elected and unelected party officials, can use any criteria they each find appropriate when voting, but the original intent and purpose of the super delegate system was to ensure that the party nominate the most electable candidate for the general-election battle.

Most importantly:  The automatic delegates cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention, along with the pledged delegates.  ... Their votes, by the way, will be cast by private ballot.

That's the status of the Democratic Presidential nomination process.

Now, Barack Obama can "declare himself the nominee" ... The Clinton-hating Party Clique can "proclaim" that Obama is the nominee; the mainstream media can continue to ignore reality...None of this is surprising, and none of it matters...

Because there will not be a nominee until August.  There will not be -- there cannot be -- any nominee until August.   And even the "presumptive nominee" status is a stretch because normally that claim is made by a candidate who has reached the required number of PLEDGED delegates (as John McCain did).

by moevaughn 2008-06-06 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: from earlier diary by Texas Darlin:
Ah she is not exactly right. Obama is the presumptive nominee.
It matters not whether he gets there with just pledge or a combination of pledged and supers.
by jsfox 2008-06-06 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: from earlier diary by Texas Darlin:

So when every other candidate has endorsed one candidate can he call himself the nominee.

by parahammer 2008-06-06 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: from earlier diary by Texas Darlin:

No it would still require the correct number delegates.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

If she doesn't endorse, then that'll be the straw that broke the camel's back and her career will be over.

Unless she choose to go Lieberman's path ofcourse, and flirt with the Republican party instead. Her choice.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-07 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

No hope for meteor. I think Clinton had 18 million votes. More than Obama or any other primary candidate in the history of the US. I think she should keep her influence until the convention. Also, I think Obama may turn out to be an incredibly weak candidate when the media falls in love with McCain. My goal is simple: a democrat to win in November.

Who's Roger Stone and the Citizen's United? What does this have to do with my post?

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Continuous repetition of the assertion that she got more votes than him won't make it true.

by lockewasright 2008-06-06 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

More than Obama or any other primary candidate in the history of the US.

Only when you ignore caucus states AND give all give Obama zero votes in Michigan, right?

. Also, I think Obama may turn out to be an incredibly weak candidate when the media falls in love with McCain. My goal is simple: a democrat to win in November.

Don't worry. After a short time you'll be unprogrammed to think that way. Obama has been ahead of McCain in the polls even with Clinton and the GOP tag-teaming against him. He's going to soundly beat McCain.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-06 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

actually, under that scenario--ignore caucus states and give her all of MI (and him none), she wins by 287,000.

If you count the caucus states and give her all of MI, she wins by 176,000.

If you count the caucus states and count MI, giving Obama all the uncommitteds, he wins by 62,000.

Realistically, I think something between the second and third scenario is most reasonable.

by slynch 2008-06-06 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Fair enough.

But realistically Clinton's votes were overinflated in Michigan.

It stands to reason that quite a few people did NOT have their favorite candidate on the ballot and decided to select their favorite of the remaining names. And being that of ALL the (major) candidates, Clinton was the only name that's a potentially huge bump.

I certainly might have as an Obama supporter. "Let's see. Dennis Kucinich? Oh, HELL no. And who are these other guys? I'll pick Hillary Clinton"

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-06 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Can anyone tell me why she would NOT keep her delegates?

by nikkid 2008-06-06 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Thank you. I agree with your question completely.

by True Blue Dem 2008-06-06 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Because once she endorses another candidate, be it suspension or withdrawal they become free agents. They usually go to the candidate who is being endorsed and in this case the presumptive nominee. However they are also free to wait for the convention.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Because this is no longer a delegate fight in the sense of trying to collect as many as possible.  Her only path to the nomination is to stay in favor with a majority of delegates in the unlikely event that Obama is unable to serve as nominee.  And holding her pledged delegates now instead of freeing them is a sure-fire way to tick off the Obama delegates SHE would need to nominate her if worse came to worst.

Keeping them makes no sense at this point.  The same people will be at the Convention, and if there's a problem she's likely to be the first person they turn to.  But let's PLEASE stop pretending that she can win this in a floor fight against Obama, because she can't--all she can hope to do at this point is get the nomination as a backup to him, and that won't happen if she isn't seen as fully supportive of him.

(And, again, these pledged delegates are all pro-Hillary activists anyway, so it won't make a difference to her chances in the event of some calamity if she releases them now: they'll still come home to her if the situation arises where they need to.)

by Jay R 2008-06-06 05:27PM | 0 recs
Exactly right

by DaveG 2008-06-06 06:09PM | 0 recs

its over folks.
time for a martini or some vitimin z.......whatever it takes.

but..............its over.

by citizendave 2008-06-06 05:06PM | 0 recs
I have an idea!

Why don't we wait 16 hours and see what she says! ;-)

by Travis Stark 2008-06-06 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I have an idea!

But...but...Travis, shouldn't we argue today in case there's no reason to argue tommorrow?

by catilinus 2008-06-06 05:44PM | 0 recs
Hmmmm. You may have a point.

What if there's nothing to argue about tomorrow? Then we will have missed out! Carry on.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-06 05:53PM | 0 recs
The nomination is decided no matter what Hillary


The primaries are over. Obama has the majority of pledged delegates, Obama has the majority of super delegates. It is over.

The only issue is will Hillary use here influence to divide the party or will she use it divide the party?

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-06-06 07:40PM | 0 recs
Hillary can do whatever she wants

that she thinks is best for her, irregardless of what her supporters think she should do.

History will judge her depending on how she conducts her herself and her campaign at this point in time.

by hienmango 2008-06-06 05:35PM | 0 recs
If she were a man,

they would be admiring her for negotiating well. But she's not, so they are saying "she better do this or else!"

by catfish2 2008-06-06 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: If she were a man,

Oh please. In this case she is just another politician.

by jsfox 2008-06-06 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: If she were a man,

Female colleagues approached her about ending her campaign just like the men did.  It really would help feminism if you would please only call out actual occurrences of sexism.

by lockewasright 2008-06-06 05:58PM | 0 recs
I'm talking pundits

No colleagues approached her about dropping out, I'm not denying this.

It's all the cable news chatter that her speech Tuesday wasn't sufficiently conciliatory. She ran a really competitive race, she deserved to brag a little.

by catfish2 2008-06-06 06:38PM | 0 recs
And people phone banked for her

until 8:00pm that night.

by catfish2 2008-06-06 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Personally, I'd like to see her suspend, endorse, and campaign like hell.  That leaves open my favorite possibility.  Could you imagine anything that would aggravate republican worse and for longer than a person named Clinton shooting them down over and over again for decades on the SCOTUS?  It would bring me incredible joy for maybe 20 or 25 years to see and it would give almost all of the GOP stomach ulcer instantaneously!

by lockewasright 2008-06-06 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

for once, something I agree with!

by slynch 2008-06-06 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates


by lockewasright 2008-06-06 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates


by slynch 2008-06-06 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

 This diary is just sad.

by xdem 2008-06-06 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Any delegate -- pledged, uncommitted, super -- can vote for whomever they want at the convention.
Hillary gains nothing by "holding onto" her delegates or "suspending" her campaign rather than "ending" it.

If, for any reason, Obama does not have enough support at the convention to win the nomination, she or anyone else can be nominated.  You could theoretically be nominated, even though you have not had your name placed on any ballot in any primary race.

So she should do the right thing, endorse Obama, and release her delegates and ask them to vote for Obama in August.  Indeed, it would make her look like a team player with only the Democratic party's interests at heart, which would serve her well.

If something dramatic changes, she can go back and ask her delegates, the supers, and even Obama's delegates to support her again.  But there is no good reason why she shouldn't fully endorse Obama now and ask her delegates to do the same.

by DaveG 2008-06-06 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

Oh, and by the way, the analogy to earlier elections, such as 1932, is completely inappropriate.

There were no superdelegates back then, and it was therefore not unusual for candidates to make deals with other candidates (such as the offer of the Vice Presidency) in exchange for delivering their delegates.  That cannot happen in 2008, where the only viable candidates are Hillary and Barack.

by DaveG 2008-06-06 06:05PM | 0 recs
Hoping that a hurricane hits Chicago?

by LiberalDebunker 2008-06-06 06:50PM | 0 recs
I don't think you understand the situation

the only scenario under which she will get more votes at the convention wins is if something so disastrous happens to Obama that it's obvious to almost everyone that he should not be the nominee.  In such a situation it won't matter one bit whether she's "kept" her delegates through the summer.

by JJE 2008-06-06 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

If her name is not put in nomination, does it really matter?

by alamedadem 2008-06-06 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Delegates

The media says you will not hear the word "endorse" tomorrow but "support" Hillary is suspending her campaign so she can raise money to pay off her debt and keep her delegates. I maintain both names should be placed into nomination at the convention to make history once again, a major party voting on the nomination of an African American AND a woman at a national convention for President. Women would like that and it would make Obama look even more gracious

by rossinatl 2008-06-06 07:24PM | 0 recs
Why are you hoping that our nominee loses?

I don't understand this.

by jaywillie 2008-06-06 08:27PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads