Hillary CAN Win If She Doesn't Quit-Please Don't Quit

Of course, we know why Camp Obama and the media keep trying to call an end for the campaign of the Democratic nomination.  Because as Hillary continues to campaign, she is winning the support of not just the Democrats, but more independents and Repbublicans, that shows her the best chance to win in the General Election.

May. 20, 2008 10:15 PM
COMMENTARY
Memo to Hillary Clinton: Please don't quit
By LEWIS W. DIUGUID
The Kansas City Star

Which also means, as long as she keeps receiving more support and more votes, Hillary can win the nomination.  And of course, that is possible, because the other candidate is not winning or securing the votes he needed to win.  That wasn't on Camp Obama's wishlist.  So, they have resorted to every other means possible to push for that outcome.  Forgetting apparently, Hillary is not a quitter.


Last summer, I shook Sen. Hillary Clinton's hand and gave her my business card when she met with the Trotter Group of black columnists. I wished her well in her presidential bid.

Ever since then I've received e-mails from her, Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, with video links promoting Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Oval Office. A half-dozen arrived last week.

I hadn't replied until now.

And a great article emphasizing this appeared just last week.

Dear Sen. Hillary Clinton:

I have greatly appreciated all of the e-mails from you and your family. I have only two words to share with you about your valiant quest to become the 44th president of the United States and the first woman to hold the highest office in the land:

Don't quit.

A ton of pundits and political operatives have asked you to give up. Ignore them.

They have asked you to step aside for the good of the Democratic Party and let Sen. Barack Obama stand as the presumptive nominee. His rise to that post would be historic, too, making him the first African American to go that far.

The pundits and political operatives repeatedly have professed that you would be doing more harm than good to the party if you don't surrender now. But for all of your supporters, the country and our way of life, I say don't quit.

It doesn't matter whether women in the United States have seen you in person, heard you in the debates or voted for you in the primaries or not. What matters is every woman who believes in America needs you to stay in the race all the way to the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Every girl needs you to go the distance. You have come too far to fold now. For every woman's and girl's sake, don't quit.

Men and boys need to witness your perseverance, too, and know that the force of your will is in the hearts and minds of every female. Such drive, determination, duty and character have helped to make this country a superpower.

Even though no woman has been president up to now, every woman has given endless amounts of sweat, blood and true grit to make this nation what it is today. There would be no America if women had folded under the strain of childbirth or if women hadn't endured the misery of scratching out a living from the land, traveling across the vastness of our countryside. Women have been treated like chattel and second-class citizens, working in sweat shops, remaining in the shadows endlessly serving others and maintaining the home front while their sons come home from the wars. Still, women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. Don't quit. Our men and boys need to see you go the distance.

Many other countries have had women leaders -- Germany, Israel, Argentina, India, the Philippines, Great Britain and Pakistan. For the sake of women and men all over the world, don't quit.

After eight, long, horribly regressive years of George W. Bush as president, the world needs to see a better image of America. They need to see how progressive the people of this country truly are. For their sake and ours, don't quit.

People need to see a real convention with all of the political wrangling and elbowing. So many conventions in the last 30 years have been neatly staged.

The power elite control the outcome. Give the convention back to the people. They need to see politics being made like sausage from the squeal to the plate. For America's sake and our way of life, don't quit.

Yours truly,

Lewis

I too agree with Lewis.  And as Hillary continues the campaign, contrary to the desires of her opposition or the punditry and elites in this country and the party, she has been winning.  Hillary currently holds the most votes and is on tap for increasing that in the upcoming elections.  I would say that's an excellent reason to have not thrown in the towel.  After all, she is representing us and the majority of us are saying we want Hillary, and that IS how elections are won!



Display:


"The power elite"= the Clintons, (2.00 / 1)

right?


by bobdoleisevil on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST

Re: "The power elite"= the Clintons, (2.00 / 1)

No more they're not.


by Sieglinde on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He gave us Al Gore? (none / 0)

That's a bit much...

He also gave us NAFTA, which cost Americans thousands of good paying jobs...

He gaves us the Defense of Marriage Act, choosing to throw his GLBT supporters under the bus as he went to the right instead of standing up for their rights...

He caved into PNAC when he changed America's policy regarding Iraq to regime change, essentially setting the stage for the Iraq War...

Under his leadership, the Democratic Party lost the House, Senate seats, governorships and state legislatures...

A great president?  An average president at best.


by jaywillie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He gave us Al Gore? (none / 0)

If they were the powerful elite this debate wouldn't be happening today. Obama would NOT be a factor.  Either they are entrenched in the political system in which they have the power or NOT.  If you are that powerful and elite you don't have to worry about anyone else being propped up.  There would have been NO room for Obama. It makes NO Sense. For Christ sakes there is more resistance getting promoted to a middle management job in a corporation due to politics then there was given to Obama getting the nomination!

The cognitive dissonance displayed leaves me speechless. I can't believe that noone gets it!


by jrsygrl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He gave us Al Gore? (none / 0)

Really?  You're speechless that someone suggests the Clintons wield a lot of power in the Democratic Party?  Probably still the two most recognized US Democrats on the planet?  Really?  The senator, who had 100 delegates in her hip pocket before voting started?  The one who raised $175 M in 2007?  Really?


by deminva on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He gave us Al Gore? (none / 0)

I am speechless that people believe it so easy to overcome the political clout people attribute to Clinton.  It is  a much more difficult time to get promoted into middle management, due to simple office politics, then Obama seemed to have had achieving the nomination.  Politics are not so easy to overcome. Further, if you actually think that the "will of the people" just came together and was a force that the DLC couldn't ignore, I seriously have a bridge to sell you.  Like I said I'd laugh at the absurdity of the mindset, but unfortunately I am stuck living with the repercussions.  


by jrsygrl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton did zero environmentally. (none / 0)

Remember his 1992 campaign promises?

The East Livermore toxic incinerator (upwind from a school) pledge...broken.

The 40 mpg CAFE standard pledge...broken.

Bill did decree some parklands in his last weeks in office, but basically he was a total bust for the environment.


by Garret on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:47:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it goes to the convention (2.00 / 9)

neither one can win.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST

(Agreed.) n/t (2.00 / 5)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

strongly disagree (2.00 / 7)

JFK went to the convention, so did FDR.  JFK still won, in a year that couldn't be characterized as a certain Democratic year.


TO THE FLOOR, I say!  Also, give the Republicans much less time to form a campaign against either candidate...
by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the Republicans are already campaigning (2.00 / 5)

against one candidate.  Hadn't you noticed?

Be as sanguine as you want, but if Hillary gets the nom at the convention you can kiss the black and the educated vote goodbye, and she loses in a landslide.  And if she keeps her supporters convinced that she was somehow robbed by election rules that she agreed to, Obama will lose as well.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the Republicans are already campaigning (2.00 / 4)

You mean like they were doing when Hillary was at the declared front runner last year?  lol

I guess you better prepare for Obama to fall fast.


by environmentally blue on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what do you think your point is? (none / 0)

that Hillary was once considered the front-runner?  Look at McCain's recent comments.  You'll see that Obama is mentioned often and Hillary is not.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am the educated vote (2.00 / 5)

or do my two undergrads and two graduate degrees not count in the Obama metric?


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am the educated vote (2.00 / 2)

You are the entire educated vote?  Wow.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You know what I mean (2.00 / 5)

stop being the stereotypical pedantic Obama supporter.


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know what I mean (none / 0)

Funny - you didn't like the stereotypical comment you replied to.


by interestedbystander on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know what I mean (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, I know what you meant.

As an educated individual, I'm sure you can take a step back and look at what dynamics would be at work if Hillary got the nomination in the convention floor battle.  I'm sure you can step back and see what affect that would have on the AA, youth, and educated voter turnout for her.

In other words, saying "you are the educated vote" and you wouldn't be offended is sort of missing the point.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am sure your education (2.00 / 3)

can lead you to similar conclusions if Hillary Clinton is to win the popular vote and denied the nomination- I think the disaffection towards the party by women, latinos, rural working class voters, Reagan Democrats, asians, would be just, if not more disastrous.


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am sure your education (2.00 / 3)

I disagree.  The person that wins the contest under the rules will be seen as legit and there won't be a huge backlash.  I'm assuming of course that FL and MI are settled by the committee in a fair manner, which they will be.

Nothing would be more disasterous than telling the AA community that we can't elect the winner of the primary because whites in Appalachia don't like him.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

um... (2.00 / 4)

this is why I can't stand you folks- everyone who doesn't like Obama must be racist.  Well you know what, that's about as racist as it gets.


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um... (2.00 / 1)

Come on, that's not a fair representation of map's comment, and you know it.  You can't just shoehorn every comment into a preexisting meme like "everyone who doesn't like Obama must be racist"--it's intellectually dishonest.

Can you really not tell the difference between what map said and how you summarized it?


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It gets evened out by people (none / 0)

who say that if you like Obama you're misogynist


by 79blondini on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um... (2.00 / 1)

Where did I say anything close to that?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

those folks are smart enough (2.00 / 1)

to see through the ridiculous "popular vote" special pleading and hand-waving.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (2.00 / 3)

just like in FL where a few votes in one state put Bush over Gore while Gore carried the popular vote.  People were so OK with that.


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

like I said (2.00 / 1)

they're smart enough to understand that Hillary's claim to the "popular vote" is without merit.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That (2.00 / 1)

is exactly what Republicans said when they stole the vote in FL.  Process more important than the popular will.  Good god, it is so absolutely unlikely that FL and MI will put Clinton over the top in a decisive way- every single Obama supporter and the Obama campaign should be advocating for a full seating of the delegates as is.  


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your premise is false (2.00 / 1)

there is no "popular will" v. process.  

There is just a bunch of special pleading and fallacies used to come up with a number that is then called the "popular will" because it favors one candidate.

You're intelligent enough to understand this.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That (none / 0)

The primary objection to the 2000 debacle was not that the electoral college overturned the popular vote it was that Gore actually would have won the electoral vote had the votes in Florida been counted properly and would have carried it handily if not for certain actions taken to disenfranchise a significant portion of the electorate.

This attempt to tie this mess to the 2000 election is disengenious.


by Skex on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That (none / 0)

Disingenuous and "disingenius."


by deminva on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That (none / 0)

I can't spell to save my life. Hell even a spell checker can't save me and I posted that at work where I use IE for non-work related stuff.


by Skex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:46:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What are your degrees in? (2.00 / 1)

Sort of pathetic that you cherrypick one example (from 40 years ago) instead of the myriad of recent ones that show that going to the convention has been terrible.

Showing logical inconsistency when claiming an educated status just shows how you can't teach common sense.


by Regenman on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am sure your education (2.00 / 1)

if Hillary Clinton is to win the popular vote
The unfortunate fact is, there is no popular vote.  Yes, the Clinton campaign is desperately waving voter counts around as though they actually mean something, but they have no statistical value as a measure of the so-called "will of the people."  

In a general, uniformly organized election where one person gets one vote, and where every vote counts the same as everyone else's, the popular vote is a fine system.  But you know and Hillary Clinton knows and the superdelegates know that that's not what the "popular vote" represents in this primary season.  To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't (2.00 / 0)

your comment was pointless.  Do you dispute that Obama performs much better than Clinton among those with college degrees?


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (2.00 / 2)

Linc and I are the entire educated vote.  And we vote for Hillary.


by Montague on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (none / 0)

Which one of you is 'college' and which is 'upper grad'?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (2.00 / 2)

Both of us have multiple degrees, in addition to certificates of completion for the School of Life and the School of Hard Knocks.


by Montague on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the Republicans are already campaigning (none / 0)

So you don't subscribe to the call to support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is?


by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did I say anything about what I would do? (none / 0)

No I did not.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did I say anything about what I would do? (none / 0)

Oh? Okay. Then you do support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it turns out to be?


by 12 dogs and a blog on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure do (none / 0)

Only a personality cultist would do otherwise.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure do (none / 0)

LOL JJE. Hope you had a good weekend.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: strongly disagree (2.00 / 6)

JFK, bad analogy, and that's why the Clinton people don't use it as an example.

Kennedy had a big lead in delegates, but just shy of having the nomination. The person he might loose to was the guy who declared his candidacy 1 week before the convention, Johnson (it would be like Gore declaring 1 week before Denver). He knew he had to win the first ballot or their would likely be a defection en mass to Johnson. I don't think an un-voted for candidate would have won the presidency. Kennedy won on the first ballot by naming Johnson as VP.

FDR won, because there was a thing called the Great Depression.

All others have lost, period.


by IowaMike on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apples and oranges (2.00 / 8)

Up until 1972 - there weren't more than a dozen states that even allowed the electorate to participate in the nominating process.

What's more - conventions are now happening later on the calendar -- by a manner of weeks, now adding up to more than a month -- than they were in the 60s (to say nothing of the 30s).

Sorry...

It just doesn't hold water.

The fact is that our current nominating process isn't really comparable to any before 1972 (and even then, I'd argue other factors -- technology, 24 hour news, etc --- make it unlike any race since the 1990s).


by zonk on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: strongly disagree (2.00 / 3)

JFK and FDR won their nominations.

The issue is whether it hurts the party if a losing candidate takes his/her desperation campaign to the convention.  And history says, yes.  

The 1980 and 1984 convention fights hurt the eventual democratic nominee.  

And of course, the doozy convention fight of them all was in 1968, when a disastrous convention led to a disastrous defeat against Nixon and contributed to the rise of the Republican counter-revolution.  

People who think that a convention fight will be loads of fun and are urging Hillary to take it to the floor should at least be honest and say they don't give a rat's ass for party unity.


by ProfessorReo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: strongly disagree--linc (2.00 / 3)

I have been dealing with the FDR example yesterday as I heard one Clinton supporter refer to it. JFK I haven't researched, yet--but since as an adult I live through an infamous floor fight, one where the other candidate didn't 'win'--1980--a similarity in this one, where a 'family dynasty' of the Kennedy name was considered, against Carter--well, we didn't 'win' that one. I will never forget Carter extending his hand in team spirit and Senator Kennedy rebuking him walking around shaking everyone else's hand.

However, the whole process since ALL of those examples have been changed over time.

In 1976 in the GOP Reagan challenged Ford on the floor--again Ford lost.

I also checked with Larry Sabato, expert professor, and here's what he noted:

"But conventions in those years were more important than they are today in picking a candidate, Sabato indicated. Even earlier, in 1968, only a small number of the 50 U.S. states held primaries, with the rest of the states "basically controlled by state-party bosses" who decided what candidate would be chosen, Sabato said.

The primaries were seen as "mere preliminaries" to the "real battle of the convention," where a candidate was selected, he said.

But following what Sabato described as the "fiasco" of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, remembered for its clashes between anti-Vietnam War protesters and police, and the chaos in the convention hall, the whole concept of how the party should select a candidate changed.

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-en glish/2008/April/200804141205141xeneerg0 .7362482.html

1968 was a lost presidency as well after a severe floor fight.

The two you referenced were mainly picked by state party bosses. We no longer have that system in place, thankfully.

However, there are so many recent examples of losing--NOT WINNING--when these are 'taken to the floor" that I tend to go with NOT going to the floor. I also see it as a sign of political teams man player and party discipline for candidates NOT to do that.

Personally I think this is going to the floor. I had hoped that the Clinton's wouldn't do that, but I anticipate they will do it. And that's very sad to me.


by Wary on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it goes to the convention (none / 0)

She's already laying the groundwork for Obama to lose. I don't think he will. But she's trying ther damnest. Way to go, Hil!


by Rationalisto on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary CAN Win If She Doesn't Quit (2.00 / 5)

YES!  


by LindaSFNM on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST

I concur. (2.00 / 4)


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I concur. (2.00 / 2)

Yes, brilliant, just brilliant.

SOmeone get all these folks a trailblazer award for political prowess.

Keep it coming guys, we only have a week more for this fun!


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rude (2.00 / 2)

childish even.


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rude (none / 0)

Don't take it personal, I am being honest.

I will miss all this silliness next week but that will subside with that GE Tingle going up my leg.

Not only will we win the white house, we are going to get Filabuster proof Senate.

The republicans are flip-flopping just like the dying rotting fish they are  (just visualize a really nasty fish you just caught and laid on the boat, this fish should have died from natural causes years ago.  It stayed and annoyed the other fish in the lake so they are happy)


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (1.95 / 23)

Obama has won more states,  more popular vote, more endorsements, more superdelegates. The superdelegate momentum is toward Obama at a 6 to 1 rate.  He has a flood of Superdelegates just waiting to announce if needed.  

She has pissed off most of the DNC with her antics. She has lost Supers.  She is in debt.

Don't you see, Obama and the Supers are merely being kind and gracious in letting her play this out until June 3rd.  It is over.


by rf7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:37:03 PM EST

More states? Delaware != California (2.00 / 4)

Cracks me up when Obama people argue he's won more states.


by catfish2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More states? Delaware != California (2.00 / 6)

Ahhhhh yes, the "insignificant states" measure.

Because this campaign is just about being President Of The Significant States Of America, right? And while I agree that there are states Obama does not and will not play in, I don't see anyone arguing that they simply don't count.

And of course, for your specific example state, Obama's now polling well above Clinton there (they'd both win it in the GE, but Obama by a much wider margin). Does that make it newly insignificant? Less significant?


by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Name a legitimate metric* (2.00 / 3)

Obama has won it.

*by legitimate, I don't mean primaries that were agreed by all before hand not to count.


by rf7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cracks me up (none / 0)

when you show how dumb you are.


by Regenman on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More states? Delaware != California (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, like it cracks me up when people add caucus votes to primary votes as though they were the same thing.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sadly, another Clinton talking point falls.... (none / 0)

My big state's come around. Latest LA Times (May 24) poll:

In CA, "overall, Obama led McCain 47% to 40% among registered voters,
while Clinton led McCain 43% to 40%."

Here's the link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition /california/la-me-poll24-2008may24,0,708 8406.story

For more reality-based polls, I recommend http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Obama's doing fine in OH, PA, and MI, too.

He might not get crowned King of Appalachia, but he's not doing bad.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain could take CA (1.00 / 0)

depending on his veep. Schwarzenegger is our gov after all.


by catfish2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain could take CA (none / 0)

Still, very very unlikely.  


by mikeinsf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

George H.W. Bush took CA (1.00 / 0)

Moderate Republicans could easily take the state.


by catfish2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: George H.W. Bush took CA (none / 0)

Lots of things can happen with either candidate, but I fail to see your point.


by mikeinsf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uprated b/c of swissfffun's ratings abuse (2.00 / 2)

maybe s/he didn't read Jerome's warning.


by JJE on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (2.00 / 4)

Apparently you're not paying attention, or doing you start believing your own lies?

it's Obama's attacks, negative campaigning, THREATS and antics that are REALLY P!SSING OFF ALL THE RIGHT PEOPLE.


by environmentally blue on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (2.00 / 7)

Please document some of these attacks, negative campaigning, threats and antics. I think we'd all really like to know what these are, since after all we've just had some rec-list diaries talking about the attacks, negative campaigning, threats, and antics that Obama could have used but hasn't.

Or did you mean the RIGHT people? Because I'm all for Obama pissing off people on the right. Those of us on the left, on the other hand, and the center for that matter, don't have a whole lot of cause to be pissed off.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (2.00 / 4)


Don't you see, Obama and the Supers are merely being kind and gracious in letting her play this out until June 3rd.  It is over.

Please cut this out; it's not doing our candidate any good, and it's just wrong.

Neither Obama nor the supers can "let" anyone "play this out", or not "let" them. Hillary Clinton can of course stay in the race as long as she wishes. No one is or could be "letting" her stay in the race.

Even if Obama were over the needed delegate count, instead of merely holding a near-decisive lead, the same would be true. Kennedy stayed in the race through the convention in 1980 despite having practically zero chance of swinging the vote. No one "let" him stay in the race.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct. Forgive me. I will rephrase: (2.00 / 1)

Obama and the Supers are merely being kind and gracious to Clinton until June 3rd by letting her chances to win the nomination remain at "exceedeingly low" rather than ZERO.


by rf7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Correct. Forgive me. I will rephrase: (2.00 / 2)

That wasn't much better.  You ought to take the advice of Texas Grey Wolf.


by Montague on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RATINGS ABUSE !!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Someone call a admin.  swissffun troll rated this comment and it clearly isn't troll worthy.  Please Admins stop him or her before she troll rates another post.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

swissffun why did you troll rate this post, did you not see the recent discussion on the topic of TR'ing topics?


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

They probably saw it and realize that if you are the only one to TR a comment you have not committed ratings abuse.

The new rules per Jerome are as follows:

One person gives an HR or TR to a totally legit comment = NO PROBLEM

Many people give an HR or TR to a trollish comment = RATINGS ABUSE



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Admins, please BAN swissfun for this abuse (none / 0)

you can read through his troll ratings and they are clearly an abuse of the system. This has been rampant and it has to stop!!!


by DrPolitics on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow! Kind and gracious, huh? (none / 0)

As though they can stop her. Amazing how patronizing some of you folks can be.


by splashy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary CAN Win If She Doesn't Quit-Please Don (2.00 / 6)

How do any of us win if she stays in the race until Denver? How does that prove anything positive?


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:37:04 PM EST

Totally devoid of historical perspective... (2.00 / 1)

The nerve of Hillary Clinton staying in the race--albeit perhaps as a suspended candidacy--until the Convention?!?!

The Convention.

It's not a variety show. It's not a holiday weekend for senior Democrats. It's not that historically!

Minor omitted detail throughout much of this thread: This is the closest Democratic Primary in generations. Bar none.

Hillary deserves to share in the spotlight. The Party is best-suited to have an orchestrated coming together of the candidacies in support of one candidate. Neither side's supporters are going to be placated by someone waving a wand in a couple of weeks saying: "This is the way it is."

If one were to read the Obama supporters' comments in this thread, we're supposed to believe that THE CONVENTION is not where the Party formally anoints its candidate for the Presidency.

Problem with that rationale is this: The Democratic Convention IS where the Party formally anoints its candidate for the Presidency.

This is history. This IS "the rules."

Live by the rules. Die by the rules. Change the rules. Break the rules. Scream when the rules are broken by one; say "tough luck" when its your candidate doing the breaking.

Hillary can do whatever she damn well pleases. It's her right. She owes it to her supporters. She owes it to he Party. And, it's the SMART thing to do--gradually bring the Party together and to their senses over the course of the next 90 days, all supporting one candidate! (Whomever that candidate might be.)

As for folks referencing Ted Kennedy in 1980, you have your history a little mixed up. Kennedy worked his ass off for Carter in in the Fall of 1980. Jimmy Carter was defeated by Ayatollah Khomeini. Nothing more. Nothing less. Read it. Learn from the past.

Respect the rules, or change them. But, don't tell me one plus one equals three. It doesn't.

Hillary can do whatever she damn well pleases. And, to that I say: "RIGHT ON!" She will be heard.

And, to all those supporters of "the other brand," to signify otherwise is to deny history; to signify otherwise is to deny the VERY PURPOSE of the Convention, itself. To signify otherwise is to put forth the very "entitlement" meme you've tried to shove down the throats of the media and my fellow Clinton supporters for the past few months.

Nothing could be farter from the truth.

The Party is split. It needs time to heal. Folks will be focused upon the Olympics for the next 12 weeks, anyhow. And, the real race doesn't heat up again until Labor Day.

Get over yourselves and your feigned indignation. Feigned indignation at what? Respect for the traditions and history and RULES of our electoral process. As fucked-up as it might be, it's the one we're using this year.

Get over yourselves. Move forward...with respect. It'll work itself out.  


by bobswern on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is not quitting (2.00 / 14)

It is not quitting to recognize when the contest is over. Someone earlier today pointed out that virtually all championship chess matches end with one contender conceding, and not with a checkmate. I a week all the votes will be cast. At that point the person with the most delegates will be the presumptive nominee, and the other should suspend, endorse, and work for the election of the nominee in November.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:37:47 PM EST

Ted Kennedy took it to the convention (2.00 / 3)

with a wide margin in delegates against Carter. It was his right to do so. Just like it's Hillary's right to take it to the convention. I don't see what we have to lose anyway, since Obama look electorally weak against McCain and Clinton looks stronger.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just the election. Just the election. (2.00 / 8)

Kennedy was wrong. He lost. Then Carter lost, and we got Reagan. A stellar example. Thankfully, the party leaders are smarter than this.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just the election. Just the election. (2.00 / 5)

I agree. As I wrote above, Clinton can stay in the race as long as she wishes; it's her decision and only her decision.

However, 1980 gave us one example of a party stalwart continuing to the convention despite very low odds of success and thereby handing the election to a very old Republican. Do we really need another example of the same thing 28 years later?

The only reason Obama suddenly looks much worse than Clinton is that no one is running against Clinton. McCain is campaigning only against Obama, and Obama against McCain. It's an artifact of polling and the narrative of the race. If the narrative changed and either or both started campaigning against Clinton again, you'd see her GE numbers drop like a rock.

Nevertheless, Obama's numbers have gone up considerably since the narrative switched to Obama vs. McCain.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:19:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kennedy was fighting to make the (none / 0)

Dem Party more liberal.

What principle is HRC fighting for?

She has, at different times, claimed she's slighty to the Right of Obama and slightly to the Left.

She's claimed that she has the support of the party establishment and been the victim of the party establishment.

What big point does HRC want to make at the convention?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you more interested in (2.00 / 3)

stealing the nomination, or in winning the presidency?

Because the nomination's just about over.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:38:50 PM EST

Winning the presidency... (2.00 / 5)

wherein Clinton looks stronger than Obama electorally. Much stronger.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:45:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning the presidency... (2.00 / 10)

If she's that much stronger, why couldn't she win within her own party?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ooo let's see... (2.00 / 3)

CDS, Clinton Derangement Syndrome
Mysogyny
Media Fix
Suckers falling for media fix AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Democrats are better at losing General Elections than winning. They have a hard time figuring out a winning formula, unlike the republicans who has own 7 of the last 10 elections.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooo let's see... (2.00 / 6)

If all of those things cost her the nomination, how in the world will they disappear in the general election?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But see, she's stilling winning with them.... (2.00 / 2)

check out the 41% victory in WV and the 36% victory in KY. That's what we need to win in the fall, someone who the media  hates and can still win.

The media loves Obama right now. But they'll throw him over in heartbeat for McCain.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But if she's still winning, (2.00 / 3)

why is the nomination about to go to Obama?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because democrats like to lose. (2.00 / 1)


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because democrats like to lose. (2.00 / 2)

To the contrary, we like to win--that's why we're urging the rest of the party to acknowledge the winner of the nomination process per the rules explicitly outlined at the start of the race, instead of dragging an already-terminated contest on for three more months to a divisive convention.

We have a nominee. You might not like him, but he is the nominee of the Democratic party.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry was the nominee... (2.00 / 2)

he lost

Gore was the nominee
He lost.

Love Gore. Like Kerry. Like Obama. But the one thing they all have in common is that they all come across as liberal professorial elites.

You know, the kind of people regular Americans doesn't vote for because they think that these guys think that they are better than them.

Note that our president is George Bush. Twice.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry was the nominee... (none / 0)

Your entire thread doesn't make sense.

1. You: Hillary is more electable.

2. Everyone else: Then why didn't she win this election

3. You: Because everyone in America is a race-baiting sexist Clinton-hater and the media hates her.

4. Everyone else: Do you think the Republicans are going to be less sexist and Clinton lovers, and the media is going to change their mind about her?

5. You: No, but it doesn't matter because she can win despite all of that because she's a figher and is (as previously stated) clearly more electable.

6. Everyone else: If she's more electable then why didn't she win this election?

7. You: Barack Obama had a low bowling score and we need to better emulate George Bush to win.

8. Everyone else: If she's more electable then why didn't she win this election?

9. Go to step 3.


by Brannon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But see, she's stilling winning with them.... (none / 0)

16 point loss in Oregon, 15 point loss in North Carolina.

She doesn't win without the black vote, and they are already angry with her.  If she kneecaps Obama, anger will morph into fury.

For what it's worth I think the dems are screwed.  The supers have never not given the nod to the leader in pledged delegates.  The idea that they would change this with the first viable AA candidate simply doesn't.

Similarly no candidate has come as close as HRC and not gone to the convention.  To think that the first viable female candidate wouldn't follw suit is equally silly.

Couple that with the modern reality that a contested convention equals electoral loss and we have a tragic ending for the Dems this year.

If only HRC hadn't hired Mark Penn and planned for a longer haul we wouldn't be in this mess.


by tired of dynasties on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooo let's see... (2.00 / 1)

So you think democrats are more misogynistic than the average population?
by french imp on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ooo let's see... (2.00 / 3)

And all of those things would miraculously disappear if Sen. Clinton were the nominee?

The only reason she's strong electorally right now is because the GOP attack machine has been concentrating on our likely nominee.  You think they can make Obama look bad, wait'll you see what they'll do with Clinton.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love the misogyny/sexism argument (2.00 / 4)

Hillary is losing (lost, if you will) because of blatant sexism and misogeny!!!!!!!!!!!

HOWEVER

Hillary will win in November because all that sexism and misogeny will just POOF disappear after the primary is over.

It defies reason...


by rf7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I love the misogyny/sexism argument (none / 0)

Yes I know I misspelled it.... I got it correct in the subject line at least.


by rf7777 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sounds like you're the sucker (2.00 / 2)

Who's trying to buy this election?

All the Obama supporters tossing in $25 or Hillary's heavy hitters threatening the DNC (or the Young Dems).

Who's continually changing the metric?

You're so obtuse that you're ignoring what your own campaign has been doing for the last 4 months.

Remember when Hillary was saying that the popular vote didn't matter?  Oh yeah, you've lobomotized yourself to forget.

Sort of like that inconvenient agreement about Florida and Michigan.  I mean if your candidate's words mean nothing, sort of makes it easy to forget her pledges....


by Regenman on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:17:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how about 50% of democrats (2.00 / 1)

not happy with Obama?  I guess I could say the same about Obama---why can't he close the deal within 50% of his own party?


by 4justice on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow, that's just not true (2.00 / 5)

You should stop reading Jerome's stuff as though it makes any sense.  


by Sun Dog on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is true... (2.00 / 3)

Electoral-vote.com

McCain vs. Obama
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May27.html

McCain vs. Clinton
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May27.html

Of course, people with their heads buried in the koolaid-colored sand probably can't or doesn't even want to see it.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is true... (2.00 / 5)

Clinton currently polls better than Obama in GE polling. Both of them beat John McCain, pretty clearly.

Clinton's numbers have shot up in the past two weeks. Obama's have gone up about 6 points, Clinton's about 12. Why? Simple. No one's running against Clinton anymore. Obama attacks McCain; McCain attacks Clinton. Clinton's polling goes up because Obama supporters are much more willing to say they'd vote for her come the GE since there's no reason to game polls anymore. More undecided voters haven't heard anything bad about Clinton in a few weeks and she starts sounding better.

If either or both Obama or McCain were to go back to campaigning against Clinton, her numbers would drop right back down to where they were.

Meanwhile, Obama's jump in polling vs. McCain after the race resolved to a two-candidate race (up 6% or so in win chance, up ~50 EV) shows his strength vs. McCain in the GE. Those numbers will continue to strengthen as the Democratic primaries wind down.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

exactly (2.00 / 1)

Jerome and this crew throw these numbers around as though they are the same as what would be happening if Hillary had won the nomination.  As though these numbers exist in a concrete universe.  It's such a stupidly simple calculous they employ that you have to think they are willing themselves into believing it.  

The fact is that since January the GOP and the media that back them have pretty much laid off of Hillary.  To anyone not blinded by devotion to Hillary it has been obvious for months this race is over.  So it's easy for the GOPers to play on the emotions of the Clinton supporters and work to lend credence to Hillary's weird talking points.

It's no mistake that she and FOX 'news' have suddenly become so chummy.  

The line coming from the Clinton people is really veering off into the weird at this point.  It's becoming a public exercise in extreme cognitive dissonance.  


by Sun Dog on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also, the "I won't vote for Obama" Dems (none / 0)

Look at the poll internals. Clinton is only getting about 75 percent of the Democratic vote at this point.

And Obama is only getting 65 percent of the Democratic vote.

That's because of supporters in both camps who are so pissed off right now that they tell pollsters they'd rather vote for the Repub - against their own interests.

It's not unusual in a hotly-contested primary, but it will die down over the next six months as the party unifies behind one of our candidates. Either one.

Obama will do just fine in the general election - he's already leading in EVs, and he's opening up the map in states like Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, where he will have coattails that will help in down-ticket races. Even in Alaska!


by Victor Laszlo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning the presidency... (2.00 / 1)

Um, not after she initiates a destructive floor fight and pisses off everyone who believes Obama both deserves and fairly won the nomination.

Not after media and opponent start digging up all the dirt or alleged dirt on Clinton, which Obama hasn't touched.


McCain: because not everyone's ready to say goodbye to W yet!
by Matt Smith on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Penguins can win Game 2 (2.00 / 1)

If the Penguins hadn't quit they could have won game 2 last night.  Why did they quit??



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST

Re: The Penguins can win Game 2 (none / 0)

That one hurts.


by PantherDem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since March they've been saying it's over (2.00 / 2)

why is it any different when they say it now? Don't quit Hillary. (She is not quitting, trust me.)


by catfish2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST

Re: Since March they've been saying it's over (2.00 / 10)

To what end? She can't catch up in delegates. The Clinton camp said it was a delegate race. The supers know that it's a delegate race. So who - other than the GOP - is served by this divisive battle?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You sweetie pie (2.00 / 2)

She's doing this all for your amusement :)


by catfish2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You sweetie pie (2.00 / 4)

You don't have a serious response? Have you thought this through at all?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]