« Obama Campaign Official: People Shouldn't Call On Hillary To Drop Out Of Race | Home | Hillary Supporter Ed Rendell: Let Pennsylvania Voters Have Their Say »
Leahy: Hillary Has "Every Right, But Not A Very Good Reason" To Stay In Race
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has put out a statement clarifying his comments that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race.
Leahy lays out his case that Barack Obama's delegate lead "appears to be insurmountable," and that dragging out the race is not good for the party, but acknowledges that she has every right to stay in...
"Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make."
Separately, here's what Hillary herself had to say on the trail today about the calls for her to drop out:
“There was a poll the other day that said 22 percent of Democrats wanted me to drop out and 22 percent wanted Senator Obama to drop out,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And 62 percent said let people vote until we finally know what the outcome is!”
The poll Hillary is referring to is here.
Advertisement















The voters have voted, and they voted for Obama. She knows it, we know it. Now the superdelegates just need to beat her over the head enough to get it through her thick skull.
March 28, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leahy got it exactly right. Sure, Hillary can stay in and the Superdelegates can over-ride the will of the people. But there are consequences to this. Namely, further division of the Democratic Party and a lowering of our chances to win in November.
Hillary has to decide if she can put aside her personal ambition for the good of the party and the country.
March 28, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is now responsible for ALL of the remaining rancor in this race. She's being ridiculous. She can't win and she must know it. The longer she stays in the race, the better McCain's chances are. She should bow out gracefully NOW and accept the fact that the voters have ALREADY decided. She can get Florida and Michigan seated and win Pennsylvania by 20 points, and she'll still be 85 delegates behind.
This race is over. Hillary didn't win. She should now put the party ahead of her personal ambitions and concede.
March 28, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read that Ralph Nader has advised Hillary to stay in the race. I'd say that pretty much ices the cake.
March 28, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she has all rights possible, but please pay for it! Pay now or pay later, but be assured a debt is being increased, she shall pay some of it! The question is who will pay for those debts she does or cannot not pay?
March 28, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Ralph Nader had every right to run in 2000. And after the Dem convention, Hillary has every right to run as an independent if she wants. And she has every right to endorse McCain over Obama if she wants, which she has to some extent already done. None of these, however, are terribly good for the Democratic Party.
March 28, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my God! It's true! The Hillary camp can't do math!
March 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campain has adopted the "rock, paper, scisscors" theory of success. McCain will beat Obama, Obama will beat Clinton, but only Clinton could beat McCain (which, fortunately for the egos of all involved, that theory will never be tested).
Of course, the Clinton team's predictions of success have not proven terribly reliable, especially her own prediction that the race would be over by Super Tuesday. (Funny, when she made that prediction, she didn't mourn the lack of participation by voters in all the post-Super Tuesday primaries.)
Anyway, what all this ignores is that the Obama team has run a fine campaign, and the Clintons haven't, and that should be factored in any calculations regarding who would do better in November.
March 28, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the rules established by the DNC, we know what the outcome is going to be. So does HRC. So do her supporters. And the media is slowly coming to that reality. The sooner they arrive at the conclusion reached by all of the participants, the sooner we can start focusing on McBush.
Until then, by all means, run Senator Clinton, run.
March 28, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
These spineless, corrupt Senators should be telling w and cheney to resign but they do not have the guts.
Let all the voters vote, let their votes count and STFU whining Senators.
What are you afraid of?
Losing?
Tell your candidate to drop out if you are scared.
March 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Clinton's defeat becomes more and more certain, some die-hard supporters are reassessing their chosen candidate, while others are trying to change the subject.
March 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife:
So, you want the voters to count, right?
So whoever ends up with the most pledged delegates after June 3rd should become the Democratic nominee, right?
Just making sure we're on the same side.
March 28, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 28, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you suppose would happen if Independants were included?
March 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can do math, then figure out how Barack Obama can clinch the nomination without superdelegates? If he can do that, then Hillary should drop out. Till then, just quit WHINING and let people vote. President Clinton didn't clinch until June. Why should someone hand the nomination to Obama to make it easy for him. If you are so confident in your candidate, then why so scared of competition?
The role of the superdelegates is to vote their conscience. That's why they were created. Obama wants to change the rules so that they vote for whomever is in the lead even if they haven't secured enough voted to clinch the nomination. It is the Obama campaign that is changing the rules midstream and trying to claim the moral high ground. I'm sure if the situations were reversd and Hillary was telling Obama to drop out you's be criticizing her and for good reason. The level of intellectual dishonesty is unreal.
March 28, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the roles were reversed, Obama would not still be in the race.
Also, no one wants to change the rules (except Hillary with MI and FL). What people are suggesting is that would it be a disaster for the party if it were perceived that the supers overturned the delegate leader. And that would be true if it were Hillary ahead as well. Though I think it is slightly worse with Obama, given it would look like the insurgent candidate who has mobilized the youth vote had it taken away for a party insider by party elders. But a disaster, either way.
Supers are supposed to exercise their best judgement. And the good of the party is part of that judgement.
March 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, you should do the math....It's over!
March 28, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
22+22+62=106!!!
March 28, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
More, it's 106% before counting the "Don't Know/ No Answer" percentages!
March 28, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am wondering why "Operation Chaos" is not a bigger news item. While driving through unfamiliar territory today, I happened upon Limbaugh's program on the radio and was amazed to hear how mainstream and public this effort is. One caller said that 9,000 Republicans in Kentucky have switched parties to vote for Hillary in attempt to stymie the Democratic
party. Fortunately, there is a law in KY preventing those who switch after December 31 from voting in the primary, so late comers will be shut out.
HOWEVER, if this well-organized and highly publicized effort is being carried out across the country, why are Democrats not in more of an
outrage? Where are the headlines? Limbaugh came right out and said the whole point is to give Hillary just enough momentum to prevent her from
dropping out. Well, IT'S WORKING. So, what can we do to get the word out?
I find it incredibly ironic that Republicans paint themselves as the guardians of democracy and are participating in efforts to subvert our
most basic and essential fundamental right. This is not what the democratic process is meant to be, and I find their hypocrisy sickening.
March 28, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strategic voting happens in all of our elections. When a state primary is a sure thing for the Democrats, want to hazard how many Democrats get a Republican ballot so they can vote for the weakest Republican candidate? Both parties do strategic voting.
March 28, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Hillary make all decisions on the basis of polls? Or does she decide on the basis of logic?
March 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leahy got it exactly right. Sure, Hillary can stay in and the Superdelegates can over-ride the will of the people. But there are consequences to this. Namely, further division of the Democratic Party and a lowering of our chances to win in November.
Bill has said so many times now that McCain is just so awesome, that I could almost swear they are trying their best to throw it to him in November.
I really hope Bill shuts up once Obama cinches the nomination.
March 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify, but as far as I know, Obama is not trying to change any rules. Just like Pelosi isn't trying to change any rules.
They are just suggesting what they think is best for their party (and for Obama, his candidacy). That's not changing the rules, and there is a very big difference.
For example, trying to change the rules for Florida and Michigan. That is changing the rules (disclosure, I support Obama and also support the states revoting, if they can do it inclusively).
March 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing a mashup attack video used to be something reserved for Republicans from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. By doing an attack video on Hillary Clinton, TPM demonstrates that not only has it become an Obama site, it is one of the most virulent and unfair of such sites. The honesty is good. After all, like Nancy Pelosi, we all knew this. What was lacking was the candor to admit it. With his latest tactics, Marshall has ostensibly admitted what we all knew anyway. Pelosi should follow suit.
March 28, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a large number of unknown factors. For many of them, we have very little idea what values they will ultimately take. What we do know is that small changes in several of them could induce large changes in the vote count. This makes it extremely difficult to be as precise as many commentators have been. We need to be wary of all the uncertainty we face here.
So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.
Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent. ... ..
March 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey imbecile - why not give Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics a little credit, since you just copied and pasted directly from his site?
March 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this quote. Every right, but not much reason. That sums it up exactly.
March 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "scared of competition" line that Clinton and supporters are using is just ridiculous.
Sick of the drawn-out, nasty and increasingly pointless fight is more like it! We want to move ahead to fighting the GOP and McCain. It's that simple. IMPATIENCE. Not fear.
And I fully admit that impatience might be calling HRC to step down prematurely, before the next few primaries. But she won't step down, and that's fine.
If the tables were turned, you can bet your life HRC would be demanding that Obama step down "for the good of the party." I have no doubt about it.
I don't want this to drag out to the point where I have zero respect left for a fellow democrat and a great former president. That would suck.
Impatience. Let's move on to the REAL battle at hand. Soon. Please.
March 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want this to drag out to the point where I have zero respect left for a fellow democrat and a great former president. That would suck.
Impatience. Let's move on to the REAL battle at hand
I feel the same way and that is exactly what is fueling this call to conscience for the Clintons to face reality. But hell, let Pa. vote, let Nevada and NC vote.
Just don't go changing the rules now on Michigan and Florida, inasmuch as everyone involved - the state officials and both candidates - knew the possible consequences and still agreed.
I am sorry it is seen as unfair to the voters there, and I'm not afraid of their votes at all - I just don't believe in denigrating the system that is in place while it is operating, and trying to get do-overs when you're losing.
March 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read the comments posted by dijmoe...again. ? Why. Because they are so detached from reality. If we as democrats, republicans, or independents can't have honest discussions then we are doomed to continue the same downward spiral of the the last 7 years. It's not should Senator Clinton drop out, but if she remains in can she conduct herself with the grace and dignity that elevates her, democrats, and our country. I was a Clinton supporter who was looking forward to a wonderful nomination campaign because there were two wonderful candidates. ? How could we lose. Then something ugly started to happen. As my chosen candidate started to lose the more her campaign and supporters started to sound like Hannity, or Rush, or dijmoe. I was more then willing to support Senator Clinton, even if she lost the nomination but put up a good fight. ?Maybe VP, maybe something in the presidential circle. What I wasn't expecting was the type of nasty, ignorant, and banal campaign that is indicative of people like dijmoe. Honestly if this is the quality of the campaign, and people who are supporting Senator Clinton, then I too like my good friend Bill Richardson am changing my support to Senator Obama. For all Senator Clinton supporters not like dijmoe, if your candidate is going to be in it for the long haul then elevate the discussion. There is no shame in losing to a good opponent, only in losing one's values.
March 28, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay as an avid Hillary supporter who is becoming perilously close to becoming one of those who would not vote for Obama by any measure in the general election (confident that my non vote would not matter being a NYer and all), I have to say the constant negativity, demonizing of Hillary and smears by the Obama supporters against Hillary is not "elevating" the discourse either.
Instead of just counting the numbers:
* what about a thorough discussion of their health care plans - Hillary's is better.
* housing crisis - Again Hillary's is better. And who's taken more campaign money for subprime lenders - The Messiah Obama of course. His Stop Fraud Act introduced does not address homeowners already in a subprime predatory loan and would only creates future punishments. Perhaps that may be a factor why he has not been pushing for more direct assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure to freeze or renogiate their rates as Hillary has.
* economic plan - hoave you seen a debate? Have you seen how indepth and downright wonkish and brilliant Hillary is on economic matters? I have no doubt thgat she can bring us out of this mess that GWB has gotten us into. Can Obama do the same? Remains to be seen. Bill Clinton proved we can both meet our moral obligations as a country and get out of national debt by increasing taxes on the wealthy and lessening the tax load on the middle class. I believe Hillary can lead us back to fiscal responsibility.
You claim that you are looking for a discussion on issues is facetious. You are just looking for Clinton supporters to be quiet and line up behind Barack Obama. Well guess what - I am not a Republican. I am a democrat. I don't like being told who the candidate is. I like for the candidate to win the nomination - not suggest that the other candidate drop out when your candidate has only a 100 delegate lead and no chance of winning the nomination without superdelegates.
But instead the Obama campaign directly just attacks Hillary personally and demand that she withdraw for the good of not the Party but Barack Obama. The question is can her campaign win ours?
Well here's a reality check - about equal numbers of Clinton and Obama supporters are not supporting the other candidate if the win the nomination. The more the Obama campaign and his supporters say she should withdraw when he has not won the nomination, the more Clinton supporters feel that she is being treated unfairly. There would not be this pressure if Hill was in the lead.
And by the way - It's NCAA March Madness time. Let's just stop the game at half time if a team has a 20 point lead. No one can come back from that right?
March 29, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another thing - please tell me what in my previous post was detached from reality? They are FACTS. You can't sprinkle "hope" dust on an argument and make it a reality. Obama has not already won the nomination mathematically. Hillary does have a chance of winnign the nomination. Superdelegates are not mindless irrelevant beings who just vote for whomever has the most delegates - they use independent judgment. The Democratic nomination process is not over. You've already successfully disenfranchised two states - now you want to prevent 10 more from voting? PATHETIC. Man up and just campaign rather then trying to force someone out with every legitimat reason to stay in it.
And personal attacks like calling Hillary supporters "Hannity or Rush" are REALLY going to be successful in wooing our votes should Obama be the nominee.
March 29, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've already successfully disenfranchised two states - now you want to prevent 10 more from voting? PATHETIC.
Since you claim to be interested in facts, ma'am, just the facts, please explain to us all how exactly it is that Obama and his supporters led the Dem leaders in MI and FL to disenfranchise their own voters. And while you're at it, can you discuss how Clinton's surrogates sued in NV and threatened to sue in TX to disenfranchise voters there, how her campaign tried to tell students in IA that they couldn't caucus … In other words: don't start playing the disenfranchisement card if you're a Clinton supporter.
And as I suggested in another thread, Clinton could drop out tomorrow and the voters in PA and all the other states could still vote for her. There is no disenfranchisement happening here; the grasping for this word is tactical, nothing more.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I will be the first to agree with you that many of Clinton's plans on paper are better than Obama's. The question in my mind remains: Which candidate is most likely to get something done in Washington? I'm not willing to let the best be the enemy of the good. I'll vote for Clinton in the general if she wins the nomination. But I believe that Obama is more likely to have a mandate to get stuff done that Clinton will not have — and all the more so the more she keeps kissing up to Limbaugh, Scaife, Fox, American Spectator et al.
Obama is a lot better than McCain, so if you're threatening to stay home and not vote in November, then you really are doing your own candidate and your professed beliefs a huge disservice. As angry as you say you are with Obama's supporters, take a step back and think it all through, please.
April 1, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo,
You're angry, and on the losing side. Hillary has done a great job of keeping intelligent, ordinarily well-reasoned folks beating to her drum.
Obama hasn't won the nomination, its true. But Hillary has indeed lost it. She really can't win.
I want you to have hope for Obama as well. As much or more than you had for Hillary. But its time to move on. We aren't telling Hillary to step down, or for you to give up on her. We're asking. Please, for the love of God, look at the math and start pushing Obama to refine his policy objectives if thats what it will take. But put your shoulder behind the person who is facing against McCain.
Sounds like you need a little "hope dust", in the end its Hillary who is going away.
April 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is no shame in losing to a good opponent, only in losing one's values."
This is very well said, Ramjett.
March 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Six percent (6%) of Democrats would like both Clinton and Obama to drop out of the race.
Nice poll
March 28, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, from the same woman who had 96 superdelegates before anyone voted!!!
March 28, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is now responsible for ALL of the remaining rancor in this race. She's being ridiculous. She can't win and she must know it. The longer she stays in the race, the better McCain's chances are."
Well said.
I think supers, voters and donors should make their move. And let Hillary be all alone in her angry quest to destroy the party.
March 28, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight: a single poll that indicates both candidates have comparable "die-hard" numbers somehow manages to trump the popular vote, the delegate count, and the number of contests won? Is this really the argument she's making? Is this really the depths to which her campaign has sunk? There are no words.
March 29, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back in June 2004, the VP had some choice words for the worthless loudmouth. Hopefully Sean. Clinton will be using profanity on the Senate floor toward the useless, failure that is Senator Lay-hee.
March 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
These Obama supporters think nothing of hypocrisy. Obama's campaign says that superdelegate votes should be cast for the canidate that received the most popular vote in that state. Well, Clinton won the most popular vote in New Mexico. Gov. Richardson is obviously a superdelegate. He disenfranchised the majority of his state when he supported Obama. I concur with the notion that he has slapped the voters in his state in the face. Who will be yelling if Hillary wins superdelegates where Obama is the most popular vote getter in a state and the superdelegate votes for Hillary. Obama can't have it both ways!!!
March 30, 2008 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, periwinkle, let's do it your way.
Hillary should get Richardson b/c she won New Mexico, and Obama should get, for example, Clinton's 9 supers from DC, 3 from Georgia, 2 from Hawaii, 3 from Lousiania, 10 from Maryland, you get the idea.
I don't think you'll find a single Obama supporter that would object to a rule that supers have to go with their state's popular vote. I suspect, however, that your comment was simply, shall we say, trying to have it both ways.
March 30, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink