Hillary: "I'm Staying In This Race Until There's A Nominee"
Hillary, at a press conference moments ago:
"Well, I'm saying in this race until there's a nominee. And I obviously am going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee."
This means either...
(a) She's not dropping out until Obama reaches the magic number of delegates by attracting super-dels to put him over the top;
(b) She's not dropping out until some sort of arrangement persuades her to concede Obama the title of nominee herself; or
(c) She's not dropping out until a battle over the super-dels and/or a floor fight at the convention results in one of the two getting the magic number.
Indeed, on that last score, she was asked about the possibility that there could be a fight on the Rules and Bylaws Committee over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. Her reply:
"Under the rules of the Democratic Party, the Rules and Bylaws Committee makes the first determination. And if people are not satisfied with that they go to the Credentials Committee. So we'll see what the outcome is."
"If people are not satisfied..."
Onward we go.
Late Update: For a time, the comments section on this post was inadvertently turned off. Apologies. Comment away.
Late Update: Here's video...
Clinton should fight for the nomination all the way to the convention if necessary. The party risks sure defeat with Obama in the fall as he fits the party's solid history of picking losers: Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Mondale...
May 7, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point? To throw more of her money down a whole? Strain her party more?
She's losing now, and she won't win at the Convention either. So what's the point of taking it that far?
May 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is never going to the convention. Clinton has no argument to make as to why she deserves the nomination, other than "My last name is Clinton."
She's lost. It's over. Obama will get his 2025.
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
not if the rest of us can help it first.
May 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is this "us" of which you speak?
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Monster Inc will bow out by 6/15
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/hillary-will-drop-out-by_b_100625.html
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even think it'll take that long. Obama will get 2025 before June 15.
May 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! excuse me... what about my money going down the drain? The money I'm having to fork out and give to Obama to fend off her bs... I would much rather my money work to fend off McCain -- the republican in the race, although I sometimes I wonder....
She's screwing the Party all for her ambition.
May 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when she launched her campaign. She started it off like it was an open ended, casual affair: "lets start a conversation and see where it ends".
Turns out the conversation was a one way, single direction, lecture, where she keeps on talking long after the conversation has ended.
If it were a real conversation she would have heard what the voters have said to her: no.
May 8, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
... The party risks sure defeat with Obama in the fall as he fits the party's solid history of picking losers: Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Mondale...
Uh-huh. And who's the person to ensure Democrats' rightful place in the Oval Office come November? The very candidate who's failed at every turn to defeat your ostensible loser.
Sorry, but you have to win the playoffs to get to the championship. Everything else is just talk.
May 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The left wing part of this party has never, and I repeat never, elected someone to National Office. We tread that water again at our own risk.
May 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their policies are pretty similar. So why is he more left wing than she is?
May 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'm confused. Krugman & other Clinton supporters tell me that Obama's problems are that:
-- his health care plan isn't liberal enough;
-- he uses right wing talking points when it comes to Social Security & other things;
-- he's a secret fan of Reagan's.
But today he represents the extreme left-wing of the party. I give you guys points for covering your bases.
May 7, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And white foke won't vote for black foke.
So foke you ...
May 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is far more right-wing than Eisenhower Republicans . . . Your point lacks pointiness.
May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) So FDR was not the left wing of his party? You could have fooled me. The right wing of the democratic party in that day was composed of Dixiecrats, compared to which Roosevelt was quite far to the left. He was substantially to left end of the nation's political spectrum at the time. The fact that he was not a communist does not mean that he was a "moderate" (whatever that empty weasel word might mean anyway). Similarly, LBJ was considerably to the left end of the contemporary political spectrum. Your claim is simply not true.
2) Obama is no further left than Clinton is. Indeed, he is ever so slightly to her right. Your point is, as such, doubly vacuous.
May 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's to the right of HRC economically - witness his proposals for health care and foreclosures etc.; He's to the left of her on foreign policy
May 7, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You shouldn't tell me that, I might regret backing Obama. I'm hoping his 60 senate majority passes medicare for all.
May 8, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
exactly. a vote for obama in november will mean mccain in the white house in january. if kerry couldn't win in 2004 with the prospect of another bush term, what makes you think obama can win, with all his baggage, and the baggage to come? don't be foolish.
hillary, you can do this!
May 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. She can't.
May 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, she cannot. A democrat needs a solid black turnouot as much as (if not more than) s/he needs to win working class whites. She cannot count on that turnout (to put it gently). Sen Clinton has many virtues to recommend her but she is damaged goods by this point and would amount to a replay of 1988 if she were to take the nomination at this point.
May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She really, really, really can't. Sorry Okee!
May 7, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okee, you are going to have to find a new hobby or something. Otherwise its going to be a long summer for you.
May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can't beat him with all of his so-called baggage. Not to mention that she's got several train cars worth of baggage.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but she's not going to be the nominee. She knows it. You know it. But acceptance is the last step.
May 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillarity already hasn't.
The loser in each of the DEM Primaries earned more votes than the total REP field in most elections.
Until recently . . . JOHN EDWARDS had more total votes than McCain.
There is only one way that Senator Clinton has a shot . . .
May 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only was she has a shot is with a beer.
May 8, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
So there will be someone else on the ballot in November whom voting for will ensure McCain is not in the White House in January?
May 7, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry are all from the DLC/Clinton wing of the party, you ignoramus. All of them were the darlings of the party Establishment, just like Hillary Clinton is.
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure the brand your drinking today but its made you a bit foggy. Mondale/Kerry/Dukakis were not DLC'ers. Kerry and Dukakis specifically are from the Teddy wing of the party. As normal Teddy has the Midas touch in reverse...carry on.
May 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1992 Perot got a boat load of those Reagan democrats. And that gave Clinton the plurality, but not the majority.
May 8, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's wishing, and hoping and singin' and prayin'!
May 7, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton . . .
May 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the point of continuing to fight, especially trying to throw as much mud against Obama as possible in WV and KY, when she has no realistic chance of winning a nomination now?
Unless she's trying to make his run against McCain harder, so she can try to run again in 2012.
Is that what she's doing, do you think?
I'm not encouraged by the tone coming out of her campaign since last night. Sounds like the same old nastiness to me.
May 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a point for her to fight from Obama's point of view. It's better to lose WV and KY to Clinton running than to Clinton not running. After that, she's not needed anymore.
May 8, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude -- Clinton I only won because Ross Perot siphoned off votes from Bush. Otherwise he would have been a "loser" too. Get a grip.
May 7, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
[I was replying to the eminent Matthew Weaver up above. Don't know how I ended up way the hell down here! :-\ ]
May 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Bataan Death March keeps on going....
May 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superdels, time to step up and end this. She will not stop on her own.
May 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she just gave herself an out. "I will not end the campaign until there is a nominee." It's over May 20. The SDs will bring Obama within 25 to 50 delegates of the nomination and let Oregon push him over the finish line.
May 7, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right in getting the margin to be within reach of my state giving the coup de grรขce.
May 7, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama gets 4 more superdelegates:
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama pocketed the support of at least four Democratic convention superdelegates on Wednesday, building on the momentum from a convincing North Carolina primary victory.
May 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, supers. Let's go for option number 1. This week.
May 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need someone to -- figuratively, not literally (Racheal Sklar, I'm looking at you) -- play Starscream to her Megatron, and kick her off this damn ship, before we all go down.
"Wait - I still function!"
"Wanna bet?"
May 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew - In Marshall county, Indiana, a rural area with a white population of around 93%, and that has one of the oldest Military Academy's in the country, Obama got around 45% of the vote, a respectable figure by anyone's standards.
While there may be some Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama in the fall, it's probably no more than the number of people who would refuse to vote for Clinton, be they Democrat, Independent or Republican.
So far, the American people have shown that they can't be fooled by kitchen sink strategies and tax holidays, to a remarkable degree. There is no reason to think that they won't continue to do so.
>b
May 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fixed finally?
You know, I don't think she'd take it nuclear because it would ruin her in the senate and if she didn't win, she'd be truly fucked, so I kind of doubt she'd do that.
May 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if she is seen as purposely sabotaging Obama's campaign, she would face a member of the black caucus in a primary for Senate, and possibly as a stalking horse candidate in a general election.
You know, the black caucus has the tightest, most consistant voting group in the country, they don't have to play the victim anymore in politics. She could get hit with a vicious tit-for-tat. If I were black, I would be seething mad at her and prone to action.
May 8, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Feel the Huckmentum!
May 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
(d) She's not dropping out until she raises enough money to retire some of her campaign debt (but no way can she retire all of it).
May 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely a metric to watch - her schedule and her media spend. Talk tough, rake in the bucks and bow out when they can't squeeze their minions for any additional debt relief. Oh yeah, Hillary's looking out for the economically stressed working class folks!
May 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will pay her debt off if she agrees to drop out after May 20th and not pursue the 2,205 metric. At least I think that's how it will go...we'll probably never know.
May 7, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worst things Obama could do right now would be to help "retire" the Clinton campaign's debt, or name her as a VP candidate. As a fervent Obama supporter, I would lose serious respect for the man if he did either.
My guess is that neither will happen.
May 8, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary says she's a fighter, but that's not a good thing if she's fighting the wrong battle. we need someone who will fight the repubs, not fight the dem nominee. it's past time for her to concede. what she is demonstrating now is not fighting spirit, it 's sore losership. it's not toughness, it's out-of-touchness with reality.
May 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corrolary to (b). She holds her delegates and support hostage until Obama agree to pay off her campaign debt, which is now likely close to $25 million. I think he might agree to pay part as long as Penn gets stiffed and She doesn't get to refill her personal ocffers with his donor money. I want her small vendors to get paid, but repaying her is when I'd stop contributing.
May 7, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stop long before that. I will not give a single dime to anyone who's willing to forward the money to her. That's truly good money after bad and I work too damned hard to throw mine away like that. If Obama's giving his money to her cause, then I'll sit on the rest of mine.
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
... I want her small vendors to get paid, but repaying her is when I'd stop contributing.
Agreed. As someone who contributed to Obama's campaign, I have a visceral reaction to the idea that my dollars would be funneled to the very people who a) ran Clinton's campaign into the ground, and b) smeared the candidate I prefer. Politics ain't beanbag & all that, so they're entitled to run their campaign the way they see fit. But I strongly resent the idea that any portion of my contributions (small though they were) would wind up subsidizing their idiocy.
May 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if it is traditional, as I hear, for the winning campaign to pay off the losing campaign's debts, the way that Clinton has financed and run her campaign makes that a bit problematical.
Because she has been able to pour millions of her own money in as "loans" she was able to continue an otherwise bankrupt operation in high gear. In addition, by using funds she had on current expenses rather than outstanding debts she in essence borrowed money from her creditors, including schools and small businesses (and Mark Penn, who is still owed a sizable chunk of change). Running out of money hasn't stopped her, it hasn't even slowed her down.
That she has used these borrowed funds to do her best not just to run against, but to destroy her opponent, even when it was clear there was virtually no chance that he wouldn't be the nominee in the end - well, if she is expecting his contributors to bail her out in the end, she was acting in bad faith indeed.
Even if we recognize that allowing the winner's campaign to pay for the loser's debts may really be just a mechanism allowing maxed out donors to give a second time to the loser's campaign, when it doesn't really matter anymore, running her campaign at full throttle with the expectation that she will have access to that money in the end violates the spirit of having donor limits in the first place.
The only scenario that I can see as acceptable is if she writes the amounts of any loans she ever made to her own campaign off the top, whether or not those loans were paid off, and personally pays off the debt she owes that toad Mark Penn as well. If her campaign is still in the red at that point, I can see the case of her letting Obama's campaign pay her debts, or at least be a channel for her donors to pay them.
May 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep forgetting...the election isn't about America, it's about Hillary.
Is she really setting herself up for 2012?
Taking Obama down now so she can say "I told you so" in November?
She's not a fighter, she's an egomaniac--Tracy Flick with out the demented charm.
May 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary: All through the day I me mine.
May 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Addendum - The narrative that Obama can't win, is highly exaggerated.
May 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has no money to continue. Bet her numbers for April fundraising are really bad.
I think she will be out by May 20.
May 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supers time to take Hillary behind the shed....
May 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, just send her some Crown Royal as a consolation prize....she'll know what to do with it.
May 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why some are lumping Obama in with 'Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Mondale . . .' The implication being that Obama will lose in November just as other unsuccessful and no doubt elitist democratic candidates did before him.
C'mon! Obama is still in front despite his roughest month of the campaign and an onslaught of racially-charged attacks seeking to undermine the legitimacy of his candidacy and quality of his character.
Obama has demonstrated the resiliency and calmness under pressure that a candidate must possess in order to claim the White House. Meanwhile HRC has driven her inevitability into the ditch with a grossly mismanaged campaign. There is surely nothing presidential about that.
May 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's lumped there because his base support is East Coast Liberals...A la Mssrs Kennedy/Kerry et al.
May 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
East Coast liberal base? Sounds like El Rushbo talking.
That must be why he raises tens of millions of dollars from small contributions all around the country.
May 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
East coast liberal base? Then why, pray tell, did Hillary win a larger amount of east coast states?
May 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the "East Coast" line is nonsense. Tell that to Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas. For starters.
"Ordinary white folk" are a little more complicated than Clinton supporters and other self-appointed populists might like to think. There are a lot of ordinary folk out here in the Midwest who are more interested in solving problems than in gun racks or whisky shots.
May 7, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee I didn't realize the Idaho, Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Washington (and many other west of the Mississippi states were all "East Coast Liberals".
Does this mean I have to set my watch to eastern standard when my state of Oregon becomes irrelevant on May 20th by handing Clinton her ass?
May 7, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is probably all for the best that she is staying in. It would look rather embarrassing if she lost 2 to 1 in an uncontested race in either WV or KY.
May 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean "if he lost," I assume.
I agree completely. She shouldn't concede until the WV and KY blowouts are out of the way, and Obama has another win, i.e., Oregon.
May 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can read a lot into how she approaches things this week. If she campaigns negatively, it's time for the Supers to end it. If she take the high road, (I know, I know.) then she is trying to ease some of her campaign debt and back out gracefully.
I think she went all in on North Carolina and Obama drew all the cards.
May 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead on. That was no half assed effort of hers in NC. Bubba was out twisting arms, as only he can, in every small town that shows up on a map. And the supers know that. His schedule was on Halperin's Page every day.
May 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
She went all out for NC, we recieved multiple calls a day for a week straight from her campaign. She drew a pair...Obama laid down a full house.
May 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Right on all counts.
May 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
She doesn't know how to get off the merry-go-round, her comments were a plea for help:
Hillary to Superdels: "Please stop me before I do it again!"
May 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So everyone wants the SuperDels to steal this before its settled?
May 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are you getting that from?
May 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the exact opposite.
We want just enough Supers to allow Oregon to nominate Obama.
That way, the people have chosen, not shadowy figures in the "back room".
May 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
no.
May 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Dem who is dissatisfied with both these remaining candidates and hopes for a deadlocked convention, I think Clinton's last best hope is to suspend her campaign, keep her pledged delegates in line, and leave the field entirely to Obama for the next three to three-and-one-half months.
First, she's already made her argument that generational and ethnic divides make Obama's electability in the general questionable, and there's little reason to throw good money after bad to hammer away repeatedly at that same point.
Second, leaving the field to Obama will subject him to the kind of media scrutiny he hasn't had to face during her presence as a foil.
Finally, the public and the superdelegates will be better able to gauge Obama's strength (or weakness), and how he stacks up in their minds against McCain, with Clinton effectively out of the race.
Will absence make the heart grow fonder? Probably not, judging by the opinions most readers leave on this board. But the plain fact is that nearly every communications strategy Clinton has attempted has fallen flat against a guy who can't be pinned against the ropes. If Obama can be tripped up, only he can do it to himself.
May 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least it's clear why you call yourself the 'Shoveler'.
May 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
just curious, who are you hoping will emerge from the Convention?
Al Gore? Didn't we try that already? (and I love Al Gore, I just think we need to try something new for a Change).
Hillary does not equal Bill. She will not do as well as Bill did.
If anything, Obama is more like Bill Clinton than Hillary is (minus the sexual escapades).
May 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
SCMadden wrote: "I just think we need to try something new for a Change." After 8 years of Boooosh, that seems to be the overwhelming sentiment, but I still don't know what it means in substance. Frankly, I don't see the country falling apart if it's Obama, my only concern is assuring a Democratic trifecta with a sufficient majority in both houses to enable much-needed, long-delayed legislative reforms. In that vein, we have been confronted with two contenders who each carry significant liabilities with significant voting blocs. I said earlier that Clinton has already made her argument; looking toward the Electoral College (which is what really needs to be changed, though it won't happen this year), Obama has not yet succeeded in making his.
I don't know who should stand in their place, but out of 300 million Americans, maybe we can find just one who can.
May 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh come on.
If you're going to dismiss Hillary and Obama, the least you could do is name an alternative.
May 7, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As concern troll who is dissatisfied with both these remaining candidates and hopes for a deadlocked convention ...
----
Fixed your typo, Shoveler.
May 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't even spell worth a damn, so your sarcasm is pretty worthless.
May 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even know why I'm asking, but what did he misspell? Is this a riddle or something?
May 7, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's starting to remind me of Anton Chigurh - same inscrutable implacable malevolence...
May 7, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Shoveler wrote:
Second, leaving the field to Obama will subject him to the kind of media scrutiny he hasn't had to face during her presence as a foil.
Flag Pins? Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright out the wazoo? The man has endured enough media scrutiny for several campaigns while HRC has gotten off nearly scot free. And he's managed to come through it all with his dignity and support intact. I think you should reconsider your reluctance to support him.
May 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ochsfan wrote: "And he's managed to come through it all with his dignity and support intact." His support yes, but maybe not his dignity. I remember the times of the Weathermen/Weather Underground, as perhaps you may, considering your online handle. And I saw the wreckage of that Greenwich Village bomb factory. I never favored those tactics, but hindsight can be a bit too 20-20. Those were desperate times. They believed that they were fighting against an illegal, immoral and unjust war, and Obama might have found some room in his rhetoric to acknowledge that he later freely accepted their support for his Illinois state senate campaign, knowing what they had been accused of doing, and that their sacrifices were not entirely in vain.
He sold his soul to the Teamsters, who still bear the cloud of the Hoffa and Dorfman names -- that's farther than either Edwards or Clinton were willing to go, according to the evidence gathered by the Wall Street Journal.
And as for Wright, was that pandering to a constituency upon whom Obama could count to forgive him? Is there a double standard in Obama being praised for refusing to pander to people hurting from gas prices while he kicked his longtime pastor to the curb for saying nothing different than what he's been saying for 20 years?
There have been many blind spots and extenuations where Obama is concerned, the point being, these are politicians. Dignity has nothing to do with it.
May 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're going to find dirt on any candidate.
You think Bill Clinton was perfect? No, but he won two terms.
Obama will do just fine. Frankly, the Ayers and Wright "controversy" bother me less than Bill's sexual escapades.
May 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Ms. Clinton's ego is so invested in this game that she is virutally incapable of letting go, and that is deeply disturbing to those of us who believe that political contests are about something more than personal ambition. I would really like to believe that in the coming weeks she will gradually realize that it's time to wind down. Unfortunately, based on past behavior, she may go the other way and seek out progressively lower roads to travel, until the humiliation hits home.
It's really not necessary for that to happen, but if she is as obsessed as she appears to be, who can conceiveably help her see that the trip is over? Opinions, anyone? Do you think Bill could help facilitate an honorable exit, if he chose to do so?
May 7, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you'd think Bill of all people would be the one to help her. But as I heard on the radio today, she is using his example of not having secured the nomination until June of '92 (I assume that's correct - I don't remember) as an explanation for why she's staying in.
That of course is ridiculous logic. By that argument, Mike Gravel should stay in too.
I wish there were some reasonable explanation for her behavior the past few months. But there isn't. And there isn't likely to be - it's really is all about vanity. It's sad, because I liked her just a few months ago, and defended her and her husband as being sensible and unfairly tarnished by all the right-wing smears over the past 16 years.
As it turns out, the loony righties were right about the Clinton's sense of entitlement and willingness to say anything. That's something I didn't want to believe....but this campaign has laid that bare for all to see.
May 7, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll have a great chance since he will net about a 40% turnout from African Americans.
And if you think that voter registration has peaked - you have another thing coming. The Dems will see another wave of voter registrations in place before November. I'd bet money on it!
May 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon let's get real,..either of these Candidates will beat McCain,...the Democratic Nomination was a battle this year. Each side took their shots and demonstrated their strategies....it appears that Obama is emerging slowly but surely according to the delegate math. This will all be forgotten once the Republican Media and pundits start mud slinging our candidate. We will come together and win the whitehouse. We can't do it when were divided. Both Hilary's and Obama's policies that actually matter are in stark contrast with the republicans.
May 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you get paid by the word for this ...
"Absurdity 007" = Freudian slip.
May 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary: "I'm Staying In This Race Until They Pry It From My Dead, Cold Hands"
in other words, as is the case for every losing politician, she's in it until the very second she drops out
May 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That reminds me, can we take Charlton Heston's guns now?
May 7, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a reminder: Al Gore lost by ONE vote, when the Supreme Court overruled the MAJORITY of American voters and appointed Bush. Kerry's "loss" is also very questionable, too - remember Ohio?
With the Republican in control of access to the ballot box in many states, any Democrat will have to win by a landslide in order to be actually inaugurated President of these United States.
So don't go blaming Liberalism for the Democrats's defeat - we did fine before we started allowing the right wing noise machine to make the word "liberal" a dirty word. It was only after a Clinton decided Democrats had to be republican-lite that completely decimated the power & principles Democratic party; starting in 1994....
May 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but I want a Ronald Reagan like landslide.
I think McCain will say something stupid (er?) and lose it in a debate that makes him unelectable.
May 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
SCMadden, I couldn't agree more. Obama. Landslide. November.
May 7, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I especially like the comment he made about the League of Nations.
That kind of comment in a debate could sink his candidacy to the bottom. He get's confused in economics and he gets confused in foreign affairs, and he's tap dancing around the far right and dark right, a garden he's not used to playing in - he could easily hit a land mine there too.
I think with McCain, it won't stop with one gaffe: he's got a temper, remember, once he makes a big gaffe like that, and people start picking on it, and hit a sore spot, and he'll start making gaffe after gaffe after that, he could very easily spin out of control. He'll make Admiral Stockdale's comment about fixing his ear piece look like a joke.
May 8, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. She should stay and he should
1. announce a vice presidential nominee on the morning of May 31st when they meet to settle FL and MI delegates.
2. drive her into debt by making the races in WV and KY close enough.
3. Force more superdelegates to support him, but also publicly shame her.
May 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always enlightening. The same dozen or so nasty little 'bots sitting around agreeing with each other in the cult's electronic echo chamber... chamber... chamber....
Sad, but enlightening.
May 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judging by how many Americans voted for Obama, there sure are a lot of "bots" around this great land of ours. One question: why do you hate so many of your fellow Americans?
May 7, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has no exit strategy. Someone please help her exit the race gracefully.
May 7, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee." Well, of course she is. Because as soon as she drops out, there'll be a nominee. Duh.
May 7, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's signaling to the super delegates to grow some hair and make a decision. All of these gutless super delegates who are waiting for Hillary to drop out so they can suddenly come out and say "I was for Obama all along" deserve to be called out.
I know they can all wait until the convention to make their decision, but they have just as much ability to save the party as Hillary does. If they aren't willing to make a decision until the convention then why the heck should she?
I think she is absolutely right to stay in. Why does she have to take the burden off the super delegates? They are party leaders, too. Right?
May 7, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would disappoint his supporters if he bails out Hillary's debt. (and let's be real here: Bill Clinton could write her an $11 million check tonight). Neither does he owe her a VP slot--an eventuality which would saddle him with all of the Clinton scandals on top of his own struggles.
Hillary never ONCE extended Obama any graciousness or benefit of the doubt -- she ran a nasty, ugly campaign, tried to raise doubts about his masculinity, and conducted herself with all the decency of a convicted felon. . All Obama owes her is a handshake and a kick in the ass on her way out the door. Any move by Obama to pay off her debt would look stupid -- Americans mock those who throw good money after bad...
May 7, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, so this is finally over. As a former Clinton supporter I was really hoping that Senator Clinton would show class and bow out of the contest with dignity....But no instead I get the 'ragin cagin', talking about how she is the favorite of the only important group of voters 'hard working, white people, without a degree...
Wow, that was unbelievable. Maybe she can just put on the pointy white hat and gown next time.
Unlike most people I do not believe it hurts Senator Obama to have Senator Clinton continue running. The longer she runs the less presidential she becomes. ? Dijmoe how does it feel to support someone who considers your 'demographic' unimportant, or are you saying that you fit the 'hard working, white person, without a degree' slice. So some of your ilk are going to vote McBush if Senator Clinton is not the nominee. Man from the candidate to the supporters, nothing but class.
May 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink