« Obama Rolls Out Second Super-Del Of The Day | Home | McAuliffe: Hillary Is Winning Popular Vote Without Michigan »
Hillary-Backer Vilsack: She Should Concede Defeat After Tuesday
In a blow to any hopes Hillary Clinton might have of continuing the fight for super-delegates after Tuesday, a top supporter is now saying she should admit defeat after the voting is all over.
"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee," said former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. "After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."
If Hillary tries to keep the contest going after the primaries, it seems likely that some of her backers could withdraw their support.
Advertisement
Hear, hear!
June 2, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
But since Iowa is a caucus state, any opinions from there don't count.
June 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must be too late for those Clinton supporters to demand that he return the money they donated to retire his campaign debt....
June 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the media decided to withdraw its support, then we will be getting somewhere.
She's going to have to be ignored to death - that's just as plain as the nose on your face.
June 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct, the issue will be the right-wing media. Do they want to follow the obama/mcbush horse race or do they want to keep reporting the lies, distortions and whining from the clintons. It's a toss-up.
June 2, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a funny idea. The media, which has been Hillary's biggest enemy throughout the primary is now the force that's supporting her?
Come on, she's in it in spite of the media. Has been for months,
June 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23 - It's not that the media has been her friend exactly but even the fact that they cover every thing she says and does and puts her surrogates on TV everyday has legitimized her staying in the race.
Even if they spend an hour talking about why she should get out they spend just as much time parroting her campaigns talking points about electability such.
June 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the media has enabled the campaign as much as it has been idiotic with its coverage--allowing this to seem like a horse race when it was essentially over in Feb, evaluating the impact of every subsequent Hillary victory when the fact was she was never going to overtake him in pledged delegates, and letting her supporters come on and lie through their teeth without questioning them. THis is not to say they haven't also been hurtful--but Hillary essentially became Mike Huckabee weeks and weeks ago but she's still been treated like she could really pull this out.
I would argue that Hillary's greatest opponent has been herself.
June 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
DUH!!!!!!
Why do they still include Shrillary in polling?? THOSE are what she's using as reason to stay in! I thought Rassmussen was stoping including her, but I keep seeing her name on their polls.
June 2, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to be blissfully ignorant to the fact that Hillary is performing better than Obama in general election polls, then please don't hold her accountable when Obama loses in November. The Democratic party and super delegates had a choice to make. They chose to ignore the fact that he is the weaker candidate in the general election head to head matchup. Good luck with that. And hello President McCain.
June 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is simply false -- the electoral college projections are in conflict and historically useless at this point in the game Moreover, HRC has done unforgivable harm to Obama's chances by repeatedly race baiting, arguing that Obama can't win, arguing that he is not ready, etc. long after it was clear to anyone who could add that Obama had won. So, she can hardly say "I told you so," when she is a contributing factor to his defeat. Finally, HRC is toxic. She could never win a general election. So, even if Obama loses, it doesn't mean HRC would have won.
June 2, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you're completely ignoring the facts. Which is your general wont, I might add. Hillary is running unopposed. Obama is practically stumping for her, and McCain is ignoring her completely. Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with the poll results?
Duh.
June 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't she also performing better that all of the other nominees in the primary polls a few months ago? You know, before she started losing left and right?
What makes you think that she wouldn't also find a way to screw up the general election, too?
If I were a betting Lectroid, I'd feel more comfortable putting my money on the the candidate who came from way behind to win, rather that the candidate who had all of the advantages and managed to lose.
But, as always, I could be wrong.
June 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes you could be right. But let's remember Barack was an unknown in January who began to pick up steam and major victories up until February. Then came reverend wright and actual media scruitiny versus the fawning and adolation coverage he was getting before. Since then, Hillary's support has been climbing and his... not so much. His support among Independents has declined which was his overriding I'm more electable argument. Not so much any more. I can win Hillary's supporters but she can't win mine! You sure about that - you might want to look at the exit polls which indicated Hillary supporters were less likely to go to Obama than Obama supporters to go to Hillary.
He's won 5 contests since 3/4 (if you count the TX caucuses); Hillary's won 9 and many of them were thrashings where he didn't even compete. Bodes real well for November. It's not just a matter of the general election polls showing she's doing better. He's the presumptive nominee and he's limping to the finish line! Yikes. there's plenty of indicators that back up the position that Obama's got issues in the general. To pretend the problems don't exist does not in themselves make them go away.
June 2, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, youre right that ignoring his issues don't make them any better, but what you're doing doesn't contribute either.
June 2, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see her going quietly into that good night. I just can't even mentally visualize it. I don't know what it's going to take, but I suspect she'll keep going without ever acknowledging that she lost.
June 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I envision something all the lines of, "You know what, I don't even want to be President anymore. I mean, I won the popular vote but whatever..."
June 2, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure the phrase "I'm gonna keep fighting for you" will slip in there somehow.
June 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doube the words, "I don't even want to be President anymore," will ever pass her lips. If they do feel free to translate them as, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." What kills me is that she won't disengage and climb on the present bandwagon, front and center. Then campaign hard and sincerely for Obama. Work with him getting enlightened legislation enacted for the next 8 years. Then pick the mantle back up again in '16. Does she fear she'll be too old? It can't be a question of relevance. Done this way her place in the public forum would be assured. As for that run, she will still be the first woman to make history as president. Her present course is far likelier to hobble her. Is this just ego and self-destructiveness plain and simple? Is there something I'm missing here?
June 2, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
Hillary's inner Flick. Always worth another boo, for a good chuckle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM
June 2, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really hope there's one speechwriter left that isn't completely rabid and delusional. There needs to be some very gracious lines in that speech. I hope someone with a level head is crafting them as we speak...
June 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uncommitted Super Baucus gives a "sign" about who he will be voting for
Greg/Eric, can we get an official yea/nay?
June 2, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
A more interesting point about your link- it is from UK's telegraph, just to underscore the fact many outside the US are paying attention to this primary- as close as registering the sign on the window of a Montana senator.
Remarkable.
June 2, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Jamaican born Canadian living in the US for the last 5yrs. I'll tell you as a fact:
1) Canadians are very engaged in this election cycle, especially after what the last 8 years have meant.
2) Jamaicans are engaged in this election cycle, especially after what the last 8 years have meant.
Relatives and friends in both countries are tuned in with great anticipation...those I've talked to are praying for an Obama victory in November.
Internationally, the stakes are high.
June 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, Puerto Ricans were apparently completely unengaged by the whole thing.
June 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
PR is the WV of the Carribean...!
June 2, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I knew this election is being watched from every quarter of the world. In fact, my cousins in Australia are very well aware of all the endorsements, the rules, the delegate math, and also know backend charecters like Penn and Axedlrod. In fact, this primary has become a U.S. geographical, politcal, Civic and Cultural lesson for the rest of the vote. Thanks to this primary many outside the U.S. know which would be better tourist destination: W.V. or Oregon?
But still it's just amazing that the "sign" on the window of a Montant Senator makes news in other parts of the world. That's just remarkable.
June 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remarkable Indeed. I hesitate to mention this because it's debatable... Obama is really drawing this attention. His candidacy is historic if not for what it means to elect someone as the president of a country that once considered him 3/5 of a human being but for the fresh outlook on leadership that he provides.
HRC's candidacy is also historic. She deserves credit (good or bad) for generating a lot of this interest, but my hunch is that Obama is the main attraction here. And the stakes couldn't be higher.
100 years. My young children could be part of the contingent that fulfills the fantasies of McCain/Bush/Lieberman.
June 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right Qtip.
Electing MRS Clinton is nowhere near as historic as electing Obama would be for America.
The Civil War was the longest war fought and the highest casulties of all America's wars.
So, Obama's candidacy is monumentally historic relative to Mrs. Bill.
June 2, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - while African americans were 3/5ths of a vote, women were 0%. Women did not gain the right to vote until 1920. My grandmother would have been 10 years old at the time. Secondly your reference to Hillary is insulting as Mrs. Bill presumes that she is nothing more than Bill Clinton's wife while she has given much of her life to public service. Finally the Civil War may have been the deadliest American war but it was certainly not the longest. Iraq II's already got it beat among many others. Just thought you might want to brush up on that history before making more ignorant comments.
As an African Aamerican woman I am deeply appreciative of the fact that both an african american and a woman were so close to the nomination. That said only real racists ever spew the N word at Obama publicly versus people hurling the B word at Hillary among other gender based insults with rarely a rebuke at all. Actual so called democrats doing this crap! I am proud that we can racism is unacceptable. Now how's about some rightful indignation where it is well deserved on sexism and misogny not just from the campaign and the media, but from within the general public. Thanks.
June 2, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree we shouldn't diminish the significance of Hillary's campaign. And, Democrats should be extremely proud that the the leading candidates for the nomination included a man of color and a woman.
dijamo and I disagree an a lot right now, but her point about sensitivity towards women is true. Clinton's campaign has given me, as a man, an invaluable opportunity to deeply discuss feminist issues with women (and men) and I have come away enlightened: I used to be sympathetic to the cause, but can now say I and a feminist. I certainly have the Clinton campaign to thank - at least in part - for that education. And one of the things that I learned is that while our culture has become quite sensitive to racial slurs and racist attitudes, we have not come as far in the area of sexism and misogyny.
While terms like "Shrillary", "MRS Clinton", may not be intended as a sexist comment, they certainly lend themselves to that interpretation easily. In the same way Coumo was nailed earlier this year for his "Shuck and Jive" comments, diminutive feminine references toward Hillary deserve equal criticism - if not for the actual intent of sexist behavior, at least for their insensitivity to the issue.
June 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slaves were counted as 3/5 in the census, and of course could cast no votes at all. It is sad that non-blacks are so often confused about the basic history of blacks in America.
June 2, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Granted blacks did not actually get to vote with their 3/5ths compromise, but african american men did get the right to vote 50 years before any woman did.
June 2, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an American living abroad in Vietnam. And I can tell you, we've been watching every blow by blow of this election.
Everyone I know to a man... And women...
Are all Voting and giving money to Barack. Ever Democrat I know, ever independent I know, and every republican. For what thats worth.
June 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great Avatar!
June 2, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little more kindling for the fire from Ambinder:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clinton_clues.php
June 2, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Sorry, that's all I can muster at the thought of Hillary dropping out.
June 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she bows out now, as both Ambinder and Ben Smith suggest that she might, it's not too late for her to salvage something of her reputation. Many people, including me, are pretty pissed at her for taking things this far. But if she concedes now and puts her support firmly behind Obama, I'll forgive her, and even give her props for being a tenacious fighter.
June 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That assumes she's getting good, sound advice from her inner circle. I'm not convinced that that's the case at this moment. We'll see....
June 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. It will take a heck of a lot before she gets my vote ever again. In otherwords, she has the resposibility to repair the damage she'd done especially since the TX/OH contests.
She has to do a lot to redeem herself. I ain't ready to forget, if she suggest walks on stage, endorses and then walks off.
June 2, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
even if during her concession speech she announces she's cured cancer, i'm contributing to the Democratic challenger to her NY Senate seat. it's turn to turn the page on people like her. we as a country can't afford it anymore.
June 2, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you.
American politics needs to rid itself of both Clintons and Bushs.
June 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sign me up as well. Who's a prosepective challenger? We should start setting up an organization now. Anybody but clinton in 2012 in New York.
June 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
She will support Obama, and it will be powerful support. Her challenge is to get the rampant anti-Obama monster she created back in the cage.
June 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is true, and it's also true that it may not be possible to put the monster back in the cage at this point. Having said that, I for one would rather have the Clintons backing the Democratic nominee, than playing the Lieberman game of nursing real or imagined insults and playing the "Well, I just might switch to the other party, if you're not nice to me" game for the foreseeable future.
June 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has generated a much more massive Anti-Clinton and Hillary monster. So much so that why should the Clintons campaign for him. She's already ruined her standing in the Democratic party. She's a republican right? Bill & Hill have enough money to live their lives out in peace and say screw the party that screwed them.
Should Hillary actually campaign for the candidate whose campaign and supporters have repeatedly called her divisive and polarising, untruthful, do anything to get elected, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING IN THEIR TAX RETURNS, Bill's a racist, Hillary's a racist, Hillary wants Obama assassinated, Bill should be chained to the porch and told to STFU and this is just the stuff directly from the campaign not to mention the vile and despicable things so called democrats have called the Clintons on blogs and elsewhere.
I'm sure if Obama was subject to this type of character assassination, he would gladly be travelling the country to campaign for Hillary and all his supporters would immediately jump to attention and support Hillary as the nominee.
If the Clintons actually do campaign for Obama, they should be afforded much more respect than they have been given especially from the Clintons are the most eveil folks ever which there are a large # of folks on TPM. Neither Barack Obama nor the democratic party deserve their support, but the Clintons are the better people if they are able to hold their noses and campaign on his behalf.
June 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So she's a democrat again? Great news! But you still don't want Bill - who needs the last Democratic president anway. Al Gore showed you can do just fine putting Bill in the basement and not using him in the campaign - making the election just close enough for the GOP to steal rather than campaigning on the Clinton record of economic prosperity and the significant accomplishments of the 1990s. Real smart strategy you got there. Good luck with that!
Whatever - Bill will have more time to focus on the good works of the Clinton Charitable foundation. It will have more lasting effects than campaigning for months fruitlessly on behalf of a candidate and party that will lose the presidential general election. Plus they've had such little respect for his legacy, accomplishments and have done more to assasinate his character than the republicans ever have.
June 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously believe that Clinton is the victim here? There's been plenty of crap coming from both sides, and this happens in politics...get over it. Clinton lost. If you are in fact a democrat, stop the whining and back Obama unless you would prefer at least four more years of Bush policies.
June 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
More good news. One can always hope. My money is on the clintons still taking it to denver. The issue will be whether the clintons get ignored or not by the media from now until the convention.
June 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be still my heart!! She is probably just pulling a faked you out thing so she can laugh (I'm being nice and not using that other word to describe the noise she makes when she is being joyful) and her supporters can get another adrelin rush for thier rage. Can't imagine what meds Ickes and Davis will have to be put on.
June 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are my flipping replies put in the wrong place? This was for the link to Ambinder DANG IT!
June 2, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS...
June 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT NEWS!
June 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOR THE REST OF US!!!!!!
June 2, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
well played!
June 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I thought for sure the answer was "FOR MyDD!"
June 2, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Judas.
June 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will somebody please put a fork in this notion of her being on the ticket as Vice-President? I was a huge supporter of Bill Clintons and after Hillary's campaign, I just want to see both of them go away!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will somebody stick a fork in the notion of Hillary being on the ticket as Vice President?
I was a huge backer of Bill Clintons, but after Hillary's campaign, I just want to see them go away.
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was a Hillary backer until about Feb. 6th and I will gladly stick that fork in..... A big "no, don't do it" from me....
June 2, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a blow to any hopes Hillary Clinton might have of continuing the fight for super-delegates after Tuesday, a top supporter is now saying she should admit defeat after the voting is all over.
----------
Isn't this a bit strong? Hillary simply ignores anyone who tells her what she doesn't want to hear. This guy will simply be tossed on the trash heap of perceived deserters. Now, if SD supporters actually jumped ship and endorsed Obama, that might qualify as a "blow to any hopes..."
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm going to the speech on Tuesday and I have to admit it would be sweet if she would also drop out that evening..... but either way, VICTORY for Obama! I am fired up and ready to go!
Live and in person on the night of his victory speech (and a big old implied "bite me" to the Republi-can'ts).... I am pumped.
June 2, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell me where it will be and how one gets in?
Thanks.
June 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rally with Barack and Michelle Obama
Xcel Energy Center
175 W. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Tuesday, June 3rd
Doors Open: 7:00 p.m.
RSVP at Obama's website. I'd show early. The last rally had a 1 mile plus long line hours before hand.
June 2, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to be taking copious notes when she gives her speech dropping out and giving her support to Obama. It will be the greatest theater since Bernhardt.
June 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You planning on writing a play? I would consider Hillary for the lead: She can play a good ole southern gal, a tough "New Yawker" and a whiskey drinking coal miner. Plus, she can whip up tears in a second, and does a fantastic enraged "shame on you" bit.
June 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand she can do a great Audie Murphy, Saving Private Ryan too.
June 2, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Someday we might look back on this and decide that conceding Senator Obama was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess."
June 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton concede? Bwa ha ha ha ha. I can't imagine it.
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, duh! She should've conceded defeat a long time ago, but what she should do and what she will do have no relationship to one another. We'll see.
June 2, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a long distance dedication to all the hard working folks who got Hillary Clinton this far.
June 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shirley Bassey! Cool!
June 2, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that Tom Vilsack is Clinton's national campaign co-chair. So this is not just any pol asking her to step aside, but one of her top insiders.
I hardly think that as an old friend Vilsack would say this without first giving Clinton a heads-up. So she is getting the message from inside as well as outside.
You may think that Vilsack is being a traitor, but in fact he may be helping Clinton edit gracefully and minimizing further damage.
Disclosure: The Clintons promised Vilsack to help him pay off his $400,000 campaign debt. Not sure whether that is a done deal.
June 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vilsack speaking out is verrry interesting. Hillary was suppose to pay his campaign debts as a way of getting his endorsement. So, does he no longer have hope of her paying off those debts which is why he now feels he can move out front?
Or is he just a decent guy?
I have a feeling that there are a lot of Scott McClellan Clinton supporters, they are going to stay behind her and talk smack for her until the bitterend even though they know she is a loser. And just like McClellan when she finally immolates they are going to tell the TRUTH then to sell their books.
Even single one of these folks will get rich writing a book on this. Penn, McAuliffe and Wolfson along with Patti Solis will make a fortune.
BTW...didn't Patti defect from Clinton after being fired?
Why doesn't anyone have her out front countering this Clinton propaganda on the network news?
June 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If enough super Ds don't come out before tomorrow night so that Montana puts Obama over the top, I'm getting on the first plane to DC to kick some super ass.
June 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn skippy.
This is a disgrace.
The Clintons have help smearing the nominee.
All those folks sitting on the fence are empowering them and emboldening their supporters.
June 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
this just in from nbc's "first read:"
It's official: The Clinton campaign has announced that Hillary will hold her Election Night celebration tomorrow night in New York City, at the Baruch College Athletic & Recreation Center.
yeah, she's wrapping this up. finally. goodnight, mrs. clinton!
June 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Election Night celebration? Sounds more like she's kicking off her G.E. run as well.... need more info.....
June 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is not wrapping up ANYthing...this is going to be her kickoff to announce they are taking it to the FLOOR...all the way to DENVER...
anyone who thinks otherwise, has not been paying attention. Ferraro is not making the newsrounds again for nothing. Blitzer is still talking that popular vote crap right along with matthews, questioning how the Democrats could take delegates from Hillary and how undemocratic that is.
Folks Hillary is announcing how she is going to fight for Democracy and for all those voters!
You heard it here first.
June 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Baruch College is getting their money up-front!
June 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is in such a GREAT position! Clinton's financial backers are giving her days to back out, and since she has muffed previous opportunities to bow out gracefully and simultaneously leverage her political advantage for some place (VP, cabinet) in an Obama administration, it appears that she is just OUT. Man, there were probably more politically delicate points in the race to have made an exit, to say the least.
June 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
um, yeah.... say Feb. 6th or so.....
June 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so sure. As a former Hillary supporter I will say that Obama's treatment of Hillary does matter to me.
No matter how you slice it, this was a close election. Hillary has enough support that it's entirely fair for her to go all the way to the convention, if only to represent the people that voted for her.
I like Obama. But he's in no position to punish Hillary or to push her out entirely. He needs her supporters.
He should pledge to put her on the Supreme Court. It'll be worth it just to see the look on Newt Gingrich's face.
June 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the new Vanity Fair article on Bill's wheelings and dealings? No way the spouse of such a man could be on the Supreme Court.
June 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see it the most controversial part about the VF article is neither the billionaire-buddy or sex hi-jinx aspects, but speculation about Bill's mental health being impaired due to multiple bypass surgery. That more than anything else in that article probably got to him.
The medical opinion on this issue is split wide open (no pun intended) and their is no clear consensus. But for some doctors to totally dismiss the idea (as some do) is wrong. At the very least they need to keep an open mind on the subject. But as time goes on, the urban myth is that, yes, in some cases, bypass patients suffer mental damage as a result of the surgery, which involves keeping the patient alive for an hour or more with a heart-lung machine, bypassing the heart. The theory is that this can cause damage to arteries feeding the brain.
Dick Cheney had multiple bypass, and years later, one of his closest friends, Brent Scowcroft said he did not recognize Cheney any more, and he was not referring to his personality, not his face.
June 2, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offence, Destor, but what exactly qualifies Senator Clinton to be on the Supreme Court?
She's obviously a very intelligent and capable person, but she has no juridical experience whatsoever. I don't think it serves the country well to make SC positions political plums.
I'd have no problems with a Cabinet position instead.
June 2, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Hillary, I voted for her on Feb. 5th. She should've dropped out on Feb. 6th. I saw it was over for her and I then threw my support behind Obama. Just MHO, but if I could see it coming..... she could've saved a lot of face if should would've. Again, just MHO.
June 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor says:
No matter how you slice it, this was a close election
---------------------
This is completely FALSE!!! Only deluded Clinton supporters say this. The facts are this was NOT an election. The facts are she lost this following Obama's ELEVEN CONSECUTIVE wins after Super Tuesday. There is NO popular vote in the DEMOCRATIC party NOMINATING PROCESS. There are only delegates which is why some contests are primaries and others are caucuses..votes are not the tally. Votes are not the metric. DELEGATES are and HIllary has been behind in DELEGATES since IA!!
She NEVER LED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Close my ASS!! That is a complete and utter lie and I am sick and tired of Clintons supporters claiming otherwise.
It is WRONG.
She never led in DELEGATES EVER!!
The networks kept adding superdelegates to her totals to make it SEEM like it was a contest!
It wasn't ..by the only metric that matters in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY's nominating PROCESS..she was a loser the entire FRIGGIN race!!
June 2, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has treated her exceedingly well throughout this process, a treatment that has NOT been reciprocated. He will treat her graciously and respectfully as he always has done, and maybe, finally, we can move on.
June 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. She puts up with his sexist comments, has been handling him with kid gloves, and still gets called racist.
June 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has Obama said to, or about, Hillary that was sexist?
June 2, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
chirp...chirp...chirp...nobody here but us crickets...
June 3, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Newt would be nice ..... but Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas .. utterly PRICELESS!
June 2, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, she can give him a pardon when he finally goes down like his corrupt buddies.
June 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is always complimentary of her in every speech. Its ashame she and her minions do not reciprocate.
June 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary would be a fantastic Supreme Court justice. (I just kinda don't think she wants to be there. Hope she does though.)
Anyway, this whole theory about Bill's mental health is so sad. I hope he's OK. But I'm worried in light of all of his angry outbursts.
June 2, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I suspect she's kicking herself as it becomes clear that she can no longer get out without actually undeniably admitting defeat.
Maybe she was banking on Bill blowing a gasket for real somewhere along the trail; then she could've left the race under the pretense of needing to care for her family.
June 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me for being sexist, but you are indeed quite lovely, Nina, if that is your mug.
June 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought I would live to see the day that a Democratic candidate for anything would try and use the Dolchtosslegende ploy to win an electoral contest. Beyond irresponsible. Unforgivable comes to mind. Thank God the Clinton supporters are as turned off as I am. Big Lie politics ends now.
June 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the post, Eric. Kash 79 and others point to an international interest, not only in our nominee, but also the presidential election as a whole.
This is a turning point. While there's been a curiosity about American politics from people outside the U.S. all along, I don't recall seeing this much interest in a nominee.
In part, it's because of the 8 yr. wrath of the Bush administration. But Barack Obama has played an even larger role in generating world interest.
June 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
But . . . But . . . But . . . If Hillary Clinton backs out now how will she win the 2008 DEM nomination . . . in 2018?
June 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What really ticks me off is how no one is talking about how Obama conceded to the MI democratic party plan to split it 69/59 rather than push for the 50/50 plan because Clinton lost fewer delegates that way.
No one is talking about how gracious he was to have complied with the party rules and get dycked in the end, by the opponent who didn't support the party rules.
this whole mess is starting to stink and Donna Brazile made note of it on ABC with Stepinfetchinopolus yesterday.
She said no one from the Clinton camp made any attempt to talk with the uncommitted superdelegates or to reach out and talk with Obama supporters.
She saw the big rift and they were not accepting any olive branches.
Hillary and Bill are going down in history for tearing the Democratic party ASUNDER TWICE!!!
History will record how stupid Dems were not to recognize just how awful and low down and cravenly ambitious the Clintons were after the whole semen fiasco. Democrats were so dumb as to let these scandal ridden people maintain the mantle of power and defacto leaders in the party only to have the Clintons once again, pursue their own selfish ends without any concern for the party, democracy or the nation.
All the while SAYING that they WERE fighting for democracy and the will of the voters.
Unfrigginbelievable.
June 2, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like in the very least, her campaign is going inactive. Hopefully, we can expect some quiet oh her front for awhile and Obama can tear into McCain in peace.....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Clinton_camp_converging_on_New_York_Tuesday_and_shedding_staff.html
June 2, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time for the Hillary supporters to boo Vilsack too like they did Huffman, (another Hillary surrogate) at the RBC. Classy people.
June 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
EDIT: i failed to add the term, "unreasonable" to Hillary supporters. I know there are Hillary supporters (like Vilsack) that are rational and understanding of how the process is playing out.
June 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
This makes me happy....
happy happy joy joy happy hap.. etc.
Well, seriously she fought tough she made improvements to her campaign. Either way you look at it, this year's election is a huge point in history.
But again... her concession means my happy dance.
June 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Stewart has ruined Vilsack for me. Now, whenever I see or hear his name, all I can think of is the AFLAC duck quacking, "Vilsack, Vilsack."
But good for him! The reality-based community asserts itself.
June 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, for some reason, i realy believe we're seeing light at the end of this tunnel ...
June 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me naive, but it is possible to think of people like Vilsack as being Hillary's true friends, as opposed to people who are egging her on (think Ickes and McAuliffe) to the point where she will do permanent damage to her career.
There are times when a friend has to talk someone down off the ledge, and no one should prejudge Vilsack without knowing what is really in his heart. As far Ickes and McAuliffe, I have no interest in looking into their hearts.
June 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
um, really, i do.
June 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was that a nine iron you just swung at me, Tiger, or are you just glad to see me? LOL ;)
June 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope she stays in and exercises all her options. If Barack is going to win, let him earn it on the convention floor. After the corrupt stuff last Saturday, I'm completely disillusioned both with Barack and the Dem party bosses.
June 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, it would have been fine with you if the threw the game to Hillary just because she demanded it.
Look, the two states flaunted party rules by moving their primary dates up, and some kind of penalty was necessary. It's in the bylaws. Clinton wanted to change the rules in mid game in her favor. To the thinking of all-fair minded people THAT was corrupt.
June 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
God, I'm so embarrassed. And on my favorite pol blog to. (shuts down to whimper.)
June 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
and just like ralphie, Clinton is going to continue on in her own world, until people closest to her bring it to a close. I love reading all the optimistic posts about Clinton dropping out, however she hasn't yet - so my question is why would she do it now instead of clawing her way to the convention?
June 2, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tipping point. Drop out now, salvage career. Stay in to bitter end, ruin career. Tipping point.
June 2, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you going to put that in the next edition of your book about war, suntzu?
June 2, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On the other hand, it would have been fine with you if the threw the game to Hillary just because she demanded it."
I don't want them to throw the game to Hillary, but I also don't want them to throw it to Barack by awarding delegates to him that he didn't earn and halving the delegates she *did* earn. Mainly, I want fairness for the voters of MI and FL. If there has to be a penalty, it should be one that doesn't involve changing the votes.
"Look, the two states flaunted party rules by moving their primary dates up, and some kind of penalty was necessary. It's in the bylaws. Clinton wanted to change the rules in mid game in her favor. To the thinking of all-fair minded people THAT was corrupt."
Some rules aren't fair and deserve to be changed. Sure, H. is being opportunistic by calling for a change that benefits her, but that's not a reason to deny the change if it's also fair to the voters.
June 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, the solution Hillary wanted was 100% of the delegates in a non-primary that was voided by the DNC, and 100% of the popular vote in which hers was the only name on the ballot. (This was Ickes demand, I am not making it up.)
That is fair?
If you still think so, you should by all means complain to the DNC.
June 2, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Ickes demanded 100% of the Clinton votes, but none for "Uncommitted."
June 2, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about the four Michigan delegates?
Let me go into this one last time: I'm a Michigander who voted for Uncommitted. Clinton was the only major candidate who left her name on the ballot. The rest -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden -- weren't on the ballot. Those of us who voted Uncommitted did so because we wanted one of them, and did not want Clinton.
Since all of those not on the ballot have thrown their support behind Obama, then it's entirely reasonable for Obama to get those delegates.
In fact, Obama deserved more. The situation disenfranchised Michigan voters who did not want Clinton.
June 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. The plan she proposed wasn't fair to me.
I am one of those Michigan voters who wa-a-ay does not support her whom her plan totally disenfranchises. Go ahead and pretend I'm not here, just to get yourself back into the power chair.
And that delusional insanity (sorry about redundancy) of saying last night "I now have the popular vote" so I'm the nominee? Puh-lease!
What put her over the top in that little "electability" gambit? A couple hundred thousand votes THAT DON'T GET TO VOTE IN THE FALL.
Just like the 73% of the MI uncommitteds that DID claim supporting Obama or the 33,000 write-in votes there that were just ignored and untold numbers who believed all the candidates when Clinton echoed their mutual agreement about MI and FL when interviewed in NH: "The votes won't count," and stayed home because the ever rising cost of gas was worth more than what all promised was a completely wasted effort.
She's frakking lucky the Obama supporters at the RBC didn't take their 1 vote win for the 50/50 split, though it is entirely obvious the gesture of allowing the 59/69 split to go forward was completely wasted on those who do not give one f**k about the party or winning in the fall.
Sincerely, white 55 male hard working Obama supporter in Michigan.
June 2, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
today we sing for Hillary:
hope she gets the hint
June 2, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reality, neither Barack nor Hillary Clinton earned any delegates in the state of Michigan. When we went into the RBC Committee meeting on Saturday, Hillary Clinton had zero delegates from the states. She walked out of it with a 5 delegate advantage. As I have said before, this is not really fair.
http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2008/06/rules-bylaws-committee.html
And this despite the fact that Barack Obama's supporters would have had enough support on the committee to prevent her from gaining any advantage at all - the Obama campaign surrended the option of a 50-50 delegate split that had been offered to them during the meeting.
They did this because they wanted to show in good faith that they were not trying to take anything away from Hillary's supporters. Exit polling suggests that 20% of the people who voted for Hillary named another person as their first choice. I think he would have won Michigan in a fair fight. But I'm willing (and the Obama campaign is willing) to give up some of what I feel entitled to in order to make Hillary and her camp feel that they have had every possible chance to win.
Because they have.
June 2, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, Obama has secured more of the pledged delegates, those derived under the rules from votes made by people at primaries and caucuses. To suggest the party leadership is giving him the nomination is false. He won it by abiding by the rules. The superdelegates that have gone his way did not start to do so until after he started winning contests not before (as was the case with Clinton).
The notion that she would do better in the general against McCain is questionable. Obama did not raise any of the issues (Lewinsky, Kazakhstan, Burkle, etc.) that could hurt Clinton. The GOP would not be so kind.
Hillary would have a better chance to win in PA and OH but not many of the western states. My own opinion is that Obama will win this big as the issues are on the Dem side. I could be wrong but that is my opinion. HRC's negatives are too high so her coattails are limited.
June 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Clinton does almost 50 delegates better than Obama against McCain 327 - 194 with much less shaky states than Obama.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun01.html
Sure they can bring up Monica Lewinsky - not like it hasn't been done before and where did it get the GOP? Nowhere. The voters know Senator Clinton and those who dislike her are not going to vote for her and she STILL is walloping McCain in the genral election polls. Obama is a much tighter race and he's right about where John Kerry was. If you wanted to avoid another close squeaker, seems to me you picked the wrong candidate.
And might I add that the republicans have not yet begun the dirty campaigning against Obama yet. They wait until the summer fr that. His favorable ratings and standings in the polls will continue to drop. If they ca't find anything, they'll make it up like the swiftboating of Kerry and Obama's given them plenty of ammunition in his own right. YIKES November is going to be ugly. If I were Obama supporters I'd spend less times talking about how evil Hillary is and how we need to vote her out of the Senate and banish her from the party. For it to be even close, we need a unfiied party like John Kerry had and even then things do not bode well.
June 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is why we encourage her and her followers to get past those first couple of stages of grief over losing (denial and anger) and get to unifying. Victory through intimidation is not the style of governance we want and far from what we need. We've had that for eight years already. Blackmailing the electorate is not the approach to unity EVER, and that is her current stance, since the reality of the system is not on her side.
June 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think you get it. I am a diehard Clinton supporter and even I am coming to terms without her being the nominee. But that whole Riles Committe and what they did in Michigan was patently unfair for no reason. It goes against all common sense to piss off Hillary supporters for something that is not going to have an impact on the outcome anyway. You expect Hillary supporters to be the bigger democrats and take one for the team even though our candidate has been continually screwed by the party, told to exit the race and vilified by the Obama campaign.
You want to blame Hillary for the lack of unity - but it was the Obama campaign inciting Clinton hate. Hillary wasn't attacking Obama on a personal level like he did. The Obama campaign and even moreso his supporters have played a large role in this mess. It's Obama's party now and his campaign has the responsibility to fix it. Don't expect her to clean up his messes.
June 2, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree--it WAS unfair. Those Michigan delegates should not have been seated at all. But in the interest of compromise and party unity, the RBC heard a challenge to their decision and they amended the rules. They are to be commended.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/incoming.html
June 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton constantly demeans Obama while Obama praises her. Yes, the Obama supporters are angry with clinton supporters because of their delusional representations of reality and the manner in which they conduct themselves as they did on Saturday at the RBC meeting. But Obama has treated her much better than she has treated him. She uses the same divisive tactics as Bush.
The true measure of Clinton's supporters will be whether they truly care about their pro-choice position, getting out of Iraq, health care, fairer tax policy, fighting global warming or whether they will persist in their cult of personality.
June 2, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was not screwed by the party. She just lost. I'm really not saying that to rub it in or anything, but she agrees with the rules when she thinks that she will have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday and protests them when they become inconvenient for her. She lost fair and square by the rules. It was a close and fierce contest, but no one was robbed or handed a victory by a Supreme Court - there are no excuses.
June 2, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But seriously, who cares? Hillary won't be the nominee, so why could those early poll results possibly matter?
June 2, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doesn't matter now. It will matter when you folks start griping about oh Hillary caused Obama to lose. Bullshit. He is in a worse position for the general election than she is and we decided to take a chance and role the dice. If it comes up snake eyes, it's the democratic party to blame not Hillary.
June 2, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll be partly your fault if you dont step up and contribute to Obama's election as a liberal and a democrat. Do you hate him so much that you would rather McCain get elected? Don't not support him just so you can say "i told you so" in November. Even though you might get the last word in that case, we will all suffer for it.
June 2, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you and the other anti-Obama Clinton supporters (and Clinton) all pull together and work for Obama's election, and he loses, then I may concede your point.
If you go vote for McCain, then look in the mirror if you want to blame someone. If this is really about electability, then you need to do all that you can to help Obama in order to avoid taking the blame.
June 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume that as a good Democrat, you'll work your tail off to make sure that doesn't happen.
June 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it, some senator will have to pick up Teddy's mantle (maybe before November, sad to say), and that senator could very well be Ms. Clinton. Whether she campaigns strongly and sincerely for Senate candidates will be more important than how she campaigns for Obama. The Senate is as critical as the White House, and Hillary can do a lot for candidacies in "swing" states, as well as places like Maine (Susan Collins vs. Tom Allen).
June 2, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the only metric Hillary uses for SDs to think about is "electability"? What about who they think would make the best president? Seems like that should fit in somewhere. After all, for me this time, win or lose, I'm going to be proud of my choice, of my vote. That's honestly worth more to me than winning (though I think Obama has a great chance to win in Nov.)
June 2, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now Shrillary is claiming she's won more states!!! When will it end????
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/2/112856/3235/569/527264
June 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why in the world should Hillary - or her supporters - want to do anything to help such a ruthless and dictatorial candidate? I'm sick and tired of the Obamatons always putting the onus on Hillary. Meanwhile, Obama continues to do everything that he can to steal her delegates while slandering and misconstruing everything that she says or does. To hell with him. She doesn't need to prove anything and neither do we. The American people will prove that we are right about him when he loses the election to McCain.
June 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't stop thinkin' about day after tomorrow.
June 2, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo - If you're not a Republican troll, then stop with their talking points. Look at the company you keep: you make the same exact arguments (but more 'long-winded') as gotalife - someone WE KNOW is a Republican.
This is, in part, a response to something you wrote to me yesterday.
Nobody is asking you to bow down. We're asking Democrats, progressives - which you don't appear to be - to start to focus on the real game in November. Hillary lost. So did Biden, Kucinich, Edwards, and all the others. We don't hear them whining and complaining. No amount of protestation and whining is going to change the outcome - that's a political REALITY. Game over.
Are you a Democrat? Are you worried about an extension of the Bush policies via McCain? Really? Then it's time to move on. It's time to rally around the candidate that's going to win the nomination: Obama. Your talk serves no purpose other than to undermine Obama's campaign. If your so worried about Obama not winning in November, then send him some money and get to work convincing people to vote for him.
If you don't want to see more radical conservatives on the supreme court - the effects of which will last 20-30 years - if you want to end the war in Iraq and avoid a war with Iran, if you want any kind of healthcare reform AT ALL, if you want a more open government, if you want action taken on global warming, then it's time to move on. These issues are far more important than Hillary Clinton and her aspirations, more important that your dislikes of Obama, more important than having our first female president and, frankly, even more important than anyone's opinion - right or wrong - about what has come to pass in MI and FL. (The primaries were flawed, and nobody will ever put that Humpty-Dumpty back together again. And, at most, you're arguing about 4 delegates - not enough to make a difference in the nomination.) There are far more important issues at stake, and it is time for Democrats to get their shit together and win in November.
Or, are you committed to a Democrat winning in November? Are you committed to the kinds of policies Clinton stands for? Really??? If so, then it's time to rally around the Quarterback we've got, instead of pining on the sidelines for the QB that wasn't your preference.
June 2, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a democrat but I am a realistic democrat who can look at the available info and say we are screwed. I don't see how pulling a Rove and pretending there's some new math that will erase or minimize the serious problems Obama has going into the general election actually HELPS resolve those problems.
The problem is that I KNOW what's at stake which is why it is so frustrating that in my opinion we are nominating a kamikaze candidate that I don't believe has a shot at the general election. If I was a Republican I'd be revelling in the joy of Obama as a nominee. I know John McCain and the GOP smear machine are. As a democrat who cares about the issues you talk about, I am saddened and angered by where I see the party heading - not because it is heading in the direction Of Barack Obama but because in my opinon we are heading for a brutal loss in the fall. If that defines me as a GOP troll to you, then so be it. I am a democrat and will rally against McCain. I'm a Yankee fan with little respect for Roger Clemens but I rooted for him when he was pitching for the Yankees. I didn't defend him where I thought he was wrong though or pretend he was a great guy just because he's on my team. Barack Obama should he be the nominee will be my democratic Roger Clemes. Don't have a lot of respect for him, but I'll be hoping he can win.
June 2, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really are hoping that Obama will be elected, then do something about it. Stand behind him and fight for him. Don't just whine about how he can't win while hoping that he does. How much sense does that make?
June 2, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will encourage Hillary supporters to vote for him. I will defend him where I think he's been attacked unfairly. I will not defend him against criticisms that I see as legitimate or fair - I'll just say he's still better than McCain.
That's much more than most of the rabid Hillary haters would have done had she been the nominee and that's the most I can do without going against my own principles.
That said speaking out and saying HELLO WE GOT A PROBLEM in my opinion offers a valued service to the Obama supporters and the democratic party who by their comments seem to be lulled into the belief this will be a cakewalk. That complaceency is much more likely to lead to our defeat in November than confronting the issues and problems Obama faces now. Guess what - if you want to win you have to act liek you're behind the eightball. Take a look and see where that false sense of inevitability landed the HRC campaign.
June 2, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even as an Obama supporter, If Hillary wins the nomination, there's no way I don't vote for her over McCain. Don't get me wrong, I would be pissed that my candidate didn't get it, but I couldn't vote for McCain or sit it out. This one is way too important for us let our sore feelings get in the way. Im really hoping that other Clinton supporters like you can set it aside and push for Obama.
June 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the responses. I take you at your word. I disagree with many of your assessments, but that's OK. Differing opinions add value to the conversation when the intent is constructive.
My short response to some of your concerns - as I'm limited on time today - is that I think you're only seeing part of the picture... a picture given to you by the Clinton campaign. And that's natural. I'm sure many of us Obama supporters are also only seeing what we want to see as per the Obama campaign. So, I'd assert that you haven't explored her negative issues very carefully, or you would have similar concerns about Hillary's electability in November. Again, I don't have time to list the issues, and frankly, I'm not inclined to do so since the point is moot: Hillary is done.
Given that, I would only point out that there are a number of Clinton supporters who have their concerns about Obama's electability, but instead of being detractors, they express a genuine concern and interest in Obama finding a way to win. For me, that's the difference between you and them. You're still doing a bit of bashing - like the Clemens comparison (which is pretty weak by the way). The time for bashing is over. Even your candidate isn't bashing Obama anymore. If anything, I suggest you follow her lead in that regard.
Recognizing the challenges and facing them head-on has been one of the reasons Obama's campaign was successful in beating a powerful, well-funded, well-connected, establishment candidate like Hillary. I agree there is a bit of overconfidence being expressed around the blogs - we're pretty excited about how things look right now. But 6 months is a long time in politics - the tide can change. The Obama campaign and the leadership of the Democratic party understand full well this dynamic and recognize the challenges ahead. That said, McCain and the Republicans are beatable - as beatable as they've been in decades. Obama is no more a flawed candidate than Clinton - and certainly less so than McCain.
What will make a huge difference though, is strong Clinton supporters such as yourself becoming strong Obama supporters. You have the option to either ensure a victory for the team by doing your part by fully supporting the party's candidate - which we all know will be Obama - or risk another loss to the dark side because you decided to sit on your hands, complain, or pine for the candidate that lost. All those issues I listed above are at stake. Your choice.
June 2, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is not done yet and my opinion is if she truly believes she can win and he cannot (liek I do), then she has a responsibility to her supporters and the party to make her case until Obama has won the nomination outright. No other candidate has ever been pressured to bow out before the opponenet had won the nomnination. Now's not the time to start. If he can't beat Hillary with the lead he has, then he sure as hell can't beat McCain. So quite the griping and just let the thing play out.
And if Hillary wins I am sure that you will that loyal solid democrat rallying around her onward to the nomination just as you would expect of me as a Hillary supporter.
June 2, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely I would back Hillary. (I wouldn't like it, but I would.)
Re: "griping". I'm not griping. From my perspective, the losers gripe, winners gloat. I ain't gloating either. You know what my point is, and it isn't about griping, its about winning in November.
Your beliefs that only Clinton can win, and Obama will lose, and that Clinton can actually somehow win at the convention, are surely just that: beliefs. Not fact. Again, all I would say is that you're not looking at it objectively. If you did, you'd conclude that both have their own distinctive faults and weaknesses, both have their strengths, and both could win or lose, depending on a myriad of factors - some of which we cannot possibly anticipate or predict. If you were looking at it objectively, you'd recognize that - barring some Obama campaign meltdown - for the party to hand this thing back to Clinton isn't a political possibility.
If you can't acknowledge that reality, so be it; you're entitled to your beliefs. I simply caution you that attacks on Obama at this stage may be counter-productive, given the very extremely high likelihood that Obama will be your party's official nominee by the end of the convention. Recognize that 'probability' and consider how your actions further your long term interests in the event Clinton isn't the nominee.
(An another note, I did back you up on something you said, upthread. At least we agree on something!)
June 2, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
really? Roger Clemmens? that's a ludicrous comparison
June 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
Hillary's inner Flick. Always worth another boo, for a good chuckle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM
June 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weird. Meant as reply to hyperRevue above.
June 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo. STFU.
June 2, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
CIA EXPERT. GFY.
June 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
Just keep cocooning yourself around the need to pre-emptively chant that "I told you so" mantra. Whatever comforts your conscience.
June 2, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to make some snarky comment about you just keep cocooning yourself in your double posts, but it's so hard for me to be sarcastic with you because I heart camels.
June 2, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you with what you are on about. However, if we keep our eye on the ball here, it's time to stick a fork on the internal Party stuff and rally so as to tackle the neocon culture that still dominates much of Washington. Wishing you all the best.
June 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
Just keep cocooning yourself around the need to preemptively chant that "I told you so" mantra. Whatever comforts your conscience.
June 2, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think calling her "Shrillary" is appropriate or productive. For Obama fans, it is time to be gracious.
June 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree.
June 2, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Bigfoot said.
June 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
With that, the motion to drop the term (that shall no longer be mentioned) has been adopted.
June 2, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're all missing the bigger point here, which is that longtime Hillary-backer Tom Vilsack is, in fact, a vile misogynist Judas who wants to assure John McCain's election in November, which is what America deserves anyway, therefore who gives a flying fuck in a rolling donut what he thinks?
June 2, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Has everyone forgotten the $20 million bucks that Hillary is trying to get back which is coming now, more or less, from her supporters? She isn't stupid, she knows she can't win, but she can still keep passing the plate. Strong pragmatism. gotta love it.
June 2, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink