Should she stay or should she go?
 

Down in popular votes and delegates to Obama, Hilary has thus far vowed to fight on. The senior figures in the Democratic party are not amused, as McCain extends his lead over the both of them in opinion polls. The 2 democrats are fighting like cats and dogs over everything from race to religion to the economy. There's talk of dusting off and rolling out The Goracle to save the feuding democrats from handing over the white house to McCain.

Does Hilary have a chance to win the nomination?
Should she fight on?

Is this question motivated by the influence of the impression that Obama was weakened by the Jermiah Wright "controversy" and thus is a potentially weaker candidate in a run against McCain, than Clinton would be?

No matter, it seems like the wrong day for this question:
Let us wait until after the Pennsylvania prmary results are in, to discuss this question seriously.....

....there is no risk of strengthening McCain's support by prolonging the competition between Clinton and Obama. McCain offers more years of Bush's policies....there will be time enough to build oppostion to that easy target, a week or less before the election would be sufficient.....after this is settled, no matter how much longer it takes.

I've avoided most of the chatter, but mmm McCain is ahead in the polls?!? :oogle:

As for the OP, from Hilary's perspective, this is her only shot, and my guess is she is hoping for another Obama skeleton to arrive.

Yep, as of this week. Strange, but true I know. Have you noticed how eerily quiet McCain has been while these two go at it?

I think this will go down to the convention. Delegates may claim to have committed to Obama, but the Clintons are very good at "persuasion". They are acting like they intend to see this through.

The other day, McCain said this:
But, don't worry, when it comes to government helping the "little guy", he comes down squarely in the company of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush:

She's dividing the party.

If McCain wins, it will be Hillary's fault.

To give some perspective from the UK, our news media are saying that he's more likely to carry the party, but that Clinton could beat McCain more easilly than Obama.

With the delegates split close to evenly, I suppose that Hillary will stick it through and hope something comes up - it could still get to the Super Delegates using their casting votes to give it to her.

It's hard to conceive of anyone NOT beating McCain - in Europe, a hat-stand could beat anyone that seemed likely to continue Bush's policies, but as I realise over and over again Shaw was right - the US and the UK are two countries divided by a common language.

Obama stands a better chance. It's not about Hillary's centrism drawing in people from both sides but rather Obama being the anti-Bush.

As for beating McCain, if he's anything like Bush there will be rather massive cheating. I'd say Obama needs to win by over 5% in order to either make the cheating too obvious to work or for *them* to be too scared to even try.

What is the difference....Clinton or Obama? Obama wants to add 92,000 ground troops to the US military..... Bill will counsel Hillary to cut the size of the military and drastically reduce expenditures for the services of independent military contractors.....but Obama or Hillary would be a breath of fresh air for the country vs. 12 years of Bush/McCain.....

It's a simple matter of the least of three evils. Not only that, but I think Obama is more likely to choose Edwards as vip.

As an Obama supporter, I would like to see her drop out.

As a supporter of the democratic process, I have no problems with her staying in the race. What both "camps" need to do is tone down the personal attacks.

IMO, Clinton will drop out if one of two things happen by the end of May.... she loses 2 out of the next 3 (PA, NC, IN) ...or if a majority of the super delegates act come out for Obama after these primaries.

what polls?

Gallup and NBC have McCain leading both; Pew, Fox, CBS, CNN have both leadng McCain.

He's clearly talking about the Powerclown polls.

There is an interesting (but highly improbable) scenario floating around NY lately.

The new governor resigns sometime soon because of more skeletons in his closet (beyond the ones that have come out...infidelity, drug use, etc) involving actions in a public capacity.

The state calls a special election and Hillary and Rudy run.

At the same time, McCain beats Obama.

Hillary wins the NY gov election (and wins again in 2010) and builds her "executive" branch resume.

McCain does not run for a second term (he would be nearly 80).

Hillary in 2012 :)

oy. we can spin these scenarios from today to kingdom come.

But honestly, dc_dux, I don't see Paterson stepping down. Spitzer had to leave because he had no supporters at all and had pissed everyone off, so once scandal hit all the knives were out for him. Paterson is much less arrogant, really does talk to people and make them feel important and included, and has a deep reservoir of goodwill. No one really cared that he has some skeletons in his closet. If it turns out he used state funds for some of his hanky panky, he'll say "oops" and repay the money and move on, and everyone will let him move on, because they like him.

It's a real example of how interpersonal relationships are just sooooooooo important. At least at the state level. In DC, no one cares about anything about anything but power.

I dont have a source but I remember reading somewhere that some spiteful types would retract their vote entirely from the democratic party if Obama beat Hillary, only to vote for mccain in retaliation.

It's kind of fucked up for that kind of childish reasoning to be the reason you'd vote for mccain.

actually now that I think about it I think i read it on the elevator's ticker thing on the way up to the office.

Normally I'd say let the voters figure it out. But I honestly think they have already spoken. I don't see how she wins it. Mathematically it's over, the voters have spoken. She can't win here, she can only make him lose.

Go, for the love of all that is good in this world, go.

Side note: If the tables were turned and Obama couldn't catch her the press would be treating this completely differently.

Yeah, I saw that poll too. They say that now, in the heat of a highly partisan contest, but the general election is is MANY news cycles away, and I think even the most rabid Hillary supporter will fall in line when Obama wins the nomination and she endorses him and the whole party lines up behind him.

Oh, absolutely. If the tables had been turned and she'd won 11 contests headed into Texas and Ohio, Obama's staying in would have been hubris of Huckabeean proportions. It's his "newcomer" status that has her campaign remain even slightly viable.

I see on the 24 hr infotainment channels that Camp Hillary is yet again out of cash. My two thought on this are:

Is she really out of cash or is this a ploy to get donors to step up again? Last time she said she was out of cash she raised several million in a matter of days. I'll admit this thought may speak more to my distrust of her and Bill then reality.

If she is out of cash- Lady the writing is on the wall and you and Bill are the only two people in the room who've seemingly lost the ability to read. Get whatever deal you can. Support for a run at NY Governor, Head of Senate, better office space in the Senate. Get whatever political capital you can, while you can and get out of the way. You're hurting the party and people know it. They may not be saying it publicly right now but they are privately. You're ability to gain something politically will start disappearing rabidly if you continue to play games that harm the party.

There's a second dimension that is missing from this poll. I'd be interested to see these options added:

* I support Hillary, but I think she should go.
* I support Obama, but I think she should stay.

Perhaps also

* I support McCain, Nader, or someone else, and I think she should stay.
* I support McCain, Nader, or someone else, and I think she should go.

Otherwise, it is just the same poll as "Which democrat do I support".

I'm not sure why the No.2 for the Democratic nomination should drop out.

This is all just more political douchebaggery planting material in the press to drum up the drama.

Fuck that shit.

I see it completely the other way around.

I think it's douchebaggery that she doesn't concede that she has no chance at this point and only the press has kept her in it.

If she'd won 11 in a row the press wouldn't even have anyone covering Obama by now. He'd be an also ran and she'd be the defacto nominee just like McCain is now.

I'm sick of her and her husbands BS. All they're doing at this point is mucking up the gears. If we end up with four more year of Bush like policies via McCain I'll blame her.

Four more years of Bush BS? Fuck that shit.

I'm more than disenchanted with them both, too, but I hardly see her as being responsible if McCain wins. How does her running for the nomination affect Obama's chances in the national election? I think that is posturing by the Democratic party in the event we don't win. Any Clinton supporters that vote for McCain out of bitterness are going to vote against Obama regardless of whether Hillary continues.

And from what I've heard, the race is still on. I don't see Obama's victory as inevitable at this point. Plus, there are still primaries to be won or lost and the issues of Michigan's and eh, Florida's delegates have yet to be resolved. Both states in which Clinton won.

Like I said, I don't like Hillary (or Bill) Clinton. I think they are hypocrites. I feel betrayed by them both for pre- 2008 campaign reasons, but I don't use those feelings to adjudge whether she should continue her campaign or not. I don't think it will make any difference the long run.

I agree with you, mixedmedia, but my priority is bringing federal spending under control. I see only one slim hope of any of the three candidates doing that.

Whatever your differences are with Clinton, the facts are that Obama offers no hope....in his rhetoric or in his proposals, to cut the size of the rate of increase of the national debt.

In 1992, the national debt was rising by $350 billion per year, the economy was contracting....conditions extremely similar to the conditions now, except total debt then was $4.4 trillion, and now it's $9.4 trillion.

The husband of Hillary Clinton won the presidential election that year, and a few months later, proposed, pushed through the legislature, and signed a bill with tax increases that overwhelmingly burdened the wealthiest folks.

Not one republican in the house voted for that bill. Clinton's husband went on to be president for 8 years, reducing federal borrowing down to a low of just $18 billion in the budget year ended 9/30/00. He presided over dramatic reductions in non-defense federal employment, to the lowest actual numbers of personnel since 1960.

If the dollar exchange rate continues it's decline, if the massive federal borrowing, at a record $700 billion in this fiscal year, aggravated by borrowing $150 billion to attempt buy votes in an election year via the tax rebate stimulus package, can be publicized as a crisis issue.....

....wouldn't it make sense for the Clintons to point to Bill's '90s debt trend reversal accomplishment, as an appeal to super delegates to vote for Hillary in the interest of attempting to reverse the country's fiscal crisis?

It is a crisis...maybe nobody can reverse it in time....but there is no sign that Obama has the experience or commitment to do what Bill did, as quickly as he did it....or.....at all. Hillary is not stupid.....she was there, when her husband had to deal with similar economic conditions, as we are not dealing with, today.

What has Obama done, what does he offer? We're down to maybe our last chance to keep our currency from turning into toilet paper....maybe it is too late to even reverse the decline. Is it a responsible thing to take a chance on Obama? If Hillary moves closer in numbers after the next three primaries, I would be willing to help make an appeal like the one I've made in this post.

All of Obama's good intentions....domestic programs, tax cuts for the middle class, etc... along with his proposal to beef up US ground forces by 92,000 additional troops, sound great....on paper. He's never been in the position that Bill Clinton has been in....coming into a presidency with hopelessly high deficit trend, a no growth economy, hamstrung by a tax policy written by republicans, for the benefit of the rich, at the expense of federal revenue.

If you were a business owner in a dire financial situation, as we in the US are now, and were in 1992..... which team could you justify hiring, to your investors, partners, or board of directors? Would you hire the inexperienced team Obama, or the proven financial crisis managers.... demonstrated results achieved, in a prior assignment in a company just like yours...the Clintons?

If you stayed close....and you have to continue to campaign to find out if you can....and you were team Clinton, and you and other Obama supporters could put aside your support for Obama so you could be as openminded as possible about it, and the economy got worse in the meantime, as it most likely will..... can you consider that team Clinton will at least attempt a pitch like this one, to the super delegates and to the country? What do they have to lose, in trying?

I think this shows how divided the Dem Party really is.

I thought earlier in the process the GOP was divided but it is nothing compared to the Dem Party.

We have Dems wanting to throw people in jail because they jumped party to vote in the Dem Primary (which is their right), we have Dems calling other Dems Racist, Sexist, whatever. And we expect come November that these feelings and names will all be forgotten and the Dem candidate will win?

I seriously doubt it.

I think this whole thing demonstrates 2 HUGE issues in the party that aren't being addressed. 1 That this represents the extremists' voice and 2) this is more about the hatred of the Clintons within the party.

1) I think just as some in the GOP feel that McCain doesn't represent the traditional Conservative... I think Obama is farther left than some in the Dem Party wish to go.

2) This is the big one. In the 90's it was along party lines, but there were a lot of Dems that came out with a bad taste in the mouth for the Clintons.

I think this process is definitely splitting the party and it may not be able to repair itself by Nov.

Demanding Hilary get out, exacerbates this divide, keeps it alive and hurts the chance to heal the party. She has carried the states that are going to be needed to win, Ohio, Cali, NY, Mass, by HUGE margins.... she won Texas, YOU NEED those states in Nov. At the very least 3 of those to win in Nov. The only 1 that I could see as a Dem state even if Bozo were the nominee is Mass.

I don't think NY is the automatic, Ohio definitely is moderate and a Liberal Dem won't carry it.

Obama may carry Cali... but McCain being from neighboring AZ may make that difference.

Now let's look at the states Obama has won.... Illinois, Georgia and Virginia by HUGE margins, however he only won Missouri by barely 10,000 votes.

The only state there I see the Dems taking for sure is Illinois.

I don't see what dividing this party any further will do. Let Hilary run, take it to the Convention if need be.

I know far more Dems that will end up voting for McCain than Obama than I know Dems that would vote for McCain over Clinton. I'm one... I don't see me voting for Obama under any circumstance even though I really don''t want Bushlite McCain, he's a better option than Obama for me. Now if Obama can get Sherrod Brown/John Edwards to be his running mate I may change my mind. But I think he's going to go with Bill Richardson and try for the Hispanic vote. Smart move but I can't support that ticket.

For those Obama criers now that feel Clinton is trying to take him down, wait until he runs against McCain. Then it really will be hardball and if his supporters and he are having problems now..... Whereas, Clinton has been through everything and can handle it.

I just think the Dems are self destructing the party. I would feel the same way if it were the other way around. Part of the primary isn't just picking the candidate, but figuring out what platform the party can run on and win. That is the idea that has been lost.

I see McCain taking on Rudy as his running mate and if he does hat he definitely takes NY over Obama and probably a whole lot more.

But the Dems have to keep in mind and truly look at who took and who can take the big states in Nov. I don't think it's Obama.

Explain this to me. What does McCain offer that Obama doesn't, policy-wise?

About 500 billion in less taxes for starters :thumbsup:

And yes I made that up, I don't think anyone has even attempted to calculate the spending Obama wants to do.

I wasn't asking you. I know you hate taxes. I asked pan because he actually, generally speaking, sees the world through similar lenses to me. You don't.

Sorry did I offend the angry poster you have become?

Youth is fun, but remember you do grow up eventually and become a happy, productive old man who makes enough money to pay taxes, and most of us don't like being serfs to our government.

I am torn on who to cheer for, apparently Obama has less national appeal than Clinton, so I guess I'm an Obama supporter now.

See we DO share things in common!

Pointing fingers at Clinton for getting McCain elected or otherwise harming the party is nothing more than classic scapegoating. I think it is extremely interesting that supporters of Barak, the candidate running on a 'yes we can' message about how the system should be and not playing the corrupt games of that system, are arguing that Clinton should drop out in accordance with unspoken systemic political set-up. I hate to say it, but I agree with Ralph Nader on this one. Any candidate running only strengthens our democracy and that should be the goal of our party.

Now about this sentiment that things would be different if the two candidates were in opposite positions. I found myself nodding in agreement until I came to the shocking realization that people are actually claiming it would be different in that Barak would have been forced out! I'm sorry, but when I imagine these roles being changed I can't comprehend a more than a handful of talking heads on Fox calling for him to step down, especially with the numbers Clinton has. Let's not forget that the nomination process for the Democratic Party has traditionally gone on much longer than this and when the margins between the candidates were greater! Is the argument honestly then that because this campaign is so close we should end the process early?

In the end, the strongest argument for Clinton to drop out is that she can't win. First of all, that's patently untrue. Between super delegates, the pledged delegate push that Clinton is making, her expected major upcoming victories, and the possible eventual seating of some Michigan & Florida delegates she could easily win. Granted she would need more than just one of those things to do it, but it could happen. Second, and more importantly, I would even still consider the practicality of her withdraw based upon a serious unlikelihood of her pulling off the necessary delegate count if Barak could possibly muster the count himself absent her withdraw. Everyone is talking about the numeric impossibility of her victory, but conveniently forgetting the numeric impossibility of Barak winning because of the tightness of the race and the Michigan/Florida snafu. In the end, I feel that it is fundamentally undemocratic and unreasonable to expect someone in a close second to quit when her opponent cannot defeat her on his own through the established process.

NOTE: All I'm saying in stating that Barak can't win, is that neither candidate can hope to get the delegate count necessary to win because the race has turned out too close to overcome the result of the DNC's idiocy and lack of foresight. I can't honestly say who would be the winner if this primary had gone down as it was supposed to. Regardless, it didn't and now here we are. I just want to be clear so that no one is going to construe my words to imply a broader statement about Barak's electabililty.

The resolution of the Michigan/Florida mess may end up in court. The two sides, last I heard, couldn't come to an agreement. At this point I don't see how Clinton gets the delegates seated without court action. Prior to the race all candidates agreed to the terms regarding these two states, correct me if I'm wrong. I've seen Hillary comment on this and say "it's doesn't mater who wins, the delegates don't count." Now she needs them and wants to seat them, bullshit.

Obama's victory isn't inevitable at this point. Hillary can win it, but only by tearing down Obama and getting the SD's to mass exit to her camp. That's it. That's the only way I see her taking the Nom. Either that or she somehow gets somewhere near 65% of all votes in every state left, don't see that happening. I could be wrong but that's how I see it.

It's this type of fighting that leaves the GOP dancing in the streets. IMO, this type of BS has cost the Dems repeatedly over the last 10-15 years. If they don't change tact and get it together I think we can look forward to POTUS McCain.

For me the stakes are too high. I honestly don't think the country can continue down the road Bush has us on much longer without serious, serious damage. I think, after reading and listening to him, McCain may make me long for the days of Bush.

I see your point.
But:
1. I'm not at all comfortable with voting for Bill Clinton de facto through his wife. That's a discomfiting thought for multiple reasons.
2. Hillary Clinton's stance on economic issues are virtually indistinguishable from Barack Obama's. As is the case with Bill Clinton's campaign stances in 1992 and most other recent democratic nominees for president. Tax cuts for the middle class, tax hikes on the wealthy, invest in education, technology, etc., etc. With unique exceptions like the current housing crisis, which Barack and Hillary are (again) nearly aligned on.
3. There was little indication going into his presidency that Bill Clinton's policies would be as successful as they were and rational economists (not ideological naysayers) admit that Bill Clinton was not the only phenomena responsible for the economic recovery.
4. A president is only as good as his/her administration.
5. As for the war issue, I am not a supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But if that is an issue for you, then of course you know Clinton has not stated a deadline for troop removal while Obama has. I'm not sure how that is supposed to make a case for Clinton.

Listen, I am not totally romanced by either of these two, but when I read their stances on the many issues out there, Obama's simply match my own more closely. But truthfully, there's really not that much difference between them. That's why I'm pretty suspicious about this 'vicious battle' within the Democratic party. I think it's been perpetrated by the media - and, as is true so often with saturation, it is self-fulfilling. Therefore I don't trust anything that's being said out there. From the Rev. Wright 'scandal' to this recent Leahy bullshit..which is actually this:

Sounds like an off-hand comment that got picked up and runned with. Dontcha think? I fucking hate the news.

EDIT'd in the interests of civil discourse. I, too, don't advise shoving things up your ass.

Yeah! More borrow and spend policies. Maybe my grand kids- grand kids- grand kids will be able to pay it off.

Wait, what? You, a conservative, think liberals or democrats take issue with paying taxes? I want to pay MORE taxes, damn it (so long as they're well spent).

i am not particularly interested by either of the democrat candidates, but prefer obama to clinton.

in general, though, i think they're pretty close to interchangeable insofar as policy matters are concerned--so i don't see the contest between the two representing a particular ideological split within the democratic party, fantasies of the conservative press notwithstanding.

and i'm not terribly worried about the impact of a continued process--though i would prefer that the strategic objective of making sure that anything which enables the appalling prospect of another republican presidency be avoided take precedence over everything else.

i think that once the primary season is over, whenever that happens, and the press, lapdogs that they are, turn their collective attention to the actual election rather than focusing on the primaries as if there are a horse-race, which enables the generating of fake ups and downs and little fake crises in order to generate spectator interest in order to sell more advertising, the situation will turn quite grim for mccain.

polls at this point about potentials for a national election are meaningless.
i dont know why anyone pays attention to them.

and on an anecdotal level, i cannot imagine that there are many voters like pan, really, whose aversion to obama is such that they would throw their lot with an extension of the ongoing republican debacle. from where i've been and people i've talked to, i get the sense that folk are pissed and that they blame the republicans squarely almost all of it (and not the bush administration as some aberrant form of republican) and that the party is going to pay for the bush administration in the next election.

Really?! If you're not exaggerating then I've seriously underestimated your disdain for McCain (Hey, I should make t-shirts working that rhyme) or overestimated your disdain for Bush. I mean, I am far from excited about a McCain presidency, but out of all the Republican candidates he was the one that I recall thinking I would be most okay with. I'm with pan, at this point when I step back and objectively think about the presidency I am one of those 28% of Clinton supporters who will defect to McCain if Barak gets the nomination. Oddly, I have yet to actually meet one of the 19% of Barak supporters who would defect if Clinton got the nomination.

It might go to courts, but I doubt it. If it does it will be the state Democratic parties that take it there, not Clinton. Let's not forget that Barak has also argued for seating the delegates from these states, he just doesn't want them to be sat 'as is'. Which is fair to say, at least in the Michigan case. I don't know what they'll do, but I'm fairly certain that they are going to end up seating in some manner to allow for a numbers bump to lock the nomination for either candidate.

Don't you think it's odd to take this hard line 'knew the rules' stance for Michigan & Florida (or the candidates) and at the same time call for Clinton to hand the nomination to Barak when both candidates 'knew the rule' that they needed 2,024 delegates to win. Regardless of rather you see those things as the same, and granting that the states/candidates came into this assuming Florida & Michigan wouldn't count, this is the DNC's screw up. They took the initial hard line stance and stripped the states of their seats at the convention. Were they in their right to do so? Quite possibly, but maybe I'll wait for a court to rule on that one. However, it was nonetheless a bonehead move they made not anticipating this close of a race nor what would happen by ostracizing the voters affected in the long run. Ultimately, yeah, the DNC made a rule (and ruling) that is still on their books so valid, but at the point that the DNC were to change it then the old rule (and ruling) is moot and that would be equally valid. The only difference would be that doing the latter would go a long way to solving the nomination dilemma and mending some of the damage to the party that the initial decision has (and will continue) to cause.

I don't harbor any disdain for Mr. McCain just not a fan of his political standings.

I felt the same way, just in the opposite direction until I read up on McCain's policy ideas. His thoughts on the war and the economy are down right scary.

If Hillary pulls it out I'll support her 110%. Might have to hold my nose while doing so, but at least I won't have to hold my nose while sticking my head in the sand.



It might go to courts, but I doubt it. If it does it will be the state Democratic parties that take it there, not Clinton. Let's not forget that Barak has also argued for seating the delegates from these states, he just doesn't want them to be sat 'as is'. Which is fair to say, at least in the Michigan case. I don't know what they'll do, but I'm fairly certain that they are going to end up seating in some manner to allow for a numbers bump to lock the nomination for either candidate.


Really? You think the path to the nomination for either candidate depends on getting the delegates out of the states in question? If you give 85% of each states delegates to Hillary it doesn't get her there. She'd still need to win a high % of the states left. Obama need less but same thing basically, just lower numbers needed by him.

IMO, the road to the nomination at this point goes through the SD's. that's all part of the Dems setting up a completely stupid system to pick a nominee, again IMHO.

I predict NC will go to Obama by at least 15 percentage points. Let's say PA is at least reasonably tight (say a single-digit victory for Clinton), and NC and IN go fairly strongly Obama as is expected. Would you then think she should concede?

Her own people have been giving her a 5% or 10% chance of winning. 5% feels slim to me, but 10% feels about right, given the momentum and her apparently inability to make even the nastiest smear stick on Obama.

I agree with you, though--even if this thing stays acrimonious through the Convention, nobody ever went broke underestimating the attention-span of the American electorate. Some sort of MAJOR nasty shit would have to happen at the Convention to have any impact at all on the General, I think.

The Democratic party needs time to solidify behind Obama before he starts going head to head with McCain. If that base is still stubbornly divided, it will hurt his campaign. Denying that is denying the reality of every election in history.

BTW, I'm really looking forward to seeing Obama wipe the floor with McCain.

Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the Democrat party.

She CANNOT win a general election because she lacks charisma, honesty, decency and charm.

She must stand down immediately. She is the strongest alley of Bush, Cheney and the Republican's today.

now THAT is funny.
Kudos, MM!!

Grazie. heh.

There's a subtle difference between what I think and what you are saying; that being that I think the path to winning the primary (getting 2,024 delegates) is locked in seating the states in question in some manner. There are other options for getting the nomination such as changing the rules to lower that number or a Gore, Edwards, or other non-candidate, compromise. However, I think those options are even less appealing to most Americans than a super delegate lovefest. Either way, I do believe that it is the cleanest and most politically intelligent way for the party to proceed, they just need to do there best to not seem too stupid while doing it.

As for the super delegate thing, I honestly have no problem with the system as a whole. I think it is important for party insiders to be able to maintain some checks against rampant popular control. Party politics is very interesting because a party has a sort of culture of it's own that's tied in with ideology and while you want to test your candidates against popular opinion, and maybe even see how they hold up to a good public roasting, it ultimately isn't the general election and the party is a quasi-private organization with the right define its own course. I agree that a situation, such as this, where it might plausibly come down to a super delegate situation, is not something that I think is desirable for the party or the public. I suppose though that if the good reason for keeping them around is as a final check (or last resort) towards maintaining party control within the party then maybe this is exactly how it's supposed to work and it's just unfortunate that it had to come to this... again for which I blame the party for the delegate stripping debacle.

For some reason I'm thinking about chickens... and eggs... and the hatching there of...

Long time between now and Nov. If Obama gets the nod I think it's going to take at least two months to recover from the GOP slim machine that is going to hit him.

I agree with this. The media is trying to make the news instead of reporting the news.

She should have gotten out around Feb 6th, then she would have been a shoe-in for VP. Unless she asked for that deal and was rejected.

If she would have remained positive and focused on the issues that the nation will face in the next 4 years, she probably would have been the VP candidate.

Now, she has to hope that things go her way, and may have to go dirty to try and smear Obama, and then hope that she can somehow get enough delegates at the convention, without alienating enough of the middle-independents that would happily vote for McCain over someone so ruthless as demonize someone they voted for enough to make the come back.

Hillary should go. She has no realistic chance of overtaking Obama in elected delegates, she also has been running a negative campaign against Obama. The goal of all Democratic candidates, first and foremost, should be a Democrat in the White House, and her saying things favorable to McCain to attack Obama shows that she's willing to do anything to get elected, even destroy the Democratic Party.

If Mrs Clinton is not willing to run a positive campaign against the other Democrats, she should be retaliated against by the party. Why she cannot show the simple grace and dignity of Huckabee (someone I would never vote for in 10^6 years) is part of the problem. If she is unwilling to bow out gracefully then the party should strip her of her membership on any Senate committees, any chairmanships she has, and make her face a primary opponent when re-election comes around. If she's unwilling to put the good of her country, and her party ahead of her personal ambitions, then she needs to go.

Great op ed from Chip Collis at the Huffinton Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-c...l_b_94207.html

Stuff that comes from the Huffington post is likely very skewed with opinion and thus may or may not be accurate. I don't know about Obama reaching out to Florida or any of that. But yes, this is a simple math problem. Even if you give a high percentage of Florida and Michigan to Clinton- she has to sweep all remaining states. Basically not most, but all. It's not happening, say good bye and move aside.

I think a better article for your cause is out in the most recent New York Magazine. I, obviously, don't buy into the underlying assumption that Clinton should drop out, but it is a lot less 'skewed' than the Huffington piece. http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/45604/

Not a bad read, thanks.

Fair enough. I changed "article" to "op ed". That work better for 'ya?

the polls right now are so misleading i don't know where to start. does anyone REALLY think that the Democrats won't rally (as a party) around whoever wins the nomination and that the Democratic nominee won't paste McCain?

Also, it's completely wrong to say "Hillary is more electable because she won the big states over Obama". So what? You're telling me that if the general election was Obama vs. McCain that Obama wouldn't carry California, New York, etc.? Come on.

Also, there is no reason for Obama to take John Edwards as a VP running mate. He already has support in the states where Edwards could get votes. He needs a running mate who could help him win votes in Ohio/PA/Indiana

Seriously, I took no issue with the article you posted, sorry if you thought I was condemning the source. I simply look at articles and news segments that come from sites or networks that lean one way or another with a little added skepticism. But until you post an article from Fox News I'll take the source seriously.

To Quote FDR on the Russian/German conflict in WWII...

"It's a shame they can't both lose."

I just think Obama is farther left than I wish to go. Given that Congress will be full of Dems to give him a blank check scares me. I truly believe on gun control, foreign policy and so on he'd be too far left for me and wouldn't have that check to keep his policies and perhaps himself balanced. (I also show in the Rev Wright thread more of why I can't not will not vote for this man.)

Hilary, everyone pretty much knows it would be just like having Bill back, maybe some differences but.... I truly liked Bill, not crazy about her but she's he best of the 3. I think with a Dem congress she can truly be effective but on a moderate side.

McCain, he maybe a mini-Bush and fool everyone but with a Dem. congress he'll be kept in check and won't be able to go too far. I think he's a good negotiator and I think he will be strong on foreign policy. His economic policy needs some serious overhauling but he still has plenty of time to work on something that may work. I'll be curious as to see who he selects as a running mate and whom he surrounds himself with.


You poor soul you.... lol that's scary that someone sees things through similar lenses, given my eyesight sucks.

Let's take a break for a minute here. I want everyone to see a letter that I got a copy of:

i don't think Obama is any further left than Hillary. They are about 96% identical in policy and political opinions.

Loquitor, I never realized you'd pled not guilty by reason of insanity to something. Good to know, Mr. Hinkley.... ;)

Priceless, thanks. I needed a laugh this morning.

I thought this was interesting. According to Rasumussen:So the outcome changes depending on which rules are applied. I don't think it would be right to change them now, in the middle of the game, of course, and I think Hillary is not shameless enough to argue that they should change (though this is not all that different from arguing that the Michigan and Florida results should be honored). I just thought it's worth noting that different rules will produce different results -- and that the main thing is that everyone knows the rules going in so they can plan their strategies accordingly.