Our Mad Mad World: Is it time?    
 Is it time?8 comments
24 Mar 2008 @ 20:50, by Paul Quintanilla

For Hillary Clinton to step aside? To “suspend” her candidacy?

A political analyst parsing the race the other night on TV claimed Hillary would have to acquire at least 64% of all the remaining delegate vote to top Obama. That numerically she can not win the primary race without a miracle.

But instead of Hillary calling it quits the race continues and the two sides rip each other to shreds only bolstering a possible McCain victory in November.

The only thing which can happen between now and August (when the Demos have their convention in Denver) which can change the numerical outcome without tearing the party apart is if Obama is caught selling sex slaves (most of them about thirteen years old) out of the basement of his house. Only then can the Super Delegates vote overwhelmingly for Hillary without tearing the party apart.

Shouldn’t Hillary step aside, suspend her campaign and get behind Obama as the Democratic Party’s obvious choice? Hasn’t her continuing candidacy only evolved into a form of wishful thinking and a stubborn denial of reality? If not just a gross ego trip?

True enough, many Hillary backers would be shattered, but if she puts her party first in order to elect a Democrat instead of a Republican in November then she should begin to seriously work for that victory. For her persistent campaign clearly undermines that chance at success.

If Hillary “suspends” her candidacy and that “miracle” (“miracle” for Hillary) occurs then she can step in and take Obama’s place. Under those circumstances the Super Delegates would have no choice but vote for Hillary and most of Obama’s backers would forgive them. Other than that, if the Super Delegates ignore the will of the primary’s voters and give the nomination to Hillary, the black vote will in all probability be gone and many others who would have voted Democratic in November will probably stay home too. Or vote third party. Or vote even for McCain.

[< Back] [Our Mad Mad World]

Category:  

8 comments

24 Mar 2008 @ 20:54 by quinty : Here's an interesting piece
from Huffingtonpost.......

Is the Media's Pursuit of Horserace Coverage the Reason Sen. Clinton is Still Considered a Viable Contender for the Democratic Presidential Nomination?

Posted March 22, 2008 | 12:44 AM (EST)

Media's pursuit

That's the provocative thesis of this article by Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen in The Politico. And at Slate, Christopher Beam gives a similar answer: "Today's the New York Times A1 piece on Hillary Clinton, 'Clinton Facing Narrower Path to Nomination,' is an exercise in understatement. It nudges the candidate ever closer to the cliff but, maybe because of politeness, or business savvy, or maybe even a perceived need for objectivity, refrains from pushing her over." See also Josh Marshall.

Now, with news of Clinton's campaign debt and an admission by her staffer that she has no more than a 10% chance of securing the nomination, expect these stories to proliferate.

Could it be that the media has kept the story alive? I think that's an overstatement. Of course Clinton can't catch Obama, but it is also true that Obama cannot formally clinch without the superdelegates. So long as Clinton has the hope of an Obama implosion or major gaffe, she has a reason to remain in the race. So don't blame the media; blame the DNC's system for leaving this in the hands of superdelegates---something the DNC surely must reconsider for 2012 and beyond.  

24 Mar 2008 @ 21:02 by quinty : Frank Rich
Here's Frank Rich in the NY Times, Sunday, March 23, 2008.

"That she [Hillary Clinton] has never given a forthright speech on Iraq is what can happen when your chief campaign strategist is a pollster. Focus groups no doubt say it would be hara-kiri for her to admit such a failing. But surely many Americans would have applauded her for confessing to mistakes and saying what she learned from them. As her husband could have told her, that's best done sooner rather than later.

"It's too late now, and so the Democratic stars are rapidly aligning for disaster. Mrs. Clinton is no longer trying to overcome Mr. Obama's lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates by making bold statements about Iraq or any other issue. Instead of enhancing her own case for the presidency, she's going to tear him down. As Adam Nagourney of The New York Times delicately put it last week, she is "looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama" so that she can win over superdelegates in covert 3 a.m. phone calls. If Mr. Wright doesn't do it, she'll seek another weapon. Mr. Obama, who is, after all, a politician and not a deity, could well respond in kind."

For the complete NY Times piece.  

25 Mar 2008 @ 15:19 by jmarc : I'm surprised at Hillary
I thought at the start of this primary season that she would do much better than she has done. I think if she had stuck to her more likable side, (" I'm proud to be on the stage today with a great man like Barrack Obama") rather than her bulldog side, ("Shame on you Barrack Obama!"), that she would have done much better.

Although teachers liked to remind us in school that when voting for class president, that we should vote for what the candidates stood for and that it wasn't a popularity contest, the truth is that politics is a popularity contest.
Barrack is a much more likeable candidate, leaving aside whether or not he really has a plan that he can pass or that he will stand up for.

She should quit.

I won't vote for either candidate, or McCain though.  

26 Mar 2008 @ 09:12 by jazzolog : Others Wondering Too
The first time I heard a pundit call for Hillary to get out of the race was way back before the Ohio/Rhode Island primaries, when talk show host Ed Schultz did it. Even then he had it figured out the numbers just weren't stacking up for her---even if the superdelegates could be wooed. Now ponderings about why she's hanging in there can be heard on all sides. The major argument of course is what she's doing to the Democratic Party...especially while McCain has a free ride and continues to pile up more support.

Yesterday conservative columnist David Brooks set out his view, which sounds very convincing to me. [link] Today Maureen Dowd follows a similar path, but naturally takes an even more radical turn. [link] The longer this goes on, the more I'm reminded of just how tarnished the Clinton legacy truly is.

PS Is there anyone in America who knows WHO his or her superdelegates are?  

26 Mar 2008 @ 16:37 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Good pieces,
Richard.

I wonder how much such opinion pieces reflect the concerns and thinking of Democratic bigwigs? And if any are asleep I hope they read some of these things by Brooks, Dowd, and others. I would like to see someone have a talk with Hillary now.....

From Brooks....

"For the sake of that 5 percent [chance of Hillary winning], this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group."

Now there's something to consider.....  

26 Mar 2008 @ 20:34 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : A great comment
I found over at Huffington Post....

"The Clinton strategy: Obama's run is a fairy tale, Obama wasn't really against the war, Obama took cocaine, Obama's middle name is Hussein, Obama is like Jesse Jackson (they're both black, get it), Obama isn't pro-choice, Obama is for latte drinkers, Obama only wins caucuses, Obama only wins states that don't matter, Obama is all talk and no action, Obama plagiarizes, Obama's followers are a cult, Obama isn't ready on day one, Obama might cause or not be able to handle a terrorist attack, McCain is better than Obama, Obama has no experience -- only a speech in 2002, Obama's pastor is no good, Bill says Obama's picking on me, Obama shouldn't win because I am entitled, even if it takes superdelegates overturning the will of the voters." Indie17  

27 Mar 2008 @ 21:10 by tlingel :

Is Time making fools out of us, again?  

29 Mar 2008 @ 19:50 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Slate's Hillary Deathwatch

To see the latest - Daily Deathwatch

That is, unless a miracle occurs.  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
4 Mar 2008 @ 21:24: Writers Take Sides
4 Feb 2008 @ 19:45: Citizen McCain
31 Jan 2008 @ 19:53: The King of Mountebanks?
14 Jan 2008 @ 19:59: "Yes We Can"
21 Nov 2007 @ 23:59: An Easy Solution Missed
6 Oct 2007 @ 20:17: Bringing Back the Fairness Doctrine
12 Jul 2007 @ 23:14: Fighting them there instead of here
6 Jul 2007 @ 23:16: Year One of the Roberts Court
26 Jun 2007 @ 23:56: On Buddy's Bemusings
21 Jun 2007 @ 23:37: Pete

[< Back] [Our Mad Mad World] [PermaLink]?