A ‘quiet consensus’ emerges in Democratic circles

Hillary Clinton’s campaign hasn’t given the slightest indication that she’s thinking about withdrawing from the race. No slow-down in the schedule, no anonymous leaks about heated discussions, no rumors about a graceful exit. Nothing. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell said on the “Today” show yesterday that Clinton is “ready to give up.” Given what we’ve seen over the last 24 hours, that doesn’t even appear close to true.

That said, the campaign is not blind to reality, and the NYT noted that some members of the Clinton team “acknowledged privately that they remained unsure about the future of her candidacy.”

Some top Clinton fund-raisers said that the campaign was all but over and suggested that she was simply buying time on Wednesday to determine if she could raise enough money and still win over superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who could essentially hand Mr. Obama the nomination. […]

One Clinton adviser said the campaign was struggling to arrange meetings with large numbers of uncommitted superdelegates. This adviser said that at least a few superdelegates might not want to meet with Mrs. Clinton because they did not want to hear another pitch or because they had all but decided to go with Mr. Obama.

Congressional Dem leaders indicated they were content to have the race continue, but “attacks on Mr. Obama by the Clinton campaign or its surrogates could lead to a leadership push for superdelegates to show their hand and bring the race to a close.”

Either way, though, Roll Call noted that a “quiet consensus” has emerged within the party that Obama will be the party’s nominee, a notion that even Clinton allies on the Hill were suddenly prepared to accept.

“It was a pretty gloomy mood this morning,” said Hillary supporter Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). “I would never tell anyone to get out of a race,” she said, but acknowledged that the odds seem slim that Clinton can catch Obama.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she hoped to talk to Clinton in the next few days to game out what her strategy is to secure the nomination because Feinstein said the race is beginning to harm the party. “I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton. She is a friend. I’ve worked with her all the time she’s been in the Senate and while she was first lady, and I’m very loyal to her. Having said that, I would like to talk to her to see what her view is on the rest of the race, what the strategy is,” Feinstein said. “I think the race is reaching a point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party, and I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”

Even the usually-talkative Chuck Schumer, a major Clinton backer, declined to offer a vote of confidence when asked if Clinton should stay in the race. “It’s her decision to make and I’ll accept what decision she makes,” he said.

A Clinton supporter told the WaPo that the senator has one option: “Withdraw gracefully and help unify the party to beat McCain.” Asked how quickly she would quit the race, the veteran of past presidential campaigns told the Post he would recommend “as soon as this weekend.”

A Clinton advisor added, “If the supers weren’t buying it before, it’s hard to see how they’ll buy it now.”

That’s a good point. Even if Florida and Michigan are added to the mix, Clinton is still losing, meaning she’d obviously be entirely dependent on superdelegates to buck the tide. But what can she tell them now that they haven’t already heard and considered?

Here’s what I wish would happen (but it probably won’t). I hope that Hilllary Clinton stays in the race but runs very aggressively against Bush-McCain and the GOP. I would like the tone of her campaign to sound like there are two weeks to go in a tight general election. I think such a campaign would boost her standing, keep the party energized and put the focus on the failures of the GOP. She could help create the Democratic brand identity as the party of peace, the working class and the American Dream. If she does that, then the Obama campaign could feel good about helping pay off her campaign’s debt. The Democrats want to keep registering new voters and getting them to vote in Democratic primaries – that’s a huge plus.

But I’ve been hoping for such a campaign since January – an optimistic fool?

  • If Hillary doesn’t attack Obama, she serves no purpose to the media. But until they believe that, I suspect they are doing everything they can do to find ways to spin the race such that it’s still close. If she does adopt a no-attack strategy, the media will start reporting how pathetic her campaign was all along, and how Obama’s huge core problems made him vulnerable – even to her.

  • Tom Bisson (1): I suspect there are a lot of Obama donors who would be absolutely outraged to think that their donations went to making the Clinton coffers whole again.

  • As Eric Boehlert noted (at Media Matters), it is unprecedented for pundits to decide when a candidate’s campaign is finished. The ceaseless calls for Clinton to leave the race are nothing new this week. As noted repeatedly, she does not need to win the majority of pledged delegates in order to be viable at the convention. Even announced superdelegates can change their votes at the convention (as evidenced by the ones shifting from Clinton to Obama). She does not need to step aside in this process — plenty of male Presidential candidates have persevered to the convention without any of the cacophony of complaint aimed at Clinton.

    It would be easier on Obama if he did not have to take his rival seriously, if he could coast into the convention. Of course his supporters want Clinton to step aside. Why wouldn’t they? That isn’t how elections are won. If Obama hasn’t got the simple guts to beat his Democratic opponent fairly, without using the media and other prominent Democrats to shoulder her aside, he doesn’t deserve to be our candidate in the Fall.

    Obama has been looking weaker than ever this week. He couldn’t win in Indiana, despite being accorded the status of presumptive nominee. He has offered nothing to attract Clinton supporters to his campaign. If he cannot unite the party behind him without asking Clinton to do it for him, he isn’t the right guy. He is doing poorly in polls against McCain. The more voters get to know him, the worse he does. This is why the campaign isn’t over.

  • geee, don’t know why shillary would give up now. After all, with the help of rush limpballse and his “operation chaos” campaign”, she won a primary by less than 1 percent of the vote.

    We all know that America was founded as a monarchy, right? Where elite families like bush-clinton-bush-clinton are the chosen leaders that provide distractions and cover for the economic elite and the military industrial complex (of which OIL is a major component).

    Right?

  • Not that I expect honest rhetoric from our shillary concern troll, mary – but here I go…

    The pundits have ALWAYS shared comments and their opinions about candidates in elections, including their opinions on each candidates success and whether or not they are making positive or negative contributions to the process.

    Always ’twas and always shall – that’s why they are called “pundints”, mary.

    Of course, we have all learned that you are not here for dialog or even to share meaningful comments – just propaganda that reinforces rush limpball’s operation chaos.

  • If she were to actually withdraw from the race, she’d immediately lose that $11M she’s loaned herself, and she would still be responsible for paying her remaining bills. The rules limit the payback for loans made to one’s campaign to $250,000 The moment she withdraws, she cannot use any funds she raises after that to pay herself back, though she can use on-going fundraising to pay her other bills to vendors, staff, etc.

    I don’t know what language has to do with one’s status in a campaign, but I did notice that John Edwards said he was “suspending” his campaign when he “dropped out”. That sounded to me as if he didn’t really withdraw from the campaign but could begin campaigning again any time he wanted. But maybe that isn’t true.

    At any rate, while it would probably be better for her politically to drop out of the race very soon, it certainly would mean goodbye to that $11M, whereas if she stays in the race until August, that buys her some fundraising time to pull herself out of the hole. At the same time she’d be adding to her expenses by even maintaining an appearance of campaigning. and that adds more to her finance woes.

    Who knows, though? Maybe the Clintons can absorb an $11M loss without a lot of pain, and she’ll drop out sooner rather than later because of party pressures.

  • She does not need to step aside in this process — plenty of male Presidential candidates have persevered to the convention without any of the cacophony of complaint aimed at Clinton.

    Plenty of men have been in Hillary’s position and persisted to the convention? Without any complaint? Really? Care to name them, Mary?

    Personally, now that even the media has been forced to admit Obama has this wrapped up, I’m happy to see the Clinton campaign continue to try. Watching Howard Wolfson flopsweat his way through an interview on MSNBC this morning had to be the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long, long while.

  • @Mary

    I don’t agree with you, but I thought you were at least representing yourself pretty well until until this part: “The more voters get to know him, the worse he does.”

    This seems to be in complete contradiction to the one thing that has appeared to be his strength all along. Obama is nothing if not a likeable dude who wins and keeps supporters at every turn.

  • Oh Mary… Your projection and trip down the river Denial gives me my morning smile.

    Keep throwing it out there.

  • This business about her campaign debt makes no sense. She can pay it back with fundraisers as Senator. Many candidates end with substantial debt. She isn’t worrying about it and it is a red herring for the media. The talk started as a way to suggest that Obama has something to offer Clinton to induce her to quit. This is just another way to suggest that Clinton is greedy, that it is just about the money for her, that she is corrupt in some way. Millions sound like a lot to ignorant voters, but it is trivial when she can raise that much in a single day on the internet — thus it is irrelevant to her decision. Obama supporters are gloating because Obama has the money to offer her. (Why wouldn’t he? Money goes to the presumptive winner.)

    There has also been talk that the Clintons have nowhere to go after this election. That is silly too. Bill Clinton will still be the ex-president and he will still be making speeches. Hillary Clinton will still be Senator from NY except that her power will be real, not putative, after her strong showing in her campaign. The Clintons aren’t going anywhere and she doesn’t need any kind of soft landing to get her to leave the campaign. She is trying to win, not seeking an honorable way to give up. This is more wishful thinking by Obama supporters and idle speculation by pundits filling dead air.

  • Senator Clinton knows she is going to win West Virginia and Kentucky. She’ll stay in for those.

    I hope she can stay on message, which is bashing Boy George II and John McCan’t. But if all the media questions are going to be about her and Senator Obama, all the sound bites you will see with be about the Democratic nomination race.

    TR said: “Plenty of men have been in Hillary’s position and persisted to the convention? Without any complaint? Really? Care to name them, Mary?”

    Ted Kennedy (1980). The guy who is supporting Barack Obama despite the fact that his state went for Hillary Clinton and the Obama Campaign demands all Super Delegates to follow the popular vote?

  • Danp:

    If Hillary doesn’t attack Obama, she serves no purpose to the media.

    ‘nuf re-said.

  • So, it’s okay to attack Clinton but Obama is off limits. That sounds hypocritical to me. Obama can’t win without Clinton’s supporters. When Michelle Obama was asked if she would support Hillary (in a tv interview ) she said she would have to think about it. So much for party loyalty. Hillary doesn’t hesitate when she is asked about supporting Obama. Obama may want to think about muzzling his bitter wife, who sees herself as a victim even though she’s a privileged woman.

  • Mary: There has also been talk that the Clintons have nowhere to go after this election. That is silly too.

    Yeah, I hear the Chinese media pay pretty well nowadays, if you’re an ex president who helped them quite a bit. You’re right, Mary, the money should be easily recouped by the Clintons, who became multimillionaires after Bill got done signing the trade deals that most Republicans loved and most Democrats were against.

  • mary, do you intentionall say stupid things so we can all have a laugh – a sort of designated masochist – or do you really believe your nonsense?

    Obama didn’t win Indiana. Few polls ever indicated he’d win Indiana. Some polls had him losing double digits, yet he came within 2 points of winning. Meanwhile, Clinton was foolishly claiming NC was a game-changer, and she lost it resoundingly.

    The more people see Obama, the less they like him? Really? You’re deluded enough to believe that? They dislike him so much, his popularity post-Wright scandal(s) is unscathed? When, in the same post, you admit Clinton superdelegates are defecting to Obama? Do you actually read what you write? Oh, that’s right..designated masochist…

    Thanks, as always, for the laughter. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but I’m always amazed at how proud you are of those opinions being so borne of ignorance and bithely fact-free. Keep i up!

  • I see a lot of sore loser talk around here. Relax, Hillary supporters. Take a break. Donate to the Myanmar cyclone victims, that would be money well spent.

  • This is why the campaign isn’t over.

    The campaign is over. She will start to do a lot of damage to herself and the Democratic Party if she perseveres. She will start to look delusional even more divisive. Her comments about “hard-working white people” yesterday were not helpful. Much more of that and she will have to be forced out by the super delegates.

    Otherwise, Hillary should continue until after Kentucky and Oregon if she pleases and then call it quits. She ran a tough campaign and came close, but sometimes you lose the close ones.

  • When Michelle Obama was asked if she would support Hillary (in a tv interview ) she said she would have to think about it. So much for party loyalty. Hillary doesn’t hesitate when she is asked about supporting Obama. Obama may want to think about muzzling his bitter wife, who sees herself as a victim even though she’s a privileged woman.

    @@ Elisabeth, where did you come from?

    First off, I believe the question asked of her was about campaigning, not “supporting.” Would you continue a leave from your work to campaign for the person who ran a dirty campaign against your spouse? Much as you’d want a Democrat to win (or at least I would), I’m not sure if I’d stay away from my kids longer to do it.

    Hillary did in fact hesitate and has only recently said she’d support him wholeheartedly. She’s also the candidate that kept talking up McCain (or stealing half-assed policies from him).

    Have you ever actually heard a speech given by Michelle Obama? She’s an impressive speaker and I promise you she’s very grateful for everything she’s gotten (and she does not have a privileged background, she has a very all-American story with hard-working, non-college educated parents sending both their kids off to college and success).

    If anyone’s feeling bitter these days, it’s the one who feels that her privilege hasn’t gotten her what it should. Her “entitlement” has been stripped away.

    Neither Democrat can win without the others’ supporters. Always has been the case, always will be.

  • heard hillary on npr this morning, and — god help me — i’m starting to get the same visceral reaction to her voice as i do to bush and/or mcsame.

    anyone else experiencing this?

  • Mike Lux nails it. We have lots of work to do now…

    2. That the Clinton people need to get used to the fact that Obama is the nominee. All the hyperbolic “he can never win the general” and the “it’s not fair” stuff needs to stop right now unless you want a 100-years-in-Iraq, pro-life, pro-Roberts/Alito Supreme Court, 22% lifetime LCV rating, economic right-winger as president. To spend any time or energy at all nursing your resentments is the most fundamentally selfish thing you can do right now. I hate losing elections, I know how badly you feel, and how hard it is, but there is too much at stake to be selfish right now.

    3. That all the avid Obama people who have been so obsessed with beating Hillary pat yourself on the back, and then get the hell over it. You’ve won the first round, get ready for round 2 because just winning the primary doesn’t count for anything in the end. Gloating feels great, but it doesn’t help Obama in any way, so put off gloating until he’s actually won the real election. Keep giving to Obama, but help the DNC and VoteVets and other groups that are working on beating McCain, too. And be a big person, and reach a hand of friendship to all the Hillary people who you have been saying mean things to for a year now. We need them.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/moving-forward_b_100645.html

  • TR said: “Plenty of men have been in Hillary’s position and persisted to the convention? Without any complaint? Really? Care to name them, Mary?”

    Ted Kennedy (1980). The guy who is supporting Barack Obama despite the fact that his state went for Hillary Clinton and the Obama Campaign demands all Super Delegates to follow the popular vote?

    Yeah, that was the only one I could think of. One example. And there was plenty of complaint about Kennedy that year. He was challenging a sitting president, one who beat him handily in both Iowa and NH, and then virtually every major state except Mass., and rolled into the convention with solid support. Kennedy caught a lot of flak for that.

    And more to the point — how did the Democrats wind up doing that year? Do you think there have been any lessons drawn from the defeat of a sitting president then? Like, say, the very creation of the superdelegate system?

    Again, Mary claimed there had been plenty of men who’d done what Hillary is threatening to do, and no one complained. I can think of one who tried and got beat up badly for it.

  • When Michelle Obama was asked if she would support Hillary (in a tv interview ) she said she would have to think about it. So much for party loyalty. Hillary doesn’t hesitate when she is asked about supporting Obama. Obama may want to think about muzzling his bitter wife, who sees herself as a victim even though she’s a privileged woman.

    Elisabeth, let it go. There are always bruised feelings on both sides after a tough campaign. Obama supporters could think of plenty of statements made by Bill and Hillary Clinton over the last four months to be outraged about, too. It doesn’t do anybody any good.

    And while you attack Michelle Obama, try to remember the right-wing attacks on Hillary Clinton over the last 15 years or so. The same thing is coming for Michelle Obama. It’s what Republicans do. They attacked Hillary. They attacked Theresa Kerry. Michelle Obama is next. In fact, it has already started.

  • Elisabeth, HIllary may not hesitate when asked if she would support Obama but she said that McCain was better equipped from day one, just like her.

    Not exactly a stunning endorsement.

  • >anyone else experiencing this?

    Yup. It was about a month ago (maybe more?) that I started changing the channel any time she came on. It’s pretty sad when someone reaches the point that you feel what they say is so worthless as to be not even worth listening to.

  • This business about her campaign debt makes no sense.

    It doesn’t make any sense if you don’t understand campaign financing rules, as you don’t, and aren’t willing to learn, as you’re not. aristedes is correct: If she drops out OR if she stays in and fails to raise $11.4 before the convention, she cannot be paid back later. After a candidate withdraws or after the election in question (in this case the convention), she can receive a maximum of $250K to pay herself back.

    Really, Mary, your refusal to do even basic research makes us wonder why you chose professor as your fake profession here. I’m guessing you’ve never been close enough to a learning situation to even know how to pretend acquaintance with one.

    She can pay it back with fundraisers as Senator.

    She can pay back her debt to others, but not to herself–if she can even raise that much. If she can’t raise enough money while she’s an actual presidential candidate with people voting for her, what makes you think she’ll be able to do so when she’s a beaten presidential candidate back in the senate?

    Millions sound like a lot to ignorant voters, but it is trivial when she can raise that much in a single day on the internet — thus it is irrelevant to her decision.

    She raised that much in one day, after Pennsylvania, a day that has never been even close to duplicated before or since, and that cannot be repeated now that everyone’s accepted that she’s lost. And if her fundraising ability had been strong enough all along, she wouldn’t have had to lend herself a whopping $11.4 million and she wouldn’t be many millions more in shamefully long overdue debt to vendors and consultants.

    It’s becoming obvious that Obama is at least going to have to participate in retiring Clinton’s irresponsibly acquired debt. I agree with all who believe it will not sit well with his 1.5 million donors, many of whom squeezed their budgets to produce the $25 and $50 they sent him. I would guess he’s in conversations with Dean right now on how to handle this: perhaps the best approach is for him to make a call to major party donors to contribute especially for the purpose of paying off Clinton’s debts to others. It seems fair to me to make her eat her own losses–no one made her lend $11.4 of her own cash, and that does represent only about 10 percent of what the Clintons have made off his presidency–but it may be that paying her off in total is the fastest way to move forward as a party.

  • Mary, your argument clearly smacks of desperation. To begin with, you—as well as all the other surrogates of your candidate—are fully aware of the “uber-vetting” that each and every delegate either has gone through, or will go through, prior to the convention. Hanging your hopes on the ridiculous notion that these delegates will suddenly rise up, like little HRC sleeper cells, is beyond ludicrous; it points to a “microcosm of megalomania.”

    Next, there’s the “gutless” suggestion. That would denote a form of cognitive cowardice on your part, akin to the assumption that Obama supporters will turn on him en masse just because your candidate demands that it be so. He has run this campaign on the up-and-up from Day One; I do not recall his inciting a “kitchen sink strategy,” nor do I recall his embracing of Foxchurian talking points just to gain free air time. She pandered to Fox; he argued with them on their own turf. She crawled to Scaife; he did not.

    Actually, it could be argued that Obama “did” win in Indiana; down by almost 20 in March (right after Ohio), and lost by just over 1% in May.

    Furthermore, he has never “asked” your candidate to unite the party for him, and to even hint at such a thing as an example of his alleged “weakness” once again denotes the frail, cowardly desperation of your argument. All you’ve provided, to-date, as an argument supporting your candidate’s viability is gender (she will unite women) and race (she can win the white vote).

    Once—just for once—try giving everyone some sound, meaningful reasons as to how your candidate can be a strong president. She’s already blown her chances with diplomacy via the “obliteration/massive retaliation” gaffe, and her Senatorial record seems to glow with accomplishments that are predominantly special-interest related. Ribbon cuttings and resolutions of honoraria will not repair what needs to be repaired.

    Besides—where would your candidate be right now, if she weren’t riding on the coattails of her husband? Dems worldwide would be deriding her as a Bush-enabling, corporate-shilling goldbricker—because the only thing that makes her popular is the wistful dream of what WJC once was….

  • I was going to reply to Mary, but others have already pretty well, covered that. Instead, I’m wondering if we’ll continue to hear from Mary after Hillary withdraws. Earlier in the campaign we had these hilarious RonPaulbots regularly dumping risible all-caps rants into threads here, but after he faded they all left and we never see them anymore. Will Mary go off and leave us in the lurch too? I guess we’ll still have Insane Fake Professor.

  • I think Mary’s here for reasons other than supporting Hillary, and my guess is that IFP will disappear when Mary does.

  • Hanging your hopes on the ridiculous notion that these delegates will suddenly rise up, like little HRC sleeper cells, is beyond ludicrous; it points to a “microcosm of megalomania.”

    What a beautiful sentence. Made me laugh, too.

  • Mary, you’re now reminding everyone of Bagdad Bob. Don’t go away mad, just go the hell away, you delusional bimbo airhead.

  • mellowjohn (22): Me too. Bush was the first person to make me go for that involuntary reflex to grab the remote. Then Lou Dobbs. Now Hillary.

  • Take a chill pill slappy magoo … just because your candidate can’t close the deal — even when he outspends Sen. Clinton 4 to 1 — is no cause for you to lash out at anyone. Face facts, the Democratic party is virtually evenly divided regarding who we want as our candidate. African Americans and the party elite want Obama, women and our traditional blue collar base want Clinton … oh, and don’t forget the Hispanic vote we so crave, that only Clinton seems capable of securing in any significant numbers … well, then there are the Catholics and the Jewish vote as well.

    Hummmm … who is Obama’s base again?

    If superdelegates decide to give the contest to Obama they better include giving him a strategy for winning back what has been the core base of the Democratic party for decades now … women.

    BAC

  • Oh, my god. Unbelievable. Josh Marshall has this excerpt from a TIME story on Clinton campaign missteps:

    Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game.

    That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state’s 370 delegates.

    It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all.

    Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. “How can it possibly be,” Ickes asked, “that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn’t understand proportional allocation?”

    And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don’t get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she’d be the nominee.

  • Despite cries for Clinton to quit, she is still our last hope to win.

    J.D. at Savage Politics explains why clinching the AA vote is not enough

    Obama won 93% of the AA vote in NC, where 45% of democrats are AA. Nobody ever had any illusion that Clinton could win under these circumstances, but considering that Obama was actually favored in Illinois by over 10 points, it is much more notable that he lost there, but that isn’t what the MSM wants to talk about.

    Twinmom at MyDD explains how severely he lost ground among whites

    Obama won Virginia by 28 points and North Carolina by 14. What’s different, given the similar voter demographics?

    Obama lost ground among all but black women in NC compared to Virginia:

    – White Men (-27)
    – White Women (-12)
    – Black Men (-2)
    – Black Women (+6)

    The voting demographics:

    – White male: VA 28%, N.C. 27%
    – White female: Va 35%, N.C. 35%
    – Black Male: VA 13%, N.C. 13%
    – Black Female: VA 17%, N.C. 20%.

    If he wins the nomination, say hello to President McCain.

  • If Hillary ever hopes to unify this party, she needs to practice what she preaches and repudiate some of her supporters’ racist comments at

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=609#comments

    like:

    “here the little seniors are worried about healthcare and social security and the New Black/Educated Democratic Party is more interested in making history that helping the seniors that fought in WWII to save their country. The blacks and elites can thank their freedom and success on the back of those little seniors who won it for them. Nasty Pelosi is the head of the New Black/Educated Party! We need her out and we need to figure out how to oust her and Dean!”

    and

    “hey think he is their chance for a Black President…it means Black will be respected and jobs and for some make weed legal because that is what obama’s people are telling them…he’s the black Santa Claus.”

    I mean, if she’s going to lambaste Obama for Wright, well..sauce for the goose, eh?

  • the party elite

    Is that what the kids are calling people with more than a high-school education these days?

    There was a time when the political people who bashed education and learning were all Republicans. Then came the Clintons.

    So glad this abortion of a campaign is almost over. So glad.

  • Hummmm … who is Obama’s base again?

    I guess according to Clinton supporters it’s “eggheads and African Americans”. thught that was a very complimentary way for Paul Begala to put it, don’t you?

    Still, I wonder, if Hillary’s base is so huge why didn’t she steamroll to victory?

  • Pug, if you didn’t already know it, he won in NC because of the overwhelmingly racially motivated AA vote.

  • Greg, don’t sweat it. We can return the favor by noting that Hillary won Indiana because of the overwhelmingly racially motivated white vote.

  • If she does that, then the Obama campaign could feel good about helping pay off her campaign’s debt. -Tom Bisson

    Absolutely not. That’s not what I donated to him for. I donated to him so he could eventually take care of the debts George’s and Hillary’s war caused, not her campaign debts.

    She can afford to pay her own bills for her mismanaged campaign. That’s not our responsibility, and she certainly hasn’t earned it.

    It’s time we drop this ridiculous notion.

  • Mary wrote:
    Obama supporters are gloating because Obama has the money to offer her. (Why wouldn’t he? Money goes to the presumptive winner.)

    Did Mary just admit that there is a presumptive democratic nominee?

    Now it’s really over.

  • Pug, if you didn’t already know it, he won in NC because of the overwhelmingly racially motivated AA vote. -Greg

    So I guess 40% of white people in North Carolina don’t count, either? Face it, he won, not just North Carolina, but the primary. Not because of black people. Because of people. Just plain old people.

    Only racists feel the need to parse it to that degree while overlooking the fact that he has more votes cast for him.

  • I haven’t expected much from Greg, because while he lacks Mary’s psychotic rage he’s not exactly Clinton’s brightest supporter, either. (In fact, my Clinton-supporting friends who read this blog actually collect Greg comments for fun and roll their eyes laughing.) But I’d have thought even Greg might remember all the overwhelmingly white states that went for Obama by big margins: Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Kansas, etc., etc.

    Now (I know from your past posts that you don’t understand the difference between a primary and a general election, Greg, so I’m going to help you), Obama won’t win many of those states in the general election, and neither would Clinton (that includes North Carolina). But Obama wins some of them against McCain, and Clinton doesn’t. And Obama turns other states, like New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota, Nevada, possibly Virginia and a few others blue, while Clinton doesn’t. And either Clinton or Obama beats McCain in Pennsylvania, the state Clinton has most often based her race argument on. And of course, just to keep you from trying out the big-blue state talking point, both Obama and Clinton win all the big and small solidly blue states over McCain.

    What you’re trying to argue here is that white people don’t vote for Obama. As we have seen, yes, they do. There are places where fewer of them do, but there are also places where many, many more of them do than vote for Clinton. The electoral map looks different for Clinton and Obama, but the map for our nominee, McCain, beats McCain and helps down-ticket races in many more states. So knock off this race nonsense, ‘kay?

  • Jesus Christ, it’s hard to believe the Hillary camp:

    Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state’s delegates seated at the national convention.

    Clinton won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary and was to get 73 pledged delegates under state party rules, while Obama was to get 55. The state also has 29 superdelegates.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080507/primary-scramble/

    Clinton “won” the Michigan primary? Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot…

    The Michigan plan hasn’t been accepted by the DNC, who will consider it.

  • There was a time when the political people who bashed education and learning were all Republicans. Then came the Clintons. -Maria

    So what you’re saying is nothing has changed.

  • Doubtful

    That ridiculous plan for Obama to pay off Hillary’s debt if she drops out was suggested by Tim Russert. I’ve seen no response from Hillary or Obama to the suggestion, though it’s possible they’re talking about it privately. Many Obama supporters think it might be a good political move to pay all of Hillary’s debts (to vendors, etc.) except for her staff salaries and her loans to her campaign if she agrees to drop out now. Others think it would look AWFUL for Obama to do that, and he would be accused later of buying the nomination.

    She certainly doesn’t sound as if she’s going to stop the attacks on Obama and instead focus her attention on McCain, so whatever’s going on, it doesn’t affect how she’s campaigning right now.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

    Still playing the race card.

  • Mellowjohn (#22) said: heard hillary on npr this morning, and — god help me — i’m starting to get the same visceral reaction to her voice as i do to bush and/or mcsame.

    Yes, the voices of morons and fools are hard to listen to.

  • I stand by my statement. M. Obama is a bitter black woman. That’s my opinion. FYI, neither one of these candidates is my choice. He dropped out months ago. Just stating my observations. Now, Let’s move on.

  • Maria, you don’t have to dumb it down for me, I’m very likely more highly educated than you are, I’m sure though that like 99% of all Obama supporters, you would like to include yourself within the “smart” category due to academics who support him, but most of his support is in fact AA.

    It’s obvious so I shouldn’t even have to point this out for you (since you are so smart), but since over 90% of AA’s vote for him across the board, this is indeed indicative of racial bias.

    That said, you mention his support among whites in states that voted prior to the Reverand Wright controversy, and bittergate, and close ties to domestic terrorists Ayers & Dhorn, etc.

    What I was rightly pointing out, and which you completely ignored, is that HE IS LOSING GROUND AMONG THE ONE CONSTITUENCY DEMOCRATS MUST WIN.

    Now that we are past the last state which has such a high percentage of AA’s, you will NOT see him winning by any big margin, and very likely losing states he was supposed to win.

  • I believe if you look at Indiana, you see what I was talking about. He LOST, yet he himself said it was the “tie breaker”, but that was 2 weeks ago when he was supposed to have won big!

  • Mary-

    The longer Hillary stays in what (even now her supporters on the hill admit) is an un-winable race, the more she comes across looking like the egomaniac her detractors have always claimed she is!!
    Her course is hurting the democratic party and the longer she stays in it, the worse the damage will be. Do you honestly want McCain to be president? Mary?

    You say she’s looking to win it (impossible) not looking for an honorable way to quit, but that is exactly what she should be doing; looking for the honorable course out and do what is right for the party.

    Going ahead like this while damaging the party seems extremely egotistical and stupid. And come on, do you really want someone in The White House who can’t face facts and is so egotistical that they’re this out of touch with reality?

    We’ve had an egotistical idiot in the WH for 8 years already, it’s way past time for a change.

  • Maria, According to electoral-vote.com he does not have enough support to beat McCain in GE polling, but Clinton is winning BIG!

    If you notice, using their average of national polls, your claim that he is putting other states into play just does not hold ground. Here’s the states you mention:

    New Mexico – Clinton & Obama statistically tied with each other vs. McCain
    Colorado – Obama polls better
    North Dakota – Both Clinton & Obama lose, but his margin is less (6%)
    Nevada – Both Clinton & Obama lose, but his margin is less (5%)
    Virginia – Both Clinton & Obama lose, but his margin is less (8%)

    Any other big ideas from that big brain of yours?

  • Unless Hillary wants McCain to be president, she needs to gracefully bow out after a good race and enthusiastically support Obama. The cynics say that the Clintons are all about the Clintons and don’t care about the good of the party. This is her hour to disprove that skepticism, increasingly shared by a lot of loyal Democrats. Plus, you can’t “count Michigan”, Hillary, because yours was the only name on the ballot. That’s what they do in Cuba, not here in the United States of America. Go gently into that good night, Hillary, or you’ll make a scene by being dragged kicking and screaming into the bright light of reality by the superdelegates.

  • Maria, you don’t have to dumb it down for me, I’m very likely more highly educated than you are, I’m sure though that like 99% of all Obama supporters, you would like to include yourself within the “smart” category due to academics who support him, but most of his support is in fact AA. -Greg

    To begin with, yes, things do need to be dumbed down for you. Always. Second, if you are indeed educated, get your money back; it didn’t take. Perhaps you were a victim of professors of Mary’s caliber. And third, you are a blatant racist. Get out of my party; nay, get out of my country. We don’t want you here.

    It’s obvious so I shouldn’t even have to point this out for you (since you are so smart), but since over 90% of AA’s vote for him across the board, this is indeed indicative of racial bias. -Greg

    The only indication of racial bias is for Hillary. Why isn’t she pulling more support from African Americans? Consider the example I used yesterday, though I highly doubt you’ll get it:

    Considering 100 voters and the demographic makeup of whites and blacks in North Carolina, 33 of those voters are black and 66 are white. Obama got 90% of the black voters support and 40% of the white. That’s 30 and 26. Pretty even numbers, or a coalition, if you will.

    Hillary got 40 whites and 3 blacks. Unevenly white. So tell me again, who has a racial bias and who has a coalition?

    I know your, ahem, biter today, because your candidate is in her last throes, but do tone down the racism and stupidity, and stop removing all doubt.

  • seems now America is divided..one set of people who support change and therefore support Obama..the other set who want the status quo to remain and are not sure whether to stick with Clinton or vote for McCain [many of these still cannot accept the concept of a non white leader]
    meanwhile the world is watching and praying that finally, Americans can get it right this time

  • Do you honestly want McCain to be president? Mary?

    She does, yeah. Actions do trump words, and when all of a person’s actions lead inexorably to a certain conclusion, we go with the conclusion rather than that person’s claimed intentions. Mary ain’t no Democrat and she is motivated by hatred, not by liberal principle.

    aristedes: I’m not married to the idea of Obama paying Clinton’s horrifically overdue debts to small vendors. It may be, as you say, a terrible idea. I’m open to all discussion on this and I think it’s a fascinating situation.

  • […] he won in NC because of the overwhelmingly racially motivated AA vote. — Greg, @44

    Possibly, though the whites who voted for him (including women) might have helped also. But let me ask you this:

    1) She knew, ahead of time, that the black population of NC was large; didn’t she? (if she didn’t, why not?)
    2) She knew, ahead of time, that the voting pattern among blacks is to go for Obama, didn’t she?

    And yet, she said NC was going to be a “game changer”, suggesting she’d win there, against all expectations??? The mind reels…

    Adding one and one and coming up with two is *not* the kind of math that only an egghead is capable of performing. At least… It shouldn’t have been; it’s taught to most kindergartners. If she and her crowd are dumber than 5yr olds, after all their fancy education, then I don’t want them *anywhere near* the steering wheel of the country. I’d have doubts about letting them steer a plastic toy car.

  • Aristedes, I guess you meant to spell generational. Does “angry” work better for you?. The Obamas are older than my respective generation.

  • Greg said: I’m sure though that like 99% of all Obama supporters, you would like to include yourself within the “smart” category due to academics who support him, but most of his support is in fact AA.

    Uh, no it’s not you ignorant racist dumbass. I’m not going to look up the exact racial breakdowns for different states (others can do that) but even an idiot realizes that 90% of (for example) 20% is significantly less than 40% of 80%. So no, most of his supporters aren’t AA. In fact, he won many states with negligible AA populations.

    I believe if you look at Indiana, you see what I was talking about. He LOST, yet he himself said it was the “tie breaker”, but that was 2 weeks ago when he was supposed to have won big!

    When was Obama ever up big in Indiana? And you can pull out all the statements you want but nothing will ever compare to the idiocy of Clinton and surrogates like McAuliffe calling North Carolina a game-changing state. They were right, the game has changed as much as it possibly can: it was still ongoing, now it is over.

  • The Obamas are older than my respective [sic] generation.

    You’re female and younger than 40 and you tell a man to “muzzle his wife”? Interesting.

    And yet, she said NC was going to be a “game changer”, suggesting she’d win there, against all expectations??? The mind reels…

    Apparently her campaign was all excited about the prospect of their pulling off a surprise NC win, possibly based on the single outlying poll that had them on top. I am reminded of Poppy Bush telling his staff on election night in 1992, “Am I the only one here who thinks we’re going to win this thing?”

  • Well, in a sense Indiana was the tiebreaker, in that Clinton’s failure to decisively win it and the accompanying spanking she took in North Carolina ended the facade of her viability. After Indiana, everyone agreed that it’s game over.

  • Elizabeth

    No, I meant to spell “denigrative”, meaning “derogatory”.

    Michelle Obama isn’t bitter. Try realistic and you’ll have it right.

  • Obama’s win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can’t win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another ‘Tsongas’ election! Clinton’s win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win! Her win is indeed a tie breaker!
    The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates’ electability!

    Obama must accept the consequence of his actions; nobody forces him to take his name off in Michigan and keep it on for Florida. Obama and the party continue to bully and oppress the voters and violate their right to have their vote counted. They are stealing the election from both the people and Clinton! This is why there is a deep anger from Clinton’s supporters and many will not vote for a deceitful Obama and a deceitful party.

  • BAC, way to stand up for the “little guy” that multimillionaire Hillary whose campaign is so desperate for a win, she’s loaned herself over 11 million dollars while Obama rakes in more than that a couple fo dollars, a couple of Americans at a time. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And how is SHE doing? Spreading lies about her Democratic competitor? Specifically saying the Republican nominee is a better candidate? Race-baiting as recently as this morning, implying that white Americans are hard -working Americans (gee, what does that make black people?)

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Again, many pollsters had Hillary winning Indiana by a sizable margin, and closing in on North Carolina. The opposite happened, he destroyed her in NC and Limbaugh’s minions did a good job keeping her just barely ahead in Indiana. Obama outspent Clinton by a 4-to-1 margin because he has money to spend! He’s got the donors, he’s got the faith of many more voters, he’s got the momentum. If *Clinton* could “close the deal,” she’d have the donors necessary to be competitive in the dollars-and-cents field. Instead, she has to rely on the mainstream media – the same mainstream media she vilified when she was First Lady for getting all up in her personal bidness – to get her talking points across for free.

    Oh, and don’t worry about Obama’s “base.” There are plenty of right-leaning indies and Repubs who couldn’t vote in their state’s primaries but are scared sh*tless of a third Bush term. One of the things Hillary herself keeps telling the supers is that they need to think about who’s more electable. Well, she raises huge hackles of hatred throughout this country. Obama has some people who hate him because he’s black, or a Democrat. People hate Clinton because she’s hateful, spiteful, a Democrat AND a Clinton. The electability issue isn’t an issue, period.

    She’s biding time, and dolts are doing her dirty work.

  • Personally, I don’t care if Mrs. Obama *is* bitter. She’s a black American. She has a right to be bitter. And despite that, she has channeled her energy into a positive campaign. Not that the Clinton trolls would ever admit that she’s making a positive difference. They’re too busy trying to invent another “scandal” in the vain hope of tearing Obama down.

    *This* white woman thinks Mrs. Obama has been very classy. Unlike Mrs. Clinton.

  • Lets just all settle down about Clinton…..yes it looks like Obama is the nominee but are we going to keep “punching” Clinton?? Give it up, she will leave this race when she decides it is time….and what are you Obama supporters worried about that drives such negative comments about Clinton? It seems to me that there is some fear that Clinton will somehow “snatch” the nomination from Obama…..I doubt it. You should be happy that your choice has succeeded and revel in that fact…..but why all the negative toward Clinton? When the GE comes around Obama is going to encounter alot of scrutiny and all the issues will be magnified, so any negative comming from Clinton is nothing compared to McCain. I don’t know what Clinton is thinking or what her motives are; none of you do. She has a right to continue on if she so desires……and yes her staff is loyal to her and so are her supporters. What good does it accomplish to “beat” down Clinton, her supporters, and punditry about her motives? I for one believe that Obama and Clinton need each other….their constituency’s, to win the GE….don’t know how this nomination will shake out, but this “talk” isn’t going to help us reach an amicable union. I hope the two of them will consider running together, I don’t care who is on top……they need to put aside their ego’s and set it up the best way to win…..I see many of the Obama supporters call us Clintons supporters “in denial” maybe so, but considering the aforementioned, who is really in denial?

  • Maria

    On another thread yesterday we briefly discussed what HRC’s debt actually was. George Stephanoupolos spoke about that today:

    Clinton Debt ‘Far Higher’ Than Thought

    STEPHANOPOULOS: ….on Michigan and Florida the problem for the Clinton campaign is that the Democratic National Committee right now simply does not agree with the Clinton position. There’s going to be a meeting on May 31st of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. The members of that have signaled pretty clearly that they are not going to simply allow the Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated in full force the way Senator Clinton wants them seated. That makes the path even more difficult than the numbers Chris laid out there. Without Florida and Michigan, there’s no path to the nomination. The second big problem for the Clinton campaign right now is money. We know that Senator Clinton loaned herself a little more than $11 million. Going into April, the campaign finance reports show the campaign was carrying a debt of $10 million to $15 million. My sources are now telling that that number is far higher. The campaign debt is far higher than ten million dollars. It could be double that, maybe even more. And the lack of money and load of that debt could be driving the decisions inside the Clinton camp in coming days.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/stephanopoulos-clinton-de_n_100790.html

  • He can’t win the general election with just the blacks and the young.

    Well, since every single piece of data released shows that he isn’t getting support just from those two groups and does, in fact, get a fairly strong share of votes from other groups, your worries are unfounded.

    For example, Wisconsin isn’t exactly a diverse state, and he won there.

    So how’s about we stick to actual fact, mm’kay?

    nobody forces him to take his name off in Michigan and keep it on for Florida.

    You’re correct — nobody forced him.

    What he did was follow through with a promise all the candidates made when MI and FL were punished for violating the rules. All the candidates agree to the punishment.

    Clinton, on the other hand, broke her promise once she started to lose and now is making all this hay about “Voters should be heard!” (Which is funny since she thinks pledged delegates can change their vote if they feel like it. Guess she only likes the popular vote when it goes her way.)

    So we have on candidate who played by the rules, and another who decided not to once she was at a disadvantage.

    I know which one I’d prefer.

  • On May 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm, ford said:
    ….and what are you Obama supporters worried about that drives such negative comments about Clinton? … why all the negative toward Clinton?
    ________________________

    Playing race politics in an attempt to alienate white voters from Barack (claiming just today that she get the support of “hard-working people, white people.”)
    Being a multi-millionairess who claims that self-made man Obama is elitist.
    Endorsing that stupid gas tax repeal
    Voting for the Iraq War and never apologizing for it.
    Giving Bush the authority to also attack Iran
    Implying McCain is a better candidate than Obama.
    Dimissing the states that do’t swing her way as being not-important, too small, caucus states, too many black people, etc.

    Other than that, she’s just awesome

  • …and my guess is that IFP will disappear when Mary does.

    I think this is correct, and I for one will miss IFP. My company’s firewall prevents me from accessing The Onion, so IFP is my only daily dose of socio-political satire. I’m sort of hoping that IFP will stay for the GE only this time “supporting” McSame. Am I the only one?

  • I understand some Obama donors would be appalled if Obama then used that money to pay off Clinton’s debt, but that strikes me as somewhere between naive and a consequence of the new fundraising paradigm where donors aren’t all from the typical “political class.” the reality is that debt payoffs or paydowns are extremely common as a salve on political wounds, from the highest profile races like President, down to very local races. donors in a political process should (a) trust the judgement of the person they are donating to in terms of determining the pros and cons to their campaign (or if they dont have that level of trust, perhaps rethink writing that check) or (b) understand realistically that such transfers are part of the process and know going in that their contribution may be used for that purpose. In the eyes of the prevailing candidate, that is an expediture toward winning the election — which is what you intended when you donated.

  • Clinton’s win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win! -vote4thebest

    Why was he supposed to win Indiana? It pretty much is a textbook win for Clinton’s demographic. Statistically, she should have done much better. She lost a lot of ground with her base in Indiana.

    At this point, it’s moot. The primary is over, and I don’t realistically think a Democrat can carry Indiana in November, anyway.

    …and my guess is that IFP will disappear when Mary does.

    Oh, I don’t think so. For where ever there is ignorance, IFP will be there. Where ever there is stupidity, IFP will be there. Where ever there is a flat out denial of reality in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes…IFP will be there.

    So in the name of brilliant satire everywhere, I salute you, IFP. You may now eat your babies.

  • Mighty decent of you all. I’m deeply touched.

    Tell you what. If old whatsername turns out to be a Republican, as many suspect, and keeps posting here as a shill for John McCain, I’ll stick around.

  • doubtful, I only heard of one poll that indicated Obama was going to win Indiana. Since Clinton supporters love to cherry-pick the data that reflects their reality, therefore, Obama was supposed to win Indiana. All of the other polls that had Clinton winning from anywhere between 2 & 12 points are fabrications from either elistist snobs or lazy blacks, I’mnot sure which.

  • He can’t win the general election with just the blacks and the young. — vote4thebest, @73

    Don’t forget the elite eggheads; for some obscure reason they, too, seem to be on his side and ought to add a point or two to his scorecard.

    But I’m sure you’re right; Clinton will win handily, without the blacks and the young (I loved her today’s genteel: “they had been brought into the process” said about the young. By divine intervention, no doubt) and without the elite eggheads. The support of *just some* of the white, the uneducated and the senior citizen voters will be entirely sufficient for her to sweep the country, come November. Especially, if it doesn’t rain on Election Day; rain tends to set off rheumatic attacks…

  • Wake up! HRC is finished! Her narrow win in In was mostly because of the Rush Limbaugh listeners who voted for her. There will NEVER be another Clinton in the White House until memories of the many Clinton scandles and lies go away. Looting the White House, sex in the oral office, Vince Foster,Rose Law firm ‘lost” records, the great pardon sale-these are still too fresh in our minds. She is not electable! Maybe in eight more years she can have another chance.

  • Comments are closed.