Clinton sees no reason for an exit strategy

It’s hard to measure these questions with any reliable specifics, but it seems as if there’s been a relative ceasefire in Democratic circles the past couple of weeks. Hillary Clinton is still working hard, just as she has been, but it’s clear her campaign has shelved the “kitchen-sink” strategy first utilized in March, preferring not to attack Barack Obama much at all. Indeed, Clinton has been far more aggressive in targeting John McCain of late than Obama.

As such, it also seems the calls for Clinton’s withdrawal have dropped in volume, and probably in number. If Clinton wants to keep going, but she’s not campaigning in such a way as to hurt the party’s chances in the fall, and Obama can transition to general-election mode anyway, then anxious Dems no longer feel a sense of urgency about ending the nominating fight.

Given this, while Clinton hears from insiders behind the scenes about an inevitable defeat, she simply doesn’t feel as if she has any motivation to stop.

Rebuffing associates who have suggested that she end her candidacy, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it clear to her camp in recent days that she will stay in the race until June because she believes she can still be the nominee — and, barring that, so she can depart with some final goals accomplished.

Mrs. Clinton has disagreed with suggestions, made directly to her by a few friends recently, that her continued candidacy was deepening splits within the Democratic Party and damaging Senator Barack Obama’s chances of emerging as a formidable nominee. She has also disputed the notion that, by staying in, she was unintentionally fostering a racial divide with white voters in some states overwhelmingly supporting her.

Rather, in private conversations and in interviews, Mrs. Clinton has begun asserting that she believes sexism, rather than racism, has cast a shadow over the primary fight, a point some of her supporters have made for months. Advisers say that continuing her candidacy is partly a means to show her supporters — especially young women — that she is not a quitter and will not be pushed around.

Some of her goals and arguments are more compelling than others.

For example, there’s the notion that Obama could be forced to move closer to her position on the rare policy disputes between them.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also say that her popularity could lead Mr. Obama to fold some of her policy positions — like universal health insurance — into his platform, though they discounted the notion that her staying in the race was part of a larger bargaining strategy.

This strikes me as rather unlikely. For one thing, if Clinton will have no choice but to step aside soon anyway, Obama won’t have much of an incentive to drop his healthcare plan for hers (despite the fact, by the way, that I think her plan really is superior to his). For another, Clinton can have an enormous impact on the shape of healthcare legislation through her work in the Senate, rather than backroom negotiations as she exits the race. Besides, these two just don’t disagree on that much.

There’s also the notion that prolonging the intra-party fight even longer will ultimately help Obama.

[Clinton’s] advisers say that a major reason she does not want to be pressured out of the race is that she believes it will be easier to bring her supporters over to Obama once the primaries are over if they think she was able to finish the nomination battle on her own terms.

I’m not sure if this works either. As Christopher Orr put it, “Let me get this straight: Hillary Clinton gets her supporters riled up by declaring that she doesn’t want to leave the race, and then her campaign uses those riled up supporters as an argument for her not to leave the race? I understand Hillary Clinton not wanting to be pressured out of the race, and I understand her supporters feeling the same way. But the race is going to end in one of two ways: Either she will leave graciously and in a timely manner or she will be, to an increasing degree, ‘pressured’ to leave. The problem is that most of the people who don’t want her to be pressured, don’t want her to drop out either, and by discouraging the latter they’re helping to ensure the former.”

And perhaps my biggest concern is that Clinton may yet take steps that might give her a small, short-term boost, but hurt the party far more in the long run.

[Clinton] will travel to Florida on Wednesday to argue that [Obama] wants to win the nomination by disenfranchising the state’s Democratic primary voters, a visit that can only damage him in a swing state crucial to Obama’s chances in November.

No good can come of this.

So why bother? As far as I can tell, there’s one good reason: surprises happen.

While Mrs. Clinton believes that winning the nomination is a long shot at this point, she is also staying in the race because, in her experience, electoral politics can be a chaotic and unpredictable enterprise, scandals can emerge from nowhere, and Mr. Obama’s candidacy could still suffer a self-inflicted or unexpected wound. Picking up more primary votes and superdelegates could only strengthen her position if the party wants or needs to find an alternative to Mr. Obama.

And that makes sense. Should something dramatic and unforeseen happen, Clinton will be there to pick up the pieces. It’s unlikely, but what does she have to lose? Her reputation might suffer in Democratic circles, but it will recover in time. Her efforts might make it tougher for Democrats to win, but the Clinton campaign is reportedly convinced that Democratic ill will quickly fade after her withdrawal.

“I think in the end, when South Dakota and Montana go last and have their final result, she will sit back and see whether a win can be achieved or not — and if not, she is a class act and will do the class thing and get on board with the Democratic ticket,” said Jay Jacobs, a New York superdelegate and top fundraiser for Clinton.

I like to think that’s true. Time will tell.

I get that she’s hanging on in case Obama implodes or something– but does she still have to be actively campaigning? If Obama were to self-destruct in July wouldn’t the nomination naturally go to her?

By the way, am I the only one who finds it really hard to see how anyone thinks she’s a “class act.” I think that’s a title she forfeited some time ago.

  • I remember way back when then I supported Dodd or Biden and would have been quite happy with Obama and Clinton. I didn’t really like the rest of the field and especially didn’t like Edwards, who I has supported back in 2004.

    I really was undecided between Obama and Clinton.

    However, Clinton really turned me off by claiming that the vote in Michigan and Florida should count. How can she demand a change in the rules that she agreed to?

    Can some Clinton supported please explain to me how you can trust someone like her when she made a pledge and then broke it?

  • I think she’s hanging on to raise money to pay bills.
    Maybe she polled to find out that negative campaigning doesn’t open wallets?

    She might make a few mill before June 4th.
    As long as she doesn’t spend much on commercials, she can spend less of her Senate money bailing out her failed presidential bid which never leaves contributors feeling good.

  • I think she’s hanging on to raise money to pay bills.

    If she had the sense to get out when the math became impossible (after Wisconsin) she wouldn’t have all this campaign debt…

    She wouldn’t have to ask little kids to sell their bikes so she can pay herself back.

  • I think you may be wrongly attributing some strategizing to the Clintons’ actions here. Look, it’s understood that if something happens to Obama’s candidacy, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. She doesn’t need to stay in until August to be handy in case of the unexpected. She knows that, at least on some level, and she and her people are offering all of these explanations–staying in because surprises happen, using the extra time to rally her supporters around Obama, pretending that Florida and Michigan can affect the race’s outcome, sending a message to young women that she’s not a quitter–with varying degrees of sincerity and spin.

    But I think we should remember that the Clintons no more prepared themselves for a loss than the Bush administration prepared for post-invasion work in Iraq. All of the Clintons’ efforts over the past eight years have been directed toward getting back in the White House. They were absolutely certain it was going to happen after the disastrous Bush presidency, and all evidence did point to it happening. If Barack Obama hadn’t come along, Hillary Clinton would have cruised to the nomination.

    We’re all looking for signs of planned next steps in the Clintons’ actions, but all we seem to be seeing is their ongoing shock that the presidency isn’t going to be in the cards for her. They really don’t know what they’re going to do now and as yet they have no vision for their own lives past the White House. I think most or all of the Clintons’ conduct right now (his even more than hers, because he appears to have wanted a third term even more than she wanted a first one) is far more reflective of denial and searching for non-existent routes to a win than to strategizing, even short-term strategizing. They look like they’re making it up as they go along because they are making it up as they go along.

  • I think she’s hanging on to raise money to pay bills.

    That’s what I thought originally, but she’s now put herself something like another $9 million in debt.

    I think it’s all ego at this point. She can rationalize it as her staying in the race to fight for all women, but that’s just self-delusion. If she had women as her top concern, she’d be doing all she can now to ensure that women would support the certain Democratic nominee and protect equal rights legislation and ensure that the next Supreme Court appointments aren’t Scalia Jrs.

    No, she’s staying in for her own vanity (and Bill’s too). The Obama campaign ought to offer to carve her image into Mount Rushmore. Maybe that’d do it.

  • “No good can come of this.”

    What an understatement. This is exactly the kind of thing that can cost the party the general election! I understand that she cares more for herself than for anyone else–including her supporters and the party–but it hurts to watch.

  • Staying in isn’t going to help her debt problems; it’s costing her more per month to continue than she’s bringing in. Some of the math even suggests that her debts already outweigh her cash-on-hand—and she’ll have to refund all the monies held in reserve for the general election if she isn’t the nominee.

    She’s like the family who’s behind on all the bills because the breadwinner has a habit—booze, drug, gambling—it doesn’t matter. She’ll keep hanging on until the bitter end—the car gets towed; the furniture and appliances are trucked away; the bank evicts her and changes all the locks on the house.

    But the last time I checked, there were no “12-step programs” for politics.

    And I’m really having a hard time seeing how she’s imagining any reality-based scenario through which she can secure the nomination. As of this morning, Obama needs less than 70 delegates to clinch this thing; she needs about 250—and there are roughly what—300 total delegates left? She now needs more than 83% of all remaining delegates to win.

    The Titanic just isn’t going to reach New York here, people. It’s on the bottom of the ocean; broken and rusting….

  • Aren’t guys bothered by the fact that since March 4 she has won more primaries than Obama? Lately she has been polling better than Obama in match-ups against McCain. Obama is my preferred candidate but I want to win this thing.

  • I wouldn’t so much mind the motive of erasing her debt, except for one thing. Since her base is largely lower income, lower education people, I find it more than a little offensive that she would ask them to bail her out, while at the same time arguing that she wakes up every morning thinking about them. That just strikes me as kind of sleazy.

  • 1. When you are drowning in debt, you take action to get yourself out of debt.
    2. Her continued campaigning is hurting fundraising by the DNCC and other worthy female candidates that need the money to take on their R opponents.
    3. How does demonstrating that you can’t handle campaign finances boost her argument that she would be good for the economy?

  • She is hanging on to see what happens at the convention. They showed a clip of Ted Kennedy on the news last night and it happened to be his speech at the 1980 convention, where he was running behind in the primaries but did not concede until the nomination was made at the convention. I do not understand why there should be such fuss when Clinton does nothing less than many male candidates have done — see things out to the end of the race. The calls for her to drop out of the race prematurely have been wrong, not Clinton’s persistence. Even the majority of democrats in Oregon think she should continue.

    Obama may implode, or the superdelegates may buy Clinton’s argument about the number of electoral votes, the popular vote, and her electability in the Fall, or they decide to count FL and MI (making her totals closer to Obama’s). Obama does not have the magic number needed for nomination, so the decision must and will be made at the convention.

  • There is a way that candidates stay viable “in case of x” and that’s by suspending campaigning but not formally releasing your delegates. That way she can have input on platform issues and be available if Obama implodes but isn’t providing fodder for the general election of McCain. I think the Clinton’s have crossed that line of reasonable behavior but I am willing to hold off complete condemnation until Obama attains 2026 delegates.

    If Hillary Clinton continues after the point that Obama has the majority of delegates in the sanctioned contests (and subsequently has the delegate votes to control the ultimate seating of the MI/FL delegations in the Credentials Committee) then she has become a destructive force in the party.

  • the “long shot” strategy, as suggested by huckleberry this weekend, is exactly what godzillary is aiming for, if you catch my drift. plus, she’s maneuvering to be the next ted kennedy, who worked night and day crippling jimmy (you remember jimmy? the last democrat to actually get 50 percent of the vote?) carter’s presidency so he could stay the big cheese in the democratic party. even if that meant opening to the door to ronald “october surprise” reagan. start your countdown, kids. 2012 is just four congresses away. obama won’t be able to get a law passed against feeding kindergartners to coyotes with hillary in the senate.

  • Good point, The Other Ed. It will be interesting to see what she does when Obama reaches 2,026.

  • I understand Hillary Clinton not wanting to be pressured out of the race, and I understand her supporters feeling the same way. But the race is going to end in one of two ways: Either she will leave graciously and in a timely manner or she will be, to an increasing degree, ‘pressured’ to leave. The problem is that most of the people who don’t want her to be pressured, don’t want her to drop out either, and by discouraging the latter they’re helping to ensure the former.”

    CB, you state that you don’t agree with this rationale, and I’m going to have to take the contrary position. There is, in fact, a third way that nomination fights end: someone gets a majority of delegates. If, as looks increasingly likely, Obama actually can get to 2026 on June 3 (or very shortly thereafter via Supers), then Clinton has neither been “a quitter,” and she hasn’t been “pushed out.” The race has run its natural course and Clinton gave it her best shot but came up 200 delegates short out of 4050 – no shame in that. It seems the hope is that this third outcome is the one that her supporters will best accept. I don’t think that is an unreasonable view.

  • Re 13, we will actually know about the fate of MI/FL before Obama reaches 2025, wont we? Isn’t there a crucial meeting on May 31 (I assume Obama will not cross the 2025 until all of the states are in on June 3)? That timing would actually make things easier – we would have certainty that 2025 is the bar at the time he crosses it.

  • Interesting posts upthread.
    But I do take exception with Maria here:

    …because he appears to have wanted a third term even more than she wanted a first one.

    While I don’t doubt Bill’s lust, I think you undersell the Queen’s greed.
    Her desire for the presidency is so palatable, that if this was the Soviet Union, she pound a pump on the table like Khrushchev and seize the Kremlin’s helm.

    Regarding the other posts trying to ferret out the current Clinton strategy:

    One can’t really step inside the mind of dead-ender.
    It is all reality distortion and reality creation inside there…
    Does Bush still think we can win in Iraq?
    Does Clinton still think she can pull out a victory?

    ‘nuf said.

  • Aren’t guys bothered by the fact that since March 4 she has won more primaries than Obama?

    Not really. The only wins she had in states the Democrats really need and have a realistic shot of taking were Ohio and Pennsylvania. (Not to sound like Mark Penn here, but Kentucky, Indiana and Texas are fairly safely in the Republican column no matter who’s the nominee. Same with Mississippi and possibly NC which Obama both won.)

    So of the post-March 4th primaries she’s won, only OH and PA really matter. Right now, the polls have Obama beating McCain handily in PA by 8 points, and tied up with him in OH. He’s only going to improve on that standing as the summer goes on.

    Meanwhile, I believe he still does much better than Hillary vs. McCain in other key states like Colorado, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

  • Re 13, we will actually know about the fate of MI/FL before Obama reaches 2025, wont we? Isn’t there a crucial meeting on May 31 (I assume Obama will not cross the 2025 until all of the states are in on June 3)?

    He’s 64 short now. It’s possible that he could claim that many supers before May 31, but I think it’s very unlikely. I think the RBC is going to have to do some hard work at that meeting.

  • If she were to go to Florida, thank the voters for their support, go over the math, ignore the ‘controversy’, drop out and make a very strong case for supporting Obama, pointing out their common positions and the dreadful republican alternative, THAT would be a class act.

  • I see no harm in the continuation of the Obama-Clinton contest, so long as they target John McCain and not each other. And that seems to be what is happening.

    It’s hard for someone to let go of a dream. Hillary thought she had a cakewalk to the presidency. It isn’t easy to come to terms with such a stunning defeat.

  • Yes, Kennedy hung on and fought — unsuccessfully — at the convention. And we all know how well the 1980 election worked for the Democrats, right?

    There are fewer calls for her to drop out of the primaries, in part because she’s not making direct attacks on Obama. And there are polls saying that a majority of Democrats want her to finish the primaries. But if she’s planning to carry on to the convention and make a last ditch plea there, you will see a lot of her polling support erode quickly.

    So I think it’s a good idea in every way for her to continue campaigning as long as she doesn’t attack Obama and, most importantly, her campaign and her supporters stop trotting out the underhanded and incomplete popular vote argument that gives her a lead based only on the 44 states and the few territories that participated in sanctioned contests, plus the two states that had unsanctioned contests, while excluding four states that also had sanctioned contests. The longer she and her campaign LIE about a non-existent lead, the more resentment she will foment among her most fervent and bitter supporters. And that will be divisive and destructive.

  • They showed a clip of Ted Kennedy on the news last night and it happened to be his speech at the 1980 convention, where he was running behind in the primaries but did not concede until the nomination was made at the convention. I do not understand why there should be such fuss when Clinton does nothing less than many male candidates have done — see things out to the end of the race.

    You can’t see the problem? How did 1980 turn out for the party, Mary?

  • You can’t see the problem?

    I see a man. I see a woman. I see a double standard. That is what I see. I’m not interested in arguing petty details about who won and who lost in 1980 and why. I’m interested in Senator Clinton having the same opportunity Mr. Macho Kennedy had.

  • Let’s face the facts. Despite Obama claiming that he has the most elected delegates available, those awarded when a primary or state caucus is run, neither has the number needed. Hillary has the lead in popular vote with FL and MI but will have the lead with or without FL and MI by une 4th. Now we have heard Obama and his supporters and the TV pundants like Chris Matthews claim that you can’t take the nomination away from the first black man to get this far by having super delegates hand the nomination to Hillary. BUT we need to remember the facts as they are rather than as Obama wishes they were. FACT: The only job of a super delegate is to nominate the “MOST ELECTABLE” candidate. There is no rule that says Super delegates must nominate the candidate that has won the most elected delegates, that is just what Obama has been spreading. If his thinking made any sense then there would not be super delegates at all……the rule would be just who won the most elected delegates………sorry Obamamites but that is not the rule and would not make any sense. Super delegates should consider which candidate has the best chance of winning the most electorals in Nov. Obama has proven that he can win caucuses in mostly Republican states while Hillary has proven that she can win all of the statexs needed to have 270 electoral and win the Presidency. Obama had the support of Ted Kennedy, Kerry and OPrah but still lost both MA and CA. In November there is no way that Obama will ever carry MA and there is good reason to believe that he will not carry CA either, Add to that the fact that Kennedy’s endorsement got Obama to where he is today and as sad as it is Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor in an area of the brain that causes confusion with understanding words. It is highly likely that Ted did not know what he was doing when endorsing Obama. Kerry has no excuse.

    Women and the lovers of women please do not vote for any senator or Governor that has endorsed Obama……….it is their lack of good judgement that will cause us all to deal with 4 more years of McCain………..unless we can get Hillary nominated or running as an independent.

  • TR
    According to SurveyUSA poll in North Carolina HRC beats McCain, while Obama loses to McCain even though he won that state handidlly in the primary.

  • I think maria’s answer is both generous and most probably correct.

    Moreover, while she did rile up the base in an unfortunate way, she is right about the best way to bring them in now. I think that playing out the last two weeks so that no one can claim that she was jobbed out of the nomination is the only way you bring a lot of people back into the fold quickly and efficiently. The fact that she got us to this place in the first place is irritating, but now that we are here, I think playing this thing out into June really is the best way forward.

    All of this assumes, of course, that she stays positive and doesn’t stoke this mysogeny bit too much. Pushing women out of the Democratic voting block would be a big mistake.

    My only question is this- why doesn’t anyone else ask Clinton or her delegates if they would even want the kind of win they would have to get at this point. If the superdelegates pulled this thing to her side, she really would lose a huge chunk of his contingent, simply because they felt that the process was extremely unfair and that Obama was undemocratically jobbed. They might have voted for her a month ago, but not now, not if they felt the nomination was stolen. On the other hand, if he melts down, that would mean she basically lost and then had it handed to her. Not a really great way to go forward. In the end, I just don’t see a way for her to win that wouldn’t strongly hurt her in November.

  • as sad as it is Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor in an area of the brain that causes confusion with understanding words. It is highly likely that Ted did not know what he was doing when endorsing Obama.

    I was expecting something this morally repugnant to show up soon. I just didn’t think it would come from a Democrat.

  • Mary said:
    She is hanging on to see what happens at the convention. They showed a clip of Ted Kennedy on the news last night and it happened to be his speech at the 1980 convention, where he was running behind in the primaries but did not concede until the nomination was made at the convention. I do not understand why there should be such fuss when Clinton does nothing less than many male candidates have done….

    What Kennedy did was undermine his party’s candidate and make it easier for a Republican to take over the White House.

    And afterwards, Kennedy was never as powerful in the party and in the country. He eventually became an “elder statesman” but he never again had much ability to influence the party.

    By taking the nomination fight all the way to the convention, Kennedy helped give us 12 years of Republican rule, followed by eight years of scandal and a Republican congress, followed by eight years of the worst president in American history. Clinton taking the nomination fight to the convention could very likely give us another four years of a Republican president who is incompetent, uninformed and governed by multinational corporations. With our economy teetering, our military reaching its breaking point and our enemies getting stronger, a McCain presidency would be disastrous.

    Is that the legacy Clinton wants — demonstrating that a woman can cause as big a disaster as any man?

  • TR
    According to SurveyUSA poll in North Carolina HRC beats McCain, while Obama loses to McCain even though he won that state handidlly in the primary.

    Sure. But that’s the only poll of a Dem-McCain matchup that has a Dem winning. PPP and Rasmussen are the other two recent ones, and they both have McCain beating either.

    I lived in the state for five years and I just don’t think we take NC no matter what.

  • as sad as it is Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor in an area of the brain that causes confusion with understanding words. It is highly likely that Ted did not know what he was doing when endorsing Obama.

    Wow, I tuned joditroll out after the first few lines. That has to be one of the most despicable things I’ve ever read. I really hope you’re a Republican troll, because I’d hate to think that a slimeball like you is in the Democratic Party.

  • ” In November there is no way that Obama will ever carry MA and there is good reason to believe that he will not carry CA either…”

    Jodi, I don’t know what you have been smoking but as a Massachusetts Democrat, let me assure you that Obama will win Massachusetts over McCain without investing significant resources by over 10 points. Hillary’s win had more to do with the batttle ongoing between House Speaker Sal DiMasi who endorsed Clinton and the Governor Deval Patrick who is an Obama long-time friend. Those factors will not be in play in November.

    As a resident of Tip O’Neils old district, leet me remind you, “All politics is local.”

  • Maria: Facts are facts and you were expecting it because it is a fact. If you do just a little research you will find that I am correct. The workings of the brain are still very much unknown but we do know that particular areas of the brain when injured cause specific problems. If the tumor was in the frontal lobe there would have been a personality change but where this tumor is located it would cause confusion in various manners like the ability to distinguish between a dime and a quarter or the ability to completely understand what someone has said to him. I have always supported Ted Kennedy and would never have voted for him again because of this endorsement but at least I can now understand what caused Ted to go so far off the mark with an Obama endorsement.

  • ” In November there is no way that Obama will ever carry MA and there is good reason to believe that he will not carry CA either…”

    Christ, I’ll never ignore Jodi again. You have to be a spoof. No one can really be that dumb, right?

    By the way, the latest polls show Obama winning both states handily — and in California, doing much better against McCain than Hillary would.

  • Jodi –

    Pretty much everything you’ve said is wildly inappropriate and offensive.

    Not to mention inaccurate.

    Hillary has the lead in popular vote with FL and MI but will have the lead with or without FL and MI by une 4th.

    Can you explain this to me? Did you even read the original post?

    Women and the lovers of women please do not vote for any senator or Governor that has endorsed Obama……….it is their lack of good judgement that will cause us all to deal with 4 more years of McCain………..unless we can get Hillary nominated or running as an independent.

    What the hell does being a woman have to do with it??

    And you seriously think that Hillary running as an independent would be a good idea? Talk about ensuring a McCain presidency..

    I just can’t handle the inanity.

  • When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. Hillary is running a destructive spiteful campaign. No upity black person gets to show her up!
    Any sane person now realizes that Hillary has NO chance to win, but she continues to attack and widen the breach in the Democratic party. This os pure greed and ego.

    If I can’t have it no one can!

    It always amazes me that people will continue to fight against their own self interest. The “working class whites” that will NEVER vote for a black man that will fight for their interests, will vote for a candidate that will strip them of their jobs, their constitutional freedoms, and their place at the political table because he is a white male that has his picture taken with his sleeves rolled up. The word gullible is appropriate here.

    Long live the haves and the have mores, I wonder how the price of gasoline is affecting them?

    I also wonder if the “working class white man” in Kentucky thinks that ANY Republican will step over corporate profit to help him out…..NOT.

  • No Jodi is a lifetime MA democrat that hs voted for all Kennedy’s for a lifetime but knew on day one that there was something very wrong with Ted endorsing Obama…..it makes no sense untill we knew that there was a brain tumor involved.

    The best thing super delegates can do for their friend Ted is to not allow his error in judgement (endorsing Obama) to become a democratic tragedy by resulting in 4 more years of Republicans..

    I live in MA and have said for a long time now that Obama could not beat McCain here and now there are many others claiming that Obama will not win MA. Think about how much effort Kennedy and Kerry put into trying to get Obama the primary win here and still lost by double digits. Now consider that this state has elected to Governor a Republican (Mitt Romney) , a woman, many democrats and now a black man. MA people will not vote Obama they will elect McCain because McCain is a very experienced liberal conservative and Obama has no resume and is tied to Wright, Resko, ect….also MA has a high number of hunters that as Obama says “cling to their guns”

  • Jodi –

    The parietal lobe plays important roles in integrating sensory information from various parts of the body, knowledge of numbers and their relations, and in the manipulation of objects. Portions of the parietal lobe are involved with visuospatial processing. It has little to do with decisionmaking. In addition, it is not likely that he was even suffering from the tumor when he made the decision, since this type of Glioma is so aggressive.

    Regarding Obama chances in the General Election, today’s Reuters/Zogby poll shows Obama leadind McCain by 10 points and Clinton by only 1.

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1511

  • She’s not a class act. Her supporters are delusional. She is hurting the party – intentionally. However, Obama will be the nominee and he will beat McCain and ultimately only Bill and Hill will suffer because of their actions.

  • In order to fully win over her supporters to Obama and begin healing the rift created (both with her supporters and his), she would need to:
    1. State that she and Barack agree on most, if not all, of the issues facing this country.
    2. Admit that she entered this contest convinced that she was the best candidate, and confident that she would win the nomination handily.
    3. Admit that both her and Obama were “firsts” (Woman, Black) and as such faced an unfair disadvantage in modern American politics.
    3. Admit that she started this contest with virtually every political advantage possible: Name recognition, a popular former president campaigning for her, lots of prominent, powerful donors and supporters, a huge block of superdelegates commited to her before the first ballot was cast, and her pick of the litter of campaign staffers.
    4. Concede that, in contrast, Obama handicapped himself at the outset by refusing to take money from lobbyists or PACs, in addition to being new to national politics and relatively unknown to most Americans outside of Illinois.
    5. Concede that positive media coverage and polling before Iowa gave an feeling of inevitablility to her campaign that she and her staff took for granted, and this resulted in a serious misallocation of her campaign’s time and resources before Iowa and Super Tuesday.
    6. Concede that Obama has run a singularly spectular and unique campaign, in terms of fundraising, recruiting disgruntled republicans and independants, motivating and inspiring the youth and minority vote in ways previously thought near impossible, and getting out the vote.
    7. Admit how difficult it has been to watch this slip away from her, and how she must feel about letting down her supporters, particularly women who I think feel her loss the most, and how this has motivated and inspired her to fight on, despite the apparent lack of logic in doing so, in the hope (or prehaps belief) that there was some issue that would cripple Obama’s campaign if the “long knives” were to come out during the GE (and she knows they will).
    8. Admit Obama has been pummelled from all sides for months now, by her, McCain and the Media, and he handled these attacks with calmness and candor and honesty befitting a world leader, and has emerged stronger from it.
    9. Admit that during this campaign she has benefitted from racial animus, charges of guilt by association, and republican smears that she abhors.
    10. Tell her supporters she believes Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States, and that she proud to have campaigned with him and will vigorously support him in the GE, and looks forward to working with him to forge new policy in her role in the Senate (and state with finality that she has no desire to become VP).
    11. Implore her followers to transfer their passion and support to Barack, and reiterate that they are, and have always been, on the same page for the vast majority of the major issues facing this country.

    But I’m not holding my breath.

  • David Gergen called her on it last night on CNN. Finally, someone stopped skirting the issue. Her campaign was ill-concieved and mismanaged. In the final phase she resorted to the ugliest of tactics and lowered hereslf to a craven pandering of racist voters. She lost any opportunity for a gracious exit…and she has lost any opportunity for future presidential runs. Now she is fueled by resentment and vanity. Once she does drop out, I say she will go on a relentless media tour that will keep her and her husband in the forefront right through the election. She won’t be on tha ballot, but she’ll do whatever it takes to be the headling…even if that means killing the Democrats’ chances.

  • That is sad when someone blames failure on their own race or gender. Double standard and denial of same opportunity as a man? That is an excuse or some kind of rationalization or both. Experience tells everyone involved that the sooner a party gets its nominee, the better chance it has in the general election. She’s hurting the party and no one–not a single person in the entire country–is telling her to quit because she’s a woman.

    Unfortunately, if Hillary is able to somehow get the Rules Committee and superdelegates to give her the nomination, we will hear the same kind of thing about race being the motivating factor in the other direction and how a black person had the nomination “stolen”.

  • knew on day one that there was something very wrong with Ted endorsing Obama…..it makes no sense untill we knew that there was a brain tumor involved.

    Wow, Jodi must know Ted better than Bob Shrum, Mike Barnicle, Ted Sorensen, John Kerry and all the other longtime friends of the senator who said it made perfect sense to them. They’ve been saying on TV the last few days that Obama reminded them all of JFK and RFK in the ’60s, and it made perfect sense. But I guess Jodi is much closer to the man than those guys.

    And I’m eager to hear more about the mind-warping power of Kennedy’s brain tumor. Was it so strong that it clouded the judgment of Caroline Kennedy and Ted’s son when they endorsed Obama alongside him?

  • One of Hillary’s rationales for remaining in the race has ALWAYS been that “something will happen” to blow Obama’s lead to shreds.

    Just an observation… Every time this rationale has been reiterated from her camp, HER campaign has suffered a blow from some action on her part or Bill’s. Seems to me that waiting for something to happen to the other guy results in “something happening”, self-inflicted, that damages HER, not Obama. That hope hasn’t worked too well for her so far.

    Whether it’s true or not, it seems to me there’s a high level of desperation in these last days of her campaign, and for the life of me I can’t imagine why. Nobody gets everything they want, particularly the big life-prizes that depend on the regard of others.

    It’s also very damaging that she isn’t already encouragin her agitated supporters to support whoever the candidate is. Many are so riled up that it may not matter if she asks them now, unless they see Obama with new eyes in contrast to McCain.

    But, to be honest, I think Obama will win the presidency, regardless of the direction “militant” Hillary supporters go. There’s no way American voters (who are much larger in numbers than the primary supporters of either candidate) will go for the bumbling, ignorant, warmongering McCain/Bush vision for America, given the disaster Bush’s presidency has been and the furious outcry.against it.

  • It isn’t “sexist” to note that Mrs. Billy-J would never have gotten anywhere close to achieving what little she has achieved, had she not followed the traditional female path to power and married a powerful man, then put up with whatever humiliation he inflicted on her, while she kept her eye on the prize.

    Hillary Rodham might have made it to foundation president, or even congresswoman, but she had to tack on “Clinton” to get where she has.

    Obama, on the other hand, got where he has on his own merits. There are plenty of other women who are excellent politicians who actually understand how it works, unlike Hillary, who was too stupid to learn the rules of the game she was going to play and now expects she can stamp her foot and get them changed for her, who got where they are on their own merits.

    Hillary has done for feminism what she did for universal health care 15 years ago. Set everything back 20 years.

  • I hate to say it, but given the unhinged nature of a segment of her supporters, all this “something might happen” talk — especially the unfortunate “unexpected wound” metaphor — is starting to sound a little dangerous to me, a little too much like “won’t someone rid me of this troublesome priest?”

    They need to think hard about how the rhetoric is being heard by the nuttiest extremists out there and tone it down.

  • Mary (and other Clinton supporters), one problem with your point of view is that if she does take it to the convention, and she loses there (as is extremely likely, given that there’s mathematically no way Obama can lose any of the objective scores), you’re not going to accept that result as legitimate. You’re going to cry “sexism” all the way, and that will ensure McCain’s election in November, because you sure as hell won’t vote for the male pig who took it away from Clinton.

    You’ve got to see the forest, not the trees. Clinton will not be the first female president. Not gonna happen. If Obama loses in November, one hundred years of feminist progress will be dealt a very severe blow. It’s already going to be an uphill battle over the next thirty years against the conservative nutjob majority on the supreme court.

  • Sure Clinton has a right to stay in and get all the votes she can get, and I understand why her supporters would want her to. And her staying in need not harm the Democratic Party in November’s general election, particularly if she stops attacking Obama, and it could actually help if it were to allow Clinton supporters to feel like they have had the opportunity to demonstrate their support for their candidate. I can understand why calls for her to exit the campaign are fueling resentment. Clinton staying in is less like Kennedy in 1980 (who ran against an incumbent) and more like Jackson in 1998 (although Jackson’s campaign was a basically symbolic one as an underdog in a way that Clinton’s never was).
    BUT as much as her fire of her campaign has been re-directed from Obama to McCain, and as much as she’s been saying lately that Democrats will be unified after the nomination, she and her main supporters like McAuliffe have been fueling the notion that the nomination that should rightfully be hers has been stolen from her, by sexism in the media and by arcane rules about delegates that will deny her victory despite her “winning” the popular vote. The “we’ve won the popular vote” argument is BS, as we all know and as media commentators are increasingly pointing out. And to talk about sexism in the media and in the campaign without mentioning racism is equally dishonest and self-serving, particularly for someone whose campaign tapped into existing racism (and homophobia) in plenty of subtle and a few not-so-subtle ways.
    As much as I feel for the disappointment of Clinton and her supporters, I wish they would accept the fact that she has lost in a year when she was expected to dominate because she had to contend with an exceptionally formidable challenger and because of her own shortcomings. Obama was my third-choice candidate when the race started, so I am not going to talk about him like he’s the second coming the way some of his supporters do. But it is obvious that he is a gifted orator with a consistent message of change that is appealing, and it was especially for all of the candidates including Clinton to overcome his appeal.
    As for Clinton’s shortcomings, I’ll mention only some of the many which made her a Democrat I would vote for in a general election only reluctantly: her vote to authorize war in Iraq and linking it to 9/11, in spite of knowing better, and her second vote regarding Iran; her inability to admit mistakes (we’ve had enough of this with George W); the vast amounts of corporate contributions she’s received; her cautious and inconsistent rhetoric on a number of issues; her think-small, policy-wonk way of aproaching problems; her association with the DLC and her husband’s cronies; and the the aggressive, win-at-all costs campaign that has often attacked Obama from the right and all too often appealed to racism, xenophobia and homophobia. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton, and I fight it offensive to suggest there is something sexist to articulate these reasons and not support her candidacy.
    I am real tired of identity politics. And for the record, yes I’m male, as well as white, gay, well-educated, reasonably affluent and the son and grandson of working class immigrants, including an illegal one.

  • Hillary has done for feminism what she did for universal health care 15 years ago. Set everything back 20 years.

    What nonsense, Tom. Stop assigning this woman this fantastical power over every other woman’s life. You say this all the time, and it’s reflective not of actual circumstances but of a perspective apparently cemented in–and never evolved from–your own coming of age 30 or 40 years ago. This isn’t 1972, and though you don’t seem to have noticed, feminism has long been the many-faceted norm, not a narrow, awakening movement in danger of being toppled by the actions of a few, much less one.

    Clinton is responsible for her own reputation and no one else’s; she doesn’t represent some idiotic concept of Everywoman; nor is “feminism” some monolithic movement. Believing that one woman running a deplorable and incompetent campaign can “set back feminism 20 years” is every bit as blindered and dated as those few Clinton dead-enders–many or most of the same age group as you, I note–who interpret Clinton’s defeat as a personal blow and a defeat for all women. Knock it the hell off, please.

  • After the last three months I’m surprised anyone can put “Hillary” and “class” in the same sentence. At least not without a “has no” in between.

  • one problem with your point of view is that if she does take it to the convention, and she loses there (as is extremely likely, given that there’s mathematically no way Obama can lose any of the objective scores), you’re not going to accept that result as legitimate.

    Bingo. There is no scenario–none–under which Mary and her thankfully numerically insignificant fellow dead-enders will accept that Clinton has lost. Thus, no point in wasting time worrying about these few, these unhappy few. Much better to concentrate on the majority who understand what’s at stake in this election and are committed to electing a Democrat.

  • We’ve seen the last of JodiTroll with her comments here today. Morons can go too far, and she’s done so, having offended Mr. Tolerance.

    Ding Dong! The Witch is dead!
    The wicked Witch is dead!!

    Let that be a lesson to thre rest of the IQ-challenged among the Clinton trolls.

  • I am one who supported the Clintons through their entire presidency (Bill’s) Even though the Monica thing was appalling. But Hillary has shown her true stripes in this election. Listen we women know a woman can be president – look at Maggie Thatcher in Britain. But that is no reason to vote for someone who is stubborn and pigheaded like Hillary Clinton and George W (The younger, not the father) Bush. People who have no subtlty in them make dangerous presidents. Hillary has shown her true stripes in this election and she will continue to wreack havoc because she has no other life. She has no hobbies.

  • She’s extorting Democrats to keep off her back and let her do what she wants or she’ll go on the unfair/sleazy/vicious/low-blow attack against Obama again, play the race card, play the gender card, and basically ruin the whole thing for everyone. The unspoken deal that’s been struck is that no one speaks out against her or says she should withdraw because they know or fear she’ll choose the nuclear option. So she plays the tune, and the rest dance.

    Just like the little kid in that Twilight Zone episode who held power over all the adults, and made them his supplicants, as they feared angering him, she’s the center of attention and feeling like she’s demonstrating, and making everyone acknowledge, her power as the “decider” of the Democratic Party.

    It’s ego; she wants to say she went as far as possible and came as close as possible but just-barely didn’t win it.

    Then she’ll claim sexism is why she didn’t get (the mere 200 delegates [5% of total] more to win) the nomination. Hence, she’ll be able to spend the rest of her life complaining that were it not for big-bad chauvinistic men, she’d have been the first woman president.

    In the meantime, having wounded Obama and riled up the I-want-a-woman-and-only-a-woman-for-president crowd with her complaints about sexism, and putting forth a faux effort to work for Obama—with saboteur Bill as her sideman–Obama loses, which fulfils the self-fulfilling prophecy she’s positing that Obama can’t win: “See, I told you but you wouldn’t listen.”

    The only other option is that she’ll make a grand(iose) exit, portraying herself as the savior of the party who sacrificed what really should have been her nomination for the sake of the party.

    Martyr as peacemaker, or just plain martyr.

    I think the kid’s name was Timmy. He was played by Billy Mumy from Lost in Space.

  • Don’t count HRC out yet. She has a June surprise in the works. google the names Larry Sinclair and Donald Young. It seems Obama has Jennifer Flowers (sorta) / Vince Foster problem.

    Fully vetted indeed!

    Why is the media ignoring this?

  • Mary, Mother of Odd, said: “I see a double standard. That is what I see. I’m not interested in arguing petty details about who won and who lost in 1980 and why. I’m interested in Senator Clinton having the same opportunity Mr. Macho Kennedy had.”

    Mary, your claim doesn’t hold water as a statistical point. In formal terms you don’t have enough cases (n) to conclude anything. You can’t even identify a pattern when you have only 1 example–of how a woman is treated in a race. So, based on Hillary, you can’t make the case for a double-standard (which is different from whether or not there is one). Name the Party figures that you think have treated Hillary the way they have because she’s a woman. Dodd? Leahy? Kennedy?

    Plenty of people slammed Kennedy for continuing on in 1980. It’s happened to other White Male candidates.

    By your logic, why should Edwards, Richardson, et al. (Romney) have dropped out? After all there were plenty of delegates left to be chosen, many supers weren’t committed at that point–and even if they were, they weren’t really “committed,” and they could have pursued the non-existent popular vote option. Or, they could have hung around in case something happened to either Obama or Hillary–or BOTH.

    A convention fight from someone who can’t win it is nothing good. Most convention fights end up with the other party winning.

    Hillary’s situation is similar to that faced by hundreds of White MALE candidates over the course of history. Were there to be numerous cases of woman candidates to compare, we could make a real effort to examine a double standard, but with so many variables involved, it would extremely difficult no matter what.

  • I have a theory about why Hillary’s campaign baffles so many people and have posted it elsewhere, but I’ll try it out here, too.

    Hillary’s energy, determination, and strength are an inspiration, probably more than to just women — she sure has those qualities in abundance. But there is a different set of related qualities that almost all people respond positively to that Hillary has failed to demonstrate, and they arent written into any campaign manuals. They are honesty, integrity, and fair play.

    Analyses of the different “fighting styles” of teenage males and females show that they fight differently. The studies usually show that women (plus men, and bullies of all stripes) who didn’t learn “fair play” through team games as children don’t know or value this principle in adult life — and this ignorance has a detrimental effect in almost all aspects of life. When these people “fight”, it is likely to be primitive, dirty, and less than admirable.

    Someone who’s “always” been (or strived to be) a leader also doesn’t learn these lessons because they don’t “subject” themselves to being part of a group or working as an equal team member. I’ve often thought that Hillary conducted her campaign this way, as though there were no boundaries for what she’d do to win, the lying, the encouragement of racism among racists, claiming gender bias, the adoption of macho attributes, a failure to follow the rules she signed on to (FL & MI) etc. Fair play is a mark of integrity and respect for others.

    I have no doubt that Hillary is a courageous and decent person when she ISN’T fighting, loyal, good to her friends, etc. — those who like and respect her because they know her personally often refer to a lot of positive qualities you don’t see when she’s fighting.

    So while Hillary has left a valuable legacy for women to follow in her strength and determination and hard work, that’s only half of the picture. The other half is why she will lose the nomination.

    It seems to me that lack of an exit strategy is just another characteristic of this failure.

  • …scandals can emerge from nowhere, and Mr. Obama’s candidacy could still suffer a self-inflicted or unexpected wound.

    At which point, the supers would switch their votes to Clinton regardless of whether she was campaigning or not.

    BTW I don’t think this campaign would look much different if Hillary had dropped out weeks ago. West Virginia and Kentucky would still have voted, and given her lopsided victories, which would have embarrassed Obama – just as virtual unknown Huckabee kept embarrassing McCain long after the latter had effectively sealed the Republican nomination.

  • Obama has Jennifer Flowers (sorta) / Vince Foster

    Somehow, I don’t think Hillary wants people to resurrect the rumors that she had Vince Foster murdered.

  • Actually, I think her continued presence (without negativity) is a great thing for Obama.
    1 – She has been talking about bringing the party together, helping him out on that.
    2 – Dems get double the media coverage compared to McCain – always a good thing.
    3 – Most importantly – if she had dropped out last week – she still would have won Kentucky by a landslide, and that would have been a huge negative headline for Obama and all the news media would have talked about. By staying in, she saves him the embarrassment of the states that he would have lost – Puerto Rico may be the next.

    They are both qualified (in different ways) of being president, but he has more delegates, so he is more likely to win, so be it.

    I could CARE LESS about their color or what equipment they have ‘down below’ – IT DOESNT MATTER. Anyone who talks like either one is entitled becuase of race or gender is coming off like a reverse-sexist or reverse-racist. Who cares if a woman or a black man get into the White House? Let it be an asterisk on their administration, not the central theme. The job is too important to make it about something that your born with.

    Its all about their abilities – and they have strengths in different areas.

    Fortunately, the feminist movement is a victim of its own success. The younger generations are more likely to not even consider sex as an issue as we consider equality to be a given, rather than something to fight for. The gender gap in the polling data dissapates in the under-30’s, backing me up on this.

    From a 30 year old, post-feminist, color-blind Democrat.

  • I am one of the 17 million democrats who wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination … and, like millions of other Clinton supporters, who have been neglected and disrespected by the media, I will vote for John McCain if Obama gets the nomination. I also hope that my fellow Clinton supporters will vote the super delegates who abandoned Mrs. Clinton out of office when their reelections come up. http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

  • Indiana is not a given for the Republicans.

    Hillary has only one plan. Winning in 2012. That is why she is still in the race.

    She wants McCain to win and be the “I told you so” candidate.

    She thinks all Democrats are as stupid as her base.

  • Howard

    If you can’t have what you want, win it fair and square, you’ll stomp home and think you’ll punish everybody else by not playing?

    Well, enjoy your time at home. The Democratic candidate will trounce McCain without your help if that’s what you choose.

  • Howard might support Hillary Clinton, but if he plans to vote for McCain over Obama, then he’s no Democrat. Democrats care about honesty. Democrats care about issues. Democrats care about our country. Clearly, Howard doesn’t care about either of the three.

  • I am one of the 17 million democrats self-centered, childish, controlling brats who’ll stop giving a damn about progressive policies wants unless Hillary Clinton to win the nomination convinces the superdelegates to overturn the primary results … and, like millions of other Clinton supporters, who have been neglected and disrespected by the media freak out when we don’t get our way and blame the media for reporting on the other candidate having the nerve to convince more people to vote for him, I will vote for John McCain to ensure more death, disease, poverty, insecurity, global chaos and curtailed civil rights if Obama gets the nomination.

    Fixed it for you.

  • Although there is no justification, It would be bad enough if Clinton supporters planned to stay home on election day…or write in Hillary Clinton’s name (if that’s even possible)…or vote for Ralph Nader.

    But to actually cast a vote for a third Bush term? Under no circumstances could there ever be any justification for even threatening such idiocy. As previously stated, such a statement is indicative of persons who do not share progressive values (including honesty) and who don’t care about the future of our country, or for that matter, the rest of the world.

  • Howard said:
    I am one of the 17 million democrats who wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination … and, like millions of other Clinton supporters, who have been neglected and disrespected by the media, I will vote for John McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

    Okay Howard, please tell us why John McCain would be a better president than Barack Obama.

  • To Mary and other Clinton supporters,

    Can you take a deep breath and try to look at things objectively? I will try to do the same. There are idiots and zealots on all sides. Lets move beyond them if we can.

    There is no reason for Hillary to leave the race. There is a BIG reason for all democrats to hope she and Barack complete the race in a way that doesn’t damage the democratic nominee. I personally do not see a way that she can win the nomination at this point, but if she does it will be ESSENTIAL that Obama work hard to legitimize that decision. It would not be enough for him to SAY he supports any nomineed and then go around and spread the message the only way she won is because a bunch a rascists will do anything to keep a black man out of the white house. It likewise is not enough for Hillary to say she will support any nominee and then claim the only reason Obama won is a bunch of sexists who will do anything to keep a woman out of the white house. The interesting thing to me is that Hillary has been doing BETTER since she stopped directly attacking Barack.
    Was there some sexism going on, absolutely. Was there some rascism going on, absolutely. Will we ALL be worse off if McCain wins, ABSOLUTELY. McCain claims to be a moderate, but he is not. Honestly, it isn’t about the president so much as who will be appointed to lead the EPA, SEC, Justice department, and many other agencies that the president appoints. We can not afford another republican filling those positions. I won’t claim to speak for all Obama supporters, but I am asking you to please look at the big picture. Support your candidate, argue on her behalf that she would be the better candidate and I will have no issues, but attack my candidate and lessen the chances of a democratic victory in the general election and I do have a problem. Do you understand why? I am not sure that all Obama supporters would feel the same way if the tables were reversed. In fact, most probably would not, but I would rather support Clinton than tear her down.
    We can, and should, have these arguments after November. Lets be realistic though. Obama HAS won a majority of the pledged delegates. Even if you count MI and FL that will still be true. Also, if the results were reversed and it was Obama that was behind by an apparently insurmountable margin do you really think that he would still be in the race? I can not imagine him still being in the race if the roles were reversed. Can you? I understand Kennedy did it in 1980, but it wasn’t okay then and probably contributed to Carter losing the election. I am not saying there is no sexism going on, but this issue isn’t sexist (at least for me). This is about the candidate who is in second place doing the right thing REGARDLESS of what their gender or color of their skin might be.
    I hope that you actually take the time to read the Audacity of Hope. As a male raised by a single mother who is both highly intelligent and extremely competent, who is also married to an extemely intelligent and competent woman who happens to be an attorney and has made more money than I have for most years of our marriage, and as a father of 2 daughters, I particularly related to much of what Barack discusses in his book. I think the section where he discusses gender bias and gender stereotypes is a great section for anyone to read. He recognizes we still have a long way to go on that front, especially with the more subtle responses and perceptions; however, because he recognizes we have work to do still HE is not the enemy here.

  • Don’t count HRC out yet…It seems Obama has Jennifer Flowers (sorta) / Vince Foster problem. -Pete Kent

    So you’re saying he has a problem tantamount to one that didn’t stop Bill Clinton from getting elected? Or does he have a problem similar to the ‘problem’ Hillary has with Vince Foster which would render him unelectable and cause her to win the nomination. But by your reasoning, if a problem similar to Vince Foster renders one unelectable, then wouldn’t that render Hillary unelectable since Vince Foster is her problem? Not that there is a Vince Foster problem for either candidate to begin with. It’s smoke, mirrors, and lies.

    Honestly, your comment might be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read in complete sentences. I never thought I’d hear someone evoke Vince Foster in a comment designed to support Hillary Clinton.

  • Steve T. and oh-so-clever Maria:
    Hatred. Vitriol. Name-calling – that is what Obama appears to inspire in his followers. This is a close race, and yes, Obama will win the nomination, but you Obama supporters dismiss and disparage and insult the millions of people who support Clinton. Obama seems to bring out the worst in people. It is truly hurtful to see this. And that is why many Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.

  • Ozzie, if you’ve read my posts regularly (and I know you haven’t), you know that I recognize that people like “Howard” are very much the exception rather than the rule among Clinton followers. In fact, when I looked back at my edit of #67, I wish I’d done a strikethrough of “and, like millions of other Clinton supporters” and replaced it with “a tiny minority of Clinton supporters.”

    As I am always pointing out, most supporters of either Clinton or Obama are bright and committed to Democratic principles, certainly enough to figure out that trying to blame a bunch of blog posters for their votes doesn’t demonstrate much rationality. The people who are dense, selfish, ego-driven and adolescent enough to vote for McCain to “punish” the country, the world, and, duh, themselves–knowing full well that he will stack the Supreme Court; bury us deeper in Iraq; probably attack Iran; and continue the Bush administration’s rape of the poor, the middle class, those without health care, the environment, education, science and civil rights–are really very much in the minority, praise the Universe.

    I hope you’re not one of them, but it certainly sounds like you’re one of the few who aren’t worth trying to convince. Sorry to have to brush you aside, but we’ve got a general election coming up and we need to concentrate on the people who are mature enough to vote their own and the vast majority of Americans’ interests even when they’re bummed that their candidate didn’t get the nomination.

    Self-described Democrats have the right to vote for McCain. They do not have the right to avoid our well-earned scorn–it’s not hatred; it’s pure contempt–when they do it. Deal with it.

  • And Oz, we’re still waiting for you to tell Steve why you think McCain will be a better president than Obama. Take your time.

  • I am not an American. But I have been following the election year with interest, as the United States has a large effect on the rest of the world – being a super power and all.

    I am disturbed by those who use sexism as an excuse for Hillary not to be elected.

    From what I can tell alot of women voted for Obama, and a lot of men voted for Clinton. There is no doubt he got a large percentage of the black vote, indicating a racial bias. No doubt she got a lot of the white vote as a response to that.

    But at the end of the day this was about who is the better candidate for president. The fact of the matter is that different people value different things and nobody can bring everything to the table – just different things.

    Hillary has her strengths and weaknesses like Obama. The same is with McCain. I would argue a large majority of those who voted for Obama liked his skill set better and the same can be said of Hillary.

    Well done to Obama for convincing more people in the right places to want to hire him(as delegate math currently indicates).

    It is obvious that on major indicators Hillary is likely to lose this year. Not because she is female, but because Barack was preferred amongst his peers(the American democratic public).

    Good Luck Americans!

  • Comments are closed.