The end of the beginning — Obama looks to wrap up nomination tonight

Depending on the count, Barack Obama is about 42 delegates shy of the 2,118 he needs to secure the Democratic nomination. After today’s primaries in Montana and South Dakota, the gap between Obama and the finish line should be in the 20 to 25 range, at least with regards to pledged delegates.

So, the party may need to wait a day or two before wrapping up the nomination process? Not if the Obama campaign can help it.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign began a concerted effort on Monday to rally undecided superdelegates around him so he can claim the Democratic presidential nomination after the primaries end on Tuesday night.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invited fund-raisers and other supporters to an election-night rally in New York City where, aides said, she was prepared to deliver what they described as a farewell speech that summed up the case for her candidacy. They said Mrs. Clinton was not likely to withdraw from the race on Tuesday night, probably waiting until later in the week, once Mr. Obama’s victory appeared clear.

Sensing an opportunity to shut down the nominating contest, Obama campaign advisers said that they were orchestrating an endorsement of Mr. Obama by at least eight Senate and House members who had pledged to remain uncommitted until the primaries ended, and that the endorsements would come the moment the South Dakota polls closed on Tuesday night.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa will reportedly lead the group of uncommitted Senate Dems, while in the House, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Dem in the chamber, will endorse Obama today, and began urging his House colleagues to do the same.

“We’re trying to get the number as quickly as possible,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said. “We are trying to convince as many as possible to come out tomorrow.” Asked if Obama would cross the finish line before the day’s end, Plouffe added, “We are trying to. I don’t know if we can get there.”

Part of the point, apparently, is to have the support in place before the results from Montana and South Dakota are announced, so that Obama can say voters put him over the top instead of party insiders (superdelegates). It would also allow Obama to use his speech in Minnesota tonight — at the site of the Republican convention — as an unambiguous victory address.

Hillary Clinton’s plans, meanwhile, are less clear.

It’s difficult to get a reliable read on what the Clinton campaign will do, in large part because we’re relying on unnamed campaign insiders talking to reporters and offering hints, leading to some reports that conflict with others.

The NYT reported that Clinton supporters were making calls to uncommitted lawmakers to wait until Wednesday to endorse “in deference to Mrs. Clinton.” The campaign itself, however, appears to be winding down:

Mrs. Clinton has no public traveling schedule through the weekend, other than to Washington, reflecting what is, for all practical purposes, a campaign in suspension. Her associates said that no one in her campaign saw any way she could win the nomination, and that the only question now was when Mr. Obama could claim victory. The associates requested anonymity in deference to Mrs. Clinton’s request for privacy. […]

The most likely situation, some of Mrs. Clinton’s aides said, was that she would suspend her campaign later in the week and would probably — though not definitely — endorse Mr. Obama.

The WaPo report suggested a slightly more combative approach at Clinton headquarters, with a candidate who will continue to make her case beyond this evening.

Clinton sent mixed signals about her plans throughout the day Monday. As her campaign recalled field staffers to New York, one adviser indicated that she would suspend, but not end, her campaign within days. But the candidate herself said she will continue to argue to the group of party insiders who will hold sway over the final outcome that her strong showing in recent contests demonstrates that she would be the more electable candidate in November.

“Tomorrow is the last day of the primaries and the beginning of a new phase in the campaign,” Clinton said in Yankton, S.D., before she prepared to depart for a Tuesday-night rally in New York. “After South Dakota and Montana vote, I will lead in the popular vote and Senator Obama will lead in the delegate count. The voters will have voted, and so the decision will fall to the delegates empowered to vote at the Democratic convention. I will be spending the coming days making my case to those delegates.”

And Ben Smith noted that Harold Ickes spoke with major fundraisers yesterday, explaining that Clinton isn’t planning to step aside, and urging them to stay unified. Meanwhile, a Clinton fundraising aide, Rafi Jafri, is circulating a draft letter from Clinton’s Illinois finance committee, which argues that “this nominating process must be resolved in August, and no earlier.”

That’s the landscape. We’ll know more soon.

(kneeling)

Flying Spaghetti Monster, please let this primary be over within the next 24 hours.

Thanks.

  • Clearly Hillary will not meet with Obama without preconditions. Instead she will continue to talk about her devotion to the down-trodden, and the need to nuke those she perceives as enemies. She’ll talk about her economic credentials while piling up more debt. Ready from day one, if not beyond Super Tuesday. Count the vote, but only the ones that count. Words are cheap, so “jobs, jobs, jobs!” And then she’ll talk about the need to come together. But where’s the credibility?

  • How about this for a reason to support Clinton?

    Right now things are basically a tie. There is no doubt that Obama has more delegates from the primaries and caucuses but I don’t believe any nomination has ever been this close.

    Obama far outspent Clinton.

    IF, and of course this is a huge IF, they had the same amount of money to spend then Clinton probably would have won. Therefore, Clinton deserves the nomination because she almost fought to a draw when she was far outspent.

    I voted for Clinton back in February and had been undecided undecided until the gas tax holiday mess. Then Clinton acting like a jerk concerning Florida and Michigan turned me against her.

    My question is: should the money disadvantage be considered and doesn’t that show that Clinton is the better candidate?

  • The problem with that reasoning, Neil, is that Clinton had a huge name advantage before the primary season began. I find it more than easy to equate the publicity she received as first lady and as a former first lady with some extra money Obama spent this campaign getting voters to know who he was.

    Moreover, there’s a reason why he was able to spend that much and still not be in debt – Clinton can’t say that.

  • neil wilson (4) should the money disadvantage be considered

    Sure, and the Iraq war should be considered a disadvantage for Bush. But neither was a birth defect.

  • Neil, she had the money advantage back in January and she squandered it away. Obama had to outspend her because people didn’t know him quite as well they knew Hillary. Every place he campaigned and advertised, he usually improved on what polls were predicting a month out. That just shows he used his money wisely. The opposite is generally true for her, every place she campaigned and advertised, she generally did worse on election night than a month before the process. Should she have stopped campaigning? Of course not. But the money disadvantage only shows you that she couldn’t manage her campaign finances which does show you that she may not be the best steward of the economy, which tells you she may not be the best candidate.

  • Maybe Barack Obama raised and spent more money because his organization, fundraising and planning were far above that of the Clinton campaign which started out miles ahead in celebrity name recognition, percieved inevitablity, money and top notch doners. The fact that she started out with seemingly insurmountable advantages and then ran a campaigh strategically and financially mismanaged speaks volumes about her readiness to be commander in cheif on “day one.”

    The super delegates need to announce in sufficient numbers today to put Obama over the top tonight. There’s no use waiting untill tomorrow or later in the week in deference to Hillary Clinton. At this point she doesn’t deserve it and the stakes are too high to indulge her ego. Finish it tonight, and concentrate on John McCain tomorrow.

  • On June 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am, zoe kentucky said:
    (kneeling)

    Flying Spaghetti Monster, please let this primary be over within the next 24 hours.

    And let the people who think McCain is a straight-shooting maverick live and learn the truth.

    Amen (does the FSM like amen’s? Hmmm…)

  • “Part of the point, apparently, is to have the support in place before the results from Montana and South Dakota are announced, so that Obama can say voters put him over the top instead of party insiders (superdelegates).”

    Like that makes a difference?

    And no Neil, Hillary had as much opportunity to get that money to spend as Barack. She didn’t, and now the only way she can win is for the Super Delegates actually believe they have to power to decide the nomination, rather than just ratifying the decisions of others.

  • I’d agree with the others saying Clinton’s name and longtime party connections were worth millions. Also, those same advantages should have allowed her to easily outraise a newcomer like Obama. For Obama to have beaten the mighty Clinton name/machine is a real accomplishment, and suggests that he can make mincemeat out of a weak candidate such as McCain.

    One thing I think ought to be emphasized: If Hillary hadn’t voted for the AUMF, she’d be the nominee today, and the President-elect in November. I hope every Senator gets that through their heads, and we can leave behind this awful time in which voting in favor of war is considered the politically safe thing to do.

  • Hillary Clinton had huge institutional advantages and was able to influence the schedule of primaries. Her hope was to use her financial advantage and name recognition to overwhelm her opponents and win by Super Tuesday. Her money was spent early and spent lavishly. Nobody in politics conceived that Senator Obama would be able to raise the funds that he did. His fundraising was a true accomplishment.

  • My question is: should the money disadvantage be considered and doesn’t that show that Clinton is the better candidate?

    No. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite.

    The ability to fund-raise is one of the best metrics of a candidate’s stock, and Obama clearly outperformed in that category. The Clinton campaign pulled out the 1990s Rolodex, tapped a bunch of people who knew them then for $2300 max donations and bundles from their supporters, and then when they blew through that $100 million had nothing left. She coasted on old ties and name recognition, and then flatlined.

    Obama mobilized a new broad base of supporters, tapped them for small $100 donations and came back for more and more. It was a smarter plan with room for growth — financially and politically — and shows he’s the smarter candidate.

    Plus, the ability to fundraise and spend money for other candidates in downticket races is an important part of a presidential race. It’s how coattails are created, and how broader majorities get elected. Obama has proven himself in that regard. Clinton, to the contrary, has show she can’t.

  • Neil, by your logic, I’m a better baseball player than A-Rod because he has all that natural talent.

  • As someone who donated to Obama, Neil, let me tell you the answer to your question is NO. Obama outspent Clinton because he had money donated by people like me for just that purpose. It’s a shame for Hillary that she does not inspire the people to get involved that way, but she doesn’t get credit for it either.

    “Basically a tie” sounds great–tell it to Richard Nixon or the next basketball team that loses 106-104 and ask them if they “basically won” too.

  • He just picked up superdelegate Clyburn as reported on MSNBC so I definitely think some of those uncommitted delegates aren’t going to be holding out for much longer.

  • neilwilson

    It sounds as though you’re saying it’s a negative factor that Obama “spent more money” than Hillary, and that if Hillary had had as much money, she might be winning now. Not sure about that, since the money-context seems to have more weight than the money itself.

    First, as you know of course, she started out with almost universal name recognition, big-money-lobbyist support, and astronomical funds, while the relatively-unknown Obama had a LOT of catching up to do.

    Hillary’s campaign plan for winning apparently didn’t extend beyond Super Tuesday, and because Obama was an underdog, HIS campaign plan included every state, voter registrations at the very least, and active campaigning in many.

    Because Hillary thought she’d win by Super Tuesday, her.funds had pretty much run out by Super Tuesday. She’d shot her funding-wad, so to speak. Her big-gun donors were maxed out, and those were the people she represented at that stage. She had to scramble to gather up a base beyond the corporate-infested political establishment. And look who she drew into her “magic circle”. Disillusioned women and hard-working white Americans. She couldn’t have been more divisive. All this time, Obama received his funding from small citizen donations, not PACs, lobbyists or corporate interests. It was surely a huge gamble on his part, but he had the perfect platform for such an exchange of mutual self-interest: “I’ll represent YOU, not Washington insiders, if you see fit to support me.” It worked beyond anybody’s wildest dreams.

    So, Obama’s “far out-spending” Clinton is certainly not a negative. It’s an incredibly positive development, given his beginning disadvantages, the way he raised funds, and his surpassing her in all the matrics. To my way of thinking, this is what democracy is all about, a close relationship between a candidate and the voters with conscious and mutual self-interests in play.

    And somehow, I don’t think the race would be any different if Clinton had had more money. It wasn’t a lack of money that have turned voters against her but her campaigning style, and for many of us, her stand on issues critical to America’s survival. She’d obliterate Iran? No thanks.

  • MsJoanne said: Amen (does the FSM like amen’s? Hmmm…)

    For us Pastafarians, it’s “ramen”(sp), sister Joanne 😉

  • “should the money disadvantage be considered and doesn’t that show that Clinton is the better candidate?”

    What kind of thinking is this? Hillary couldn’t raise as much money as Obama and didn’t receive as many votes — so no, it doesn’t show that she is the better candidate. It shows she is worse.

  • Asked if Obama would cross the finish line before the day’s end, Plouffe added, “We are trying to. I don’t know if we can get there.”

    That strikes me as a refreshingly straight-forward and spin-free comment.

    It seems to me that Obama’s staff has indulged in a lot less special pleading, logic chopping, and spin than usual this campaign. What they say has been very consistent, and can mostly be taken at face value.

    An advantage of this long and bitter campaign is that Obama may have been innoculated to a degree against the Republican slime that will be rained down on him over the next few months. When someone says something bad about Obama, my first inclination is now to disbelieve it until it gets refuted or confirmed rather than worry about it (e.g., the Michelle “Whitey / Why’d he” nonsense), and secondly, even if it is true, mostly I don’t care, as he’s proven himself sufficiently better than the others that I’ll tolerate a few blemishes.

  • $ is political speech – a first amendment right. More Americans gave freely to Barack Obama than to Hilary Clinton this campaign season. Both have the right to make use of their coffers, and so Neil, being outspent is all part of the process. Hilary has lost on all fronts this past year.

    Clinton has had her moments of triumph, but she also has a decision to make at this moment – move with the party to November, or continue what is surely shaping up to be Punic War within the party. -Kevo

  • Like Neil, I was also initially for Clinton until the gas tax and the Florida/Michigan debacle. True, Clinton has been out spent by Obama, but they both had ample time to raise money and Obama did a better job by far. Plus, Clinton started with a huge war chest going into this campaign; how she put herself into debt is beyond me.

    And as for the name recognition, yeah, Clinton’s name was much more recognizable before this campaign started. But I don’t think it was recognizable in a good way. Too many people are immediately turned off by the name Clinton, and Hillary in particular (I haven’t been able to escape the ‘I don’t like Hillary. She’s such a bitch.’ rhetoric since the campaign started). I think in this instance, the name was more of a hinderance.

  • what, no comment yet from mary about the unelectability of barack obama? she must be sleeping in this morning.

  • “in deference to Mrs. Clinton.” WTF?

    It seems that alotta restraint has been afforded toward Mrs. Clinton in the last three months already in light of BS like: McCain’s more qualified, Preacher Wright, hard working white people, REZKOREZKOREZKO, etc….

    I’m done with deference.

  • The current count is 38 delegates needed for Obama, 200.5 for Clinton.

    I think in this instance, the name was more of a hinderance.

    It was both a help and a hindrance, just as being married to Bill Clinton put her in the position to run for president in 2008 and took her out of the running. He both brought her within reach of the presidency and helped ensure she’d never get it. The Clintons evoke powerful emotions in people, mostly at either end of the spectrum: adoration (or at least strong admiration) or utter contempt. That isn’t going to change, except that this primary season has moved a lot of Americans (and citizens of the world) from column A or mostly column A to totally column B.

    But I’m sick of thinking about these people. Their time is over. Onward and upward.

  • something else to consider in regards to the idea of the “virtual tie.”

    Clinton keeps claiming that her “momentum” in later state primaries proves she’s the more electable candidate. What her campaign doesn’t bring up is that, in states where she won the primaries, momentum is swinging towards Obama. Much like Bush in the general populace, people are starting to have serious buyers’ remorse with Clinton. Unlike Bush, we’re not stuck with Clinton yet (fingers crossed).

  • being married to Bill Clinton put her in the position to run for president in 2008 and took her out of the running.

    But for some missteps she would have made it. (I mentioned the AUMF above – there were others, like the failure to organize in the caucus states, or to build an internet funding machine early.) I myself expected her to get the nomination, even though she wasn’t my first (or second, or third) choice.

  • Obama far outspent Clinton.

    Let me fix this for you:

    Obama far outraised Clinton.

    Enough said.

  • Wow, how’d that last one get posted with no Orange??? Steve?

    For those who feel that AUMF was bad, agreed…but Kyl-Lieberman was by far worse, IMHO. How would the US feel if other countries said our Army, Navy, AF or Marines were terrorist groups and could be attacked at will?

    This is so far past a slippery slope it’s the aftermath of a mudslide.

  • I don’t understand why Clinton supporters ignore the war vote. It was a huge drain on her support. Much more than misogyny or a biased press or any other spin du jour. There are elements of the spin du jour, but the war vote, and her refusal to acknowledge it was a mistaker, were huge dividing lines.

  • I must have missed the logic where I said that I was a better player than A-Rod because he had all the talent. I suppose you could say that Mantle was a better baseball player than Mays because Mantle got drunk and didn’t take care of himself while Mays had to actually work to be as great as he was.

    Look. 4 months ago I was happy with Clinton and fully expected her to win in a cake walk. I now expect Obama to win in a cake walk. I hope I am right this time.

    I have been reading all sorts of insane arguments at TalkLeft and listening to the Clinton people and I think they are all NUTS.

    Clinton lost and she has acted like a jerk recently. You can make lots of arguments over Michigan and Florida but the idea they must count just like any other primary is INSANE.

    The idea of reducing the gas tax while caring about global warming, energy independence, or fiscal sanity is too stupid to consider.

    However, Clinton has done pretty well recently.

    Having said all that, I hope that Obama wins big today and gets 100 super delegates by tomorrow and cleanly wraps things up. Hillary can go home and be a multi-millionaire senator.

    Obama can start working on becoming the 44th President.

  • There’s this big thing on HuffPo about Bill Clinton going postal about Vanity Fair… but here’s the more instructive quote:

    Bill bashing Barack:

    “They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn’t do anything about it. The first day he [Obama] said ‘Ah, ah, ah well.’ Because that’s what they do– he [Obama] gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain– maybe I better quit the church. It’s all politics.”

    I used to be a fan. Truly sad…

  • Clinton’s name was probably a negative to Republicans and young people (under 30) who were largely influenced by a very political media. But Bill’s approval ratings were very high when he left office, and for good reason. Hillary had no problem getting elected Senator in NY, which did have a Rep governor, NYC Mayor, and, Senate (or at least it does now – I don’t know about in 2000). But even more, the media was praising her effusively right up through Iowa. In fact, I would argue they were a whole lot easier on her than Obama from beginning to end. That means a lot more than ad dollars.

  • I believe (with no evidence whatsoever of course) that the Flying Spaghetti Monster only listens to prayers that start with at least 11 superlatives in its honor. (7 if you’re late for work). Some good ones are: Mighty, all-knowing, noodly, Obamic, tasty, cute as a button, omniscient or kick-ass.

    And Neil, it’s all ultimately binary. Got more delegates? Don’t got more delegates?

  • It has been a long, hard race. Now is the time for the Democratic Party to
    unite. Another four years of McCain/Bush policies will be a diaster for our
    country. We must all support the Democratic Party.
    As a 71 year old female I have been a supporter of womens rights since day
    one. We have come a long way, believe me.
    But ladies, if you support McCain you will be supporting a decline in our
    rights, our desires. McCain voted a few weeks ago against equal pay.
    And, he and the republicans have burdened our children, grandchildren
    and great grandchildren with an economical diaster. What they have
    created for future generations have victimized our loved ones.,
    That alone should be enough to vote for all Democrats running for
    office.

  • At the same time, Obama supporters like me have to hold back on the “Bill Clinton is going nuts” sentiment, and welcome folks like Neil Wilson to the fold – and launch a joint attack on McCain as never seen before in the annals of… the blogosphere.

  • The press has favored the Clintons. Think about the hours spent trying to force Obama out of the race. Granted I didn’t like the push to get the Clintons to drop out. That is up to the candidates. However, once she knew Obama’s delegate count couldn’t be overcome, she really should have dropped out of her own valition. She got a lot of her support from those comments these past few weeks because it made people angry (especially women).
    The Clinton name had the contest won until Super Tuesday. I agree that their name was worth millions and Obama needed millions to make a name for himself.The Clintons have done better these past 6 weeks because of the Wright, bitter issues, AND because the past 2-3 weeks she has been uncontested.

  • As a professional engineer, I have seen many projects go down the crapped because of inept leadership. Hils reminded me too much of those project managers who sat in their office, send decrees and memos out and didn’t get involved in the dirty painful work of project management. They assumed that it was best they be “above it all” and that was all that was needed (a lot of times that was because that was the way they were trained–sad fact is that idiots “breed”/train idiots) much like the hapless kings/queens of yore. The truth is that if you want something done, you can not be “above it all.” You have to be part of the team.

    With Obama I recognized a lot of the same characteristics that marked good engineers and project managers. Money is the fuel that drives the political machine, but Obama and his team did an amazing job of organizing, planning, budgeting and executing, especially the execution. He might not have done it all, but he was the ringmaster and made sure each of the parts knew what it was doing that is a skill rare even in a technological one like engineering. I hope politicians and poly sci students study his campaign and learn those lessons (I doubt it though.)

  • jimBOB at 23, I don’t disagree, but I think the bad decisions she made were part and parcel of the political machine the Clintons have built together, the one that’s stuck in mid-’90s DLC-style campaign strategy, the one that triangulates with Republicans on policy, the one that refuses to back away and reconsider when what it’s doing isn’t working, the one that approached this entire race with a serene sense of entitlement due to the former first couple.

    The tale of the Clintons’ rise and semi-fall is a fascinating one. I almost wish I could be around in a couple of hundred years to see what historians make of it. It is the Clintons’ (plural) history–their political fortunes and decisions are inextricably intertwined. I think he is a much more complex (and thus more interesting to me) personality than she is. And various aspects of those complexities of his have both lifted her up and helped to bring her down.

    On a related note, I was sad to see her say that it’s not time to write her political obituary yet. I grant that it’s very tough for her to strike the right note in anything she says in the days before this ends, but I immediately thought, “What about being senator of one of the two largest states indicates that you’re dead? Isn’t that a worthy, challenging and satisfying job?” I found myself wondering again if she’ll continue as senator.

    I could be overthinking this! Time to move on.

  • It’s a simple choice now for the Clintonians: Either step into the open light and breathe the fresh air that comes with the Clintons having gained their lifelong goal of bringing about an African American presidency—or remain huddled in the suffocating darkness that comes with bunker mentality.

    It’s their choice. Not the Supers’ choice; not the Credentials Committee’s choice—but the Clinton Campaign’s choice….

  • D Day is June 6th.

    If Clinton persists beyond this Friday, it can only be with the intent of destroying Obama so she can run again in 2012.

    I will try to be calm and understanding until June 6th. After that, I plan to go ballistic on the Clintons if they appear to be further undermining Obama.

    If it is not clear that the Clintons are not subverting Obama, I urge everyone who cares about their country to join me in full scale warfare against them.

    If it was not detrimental to Obama, I would enjoy participating in efforts to throughly and completely wipe the Clintons from the face of American politics.

  • According to this:
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/montana_governors_senators_to.html

    The three highest ranking Democrats in Montana plan to wade into the Democratic presidential race as soon as the state’s primary is decided tonight, according to a source familiar with the decision.

    Gov. Brian Schweitzer as well as Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester have agreed to all endorse the winner of Montana’s primary — almost certain to be Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) — immediately upon the contest being called. The trio will be joined in the endorsement by state party chairman Dennis McDonald and vice chairman Margaret Campbell.

    ~~~~~
    That’s five more supers to be announced tonight.

  • re: zoe kentucky @ 1 and other petitioners of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…

    I got a cryptic message this morning in my Post Alpha-Bits (actually, it was a bit long and was continued in a second bowl) that made no sense until I read this thread.

    My Saucy Children:

    I’m working on it but it seems I have run meatball-on into your long-standing philosophical conundrum. It appears I have created a boulder so large that I cannot move it. Be patient, my children and the answer will be made known to you in the coming days .

    Noodles be with you,
    FSM

  • Update from NPR (or at least an update to those of us still on the second cuppa here on the left coast): Clinton will admit that the Law of Gravity does indeed exist and CONCEDE tonight that “Obama has the votes.”

    Although these delusional morons are still saying that “automatic delegates can change their committment anytime.”

  • I suppose you could say that Mantle was a better baseball player than Mays because Mantle got drunk and didn’t take care of himself while Mays had to actually work to be as great as he was.

    You do realize that in that analogy, Hillary Clinton is Mickey Mantle? She started off with universal name recognition, her pals in control of the party and a $100 million war chest and managed to piss it all away. (Hell, they’re even both Ozarks kids who transplanted to New York.)

    Obama’s the Say Hey Kid. Worked his behind off and earned all those donations.

  • As is often the case, we are asking the wrong questions. Who spent more or less is irrelevant. The issue is what to do now?

    As a Clinton suppoprter, I ruefully admit that the data supports an Obama NOMINATION. One can not automatically extrapolate this slim victory to a McCain defeat in Novemer.

    As I pointed out in earlier threads, the party is bifurcated. To the best of my calculations, the only similar situiations in recent history occurred in Ike’s first term, LBJ in ’64, and Humphrey v. McGovern. Ike chose Nixon as a running mate and beat Adlai. In ’64 Dems lost the South and HvG gave us more Nixon.

    Right now the blogosphere is clogged with wads of effluvium reveling in Obama’s “victory.” Grandstanding that your candidate has ~200 more delegates (out of ~4K) and 200K more votes (out of how many millions?) does not a mandate make.

    Obama supporters need to get real too.

    One of the most important jobs of a President is coalition and consensus building and forging alliances across hostile lines. Obama is now faced with his first real challenges – choosing a running mate and pulling the party together.

    Half his own party does not support him. I can’t speak for the other millions upon millions of Clinton supporters but I can present my own view.

    We want our candidate on the ticket.

    Remember the first law of negotiation: No one gets everything. No one gets nothing. Everyone gets something.

    Uunifying the Democratic Party will require more than bloogers castigating Clinton supporters with “Deal with it and vote for Obama.”

  • What’s hard about realizing defeat? You people sound like Hillary. Obama won fair and square. She also signed that Florida and Michigan wouldn’t count, but when she lost, again she cried wolf.This lady would not know the truth if it slapped her.The point is: She unestimated Obama…

  • Branqua, I think you missed my point. Let me reframe the situation.

    Half the party didn’t vote for Obama. Yes, he will be nominated, by a very slim margin, but nomimated none the less. We can agree on this.

    The question facing Obama is what to do now? he must now turn to choosing a running mate. Historically, this hasn’t been a 1st/2nd place thing. However, primaries this close are rare (if anyone can quantify this, I’d love to see it).

    If Obama does not choose Clinton, half of the Democratic party is going to view his actions as a statement that we don’t matter and that he knows we are just going to fall in line with the O Train. You can choose to believe in whatever you want, but I’m telling you this is a dangerous supposition.

  • CNN is now reporting that Clinton will NOT concede the nomination this evening (after earlier reporting she would). So the soap opera goes on.. and on… and on..

    (Both of these messages reportedly came from the Clinton campaign — as usual).

  • If Obama does not choose Clinton, half of the Democratic party is going to view his actions as a statement that we don’t matter

    Sigh. Except for the ones who are all over the intertoobz railing that for Obama to even offer it to Clinton is a grave insult to her.

    Look, Everett, you don’t speak for all Clinton supporters or even most of them. The one thing we do know is that a small proportion of Clinton voters are determined to be offended no matter what he does. It’s madness to craft decisionmaking around such outliers.

  • I suppose most people have quit reading this thread already.

    My point was that I was trying to come up with the best reason I can think of for why Clinton should get the nomination.

    I want Clinton to concede tonight. Obama has won and the race is over.

    Obama learned the rules better than Clinton and won with the rules as they were written.

    Clinton has already demanded that the rules be changed and then complained when they weren’t changed enough.

    I still expect everyone to be singing Kumbyaya by tomorrow night.

    I hope my meager connections with Obama get me invited to a good party on November 4. It would have been easier for me to go to a Clinton party but that ain’t happening.

  • She’s in it right down to McSame’s innauguration, for which he will thank her in his address that day.

    If this doesn’t destroy the Democratic so-called Party forever I can’t imagine what will. The Rethugs will have reunited, as they always do, and the Dems will be like a broken glass on the kitchen floor: lots of shards everywhere, with no hope of being put back together.

  • To Everett:

    Reasons for Hillary Clinton Supporters to Vote for McCain

    1) Health Care

    The McCain Health Care Plan provides a $2500 tax credit for singles and a $5000 tax credit for families. It also removes tax incentives for businesses to provide medical insurance.

    If you believe that telling people to ‘go get your own insurance’ is a better plan than Obama’s plan, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that a family, with or without preexisting medical conditions, can get quality health care insurance for $5000 a year, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that a family, that does not have a tax bill of $5000 to be credited, can get quality medical insurance for even less than $5000, you should vote for McCain.

    2) Social Security

    The McCain Social Security plan is basically a rehash of Bush’s Privatization, while denying that it is privatization. It calls for ‘younger’ workers to pay less Social Security and Medicare taxes and to put that into ‘Private Accounts’.

    If you believe that telling people to ‘go get your own retirement’ is a better plan, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that the American workers would be better off if Bush’s plan had been implemented six years ago, you should vote for McCain.

    3) War

    The McCain plan for Iraq is continuing war. The McCain plan for Iran is “bomb, bomb, bomb…”. The McCain plan is to continuing killing Iraqis and having our military continue dying until we achieve (an undefined) win.

    If you believe that war is peace, you should vote for McCain.

    If you believe that ‘the only good raghead is a dead raghead’, you should vote for McCain.

    If you believe that war should be the first option, rather than diplomacy, you should vote for McCain.

    War has been credited in the past with bringing the U.S. economy out of recessions and depressions. If you believe this could happen again, you should vote for McCain.

    4) The Economy

    McCain’s plan for the economy is basically Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on steroids.

    If you believe that the problem with our economy is that the rich do not have enough money, you should vote for McCain.

    5) Women’s Reproductive Rights

    McCain has proclaimed that his ideas of quality nominees to the Supreme Court are Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.

    If you believe that men should decide on what medical care options are available for women, you should vote for McCain.

    If you want to see Griswold vs. Connecticut (the real goal of the hardcore Right-To-Lifers) overturned, you should vote for McCain.

  • Everett

    As long as Hillary doesn’t concede, Obama can’t put her on his ticket. If she plans to take this to the Convention as she has said, he needs a Veep long before then to campaign with.

    While it would have been WONDERFUL to have Hillary on the ticket with him if she and Obama agreed on foreign policy and their approach to governing America, they don’t agree on those issues at all. Hillary’s pretty much a political authoritarian, while he is much more cooperative and focused on team goals. Hillary is beholden to political corporatism and Obama is beholden to his platform, his supporters, and the Democratic party, though I’ve been reading that it’s “his” now, whatever that means.

    Uunifying the Democratic Party will require more than bloogers castigating Clinton supporters with “Deal with it and vote for Obama.”

    That’s true if Hillary concedes the nomination to Obama, and I think that would happen. At the same time, she also has a responsibility to address subsections of her “base”, those women who swear they’ll vote for McCain if she doesn’t win the nomination, and “hard-working white Americans”. She needs to strongly, and I mean STRONGLY, ask her disgruntled women supporters to think about what a vote for McCain would mean, and she needs to tell the self-identified white racists who supported her to forget skin-color now, to vote for Obama in their own self-interests. She could take those steps without self-denigration at all, and much would be forgiven her. If she can’t bring her supporters around to support Obama, then what’s the point?

    There are logistical steps that will necessarily be taken in private now by both camps, though eventually announced. I think we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

  • Ohioan @ 34: It is sad, but Bill Clinton was never anything but politics. There was never any “there” there. He was the boy who wanted to grow up and be President who never grew up, and this campaign has proven it to everyone.

    Can you imagine the wailing and screaming today in La Casa Clinton as these two uber-narcissists come to the realization that tomorrow is Day 1 of Week 1 of Month 1 of Year 1, AC? (After Clinton) No more Hill and Billary to kick around anymore. They’ll become increasingly irrelevant and ignored, and there isn’t a punishment worse for this pair.

  • Maria, Rich and Sad Old Vet:
    Respectfully, I think you misread the situation. Granted, I don’t speak for Clinton supporters en masse. Never claimed to. Your connection twixt Clinton and McCain is silly. Let us not lose our dignities. What’s peculiar about your reference is that the AM talk show circuit has been far softer on Obama tahn Clinton. One might ponder why. I reckon it’s not because they think he’s hip.

    Of course, I think McCain and the GOP stink. That’s not the point. We all want to defeat McCain, but we have different views on how to get there.

    And, Dear Old Vet – your approach to converting the other half of your party is less than efficacious. Why not start presenting Obama’s plusses. Why not trying to craft a way to explain why Obama – after serving in the Illinois House AND the Senate for two whole years – is actually worthy of the Presidency?

    If you can’t approach the problem that way, perhaps that speaks tomes.

  • aristedes,

    I for one would find it schadenfrude-alicious if Barack announces a running mate in the next few days and add, as a final kick in the ass, “I unfortunately couldn’t consider my former opponent for the nomination, Hillary Clinton, to be my running mate, because she is apparently still fighting for the nomination. Common sense dictates that I choose a running mate who is not currently trying to usurp my nomination.”

    Oh, how I will laugh were that to happen

  • Aristedes – Outstanding points. This is the direction I would like to see the discussion go. It’s almost like both sides are in a stand off. It’s kind of like he can’t till she does and she won’t until he will.

    I think a joint ticket would address all of your concerns.

    I respect your civility.

  • Everett, “I never claimed to speak for all Clinton supporters” is a rather childish response to my point that your views have not been shown to be representative of all or most Clinton supporters. (It’s also wildly inaccurate, as your unqualified statement on behalf of “half the party” assuredly does purport to speak for all Clinton supporters…and even casual voters who voted for her without strong feelings one way or the other.)

    You have not addressed the point that trying to choose between the competing and contradictory threats of a minority of pissed-off supporters is not a particularly sound basis on which to select a vice president. I expect that’s because underneath that particular bit of bluster, you know this to be the case.

  • Everett:

    I don’t give a sh*t if Hillary supporters feel the need to hold their noses to vote for Obama. My point is that for Hillary supporters to profess to have supported Hillary for her positions and then vote for McLame for any reason is consistent with voters continuing to vote against their own interests to elect rethugnicans. And very, very stupid.

    I do not believe that Clinton supporters are at a point where they are ready to be ‘sold’ on Obama. But they do need to understand why they should vote for their country’s good and not for McBush.

  • Maria: Re: “competing and contradictory threats of a minority of pissed-off supporters.” I fear you missed my point. I’ll try this again. Also, let’s please refrain from vulgar references to excretion, please. They’re childish.

    Here’s the reality of the situation. Obama has the nomination. He will need to nominate a running mate. Historically, this has been guided by a desire to shore up the Party, especially in regards to voting blocs with whom the principal is weak.

    I propose this scenario not as a “threat” but as an intellectual enterprise. I am interested in seeing how Obama works to heal the schism apparent to me and many others. If he is the unifier he has been portrayed as, I am waiting to see it.

    Basically, Maria, my point was not what Obama should do, but asking What do you think he should do? I have my opinion, but I’m curious about yours (plural possessive).

  • Everett, your logic is fundamentally incorrect. By your conceptualization, my wife and I would go to a restaurant. She would have chicken, and I would have fish. Because of this, I would not eat chicken five months from now, and my wife would not eat fish five months from now.

    IN the political arena, your methodology demands that the half-Party voting for Clinton in the primaries will, by some philosophical disconnect, be barred from supporting Obama in November.

    Your theorization also demands that the millions of Independents and moderate Republicans who have been burned by two terms of Bushylvanians will exercise an incredible level of appetite for masochism by voting for McMaybe—thereby willfully inflicting upon themselves yet another four years of suffering under the tyranny of Bushylvanianism.

    There are no “Party reverse-trace mechanisms” in a general election, as there are in a primary. McMaybe is flipping so often, and making so many problems for himself, that it’s quite likely he’ll take less than a third of the popular vote five months from now. He might even do worse. But this does not mean that Dems should sit back on their laurels and coast to victory. On the contrary, and as a means to avenge all the victims of Bushylvanianism, we should “run up the score.”

    beating McMaybe is not enough; no, no nearly enough. He must be routed; crushed; reduced to a quivering, cowering, skulking shell. He must be disgraced publicly as the torch-bearing symbol of what the current administration has done to this nation; to its people; to the entire world.

    McMaybe must be utterly destroyed—and you’re still going on about the only safe haven from him is an imaginary, swiss-cheese-like “sanctum sanctorum” that’s already on the brink?

    Please. Next you’ll be harping about America’s lack of intelligence being entirely responsible for your candidate’s defeat….

  • SadOldVet, Again with the expletives! Let’s have some class and dignity worthy of being elected.

    This is the O-bloggers baggage right now – not caring WHY half of the Dems didn’t hop aboard. I offer two propositions for this nearly unprecedented phenomenon. First, despite the hoopla, we just weren’t bowled over. From what I gathered talking to other Clinton suppoprters, we heard a lot of hype and not much substance. Second, we did the political calculus and determined that McCain is going to run better against Obama than Clinton.

    It is the sign of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accpeting it. Perhaps I am incorrect in my assessments.

    So I propose to you (plural): show me how there are actual proven facts on the ground in the Obama voting record that will convince me he can accomplish what he promises in his platform. Show me how he is going to run strongly against McCain.

    Telling people that you don’t care, just do it won’t sway many minds. What’s the aphorism, sugar before vinegar?

  • danimal said: “I don’t understand why Clinton supporters ignore the war vote.”

    Because secretly in our hearts we believe she had to vote for the war authorization or she’d have had no shot at the nomination and the White House six years later.

    She didn’t know that BGII was going to so blow this war that the vote was going to be a drag. But he did and there she is.

    In the end, the difference between you and me is whether you forgive a politician for being a politician because you believe he/she has the experience and abilities to get enacted the policies that you feel the country needs, or do you not.

    LBJ was a sucky human being, but he, and no one else, is really responsible for the Great Society and all it achieved. And I don’t think Hillary is as bad a person as LBJ.

  • Steve: I’m not sure I understand your position, but I too agree about Senator McCain (let’s please remember Senatorial Courtesy – I ammend all my previous posts to read – senator Obama and Senator Clinton post hoc) needing to be routed.

    My point is not that Clinton supporters can’t be swayed, but that there is work to be done.

    We both want similar results. But we have differnt visions for how to achieve this end. I wish I was so sanguine in my assessment of the ease with which the Republicans will capitualate.

    Additionally, I don’t believe I ever “harped.”

    Thank you for the feedback though.

  • OK This race is WAY too stressful for me to continue to follow, so consider this my parting comment on this circus that is posing as “election coverage.”

    Here is why Hillary shouldn’t become President. She is a good politician, but she doesn’t actually stand for anything and she doesn’t actually have any core beliefs. She stands for what ever will get her elected.

    Think about it. Her campaign was failing in the beginning, because she ran on being the “experienced strong leader – commander-in-chief” type of leader who would be ready on “day one” to take the world stage and kick butt. That didn’t work. She floundered for a while, conducted a few more “focus groups,” hired a few more pollsters and figured out how to tap into the worst instincts of the remaining voters. She became the “champion of the ‘hard working white people’ and the ‘blue collar’ baroness. It’s not that she believes anything in particular, but that she figured out how to “connect” with a group of people by telling them what they wanted to hear.

    Obama, on the other hand, has remained remarkably consistant about what his core beliefs are. You might not agree with him, but I have not seen any attempts on his part to “re-invent himself” during the campaign. When ever I hear a politician is trying to “re-invent” themselves, it almost always means, they are transitioning into – morphing into – a fresh new series of lies about who they really are.

    It sickens me that the media plays along and refuses to call Clinton on her “blue collar” make over. Before Pennsylvania, I never saw Clinton wearing powder blue pantsuits with too much eye shaddow. Since Pennsylvania she has even changed her accent. This is rediculous.

    Wake up America. Our leaders should be chosen from among the very small handful of sincere leaders who just happen to have ideas and approaches that capture the imagination of the American people and propel us forward into a positive future.

    The first Clinton Presidency was a disaster because the Clintons did not have a set of core beliefs. Thier strategy was to morph themselves into what ever public opinion seemed to expect. They made no real attempt to mold and craft consensus. That type of amoral approach to governing is extremely dangerous and lends itself to all manor of excess which eventually lead to Bill’s impeachment.

    Don’t be fooled friends.

    Gary Bonner, Baltimore, Maryland

  • “Harping,” Everett, it the term applicable to the continued-ad-nauseum argument that “half the party didn’t vote for him.”

    That is how politics works. Some choose from Column A, and some from Column B. Your presentation suggests that those who chose Clinton will not bock Obama, simply on the grounds that they chose Clinton the end, Only a few of the Clinton die-hards—maybe 10% at best—will either stay home on election day, or cross over and vote for Senator McMaybe. They will be the fanatical wing of the outmoded uber-feminist movement (the “She-Womyn-Man-Haters’-Club-Dianic-Militant” types), and the whites-only fringe of the Democratic Party.

    Yes—there is a great deal of work to do, and the sooner that work can begin, the better chance there is for that work to attain successful completion. On that note, I see that DemConWatch now puts Obama at “T-Minus-30-point-5…and counting” for the magic number. Clinton is still locked at 200.5—and there’s no longer any sign of improvement in her numbers.

  • 62. On June 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm, Everett said:

    Aristedes – Outstanding points. This is the direction I would like to see the discussion go. It’s almost like both sides are in a stand off. It’s kind of like he can’t till she does and she won’t until he will.

    I think a joint ticket would address all of your concerns.

    I respect your civility.

    You misunderstood my post. While I’m glad you respect my civility, all of my discussion was about issues that must be addressed and solved before and if Hillary were to be included in Obama’s plans. Putting her on the ticket before those steps were taken would certainly not solve anything and would avoid any resolution of the problems.

  • Invoking the flying spaghetti monster is the first sensible thing done by a Democrat all year. Leave it to the party of Jefferson–NOT WILLIAM JEFFERSON ANYMORE– to make its members choose between the first Woman and first African American nominee of a major party! Well, thank God for the truly American party. Let the Republicans continue to thrive on budget deficits, near dead or brain dead white men, Environmental degradation and insane profits for Big Oil, kickbacks for the filthy rich, and a self hating approach to well run government that would make not only Lincoln and Eisenhower blush, but Nixon, Reagan, even Harding. Who promises that Bush and Cheney will end up in jail. That woman or man is the one most deserving of the votes of true American patriots. Jim Webb as VP will be a good first step. Justice for our nation!

  • Clyburn said Obama has “elevated the campaign”. What a load of crap! Obama and his supporters – Obamaniacs – fuelled by campaign contributions from questionable sources in the shadows – have created a candidacy much like the reality shows create overnight celebrities.

    Clinton should run for president as an INDEPENDENT or join McCain as a Vice Presidential Candidate on a McCain-Clinton ticket.

  • Democrats deserve to lose. Why? Because they have such messed up rules for how to select the party’s presidential nominee; they let republicans decide when to hold democratic primaries in a state like Florida and then decide to count only half the votes; they let republicans vote in the democratic caucuses.

    Hillary Clinton should consider running for president as an independent or may be even join McCain on a joint ticket – if she can work out a compromise with him on major issues – healthcare, defense, education, energy, environment, foreign policy.

  • …they let republicans decide when to hold democratic primaries in a state like Florida… -Jolie

    The truth. You’re doing it wrong. Please, make a list of Florida Democrats who voted against moving the primary date. The RNC also punished Florida by halving their delegates, so spare me the conspiracy theories. The state legislature was at fault and both parties punished them.

    Not to mention if the Republicans wanted to affect the primary, they’d have done so in Hillary’s favor. Operation Chaos is proof of that. Why would they purposefully try to exclude a state that’s so well suited to her demographically?

    Hillary Clinton should consider running for president as an independent or may be even join McCain on a joint ticket… -Jolie

    Oh, I see the problem. You’re an idiot.

  • I realize this thread is likely dead, but so did someone far up the list.

    Everett, how can you be certain that Sen. Clinton has the ability to get her agenda through the governing process? I would imagine that there is considerable negative feeling toward her from the conservative side, and unless there is a super-majority in the Senate only compromised platforms will move. See the current situation with the Democratic majority for evidence.

    Based on the three special elections that I know of occurring this primary season I would say that Sen. Obama has the charisma and broad-based support in some traditionally Republican regions to bring them into play in the general. That said, it is quite likely that an Obama led ticket will allow for the other Democrats to make inroads. Another point, he has the ability to mobilize the vote of the Southern African-American like no other candidate I recall.

    Also, your argument that 1/2 the Democratic primary voters did not vote for Sen. Obama is spurious. Half the voters did vote for him. Plus, in Michigan Sen. Clinton ran basically unopposed and fully 40% of the turnout was actively against her. It is one thing to walk into an election and not vote on a ticket because you do not like your choices. It’s something else to punch “Uncommitted” when a strong, viable candidate with basically the same platform as your first choice is looking you in the eye. (That right there is the best reason for the ‘crossover’ voters to crossover.)

    I think, and have thought for a while, that anyone who supports Obama and would not vote for Clinton is voting on ideology rather than ideas. The exact same statement applies to Clinton’s supporters. From what I’ve seen, the current incarnation of the conservative movement is largely concerned with an ideology. I like to think the liberal movement is wed to ideas and ideals.

  • Comments are closed.