I think Brendan Nyhan's right in his explanation of why Democratic Party leaders are unlikely to unite to push Hillary Clinton out of the race even though they'd all benefit if it could be done -- it's hard to coordinate, and nobody wants to bear the costs of alienating Clinton's still-sizeable fan base. Still, dribs and drabs of superdelegates could, in sufficient numbers, succeed in pushing her out by May 6 as long as Obama turns in a decent performance in the upcoming primaries.
« Disturbing Images | Main | Five and Dime »
Collective Action
26 Mar 2008 04:23 pm
Comments (64)
I'm coming to the sad conclusion that Hillary will take this to the convention, regardless of how many super delegates endorse Obama. I hope that's not the case, but it is certainly in her power to do that, and given how she's acted to date, it would be in character for her to do so.
I think by the time May 6th is close, we're going to be saying that about May 20th, because right after May 6th Clinton will be able to point to WV and KY where they can reasonably expect to get at least 60-40 wins. But with Obama likely to win Oregon Clinton will be mathematically eliminated from a Pledged delegate lead by then.
We've chewed this over 14 different ways. Here's my effort at a slightly new angle:
What makes this a really problematic last-ditch candidacy is the factor contributed by media oxygen aka "narrative." Because this has been a colorful and surprising race, and because Hillary Clinton is not your ordinary candidate, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where her candidacy becomes so unlikely that the media loses interest.
That sorta happened with Huckabee eventually. But I think it will *never* happen with HRC. If she wants the press, she can have the press -- at least all the way to June, and perhaps even thereafter.
Maybe this take isn't so novel; it's basically taking the Politico thesis about the media and projecting it forward as a potential trainwreck. In practice, I believe this will be over at some point in May. But I've lost all certainty. It's a fascinating mess.
To say a bit more:
Given that Hillary is pursuing the Tonya Harding strategy, why would she care what the super delegates say today, or on May 6th, May 20th, or June 3rd? The only vote that matters (in the nomination fight) is the one that happens in the convention.
Hillary is not relying on pledged delegates for the nomination. Sure, she needs a plausible number of pledged delegates. But that won't be what makes the difference. What will make the difference is Obama's collapse. She needs to make Obama unequivocally unacceptable as the nominee.
There's no reason her pursuit of that goal should end when the pledged delegate fight (the primary season) has ended, or when the super delegates have announced their views. She can still give them reasons to change their minds prior to the convention.
I hope she doesn't take this course, but I don't see any indication that she'll drop out under any circumstances.
The leaders of the party are a bunch of fucking cowards for not stepping up and telling it like it is. Anyone who thought that a long a primary would be a good thing is an idiot as well. Grow some stones and tell her to get lost. I should have my head examined for voting for Hillary in the primary. It was quite early, but I'm not sure what I was thinking. She's an awful person. This is obvious. And this is a nightmare for the party.
"Still-sizeable fan base" = 47% of the primary electorate. Nicely done, dude - you convert 12.6 million voters for HRC into some small group of fanboys who like Jericho and send peanuts to the network to save it. Instead of relying on some elite group of party and media messiahs to anoint Obama with oil and end all this, I propose a novel solution - winning! If Obama keeps it close in PA (doable if tough) or wins (problematic), and he does well in IN, NC, and OR, all this whinging about the responsibility of the Wise Men/Boys will be academic. I think the voters will also respect a candidate more who took the prize by seizing it than having it handed to him.
Andrew -
I think if Obama has 50% + 1 of the pledged delegates (I think that's reasonable after May 6th contests), the supers will move his way and the media, if it has a clue, will start treating Hillary like they did Huckabee. Except Huckabee only stayed in to either demonstrate his appeal to McCain as a VP candidate (doubtful) or to get more name recognition when he runs in 2012 (quite possible). So really Hillary won't have a reason to stay in at all, except to be vindictive and spiteful.
Just to argue against myself for a second . . .
The counter-argument would be that at some point the press HRC is getting will become uniformly BAD press. Because the media is not *just* in this for the story, but actually does have an interest in the outcome.
I'm an Obama supporter, but last couple of days I think HRC would have been justified in feeling that the nets had taken out their steely knives and gathered for the feast. There was some serious snark in the Tuzla coverage, and ABC quoted the bit about the "Tonya Harding strategy" on air -- a phrase that is carefully whetted to do absolutely maximum damage to HRC on several levels.
I guess what I'm saying is, if this does end before Aug 28th (and God only knows if it will), I think it's more likely to be ended by the media than by Harry Reid.
But also, frankly, I've lost interest in the argument. It's getting to be like arguing on the deck of the Titanic as it goes down.
I have said this before, but I think the real question is not why aren't the superdelegates and party elders declaring en masse for Obama, but rather why does Hillary still enjoy a 40 delegate lead among the supers?
Today it was reported that top Clinton donors threatened Pelosi for saying that superdekgates should support the winner of pledged delegates while "several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes."
How laughable is this? Hillary STARTED OFF with a 100 superdelegate advantage, and STILL has a 40 superdelegate lead despite losing by every conceivable metric three quarters of the way through the voting. Hillary Clinton herself has said that even pledged delegates are free to vote as they want. But how dare Nancy Pelosi even suggest that the superdelegates should follow the winner of the primariers- that just wouldn't be fair to the voters!
All Obama needs is an even split among superdelegates (not even that) and this is over. The Clintons are furiously spinning 24-7 with their Michigan and Florida shenanigans, big donor threats, and ridiculous convention scenarios to obscure this simple fact. One wonders why an equal umber of voters apparently think that Obama should drop out (as opposed to Clinton). Clearly the media is not doing its job unraveling the spin.
To that end Andrew, I've heard stories the Clinton folks expect to win the nomination on the third round of covention balloting. As we all know by now, pledged delegates can vote for anyone after the first round of convention balloting.
So it makes sense for her to "throw the kitchen sink" and otherwise destroy Obama - it's her only hope. Unfortunately, the only strategy to overcome this strategy is to make HRC appear even less worthy of the nomination so expect it to get much, much worse.
By the way, anyone want to give odds that the unnamed DNC official who used the phrase "Tonya Harding strategy" was in fact Dean?
If so, that's what I would call a significant gesture.
I'm sorry, but at this point, the only people that could possibly still be supporting Clinton are:
A. not paying a bit of attention to what is actually happening, or
B. the kind of people that would never support somebody like Senator Obama anyways
Interpret the last part however you choose...
scottreads - I think you've got a point there. Whats unfortunate is that HRC fails to realize that the scenario you lay out is very likely, and if it isn't, well, it only delays the process and hurt the collective effort of the party.
Looking at her fundraising (from another thread) makes me think she's going to lose some financial steam soon. The large percentage of her money from big donors that can't donate anymore makes me think she's running this campaign on fumes. Surely, money isn't all that matters of course, but money enables her to continue at this pace, and she can't, really. When the money disappears enough, so will the votes.
Obama supporters such as myself should relax a tad, yet still be vigilant and condemn HRC's tactics and exert pressure on her, her supers, and the uncommited superdelegates for the way she is conducting herself.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/index.html
As Matt has said before, there's really no way to force anyone out of a presidential race. Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up. That could happen in Hillary's case. We have a month until the next primary and, absent a scandal, political writers have little to write about in the intervening weeks except how dire Clinton's prospects look. That kind of coverage could conceivably convince Hillary supporters that they are throwing their money away on a lost cause, they would stop giving, Hillary's funds would dry up, and she would be forced to bow out. But given a steady stream of money that allows her to keep paying her staff, there's no way to force her from the field, regardless of who Pelosi, Reid, Gore and the rest of the Democratic heavy-hitters throw their support to.
Which is to say, we're in this thing until mid-June at the earliest.
Look, it's over, it's gonna be president McCain, and Clinton will go down in history as the most reviled woman in United States history.
But it's time for us non-interventionists to see the silver lining here. As many horrors as McCain will unleash, by the time he leaves office the United States will be bankrupt with a broken military, even more hated worldwide than we are now, unable to continue our worldwide reign of terror. That's the only way that our evil empire will come to an end, because 90% of the populace wants to keep killing brown people.
Mind you, I'd prefer to have a gentler landing, because I do love this nation int he abstract.
1) As I've noted before, any possible benefit from shutting the primary process down early (via superdelegates strongarming) would be FAR outweighed by the alienation it would cause in millions of Hillary grassroots supporters.
2) We don't really give a shit what Mark Penn, Carville, etc think --they and Hillary have lost.
3) But the important thing is to keep the support of millions of Democrats who voted for Hillary in the primary but will vote for Obama in the general election just so long as he is seen to have acquired the nomination by legitimate means.
4) Fuck the Republicans -- there's more than enough time to cut their throats in late summer. You don't want to peak early.
5) Hillary's causing no damage to Obama that won't soon be forgotten. The PRIMARY thing is to threat grassroots Democrats with RESPECT. Do that and the Republicans are fucked. Piss off those Democrats and you put the Republicans back in the running.
As Matt has said before, there's really no way to force anyone out of a presidential race. Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up. That could happen in Hillary's case. We have a month until the next primary and, absent a scandal, political writers have little to write about in the intervening weeks except how dire Clinton's prospects look. That kind of coverage could conceivably convince Hillary supporters that they are throwing their money away on a lost cause, they would stop giving, Hillary's funds would dry up, and she would be forced to bow out. But given a steady stream of money that allows her to keep paying her staff, there's no way to force her from the field, regardless of who Pelosi, Reid, Gore and the rest of the Democratic heavy-hitters throw their support to.
Which is to say, we're in this thing until mid-June at the earliest.
As Matt has said before, there's really no way to force anyone out of a presidential race. Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up. That could happen in Hillary's case. We have a month until the next primary and, absent a scandal, political writers have little to write about in the intervening weeks except how dire Clinton's prospects look. That kind of coverage could conceivably convince Hillary supporters that they are throwing their money away on a lost cause, they would stop giving, Hillary's funds would dry up, and she would be forced to bow out. But given a steady stream of money that allows her to keep paying her staff, there's no way to force her from the field, regardless of who Pelosi, Reid, Gore and the rest of the Democratic heavy-hitters throw their support to.
Which is to say, we're in this thing until mid-June at the earliest.
Isn't what HRC asking the Democratic Party to do is essentially betray itself in the most public way imagineable?
As Matt has said before, there's really no way to force anyone out of a presidential race. Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up. That could happen in Hillary's case. We have a month until the next primary and, absent a scandal, political writers have little to write about in the intervening weeks except how dire Clinton's prospects look. That kind of coverage could conceivably convince Hillary supporters that they are throwing their money away on a lost cause, they would stop giving, Hillary's funds would dry up, and she would be forced to bow out. But given a steady stream of money that allows her to keep paying her staff, there's no way to force her from the field, regardless of who Pelosi, Reid, Gore and the rest of the Democratic heavy-hitters throw their support to.
Which is to say, we're in this thing until mid-June at the earliest.
As Matt has said before, there's really no way to force anyone out of a presidential race. Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up. That could happen in Hillary's case. We have a month until the next primary and, absent a scandal, political writers have little to write about in the intervening weeks except how dire Clinton's prospects look. That kind of coverage could conceivably convince Hillary supporters that they are throwing their money away on a lost cause, they would stop giving, Hillary's funds would dry up, and she would be forced to bow out. But given a steady stream of money that allows her to keep paying her staff, there's no way to force her from the field, regardless of who Pelosi, Reid, Gore and the rest of the Democratic heavy-hitters throw their support to.
Which is to say, we're in this thing until mid-June at the earliest.
As Matt has said before, there's really no way to force anyone out of a presidential race. Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up. That could happen in Hillary's case. We have a month until the next primary and, absent a scandal, political writers have little to write about in the intervening weeks except how dire Clinton's prospects look. That kind of coverage could conceivably convince Hillary supporters that they are throwing their money away on a lost cause, they would stop giving, Hillary's funds would dry up, and she would be forced to bow out. But given a steady stream of money that allows her to keep paying her staff, there's no way to force her from the field, regardless of who Pelosi, Reid, Gore and the rest of the Democratic heavy-hitters throw their support to.
Given that Hillary is pursuing the Tonya Harding strategy, why would she care what the super delegates say today, or on May 6th, May 20th, or June 3rd? The only vote that matters (in the nomination fight) is the one that happens in the convention.
Precisely. If Clinton is to win, this fight isn't going to the judges. It's a knockout or nothing. The will of the voters no longer matters.
There's no scenario in which Obama gets to concede gracefully, an option that's open to Clinton today, tomorrow, and until she finally alienates enough Democrats that they finally wash their hands of her. He either wins, or his entire political career is destroyed. That asymmetry is different from the stakes in the general election.
It's time for an intervention. The galling thing is that the mess in MI and FL makes it more or less impossible for Al Gore to play Goldwater to Clinton's Nixon. And I hate using that analogy.
The REAL THREAT from Hillary is that she will use her delegates to coerce Obama into accepting her as Vice-President --and into setting aside large number of Executive slots in his Administration for her backers.
As I've noted, that would be an unacceptable poison pill for Obama to swallow -- Hillary's spies would sabotage his administration in the same way that wood-boring worms sunk wooden ships.
It's not that Hillary would sink Obama for her personal benefit -- it's that the people FUNDING Hillary (like billionaire Haim Saban) want a veto over Obama's policies.
Candidates usually bow out when their money dries up.
Home run.
Once again providing further evidence that Game Theory explains everything. I wish I would have thought of that. It's no conspiracy for or against anyone, it's just obvious Game Theory getting played out. Of course, the one way for individuals to overcome the individual cost is for them to act collectively. There also does not seem to be any significant impediments to collective action, like say in the Prisoners Dilemna.
1) The power to put spies and agents of influence into Obama's Administration is what Hillary's campaign donors are now buying.
Nothing else makes rational sense.
They know she's lost the nomination. Even if somehow they could coerce the superdelegates into anointing her, the massive defection of Obama grassroots supporters from the Democratic Party would make that a Pyrhhic victory.
People don't donate $Millions for irrational reasons. They don't do it for good government either.
Don williams - You're onto something...
It's worth checking out the new post at Ben's blog about a letter from 20 wealthy Clinton donors to Pelosi.
You see, when Pelosi suggested superdelegates would not overturn the pledged delegate leader, that amounted to telling the future states they couldn't vote. It is very important to the undersigned that everyone vote, then that superdelegates weigh in and overturn that vote. No weighing in now. (Not that Pelosi did that. But that's a little detail called reality.)
I am not a Hillary enthusiast but I do understand her point about staying in the race. This has not been a blowout for Obama. Hillary (or the Clinton brand) since has a lot of residual support in democratic circles. Whether that is deserved or not is not the issue. Reality is that she has this support. She won a lot of important states and is likely to do pretty well in the coming contests. She is behind but not hopelessly behind Obama in the delegate count.
Now I would prefer that she is not the nominee. But Obama and his supporters (more the latter - I think to his credit Obama personally has not been negative) need to start addressing her support base. Treating her (and her supporters) like the devil or prima facie bad-intentioned (and determined to break the Democratic Party) is not gonna work. Going negative on Hillary will not work, period. And yes, I know the Clintons have run a nasty campaign as well. But again, that is not the point. Obama is not the anointed one and we need to stop pretending that the nomination is somehow owed to him. He took on a lot when he decided to enter the race against the Clintons and he has to fight for it. He and gang need to convince at least some of Hillary's supporters that: (a) he is the clear frontrunner now and rooting for Hillary is a waste of time; (b) but he so loves/respects the Clintons and their enormous “prior” contributions; (c) he has similar policy goals and is far more likely to get them implemented given his ability to bring about coalitions for real change. Or something like that.
Stacy, and I hate to say this because I know it's a little insulting, but that first group of people- "low information voters"- is a large part of Hillary's base, if not most of it.
Don W says: "The PRIMARY thing is to threat grassroots Democrats with RESPECT."
Aside from the humorous channeling, that won't work. First, because Obama supporters don't have any respect for them, and second (more importantly) they know it. They may be dumb, but they're not so dumb they can't see through insincerity.
So you are right that treating the other side with respect is key, but unfortunately you are calling on folks incapable of such behavior.
55,
I know. People are afraid to talk about it because it somes off smug or elitist. Which it probably is. But who cares.
2cynical,
"Obama is not the anointed one and we need to stop pretending that the nomination is somehow owed to him?" Uh...whah? We are now talking about how Obama thinks the nomination is somehow owed to him? Hillary and all her supporters are the ones acting like she's "owed" something. Take Carville, for example. What a joke. He shows how out of touch he is with how the real world works.
Gee more spoiled affluents on the MY blog calling the Dem base dumb and racist. Did you miss the Obama speech? Is this how you justify your unwillingness to subsidize the poor and elderly?
Clinton can't be pushed out if she refuses to go, and her repeatedly floating the idea that even Obama's pledged delegates could change their minds is her way of announcing that she isn't going to let a little thing like losing elections, or even the superdelegates, stand in the way of her taking this to the convention.
Accordingly, the only way she gets pushed out before then is if someone finds something to offer her, or something to threaten her with (such as a primary battle next time around), such that she changes her mind and decides to lose graciously.
Telling Obama supporters they have entitlement issues is ironic to say the least.
Obama is our Savior. Barak and Reverend Wright are Right, God D*** america. Now is the time to rally around Barak and Michelle and make them proud! And news flash america, Barak is right, your typical white american is a racist! Obama will apologize to our Muslim brothers for arrogant american policies of hate and slavery. Only Obama can forgive an evil nation founded slavery. REPARATIONS NOW
A Clinton supporter telling an Obama supporter she has entitlement issues is like Chris Benoit's ghost telling me to treat my wife and kids better.
Please, the thing about trollishness is that it's just very *boring*. At this point in the campaign, Obama supporters could write all that invective *for* you. Not learning anything.
I think it's possible that HRC is now angling for a veep spot.
But the broader thesis about "spies" in his administration seems unlikely to me, since a President can in the last analysis dismiss the people who work for him. Getting a friend of Haim Saban's placed as deputy minister of information, or whatever, wouldn't be much of a prize.
The veep spot finally seems unlikely to me as well -- though MoDo did float it, and what the heck do I know.
In support of Stacy -- I don't think anyone is expecting HRC just to drop out before PA. That's not the question. The question is really about the kind of race she's going to run, and the degree of her persistence. I'd like to be optimistic. But yesterday wasn't encouraging -- and to be fair, the Obama camp isn't cutting her any slack either. They're hitting hard on this credibility issue, which is inherently pretty cutting and pretty personal. Obambi seems to have been replaced by a somewhat tougher twin.
I'm not sure who you are parodying, but his first name is actually "Barack."
Now there are two Teds here. I'm not the Chris Benoit one.
Note that Obama COULD accept Hillary as Vice President if that was the only spy he had to accept into his Administration.
After all, he could send VP Hillary abroad constantly to every shithole in the world. In fact, Hillary's already written her job description:
"There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the first lady."
Let her get a taste of what REAL sniper fire is like. heh heh heh
I think it's more likely to be ended by the media than by Harry Reid.
You're probably right. After all, if any other candidate than Hillary were in this position, the media would have been treating them like Huckabee ages ago, and donors, supporters, and voters would have largely dried up for the hopeless cause. Unfortunately we've instead got endless reporting describing the race as "neck and neck" and "see-saw" (even though the "see-saw" has been tilted in the same direction from the beginning).
I'm not the Chris Benoit one either. Maybe there are actually three of us. Show yourself, you Chris Benoit hater!!
You'll see a woman and an African American on the ticket. Condi Rice as McCain's VP.
How do you like them apples?
Excuse me, but this "push Hillary out of the race" stuff will NOT work with ANYONE.
It's so PHONY.
That nasty old woman is going STRONG, trolling for VOTERS in unhip states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and she may indeed get a lot of them..
This is a virtual TIE between the two Democratic candidates, and these calls for the race to end here???
Crap, in my opinion.
You children can't "stand" a "long primary season"?
Hell, go back to 1968. That was a LONG one.
We were counting the votes from California in June, 1968, when RFK got shot down.
That's June. And that's real "destruction"...
But since I don't like Chris Benoit that much either, maybe the difference is moot.
Wobbly is one of those not so rare supporters who fall under categories 1 AND 2. Well done!! Virtual tie?!? Nice!!
I don't think there's any point in calling on Sen. Clinton to drop out, she's made it clear she has no intention of doing so and it only angers her supporters - a vast swath of voters that Dems will need come November. Furthermore, no matter how insurmountable Obama's lead is, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't look very big. We're not talking McCain/Huckabee size differences here. Urging superdelegates to force her out can sound like people are saying, "well, Obama can't quite win well enough, so we're going to get rid of the competition."
I think both campaigns need to take a deep breath and stop playing ugly politics. Unlikely, I know, given the stakes, but I know I'm tired of the continual racheting up of manufactured outrage over small issues.
As to the charge that Obama supporters can't treat Clinton supporters with respect, well, I just have to shake my head and respectfully disagree. There's been plenty of ugly rhetoric on both sides but I'm personally willing to look beyond that and work to elect whoever the nominee is.
Still, dribs and drabs of superdelegates could, in sufficient numbers, succeed in pushing her out by May 6 as long as Obama turns in a decent performance in the upcoming primaries.
I find this increasingly unlikely. For Clinton, it's always been about Clinton. Absent some scandal of ultra-Lewinski proportions, this circus is going to August and the bitter end. The Democrats are toast, I'm afraid.
As someone who was born in '68, I'll admit that I don't know squat about *really* bad Democratic politics.
But the thing is, from what I *hear* about '68, it wasn't the sort of convention experience, or election outcome, one would want to repeat. In fact, since the media are likely to draw parallels, one might not want to come within a mile of it.
Reality is that she has this support. She won a lot of important states and is likely to do pretty well in the coming contests. She is behind but not hopelessly behind Obama in the delegate count.
2cynical:
I'm not sure which delegate count you're talking about, but she is "hopelessly" behind in pledged delegates. She'd have to win every remaining state 65-35 in delegates to simply tie Obama. Consider that she's only done that once (or maybe twice, in Arkansas and maybe Oklahoma), and never in a contested election
Seeing as how NC, OR, SD, and MT (at least those states, probably IN too) are favorable to Obama, even if she pulls off the remarkable victory of drawing even with Obama in those 4 states, she still has to win the other 6 contests by a 71-31 margin, bigger than even her victory her uncontested home state, Arkansas.
If you meant the pledged Ds + supers, then, well, you have to believe that the supers will overturn the pleded D results, which, again, is basically not going to happen unless she successfully commits character assassination on him, as she obviously is attempting to do right now. And that leads us right back to where we started: should the party be indulging her attempts at character assassination (no), and if not, how do they end it?
Now Clinton is saying Obama is unelectable because he's "too liberal."
OK, I hate her now.
Re "But the broader thesis about "spies" in his administration seems unlikely to me, since a President can in the last analysis dismiss the people who work for him"
------------
Sure -- and the superdonor who's the patron of that appointee can make clear that if that happens, he gives a $Million to the Republicans vice Democrats in the next Congressional election.
He can even target a specific Congressman and explain to him why a shitstorm's about to drop on him. Think that Congressman's going to support Obama?
In Washington DC, A "Honest Politican" is one who stays bought. And everyone grabs everyone else by the balls and says "We're not going to hurt each other ,are we?"
Of course, you know, Obama could actually go out there and win PA but we don't to be too hard on him or anything. Don't want him to actually have to win it outright.
Question: why should Obama have to win an obviously Clinton-leaning state? If he's assembled a bigger, broader coalition than she is, one that he can ride to a popular vote win and pledged delegate win, why should he also have to win one of her states? The corollary to that is, then, that should they simply win out in their respective strong states (Clinton PA, WV, KY, Obama NC, OR, SD, MT, also prob IN, and who knows for Guam and PR?), even if that ends up with Clinton w/ fewer votes and fewer delegates, she's somehow "won" and he's somehow "lost". How does that make sense?
His coalition is bigger. I see no reason why he should have to win on her turf to legitimize that obvious fact anymore than she had to win Mississippi to prove that she should be the nominee. The way you win is by winning more pledged delegates. He's well on his way to doing that, to the point where Clinton has to actually suggest his pledged delegates defect at the convention in order to retain the plausiblity of a victory.
Yeah, Monster. I'm with you there. In fact, I think I'm going to sign off, because thinking about that remark is bad for my blood pressure. God help us.
Pfft. Waaaay to complicated. They won't unite to push her out simply because they've already hitched their ponies (magic no less) to her in all sorts of hard-to-undo ways.
DON'T BE DUPED !!!
Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.
But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).
I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-self, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.
Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.
Sincerely
jacksmith...
I think it is time for Obama to show that he can be as tough as the Clintons in this game. Bring all the elder pussies, I mean, leaders of the party and clearly and unmistakably tell them that if they think that the Clintons are going to f... them, Barack will double-f... them if they don´t grow a spine soon. And if they say no, threat to run third party with Bloomberg. And then this role game of make believe that the Clintons have any chance will be over as fast as they can say "Ralph Nader".
the United States will be bankrupt with a broken military, even more hated worldwide than we are now, unable to continue our worldwide reign of terror. That's the only way that our evil empire will come to an end, because 90% of the populace wants to keep killing brown people.
Mind you, I'd prefer to have a gentler landing, because I do love this nation int he abstract.
Posted by LarryM
Hardly your real preference, as a self-loathing white and deep-down anti-American. Be honest, scum. The more Americans suffer, the happier you are.
****************
You'll see a woman and an African American on the ticket. Condi Rice as McCain's VP.
How do you like them apples?
Posted by Book It
If I was a Democrat, I'd love them apples. George Bush's own pet "Miss Smithers", never elected to anything in her life, no domestic policy experience and minimal executive experience?
Condi as symbol of another Alan Keyes flown in from nowhere to run as the "counter-black"? Condi? A symbol of 4 more years of brainless Bushism?
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb..
**********************
Now Clinton is saying Obama is unelectable because he's "too liberal."
OK, I hate her now.
Posted by Monster
Well, don't blame her for the media not doing their job in annointing Obama the post-racial, healing Messiah of gorgeous speeches where the press cared more for sounding good than what he said.
She will have to vet Obama herself. Something they tried doing back early then backed off when the race card was played in S Carolina. Oddly enough, Hillary has talk radio helping. It was the otherwise dumb and lame Sean Hannity that broke through the Omerta the media had decided on would be followed on the Rev Wright narrative by buying and running DVDs Wright had on sale. UNfortunately, the race card intimidated other candidates and media from looking at Barack, The Redeemer - until the race was almost locked up.
And the question remains about Obama, his being the most liberal Senator, his Marxist, racist, and Muslim associates, shady sugardaddies and mommas.....being electable.
Not that Hillary's facade as former co-Governor and co-President is any more impressive than Obama's minimal credentials other than his superb talent for giving speeches be they "transcending", vapid New Age drivel, or "throw grandma under the bus" types or oration.
Wow. People layin down some intense prose there after 9 p.m.
To return to Matt's original topic, this FirstRead post might be of interest:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/820834.aspx
I'd say it demonstrates some of the "collective action" Matt was talking about. Because all these superdelegates who have come to NBC to tell their stories *could* be doing it on their own -- or, you know, there could have been someone coordinating it behind the scenes.
I wonder what Howard Dean and Harry Reid were talking about the other day?
Wow. People layin down some intense prose there after 9 p.m.
jacksmith is a comment spammer. The google provides his other Ctrl-C, Ctri-V dumps.
"I think the voters will also respect a candidate more who took the prize by seizing it than having it handed to him. "
Posted by scottreads
Yeah! People love coups.
Comments closed April 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Of course, you know, Obama could actually go out there and win PA but we don't to be too hard on him or anything. Don't want him to actually have to win it outright.
Posted by Rob | March 26, 2008 4:44 PM