If you want to talk about changing the rules, the Obama camp is putting pressure on superdelegates to mirror the pledged delegate count and not to overturn the "will of the people." That's certainly not the rule, but they're trying to make it to where it effectively is. Does it make sense? Absolutely. However, it also makes sense to not ignore two large states in a close primary election and potentially alienate voters in swing states in November.
I can't wait to watch the backtracking from a few of you. The most likely scenario -- though I don't think it's the lock he does -- is what Major said, regarding the superdelegates moving to Obama the week of June 4 and putting him above the 2,025 threshold. If and when that happens, Clinton will congratulate Obama and throw her support behind him. If the reverse somehow happens, Obama will throw his support behind her, and the party will absolutely be united by August 25. The turnout for Clinton is off the charts. The popular vote is very close -- within 3 percent, even not counting Florida and Michigan. The risk of alienating potential Florida and Michigan Dem voters in the general, if they aren't counted, is legitimate. Pennsylvania is still out there. It's funny to watch some of you use terms like "delusional" and "alienate" to describe the Clinton campaign -- I'd use those terms if she quit now. You'd think this was a McCain-Huckabee style blowout the way some of you are going on and on, not a race where the popular vote is still up for grabs. She has every right -- both literally, and in the moral sense -- to continue, and she should. Even Obama has said this. If she goes on having lost the pledged delegate count and popular vote after June 3, then let's revisit this conversation. But that's not going to happen.
^ delusional - were you under sniper fire when you made that post? "Hey I was a close second!" is not a good claim for first.
I don't have a problem with her staying in the race; I have a problem with her making ads for the Republicans to use in the fall. The commander in chief threshhold thing was crap, particularly when she propped McCain as more qualified than Obama to do it. And Bill's suggestion that McCain was more patriotic than Obama was horrible as well. If she wants to stay in til August making the argument that she'd be a better president than Obama, that's fine with me. Suggesting McCain would be better than Obama is unforgivable. The super-delegates agree which is why, after weeks of doing exactly that, she was forced to backtrack. I also think it's hilarious how you suggest Obama supporters are deluded and then promise he's not going to be ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote on June 3. Not even the Clinton campaign is making that insane prediction.
Oops. Correction: I just re-read your post. You apparently weren't predicting she'd be ahead in delegates or popular vote -- only that she wouldn't stay in if she wasn't. I tentatively agree with that, though I wouldn't be surprised by any audacious or even kamikaze move from her camp at this point. Anyway, apologies for reading your post wrong.
But if you're a close second and there are still millions of votes out there, it's a legitimate argument to stay in until the math proves it impossible.
millions of votes but not enough for you to win given that you can't get much more than half of them, which makes a scorched earth campaign a poor choice.
Who's to say she can't get much more than half? I guess that's where we differ. What you're talking about is likely, but I don't see the moral wrong in making the effort. If whether something was likely was a prerequisite to form a campaign, then no one other than Clinton, Obama and McCain should have run.
If Obama was behind Clinton by 700,000 or 800,000 popular votes and 150 pledged delegates, the media would have shouted him out of the contest weeks ago. "Obama still running despite impossible odds." It is amazing that it took until this week for the media to catch onto this narrative for Hillary. If Obama was behind Clinton by 700,000 or 800,000 popular votes and 150 pledged delegates, and used a relentlessly negative campaign to tear Clinton down as much as possible, directly hurting her chances to win vs McCain should she be nominated, he would be called a desperate scumbag. And he would deserve it.
Looks like the avalanche may be starting earlier than I expected... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news MN Senator endorses Obama The entire NC House contingent (7 of them) is looking at a possible joint announcement Indiana, Oregon, and Montana SDs are debating whether to do so as well.
I agree with this blogger from the pro-Hillary website mydd.com. I've said before I'd never vote for her no matter what. This blogger gives her an out I could agree to. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/25/15343/2304 Unless Senator Clinton Apolgoizes... by lizardbox, Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:53:43 AM EST She shan't receive my support in any future contest, be it this presidential run (should she secure the nomination) or any other. We can all pretend to be mere participants in this "civil" discourse, and claim that whoever the nominee might be we will support him or her. Not I. Being a reasonable fellow (mostly), I won't write off Senator Clinton without giving her an in back into this relationship. It's fairly simple, apologize and repent, or lose my support: - Apologize for the ridiculous 3AM ad - Apologize for your "as far as I know" response to whether Barack is a Muslim - Apologize for your disingenuous comments about the Reverend Wright controversy - Apologize for your reference to the imaginary CIC threshold that you and John McCain apparently passed, and Obama did not - Apologize for every time you reduced Barack to a speech - Apologize for your fear-mongering ad featuring none other than Bin Laden - Apologize for your vote on the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment - Apologize for Bush-like threats towards Iran - Apologize for the nasty opportunism during the last debate - Finally, apologize for your Iraq war authorization vote I am only asking you to apologize for things that you have done or directed, Senator Clinton. I do not ask you to apologize on behalf of President Clinton, any member of your staff, or any of your numerous surrogates. Just your votes. Your missteps. Your errors. Your judgment. Of course if you ever come to the realization that you failed to run the type of progressive campaign that many of us hoped of you to run, then you might also find it in your heart to apologize for being the candidate who effectively stopped our party from running on a platform of hope, change, and peace. You successfully managed to bring the political debate down to a level from which we all hoped to ascend.
I could vote for her as well, if she did what batman posted above. Otherwise, I'll stay home this go-round and drink some beer.
It's funny to hear some of you cry that Hillary's doing the Democratic Party an injustice by not dropping out even though she still has a chance. On the other hand, you say you won't support the Democractic Party if she's the nominee. You folks don't sound like you're doing the Democratic Party any favors either.
