Daily Kos

Why this Obama supporter... wants Hillary to STAY IN [Poll]

Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM PDT

(Cross-posted at BareNaked Pundits)

I'm a Barack Obama supporter.  I have been since the DraftObama.org days of 2006.  I want him to be the next president.  And that's exactly why I want Hillary Clinton to stay in this race.

Let me be clear -- I realize it's a painful race.  I realize we're losing the chance to go after McCain.  And I'm frankly beside myself that Democrats are raising $90 million a month -- and using it to go after each other. I mean, that's a whole other level of pain.  It's like getting a wisdom tooth pulled... by a proctologist (sorry).

And realistically, if I were Hillary, I would drop out at this point.  She's got virtually no chance of beating Obama in pledged delegates, nor in the popular vote.  And even the long-shot scenario -- superdelegates voting to give her the nomination anyway -- has become a really long shot.  At this point, she'd need 2/3 of superdelegates to overturn the popular will, and that's a tall order.

But here's the thing...

...if she still thinks she can win it, and if her supporters do, she needs to stay in until she comes to the conclusion herself that she has no chance.  I hate to use an AA analogy, but unless she moves beyond the "Denial" stage to the "Acceptance" one, the post-exit Hillary would be an embittered one who feels she was "robbed" of her chance at the nation's highest office.

And that would suck.   She, and her supporters, would almost certainly have a lot less enthusiasm for the general election.  Oh sure, they'd vote for Obama.  But would they donate?  Would they volunteer?  Would they exude an enthusiasm likely to prove infectious to friends, family, co-workers, etc.?  No.  At least not to the extent they could.

Most of them would still be lingering in that bitter stage of "denial."

Frankly, I wish this race were over.  I wish it had ended that night in New Hampshire.  But it didn't.  And as painful as it will be to keep it going until PA on 4/22 or Indiana and NC on 5/6, that pain will be a lot less than 5 or 6 months of resentment and withdrawl from millions of otherwise incredibly impassioned Democrats.  

Hillary needs to lose in a way that even her supporters agree is a game-ender.  A surprise loss in PA would do that.   A double loss in Indiana and NC would arguably do that.   But short of that, we're likely looking at something that lasts well into May, and possibly June 3rd (Montana).  

Somewhere during that time frame, Hillary will be mathematically eliminated from both a pledged delege victory, and a popular vote victory.   At that point, there simply will be no more room for denial.  At that point, the pressure will become overwhelming for her to drop out -- both from others, and most likely, from herself as well.

And at that point, I believe she and the sizable bulk of her supporters will go through the typical stages of any primary campaign loss -- disappointment, frustration that the "best" candidate didn't win, but... a grudging realization that they were beat fair and square, and that it's time to line up behind the winner.

In the meantime, again, I realize it's a painful race.  I wish it were over.  I wish we were united against McCain.  I wish we were not spending $90 million (ouch!!!) a month to go after each other.  

But that's the situation we're in.  It is what it is.  And as painful as it is now, I'd rather go through some "pain" right now, to have a much better chance of "gain" in the general election

Poll

Do you buy this argument?

40%91 votes
35%80 votes
19%44 votes
4%9 votes

| 224 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: 2008, election, hillary clinton, barack obama, BareNaked Pundits (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 44 comments

    •  Mathematical elimination should be the criterion (0+ / 0-)

      Hlinko, and we should credit you with the idea based on this diary. Here is what things boil down to IMO:

      When she is MATHEMATICALLY ELIMINATED from getting a lead in pledged (i.e. elected) delegates (this should happen on May 6th based on current standings), she should drop out.

      Until then:

        1. she should stop her and her campaign's negative attacks/tactics and keep things positive

        2. she/WJC should stop propping up McCain or teaming up with the Republicans and sociopaths like Limbaugh etal

        3. Clintons should stop throwing the Black Church under the bus by attacking Wright for their personal political gain.

      McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I actually agree with you! (13+ / 0-)

    "Hillary needs to lose in a way that even her supporters agree is a game-ender."

    Perfectly stated. I'm in. But come June, after the voting's over? She'd better be gone. I'm not doing this all summer.

    "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." -Barack Obama

    by stefanielaine on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:29:18 AM PDT

  •  I think she is ahead of her supporters (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hlinko, myboo, crystal eyes

    and needs a face saving place plus an alternative place to to before she gets out (I say this because I think she's pissed at a lot of her colleagues).  Then she needs to get Bill up to speed.

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

    •  By the way (5+ / 0-)

      Have you seen this? I know it's Slate and they're a little off, but like Politico, they're well read by the pundit class.

      Hillary Clinton is as good as dead. This became the consensus over the past week, when the media awoke en masse to the dual reality that 1) Clinton can't close the pledged-delegate gap and 2) Obama has her beat in the popular vote. But the Clinton campaign shows no signs of slowing—she said herself she's prepared to compete for at least three more months. So the question now is not just "How dead is she?" but "When will she realize it?"

      Photobucket

      NetrootNews coming soon!

      by ksh01 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not about staying in how HRC loses. (5+ / 0-)

    The real issue is that HRC campaigns in an inherently divisive and dishonest way and is working negatively to ruin Obama's chances in the general.

    I wouldn't mind if she stayed in, if there were any chance she would campaign honorably and for the betterment of the country, rather than putting her own ambition as the highest value.

    I didn't call for JE to drop out, even as it was completely obvious he couldn't win and he was hurting MY candidate, because he was campaigning honorably and I trusted him to do what was right for the party.  He fulfilled that trust.  

    I'll never stop calling for HRC to drop out, because I know that her campaigning is getting worse and worse as she gets more and more desparate.  I'm choking with rage as she says that MI and FL delegates must be seated in order to let the voters be heard, as she says she's going to poach pledged delegates and ask the supers to overturn the results so that the majority of voters voters aren't heard.  Or heard and ignored, in typical Bushian fashion.   She can't help it.  She's amoral.

    A new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%.

    by Inland on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM PDT

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Little Flower

      Her cynical campaigning is undermining the entire party's chances of framing themselves as agents of hope and change in the general.  Each of these lowroad desperate attempts to "debunk" hope and/or eloquence shortens the coattails of our candidate (even her) when the time comes.

      I'm disgusted by her narcissism.  So are a lot of casual potential voters.  The great asset of the Obama campaign has been its ability to inspire and draw nonparticipants into the party and into caring about politics at all.  Her miniscule chance of winning requires driving those voters and volunteers away by mocking their better natures.  To me she's a pig at this point.  I feel sorry for her as a person, it's hard to watch ones dream crumble, but it isn't america's fault that she's second best this time and she should be a bigger person than to punish america for her disappointment.

  •  I'm glad she's stayed in (9+ / 0-)

    and hope she stays in the rest of the way, but for different reasons.

    1. Obama is becoming a better candidate because she's still challenging him, and if there's a skeleton in his closet, I want it aired out now.
    1. We're building organizations in states that mostly get ignored by the party as a whole, and that will help us in November, no matter who the candidate is.
    1. We're keeping McCain out of the news cycle, and we're sucking all the excitement about this presidential race to one side--ours.
    1. We're constantly reminding people that they have a chance to be part of an historic election, and McCain pales by comparison.

    I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    by incertus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM PDT

    •  I agree with this, provided the Clinton campaign (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wader, Urizen, SottoVoce

      doesn't continue with their cheap shots.  I think they've learned their lesson after the latest round of polls showing her own negatives shooting even higher than they have always been.  MSNBC has her unfavorability at 48%.  She can't continue lobbing haymakers and expect people to believe her anymore.

      She's back on the issues like her economomy speech this week.  With both sides wanting to get back on the issues, I'm fine with her staying in the race.

      Obama can continue to get his positive message out and it's getting much more coverage than anything McCain tries to do.  His fools errand around the world earlier this month?  How many people remember that, much less the foreign policy "strengths" he was trying to brandish?  His gaffes can be brought up later when we get closer to the election.  It's all on tape.

      "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

      by BoringUserName on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:42:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        sara seattle, sander60tx, MKSinSA

        Clinton's advisers have done her a disservice, and have made some really cheap cracks--the Richardson as Judas remark by Carville bit was unconscionable. But let's not act like Obama's advisers have been pure as the driven snow. McPeak's crack on Bill Clinton as McCarthy depends on a really selective reading of Clinton's statement.

        I'm focusing on what the candidates say, not what their spokespeople say, and right now, I'm pleased with both candidates. That could change, but right now, I'm happy with either.

        I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

        by incertus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  depends on who the pundits are... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Hlinko

    Bad: BareNaked Matthews, BareNaked Carville, BareNaked Buchanan...ai, yi yi, yi yi.

    Now, if Shakira, Lucy Liu, or Rosario Dawson was a pundit, I might visit your site.  heh.

    And, btw, I agree with your story.  But what happened to the hug diaries?

    (-8.00,-7.85) "Jesus Christ was the first nonviolent revolutionary." --S. Stills

    by bubbanomics on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:33:38 AM PDT

  •  The only problem is she doesn't know when she's (6+ / 0-)

    beaten. Or at least, she doesn't seem to know. She seems to think that any path, no matter how desperate, damaging, and improbable, is a viable path to the Presidency. I get the feeling that even if the only way for her to win was for Obama to get struck by lightning, she'd keep fighting.

    •  When to say "when" (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Urizen, MKSinSA

      I agree w/ slash196 that Clinton's powers of discerning a loss are questionable, at best.  Akin to her powers of discerning sniper fire.

      That said, I'm starting to believe that events will force her hand.  Not only the slow hemorrhaging of SDs, not only the call from big-name Dems like Leahy to step down, not only Tuzla-gate, but (most importantly) Income Tax Gate that will hit the fan in about two weeks.

      Many happy returns.

      Though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way. --Albert Camus

      by GreenMtnState on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More Elisabeth Kubler-Ross than AA isn't it? (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wader, NeuvoLiberal, Flippant, beltane

    Kubler-Ross model from wikipedia

    Other than that I agree.

    Do-Do-Do-Dum. De-Dum. De-Dum. It's Over. --David Spade

    by bad dad on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:35:05 AM PDT

  •  Well said! (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    sara seattle, myboo, sander60tx, MKSinSA

    I totally agree.  I saw an article on my local newspaper today (Seattle) that Hillary was in and she wasn't going to let the "big bullies" (her words) force her out.  That's red meat to Hillary supporters.  She shouldn't be forced out.  Let her, and especially her supporters, feel they were beaten fair and square.

    Though I have a feeling we'll be dodging sniper fire for the next three months.  Sigh.

  •  She vetted Obama. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    thisniss, MKSinSA

    The things she hurled at him would have come out in October. Now they will be old news. No shock value. Hillary has not been vetted. I could list several problems for her, but why bother. She has no chance. Period.

    John McCain '08 - Hope Less!

    by kitebro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM PDT

    •  Hate to say it (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Kitty, kitebro, thisniss

      But I know in my bones there are serious issues about Bill's donors to the library and the foundation, and serious conflicts of interest for a potential president Hillary and even Senator Clinton.  

      I really don't like to  be mean, I really don't.  But if some of this could surface I wouldn't exactly be unhappy.....

      The press and the Hillary campaign act as if there's nothing there, that she is unassailable in the GE except for what we know this very minute.  And I am positive that is not true.  There's a compelling reason why the right wing still wants Hillary to be the nominee.  They got something.  

  •  I wish you weren't right (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, MKSinSA

    but I think you are.  And a number of the next races favor HIllary.  

    Lots and lots of time for her to do the kind of damage she did in Texas and Ohio.  I hope the Obama campaign is better prepared this time.  I don't see him winning PA.  That would do it, of course.  Close would be good enough; but I'm not hopeful about that either.  

    I'm worried about an Edwards endorsement for Hillary in NC.  

    He should win NC no matter what.  If he can tighten things in PA, IN, WV, it will become mathematically impossible for her.  And you may be right, that a cleaner win benefit Obama in the long run.  It's just so nervewracking.    

    Three weeks is an eternity in this campaign.  I'm done making any predictions, and I am no longer swayed by the smugness I would so like to embrace.  

    •  there was some poll (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      thisniss

      that suggested that an Edwards endorsement for HRC actually made her less popular in NC. Take that as you will.

      But the funny thing is that the only candidate who has beaten expectations so far in this race is Obama (except when those expectations were suddenly raised right before a contest--such as NH or TX and OH)

      So, if Obama is expected to win NC, he should win it. Not to worry.

      Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!

      by JMS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:23:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish it were over, too, (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA

    but I don't so much mind her staying in if she weren't bloodying Obama up, and praising McCain at every turn.  That's where the pain is for me.

    But, I do agree with all of your comments about her supporters needing to see this end in some fair way.  We need their support this fall, and we all need to start being really careful about what we're saying on this site from this point on.

    Nobody should be pouring salt into anyone's wounds anymore.  We need to be Obama-like now, and realize he's gotten this far because of how he's conducted himself during losses AND wins.

    It's so empowering not to feel powerless anymore!

    by Shelley99 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM PDT

    •  That moment has passed (4+ / 0-)

      and earlier this week, when asked at an event in North Carolina by a supporter about the idea that if she doesn't get the nomination, would her supporters go to McCain, she said rather pointedly that they should not, that while there are differences between her and Obama, they pale in comparison of the differences between either of them and McCain. That point needs to be screamed from the rooftops.

      I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

      by incertus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately, (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        thisniss

        Bill was then reported as describing McCain as a "moderate".  And, not in an offhand remark.

        It remains to be seen if the Clinton campaign is pulling another version of their prior, "I'll sound nice now, then twist your nose after your defenses are down."

        Sorry, past performances make me cynical.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bill's not the candidate (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          sara seattle

          and while I disagree with his characterization of McCain, he won't be on the ballot in November either. Neither will James Carville or Tony McPeak or Samantha Power. They are irrelevant as to my decision making.

          I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

          by incertus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:56:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry, but that's sounding a bit naive (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            sara seattle, thisniss

            Hillary has been taking advice from her advisors for awhile, now.  Her stances tend to change with the wind on even major issues.

            Bill campaigns directly for her - good cop vs. bad cop is an old tactic.

            She has enough history to make her prior comments about McCain vs. Obama more than minor misspeaks.

            It's all part of a pattern that has played out repeatedly - with interchangeable players - throughout their Plan B.  One person says objectionable item A, another softens the impact . . . after the meme is floated for a bit.  Later, it resurfaces again.

            Regardless of her being a Democratic Senator, we can criticize her campaign as representing her when issues beyond anomalies occur.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  wake me up in Nov... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wader

    I'm tuning out after PA if she continues to stay in after that. Enough is enough.

    "We have been told that we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. It will only grow louder and more dissonant." Barack Obama 2.05.08

    by Cleopatra on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM PDT

  •  A well articulated argument, HL. (0+ / 0-)

    I think that around June 3rd, and not July 1st as Howard Dean says, should be the time horizon by when we should have this thing wrapped up so that the nominee (highly likely, Obama) can start the GE campaign.

    Every week counts as far the GE goes, since as we can see and expect, the RWNM will try to rough up the Dem nominee pretty badly (we need to gear up to deal with that effectively).

    And, we can't have the pres. race suck up all the oxygen out there, given that it's important that we maximize our prospects in the GE across the board.

    When she's mathematically eliminated from gaining a lead in pledged delegates (this is a fair criterion that you've laid down!), I think HRC should do the right thing, drop out and pledge support for Obama, IMO.

    McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM PDT

  •  Well reasoned, but . . . (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wader

    The longer Hillary continues the more cynicism she generates.  At this point cynicism is the only asset her campaign has.  Ever since she and Bill began equating "hope" with "fanatasy" they've been undermining the most positive quality our entire party (led by Obama) has going for them this year.  Before they started on that it was easy to frame us as the party of hope and change and the repugs as the party of cynicism and biz as usual.  They've pretty much buried that.  A lot of casual voters have been turned off.

  •  I don't know that it's better for Obama (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    nrafter530, sander60tx, MKSinSA

    so I did not vote yes, but the point about doing it when she's ready and can bring her supporters along is  well taken

    -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

    by nicolemm on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:18:30 AM PDT

  •  I see your point (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wader, sander60tx, MKSinSA

    however - what you need to take into consideration too is - that many people see the constant begging for Hillary to step down as a negative for Obama.

    If the only way that Obama can win - is for Hillary to step down

    That is not showing Obama in a positive light - does not show an aura of winning -

    so I do not understand why some people keep harping on it.

    If Obama is to win - then let him win convincingly - if not status quo will continue.

    Neither has enough votes to win on their own -- a pox on both their houses

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:27:04 AM PDT

    •  He's winning in almost every category (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      sara seattle

      and, will likely end up in a similar position by convention time.

      This race is no longer about her, but could be focused - monetarily and organizationally - fully on beating McCain's prospects for a Bush III term to heck.

      Instead, most of our money and effort goes into the back and forth antics between a candidate who has about a 85% chance of winning the nomination vs. the one with a 15% chance.

      If she cared about the party and this election, she could have been graceful enough to consider her own backout strategy by now.  But, grace is not something she's shown much of in this nomination run, unfortunately.

      As context, I've never liked her much and voted against her in the 2006 Senate primary, but was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for a presidential run.  I voted for her in the 2006 general election, of course.

      Yet, her campaign has been ending as the runner-up in many areas of measure (i.e., money management, demographic spread, organizational effectiveness on the ground, positive campaigning, etc.) against the Obama campaign from my perspective.  She only has tough politics to offer for win, now - some of it skeevy and laced with negatives that border on (and, some have been confirmed as) smears or lies.  Using Wright to attempt swaying SuperDelegates is truly hitting a bottom rung.

      If I were her, I'd consider repairing both her future and legacy as the most viable personal career issue right she can control - rather than stretching out our focus beyond logical need in an election season which is so crucial for us to win.  She can help herself AND the party by dealing with her denial, then mediate similar symptoms in some of her supporters.

      The two campaigns cannot be equivocated in terms of means, displayed intents and effectiveness, IMHO.  I cannot blithely support a pox on them both - one of them needs to win in November.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree!-LONG COMMENT BUT PLS READ (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Kitty, kate mckinnon, wader, thisniss

    I can't post a dairy since I posted one earlier today here ; but I have to disagree with you at this juncture and here is why:  

    (1) There is a HUGE element of racial & gender symbolism (cuts both ways) in this race that has never been played out before. As Obama got more wins, his voters became more emboldened while HRC (naturally) became more desperate and under siege. When she finally got a break on Mar 4th, it was statistically too late for her (and she knew it). However, her supporters became more tribal post-Feb 5th and particularly post Mar 4th where even if she knows she can no longer win, she is bound by crowd fervor to reject the logical truth and embrace an illogical false possibility of victory (less than 5%) that she will prevail. Obama's voters are more likely to defect than Hilary's regardless of what Gallup poll says. His are newly activated voters while hers are by and large generally party rank & filers. His identify with the candidate more than the party (e.g. me). The risks to him from her coalition are women and working class whites living in & around racially segregated cities & suburbs. Obama would have had a harder time with the latter group but the longer HRC stays in the race the more he is likely to have a hard time with the former which is worse cos white women are the plurality of voters in this country. As time goes on her supporters become more tribal and less willing to back Obama even after Hilary formally accepts defeat.

    (2) Spring is the new November. This does not mean that elections are conclusively won or lost in Spring, but strong narratives are set and the earlier a nominee can be determined the more likely s/he is able to set the narrative and then pivot with it to the general. The later nominee then has to fight to correct the Spring narrative while pivoting his message into the general. In short, there is a first mover advantage for non-incumbents running for an open seat.

    (3) Obama is running an anti-establishment campaign and the last guy to pull this off was Jimmy Carter when Southern democrats still accounted for about 45% of the Dem convention vote. Obama has done well outside strong AA voting states in primaries like VA, WI, DE, CT because of strong long term campaigning backed with local support while HRC has prevailed in "big" states because of institutional establishment types. Had he had what she had he would not have lost OH and she would not have lost WI. His voters are more equipped for the general election which is mass rally further detached from partisan identification (that is why his message is broader and less doctrinaire). But because he has to become the democratic nominee first, and is fighting an establishment democrat, his ability to run her out in the "big" states is severely limited. Clinton '92 & to some extent Carter '76 did not have this problem because they lacked strong singular establishment alternatives (besides Clinton was the pretty much the establishment candidate all through out the '92 campaign).

    (4)Hilary's numbers are pretty much set in stone, barring a significant meltdown by McCain or Obama, she can expect very little crossover support. So in such a case, she must tear down the alternative to win (or more charitably, bring that person to her level and get folks to vote against her opponent than for her...a la Bush '04). But because she is behind in the nomination she has to wage that battle in the primary and then in the general. If she fails to get to the general, she will have already damaged the nominee, possibly beyond repair.

    Mar 4th was the 11th hour at the 59th minute on the 59th second and the Democrats came out confused. That was precisely when the supers should have stepped in to fix this. Waiting till later or letting things run their course if foolishness and partly explains how short sighted the Democratic elites are compared to their GOP counterparts. They are thinking for the 2nd quarter while the GOP plans for the whole game. No wonder they've been in the White House more often than the Dems. This thing needs to end now and quickly and yes before PA... AFAIAC, the vetting has already been done we are now in the land of diminishing returns regardless of who the eventual nominee is.

    •  Excellent comment (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Kitty

      Worth the read.

      I think this sums it up: "If she fails to get to the general, she will have already damaged the nominee, possibly beyond repair."  I agree and will go as far as to state that this is obvious.  There is no justification for Clinton's continued campaigning, none.  Clinton willfully sacrificed her credibility these past few months.  If the party continues to tolerate a losing kitchen sink campaign, the Democratic party's credibility will be implicated as well.

    •  I agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

      Also, the schedule doesn't look like there will be a chance for the big win moment the diarist is hoping for.  As we've seen already it doesn't matter how much he wins, the Clinton team will keep extending the deadline or invent new scenarios which will allow her to win.  I don't think Obama has a very good chance of winning in PA, and although it won't change the overall outcome, stretching it out just makes things muddier and allows voters in more states to become entrenched in their positions.  I'd really like us to stop fighting, but the entrenched anger on both sides, and denial on the Clinton side will make it impossible for many of them to fully accept an Obama win as "legitimate" under any circumstances.  

      They themselves are counting on the superdelegates in order to win.  If the supers were to step up and loudly say that they will be backing Obama, Clinton and her supporters would eventually have to deal with it.  They are going to need time to heal their wounds and the more time they have to get over it before the general election, the better it will be for all of us.

  •  Sound psychology there... (0+ / 0-)

    I think. Damn fine argument! Bravo!

  •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Kitty

    Why is there a demand that Obama turn water to wine before this party agrees to run his obviously superior campaign during the generals?

    Clinton came into this nomination contest with every advantage, and blew them all.  She has never even had a pledged delegate lead, this entire nomination!  And now because Clinton might feel personally bitter, an emotion she will spread to her credulous supporters, the entire Democratic party need tolerate a kitchen sink campaign which is accomplishing nothing save driving up both her and Obama's negatives?

    No.  This is not right.

  •  Hey, BTD ... (0+ / 0-)

    linked to your diary. That's quite a compliment.

  •  I like what you say, it makes sense (0+ / 0-)

    I sure hope she comes to that realization soon, so we can put those millions and all of that energy to work in the right direction.

  •  Even though I voted for Obama, (0+ / 0-)

    Rick Noriega for Texas U.S. Senator!

    by sander60tx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:01:56 PM PDT

    •  Oops! (0+ / 0-)

      Even though I voted for Obama, I have the same feeling about Clinton not dropping out until it is clear that she has been beaten "fair and square."  I know a lot of people here feel like that that has already happened, but I don't think that is true for many other people. (A recent poll showed that about 60% of those surveyed did not think she should drop out.)  When people call for her to "drop out" it feels to me almost like bullying, especially when it is males calling for a female to quit.  It makes me want her to keep going, even though I didn't even vote for her.  (I have given her money, though!)  I don't think that Clinton will throw anything at Obama that the R's won't throw against him anyway.  Shoot, they will make things up if they can't find enough dirt that is actually true.  Fasten your seatbelts and brace yourself for another couple of months!

      Rick Noriega for Texas U.S. Senator!

      by sander60tx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:13:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 44 comments