A Vote for Hillary in PA Tomorrow is a Vote for McCain

There's a reason why John McCain went after Obama on Bill Ayers yesterday.

He wants to blunt any last minute Obama surge in Pennsylvania to keep Hillary in the race as long as possible. He knows that as soon as Hillary bows out of the race, Obama's considerable resources, organization and rhetorical gifts will pivot around like the guns of a battle ship onto McCain -- anbd start blasting away.

From Wednesday forward, no matter what happens in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama should ignore Hillary Clinton and start running as the Democratic nominee for President.

Pretend Hillary is, for all intents and purposes, Mike Gravel.

Ahe is now virtually broke. She has no more money to keep going on. Pennsylvania was her last stand, and she has to win by 15 points for anyone to take notice.

Obama will probably get about 45% of the vote and will lose to her by 8-9 points, I'm guessing.

But that's fine.

Obama shouls just dust Pennsylavnia off his shoulders and start running against John MCcain. Let Hillary whale and attack all she wants.

Just ignore her.

She'll go away eventually.

•  Unfortunately

  if there's one thing we know about both Clintons, it's that they won't stand for being ignored. That's contrary to their very nature.

  by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:08:08 AM PDT

  •  Who cares?

    Obama has to act like the nominee -- and just basically treat Hillary like she's Mike Gravel.

    by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:09:18 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, but

      the problem is that she won't let him do that.

      Then again, with no money, it's not as if she can do a lot about it.

      by MBNYC on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:12:58 AM PDT

      •  It's not her choice.

        by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:20:00 AM PDT

  •  Unless everyone starts to ignore them.

    If money dries up, she's marginalized.  They can stomp their feet as much as they want.  

    The supers need to step up, especially if Obama's loss is less than 10%.  They're supposed to be the adults here, and there's only one candidate who has acted like an adult -- playing by the rules, running a magnificently organized campaign, raised boatloads of money, inspired volunteers in record numbers.  

    They need to coalesce behind the nominee and let us all get to work, aiming those guns at McCain and all down-ticket races.  It's time to marginalize the tantrum-throwing child who tries to change the rules, like playing Chutes and Ladders with a three year old.  

    The money, frankly, is being wasted on the primary.  Let's get to work, get ourselves a working majority in Congress, elect an outstanding president.  

    Come on, supers.  Do your job.  Do it now.

    by 57andFemale on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:23:28 AM PDT

    •  I agree completely

      What the superdelegates need to understand is that if were not fighting The Clintons we could be donating money to Obama and the congressional candidates so that we have a working majority.

      by rosecar on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:31:02 AM PDT

•  Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate

  The election is essentially a contest of who can win the most support from swing states, which makes it easy to figure out who the best Democrat candidate is: the one who has the higher percentage of votes from swing states.  Unfortunately, the nomination system is set up in such a way that makes it possible for a candidate with less swing state support to win the nomination.  That problem should be corrected.

  The press and public have often denounced this year’s brokered convention as being unfair.  But the most fair decision is to choose the candidate with the most swing state support.  A brokered convention has one big advantage over the usual process: it allows the Democratic party to make sure the candidate who is most popular in swing states will be put on the ticket.

  At this time Hillary Clinton possesses the overwhelming majority of swing state votes including Florida and Michigan, which makes her a much stronger candidate than Obama.  Considering this, it does not help the Democrat party to ask her to leave the race.   The Democrats are up against a very powerful Republican so neither of our candidates are certain to win, therefore since there is so much uncertainty, it would be self-destructive for the Democrat party to pressure Hillary Clinton to drop out.  I want the Democrats to win so I’m happy Clinton, the much stronger candidate, has resisted negative pressure to leave and is continuing bravely to benefit our party.

  by Nancy Kallitechnis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:09:41 AM PDT

  •  National polls don't agree

    The nation has CLINTON FATIGUE.

    BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON???

    Don't think so.

    Trust me, if Hillary steals the election via superdelegates, the AA vote will stay home.  Young people will stay home.  Independents will stay home or vote McCain.

    by teahead on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:12:37 AM PDT

    •  What will the polls say in six months?

      The national polls dramatically change every week.  Recently Clinton was ahead of Obama in the national polls.  The only poll that can predict who the next president will be with some degree of accuracy, will be the poll taken the day before the general election six and a half months from now.  

      by Nancy Kallitechnis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:32:17 AM PDT

      •  You undermine the whole premise of your first

        comment here.  If the national polls are meaningless at this point then the polls of "swing states" (as if those are static) are meaningless at this point as well.  She actually does worse than Obama in some Michigan match-ups and Florida could come around.  But those aren't the only swing states and Hillary does a lot worse in several other swing states in current meaningless polling (Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, Washington etc).  So unless you have a time machine or can see into the future I think your whole argument is absurd.

        Besides if she takes this to a convention floor fight those swing states polls will move, and not in a direction that will be helpful for her election.

        by FederalFarmer on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:49:14 AM PDT

        •  data?

          Unless you have any current data about voters' preference in the swing states that Hillary has won then there's no reason to believe they do not prefer Hillary Clinton.

          Also, consider that HRC has a track record of being more popular in swing states.  This consistency is a hallmark of her candidacy.  

          The evidence is overwhelming that Hillary Clinton is stronger in swing states and unless I see solid evidence that this is not so, then I will continue to believe it.  And by solid evidence I mean consistent polling information from every swing state.

          by Nancy Kallitechnis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM PDT

          •  Polling at this point is meaningless

            or is that only true when it contradicts your original premise?  What do you mean track record? And why is there a presumption they prefer Hillary?  That's like saying "Judo is the greatest martial arts, prove me wrong".  No, you prove that Judo is the greatest martial art, then we'll talk.

            If you mean she has won primaries in swing states, that is true in only a couple of cases, but Obama has won in several others (and don't give me BS about FL and MI, those weren't real primaries and any intellectually honest person knows that).  And anyway primary performance is not proof that a candidate will do better than the other in a general election.  General elections draw from a wider pool of voters and generally the nominee will draw over 90% of the voters who went for their primary opponent.  

            There is pretty consistent polling data that shows Obama polling better than Hillary against McCain in Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, North Carolina, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska.  Check the archives over at TPM for April and March for many polls (yes you too can research and find actual data that supports Howard Wolfson's talking points instead of just accepting them as fact).  http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...

            There is a case to be made for both candidates in swing states and it is pretty unreasonable and unwise to make electability your sole justification for voting for someone.  Wasn't that everyone's reason for getting behind John Kerry?????  I think Democrats have a pretty abysmal track record of thinking they know who is electable and then seeing them go down in flames.  Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Humphrey these were all establishment candidates who made electability and experience central to their campaign.  How well did those work out?  In short Democrats (and especially establishment Democrats) wouldn't know a good candidate if he/she came up and smacked them upside the head.

            As far as being more popular in swing states as a hallmark of her candidacy, I would say a more consistent hallmark is having talking points that defy reason and people around that are willing to lap them up and parrot them back.

            by FederalFarmer on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:51:08 AM PDT

  •  It's highly debateable whether she's the stronger

    ...candidate or not.

    Her whole argument in the primary is that she's ready to be President, experienced and can get things done in Washington.

    Well...McCain beats her in all three categories in a general election race.

    Obama is smart enough to have positioned himself for the general election by not running on his experience.

    Also, as Obama himself has said -- he's pulling his punches on Hillary quite a bit for the sake of party unity. The few shots he's thrown at her have made Hillary supporters livid with anger (see the idiotic manufactured controversy about whether Obama flipped Hillary the finger).

    So Obama has to tread lightly here.

    Hillary, on the other hand, has nothing to lose. She doesn't give a shit of the country goes down the toilet under John Mccain. She can run against him in 2012. And she doesn't much care if she pises off Obama supporters in the process either. As long as she gets the nomination -- she's fine with that.

    In any case -- I think you are dead wrong about Hillary.

    by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:14:27 AM PDT

  •  The brave one ...oh yeah

    not paying the small vendors, the mom & pop's stores, the local charity halls, the high schools and universities...cutting and running from them....
    Definitely the brave one....my ass

    by soms on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:15:45 AM PDT

  •  Superdelegates appear to agree with your criteria

    for selecting a candidate by a wide margin:

    AP reporters across the nation contacted the 250 undecideds and asked them how they plan to choose. Of those, 117 agreed to discuss the decision-making process.

    -About a third said the most important factor will be the candidate who, they believe, has the best chance of beating Republican John McCain in the general election.

    -One in 10 said the biggest factor will be the candidate with the most pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

    -One in 10 said what matters most is who won their state or congressional district in the primary or caucus.

    -The rest cited multiple factors or parochial issues.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    by phoenixdreamz on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:21:19 AM PDT

  •  lol

    Ridiculous.

    You even called it the "democrat" party. Go away.

    by discocarp on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:23:54 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit

    There are "different" swing states with Obama.  We're still talking about only Democrats here.  Hillary doesn't stand a chance with independents against McCain.  She has squandered the black vote, will squander the energized new voters.  Obama's the only one with a different foreign policy than the failed policies of the last decade.  

    You're buying into the bullshit talking points.  Her resistance to leaving the race has only been destructive to any party unity, and only shows her craven self-interest.  The Clintons may honestly believe that they are the saviors of the party and the country.  What hubris.  No other answer but their answer; which is especially hypocritical because Obama is a better version of Bill CLinton in 1992.  

    She has to go.  The country benefits from an Obama presidency.  The longer she stays in, running a neocon-lite campaign, the more danger there is to our chances in November.  

    by 57andFemale on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:27:09 AM PDT

  •  Your main mistake here

    is equating a primary victory in a given state to a general election victory in that same state.  This idea has been widely debunked, and should appear false on its face, since both the Republican and the Democratic nominee are very likely to have both won certain swing states, but neither is guaranteed to win it in the general, and in fact, one will certainly lose it.

    To take it further, you can ask Dukakis about how sound this idea is.  Take a look at his (hotly-contested) primary victories in big important swing state after big important swing state, which he subsequently lost in the general.

    The problem is, it's a completely different electorate between a primary and a general, in a given state.

    So, what you can we do to guess who might be stronger in the general?  All we really have is polls.  According to the best data at this point in time, Obama and Clinton both fare roughly the same in a projected general against McCain, with Obama slightly stronger.  A user here named poblano tracks this very nicely:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

    by picohertz on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:31:49 AM PDT

    •  comparison

      It seems you mistook my meaning.  I was not comparing Clinton to McCain; I was comparing Clinton to Obama.  The gist of my meaning is that Clinton is more popular than Obama in swing states.  

      Obviously, the Democrat candidate who is more popular in swing states would get a higher percentage of votes in the general election than the Democrat candidate who has less support in swing states.  Thus, it is best to choose the Democrat candidate who is more popular in swing states so that we can increase our chances of winning the election.  Increasing our chances is not the same as a guaranteed victory, but it is the best the Democrats (and Republicans) can do.

      by Nancy Kallitechnis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM PDT

  •  votes from Democrats in swing states

    Hate to break it to you, but there are also Republicans and independents in those swing states. And, also incredibly, they let these people vote in the general election, too!

    Do you have any basis in claiming that Clinton would beat John McCain in those swing states? Or that she would do better than Obama against McCain?

    by elmo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:02 AM PDT

  •  Stronger Candidate?

    She won a state where she was the only candidate on the ballot.  She won a state where there was no campaigning.  She won Ohio.  What other swing states has she won so far?  

    by Vote Saxon on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:55:11 AM PDT

  •  Invalid arguments...

    The swing state argument is baloney! This argument is trotted out every so often when all the others invalid arguments need a rest.

    Florida - Won on name recognition alone no one campaigned there
    Michigan - Obama was not on the ballot, "Not Clinton" got 40% and many voted in the Repug primary so their vote would count for something
    Ohio - Project Chaos and machine politics favored Clinton
    Texas - lost the caucus because Limbaugh voters did not bother to caucus - Obama got more delegates

    What other "swing states"?

    Nevada? - Obama got more delegates
    California? - Will support Obama in the GE
    New York? - Will support Obama in the GE
    New Jersey? - Will support Obama in the GE

    You want swing sates?
    Obama won:
    Nebraska 68% to 32% - 36 point wins!
    Louisiana 57% to 36% - 21 point win
    Mississippi 61% to 37% - 24 point win
    Georgia 66% to 31% - 35 point win!
    Alabama 56% to 42% - 14 point win
    Kansas 74% to 26% - 48 point win!
    Colorado (big swing state) 67% to 32% - 35 point win!
    Minnesota 66% to 32% - 34 point win!
    Illinois 65% to 33% - 32 point win!
    Virginia 64% to 35% - 29 point win
    South Carolina 55% to 27% - 28 point win
    Washington 68% to 31% - 37 point win!

    So you're saying Hillary's 15 point win against "none of the above" in Michigan is a strong showing?
    In Florida, a 17 point win for a former first lady and 8 year senator on name alone is a great win?
    A 4 point win (while losing the overall delegate count) in Texas , a state that is unlikely to go Dem in the general, is a remarkable feat?

    Data can say anything you want if you only look at what conforms to your "reality". Hillary is too polarizing of a figure to win in the GE.

    by MT in Austin on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:56:12 AM PDT

  •  Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, N. Hamp?

    This are not swing states?  Obama will also almost certainly win NY, Ca, PA, MA, Ct, and New Jersey and Michigan in November. Combined with a ton of Western states.  He will create his own winning electoral map that may not exactly mirror Hillary's but will do just fine.  There is not just one way of winning electorally, as Hillary would like you to believe.

    by El in New York on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:20:49 AM PDT

•  one would think!!!

  You are right she will go away eventually, but you did forgot the huge oversized ego keeps growing and growing and growing and growing and growing with no end in sight....I said it  109 million times, unless the SD finally grow some she will have to be DRAGGED off the stage in Denver. She could care less about the party as she is like a little child when they cannot get what they want no one else is getting it either. Sad but true she is willing and happy to take the party down.

  by peacefully on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:12:13 AM PDT

•  A vote for Hillay is a vote for Hillary.

  It may not be a vote for the better or stronger Democratic candidate. But it's both wrong and counter-productive to try to sell Democratic voters on the notion that a vote for Hillary is a vote for anyone other than Hillary.

  And to those Hillary supporters who truly believe that Barack Obama cannot defeat McCain, I would say the same thing: a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

  by another American on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:13:07 AM PDT

  •  No. It's a vote for McCain.

    Anything that prevents Obama from focusing his entire camapign on McCain and the general election helps John McCain.

    Hillary is Terry Schaivo politically at this point. She is on life support. Voting for Obama in PA is mercifully pulling the plug on her campaign.

    by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:16:13 AM PDT

    •  Well

      considering most of the Hillary supporters I know will vote for McCain, I don't think this is a compelling argument.

      BTW, the Terri Schaivo analogy was sorta low IMO.

      by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:18:33 AM PDT

      •  Well...let them.

        If they want another Alito or Roberts replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg or John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court -- tehy will getw hat they wish.

        They want McCain to win because Hillary will get another chance in 2012.

        by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:21:37 AM PDT

        •  Yeah they do

          want her to run again in 2012...she won't, but that's what they want.

          I commented earlier that I had tried convincing a Clinton supporter than Obama had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and had said that he wanted to appoint justices who "understand how it feels to be a teenager mother" and they still thought he would put anti-choice justices on the bench.

          
          "He's all words and McCain will be gone in four years"

          They just don't want Obama to be President...I know it's sad, I know it's unbelievable, I'm shocked myself.

          It's sick and it's why I have lost all my faith in America.

          by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:27:08 AM PDT

          •  Hillary is more likely to appoint winger to the..

            ...Supreme Court than Obama. Hillary will be so desperate to secure her reelection there is nothing she won't stoop to to do that. Evene if it means appointing an anti-choice wingnut to the Supreme Court.

            by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:30:50 AM PDT

            •  I don't think that's true

              I don't really understand how putting a wingnut on the court helps her reelection campaign when it would've been pro-choice women who put her there.

              Neither will put anti-choice judges on the court.

              Another thing I hear from her supporters; "Congress will override McCain's vetoes"

              Shake my head in disbelief.

              by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:00 AM PDT

              •  I do.

                I said that if her only chance at reelection is to placate the wingnuts, she will do it.

                If it means blowing up her health care plan. SAhe'll do it.

                If it means extending Bush's tax cuits for rich people -- she'll do it.

                Now, this also means that if it means getting out of Iraq -- she'll do that too.

                by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:41:00 AM PDT

                •  yeah but I think

                  even Obama will throw us under the bus if he needs to get reelected...but neither will get the point of appointing wingnut judges to the court.

                  and quite honestly, if wingnut judges are what the country wants, well then we should just pack it in now because we've lost this country.

                  by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:43:01 AM PDT

                  •  He's a politician.

                    So on the margins he will do that. But not on the big things.

                    by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:44:50 AM PDT

                    •  I agree

                      but so is she, I don't think the "she'll act like a politician" meme is good because he will too.

                      and I'm fine with that, I expect it. I just think he'll generally be better than her, but he'll piss people here off a lot.

                      by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:51:32 AM PDT

      •  Au contraire

        I don't see Hillary supporters who don't feel they can support Obama voting to help McCain, even if they say as much to pollsters now for whatever reason. I think the likelier scenario is that they just won't bother voting at all.

        by phoenixdreamz on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:27:39 AM PDT

        •  I do

          you won't believe how Republican-like they're become...making essentially the same arguments Republicans make about national security, guns and religion.

          by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:31:27 AM PDT

        •  I agree.

          The same polls showing a 20-30 defection to McCain also show Obama leading or tied with McCain in a hypthetical head-to-head matchup.

          So, when tehy are asked the head-to-head question, the defections magically dissapear.

          OR -- evevn more enouraging -- if the defections are factored into the head-to-head polling, all Obama has to do is pull back a few percentage points of thsoe voters bvack to him by November to beat McCain comfortably.

          by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:32:40 AM PDT

  •  have to agree

    I don't see much to be gained by telling over half of tomorrow's Dem primary voters that they're really a bunch of Republicans.

    by Hprof on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:16:17 AM PDT

    •  I didn't say they were a bunch of Republicans.

      I said that they are not helping Hillary by voting for her. Hillary can't and won't be the nominee.

      They are only helping John Mccain at this point.

      by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:18:20 AM PDT

      •  so what you're really telling them is

        that they're a bunch of fools.

        My bad.

        by Hprof on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:19:19 AM PDT

        •  Not at all.

          They probably think they are helpinig Hillary out. That's fine.

          But they are not. It doesn't mean they are foolish. It just means they are letting their narrow focus on the immediate campaign contest cloud their long-0term thinking.

          by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:22:37 AM PDT

          •  that's a better formulation

            I agree with the thrust of what you're arguing.  I too want Obama to get the nom and I expect him to.  

            When he does, we're going to need those HRC supporters, and  I'm worried that some other Obama supporters--in criticizing not merely HRC but her supporters--will make that process more difficult.  

            In other words, I think we do better to keep the focus on her, and not tell her supporters what they're thinking--or ought to be thinking.

            by Hprof on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:28:27 AM PDT

          •  actually

            I can think of other ways to frame this. I'm sure there are voters who strongly like Hillary or strongly dislike Obama. Since it is their "right" to vote for whomever they want, they want to exercise that right. Calling them foolish or shortsighted isn't going to change the fact that they have a strong preference.

            So to some extent we should just recognize that those people are going to do what they do and concentrate on the people who are not so locked into their choice that they can't be talked out of it. There are enough of them to keep things close, after all.

            As for the people who are locked in--it seems that those are the people for whom candidate actions would actually have the greatest chance of changing things. I can imagine one or two people who thought they were locked into a Hillary vote being turned off by the events of the past week or so (or perhaps vice versa), but that nothing any supporters or surrogates did would change minds--only actions by the candidates could sway those people.

            by JMS on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:11 AM PDT

        •  I would tell them that.

          If you want a Democrat to be the next president, you are a fool to vote for Hillary Clinton at this point.  She can't win the nomination without tearing the party apart and alienating a huge, highly mobilized section of the electorate.  Her path to the nomination is a path of destruction for the party.  Only a conservative would rather see the party torn apart than see Barack Obama as the nominee.

          by WahooMatt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:17:58 AM PDT

          •  or someone who hates

            Barack Obama and thinks he is terrible for the party and needs to be "taken out" as I've been told.

            by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:39:48 AM PDT

      •  Which is what

        many of them want to do. It's becoming a "If Hillary can't win, then Obama can't either" type of thing with them.

        by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:19:20 AM PDT

        •  Then the message from the party should be...

          ...if Hillary sabotages Obama for the general election, then Hillary is going to be drummed out of the Democratic party and will never, ever get another shot at the nomination.

          If Hillary wants to run again in 2012, she shold get out now -- help unify the party, and work her ass off to get Obama elected.

          If Obama then loses, it's all on Obama and nobody can reasonably blame her.

          If she sticks in this race for anopther 6 weeks attacking teh shit out of Obama and then failing to help him much in the general election --- a LOT of Democrats will blame Hillary is Obama loses.

          And that will doom her chance sin 2012. Hell, she would probably do the same damn thing to whoever the Democratic nominee in 4 years is as well. Maybe Al Gore decides to fijnally run in 2012. Hillary would do the same shit to him taht she did to Obama.

          No. Hillary's supporters have to understand that if they want what's best for Hillary (never mind the Democratic party por the country) then they need to get her out of the race as soon as possible.

          by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:26:21 AM PDT

          •  I know

            I understand, but every argument we make about her "She's dirty, she wanted to get the nomination illegitimately, she wants to run again in 2012" doesn't work because that's exactly what her supporters want.

            They WANT her to destroy him, they WANT the superdelegates to overturn the nomination, they WANT her to run again in 2012.

            She won't run again in 2012, but by the time we figure that out, it'll be too late. Hillary is the least of our problems. I can tell you when she said Obama could win in the debate last week...about a half dozen supporters I talk to the next day called her a "sellout"

            by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:29:44 AM PDT

            •  That's the wrong way to approach it.

              You frame it as though Hillary getting out now and working hard for Obama and unity is actually setting Hillary up for a run in 2012 if Obama loses.

              Iropnically, I think a LOT of Hillary supporetrs who are taking the scporched Earth approach KNOW that Obama can and probably will beat McCain in the Fall. That's why they are so hell bent on destroying him now, and wounding him as much as possible.

              They know how formidable he is and that he may very well win.

              And that would be the end of Hillary's chances for being President.

              They know that if Hillary gets out now, unifies the party and works hard to elect Obama -- that Obama will probably win.

              And they don't want that to happen. They are fucking nuts.

              by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:36:26 AM PDT

              •  That's what I meant

                which is why I don't blame Hillary, I blame her supporters. There is little Hillary can do to change it...even if she does concede, hug Obama at the convention, campaign for him, call him the best person in the world, wear Obama buttons, etc...her supporters will call her a sellout and still stay home/vote McCain with the intention of trying to get her to run again in 2012.

                She doesn't want to destroy Obama, THEY want her to destroy Obama.

                by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:40:24 AM PDT

                •  Then Hillary has nothing to lose by getting out.

                  It's "Win/Win" for her, right?

                  She looks magnanimous, and takes none of the blame for Obama's loss.

                  Then she can run again in 2012.

                  But -- the problem is that many of these folks who are hell bent on voting against Obama or statying home are not actually going to do that when the fall campaign comes around.

                  I have a theory that Obama has a few major national securoity endorsements up his sleave. Colin Powell, for example.

                  This may free him up to pick someone like Kathleen Sebelius to be his running mate.

                  by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:43:45 AM PDT

                  •  I think he almost has to

                    pick Sebelius or Napolitano as his running mate.

                    Yeah, she has nothing to lose by getting out, except maybe that by staying in, waiting until it's over and stepping out in June, she can make the argument "Look guys, I lost legitimately. All the voters were cast and I lost." and minimize the damage whereas getting out now would be framed as "Obama pushed me out before the last few states cast their votes"

                    by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:56:27 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately, nothing has changed in two months

  This was pretty much the situation almost two months ago.

  I have been waiting and waiting for some Obama surrogate to start getting the idea out there that voting for Hillary in PA (or in OH or TX for that matter) is effectively a vote for McCain, because the only purpose it's serving to keep her alive is to draw out our primaries, weaken our candidate, and decrease our chances in November.

  It's too risky in terms of backlash for the campaign proper to float the idea, but it's very true, and something a top surrogate perhaps could have started hammering on two months ago, or at least two weeks ago.  It's simple, easy to get, and sums up the situation.

  That said, Obama cannot ignore Hillary as you suggest and start running against McCain.  He made moves in this direction leading up to the OH/TX primary, and it didn't seem to be received well.  For whatever reasons (I could theorize several, some having to do with it feeding into Hillary supporters' existing negative perceptions of Obama's character), it goes over like a lead balloon.

  Obama needs to stay respectful of her candidacy, but it doesn't mean a fierce surrogate (e.g. Kennedy) couldn't start hitting some of these notes.

  by picohertz on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:13:30 AM PDT

  •  No. Obama should just ignore Hillary.

    Act like the nominee. And treat Hillary like McCain treated Mike Huckabee down the stretch of the GOP contest.

    by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:17:21 AM PDT

    •  Again, he started doing this going into OH/TX

      It didn't work.  He is arguing with McCain, and kitchen sinks are hitting him in the back of the head.  Huckabee was mathematically eliminated beyond any possible recourse.  Hillary is not and technically, she can't be until the convention.  She could be effectively eliminated by some further superdelegate movement, but that has not happened yet.   The media would have to be in on it, and they aren't and they won't be, until she either concedes or is completely mathematically eliminated.  Remember that a convention fight is in their great interest.  Remember also that Huckabee was not campaigning remotely negatively.  He didn't launch any attacks that McCain had to respond to.

      by picohertz on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:23:25 AM PDT

      •  No, that's not true.

        He was going after Hillary in Ohio and Texas.

        by Hesiod on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:27:01 AM PDT

  •  Dem primary is Groundhog Day

    by realwischeese on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:00:16 AM PDT

•  The biggest problem Obama has

  is the GOP shills and talking heads in the MSM.

  by minerva1157 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:14:54 AM PDT

•  Let's not

  insult Mike Gravel.

  His music videos are spectacular.

  by differance on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:16:26 AM PDT

•  one hates to say it

  but since her campaign has become entirely about RW talking points and helping McCain with a two-front attack on Obama, I think this premise is correct.  Obama can't ignore her though, any more than Kerry could avoid the swift boaters.  It's just not a good situation, and it's better for the GOP the longer it goes.  

  Especially since the only way she wins is by superdelegates stealing it, which I think would set the party back a generation.  This needs to be over, and soon.  But no one is going to tell the Clintons that.

  by mcfly on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:22:50 AM PDT

  •  Well the voters in Pennsylvania

    sure aren't telling the Clintons that

    by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:32:22 AM PDT

    •  she could win

      every remaining primary and my comment would still be correct.  She still can't win the nomination without a superdelegate override.

      by mcfly on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:38:10 AM PDT

      •  Which is what

        her supporters by in large want to happen.

        by nrafter530 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:41:02 AM PDT

        •  sure they do

          but the rest of us know something like that would blow up the party, and beating McCain is still the ultimate objective here.  Hillary supporters seem to think a superdelegate override would be free from negative consequences, it's pretty clear that view is ridiculous.

          Which is why this needs to end.  

          by mcfly on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:04:41 AM PDT

•  This is not fair at all

  Pretend Hillary is, for all intents and purposes, Mike Gravel.

  Why does Mike Gravel deserve to be slandered so badly at this point?

  by Sun dog on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:33:19 AM PDT

  •  Funny dude/ette

    by soms on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:35:11 AM PDT