Talk to Hillary. She just loaned her own campaign something like $9M.

I don't know if her tenacity is a good thing or bad. We want our president to be tenacious; but, we also want our president to be realistic and pragmatic. It seems to me that she is deluding herself and if she can do that about her prospects for nomination, could she also do it regarding an important national issue? We already have a president who deluded himself regarding going to war in Iraq and even more so, in continuing the war in Iraq.

She's not going to stop.

Hey, if Ron Paul hasn't quit yet...








(he hasn't)

My sense is that there are a lot of us who are losing more and more respect for Clinton every day she stays in at this point. If she takes this campaign of hers all the way to the convention, she'll not only ruin the Democrats chances at the White House, but she'll make herself irrelevant in American politics going forward. Someone needs to explain the math to her and convince her to settle for a VP slot alongside Obama, assuming of course that he'd offer it at this point.

Doesn't Obama have better choices for VP? I heard there is a guy, who's father was a mill worker, who would make a good running mate.

He won't offer her VP. No way, no how.

White Southerner with Vet cred.

She'd make a fine Cabinet Shrew.

Nice to find out about your blog. I try to cover Detroit stuff on Mondays, Forgotten Books on Fridays and writerly stuff in between.
Back to the subject: she needs to get out. All she can do now is jettison Obama's chances in the election. Does it really help the Democrats to prove he won't do well in WVA and KY.

Mark,

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think there are many people who care about whether we elect a black man or a woman or a rabbit.

I seem to remember that Hilary won two big primaries and Howard Dean said, "Too bad," threw out the results, and they were not held again.

I don't know much about politics. But I know Hilary's positions on most of "the issues" and they're sound--or at least, close to mine. Which would make them, in all probability, close to yours.(She's made mistakes. You and I both supported a war once, too.)

I know you've been high on Obama for a long time. The first time I heard his name was on MM.com. Nothing wrong with supporting the candidate of your choice.

Again, no point in arguing with me, bc I'm not equipped to fight. Politics ain't my business.
But I do wish you wouldn't trash Hilary.

With all the respect and admiration I feel for you,

C

I live in Michigan and I voted in the primary. Barack Obama was not on the ballot. Either was John Edwards. How could anyone possibly suggest that the results of that vote be considered alongside legitimate contests? She did not "win" Michigan and Florida. There was no one competing against her. The other candidates, at the behest of the Democratic party, withdrew. I can see how she might want to go out on a high note, after a big win in a remaining state, but there are more important things that her ego. There's the future of our nation.

If Hillary cares more about being president than about the Democratic party, then her best choice is to stay in the race.

There are only three outcomes in November:

Hillary wins
Obama wins
McCain wins

Her best shot at presidency is if she wins or McCain wins - she can't run against Obama in 4 years.

By staying in she promotes both of the outcomes that give the best chance - she wins is ideal, McCain wins is workable, but Obama wins means she'll never have a crack at the presidency.

By staying in she can continue to attack Obama, which increases the odds of a McCain win should she not receive the nomination, which increases her chances in 4 years.

Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton would actually put the needs of her party above her ambitions?

-Adam

Hillary and Kwame won't stop until their cold dead hands are pried away.

Mark,
I think that the campaign has actually turned at the moment. There are many voters, me included, who have found the tenor of the media, politicians and others to be very misogynistic.

This is the sort of misogynistic, "Will you just quit" message we see and hear and experience in our daily lives as strong women.

If Hillary just leaves now, there are many of us left with a very bitter feeling.

This week the campaign tone of Hillary's has changed. The two camps are not as divisive and are looking for the way to draw voters like me back in. I think there is an understanding that if Hillary just "quits" we see the same kind of politics as usual in action that we hoped could be about to change. The Democratic party needs to find a graceful exit for Hillary, just as it does in corporate America when women are repeatedly kicked out of positions of leadership.

Though I can certainly appreciate the attribution of misogynist motives to the various calls for Clinton to quit, there are equally legitimate concerns of racism as a result of the failure to acknowledge that Obama has won. As I posted over on my blog, by every single measure we use to determine the winners of elections, Obama has won this election. The only way to put an end to these attributions of motives is for Clinton to accept and acknowledge the reality of the situation, no matter how hard that may be. She must concede not because she is a woman, but because she got fewer votes than he did popularly and she won fewer delegates (both including and not including superdelegates) as a consequence.

The question in my mind is what Obama has to do to convince the media and the remainder of the Democratic party that it's over, that he won, and that those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves.

The Democratic party needs to find a graceful exit for Hillary, just as it does in corporate America when women are repeatedly kicked out of positions of leadership.


Lucky for Obama he's just African-American, we all know they are treated better than white women. Never any negative messages for them.

"The question in my mind is what Obama has to do to convince the media and the remainder of the Democratic party that it's over, that he won, and that those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves."

Trusty,
As I say, I believe that a shift has occurred this week. We can see this by the Republican attack machine actually swinging into action and fully reconfigured to attack Obama. The pundits and the media have coronated Obama.

I don't see Hillary continuing as driving a further rift into the party. This question has shifted, too. Now the question becomes, "What is the best path to unity?" Obama supporters, as would be expected, think that this will be best be accomplished by Hillary's withdrawl, as if it is her fault that neither candidate will receive the 2,025 votes without superdelegates, and without Michigan/Florida counting. I respectfully disagree.

Nader, when asked in retrospective, if he felt he did the wrong thing by drawing voters away from Democrats, repeatedly asserted that if voters do not vote their conscience and instead vote based on the least worst mentality, that is all we will ever achieve. I saw a similar ethos for Edwards earlier this year on this blog.

A sizable proportion of Democrats have voted for Hillary. I believe that the vast majority of these people have looked at who their conscience has told them is the better candidate. If the intent of the structure is that we should not include input from all states, what kind of Democratic process is that?

Racism troubles me as well as misogyny. However, I don't think that we should be setting up scales with misogyny on one side and racism on the other. Further, I don't think that we should dubiously charge Racism for those who do not support Obama. This is the Democratic primary, after all.

As Democrats, do we really believe so many of our colleagues are Racist? What kind of a finger-pointing party is that?

And I don't think that we should dubiously attribute misogyny to those who do not support Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But we should condemn as crypto-racists those that would ask African-American males to -- metaphorically -- step into the curb and remove our hats because a white woman is coming down the sidewalk.

From a commenter at the Daily Kos:

Hilary Clinton is push-polling in South Dakota with scumbag questions like: Would you like Barack Obama more or less if you knew he was opposed to cutting gas prices so that the oil companies could continue to make huge profits?

My father and stepmother were called last night, as were their neighbors around Brookings, SD and Aberdeen, SD.

Don't kid yourself, Clinton will stop when the pull the microphone out of her cold, dead fingers.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/8/9452/45230/4#c4

I have to disagree with you on this too Mark. You people are over-anxious. Settle down. Obama hasn't won yet. He hasn't secured the delegates yet. Quit that whining.

It would be a betrayal of Hillary's supporters if she were to throw in the towel before anyone has even crossed the finish line. She has a DUTY to them not to stop until she absolutely has no chance left. I wouldn't want any less from a potential president. If the situation were reversed, how many of you whiney Obama supporters would be thinking he should get out? Not me! I wouldn't want Obama to surrender either. I want a damn fighter in the White House, whoever it is!

I think Huckabee was right not to get out of the Republican race until McCain had actually secured the delegates for nomination. I also don't think Hillary staying in the race necessarily does a whole lot of damage, and in fact might be doing some real good. Do you all realize how many Democrats have now been registered and identified because of how competetiveness this race has been? Heading into the general race we are going to have the names of 40 million people who we'll know voted for Obama or Clinton. It's going to be the most incredible GOTV list to work off of ever in history.

What we need right now isn't the usual mamby-pamby don't-hurt-anyone's-feelings crap the Democrats are always so hung up on. We need toughness! We need Democrats to prove they really do have the capacity to be peacemakers...by bringing the Obama and Hillary supporters together the very moment the nominee is determined.

Aren't you lefties always crowing about peace? And now you are worried you can't even bring your own fucking ranks together before November, in order to bring to an end what is clearly the most destructive and dangerous cabal ever to steal the power of the US executive branch!

If you people can't make peace here and now - amongst yourselves for God's sake - how the hell do you think you're ever going to take on those ruthless fuckers?!

All this whining about who's feelings might be getting hurt or how shitty things are for women or blacks is just another demonstration of liberal ideals at their weakest and most pathetic. OF COURSE Hillary is being attacked simply for being a woman. And OF COURSE Obama is being attacked for simply being African-American. Where did you people think you were? And of course it is disgusting that it is happening...AND IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN!!!

When I was campaigning for Edwards in Iowa, I wanted to see Obama and Hillary crushed hard and early. But the moment my choice for president became an impossiblity, I was right on board with whoever it is going to be to bring an end to this fucking nightmare we so quaintly refer to as The Bush Administration.

Personally, I like seeing a woman fighting to the very end with every breath in her body. I also like seeing a black guy do that.

Hey, wait a minute!. Aren't you the same fuckers who keep trying to suggest Kerry conceded to easily?

Right on, Robert.

All the way to the bitter end.

'Bout time a woman fights on. This is important for the gender gap in America alone! (I still think Hillary is Satan, along with Imus.) But the gender thing is big time for the planet.

At the same time, the biggest scandal in US history is slavery. And to have THIS issue at hand is ALSO a tremendous opportunity to truly begin to heal.

Wowza! What a deal!

And whichever Democrat wins can have fun trouncing McCain and repudiating the last eight years of world-wide horror, plus the financial chaos in this country.

Teaspout: I'm not alleging racism (or pointing a finger), so much as pointing out that there seems to be an abundance of attribution of motives, much of it without basis. That's what one gets when one intentionally polarizes the electorate, as Clinton chose to do. I don't buy the mindless attribution, myself, but in a campaign, we would be foolish to pretend it does not exist. It was a predictable consequence of going negative, and it will continue until it is addressed.

I'm not arguing that Clinton should quit so much as she should concede that she can't win at this point. The problem, as I see it, is that she was the first to go negative, and along with that negativity (though it did boost her performance among some voters), came the polarization. Had the negative campaigning been held in abeyance until the general election, a whole lot less "unifying" would be necessary at this point.

At the beginning of this race, a clear majority of Democrats were delighted to have the caliber of talent running. The choice was to pick among potentially great presidents. It's only been in the last couple of months that the polling has shown that Clinton's supporters claim they won't vote for Obama if he gets the nomination and vice versa. If a mistake was made, it was in going negative, and I think it would behoove Clinton to accept responsibility for that mistake and commence whatever "unification" is needed to get a Democrat elected now rather than in a month or two.

When Democrats run against Democrats, I look for reasons to support a candidate, not reasons to vote against one. We all could have done without the silly 3:00 A.M. phone call ad, without the "even McCain is more experienced" rhetoric, and certainly without the silly stunt in leaving her name on the Michigan ballot when all the other frontrunners took theirs off. These events irked me NOT because a woman was responsible for them, but because they appear to represent "gotcha" politics, as well as an abandonment of certain values and ideals that I think are important. I'm not suggesting others should think they are important, but I sure do.

Robert: I'm not sure that whining about what you perceive to be whining lends credibility to your comments. As to your particularly silly comments about her duty, if she wants to call herself a Democrat and run to be a leader of the Democratic party, her duty is to all Democrats, not just the ones she likes or agrees with.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume the reason you're voting for whoever you're voting for has more to do with policy than race or gender. I'm just going to assume that.

Here's a nice policy point from HRC:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA Today. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/will-obama-win-enough-whi_b_100890.html

trusty getto:
My previous post was meant to be a little tounge-in-cheek. Still, I wouldn't catagorize the style as "whining" so much as "being an obnoxious jackass," which is my trademark. And please, don't make me have to say it again...I HAVE NO CREDIBILITY! That's like the fifth time I've said that on this site. Mark, will you please start a thread entitled, "Robert has no credibility!" Hey, and how is your concept of Hillary's "duty" any less silly than mine? Your concept is based on the assumption she is somehow doing harm to Obama's chances in November. Mine is based on the assumption that she owes her supporters more than she owes her detractors. That's sort of a given. The moment the Democratic Party has made it's choice is the moment she owes it to the Party to unite behind Obama. If she doesn't do it then, I'll be on here criticizing her for it.

Oh, and by the way, she's going to win West Virginia.

Yeah, Hillary is a fighter, no doubt about that. She'll be a loveable loser after this and make tons of money doing whatever she wants next. But why not stay in the race at this point, after all this?

On the flip, so many people were doubting Obama the last few weeks, and he hung on and came up big last Tuesday and now he's got huge momentum and is picking up the supers fast. I knew he'd do it...

What a race!

Well, I am a woman with eight sisters, many nieces and two aunts and so on, and it would thrill me to have a woman as president. But not any woman. I don't love being called misogynistic, though I do get called that--because I am an Obama supporter. Yuck. How is this happening?

Last summer I was nearly sure I would vote for Clinton if that's what it came down to, though the prospect was painful considering her October 2002 vote. Thousands of us pleaded with her to vote no on the Iraq War resolution--calling, emailing, marching, letter writing. At the time hers was considered a key vote that would determine our course, and she knew that. Oh, terrible dark day--she voted yes. Maybe it's a tired old tale, but it matters.

People talk about her tenacity. More like audacity. Every time she claims she won Michigan, I want to cry. Yesterday she wrote a public letter to Obama saying, among other things, "The people of these great states [Michigan and Florida], like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee." So, why is she trying so damn hard to obliterate our voices? To say it's maddening is an understatement. If the Michigan Democratic leaders decide to allot her any delegates, hers should carry a bold disclaimer. Or she could wear a big necklace that says "Fraudulent" to the convention.

I feel badly betrayed by Clinton, and it gets worse every day. And my feelings have nothing to do with her gender. I would love to see a worthy woman become president.

How wonderful to have your voice on my screen, Oliva.

For the record, I'd love to see a woman president. Just not this one.

Presidential politics is a fucked up thing. I understand that, and I try to cut people some slack. As a woman, Hillary most likely felt that she had no choice but to support the war, if she wanted to make a serious run for the White House. She knew that the only way a woman would be elected President in this country was if she came across as a hawk. I'm sure she justified it to herself, telling herself the good that she'd do as President would more than offset the bad that her support of the war would bring about. I get that. And, like I said, I'm willing to cut her slack to some extent. But, in my view, she crossed a line somewhere along the way. And the same goes for McCain. I used to respect him too. But he also crossed a line somewhere along the way, as he bent to the right in order to secure the Republican nomination. By voting to sanction torture, he showed just how far he was willing to go, and it was too far for me. With Clinton, I can't say exactly where she crossed the line. Maybe it was when she started talking about her love of guns and how Obama was an elitist. At some point you bend so far that you snap. Obama's done some of it, but I don't think he's lost sight of who he is yet. He hasn't sold his soul. My hope is that he won't have to.

I will say this in Hillary's favor though... If Gore or Kerry had fought as hard, we wouldn't be where we are today. My hope is that if the Obama McCain election comes close that Obama won't just walk away and allow it to be stolen. Hopefully Clinton is teaching him something.

Hillary's campaign could get a lot nastier and I'd still forgive her as long as she and her supporters, once they're actually beat in the race for delegates, do everything they can to get Obama elected in the general. I would feel exactly the same way if things were the other way around between Hillary and Obama.

Now please, don't you people tell me you think you'd be expecting Obama to back down at this point if he were in Hillary's current situation. He'd have an obligation to go on fighting 'til it was statistically impossible for him to get the 2,025 delegates. After all the money he's raised, and all the hard work his supporters have put in to things, he'd owe them that.

After coming in second in Iowa, it was clear Edwards was then a distant long shot for the nomination, and I am sure he knew it. Statistically, however, there was still a very remote chance that unforeseen events might turn things his way and give him another chance that his nomination could become a likelihood. His supporters would have been pissed if he pulled out before it was clear to all of them that he truly had no chance.

Mark, I think your (and others') call for Hillary to get out of the race has more to do with the anxiousness to see an end brought to this sick Bush nightmare, than anything else. Sure, there might be some legitimate claim that the primary fight is sapping resources and damaging the eventual nominee. But for the most part, I think we are all just chomping at the bit wanting to get to November and crush these dicks for what they've done over the last 7 years.

I'm sure, if given the opportunity, 9 out of 10 Americans would choose to be placed in cryogenic freeze through Inaugural Eve 2009, when they could wake up to a country run by anyone beside the criminal bastards we have in there now. That anxiousness (and nervousness) is going to get the best of us at times over the tortuous next several months.

Oh, crap, Robert -- I didn't get it. Doh! Which means I have less credibility than you.

But no doubt everyone already knew that . . . Add me to the thread . . .

Oliva,

YES, you are so right! As a Michigan voter I feel so disenfranchised. There is no way that the outcome of our primary can be legitimized. Even the latest proposal is a perversion.

Awww, egpenet, so nice to read that!

trusty getto:
In person, it's hard to tell where I am coming from, so here on the Internet it's almost impossible. My routine, which is already pretty crappy live, just flops completely here on-line. But when I start calling everyone "fuckers" you can rest assured that I'm once again talking out of my ass, and it's probably best to just put me on "ignore."

Mostly, in my initial post on this thread, I was just trying to get all up in Marks shit. He seems to know that I think he's cool, so I want to create some doubt in his mind about that by periodically suggesting he's a fucker.

You're right, Robert. I just want to win in November. That's all I'm focused on. If Obama is our candidate, I want for us to start coming together around him. if Clinton were ahead at this point, I'd be urging Obama to drop out.

I don't really have any serious issue with you folks calling for Hillary to concede the fight. I think it's a legitimate request. I just wanted to get some counter points out there, and call some people "fuckers" in the process...especially Mark. My combativeness is partly an act. It's hard to explain. You see, my intent is to desensitize people to politics and get them to lighten up about the things we perceive as dividing us and focus instead on the important task at hand. Right now that's kicking some Republican ass. Then, after the November election, I'll immediately want to see Republicans and Democrats lightening up about the things they perceive as dividing them. Maybe then together we can try to undo some of the damage that's been done over the last several years.

Everyone, including the media, keeps saying how nasty the Democratic primary has gotten, but I don't see it. Everything that's gone on so far seems pretty mild to me, and I don't see perceptions of Hillary or Obama having been damaged much. In fact, as far as I can see, everyone seems to feel pretty much the same about Hillary as they have for years, and Obama seems to have only been getting increasingly popular as the campaigning has gone state by state. The long race has benefited him in that way. He's had the opportunity to introduce himself in a more personal and focused way to the people of each of the states as their primaries and caucuses approached.

I always like your thoughtfulness, Robert--and your bad-ass 'n' confessional inner workings--very much.

You wrote, "[A]s far as I can see, everyone seems to feel pretty much the same about Clinton as they have for years," but I wonder. I've heard a lot of people say they were surprised by their own change of heart about Clinton, their unfolding disappointment. But citing "a lot" isn't necessarily convincing, and could it be I just happen to cross paths more often with people who talk like this?!

Oliva,
I have heard people say they are changing their minds about Hillary, but only on TV or the radio. It may be that I hang out with unusually stubborn people, but nobody I know has changed their minds about these candidates.

Hillary's support seems to be holding pretty steady right up to this late stage in the primaries. She managed to win Indiana, and she's about to win huge in West Virginia, so nobody can say she isn't hanging in there.

I saw the steadfastness of Hillary's supporters in Iowa. I even noted it in a comment on this site back in January. The Hillary support struck me as very well dug in...amazingly so for Democrats.

The symbolism of a woman being told to give up is probably not helping to bring that development about.

Hillary's campaign might be going for a win of the total popular vote, which they'd use to sway superdelegates. If she were to win the popular vote, I wonder how many of the Obama supporters would concede then that she deserved the nomination.

We all know that Bill Clinton was the first black president.

So we got Bush man, black man, Bush man ... leading up to this election. Do we really want more of the same? Yet another black man? What does that say about our "democracy" and equal opportunity?

Of course, Chelsea Clinton and Jenna Bush will be old enough to run in eight years...so, one way or another, there will be a woman in the White House.