Fork Hillary - The Wooden Stake

[Liberal]

Being less informed than we, our noble GD mod closed our Hillary thread. The reason? There was an AP stub report that she was quitting on Friday.

:D

We can forgive our good friend, Tom, for not knowing the ways of the Hillary Machine and its dunce, the mainstream press. The brief report Tom linked said she would quit Friday. Later reports then said that she had postponed until Saturday, in order to give her supporters enough time to gather. Than later, according to CNN, we learned that Friday would be private time with her supporters and Saturday was to be only "the first step in a multi-part process".

:(

For debate, a number of items: How long will it take her to stop running? Will she actually quit, or just suspend her campaign, holding onto her delegates? How enthusiastic will her support for Obama be, if it ever comes? How many parts will there be to her process, and why does it need to be dragged out further? Will all this rather bizarre behavior hurt her ongoing career and standing in the party?

My position is that she will never stop. She will hoard her pledged delegates, although all her supers will have moved to Obama. (DemConWatch has had enough, and will no longer be updating their supers table.) She will give Obama half-hearted support, and the other two family members — so critical to her campaigns — will do essentially nothing.

And I believe it has already hurt her reputation among her peers. Charlie Rangel, perhaps her strongest supporter, was simply beside himself yesterday with befuddlement and irritation. Twenty-three Congress critters (all supporters) called her in an intervention-like conference call, begging her to let it go. And saddest of all, perhaps, her own staff called the Senate and pleaded that they get in touch with her and see if they could reason with her. Eight Senators responded.

So, that's my take. Hillary drags this out as long as possible. Agree or disagree?

[Jolly Roger]

Being less informed than we, our noble GD mod closed our Hillary thread. The reason? There was an AP stub report that she was quitting on Friday.

:D

We can forgive our good friend, Tom, for not knowing the ways of the Hillary Machine and its dunce, the mainstream press. The brief report Tom linked said she would quit Friday. Later reports then said that she had postponed until Saturday, in order to give her supporters enough time to gather. Than later, according to CNN, we learned that Friday would be private time with her supporters and Saturday was to be only "the first step in a multi-part process".

:(

I'd like to say I'm surprised. I'd like to, but really, I can't.

[/quote]For debate, a number of items: How long will it take her to stop running? Will she actually quit, or just suspend her campaign, holding onto her delegates? How enthusiastic will her support for Obama be, if it ever comes? How many parts will there be to her process, and why does it need to be dragged out further? Will all this rather bizarre behavior hurt her ongoing career and standing in the party?[/quote]

I'd like her to stop, but if she was actually going to I think she would have by now. I don't fully understand whats to be gained by here continuing on now.

My position is that she will never stop. She will hoard her pledged delegates, although all her supers will have moved to Obama. (DemConWatch has had enough, and will no longer be updating their supers table.) She will give Obama half-hearted support, and the other two family members — so critical to her campaigns — will do essentially nothing.

Seriously, what can be gained by this action? Is she doing it just to piss Obama off? Does she think that the nomination will just be yanked from Obama and given to her?

And I believe it has already hurt her reputation among her peers. Charlie Rangel, perhaps her strongest supporter, was simply beside himself yesterday with befuddlement and irritation. Twenty-three Congress critters (all supporters) called her in an intervention-like conference call, begging her to let it go. And saddest of all, perhaps, her own staff called the Senate and pleaded that they get in touch with her and see if they could reason with her. Eight Senators responded.

Ok, what I want now is for the talking heads to stop dancing around the subject and just come out and publicly say it....she's delusional. She's vindictive. She's in this for her own ego, not the good of the Country. I think thats a fair assessment.

So, that's my take. Hillary drags this out as long as possible. Agree or disagree

Unfortunately, methinks you're right. :(

[BobLibDem]

I despise the witch as much as anyone, but she'll come around. I think she's been through the the denial and anger stages and is into bargaining mode. She'll have to put on the happy face and do the endorsement Saturday before finishing up the depression and acceptance phases. You have to remember, she has wanted this gig for at least two decades and has planned it probably since 1992. You don't give up your biggest dreams so easily.

[tagos]

Looks like she's going to claw, bitch, pout, sulk and threaten her way onto the ticket figuring, as she has already indicated her thought processes are running, that it'll be a short wait until Obama gets iced.

[Phlosphr]

Don't forget, every four years Friends in WEashington sling shit at eachother. Then after the shit they make nice and continue on. Clinton has given us no reaosn to think she will make nice in the ways people would like her to. Like she's holding onto a long gone dream...
The part of me that feels genuingely bad for her is offset by some of the things she says and does. Things I would have hoped would never have been said from one democrat to another. She has made gaffe after gaffe in terms of alienating her closest friends. This is going tobe a tough road for Clinton. We'll see where she takes it.

She won't even be offered the vp slot. And not only that I don't think we will hear about it, I think we will hear Clinton speak to her constituency to back Obama and to really unite behind him.

I know one thing: She better be convincing...very, very convincing in her backing of Obama. Her supporters need to see a shepherd, not a mutineer.



And Tagos I'm not sure what you mean by iced.

[3acresandatruck]

October 1, 2011
SNL Weekend Update: (throat clearing) Hi, I'm Chevy Chase, and you're not. Today Hillary Clinton announced that she would begin her campaign for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination, using the delegates she has retained since her attempt to win the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination...

[cosmosdan]

I despise the witch as much as anyone, but she'll come around. I think she's been through the the denial and anger stages and is into bargaining mode. She'll have to put on the happy face and do the endorsement Saturday before finishing up the depression and acceptance phases. You have to remember, she has wanted this gig for at least two decades and has planned it probably since 1992. You don't give up your biggest dreams so easily.

On the Daily Show last night they showed a montage of the pundits saying she was a shoe in and pretty much had the nomination in the bag. I loved the one with Joe Scarborough saying she would crush Barack.

I'm sure the whole thing has felt a little unreal to her.

[Phlosphr]

I'm sure the whole thing has felt a little unreal to her.
Unreal? Think finally bringing down Godzilla. She came crashing through the wilderness guns blaz'in shouting and carrying on. Too bad she only brought 2 guns with her....

[Liberal]

Ok, what I want now is for the talking heads to stop dancing around the subject and just come out and publicly say it....she's delusional. She's vindictive. She's in this for her own ego, not the good of the Country. I think thats a fair assessment. The talking heads (especially on CNN) are pretty obsequious. But op-eds in hard print this morning are pretty scathing.

[Onomatopoeia]

I, for one, welcome our 6th, and possibly final, Fork Hillary thread. :)

I suspect Hillary's comments on Saturday will leave a sliver of light coming through the door as hope for her supporters. She'll use the word 'suspend' and make it clear that she hasn't given up, but that she has to now concentrate all her vast and incomparable efforts to defeating McCain in November. She'll word it so it's more Hillary and Barack working together as a team than her supporting him. She'll endorse Barack, but tie her pedestal to his in her praise. To all that I say...whatever.

I'm okay with it all, as long as by the end of the day she's no longer a threat to him, is holding nothing over him, and encourages her supporters and commands her flying monkeys to support him.

I've learned, however, never to hold my breath with Hillary, so we'll see. It should be interesting.

[Phlosphr]

Here is the text of her latest email to her constituents. Aparently it went out to everyone who donated...It's not bad I must admit. I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary

Phlosphr - caustiously optimistic.

[Liberal]

That's mostly all about her, isn't it? And oh, by the way, Obama isn't as bad as McCain.

If her speech is like that, she'll still be casting a pall over everything. She needs to spell out exactly why Obama is THE BEST CHOICE for the Democratic party and America. Her speech needs to be about him, not her. ... I won't hold my breath.

[Liberal]

The more I look at her statement, the worse it gets. She says that she will support Obama because she feels obligated by a promise she made. There's no gladness in it. No reason to support him other than she said she would and he's not a Republican.

And most important of all — no appeal to her people that they should support him too!

[Marley23]

For debate, a number of items: How long will it take her to stop running?
She already did. Exhale: it's over.
Will she actually quit, or just suspend her campaign, holding onto her delegates?
I read somewhere that if she suspends her campaign instead of quitting, she is allowed to keep raising money. Since she's racked up a lot of debt, that may be a necessity even if she knows it's over.
How enthusiastic will her support for Obama be, if it ever comes?
I'm not expecting very much. Who knows, maybe he can drag a little support out of her/them.
How many parts will there be to her process, and why does it need to be dragged out further?
It's probably being dragged out because of the money.
Will all this rather bizarre behavior hurt her ongoing career and standing in the party?
If she comes back to work and does her thing - especially if Obama wins - I think her colleagues will get over it pretty quickly. They may have lost a little respect for her personally, but if she does what she's supposed to, they can forgive just about anything.

[Phlosphr]

That's mostly all about her, isn't it? And oh, by the way, Obama isn't as bad as McCain.

If her speech is like that, she'll still be casting a pall over everything. She needs to spell out exactly why Obama is THE BEST CHOICE for the Democratic party and America. Her speech needs to be about him, not her. ... I won't hold my breath.
Neither will I. She needs to play shepherd now for Obama, I really hope she can find it in herself to do just that.

[RTFirefly]

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise. I think we can unfork Hillary now. Or at least stop forking her any further.

If she'd made an ass of herself and kept on fighting, the world would have just passed her by. It wouldn't have hurt anyone but her. So it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

But she's thrown in the towel, and she's throwing her support behind Obama. It's over. Let's all take a deep breath and relax.

ETA: I think tomndebb made a good decision in closing the Fork Hillary 3 thread. And I can't really see any debate here, other than perhaps, "Is Hillary's campaign really dead, or is she just faking it?" which seems to have only speculation behind the latter possibility - not that it would matter if it turned out to be true.

[John Mace]

She said she was conceding and will do so formally on Saturday. I don't understand why some feel it's necessary to insist she won't do just that. I can understand why she wants to have one last talk with her supporters before she quits, and that she can't just do that on a moment's notice.

Give it a rest, guys.

[cosmosdan]

The more I look at her statement, the worse it gets. She says that she will support Obama because she feels obligated by a promise she made. There's no gladness in it. No reason to support him other than she said she would and he's not a Republican.

And most important of all — no appeal to her people that they should support him too!

That's the key ingredient I think is missing. She says she will deliver on her promise. It's even fine if she thinks she is still the better candidate as long as she fully supports Obama as the candidate of her party. She needs to tell her supporters that they need to realize what's at stake and urge them to support Obama as much as they supported her, for the good of the country . If she doesn't say that on Saturday I'll cast off my hope for her to rise above her ego.

[Jolly Roger]

I think we can unfork Hillary now. Or at least stop forking her any further.

.

I keep seeing the devil from that scene in Animal House saying "Fork Her! fork her brains out!"

[Liberal]

She said she was conceding and will do so formally on Saturday. I don't understand why some feel it's necessary to insist she won't do just that. I can understand why she wants to have one last talk with her supporters before she quits, and that she can't just do that on a moment's notice.

Give it a rest, guys.Due respect, but no one is forcing your participation. We're talking about a person who stepped on an historic moment — the first African-American presidential candidate — deliberately ignoring reality and stumping EVEN AFTER HE WON. Her promises are worthless. Until and unless she releases her delegates, Obama will always have to look back over his shoulder. My own opinion is that, if anything, she'll self-destruct as she continues to look for ways to wrestle this away from him.

[Liberal]

It's probably being dragged out because of the money.She can write a book and cover all her losses. She doesn't need this for that.

[Marley23]

The LA Times said last month that her debt was more than $20 million. She can't get that much from a book, and it'd probably take quite a while for Bill to raise it from his speaking fees. (Who knows what this campaign will do to demand for his services.) So why do all that work when her good friends and donors might be willing to help out?

[Liberal]

The LA Times said last month that her debt was more than $20 million. She can't get that much from a book, and it'd probably take quite a while for Bill to raise it from his speaking fees. (Who knows what this campaign will do to demand for his services.) So why do all that work when her good friends and donors might be willing to help out?Bill got a $10 million dollar advance for his book, and Hillary got an $8 million dollar advance for her book. Those were just advances. If she has to work a little bit to offset her reckless spending, then waaaaah. Meanwhile, continuing to hold the Democratic campaign for president hostage just because she couldn't control her own purse is egocentric and myopic beyond belief. She chose not to quit. She chose to borrow money. She can choose to accept the consequences.

[DSeid]

Meh. Closing the thread was premature given the activity level, the interest, and that the final chapter is just unfolding in these next two days. Yes she is forked, yes she has now unofficially admitted to it. But why not wait for the credits to actually roll?

The debate now is how she plays the very belated concession and what her role will be after that. And how much influence what she does now will have. In truth, as she has pointed out, she has no absolute control over her delegates and her "release" of them has nothing other than symbolic value. But I will be unsurprised if she avers "holding on" to them and tries to force some issues into planks at the convention. I doubt she really has much power any more. Many of those who resent Obama enough to follow her against him if she asks will not go to him if she does ask them to. Those who would rally to him would do so in the main with or without her blessing.

I really don't want to see her campaigning for him much and I doubt she wants to.

[Marley23]

She's not holding anybody hostage. She won't be out there holding rallies for people chanting about cities in Colorado. Maybe I'm off, but I'm picturing some $1,000-a-plate dinners where she "thanks" her fundraisers for their support by way of asking for more help. The Obama campaign is already starting to recruit those people on its own.

[Steve MB]

That's the key ingredient I think is missing. She says she will deliver on her promise. It's even fine if she thinks she is still the better candidate as long as she fully supports Obama as the candidate of her party. She needs to tell her supporters that they need to realize what's at stake and urge them to support Obama as much as they supported her, for the good of the country . If she doesn't say that on Saturday I'll cast off my hope for her to rise above her ego.
I fully expect a statement that technically adheres to, but subverts, pledges to that effect extracted from her by the party leadership (in much the same way Marc Antony's eulogy in Julius Caesar did with respect to his promise not to denounce the assassins, but less cleverly -- Hillary is no Shakespeare).

[Quartz]

Perhaps she needs to put on some weight? :D

[Paul in Qatar]

"She will not go away. The Clintons will never go away. And they will do all they can to cripple any Democrat who tries to replace them. In the tent or out of it, it is always about them. And they are no longer rivals to Obama; they are threats." --Andrew Sullivan

[kunilou]

I read somewhere that if she suspends her campaign instead of quitting, she is allowed to keep raising money. Since she's racked up a lot of debt, that may be a necessity even if she knows it's over.

Bingo. Just like Kucinich and Huckabee and a few others, she'll use the term "suspend" so her lawyers and accountants can argue that she's still technically a candidate. That allows her to keep raising funds, pay off her campaign debts and repay that loan she made to herself.

Don't listen for whether she says "suspend my campaign," "withdraw," or any of that stuff. Listen for how enthusiastically she tells her supporters to go out and work for Obama.

[Liberal]

I like the way Chuck Todd put it this morning. (My transcription.)

It's almost as if she had to cry, "Uncle!" That's what it looks like. I mean, I think this is as bad of a way to exit as she could have choreographed, because it's her supporters saying it's time to go: Ed Rendell, Charlie Rengel, people like that, rather than her going out on her own terms. She lost control of this apparently Tuesday night when, on a night of what some would describe as huge historical significance, not just because Obama became the presumptive nominee, but it was the first time an African-American became the presumptive nominee of a major political party, that she sort of stepped on it a little bit. I mean, you could tell, when Charlie Rengel, Ed Rendell, and others — they were just uncomfortable that she seemed to be so reluctant to even acknowledge his victory.

[John Mace]

I really don't want to see her campaigning for him much and I doubt she wants to.
I agree. She's got to get on with her own business, so I don't see that she has any obligation to run around the country campaigning for him. Endorse him and move on. If he needs the Clintons in order to win the election in Nov, then maybe the Dems picked the wrong candidate. Don't blame Clinton if he loses (unless she deliberately undermines his campaign).

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Here is the text of her latest email to her constituents. Aparently it went out to everyone who donated...It's not bad I must admit.

Phlosphr - caustiously optimistic.
Heh. I counted 28 uses of "I", "me", and "my" in that letter.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

She can write a book and cover all her losses. She doesn't need this for that.
But can she afford to hire the ghostwriter?

[Bricker]

If this is her response to this crisis/defeat -- what might she have done if office, as President, if a crisis of similarly large proportions had come along?

[John Mace]

If this is her response to this crisis/defeat -- what might she have done if office, as President, if a crisis of similarly large proportions had come along?
I don't understand. She fought hard not to give up-- that's what you'd want her to do in a crisis, no?

[Liberal]

I was wondering about that too. The country lies in ruins. Chinese tanks roll down Wall Street. Hillary's in a basement bunker with 200 people cut off from all communication, telling them we're winning and would they please visit her website/donation page.

[Mosier]

Looks like she's going to claw, bitch, pout, sulk and threaten her way onto the ticket figuring, as she has already indicated her thought processes are running, that it'll be a short wait until Obama gets iced.

Holy crap, how many times does this nonsense have to get debunked!?

[Cheesesteak]

I don't understand. She fought hard not to give up-- that's what you'd want her to do in a crisis, no?I'd say it's more worthwhile to have realistic expectations, a view that goes past "must win current battle at all costs", and a noticeable level of diplomatic skill.

To me, she's shown herself to be disassociated with reality, twisting facts to show the one positive face, and wholeheartedly believes that it is the only possible interpretation. She's shown no class. She has damaged her relationships with people from her own political party over a campaign that any novice could see has been doomed for some time.

[Liberal]

Well, I guess we know now.

Andrea Mitchell says that Clinton advisors told her, "Senator Clinton will leave open the option of having her name placed into the nomination at the Democratic convention just in case."

[Onomatopoeia]

Well, I guess we know now.

Andrea Mitchell says that Clinton advisors told her, "Senator Clinton will leave open the option of having her name placed into the nomination at the Democratic convention just in case."HAH!!! Whenever I think she can no longer surprise me she does. Amazing.

[John Mace]

I'd say it's more worthwhile to have realistic expectations, a view that goes past "must win current battle at all costs", and a noticeable level of diplomatic skill.

To me, she's shown herself to be disassociated with reality, twisting facts to show the one positive face, and wholeheartedly believes that it is the only possible interpretation. She's shown no class. She has damaged her relationships with people from her own political party over a campaign that any novice could see has been doomed for some time.
Well, yeah, but that wasn't the "crisis" of Tuesday-- that's how she's been all along. But also keep in mind that as long as she was still running, she had to keep her staff energized. As soon as they think she's given up, they're outta there. You have to be all in in this game, and it was a very tight race up until the end. She may very well have been right that she's a stronger candidate in Nov than Obama. I don't care much for her, but she runs well in some key states.

[Onomatopoeia]

Well, I guess we know now.

Andrea Mitchell says that Clinton advisors told her, "Senator Clinton will leave open the option of having her name placed into the nomination at the Democratic convention just in case."In other words she hasn't given up and still believes she could be the nominee. Forget about the fact that yeah, it could happen for a sec. I guess I'm dense so maybe I'm missing it, but how does this act benefit the current presumptive nominee? How does this, in any way, dismiss the notion that she is, in fact, contrary to others' assessments, still running for the nomination?

[holmes]

I confess, I'm slightly torn. One of the pundits said that they believe that Clinton really believes in her heart of hearts, that she is the better candidate. So despite the clumsy way she's been doing it, she's trying to save the nation from a McCain victory.

I don't know what mental gymnastics you have to go through not to realize that by screwing with Obama's momentum, you'll will be helping McCain win...or that somehow you're going to pull this from him in Denver.

Does she think the country can survive the 4 years till she gets to run again? That if she's seen as a spoiler, she'd even get the chance to run again?

It's an interesting look at her mind and motivations; if it's true.

[Onomatopoeia]

I confess, I'm slightly torn. One of the pundits said that they believe that Clinton really believes in her heart of hearts, that she is the better candidate.This is what I don't get. How did the better candidate get beaten by someone not as good? Shouldn't the better candidate have won? ...or is she accusing Obama of underhanded methods or, as many of her supporters are saying, stealing the nomination from her?

[Starving Artist]

Well, I guess we know now.

Andrea Mitchell says that Clinton advisors told her, "Senator Clinton will leave open the option of having her name placed into the nomination at the Democratic convention just in case."I'm thinking she figures she has nothing to lose and at least the very slightest chance of everything to gain by keeping her candidacy technically alive. Unlike some of us here, it may be that she feels this is her only shot at the presidency and so she's gonna go the distance thinking that if 'something' were to happen to Obama, or if he should make some disastrous gaffe, or if something in his background or personal history should arise to threaten or end his candidacy, she will be in position to claim the nomination.

How on earth this woman thinks she can be elected even if she gains the nomination is an utter mystery to me. Republicans hate, loathe and despise her (a fair number of democrats do too) and will turn out in unprecedented numbers to vote against her and she was able to marshall only about half the votes from voters in her own party. She's exposed herself as a blatant liar. Nobody has the vaguest idea what she'd actually try to accomplish as president as she's told so many different things to so many different people. She's shown herself to be a poor manager and leader (i.e., executive) in the running of her own campaign. And now she's exposing herself to be what many of us have believed for a long time - someone who's far more concerned with her own ambitions than the good of her party and/or what it could accomplish with a Democrat other than her in office.

[SaharaTea]

I confess, I'm slightly torn. One of the pundits said that they believe that Clinton really believes in her heart of hearts, that she is the better candidate. So despite the clumsy way she's been doing it, she's trying to save the nation from a McCain victory.
If that's true then I can't dredge up much sympathy. It's an extremely egotistical mindset that ignores the democratic process. Especially given the fact that their platforms are so similar.

[Onomatopoeia]

If that's true then I can't dredge up much sympathy. It's an extremely egotistical mindset that ignores the democratic process. Especially given the fact that their platforms are so similar.Here you go... (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1115244.aspx)

The New York Times reports that Clinton will endorse Obama on Saturday, “bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama. Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, and other aides said she would express support for Mr. Obama and party unity at an event in Washington that day. One adviser said Mrs. Clinton would concede defeat, congratulate Mr. Obama and proclaim him the party’s nominee, while pledging to do what was needed to assure his victory in November.”

“Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.”

Per NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Clinton will endorse Obama, but she will not waive her right to have her name placed in nomination at the convention. --more--

[Little Nemo]

I confess, I'm slightly torn. One of the pundits said that they believe that Clinton really believes in her heart of hearts, that she is the better candidate. So despite the clumsy way she's been doing it, she's trying to save the nation from a McCain victory.

I don't know what mental gymnastics you have to go through not to realize that by screwing with Obama's momentum, you'll will be helping McCain win...or that somehow you're going to pull this from him in Denver.

Does she think the country can survive the 4 years till she gets to run again? That if she's seen as a spoiler, she'd even get the chance to run again?

It's an interesting look at her mind and motivations; if it's true.That's the way I see it. Clinton believes that Obama can't beat McCain and she can. So in her mind she's been fighting for the only chance at a Democratic victory.

And the thing is, she might be partly right. I don't agree with her that Obama has no chance. But I think a realistic objective look at poll numbers will show that Clinton had a better chance at getting 270 electoral votes in November than Obama has.

[holmes]

This is what I don't get. How did the better candidate get beaten by someone not as good? Shouldn't the better candidate have won? ...or is she accusing Obama of underhanded methods or, as many of her supporters are saying, stealing the nomination from her?


No, I think and I don't know, but that Obama won by a technicality, that is nomination isn't really valid. Not that he cheated per se, but that there was a 'loophole', that allowed him to win.

I know it's not logical and because of their doublespeak, not honest; but I think if you're desperate to find a reason why the public made a mistake and didn't nominate you, the rules of the Democratic Party allow for a lot of rationalization.

Even if you agreed to them before you lost.

[John Mace]

This is what I don't get. How did the better candidate get beaten by someone not as good? Shouldn't the better candidate have won? ...or is she accusing Obama of underhanded methods or, as many of her supporters are saying, stealing the nomination from her?
The better candidate in Nov. Remember when Lieberman got beaten by Lamont in the primary, then went on to win as an independent in the general? Which was the better candidate?

[holmes]

That's the way I see it. Clinton believes that Obama can't beat McCain and she can. So in her mind she's been fighting for the only chance at a Democratic victory.

And the thing is, she might be partly right. I don't agree with her that Obama has no chance. But I think a realistic objective look at poll numbers will show that Clinton had a better chance at getting 270 electoral votes in November than Obama has.

You see, I don't agree with that. I believe that having any Clinton on the ballot, will pull the lack-luster Repubs out in droves. If her behaviour in this primary has managed to turn Democrats against her, I have no doubt the repubs will actual manage to energize their base against her.

I think Obama doesn't inspire that much of sheer hatred as she does and that's what's going to push him through; where I think it would have tied her up.

[Liberal]

It's just such a crying shame that she has no sense of anything outside herself. Even John Mace can defend her only on the basis of her doing what's best for herself. Like some of her former supporters have said, she has blown the chance to be a key player in the most monumentally significant election of the modern age. She could have been a leader, marshalling her supporters to join in making history. But as it is, she has become an embarassment to her own party leadership and has lost possibly forever the famous black voting block that she and her husband rode to power. She's now nothing more than a nuisance that Obama will have to make plans basically to avoid. She has been mathematically dead for a long time, but her pride, ego, and greed overwhelmed her. She's become a laughingstock. Something to puzzle over and pity. Her place in history will be as the kook who nearly ruined her party at a time when it was trying to shine. I say "nearly" because at some point, even her own supporters will come to their senses and abandon her. God, just the image of Congress begging her to behave like a civilized human being will haunt her for the rest of her days. The only ones left defending her will be the right wing because of her heroic efforts to get their guy elected. I'm just about worn out with her.

ETA:

John, your defense of her wouldn't ring quite so hollow if it weren't in such stark contrast to the criticisms from Rendell, Rankel, Rosen, and others. They know what they're talking about.

[Gangster Octopus]

Liberal hit the nail on the head. That email is only fodder for her supporters.

I'm the one who stands up for you.

I'm the one battled for you.

I support Obama, because he isn't McCain

i support Obama because I promised I would.


On Saturday I better hear something like this out of her mouth:

"I give my fullest endorsement to Senator Obama and I encourage every one of my supporters to support him with the same vigor that they have backed me. Obama is a fantastic nominee for the Democrats and I personally am looking forward immensely to this country returning back to being the greate nation we know we are behind his leadership when he wins the nomination in November. Yes WE can. All of us together."

[Oy!]

I was watching MSNBC last night when these various announcements were made and news reports broadcast. (By the way, has MSNBC always been the Dem equivalent of FOX News, or is that recent?) The thinking is that HRC would possibly like to get nominated on the floor in Denver, even though she's fully aware that she cannot win, so as to show that a woman can and did get nominated for President by a major party, and she was that woman. Keith Olbermann found this plausible, folks, it's not just me.

Look, I was irritated Tuesday night myself by her speech, but I've come to the conclusion that this was unjust. She and her loyalists are all saying that there is a right way to do this and a wrong way, and the right way is to bring as many of her supporters along with her as possible. This means easing her supporters through their grief and sense of loss and bringing them to see Obama as their best hope of decent government over the next few years. Further, it's not so easy to just say "All over. Go home now." to all the volunteers and especially employees working for her campaign. It's been a large campaign, and the logistics are complex. She's not screwing with Obama's momentum; she's taking a few days before she starts the long hard slog again, and this time without the prospect of winning the presidency herself to keep her going.

You all have been saying that Obama was the absolute winner for a couple of months now, but the fact is, this is the closest primary race in history. She had good reason to stick it out to the last primaries, and the end result bears this out - she won one of the last two states.

Obama hasn't been in the least concerned about her actions, and as he points out, he's just about the only person in the country who knows just how she's feeling right now. Which above all is exhausted and a bit hurt - her congressional support melted very quickly what with everyone trying to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Nonetheless, she was very graceful and supportive of Obama at the AIPAC speech yesterday.

You want a personification of EVIL? Look to W, Cheney and Rove. You want a relevant personification of EVIL? There's McCain waiting for us all to villify, and he deserves it.

HRC can be a real asset this fall, and in the coming administration (I like the idea of Attorney General - that would have some nasty folks shaking in their shoes!). Unless the idea of finding new and imaginary villainies to attribute to her appeals to you more than winning (and at this point you have me wondering), how about spending your time and energy finding ways to use her to beat McCain, the real enemy!

[ratatoskK]

I am really sick of talking about and thinking about her. I really do think that on Saturday she's going to say she's fully supporting Obama. Whether she technically "suspends" or ends her campaign, I don't give a shit. It's over. I just feel exhausted by it all.

[Onomatopoeia]

The better candidate in Nov. Remember when Lieberman got beaten by Lamont in the primary, then went on to win as an independent in the general? Which was the better candidate?I think most people were surprised when Lamont won, so when Holy Joe came back and won the general, although disappointing, it wasn't really a shock, at least not to me.

The Clinton situation is a different animal. On what evidence does Hillary base her strength and electability over Obama in the GE? She didn't run a better campaign, she wasn't as organized, she wasn't as prepared, and as the primaries continued into March she resorted to a desparate strategy of Rovian tactics in an attempt to tear Obama down. Even if you discount the primaries, what successes can one point to as indication that she'd be a stronger candidate? Name recognition only takes you so far, and tenacity is wildly overrated. In addition, she's polarizing and the republican base absolutely despises her. So I'd really like to know where the idea that she's the stronger candidate comes from.

[ratatoskK]

It's the same logic used by Bush -- say it often enough and hope that people will start to believe it.

[Marley23]

I agree with several of your points, Oy!, but I'll quibble over a couple:
You all have been saying that Obama was the absolute winner for a couple of months now, but the fact is, this is the closest primary race in history.
It was very close, true. But say there are two guys running a marathon, and they're within 50 feet of each other. That's a close race- but if one guy is ahead by 50 feet when they're 20 feet from the finish line, it's obvious who is going to win.
She had good reason to stick it out to the last primaries, and the end result bears this out - she won one of the last two states.
She would have to be pretty clueless (which I don't believe) to think the results from either state would make any difference. I never said she should quit, but the South Dakota primary didn't exactly prove she was close to winning. And she knew that; otherwise she wouldn't have pretended that Montana didn't exist.

[Jolly Roger]

It's the same logic used by Bush -- say it often enough and hope that people will start to believe it.
Just for general interest I read this a few moments ago. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262109484746703.html?mod=yhoofront)

[E-Sabbath]

Demconwatch, yesterday.

- Switched Sen. Tim Johnson (SD) from Obama to Clinton

Yep, she got one.

[E-Sabbath]

(dupe)

[John Mace]

It's just such a crying shame that she has no sense of anything outside herself. Even John Mace can defend her only on the basis of her doing what's best for herself. Like some of her former supporters have said, she has blown the chance to be a key player in the most monumentally significant election of the modern age. She could have been a leader, marshalling her supporters to join in making history. But as it is, she has become an embarassment to her own party leadership and has lost possibly forever the famous black voting block that she and her husband rode to power. She's now nothing more than a nuisance that Obama will have to make plans basically to avoid. She has been mathematically dead for a long time, but her pride, ego, and greed overwhelmed her. She's become a laughingstock. Something to puzzle over and pity. Her place in history will be as the kook who nearly ruined her party at a time when it was trying to shine. I say "nearly" because at some point, even her own supporters will come to their senses and abandon her. God, just the image of Congress begging her to behave like a civilized human being will haunt her for the rest of her days. The only ones left defending her will be the right wing because of her heroic efforts to get their guy elected. I'm just about worn out with her.

ETA:

John, your defense of her wouldn't ring quite so hollow if it weren't in such stark contrast to the criticisms from Rendell, Rankel, Rosen, and others. They know what they're talking about.
I'm not defending her. I just think it's odd to be bashing her so much even after she said she'll step down. Frankly, Liberal, you have always hated her passionately. I don't think you're an objective observer when it comes to Hillary. I've done my share of Hillary bashing when I thought it was appropriate-- like Tues/Wed when it looked like she might try and still run her campaign even though Obama had the delegates lined up. But it's over. Do you guys just love drama so much that you have to drum some up when it's not there?

[Liberal]

I'm not defending her. I just think it's odd to be bashing her so much even after she said she'll step down.The point is that she HASN'T said she'll step down. She has said that she'll step back for the time being and keep her name in the hat in case something happens. Haven't you been reading the thread?

Do you guys just love drama so much that you have to drum some up when it's not there?Not there? Are you joking? You blame us for her dramatic 5-60 day one-step-at-a-time quasi-concession? If she had acknowledged his victory Tuesday night and endorsed him, instead of pushing everybody into a cave where they couldn't get any news, allowing herself to be introduced as "the next president of the United States", and calling South Dakota "the last primary" — in other words, if she had behaved like a goddamn fucking sentient human being, there wouldn't be any drama.

[Liberal]

Demconwatch, yesterday.

- Switched Sen. Tim Johnson (SD) from Obama to Clinton

Yep, she got one.Well, let's give her a hang.

[BarnOwl]

The better candidate in Nov. Remember when Lieberman got beaten by Lamont in the primary, then went on to win as an independent in the general? Which was the better candidate?

More accurately, it was the dumb ass electorate.

[Cervaise]

She said she was conceding and will do so formally on Saturday. I don't understand why some feel it's necessary to insist she won't do just that. I can understand why she wants to have one last talk with her supporters before she quits, and that she can't just do that on a moment's notice.

Give it a rest, guys."Forking Hillary," right now, goes beyond confirming the true end of her campaign. It's about whether or not Obama surrenders to extortion and names her as VP or otherwise promises her a Cabinet post.

She's not forked until she's back in the Senate, full stop.

[Onomatopoeia]

"Forking Hillary," right now, goes beyond confirming the true end of her campaign. It's about whether or not Obama surrenders to extortion and names her as VP or otherwise promises her a Cabinet post.

She's not forked until she's back in the Senate, full stop.Speaking of which, here's an interesting article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262418608646917.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) I wish Obama's camp would read about veeping Hillary.



Obama's Vice President
In clinching the Democratic Presidential nomination, Barack Obama is now the leader of his party. The first test of his leadership as a potential President will be his response to the extraordinary campaign already underway to bully him into choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

Mrs. Clinton's tenacity in the primaries deserves credit, and she has earned the respect that Mr. Obama's remarks on Tuesday night gave her. But as he prepares for November, and perhaps for January, he has earned the right to choose a Vice Presidential nominee with whom he's comfortable, and on his own timetable. On that score, we were glad to see him name a vetting team yesterday and to appear in no rush to make a selection. --more--

[Shayna]

Speaking of which, here's an interesting article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262418608646917.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) I wish Obama's camp would read about veeping Hillary. If they haven't, at least they've come to the same conclusion themselves. Watch Obama's reply re choosing his VP here (http://thepage.time.com/video-obama-veep-talk-on-cnn/).

I'm OK with Hillary merely suspending her campaign. It gives her the legal right to continue raising funds to pay off her debts -- many of which are to small vendors who haven't been paid since January. I think she has a moral obligation to do so, and if the only way she can is to suspend rather than end, I think it's the right thing to do.

[Squink]

Clinton disavows push to make her veep (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_72)
I love the form of 'her' announcement: "She is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her," communications director Howard Wolfson said. "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."

[Liberal]

She didn't even have the decency to inform him personally of her pending alleged suspension and endorsement. Obama found out about it through the media.

[Phlosphr]

She didn't even have the decency to inform him personally of her pending alleged suspension and endorsement. Obama found out about it through the media.
I made the mistake of going over to her website to see the Clinton supporter reactions. :eek: Talk about reading around in a lions den. Those supporters are voracious! They paint Obama as the anti-christ and Clinton as their savior. They are shouting McCain, McCain, McCain! and every once in a while someone will come around and say, "are you crazy, why would you vote McCain if you know your candidate would never condone voting for McCain." No one listens and the offender is promptly kicked out.
Jeez! Clinton's behavior doesn't surprise me at all. Neither does that of some of her supporters.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Breaking news: Obama summoned to DC to pay homage to Clinton (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/).

How's that for some spin?

[silenus]

There's enough top spin on that link to dizzy an elephant.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened. According to the story, Barack delayed his exit from Washington so he could talk to Hillary, after she disavowed wanting the Veep slot.

Trust the pros, guys. Their not going to fuck it up now, after coming so far.

(Now where did I leave that damned rabbit's foot?)

[Kolga]

If they haven't, at least they've come to the same conclusion themselves. Watch Obama's reply re choosing his VP here (http://thepage.time.com/video-obama-veep-talk-on-cnn/).


His answer seemed thoughtful, well-crafted, and drama-free.

[Little Nemo]

You see, I don't agree with that. I believe that having any Clinton on the ballot, will pull the lack-luster Repubs out in droves. If her behaviour in this primary has managed to turn Democrats against her, I have no doubt the repubs will actual manage to energize their base against her.

I think Obama doesn't inspire that much of sheer hatred as she does and that's what's going to push him through; where I think it would have tied her up.Passion can be over-rated. People may dislike Obama and vote against him. Those same people might despise Clinton with the raging heat of a million suns - and they vote against her. The Republicans don't have to convince voters that Obama is as bad as Clinton - they just have to convince enough voters that he's bad enough.

The real campaign has only just begun. I can guarantee you that the public perception of Barack Obama is going to change in the next five months. Thousands of people are going to be working on trying to push his image in the direction they want it.

Do you think the Democrats picked people like McGovern or Mondale or Dukakis or Kerry because they wanted to lose? Every one of these men looked like a strong candidate when he began his campaign. Next December, Democrats may be asking themselves why they picked an obvious loser like Obama instead of a winner like Clinton.

[DrDeth]

Due respect, but no one is forcing your participation. We're talking about a person who stepped on an historic moment — the first African-American presidential candidate — deliberately ignoring reality and stumping EVEN AFTER HE WON. .
Dude- he has not won. Obama has 1766 pledged delegates
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
out of 2118 needed to win. He has 423 SuperDelegates that have said they will vote for him. WILL. Not have. The Convention is in August and no one has won until the Convention meets and 2118 delegates vote for someone.

Obama is the presumptive nominee.

[DrDeth]

Extreme hatred and name calling of HRC by the Obama-ites is not the way to go. Remember, dudes- HRC was the choice of almost exactly 50% of Democrats.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Gloating, name calling and insults are not the way to mend fences with the other half of the party. It's bound to piss off a few folks- who, I admit will more likely stay home than vote for McCain.

But in swing states like Fla (where Hillary is very popular), all it takes is about 1/10 of 1% of the vote to push all that states electors to the other party.

Look, dudes- it looks like your man won. Be as gracious as your candidate. Reach out and mend some fences or Obama will go down in history as the first black man to lose the Presidential election.

[Onomatopoeia]

Dude- he has not won. Obama has 1766 pledged delegates
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
out of 2118 needed to win. He has 423 SuperDelegates that have said they will vote for him. WILL. Not have. The Convention is in August and no one has won until the Convention meets and 2118 delegates vote for someone.

Obama is the presumptive nominee.Oh please. By that logic Obama has zero delegates because they've all said they WILL vote for Obama, but can change their minds at the convention. Can we at least stipulate, for the sake of preventing a rend in the fabric of space-time in THIS universe, that Obama has the nomination before continuing this discussion?

[Shayna]

Extreme hatred and name calling of HRC by the Obama-ites is not the way to go. Remember, dudes- HRC was the choice of almost exactly 50% of Democrats.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Gloating, name calling and insults are not the way to mend fences with the other half of the party. It's bound to piss off a few folks- who, I admit will more likely stay home than vote for McCain.

But in swing states like Fla (where Hillary is very popular), all it takes is about 1/10 of 1% of the vote to push all that states electors to the other party.

Look, dudes- it looks like your man won. Be as gracious as your candidate. Reach out and mend some fences or Obama will go down in history as the first black man to lose the Presidential election. Please stop spamming (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9877016&postcount=62) the board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9876997&postcount=30) with this same post. It's actually against the rules as laid out in the Registration Agreement (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423183). Do not post the same or similar messages or threads to multiple forums; multiple threads on the same topic; or an excessive number of threads on any topic within a limited period of time. And I'm sure we'll be happy to graciously welcome you to the fold as soon as you graciously accept that Barack Obama has WON and EARNED the nomination, and actually throw your support behind his candidacy, like your candidate will be doing, and will be asking you to do as well.

[Hakuna Matata]

And I'm sure we'll be happy to graciously welcome you to the fold as soon as you graciously accept that Barack Obama has WON and EARNED the nomination, and actually throw your support behind his candidacy, like your candidate will be doing, and will be asking you to do as well.


Actually I believe DrDeth is not a Clinton supporter if I recall from another thread, nor is he/she a Obama supporter. Nor has this person said they are a McCain supporter--so to be honest I have no idea where DrDeth stands--other then they like to jump into this threads and take Clinton's side, yet they then claim they weren't planning on voting for her. Or why they continue to post in these threads to be honest. I gather it is more of a devils advocate sort of syndrome.

[kaylasdad99]

Well, let's give her a hang.Okay, now I know you're doing it on purpose. :D

[Hakuna Matata]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9872525&postcount=2946

here it is! I knew I had seen something where he/she said they weren't a Clinton supporter.

[Bricker]

I think most people were surprised when Lamont won, so when Holy Joe came back and won the general, although disappointing, it wasn't really a shock, at least not to me.

The Clinton situation is a different animal. On what evidence does Hillary base her strength and electability over Obama in the GE? She didn't run a better campaign, she wasn't as organized, she wasn't as prepared, and as the primaries continued into March she resorted to a desparate strategy of Rovian tactics in an attempt to tear Obama down. Even if you discount the primaries, what successes can one point to as indication that she'd be a stronger candidate? Name recognition only takes you so far, and tenacity is wildly overrated. In addition, she's polarizing and the republican base absolutely despises her. So I'd really like to know where the idea that she's the stronger candidate comes from.

I think she long felt that her nomination was inevitable. When Obama showed himself to be a formidable opponent, and she had no post-Super Tuesday plan, it upset that applecart. But I think she now pictures it as a "lucky punch" -- the champ that loses the bout by a one-in-a-milion chance blow.

"If we had to do this over ten more times, I'd win every time," she thinks to herself. "Therefore, I'd be the better candidate in the general election."

[Jolly Roger]

I think she long felt that her nomination was inevitable. When Obama showed himself to be a formidable opponent, and she had no post-Super Tuesday plan, it upset that applecart. But I think she now pictures it as a "lucky punch" -- the champ that loses the bout by a one-in-a-milion chance blow.

"If we had to do this over ten more times, I'd win every time," she thinks to herself. "Therefore, I'd be the better candidate in the general election."
So in other words she wasn't prepared for any real challenge, and when she ran into someone that was a challenge, she had no backup plan whatsoever.

Thats not a lucky punch....that was her being unprepared. A bad trait for a president.

[Koxinga]

So in other words she wasn't prepared for any real challenge, and when she ran into someone that was a challenge, she had no backup plan whatsoever.

Thats not a lucky punch....that was her being unprepared. A bad trait for a president.

Two words: "Mission Accomplished".

[Jolly Roger]

Two words: "Mission Accomplished".???

I'm not sure what you're saying, here.

[Koxinga]

???

I'm not sure what you're saying, here.


[He] wasn't prepared for any real challenge, and . . . had no backup plan whatsoever. (http://patf.net/blogs/media/patf/mission_accomplished.jpg)

[Jolly Roger]

Oh. Well, its pretty obvious we really screwed the pooch by electing W in the first place. If anything Hillary has shown that she can't even prepare a campaign properly.

[Phlosphr]

Anyone hear that last night Obama and Hillary slipped away all cloak and dagger like to have a secret meeting....

Wonder what was said???

I think she had one question for him. My Guess, "You ran a good compaign and beat me fair and square, are you considering me or not? I need to know before I give my speech this weekend. "

My WAG - he answered her honestly. No idea what he said.

[Onomatopoeia]

Anyone hear that last night Obama and Hillary slipped away all cloak and dagger like to have a secret meeting....

Wonder what was said???Yeah, I read that before I went to bed last night. I believe both Hillary and Barack believe she has more leverage than she actually does, so color me a little nervous that he may give her more than he should.

[Jolly Roger]

Yeah, I read that before I went to bed last night. I believe both Hillary and Barack believe she has more leverage than she actually does, so color me a little nervous that he may give her more than he should.
I don't think Obama believes she has more leverage than she does. I'd give him more credit than that, he isn't stupid, and he's probably got a team of advisors on it anyway.

Still, I'm begging him to not give her the VP spot.

[Phlosphr]

I don't think Obama believes she has more leverage than she does. I'd give him more credit than that, he isn't stupid, and he's probably got a team of advisors on it anyway.

Still, I'm begging him to not give her the VP spot.
Washington insiders have tea and cookies with each other all time after hard fought fights. Doesn't mean he's going to give her the spot, anymore than it means Clinton want's it. Something tells me she doesn't. She wants to be number 1...

[Suse]

And I'm sure we'll be happy to graciously welcome you to the fold as soon as you graciously accept that Barack Obama has WON and EARNED the nomination, and actually throw your support behind his candidacy, like your candidate will be doing, and will be asking you to do as well.

I wasn't able to do the quote-within-a-quote, but what is so objectionable about what DrDeth wrote? (I get that he posted the same message on another thread. I was willing to give it a pass because it's an important message.)

But beyond that, he didn't say anything offensive about Obama, merely that a great many voters supported Clinton and those voters will not be enticed to vote Obama by Obama supporters insulting them and their candidate. It seems like simple common sense to me.

[ralph124c]

You bet the Hillary machine is pissed off! Some VERY BIG plum jobs were at stake-and the Marc Rich's of the world DEARLY wanted the Hillary/Bill team back in the WhiteHouse. Think about it: huge trade concessions (including the final dismantling of the US Auto industry)-for sale to the highest (Chinese) bidder, courtesy of Bill Clinton! Under Bill EVERYTHING is for sale! :eek:
Thos "megadonors" (those who gave huge amounts to the campaign-are out of pocket BIG TIME!
Think about it-you are NISSAN-and you want a key concession (exemption from federal emissions laws-and Bill was the answer! So you "donated" $2 million to Hillary-now you have NO return! :smack:

[Crotalus]

DrDeth is correct that Obama has won only if Clinton decides not to pursue the nomination at the convention. No delegates have voted, and the votes of the pledged delegates are the only votes now known with any degree of confidence. The way the pledged delegates stand, Clinton could win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, if enough supers vote her way.

[DSeid]

What's so cloak and dagger? Obama had said "We should talk." Hillary had said "Yes we should." And now they have. Good.

He is, for good reason, showing her respect and coming to her, when she was ready, as he said he would.

The nature of the conversation? I am sure polite. A bit of small talk over the nature and rigors of the process. These two are smart enough that much won't need to be said and what isn't said will be just as important. The message from Clinton by now a notch down from defiant and still not gaining footing on how she proceeds with her life from here but realizing that attempting to pressure him will be counterproductive. The dance may be her trying to be in control and him leaving her neither knowing how she fits into a future Obama led Democratic party but realizing that indeed it will be Obama led.


Obama has made it clear that he is not afraid to talk to any petty dictator if just to show them how little they can dictate.

[Liberal]

Does anybody know exactly what time her special event on her special day of her special week is supposed to take place in Washington tomorrow? I'd like to set my DVR.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Anyone hear that last night Obama and Hillary slipped away all cloak and dagger like to have a secret meeting....
Oh, yes, he slipped away all right - from the press corps that follows him everywhere. His campaign duly loaded his media entourage onto the press plane to depart Virginia for Illinois, where he's planning to spend a minivacation this weekend. What they didn't mention to the reporters until the plane was in the air was that Obama wasn't aboard. I understand one reporter was able to get out a brief WTF???? message before the BlackBerrys stopped working.

Also I understand that Chuck Todd, in reporting this tremendous affront to the Fourth Estate, couldn't stop chuckling. :D

[Liberal]

Also I understand that Chuck Todd, in reporting this tremendous affront to the Fourth Estate, couldn't stop chuckling. :DDamn, I hate I missed that!

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I wasn't able to do the quote-within-a-quote, but what is so objectionable about what DrDeth wrote? (I get that he posted the same message on another thread. I was willing to give it a pass because it's an important message.)

But beyond that, he didn't say anything offensive about Obama, merely that a great many voters supported Clinton and those voters will not be enticed to vote Obama by Obama supporters insulting them and their candidate. It seems like simple common sense to me.
Have you been following these election threads? If not, I can see why you're taken aback. DrDeth has been hammering away on the Hillary has the popular vote -- Hillary is still in it -- the supers must look at the popular vote and turn to Hillary -- themes for a long time, long after it became clear that these were all pipe dreams.

Crotalus, the idea that the superdelegates are going to overturn the primary results at the convention is, well -- how can I put this? Ah. "Ludicrous" would fit nicely. Unless a career-ending something erupts between now and then, ain't gonna happen.

[Liberal]

DrDeth is correct that Obama has won only if Clinton decides not to pursue the nomination at the convention. No delegates have voted, and the votes of the pledged delegates are the only votes now known with any degree of confidence. The way the pledged delegates stand, Clinton could win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, if enough supers vote her way.That's true in the sense that a president-elect is not the president until Congress has counted the votes of the electors, who are free to vote for Charles Manson if they want to. Meanwhile, Obama has taken over the DNC, putting his person in charge and establishing its policy with respect to lobbies and PACs. He is being endorsed by the entire Democratic leadership, including Her Former Majesty.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Damn, I hate I missed that!
As far as I can see from checking around last night and this morning, that aspect of the Obama-Clinton meeting is getting little or no mention. I came across that delightful bit of schadenfreude at DailyKos.

Oh -- here's a bit about it at Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/playbook/):
Obama’s traveling press got to Dulles after the Bristow rally and discovered the candidate wasn’t with them. An exchange from CBS News’ “The Early Show”:

REPORTER: “Is there any reason we didn't go in the motorcade all the way? This is what we're out here for and now we're on this plane with no candidate.”

GIBBS: “It wasn't an attempt to deceive in any way.”
Nosirree, no attempt to deceive at all, no way. ;)

[Liberal]

I tell ya, ETF, I think it's gonna take some time for some of these Democrats to realize that they finally have a candidate who has both balls and brains. They really don't know how fortunate they are.

[silenus]

I tell ya, ETF, I think it's gonna take some time for some of these Democrats to realize that they finally have a candidate who has both balls and brains. They really don't know how fortunate they are.

Careful, or the Hillaryites will call you sexist!

[ratatoskK]

The meeting last night is mentioned on the NY Times website (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/the-obama-clinton-meeting/) . It was probably too late in the day to include in the print media.

[ratatoskK]

Here's another article (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/obama-and-clinton-meet-in-dc/) about the meeting on the NY Times website.

[ratatoskK]

Here's a third one (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07meet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) about how they ditched the reporters.

[Crotalus]

Have you been following these election threads? If not, I can see why you're taken aback. DrDeth has been hammering away on the Hillary has the popular vote -- Hillary is still in it -- the supers must look at the popular vote and turn to Hillary -- themes for a long time, long after it became clear that these were all pipe dreams.

Crotalus, the idea that the superdelegates are going to overturn the primary results at the convention is, well -- how can I put this? Ah. "Ludicrous" would fit nicely. Unless a career-ending something erupts between now and then, ain't gonna happen.I wish I had your confidence. So much about democracy depends upon the acquiescence of the defeated, and I'm not sure we have that yet.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Here's a third one (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07meet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) about how they ditched the reporters.
That link went to an advertisement. Is this the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07meet.html) you meant to post?

ETA: Here's the story:
The evening began in routine fashion, with Mr. Obama holding a large rally in northern Virginia. Then, he was scheduled to travel by motorcade to Dulles International Airport and fly to Chicago. The motorcade arrived, but Mr. Obama did not, stirring alarm among reporters who had been aboard the campaign plane for 45 minutes as it sat on the tarmac.

Shortly before takeoff, one part of the secret was divulged. Robert Gibbs, the campaign’s communications director, said Mr. Obama would not be flying to Chicago as previously scheduled. He gave no reason for this mysterious pronouncement and there was little time for questions, considering that the engines had started to whir.

Sunlen Miller, who covers the Obama campaign for ABC News, filed an urgent dispatch via Blackberry to report that the senator had abruptly changed plans and had given the slip to those who were traveling with him all day. “I sent it as the wheels were going up,” Ms. Miller said of her message, recounting the agitation and confusion among her fellow travelers as the 757 lifted off.

It wasn’t until after the plane landed in Chicago — sans the presidential candidate — that Mr. Gibbs confirmed a meeting had taken place between the rivals. Details? None given.

[ratatoskK]

That's the one. It only goes to an ad sometimes, it's the same link. If it goes to an ad, wait 30 secs and it continues to the article.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Ok, what I want now is for the talking heads to stop dancing around the subject and just come out and publicly say it....she's delusional.

Seems, in print anyway, there are plenty saying precisely that.

Google: Clinton delusional (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=clinton+delusional&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title)

[Cervaise]

“I sent it as the wheels were going up,” Ms. Miller said of her messageSo she violated the no-electronic-devices rule? Wonder if the FAA will slap her wrist about that.

[Shayna]

I wasn't able to do the quote-within-a-quote, but what is so objectionable about what DrDeth wrote? (I get that he posted the same message on another thread. I was willing to give it a pass because it's an important message.)

But beyond that, he didn't say anything offensive about Obama, merely that a great many voters supported Clinton and those voters will not be enticed to vote Obama by Obama supporters insulting them and their candidate. It seems like simple common sense to me.Have you been following these election threads? If not, I can see why you're taken aback. DrDeth has been hammering away on the Hillary has the popular vote -- Hillary is still in it -- the supers must look at the popular vote and turn to Hillary -- themes for a long time, long after it became clear that these were all pipe dreams. Not to mention the post immediately above the one I quoted, which was this: Originally posted by DrDeth

Dude- he has not won. Obama has 1766 pledged delegates
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
out of 2118 needed to win. He has 423 SuperDelegates that have said they will vote for him. WILL. Not have. The Convention is in August and no one has won until the Convention meets and 2118 delegates vote for someone.

Obama is the presumptive nominee. That's not my definition of gracious. I'd describe that more as stubborn.

And if this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9872525&postcount=2946

here it is! I knew I had seen something where he/she said they weren't a Clinton supporter. is true? I've been living in an alternate universe for the past 6 months.

[Liberal]

It's at noon, by the way. One talking head was asked what Hillary had to say to convince people that she really does support Obama, and the reporter answered: "She has to talk about Obama, and not about herself." Amen.

[Hakuna Matata]

Not to mention the post immediately above the one I quoted, which was this: That's not my definition of gracious. I'd describe that more as stubborn.

And if this: is true? I've been living in an alternate universe for the past 6 months.

No you haven't been living in an alternate world--I agree--it shocked me too. I would have pegged DrDeth as a Clinton supporter based on his/her posts.

So if DrDeth isn't a Clinton support and clearly isn't a Obama support who do they support? I am left to wonder if DrDeth is a Republican who wanted Clinton to win and thus was stirring things up. Or they are just a contrarian, which would be good to know, because for me then in the future I can avoid. You can't argue with a contrarian--they will always take the opposite side, just to be contrary.

[Pashnish Ewing]

--they will always take the opposite side, just to be contrary.No they won't.

[Hakuna Matata]

No they won't.


:p touche'

[descamisado]

It's at noon, by the way. One talking head was asked what Hillary had to say to convince people that she really does support Obama, and the reporter answered: "She has to talk about Obama, and not about herself." Amen.Is that EDT? I'd be annoyed and humorless if I missed it.

[Liberal]

Is that EDT?Yes, I think so. They're waiting for some sort of annual run to finish that morning.

[Pashnish Ewing]

Yes, I think so. They're waiting for some sort of annual run to finish that morning. Hmm, sounds like a pretty busy day. We better postpone until next weekend.

[DrDeth]

Actually I believe DrDeth is not a Clinton supporter if I recall from another thread, nor is he/she a Obama supporter. Nor has this person said they are a McCain supporter--so to be honest I have no idea where DrDeth stands--other then they like to jump into this threads and take Clinton's side, yet they then claim they weren't planning on voting for her. .

I am actually a Gore supporter, to be honest. Both Obama & HRC are 2nd choices.

[tomndebb]

Please stop spamming (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9877016&postcount=62) the board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9876997&postcount=30) with this same post. It's actually against the rules as laid out in the Registration Agreement (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423183). If you find a post objectionable, please report it rather than playing junior mod.

In this case, you would have been overruled anyway. Note that the rule you quoted makes a point of prohibiting the initiation of multiple threads. The single reference to multiple "messages" refers to posts that are inserted into multiple threads (generally as hijacks) across all/most of the Fora.

Using the same words to make the same point in what is, effectively, the same endless argument, does not violate the rule. You may find it irritating, but then I suspect that he probably finds irritating many of the personal attacks on Senator Clinton that he perceives as counterproductive. Perhaps if you could persuade the other champions of Senator Obama to refrain from casting Senator Clinton as the embodiment of evil, he would not feel compelled to put in his plea for courtesy on so many occasions.

[ /Modding ]

[Lakai]

I am actually a Gore supporter, to be honest. Both Obama & HRC are 2nd choices.

Who do you prefer between Obama and Hillary?

[DrDeth]

Who do you prefer between Obama and Hillary?

It's an tough question. They have nigh identical platforms, you know. :eek:

Obama is a great speaker, really, honestly the best we've had in decades. He has a real chance to unite America.

However, I think Hillary has/had a better chance to win against McCain. And, she's a better wheeler-dealer.


But if the Obama supporters would just stop the nasty personal attacks on Hillary, and be gracious winners (like Obama is himself) it'd help a lot.

Still and all, Gore would be better for the environment than either, and that is a major concern for me. Not that he has any real chance of getting the nod. :(

[cosmosdan]

Maybe it's already been covered but

Did Hillary actually win the popular vote count? Counting MI and FL or not counting them?

I ask because a conservative friend of mine commented on the Democratic argument in Gore v Bush that Gore had won the popular vote but now it's delegates that count.

Was the Gore won the popular vote argument ever pushed by the DNC or was it just a sour grapes argument by average democrats?

[cosmosdan]

But if the Obama supporters would just stop the nasty personal attacks on Hillary, and be gracious winners (like Obama is himself) it'd help a lot.



I whole heartedly agree.

[Pashnish Ewing]

But if the Obama supporters would just stop the nasty personal attacks on Hillary, and be gracious winners (like Obama is himself) it'd help a lot.As an Obama supporter, the frustrating thing has been that most Clinton supporters (and 'impartial' observers as our own DrDeth) continue to view any of the harsh criticisms as off-limits personal attacks. And no consideration is given to the fact that Sen. Clinton has earned some of these 'attacks' through the words and actions of her and her staff during this campaign.

As someone said earlier in one of these threads - it is the same frustration felt when criticizing President Bush in the run-up to (and during) this damn fool war - and Bush supporters waived off ALL criticism as simple Bush-hating.

[cosmosdan]

As an Obama supporter, the frustrating thing has been that most Clinton supporters (and 'impartial' observers as our own DrDeth) continue to view any of the harsh criticisms as off-limits personal attacks. And no consideration is given to the fact that Sen. Clinton has earned some of these 'attacks' through the words and actions of her and her staff during this campaign.

As someone said earlier in one of these threads - it is the same frustration felt when criticizing President Bush in the run-up to (and during) this damn fool war - and Bush supporters waived off ALL criticism as simple Bush-hating.

Specific reasoned arguments and observations are much different than general animosity and name calling. I'm not a Hillary fan at all but I think for the good of the country we have to start uniting the Democrats as much as possible. Spitting needlessly at Hillary doesn't do that. Obama himself has set the example.

OTOH I looked at a web site (http://hcsfjm.com/) declaring it's Hillary supporters for JM. I just don't get it. Seems rather juvenile to me to let bitterness over your candidates loss turn you against your party and the welfare of the country as well.

[Liberal]

Maybe it's already been covered but

Did Hillary actually win the popular vote count? Counting MI and FL or not counting them?She counts Michigan and Florida, but does not count Iowa, Nevada, American Samoa, Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Guam, and half of Texas.

Counting only legally held primaries, and ignoring caucuses as she insists, Obama wins 17,535,458 to 17,493,836.

[cosmosdan]

She counts Michigan and Florida, but does not count Iowa, Nevada, American Samoa, Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Guam, and half of Texas.

Counting only legally held primaries, and ignoring caucuses as she insists, Obama wins 17,535,458 to 17,493,836.

Counting popular vote IMO would be citizens who voted regardless of whether it's a primary , caucus, or whatever label we put on it. I question MI only because Obama wasn't on the ballot which seems to make that pretty one sided.

[Harborwolf]

Counting popular vote IMO would be citizens who voted regardless of whether it's a primary , caucus, or whatever label we put on it. I question MI only because Obama wasn't on the ballot which seems to make that pretty one sided.The reason that caucuses weren't counted is that some of them didn't report an actual vote count, simply a winner. There were estimates reported though.

[Suse]

OTOH I looked at a web site (http://hcsfjm.com/) declaring it's Hillary supporters for JM. I just don't get it. Seems rather juvenile to me to let bitterness over your candidates loss turn you against your party and the welfare of the country as well.

Not all of it is bitterness. Many of these people have legitimate concerns about Obama and feel that McCain is an acceptable alternative. Dismissing them as bitter and juvenile is a mistake IMO. Obama needs these voters and I hope that he can address their concerns sufficiently to win their votes.

[RTFirefly]

Given that she said (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/hillary_implors_her_supporters.php):
"The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States."

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."

"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'"

[RTFirefly]

Many of these people have legitimate concerns about Obama and feel that McCain is an acceptable alternative. Dismissing them as bitter and juvenile is a mistake IMO. Maybe so. Are we allowed to dismiss them because they're totally clueless, given the relatively minor policy differences between Obama and Hillary, and the huge gulf between either of them and McCain?

[stolichnaya]

That site's own web poll reports that 69% of respondents will vote for Obama in the general.

Let these folks blow off some steam. This site is a crazy conspiracy website that is being given an audience by current events. Soon they will be just as marginalized as they should be.

Cripes, they're still on the "Whitey" tapes, which have been jettisoned even by the right wing crazies. I think the real audience for this site is probably 10,000 voters tops.

[Mr. Rosewater]

I thought her speech went a long way in rebuilding the bridge between her and Obama.

I think she still has a lot of work to do, but I am mollified.

[Jophiel]

Not all of it is bitterness. Many of these people have legitimate concerns about Obama and feel that McCain is an acceptable alternative. Dismissing them as bitter and juvenile is a mistake IMO. Obama needs these voters and I hope that he can address their concerns sufficiently to win their votes.Sure, as long as the Clinton supporters can keep an open mind and allow their concerns to be addressed.

There is, what I assume to be, a vocal minority of Clinton supporters who quite honestly just want to fold their arms, stamp their feet and demand to be pandered to under the threat of voting against their own interests. These are the ones posting on blogs and forums that they'll just suck up four years of McCain and they don't care about Iraq, the Supreme Court, the economy, etc so long as Obama loses and Clinton can run in 2012. And then they blame this largely because they think some Obama supporters were mean to them (of course, never considering the number of times we've all heard "Obamabot", "Cultist", "Kool-Aid", etc etc).

To those people, I say "fuck 'em". To vote in this country, you need to be a legal adult and, in my mind, that means you should act like and be treated like an adult.
Which means that people don't kiss your ass just to stop your temper tantrum. If you want to vote against your most perfect candidate's policies and issues just to try to punish the other guy, then there's no helping you and trying to appeal to a sense of logic is just a waste of precious time. Throw not your pearls before swine and all that.

As I said, I trust that this is a minority of Clinton supporters whose voice is only amplified by the fact that "moderate" supporters don't need to scream on blogs about how they've been abused and are gonna stick it to the man.

[Lakai]

Looks like the bloggers and pundits are happy with this one.


"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary campaign he has won. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," the New York senator said.

Looks like this turkey is done.

[Knorf]

Good speech, Hillary .... thank you for finally being a good sport.

[E-Sabbath]

I think the Gore-Bush argument was more 'Florida is fucked up'.

Whadda know. This year, the argument is still 'Florida. Still fucked up.'

[DrDeth]

Maybe it's already been covered but

Did Hillary actually win the popular vote count? Counting MI and FL or not counting them?


It was a virtual tie. One can count it so either has a small victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

Popular Vote (w/MIUncommitted to Obama)**17,773,626 48.0% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% Obama +61,703 +0.2%

[C3]

The numbers you present don't represent a tie, "virtual" or otherwise.

[Liberal]

It was a bit conspicuous that the whole family wore black. In any case, I'm willing to light up a peace pipe.

[Shayna]

It was a bit conspicuous that the whole family wore black. In any case, I'm willing to light up a peace pipe. Then I invite you to head over here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=470992).

[DrDeth]

The numbers you present don't represent a tie, "virtual" or otherwise.

1/10th of 1%, either way? That's a virtual tie, dude.

[RTFirefly]

It was a virtual tie. One can count it so either has a small victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

Popular Vote (w/MIUncommitted to Obama)**17,773,626 48.0% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% Obama +61,703 +0.2%
Yeppers: she wins if you count Michigan; he wins if you don't. It's a virtual tie, alright - if it's six of one or half-dozen of the other to you whether Michigan gets counted or not.

At any rate, so what? The measure by which the nomination is won or lost is delegates. I believe that's not a virtual tie.

And what's the point of considering the popular vote? I can think of two:

1) Persuading superdelegates. That train's not only left the station, but it's pulled into Denver.

2) Demonstrating that the scoring in terms of delegates was fundamentally illegitimate, and needs to be rejected. A 'virtual tie' doesn't achieve that.

So take your popular vote from Michigan, wad it up, and throw it in the wastebasket. Or take it and frame it on your wall. Either way, it means zip.

[RTFirefly]

However, I think Hillary has/had a better chance to win against McCain. And I think there's a colony of Martians living in your nose. :D

And, she's a better wheeler-dealer. That's YHO, not a factual matter. And Obama's demonstrated a fair degree of talent in that department, this year.

But if the Obama supporters would just stop the nasty personal attacks on Hillary, and be gracious winners (like Obama is himself) it'd help a lot. I'm good on that, so long as it doesn't extend to giving a free pass to presentations of bogus arguments by her fanboys.

[stolichnaya]

Popular vote measurements are 100% useless. 100%. There are different rules by state- there are states in which Republicans can vote, states in which only Democrats can vote. States that have mail-in votes. States that have early voting. States that have primaries and caucuses. States that voted in February when it was super cold out, states that voted in May when it was nice. States that voted when the Republican race was up for grabs, states that voted when it was decided. States that voted when there were six Democratic candidates, states that voted when there were two. There are people who could have voted on New Hampshire's primary date that were dead by the time that voting took place in South Dakota.

So let's stop with the popular vote thing. It is less than worthless. It is actively obfuscatory. It does not describe IN ANY WAY who has done better than who, and I include in that statement that the popular vote does not tell us that Obama did better than Clinton. It tells us NOTHING.

It should be instructive that there are like 8 potential ways to count the popular vote. It's a fool's errand.

[zamboniracer]

It seems to me that Clinton's argument that she has almost as many votes as Obama is very misleading. Obama's been concentrating his fire on McCain, instead of Clinton, for some time now. Obama didn't want to attack her for fear of alienating her, knowing that he needs all the votes he can get in November. Essentially, Obama's been using a prevent defense and running out the clock on Hillary, allowing her to uncontestedly pile up late yards, I mean votes, knowing that he already had an insurmountable numerical delegate advantage.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Yeppers: she wins if you count Michigan; he wins if you don't. It's a virtual tie, alright - if it's six of one or half-dozen of the other to you whether Michigan gets counted or not.

I guess my only concern is: Are we going to count Michigan in the general election?

[cosmosdan]

It was a virtual tie. One can count it so either has a small victory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Popular Vote (w/MI) 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

Popular Vote (w/MIUncommitted to Obama)**17,773,626 48.0% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% Obama +61,703 +0.2%

I see. Thanks. So counting MI where Obama wasn't even on the ballot she wins the popular vote. Looking at states where Obama was at least on the ballot he won the popular vote but not by much. It all depends on how you count it.

Considering the historic occasion of both their campaigns it's to close to matter.

[HoldenCaulfield]

I guess my only concern is: Are we going to count Michigan in the general election?
No need to be concerned. Michigan will be counted in the general. Why wouldn't it be?

[stolichnaya]

We're not going to count Puerto Rico in the general, but I bet your average popular vote theorist will add those votes to Clinton's column... as I said, it's a pointless endeavor.

Michigan will be counted in the general election because in the general election, Michigan counts. In the primary election, Michigan chose to violate the rules, so they "count" only at the behest of the rules committee.

As much as the total popular vote is a farce in the Democratic primary race, counting the Michigan popular vote is a sign that you're really down the rabbit hole, because the Michigan Democratic primary didn't even resemble an election in any meaningful way.

[RTFirefly]

I guess my only concern is: Are we going to count Michigan in the general election?And Hillary's done such a GREAT job of selling Michiganders on the Democratic Party, having elevated what might've otherwise been a quickly forgotten incident of party discipline into a big deal that everyone must be reminded of the injustice of daily, preferably several times a day.

Way the polls look, the possibility exists of Obama winning every Midwestern state except Michigan.

Yeah, I'll blame Hillary if we lose this one and Michigan is McCain's margin of victory. Thanks for being such a fighter. :rolleyes:

[Cheesesteak]

I guess my only concern is: Are we going to count Michigan in the general election?I would assume so. Of course, I would also assume that his name would appear on the ballot this time.

The reality is that Michigan's primary results were thoroughly tainted by the fact that the primary wasn't going to count, nobody campaigned there, and only Hillary's name was on the ballot. The idea of putting the raw vote count on equal footing (for analytical purposes) with states that had a normal primary is nonsensical.

What pollster would accept data in their analysis that excluded one of the candidates? What statistician would lump that data into the rest without making some sort of adjustment to account for the completely different conditions?

[DrDeth]

And what's the point of considering the popular vote? .

cosmosdan asked, I answered. It clearly doesn't mean "zip" to him.

And, dude? I am not HRC's fanboy (and I have only said this like a dozen times). I am a Gore fan, big time. Hillary is just OK, along with Obama.

But yes, I know, anyone who isn't a total Obama worshipper has to be a fan of his (or should I say "His") opponent. :rolleyes:

[DrDeth]

I would assume so. Of course, I would also assume that his name would appear on the ballot this time.

The reality is that Michigan's primary results were thoroughly tainted by the fact that the primary wasn't going to count, nobody campaigned there, and only Hillary's name was on the ballot. The idea of putting the raw vote count on equal footing (for analytical purposes) with states that had a normal primary is nonsensical.

What pollster would accept data in their analysis that excluded one of the candidates? What statistician would lump that data into the rest without making some sort of adjustment to account for the completely different conditions?

1. Well, unless Obama pulls his name again, as he figures he won't win in the General either, and thus not having his name will give him the same excuse this time.

2. Ah, "normal primary" like all the states with a Caucus, instead of letting everyone vote.

3. And as you can see, RCP has also counted the data giving Obama all the "undecided votes".

3.

[Jophiel]

1. Well, unless Obama pulls his name again, as he figures he won't win in the General either, and thus not having his name will give him the same excuse this time.Where did this idea that Obama withdrew from the MI ballot because he feared a loss come from? I mean, is there written evidence of this or was it just someone's guess that others thought sounded good when they wanted to speak poorly of Obama?

Obama withdrew from the MI ballot in early October 2007, right before the deadline to do so. Here's some polling numbers (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan12.html) from the same period:Michigan (Sept 27): Clinton 43, Obama 21, Edwards 14
Alabama (Oct 25): Clinton 40, Obama 21, Edwards 14
Georgia (Aug 8): Clinton 35, Obama 25, Edwards 17
Pennsylvania (Oct 8): Clinton 41, Obama 14, Edwards 11
Virginia (Oct 8): Clinton 49, Obama 25, Edwards 11
Connecticut (Oct 15): Clinton 43, Obama 16, Edwards 8
Minnesota (Sept 23): Clinton 47, Obama 22, Edwards 16
Washington (Oct 28): Clinton 44, Obama 29, Edwards 16
Ohio (Oct 8): Clinton 47, Obama 19, Edwards 11
N. Carolina (Sept 27): Clinton 37, Obama 18, Edwards 18
Wisconsin (Nov 8): Clinton 43, Obama 25, Edwards 15
New Jersey (Oct 15): Clinton 46, Obama 20, Edwards 9In fact, from that period, the only states I see where Obama leads is in Illinois (July poll, Obama +3) and Idaho (July poll, Obama +2).

Saying that Obama was afraid of a loss in Michigan seems silly to me. You may as well say that he should have dropped out of the race entirely because he wasn't better favored to win in any other states (with a few exceptions). If he thought wagign a campaign in Michigan would have been impossible, then why bother with all of the other states where he was behind by 10-20+ points? Baring evidence to the contrary, the whole "He was afraid to lose in MI" thing sounds as though it was made up from whole cloth.

[DrDeth]

Yeppers: she wins if you count Michigan; he wins if you don't. .

So, even if MI is not counted at all, Obama won by 1/10th of 1%


Yep, that's a Landslide worthy of Lyndon Johnson.

Boy oh boy, "trashed" indeed. 1/10th of 1%.

[DrDeth]

Saying that Obama was afraid of a loss in Michigan seems silly to me. You may as well say that he should have dropped out of the race entirely because he wasn't better favored to win in any other states (with a few exceptions). If he thought wagign a campaign in Michigan would have been impossible, then why bother with all of the other states where he was behind by 10-20+ points? .

Because, he figured he had nothing to lose. In the other states, even a loss gains you delegates. In MI a win just got bragging rights. He could defuse HRC's bragging rights by withdrawing- and indeed did so. Smart move. Of course, maybe Obama and his advisors weren't smart enough to figure that out, but since I- and many pundits, could, I doubt it. He ran a smart campaign. Don't you think so?

[Jophiel]

Because, he figured he had nothing to lose.Withdrawing because the race was invalid anyway and so there was no reason to validate the results with your name is a bit different from being afraid of a loss.

Perhaps yours wasn't the best quote to springboard from but it just put the question in my mind. Other posts I've read (perhaps elsewhere although it's been a common thing for me to come across) are much more explicit in stating that Obama was actively afraid of a loss, not just that he wanted to remove any credibility from the primary.

I can agree with, and even support, removing credibility from an invalid primary. I don't buy into the "He was afraid to lose it" scenario.

[DSeid]

While I hate to rehash what is, by now, ancient history, didn't the candidates all agree to not campaign there? He had every possibility to be competitive in states that he competed in, but no possibility of becoming competitive from behind in a state that he couldn't compete in. That would have been true with name on ballot or not but you are right, why give the opposition more braggin rights than you need to?

DrDeth, I doubt Gore is running now. Obama, imperfect as he may be, or McCain (and yes, Barr and Nader, I guess) are now your options. Or staying home.

I've spent most elections not being able to vote for my first choice as they dropped before the primaries even got to my state. I've had to vote for who I concluded was best of who was left.

Between those options left, who do you think is the best to assume the mantle of the presidency?

[DrDeth]

DrDeth, I doubt Gore is running now. Obama, imperfect as he may be, or McCain (and yes, Barr and Nader, I guess) are now your options. Or staying home.


Between those options left, who do you think is the best to assume the mantle of the presidency?

Yes, I know. :(

I'll probably vote for Obama. But he's going to win CA anyway I vote.

[RTFirefly]

And, dude? I am not HRC's fanboy (and I have only said this like a dozen times). I am a Gore fan, big time. Hillary is just OK, along with Obama. SNL had a skit many years ago about a straight guy who just happened to have all the 'gay' mannerisms. :D

[RTFirefly]

So, even if MI is not counted at all, Obama won by 1/10th of 1%


Yep, that's a Landslide worthy of Lyndon Johnson.

Boy oh boy, "trashed" indeed. 1/10th of 1%.Who said it was a landslide?

Kick out the one-sided MI primary, and three out of three counts that you gave add up to Obama wins in the popular vote. That's only a 'virtual' tie in your head.

JFTR, the term 'virtual tie' generally applies to polls and samples, and it means 'the difference is within the (usually 95%) sampling error.'

Once the vote's been taken, there's nothing virtual about it. That isn't a sample, it ain't virtual reality, that's the real thing, that's the entire vote, that's the 100% sample with zero sampling error.

And was the popular vote close? Yes, it was, and it was as close as it was because Hillary closed the gap considerably in that metric in what a sports fan might describe as 'garbage time.'

It's like the RB for a losing team who gains a whole bunch of yards on the ground when his team's down by 4 TDs late in the game, and the other team's going, "fine, run all you want." The RB might even be able to equalize the yards gained by the two teams. So what? Run, baby, run!

The popular vote wasn't close while the outcome was still in doubt. Obama basically punted WV, KY, and PR because he'd effectively won already. The popular vote was never close in any way that mattered.

Especially by the standard of the two reasons I gave above for the popular vote to matter. If you don't think those should be the standard, say why you think that is.