From here
Is there no limit to the lengths this bitch will go to? Is there no limit to her sense of entitlement to the office?
Can we please defeat her in every remaining primary? We need to nip the megalomaniac in the bud.
Bear in mind that I know nothing about American poilitics (well other then the I HATE BUSH bit) but why is Clinton more a meglomaniac then McCain or Barack?
This is a serious question. To me she seems pretty good. Barack also seems good. Bush has made me anti republican (like it matters! I can’t vote!).
To Dem voters what is the deciding point between him and her?
Um, because she thinks that she should be President, no matter what the voters think? McCain and Obama realize they must have the approval of the voters to win office. Clinton wants a coronation.
Surely that’s an internal party matter?
She’ll still have to get the popular votes to get the White House.
calm kiwi, the part about this that galls is that Hillary has “the system” working for her. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, America’s Democrats (and Republicans) had “machine” politics where a few party bosses decided how it was going to be, and then used favors (giving out jobs, passing favorable legislation, giving bribes, making threats, etc.) to make it happen. In theory, that’s not how it works anymore.
However, Bill Clinton has always practiced a particularly ferocious flavor of loyalty politics – he richly rewards folks who stick with him, but if you can’t be 100% on his side, he will burn that bridge and mark down your name for a reckoning. No sweat, really, except that a lot of today’s party leadership for the Democrats got there by being loyal (Bill) Clinton supporters, and now they’re in charge of making “fair” rules for how we’ll pick the next Democratic candidate.
Terry McAuliffe (DNC chairman and Clinton ally) set up a Super Tuesday that was intended to be a knockout blow to any candidate who couldn’t run a 24-state campaign, and it worked. Barack Obama ran – and is running – a 50-state campaign, and has now taken the lead in delegates assigned by the voters.
There is now only one obstacle to Senator Obama receiving the nomination: superdelegates. These are elected officials in the party (Hillary and Obama are both superdelegates), distinguished former politicians from the party (Bill Clinton is a superdelegate), and party officials (Terry McAuliffe is one). The superdelegates have about 800 of the 4,000 votes that will be cast at the convention, and it looks like Senators Clinton and Obama will split the vote fairly evenly, with Obama in front.
What Senator Clinton is asking is
(1) for Senator Obama to quit the race, although he is ahead
(2) for the superdelegates to cast their votes to effectively counter Senator Obama’s lead in the primaries, even though that lead is an expression of the will of the people.
It’s a bit like a schoolkid getting his father (who happens to be the headmaster) to overturn the results of a student council election. It’s dirty pool.
I am clearly very uneducated about this whole Primary buisness (its alien territory in New Zealand politics) but talk of superdelegates and school kids getting dads vote…isn’t that how Mr President got in?
Is it worse to have a husbands influence then a fathers influence?
Also from your linked article:
“Mr Obama has begun calling those “super delegates” - 795 congressmen and senior party officials who could break a dead heat - who are committed to Mrs Clinton, asking them to change their minds and help him wrap up the nomination.”
So HC calling two people = a coronation request, but Obama calling 795 get a free pass?
Maybe we should let the other ~20 states finish their primaries.
Here’s a napkin for your froth.
The United States’ system has extremely weak party discipline at all levels. This is especially true of the Democratic party, leading which is a lot like herding cats. Southern Democrats, for example, are traditionally allied with Republicans on many fronts.
The superdelegates were introduced in the first place because (to simplify a bit) the control of the nomination of the presidential candidate moved out of the hands of party officials and into the hands of the voters through the primary process. Superdelegates do not have to vote the way the primaries and caucuses came out; they are party officials and elected officeholders who are members of the party. (In theory, pledged delegates do not have to vote that way either but they generally do). The party has no further input into who is nominated or even who runs.
So it isn’t an internal party matter at all. Indeed, the objection of the OP is to its becoming an internal party matter.
Well, far less than 795 are committed to her. I agree with the froth, however. The article says after she wins Texas and Ohio she plans on making the call. As you say, let’s see what happens in the primaries before we get all upset.
If she wins Ohio and Texas, she won’t need to make the call - she’ll have the lead in pledged delegates again, and if she has that lead then the superdelegates would be right to unite behind her to present a picture of party unity. But for now she’s behind and slipping, so maybe those are chickens who should not yet be recorded on the census if you take my meaning.
As for the difference between Obama calling the superdelegates and Hillary calling the party leaders, it’s simple: both Obama and Clinton are lobbying the superdelegates, because it’s part of the game. Obama’s line of argument is “I won the primary in your state and I won the district you represent; the people who elected you have chosen me; therefore I deserve your vote.” Clinton’s line of argument is “One hand washes the other” (I can’t find the damned article, but there was a great piece talking about her approach to wooing supers – learn which issues are important to them and then promise them a piece of legislation. Classic Clinton!). Each is enlisting high profile allies in the effort. Each is aware that the supers will decide this contest.
But only Senator Clinton is calling for party officials to persuade her opponent to give up at the very moment he takes the lead! The brass balls it must take! I wonder how she walks in a straight line.
You obviously don’t live in Massachusetts, where the party machine(s) are still very much a part of political life.
Regarding the OP’s “froth”, I must admit the very cult-like atmosphere around Senator Obama is a bit disturbing to me. I think at this point, between these two candidates, it’s pretty much a popularity contest.
And how does this differ from the way Bush famously did business?
From the article, emphasis mine :
With respect to Obama standing down, she hasn’t called on anyone yet.
It doesn’t. Which is why I’m voting Obama.
Contrapuntal, fair point. Again - if she can win Texas and Ohio, more power to her, and she can call anyone she likes to ask for anything. I’d say that announcing her plans to pressure Obama to quit is a little presumptuous. If she wants to win, all she has to do is get the majority of delegates. If she can’t manage that, then her plans to ask Obama for anything but a conciliatory hug are irrelevant.
I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I’ve seen no evidence for this claim other than a UK newspaper (whose reliability is suspect based on past experience) saying that it is so.
There’s been plenty of sleaze coming from the Clinton camp (including not-so-subtle appeals to Hispanic voters to reject Obama based on alleged “traditional” voting patterns) - undocumented claims like the one in the Telegraph shouldn’t be taken as gospel at this point.
Or in other words, situation normal?
Quick hijack, then. As an American, I have a passing familiarity with the Guardian (aka the Grauniad) being a bit of a laughingstock for occasional typographical and factual errors. Is the Telegraph regarded similarly? Can I at least trust the London Times? Can a Brit or a European Doper weigh in with some capsule summaries of the various papers’ leanings?
I ask this honestly, because I know that our Washington Times has a reputable-sounding name, and might be quoted by a well-meaning Brit, but is known (to Americans anyway) as an incredibly biased right-wing paper owned by the Moonies. It’s about one-and-a-half steps above a tabloid.
Unnamed aides and advisers are cited, but nowhere does that article claim she is announcing anything.
But that is not what the article says. You’re wrong twice here.
It says that (a) Clinton’s “Camp,” not Clinton herself, are calling for Obama to leave the race (b) assuming the condition is met that Clinton wins Texas and Ohio.
If Clinton DOES with Texas and Ohio she would, in fact, have a substantial lead and considerable momentum at that point, and uniting behind her may be wise for the Democratic Party at that point. It would make perfect sense for them to approach Obama and ask him to drop out, given that precondition.
What’s at issue is that at the rate things are going, winning Texas and Ohio looks like a tough job for Clinton. She is losing, and the fact that she is losing has become the political story of the day, and will only cause her to lose more support.
What are her chances of winning Texas and/or Ohio? I wonder if she’ll concede if she doesn’t win them.