Hillary wants to go to the convention. If she has only her date, Bill, she will still want to go to the convention. If she has to go alone, I think she will do that.
At some point, someone made some suggestion that the benefit of the Democratic Party, or the United States of America would enter into the decision. I find that view to lack evidence in the form of past actions on the part of the Candidate.
Tris
Wednesday can’t come soon enough. I wish that Obama’s reputed cache of undeclared superdelegates waiting for wednesday would just declare tomorrow and end it already. It would be nice if Obama was able to go ver over the top on tuesday with additional pledged delegates and basically become confirmed indisputedly as the nominee that night.
Not that I have any hope of ever seeing Hillary give a concession speech anymore. She’s making Mike Huckabee look like a hard headed realist at this point (and at least Huckabee ran a good natured, clean campaign).
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Wednesday can’t come soon enough. I wish that Obama’s reputed cache of undeclared superdelegates waiting for wednesday would just declare tomorrow and end it already. It would be nice if Obama was able to go ver over the top on tuesday with additional pledged delegates and basically become confirmed indisputedly as the nominee that night.
Not that I have any hope of ever seeing Hillary give a concession speech anymore. She’s making Mike Huckabee look like a hard headed realist at this point (and at least Huckabee ran a good natured, clean campaign).
[/QUOTE]
I heard the word ‘suspend’ blurted out by George the Greek this morning. It was quickly scoffed by Robert Gibbs - who thinks her campaign has an exit strategy for this week already planned.
I predict Hillary at the convention backing Obama fervently.
Anyone else catch Obama’s gushing over Clinton today?
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
I worried, in a close election, enough might.
[/QUOTE]
Right, and Fla is going to be very very close, unless HRC is the Dem candidate- or perhaps on the ticket as veep. Fla is a key state, the 4th largest votewise and one of the few which isn’t clearly red or blue.
This was a fair compromise.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Anyone else catch Obama’s gushing over Clinton today?
[/QUOTE]
I just did on CSPAN. I thought it was very gracious.
[hijack]
Look, I support Obama for the single reason that I think he has a better shot at winning in November than Clinton does - the Hillary hatred has just been too strong ever since the Bill Clinton admin, not just among Repubs, but also Democrats. Their policies are very similar (that is, Obama’s and Clinton’s), Clinton has actually learned to express warmth (whether or not she feels it), and she has worked well across the aisle in the Senate.
Trying to tear down primary opponents has been something done for many election cycles - ever since it became clear (thanks mostly to the Republicans) that negative advertising works. Obama did enough of it that if Edwards had still been in the running, my mom would have voted for him as the only major candidate who didn’t engage in that. I wasn’t nearly as aware because I rarely watch TV.
Why are so many of you Obama supporters so eager to demonize Clinton? You put the worst possible interpretation on anything she says, you claim dishonesty on her part that has never been proven, and you put her down for running out of campaign funds when it’s obvious that she spent her money early on, operating under the belief that she would continue to be the favored candidate. Under the circumstances, it was perfectly understandable. Unfortunately for her, the funding unexpectedly dried up. So what’s so wrong about putting her own funds into the campaign?
BUt I’d like Obama supporters to consider two things. One is that if Obama for any reason is not the Democratic nominee, Clinton is the next best thing we’ve got. She has broad support (else the race wouldn’t be so close), her policies are quite similar to Obama’s, and she’s certainly less of an ‘insider’ than McCain. The other is, if you continue with the railing against Clinton, you only alienate the hard core Clinton supporters, of whom there are many. We really don’t need them either voting for McCain or abstaining altogether.
Just because you think he’s good, why does she have to be bad? Personally, I’m delighted that the nomination is going to go to one or the other. As I said before, I prefer Obama. But that doesn’t make me blind to Clinton’s many good qualities. She’s certainly preferable by a long shot to McCain!
[/hijack]
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think, at the Convention, Obama should ask for his extra four Michigan delegates to be seated for Hillary. Just let the baby have her bottle and take the issue off the table. In fact, maybe he should announce an intention to do that now. Those 4 delegates mean nothing anyway.
[/QUOTE]
He’s even going further than that.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Hillary wants to go to the convention. If she has only her date, Bill, she will still want to go to the convention. If she has to go alone, I think she will do that.
[/QUOTE]
Not to worry - they’re both superdelegates. They’ve got reserved seating. 
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Demconwatch has Obama needing 48 to win.
[/QUOTE]
That includes the 17 delegates he’s believed to have won in today’s Puerto Rico primary, just so it’s clear what’s included in the running score.
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Which is essentially the number he needed on Friday night. Not too shabby, considering.
[/QUOTE]
And he should pick up another ~17 in Tuesday’s primaries, leaving him ~31 short of victory.
The difference is that, if the RBC hadn’t met, that number would have been ~7 rather than ~31. Obama surely could have worked the phones on Monday to get 7 or 8 supers to commit, so that he’d have been over the top once the returns from SD and MT came in.
Which would have made it easier to get the remaining superdelegates, who Al Giordano described like this:
to finally stampede for Obama.
Gotta admit, I see the last 31 or so superdelegates needed for the win, trickling in over the next week or two. Obama’s declaration of victory is going to be pretty anticlimatic.
Oy - I agree with you. I don’t know how long you have been following these threads in GD, but if you look, there are quite a few of us who actually expend a little effort saying positive things about Hillary. When she does something that warrents a :smack: why did she say THAT, or whatever people usually respond. I am not immune to the occasional slight, but usually it’s because I’m tired and should get some sleep, not political vitriol.
[QUOTE=Oy!]
Why are so many of you Obama supporters so eager to demonize Clinton?
[/QUOTE]
As several of us have explained time and again, most of us don’t hate Clinton merely because she opposes our Godking Obama. I would have been pretty happy with either Clinton or Obama at the beginning of the year.
However, her actions have not been inspiring or honorable during the primary. She’s taken pages from the Republican attack machine in going after Obama, she’s made some very weird gaffes, she’s proven hypocritical about the MI/FL delegates (she was happy to keep them from being seated until they became necessary for her to win), and she’s handled her campaign’s finances extremely poorly.
Some of these, you might say, are just par for the course with politicians. And I’d agree. In other circumstances, we’d probably sigh over her problems and suck it up. But she’s competing against Obama, who tries his hardest to do more than pay lip service to the notions of integrity and honor and who has proven to have incredible organizational skills. There’s no reason to accept failures and negativity in a candidate when we have a better option.
Yes, Clinton comes out looking worse because she’s up against Obama. But the bias against her has hardly been constructed out of whole cloth.
And remember all those arguments we used to hear about how the rules said the superdelegates were there to make a decision, regardless of how people voted, and all of us who thought we, the Democratic voters, were actually choosing a nominee and were upset that that might not be the case, should just suck it up and deal with it?
Given that even a whole bunch of the superdelegates themselves didn’t get the memo that they were supposed to get off of their fannies and make a decision of some sort, it hardly seems reasonable to expect Democratic voters to have had any expectation that superdelegates were supposed to play this role.
So I still think it would have been a total and complete crock if the supers had overturned the outcome of the primaries and caucuses. Fortunately, it looks as if that door is just about shut.
In addition to all of that, she has Harold Ickes working for her.
Nuff said.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
However, her actions have not been inspiring or honorable during the primary. She’s taken pages from the Republican attack machine in going after Obama, she’s made some very weird gaffes, she’s proven hypocritical about the MI/FL delegates (she was happy to keep them from being seated until they became necessary for her to win),
[/QUOTE]
And even then she only wanted the votes for her to count. Those Obama and Edwards supporters who voted uncomitted apparently don’t count.
All reasons she will not prevail. Luckily, it’s no where near close enough for anyone to lose sleep over. Unless, you are one of the rabid Live With Clinton or Die folks - then you may be losing some sleep. Anyone see Terry McCauliffe this morning? Damn I haven’t seen dark circles like that in a long while.
[QUOTE=Oy!]
[hijack]
Why are so many of you Obama supporters so eager to demonize Clinton?
[/hijack]
[/QUOTE]
Her claims of being ahead in the popular vote. By no reasonable way of counting votes has she ever been ahead. Shes clearly not going to convince the people who matter, the SDs who will decide this. The only thing shes accomplished with her utterly ridiculous claims is to make her followers believe she somehow was cheated out of the nomination when shes clearly lost it fair and square.
Her self-serving and shamelessly hypocritical pursuit of the Florida and Michigan votes while not wanting to award any to Obama for actually doing what he was supposed too and removing his name from the ballot in Michigan.
Her negative campaigning against Obama throughout the entire process. The Republicans will have an easy time with adverticing for the general election, hell all they have to do is scratch off Hillarys name and write in McCain.
“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” nuff said
Really, i could go on but why bother? i went from being a Clinton supporter when it looked like she was going to be the nominee, to hoping for a joint ticket with both of them in any combination, to hoping the bitch dissapears from public life and we never have to hear from her shrill lying entitled worthless ass again.
Can’t forget when Hillary said, on a couple of different occasions, that McCain was more qualified to deal with foreign policy challenges than Obama is.
It’s fine for her to say she thinks she’s more qualified, but to say the other party’s nominee is more qualified than your party’s likely nominee, that’s stepping over the line.
After the voting at the RBC meeting Alice Huffman expressed her thoughts succinctly and honestly, and this is what was said of her remarks:
The hecklers were on Huffman, and Huffman is a Clinton Supporter. This shows the mindset many of these people have. It’s ludicrous in my opinion to behave that way. Clinton may have had many gaffes but she is going to be campaigning for Obama before long, and her most ardent supporters need to recognize they are democrats, not republicans by default if their candidate didn’t make it.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Can’t forget when Hillary said, on a couple of different occasions, that McCain was more qualified to deal with foreign policy challenges than Obama is.
It’s fine for her to say she thinks she’s more qualified, but to say the other party’s nominee is more qualified than your party’s likely nominee, that’s stepping over the line.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeh, that one had me screaming billingsgate at the TV, you betcha. Definitely across the line, and I don’t doubt it played a part in the superdelegates’ shift to Obama.
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
I have this mental image of anti-Obama attack ads with McCain’s face crudely superimposed over Hillary’s.