He had committed to voting the way his district voted.
Yep. From my linked article above:
Typical Clintonism, pandering to his constituents and stacking the deck by effectively increasing the number of delegates awarded to his district.
Eh. I’m not going to fault him. By the rules, the supers can throw darts at a tearsheet to determine their vote. If he wants to reinforce his constituents’ choice, so be it. Obama’s going to come away from this with the nomination, despite outliers like this guy.
Oh, don’t misunderstand me. I do not mean to disparage him.
Obama has picked up 4 today.
Isn’t that like telling someone, “You’d sell your own mother out for a dollar… but I don’t mean that in a bad way?” 
So people are saying she’s in this for two reasons…
VP slot, and for Obama to retire her debt.
VP slot is out of the question. The Clintons have far too much baggage and Obama doesn’t need that.
The retiring of debt is interesting. Say if she demands 10 million from Obama to end this, he’d probably be better off than spending more money. Kos seems to think that this is what he’ll have to do but I disagree.
Why is someone who is 10 million in the red in a position to force Obama to spend money? It makes little sense. Plus her bargaining position is so weak now there’s no reason for Obama not to wait this thing out. He should wait for WV and see how that turns out. If he wins, he gets his cake and gets to eat it too. Clinton defeated. If he wins WV he’ll win KY too because it would be obvious that she’d become the Mike Huckabee of the race.
I say Obama should reject any kind of deal to pay her off. He won fair and square and her inability to see that is not his problem. She could have stopped when she ran out of money but she didn’t. It’s not his fault she couldn’t get the dough. Furthermore, the Clintons are worth 100 million. They don’t need it. I think HRC is hoping for WV miracle.
Apropos of little, an interesting tidbit from DCW:
Of note is that one of those 4 is a former Clinton supporter who switched to Obama, which makes the net for today; Obama 4, Clinton 0.
Out of curiosity, I crunched the numbers, and while Clinton wouldn’t be the nominee (yep, she’s lying) yet, she’d be pretty close. Not counting Florida & Michigan, it would be Clinton: 1919 Obama: 1752. Adding in Florida under GOP rules (only half the delegates seated) gives Clinton 2024 with 2090 needed to clinch, and Obama still with 1752. I won’t add in Michigan simply because “IF” the Dems were playing under GOP rules, Obama and Edwards would not have removed their names from the ballot, so it’s absolutely pointless to speculate what would have happened under a different set of rules.
Are you against capitalism? That is the American way dammit!
No, he is. He just can’t be elected to another term, per the 22nd Amendment. (“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” - underlining mine.) There’s nothing in the Constitution that prevents a two-term President from succeeding to the Presidency by other means than election.
It’s more than that. If they were playing under a different set of rules, they would have done everything differently.
ETA: Removed a disputed claim from DNC member.
Bolding mine.
What’s the matter with President Obama running as an incumbent in 2012? Does he have to return to his home planet, a la Poochie?
There’s something wrong with that analysis, but I can’t quite pin it down. I’m pretty sure the Vice-Presidential candidate must fulfill all of the qualifications of holding the presidency, including (imo) the not-elected-twice-to-office rule, but I can’t say for certain if I’m correct in that.
kaylasdad99:
Well, uh…that is to say…uh…I got nothin’. Early onset Budweiser’s. Thank you for pointing out my shitwitted stupidity, rest assured I won’t forget.
She’s got nothing to offer. If she quits campaigning he’ll be able to cut back on spending, but he still won’t win West Virginia or those other states. Realistically I don’t think either of them can do anything to alter the outcomes of the last few primaries. So what’s his motivation? Paying off her millions in debt so he doesn’t have to… spend millions to campaign? Even if he comes out ahead financially it’s can’t be worth the hit he’d take in the general election. I also doubt the debt is that big a deal to her. At this point Obama can sit back and wait out the last few primaries, knowing the superdelegates are going to put him over the top after June 3 if not sooner.
Here’s some commentary on that from the US Supreme Court Center, jayjay. An exerpt:
The Twenty-Second Amendment has yet to be tested or applied. Commentary suggests, however, that a number of issues could be raised as to the Amendment’s meaning and application, especially in relation to the Twelfth Amendment. By its terms, the Twenty-Second Amendment bars only the election of two-term Presidents, and this prohibition would not prevent someone who had twice been elected President from succeeding to the office after having been elected or appointed Vice-President. Broader language providing that no such person ‘‘shall be chosen or serve as President . . . or be eligible to hold the office’’ was rejected in favor of the Amendment’s ban merely on election.2 Whether a two-term President could be elected or appointed Vice President depends upon the meaning of the Twelfth Amendment, which provides that ‘‘no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President.’’ Is someone prohibited by the Twenty-Second Amendment from being ‘‘elected’’ to the office of President thereby ‘‘constitutionally ineligible to the office’’? Note also that neither Amendment addresses the eligibility of a former two-term President to serve as Speaker of the House or as one of the other officers who could serve as President through operation of the Succession Act.3
[sup]2[/sup] H.J. Res. 27, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947) (as introduced). As the House Judiciary Committee reported the measure, it would have made the covered category of former presidents ‘‘ineligible to hold the office of President.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 17, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. at 1 (1947).
[sup]3[/sup] 3 U.S.C. § 19. For analysis of the Twenty-Second Amendment and its applicability to the various scenarios under which a person can succeed to the office, see Bruce G. Peabody and Scott E. Gant, The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment, 83 MINN. L. REV. 565 (1999).