No giving up
Senior politicians want to be loved but, if they cannot be loved, they usually make do with being respected, or feared, or held in some kind of esteem, high or low. What they cannot abide, and (perhaps) cannot survive, is . Perhaps in Pennsylvania "Deer Hunter" country, their iMacs are not yet configured for YouTube - but this is the gaffe that keeps on damaging the Clinton campaign.
It puts revelations like in the shade.
But they won't give up - oh no. This line - chilling to many Democrats - from an LA Times profile of Harold Ickes (who once worked for Jesse Jackson), sums up what ruthlessness really means and how the Denver Convention might look:
"Unhappy about the way Jackson was being treated at the '88 convention, Ickes hatched plans that included a threat to hand out 1,700 plastic whistles to Jackson supporters so they could disrupt the proceedings. Some of his ideas unnerved even Jackson; Ickes remembers him saying, "Ickes, you want to get me run out of white man's America."
The whole piece is .
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
22% of Democrats want Hillary to step aside
but
22% of Democrats want Obama to step aside
why is it that people never report on calls for Obama to step aside?
Justin, That was funny. Now it'll be in everyones mailbox by noon tomorrow. I believe that operation "CHAOS" sponsered thru Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network has alot to do with Hillary actually being in the race at this time. Without the crossover votes spured by 'ElRushbo' to keep the Democrats fueding, Hillary would've been History after Texas and Ohio. I'm surprised she is so driven to win at the cost of the party. It just proves she is deluded as to think she IS the heir apparent.
Justin,
Thank you for your latest blog.
Clinton鈥檚 campaign is beginning to look like an average day in Bush鈥檚 presidency.
First you have the soundbites, the ridiculous arguments nicely packaged to cover a flaw or create an issue where there isn鈥檛 one. Experience? Abe Lincoln never had any experience. Will anything short of being a former first wife cover for the amount of experience needed to set this country on the right path? How about 鈥渟he鈥檚 a fighter?鈥 Like George Bush, both are 鈥渇ighters鈥 in that they were willing to derail the country to support their own personal agendas.
Clinton wants to be president very badly. I don鈥檛 believe she cried intentionally the first time, but did so the second. The desire is so intense that she鈥檚 willing to sacrifice the electability of any democrat to the presidency. Even in the face of impossible odds, she 鈥渇ights on,鈥 dragging us through the election to defeat, much like Bush dragging us through Iraq.
And it seems Clinton鈥檚 found her Karl Rove.
I think the most interesting story today has been that Clinton has not been paying all her campaign bills to small suppliers causing them real financial problems.
And Machiavelli apart, I think Clinton's problem may be not being loved or feared by her Senate colleagues: if my instinct is right, Obama is ahead on Senate endorsements.
For the good of the American Empire, Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the race to be the candidate who is rejected by the Supreme Court.
In response to the first post...
The media doesn't respond to calls for Obama to step aside because he is leading the race in pledged delegates. Right now the only way for Clinton to win is to 1. Convince Superdelegates to go against the popular vote (highly unlikely) or 2. Win the popular vote (also unlikely). The insinuation that Obama is somehow in an equal standing with Clinton is misleading.
The top 10 myths keeping Hillary in the race:
xx
ed
David Barker- polls like that are rubbish anyway and it is a bit rich to imply that the press are somehow not reporting on Obama's pitfalls. The man has just weathered a ferocious three weeks. The fact is that Clinton is not liked. She unites Republicans like no other, which is not good considering the fact that the Republicans are split at the moment. She has been and always will be the archetypal ruthless career politician. Her supporters cant deny that, it is a matter of public record!!!!
SurveyUSA has turned out to be one of the most accurate polling operations during the primaries.
Their most recent favorability numbers - interviews conducted nationwide on Tuesday 26 March, after Hillary Clinton's Bosnia mistake - give Clinton 35% favorable and 42% unfavorable. Not very different from Obama (38%/40%) and McCain (34%/39%).
Hardly a compelling reason for Clinton to drop out, especially as she has a good chance of winning a few more primaries, and arriving at Denver in a stronger position than she is in now.
I'm sick of these elections. I can't believe this is all we have to choose from. I think there's a greater organization hat's playing the Americans for fools. After all, the media and pretty much everything else is controlled by a phantom part of the oevrall world leadership. Paranoid? Maybe. But I've researched enough to know that people are being dooped because most people are ignorant and don't do their research. This is going to be the downfall of the U.S. - blind ignorance. This country needs an enima!
The main reason people want Hillary to leave is not because she is behind, but because she, Bill, and surrogates have repeatedly suggested in various insulting ways that Obama would be an inferior President to McCain. But if she is out of the race, she would probably do more damage to the Democratic Party. She is clearly now playing for a future election against a weakened President McCain. So as a loose cannon entrusted with rallying the troops, she will likely try to rally people around herself for the future instead. I predict that she will try to torpedo Obama after the Democratic convention; it is the perfect self-preservation move. As for the 22% of people who want Obama (who is in first place!) to drop out, those are probably -- as Michael Barone suggested -- people who are emotionally invested in Clinton and simply angry that they, and their candidate, didn't play the game better. Not to worry though -- I think she will have the last laugh in 2012.
Is it possible that Clinton's only staying in the race because her advisor threw an early-out penalty in her contract?
It might be difficult for a non American to understand what is really at the core of the Democratic nomination race this election.
After having been run for years by a very left leaning majority of the party, Bill Clinton and cohorts brought the Democratic party to the middle ground before his election, a place that the Republicans had left open to invasion while they courted their far right constituents.
Bill Clinton has long been seen as Republican light by many leftists.
Shoot up to today. Once again, the battle for control of the Democratic party has erupted in the inner circle between the far left and the middle left.
Now we have Obama and company vying for power by pandering to the far left within the party. Hillary as the moderate faction leader is having a hard time appealing to the far left due to Obama.
The problem is that Obama isn't a far left politician. His voting record is very close to Hillary's. His history is as a mainstream liberal. Unfortunately he is alienating the middle of the democratic party and he may pay a big price for this if nominated by the Democrats.
I agree that back room deals go against the nature of democracy, yet the Democrats are now having to cope with a poor situation. What seemed like an easy victory after eight years of Bush, is turning into a dirty public fight for the nomination. It is hurting them dearly. It is embarrassing for Democrats and cause for jubilation amongst Republicans.
A Republican friend of mine described it as watching the Democratic party disintegrate before the election.
Next is the issue of who is more electable in the general election vs. McCain. Many of Obama's victories are in states that are impossible to win for the Democrats. In Wyoming for instance, he won the caucus there and gained some points toward his delegate count. Yet Wyoming will never be a Democratic state in a general election. It means nothing in the campaign for the white house.
The Obama camp is claiming he is the more electable because he has more delegate votes. Hillary's camp claims she is strong because she is ahead in the popular vote and is trying to prove she is more popular in the big electoral college states like Pennsylvania. Bringing us to the Obama vs Mcain scenario where McCain may be able to grab more of the centrist voters.
We also have the issue of the states who's votes aren't being counted. Those states alone make up a huge percentage of Democratic voters nationally, not to mention electoral college votes. Despite everything that is being said, they cannot afford to disenfranchise those voters. Doing so spells failure at the general election.
Lets also not forget the caucus system for voting for candidates. Some states run a caucus. A caucus can only be voted in if a person shows up to the meeting. Whoever has a stronger grass roots organization can flood a caucus and win delegates despite what the popular vote may be for that state.
There is also the problem that some states allow non Democrats to vote in their caucuses. Republicans could vote in favor of the candidate they view as more beatable by their party.
I am fairly biased in this election, but I am also very pragmatic. The real failure for the Democratic party is in it's party leaders and how they have allowed this nomination cycle to degenerate. Howard Dean would be top on that list.
Hillary supporters are starting to take a good look at McCain. Ironically I have read online comments from Obama supporters claiming they would rather vote for McCain than Hillary. I suspect it is too late for the Democrats to repair the damage they have done to themselves.
To quote my brother in law "They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory."
Justin - just out of curiosity, what date in the proceedings was it that you lost any semblance of objectivity? Your support for Obama has been pretty consistent throughout, however it now borders on the ridiculous.
Have you any idea how transparent your posts are in respect of your support of an Obama victory? The inference that people in Pennsylvania are stupid hence the likelihood of them giving Clinton victory in the primary is shocking. You should be ashamed.
That link was incredibly funny!
I don't think I have ever laughed so much while sitting at my desk.
I am finding the increasing calls for a rapid end to the Democratic nomination to be ludicrous.
If the Democrats are so keen for everything to be wrapped up well ahead of the convention, then why do they have such a convoluted, rolling programme of voting held across many many months - it is hardly fair to expect whoever may be trailing slightly to just give in, without letting other states also have their say. Why not just have all the voting on the same day, or within a few weeks at the start of the year?
Not only that, but Florida and Michegan have actually been barred from sending delegates to the convention because they chose to hold their contests EARLIER than they should have! Farcical.
I am wondering Justin,when You will report on the Healthcare Debate .As far as I remember it,You have not writen one word on the subject as yet.The Healthcare situation is America's disgrace and the most important issue in this Election.
As a Brit i am continually fascinated by this campaign, and more so if the democratic race.
Of the two candidates i feel probably Clinton has the edge on policy and Obama on personality and likeablity. However, with the recent Rev. White problem this might have damaged Obama [as recent polls show in Pennsylvania].
But what does this mean for the race, will Obama lose the delegate race? No. Will he Lose the popular vote? Possibly. And it is the latter question that is probably most telling of recent events. What it tells me is Obama might not have chance of winning any of the remaining primaries, and in some cases will lose by a big margin. This, plus the Rev. White issue, may have Obama supporters a little worried and therefore the greater calls for Clinton to step aside.
But should she go? In my opinion, no. And the Reason why she shouldn't? because Obama hasn't won yet and until he wins it is not a fair competition, otherwise your basically crowning your candidate without proper 'due process'. This has some echo's of Gordon Brown's coronation, here in Britain, as labour leader and look where it has got us today.
So ultimatly the Democrates should let the race run it's course till it's natural conclusion [whatever that maybe]. And maybe, whoever wins the popular vote should win the candidacy, as a lot of people are suggesting. At least it will be fair win and it will be, as we brit's good at saying, the 'People's Choice'.
It's funny, I think all the Hillary bashing going on is ridiculous. SHe is still winning in Pennsylvannia, despite this 'mis-speaking'. The point is, people are not decided who they want! Maybe people prefer mis-speaking about one incident as First Lady to the alternative... A man whose advisor, close friend and preacher said hideous things about a national tragedy.
Maybe it's less about configuring youtube and more about two flawed candidates. Obama might have done a good job of hope, change etc at first, but I think people are beginning to realise that his rhetoric is all vacuous. Hence what I perceive as a dwindling interest in the Democrat Election, at least among my University peers anyway.
HRC has to withdraw for the Repubicans to know their Democratic opponent in the fall.Mathematically,there is no hope of her catching up except the supperdelegates do the unthinkable at Denver.
The HRC i know will never give up
particularly 'cos of this sense of entitlement to the throne her campeign has imbibed from the inception of the primary election.
Truely,i forsee a doom for the Democratic party in November if things continue this way
I think it's good that Hillary Clinton is staying in. After all it's really a tight race and the gap is minimal plus it is bringing people out to vote. It is democracy and it is good. Plus I want her to win. Good luck to all of them. Looking forward to what's to come.
Haven't the Texas caucuses now been called as going mainly for Obama, giving him the state and increasing his lead to around 130 delegates?
Clinton was saying that Obama is trying to discourage people voting. Sounds like desperation to me. She should withdraw as Leahy and Pelosi have suggested. When the Texas caucus results are finally tallied, it will likely show Obama with an overall delegate lead. One of the 'big states' that she is now touting as having a lead among Hispanic votes along the border.
I just couldnt continue reading your article on Clinton steping aside. Your negativity doesnt invite me to do so. Is this the journalism of today? Just by your smile I can see you lack profesionalism. Maybe you should go back to your journalism studies.
Why does the Democratic party want her to pull out?
The race hasn't finsihed yet and pulling out now makes an oxymoron of democrate race.....
You said people are laughing at her... I've not heard that.
You seem in the can for Obama much like the rest of the media. People are still voting in large numbers for Hillary.
People are scared to talk about Obama's negative for fear of being branded a racist.
Obama is a liar.. we don't need an affirmative action president.
Yeah... I'm not looking forward to the convention. Not that I'm personally worried. Being from Pennsylvania, I'll naturally be packing my own firearm, probably my Taurus 45.
Under the present system, with the superdelegates able to hold sway, it would be an unprecedented act of political altruism and self sacrifice, it seems to me, for Hillary to pull out when in fact she still has a real chance.
For the democrats, it's about winning the election, not respecting the will of the people. In fact, the superdelegate process was created to address a situation where the "will of the people" (ex., their votes) resulted in the nomination of a candidate that the party believes is unelectable. In that case, the superdelegates could override the will of the people and select a candidate they believe could actually win the election.
This is not unusual for the democratic party, which believes that people need protection from themselves.
!
And HRC's "lead" in Pennsylvania has dropped to 5%, according to Rasmussen.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
A response to Alex R "Maybe people prefer mis-speaking about one incident as First Lady to the alternative... A man whose advisor, close friend and preacher said hideous things about a national tragedy'. The last polls I saw indicate that Obama is NOT in fact losing ground to HRC. Possibly because some people have seen this - - and have realized that a sound bite of one sentence cannot possible tell you what a sermon (or any speech or writing) is about.
Obama has recently had the endorsement of the junior Senator of Pennsylvania and a rally of over 20,000 at Penn State, which doesn't sound like he's losing support. I don't think he'll win Pennsylvania, but I do think he may reduce HRC's lead - which means that he'll continue to lead in the delegate count.
Let me say I'm not an American and so have no vote in all this. However, like so many, I am fascinated by the shenanigans of an American election. I would have liked to see a female president of the USA, and I liked Bill and defended Hillary's decisions about their relationship which I told everyone was nobody's business but their own. BUT - I've been turned off by her actions in this campaign - like 'I wouldn't have him (Mr Wright) as my pastor" - when there is evidence that the "chickens coming home to roost" statement is not an accurate reflection of the pastor's sermon - it's actually a very good sermon; and even the pastor of the Union Methodist Church where the Clintons worshiped in Washington has issued a statement that Rev Wright is well respected minister - it's on the church's web site at www.foundryumc.org. Like calling it a "misspeak" when she told the same tale three times, dismissed those like the comedian Sinbad who said there was no sniper fire, insisted that this was what happened and only backed down when a video of the actual arrival hit YouTube. And now like having as a campaign manager someone who was a director of a company that not only profited from the subprime fiasco but was also involved in practices that HRC now condemns. Those mortgages were marketed on the assumption that there would never be a drop in housing prices - an assumption that just a little bit of experience should tell you is not supported by past price cycles - so campaign manager? I think not. Ans yes, I saw that she was not involved in the day-to-day operations, but don't you find out what kind of company you're getting involved in when you become a director? But you expect Obama to have heard every single word his pastor preached over a 20 year period, and to then you pretend to believe (I don't think someone of HRC's intelligence could really believe this) that he must have agreed with everything the pastor said because he didn't leave the church? Oh dear! I now have to leave my church!!!
Actually, there is along tradition of laughing at American politicians. Ours are used to it. I would think that the British would be too, or has Punch been forgotten already?
Alex R. (poster 11)
Yes there is now a relatively less interest in the Democratic nomination from my young peers also, but tell you what, they are turned off because of the nastiness that has been thrown into the bowl from the Hillary campaign.
Obama's rhetoric of change is still held highly but many are wondering if blue-collar America will jettison change because of fear. Hillary's fear and shock tactics threaten's the Democratic party as it strengthens ring-wing America.
Democrats are rightly worrried and the few brave enough to ask her to quit, do so partly because they are deeply troubled about how at ease she is with using right-wing campaign methods. Off course some are just plain Obama supporters.
The Rev. Wright episode was shocking, but if you still feel deeply offended, then you should perhaps take the time to read the sermon transcripts which are online. He is clearly not a hate-preacher as some media are peddling.
Obama may lose in Pensylvania, but he has already made up some ground he lost after the Wright video-clips came out. Most recent gallup poll shows he has resumed his lead over Hillary in national electability. Now that's a story for Justin...
I'm sorry to be so critical but these blogs are awful. Today's must have taken all of 5 minutes...
For the moment it is still possible for Clinton to pull ahead in the popular and delegate count even if it is impossible for either to win in the absence of the superdelegates. That fact alone means that she has an obligation to run until at least the end of the primaries. Otherwise she is doing a large diservice to the people that have voted for her so far.
That being said, whoever is leading at that point (hopefully in both the delegate and the popular vote) should and most likly will recieve enough of the superdelegates support to take them over the top. Assuming that Michigan and Flordia can be at least somewhat resolved that should save the party from any major damage in the national polls. Of course it will still likley cost them Michigan and Flordia given that a revote is basically impossible at this point.
I am supporter of Obama but I don't agree that HC should pull out from the race until all the votes are counted or she decided to pull out voluntarily.
Hold your horses. What is all this nonsense about who will win the "popular" vote?
There is no such thing as an overall, nationwide "popular" vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. Some states ONLY have caucuses. Some states ONLY have a primary vote. Some states allow voters to vote in the other party's primary. Caucuses (to my knowledge) require the participant to declare a party affiliation and buy elbow pads (and of course are far to lengthy for Limbaugh's people to bother obstructing).
Get it? NEITHER candidate can win the "popular" vote ... because not every state HAS a primary vote. That is what makes New Hampshire (primary vote) and Iowa (caucus) so interesting at the beginning ... Is the orange juicier or the apple crisper? Two different systems.
Texas (the fools) took the McBoth approach, with the added monkey wrench of cross-party voting (nearly 10 percent of the ballots in Texas marked only the Presidential candidate, suggesting Republicans turned out in a serious way to defeat Obama).
Both caucuses (meetings to argue and choose delegates) and primaries (voting in a booth) produce DELEGATES. States are apportioned delegates, like congressional representatives, by population. Further, Democrat candidates are each apportioned delegates according to the primary vote or the caucus vote. Republicans have a winner-take-all system -- which is why they produce a nominee so early in the game. Republicans coronate, not nominate. Dems like to fight.
Pledged delegates are chosen for do-or-die loyalty to the candidate. As Jonathan Alter (Newsweek) says, Hillary won't get even one of Obama's pledged delegates. Not one.
Superdelegates ... party leaders ... can vote any way they please. No worries for those with secure seats (Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson). Less-loved pols may face a primary should they ignore their constituencies. And political debts? Threats not to contribute to the next individual superdelegate's campaign? Therein lies the rub.
I admire Pelosi for standing up to deep-pocket blackmail. There is a name for people who think giving money to a candidate gives them a right to control his/her vote.
The ONLY way Hillary can win is some massive pre-convention convention, as suggested by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (and Clinton supporter) ... which would be the mother of all disenfranchisement, in Alter's words.
Nothing wrong with a blood-soaked primary season. We know how to taper for the final event. And, as it happens, Obama will probably have enough delegates to be "magnanimous" (Alter again) and let cry-baby Hillary have Michigan, Florida and the Moon, albeit the dark side, for all it matters.
Hillary step down鈥! No l won鈥檛 step down鈥.! Please step down鈥! No l won鈥檛 step down鈥! Why not..? No.. because l have been glued to the race 鈥:) and it is mine.. mine!!!!! my race!!! Let鈥檚 look at it tactically.. America is slumping into recession and people are beginning to feel the heat.. Americans will become poor soon if they don鈥檛 use their brains to vote!!! For them to do so they need to put race and color out of the presidential race!!! It is all a matter of trust! trust! and trust!!! The banks refuse to lend money to each other and financial institutes don鈥檛 even know how much they worth in real values! You see all these scruffy situation from the wall streets graphs, shares and stocks drowning into abyss! If McCain wins the general election the situation will remain cynical as it is now! If Hillary wins the brokers will say it鈥檚 the same old stuff l won鈥檛 invest, I will not stake .. and the situation will continue鈥. Here comes in Barack Obama the only neutral candidate who could not only beat McCain but reinstall TRUST into the messy financial situation in America! Because brokers will say this is new let鈥檚 give it a try and with trust they will inject money into the economy and people will start lending and investments will start flowing again because trust is back! Therefore Hillary should stop playing as a vote spoiler for the sake of America! Thanks.