To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
The truth is simple. Right now there is no end game in the Democratic primary. Hillary and Barack are neck and neck, each legitimately winning contests and Super Ds. Both need the Super Ds to win. Neither have the votes to take the convention. They both are playing a media game and pr game about Super Ds in an attempt to frame the argument and get to the end game as the winner. Both of them. And Hillary has just as much right as Obama to continue the debate.
Obama's "popular" votes and Hillary's "popular" votes can be recast in any light you prefer depending upon your candidate preference. Argue that Obama's won more local votes and he still does not have enough to be nominated. He needs the Super Ds. Argue that Hillary has fewer district level delegates, but she has more Super Ds. You still end up with a discussion about needing the Super Ds.
I suggest that we discuss the following instead:
No Democrat has ever won the White House without winning 2 of the following 4 States in the general election: OH, FL, TX, PA. And Hillary has already won 3 of the 4 and is likely to win PA. So who looks like the best standard-bearer for Democrats? I answer, Hillary. But I am open to find out how Obama wins without these states, or how he is planning to win them and why his strategy for OH, TX, FL and PA will be successful in the Fall.
Before you rush to counter with "What about Iowa? Look at the wins in Colarado? How about VA?", consider this: No Democrat has won VA since the 1960s and LYNDON JOHNSON. Winning in the Fall does not mean taking IA, Idaho, Colorado, et al, as you need 3 Colarados--minimum--to make up for OH. VA is not a 'swing state" (which by definition, should vacillate Red to Blue in Presidential elections, it does not and has not since the 60s ). Winning in November also means taking Michigan, a true swing state which even McGovern failed to win in 1972. Michigan is not guaranteed for Democrats and McCain will fight for it hard. And so, we are back now to the voters in MI and FL.
Florida and Michigan are crucial to a Democratic victory in November. Their votes need to be counted, or closed primaries in both states need to be held asap. Then we will have a real sense of who can win in November. And a better way to assess who is the nominee that can beat McCain.
It does not follow that a candidate can't win in the general election the states that they lost in the primaries . I think most of the people who vote in the Democratic primary are going to vote for the democtratic candidate in the Fall...if we don't blow it by bashing one another in the Spring.
If they hold a new primary , fine, but if they give Clinton FL and MI, especially after she was the only one on the ballot in MI, you can forget it. I'll either stay home or I will just leave that spot on the ballot unmarked. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Period. It's not that I am a huge Obama fan either, but I didn't feel bad about casting my vote for him in the primary, which is a nice change.
And it is change we need, not just a change in parties or gender, but because the ideas that the Republicans, the Clintons, and the DLC just don't work anymore, and I wish that they would just go away. They had their chance to change the world and blew it.
This is curious behavior considering that Clinton's campaign strategist, Mark Penn, is the CEO of the company also running John McCain's campaign, Burson-Marsteller. Mark Penn wins either way -- with Clinton or McCain.
Reading news reports showing that many Clinton staffers want to kick Mark Penn off the campaign, one could easily argue that Penn is actually undermining the Clinton campaign -- and he may be undermining Democrats in general by alienating Democrats who might vote for Clinton, thus pushing the election to McCain.
Michigan and Florida primaries are almost beside the point. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and so those election results shouldn't count. Obama didn't campaign in Florida, so those election results shouldn't count either. If those states want to have new primaries, that's their business. I'm sure the candidates would participate in them.
Obama is the only alternative to a continuation of the misrepresentations, reversals, and outright manipulations about which most citizens have become very tired -- and legitimately angry.
That too will change.
Obama leads in both earned delegates and Popular vote EVEN if you count the votes in MI and Fla.
The latest and best data we have on the national election comes from Survey USA.Their latest poll indicates Hillary or Obama will beat McBush.Hillary does it by 6% Obama by double that at 12%.
http://www.surveyusa.com/
Please scgcfc,if you're going to post comments here on this election give up the spin and have some data to back up your comments.
PS- your entire theory that winning a primary means that Hillary is the only Dem that can win that state in the general is stupid beyond belief.
Among current elected officials they are about tied (Governors, Senate, Congress). But among DNC members she's still leading by nearly 40 and among so-called Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL's) she has a 10-4 advantage with only a handful left to declare. Who are they?
Jimmy Carter Al Gore George Mitchell (former Senate Majority Leader) Roy Romer (former DNC chairman) Robert Schwarz Strauss (former DNC chairman)
And who is supporting her from this group?
Bill Clinton Dick Gephardt Terry McAuliffe Walter Mondale Jim Wright
..among others.
Dem states which are generally blue will vote for the GOP nominee if their selection from the primary is not in the general?
Or maybe you're missing the big picture here.
Clinton is praising McCain as a better choice for the leader of this country than Obama.
That's the story.
It's not about anything else. It's not about delegate counts, popular vote, who wins what states. It's about running for office and saying that the candidate in the other party that will be in the general is better than the other choice in your party.
One is left to believe, rightly so, that if Obama is the nominee Clinton will campaign for McCain as the better candidate to be President. She just said as much (a number of times in the last week).
The only thing I think that should happen is Dr. Dean should make a call that goes like this "Hil, for the last week you have been promoting McCain as a better choice for President than Obama. If you don't change that message right now I will have no choice but to come out publicly in favor of Obama and do so in the biggest PR way I can. You will either stop hurting the party in the general right now, or you can kiss it all goodbye tomorrow and announce that you are McCain's VP, because that is the only way you will get to the White House."
Mark Penn wants to win at any cost. If he can't do it on his Democratic candidate, he will do it on his Republican with the Democrat providing support. The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s
I thought only Republicans could be counted upon to disenfranchise legitimately-cast votes or re-write the "rules" when it comes to how votes should be cast (as in the case of arguments made about the Super Ds.)
Ho hum. Changing the rules is always ok when it benefits your own candidate, it seems. –7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
"The Nutmeg Maneuver"
OR
"The Charter Oak Maneuver" (Heroic attempts at keeping founding documents from imperialist Tory winguts to try and save them from destruction)
lol jk (Kindof sortof) Drinking Liberally in New MilfordePluribus Media
It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned. By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.... If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her....
If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
So, who will ask.
"Mrs Clinton, is Obama a better choice for President than McCain?" The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s
And judging from the line of attack, it sure looks like it.
Like a tag team in wrestling, first Bill, (now he has pulled off), and it is Hillary's turn to smear.
Didn't we watch this kind of trash in 2000,and in 2004 all from Republicans?? Anyone hear from Rove lately? I have a feeling he may be on the Clinton payroll.
After months of hearing this and now Hillary's elevation of John McCain over Obama, as fit to be commander in chief; I can't believe that more Democrats are not furious over Clinton's short sighted and harmful, self serving tactics. But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a
Not only is she dividing the Party, but every time she praises John McCain or insults voters from states she loses, she is working to set herself up for a loss to McCain in the general election. She's also hurting the chances of Democratic Congressmen and Senators to ride the coattails of the Democratic Presidential nominee in November.
If Joe Lieberman and the Republican Party designed the Clinton strategy, it would be exactly what she's doing right now.
Tell her to stop, or else you'll support Barack Obama.
Here's the phone number to Clinton's campaign HQ: 703.469.2008. Share it with your Hillary friends in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, etc., and ask them to tell Hillary to stop the scorched-earth Party-busting campaign -- or you'll vote for Obama.
Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.(What is Spotlight?)
Connecticut's War Dead
MLN is powered by