If Al Gore and Jimmy Carter do really ask Hillary Clinton to drop out of the nominating contest it will be a huge development. But I am not sure that they will not just be told to eff off and mind their own damn business. The Scotsman is a very reputable newspaper, but the story is not sourced at all. I can’t put too much credence in their report.
DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president. Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.
Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.
“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”
Here’s what I do know. Clinton does not have a convincing ‘electability’ argument against Barack Obama because she cannot win the nomination in such a way that the party will be more united behind her campaign than they would be behind an Obama campaign. The Scotsman puts it politely:
Obama’s campaign has been a phenomenon in American politics, bringing in record numbers of new voters and record funding, and few think the superdelegates would dare deny him victory if he wins the popular vote.
It would also invite the unedifying spectacle of a mostly white elite denying an African American candidate a chance for the presidency. “It would cause a scandal to do that,” says one party official. “To turn around to the black community and say, ‘You got the most votes, but no’? Unlikely.”
Quoting a ‘party official’ is not very impressive, but the underlying point is unassailable. Clinton might have been more electable if she had won Iowa, Super Tuesday, and any of the metrics of the race, but she didn’t. At this point it is impossible that she can emerge as the nominee without being seen as an usurper by the majority of the electorate. So, her efforts to paint Obama as unelectable really amount to nothing more than an argument that no Democrat is electable, and in the current political environment that is an absurd assertion. It might be true that Clinton is unelectable, but only because she has alienated such a large portion of the Democratic base and because winning the nomination would only further alienate the base.
Anyone that is still seriously considering a Clinton nomination should be honest. She can’t win the nomination in a way that would render her more electable than Obama. And since that is her sole remaining argument and justification for getting the nomination, she is wrong and delusional. At this point she should be defending Obama against unfair attacks on his patriotism, his choice of church, his qualifications, and his merits. That she is doing the opposite is not a reason to support her, but a reason to be ‘bitter’.
If Gore and Carter weigh in, they’ll be weighing in because they understand this very basic reality. I hope they do.
Also available in orange.
Are you sure that this isn’t a rehash of a Republican’s talking point?
Wouldn’t a DemocratIC Party insider use the correct adjective?
And would they refer to the Party’s statesmen as grandees, given that Carter and Gore really are statesmen with a certain amount of well-earned dignity and gravitas weighed against a strong dollop of humility, whereas the Clintons and their clique are pompous self-entitled poobahs desperately seeking an eternal crown and pissed that it wasn’t handed to them by divine right and inheritance. Even the word grandee implies inherited nobility!
This doesn’t pass the smell test.
I don’t particularly see how the language is a problem. It’s a UK paper so they’re using UK political language to describe the papers. By calling them Grandees they’re saying the source is a relatively elderly but high placed Party member, so you’re talking committee chairman, etc. the Nobility description might have been in the Victorian age, but it’s different nowadays.
As for the lack of named source that’s relatively normal in UK papers, having to deal with UK libel laws.
I wouldn’t make too much of that word choice. It is not found in one of the anonymous quotes, but was apparently a word chosen by the person writing for The Scotsman.
And, as Booman wrote, the underlying points in the article seem unassailable. Hillary has been moving the goalposts yet again, with her people now claiming that if Obama doesn’t win the state Clinton supposedly had locked up, it’s a bad sign for him. She’s repeatedly said that she is in this thing all the way to the convention. Dean, Pelosi, and others have said that this would be unacceptable. Even if it doesn’t turn out to be Carter and Gore, I imagine party leaders are talking to to someone about applying some very public pressure after Pennsylvania.
If Al Gore and Jimmy Carter ask Hillary to drop out, what would be the “carrot” or “stick” they could offer her that would make her accept?
No one owes her anything. Why are we to suppose someone needs to offer a carrot? A stick doesn’t seem appropriate either. She just needs to be told she can’t make it. And her hubby needs to be told too. The greatest unspoken lie of her whole campaign is that she, not her hubby, is running for president. He acts like a clumsy, slightly abashed boy in the background who occasionally makes a controversial statement. Then when the statement doesn’t go down well she turns around and tells Bill to shut up (while whispering try again after a few days). They play a shoddy, sexist husband and wife act which wouldn’t even make it to hundredth place in a sitcom competition. Her nasty, arrogant parading of her ‘super-Americanism’ is reprehensible. Every one says over and over again how smart she is. Right, Karl Rove is no dope either. And the by the way, Barack and Michelle Obama are at least as every bit intelligent as the Clintons.
They wouldn’t need to offer a carrot or a stick – the two of them speaking together against Clinton in this fashion chould shift the ground in such a way that Clinton could lose PA outright, and she’d have no choice but to concede after that. Well, she would have a choice, but she would seem like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because she didn’t get her way if she stayed in the race after that.
Jimmy’s got yer endorsement RIGHT HERE!
Spot on Booman…..
Now that Hillary is a gun toating duck hunter….let’s revisit her in a debate, …when asked to raise their hand if they owned a gun as an adult….guess what Hillary didn’t raise her hand…..but now she is a Crown Royal driniking gun toating duck hunter…LMAO
http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/04/13/hillary-clinton-from-tuzla-to-guns
Ah, jeez, just stop.
Carter and Gore would be fools to get involved with this, and I sure hope they don’t.
And as for this:
“Here’s what I do know. Clinton does not have a convincing ‘electability’ argument against Barack Obama because she cannot win the nomination in such a way that the party will be more united behind her campaign than they would be behind an Obama campaign.”
Are you sure? Seems to me a lot of resentment has been built up on both sides and neither candidate is doing anything to stop it.
At the moment, neither candidate has the required number of delegates to win the nomination. Both candidates could win in November if the party can pull itself together, but it doesn’t seem to me that our candidates want the party to do so at the moment. As long as this situation persists, Clinton has no reason to pull out of the race. Obama has nothing like a real majority of the party and I’m sure that’s part of the calculus.
The more people push this meme of Obama entitlement, the more reasons the Clinton team has to be aggravated about being pushed out of the race.
It seems that as soon as people pick a side, they forget that each side feels aggrieved by the other side’s tactics. Maybe I would too if I had a dog in this race, but I don’t. All I want is to win in November, and what I see is that both sides have found ways to avoid that happening.
As things stand now, I’m not sure that even having Clinton pull out tomorrow and throw her support to Obama would heal the wounds – that’s something Obama is going to have to figure out how to do. The fact that he’s not doing it may have a lot to do with why Clinton is staying in the race.
And what wound has Obama inflicted in Clinton other than beating her?
Has he said that she is unqualified or that McCain is more qualified than she is?
Has he questioned her grade school essays?
Has he called her an elitist?
Has he said she has only won certain states because she is white, or because she is a woman?
Has he used surrogates to suggest she used to be a drug dealer, or to spread around the rumor that he was educated in a ‘secular madrassa’?
I obviously could go on and on and on.
Obama has not talked about Clinton’s record as First Lady of Arkansas or America. He’s given her a pass on every conflict of interest, every missing file, every shady fundraiser, basically everything you can find in any of a dozen right-wing books about the Clintons.
He mentioned that she worked on board of Wal*Mart and he noted that her effort to pass universal health care failed. Other than that, a total pass for her.
So, I don’t see a single thing for a Clinton supporter to be resentful about except the fact of the loss itself.
The converse is not true. Obama supporters not only have to forgive an unrelentingly negative campaign that has included a healthy dose of racial politics, they’d have to forgive losing the nomination when he won more elections, more votes, and more delegates.
Do the math and the psychology.
I don’t know if Carter and Gore will weigh in publicly. They both seem to have other things on their minds and prefer to stay above the scuffle.
But Corzine was quoted yesterday saying nearly the same thing about Hillary and his/the party’s ability to support her if she doesn’t have the lead in delegates and votes. For a guy who has given a forture to her campaign and stumped a lot for her, that was a significant comment
If Clinton can’t win against Obama, how would she win against McCain?
Let me re-post Noam Scheiber, TNR
Clinton Campaign Further Strengthens the Democratic Party NOT
Long past the time for Clinton to GO.
I can hear the great HRC wailing victim beast clearing its throat from here.
Which is why this can’t happen, if it’s going to, until Penn has voted. If Obama can hold her to single digits, Gore and Carter and other could come out and say, “Alright, it’s clear Obama’s going to win, so let’s end this.” If they come out beforehand, and she wins Penn, it’ll have been for nothing, because the press will look past it.
I’m in a rural town less than 5,000 people. Obama spoke truth. We don’t need the elists press to explain Obama’s words.
Clinton and the city based media are out of touch.
And as The Carpetbagger Report, Ezra Klein, Elizabeth Drew notes Clinton is playing ‘molehill politics’ trying to make Obama unelectable.
Main street agrees with Obama. Media is one big part of America’s problem. Instead of reporting on policy differences we get Instant analysis, the wrong bits and bites of “off-the cuff” remarks as if Mr. and Mrs. Joe Mainstreet can’t read, see or hear for themselves.
Meet the Press has 3 anti Obama blow hards on right now. I can not believe that I have to rely on Bob Shrum to actually combat these attacks.
A co called elitist who just paid of his student loans won states like Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas being out of touch with Americans? It is so laughable that Hillary with her former Wal Mart job and current 100 million in the bank if more in touch than a man who worked the streets of Chicago.
The press is disgusting.
No, the press is dying. They’re fighting so hard against Obama because he’s demonstrated that he doesn’t need them to win. He can use the Internet to organize a distributed, grassroots campaign that not only bypasses the media establishment, but empowers the people they’ve dedicated themselves to repressing. This is their last gasp. If Obama wins, they become as irrelevant as radio post-Kennedy.
I’m not at all sure, Hill/Bill give a shit what Gore and Carter think. So I don’t think the private approach would work at all. Publicly, it should make all remaining super delegates jump off the fence onto Obama’s side. Even then I’m not convinced HRC would give up. There’s something a little demented about her persistence at this point.
The photos this morning on HuffPo of her drinking with the guys were repulsive. The next likely photo op is her in a brand-new full-camo pantsuit (ala Kerry in the muddy field) with a dead duck dangling from her up-raised fist.
Late last night I saw the picture of Hillary doing shots in Pennsylvania. I find myself intrigued by the possibilities here. What else might she be persuaded to do in her quest to prove that she is “regular folks”?
Here’s one possibility that I’d really rather not see come to fruition…
Ha, me neither but if she does enough shots who’s to say what she might do.
Thanks a lot for putting the image of Hillary pole dancing in my mind-if I have nightmares tonight I’ll blame you Oscar.
Exactly. Because there’s an element that is in love with her victim argument, this could easily be red meat.
This is just the media bullying Clinton, or at least trying to. Calls for Clinton to quit the race just makes her half of the Democratic party angry.
I can’t believe that Carter or Gore are dumb enough to lend themselves to this.
This is going to the convention. Everyone needs to get used to that.