From CNN
…Clinton vowed to soldier on, telling supporters at a rally in Indiana “it’s full-speed on to the White House.”
I guess Hillary must believe that Obama will offer her the veep slot to fashion that so-called “Dream Ticket” so beloved of Andrew Sullivan. Far more likely is a deal with Obama for her to leave the race if he’ll agree to pay off her campaign debt. Yet even that seems unlikely to occur in the immediate future. I take her at her word. The reality of having lost the race has been staring her in the face for weeks. A less stubborn person, a person less determined to win at all costs, even the cost of tearing her party apart, would have conceded long ago. We all know that if Obama had been in Clinton’s situation he would have been forced to “suspend his campaign” back in March, if not earlier. Certainly there would have been no push by Rush Limbaugh to keep his candidacy alive. His “ditto head” audience wouldn’t tolerate a call to vote for a black man, not when they already had the candidate they wanted to face in the general in the catbird seat, bearing the much despised Clinton brand.
So now we must wait for someone to tell her it’s over. My guess is that only the money people can really do that by refusing any further calls to fund her campaign, either directly or indirectly through “independent” 527 organizations. Money talks, even (or perhaps especially) for the most divisive politician in America. Indeed, Clinton bet her candidacy in Indiana and North Carolina on a plea to toss a few pennies to the peons with her gas tax holiday, as raw and desperate an attempt of pandering to the voters as I’ve seen in quite a while.
Yes, even her promise of an election year bribe to the electorate fell flat. It didn’t get her the big win in Indiana she was hoping for, nor did it “change the game” in North Carolina where Obama won by double digits, anyway. Indeed, one can argue that most people saw through her extreme makeover as a just an “ordinary Jane” like them, the stalwart defender of working class values, the woman who can drink John McCain under the table if she has to, as the papier-mâché creation of Mark Penn and/or her other spin doctors. Having a long history of support for anti-working class measures such as NAFTA will do that for you.
So my hat’s off to the voters in Indiana and North Carolina. Despite the relentless drumbeat of negativity from the Clinton campaign and the media against Obama, despite the endless re-rehashing of the Rev. Wright saga, despite the ginned up claims that the poorest candidate in the field is the effete elitist, despite Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos’ “get out the vote for the woman you love to hate” effort, enough of them saw through the bullshit.
“Far more likely is a deal with Obama for her to leave the race if he’ll agree to pay off her campaign debt. Yet even that seems unlikely to occur in the immediate future.” — Yeah, I’ve seen this meme already on other blogs. Who’s floating it?
I don’t think it’s likely at all. True, it would make life a little easier for him, but it looks like either extortion (by Hillary) or a bribe (from Obama) — just the sort of “old politics” cynical deal that people expect Obama to reject. I know he’s a pragmatist, but from today on, she can be no more than a nuisance to him, not a real threat.
The deal that he can make is something related to FL and MI. There was talk last night that the Obama camp is starting to talk about a willingness to seat some number of delegates from these states, and take this issue off the table.
They might just be seated as half-delegates. The DNC should have done this right from the start, actually – let them have their early primary, but with half of the delegates stripped.
Strip all the supers of their votes, since it was the party leadership and not the rank-and-file that got them into this mess in the first place, and I think this might work. The punishment has to be severe enough that no one is going to try this stunt again, though. It’s like the kid who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. You have to follow through on punishing them or the next time they figure they can live with a stern talking-to if they can endure it with a mouth full of cookie.
I had that same idea back in January. Any party officials in FLA or MI who were part of moving the primaries forward should be stripped of their official passes. Or maybe just not allowed to vote on the nomination. They are the ones who really need to be punished.
I imagine that the two violating states will get some kind of seating, but I’d make sure that the lesson is learned by all states that you fuck up your vote if you violate DNC rules.
By the way, if you start out with 109 million and you spend 5, aren’t you still ahead of the game? If I spent five million I’d be five million in debt.
$5 million plus $6.4 million to compete in the two May 6 primaries.
Imho both states should be seated at the Convention and the votes split down the middle:
Well, it doesn’t have to be done by Obama, and it doesn’t have to be done immediately. It could be a deal whereby the money comes from the DNC or a large donor that Obama would otherwise not accept money from, or something like that.
But you’re right, it doesn’t seem like his style. And at this point, I’m not sure there’s any reason why he should budge. He’s sitting in the catbird seat.
that’s a whole pile of money. She was over $10 million in debt start of March – excluding her self loan of $5 million in February and $6.4 million
last month.
The Clinton’s can afford to fund this debt – after a $109 million over 8 years. “Rich people. God Bless us” Clinton told O’Reilly.
Obama raises funds from little people $25 – $96. We have better use for these funds; the GE, the DNC needs funding, down ticket candidates.
Give the Clintons the index.
You forgot to add on the $24M she only disclosed as “income over $1000”.
I am not as concerned by what she said last night. In the cold light of day, the mood in camp Clinton has got to be pretty down. She has no argument for the superdelegates that make any sense.
I imagine that over the next couple of days we will see a number more superdelegates declare for Obama, and few if any declare for Clinton. The money taps will probably be drying up for her as well…
Many pundits are saying that she will try and go out like Huckabee. End the negative campaigning, talk about issues (hopefully significant ones), and perhaps withdraw after KY/WV on a high note.
Speaking of the idiots populating the Times writing staff:
By Adam Nagourney
New York Times
4:01 a.m. ET, Wed., May. 7, 2008
“Her showing in the two states did not permit Mrs. Clinton to cut into Mr. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates or his overall lead in the popular vote.
Indeed, Mr. Obama may have widened his delegate lead over Mrs. Clinton, an outcome with mathematic and political resonance.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WTF? At 4AM Nagourney writes Obama MAY have widened his delegate lead? Uh, didn’t just about every political junkie/journo/pollster/consultant pretty much conclude the night’s results plainly result in a widening of the delegate count in Obama’s favor? He won the larger of the two states in play by a wide margin. How in the hell does “may have widened” even make its way into a paragraph? Geez.
Yeah, I couldn’t believe that editorial. It was so full of weasel-words that my editor back when I first learned to write would have taken me aside and told me, gently but firmly, to knock it off, use simple declarative sentences and get rid of the “mights” and “probablys.” And this is in the frellin’ New York Times, the supposed pinnacle of American journalism.
WaPo has a quote from a Clinton campaign insider that just pissed me off so much last night when I read it..
We knew it. Most of us sane people have been talking about that since Feb. We knew it. They knew it. Yet, they still strung their supporters along; begging for money, asking for debates, running a GOP campaign.
They fucking knew they were toast in Feb., but they spent 3 months tearing down a very good candidate when they could have been uniting the Democratic party. They spent 3 months attacking the process and Democrats, fracturing the party to save their reputations.
This is greed and entitlement pure and simple. You don’t spend 3 months and $12M of your own money if you didn’t feel like the WH was owed to you. Something ain’t right about those people.
“We lost this thing in February”.
And you wonder why people believe her goal since then was Plan 2012…and still is.
And this will be the new narrative:
Some people just talk about unity and the bi-partisan process, others do something about.
Said of course while “Hil” stands in the back up a pickup truck throwing back some JD.
As for how, it’s simple. She believes that everyone will have forgotten about her dirty tricks by then. And those that haven’t will be so outraged by McCain and desperate to avoid a re-match that they’ll concede the nomination to her. It’s ludicrous, but matches her MO.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/07/uselections2008.barackobama1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkf
ront
Sorry for the url, I can’t figure out the code to post it in a nicer form. That Guardian story says she’s loaning her campaign another $6.4 million to keep going.
I suppose it might be to pay off Mark Penn and some of the other accumulated debts, but somehow I just can’t quite believe it.
I read the Guardian story thoroughly, and exactly when Hillary wrote herself a check for $6.4 mill isn’t very clear. I’m reasonably sure it didn’t happen between last night and this morning — I think it’s a confirmation that she had written that check recently.
Doesn’t make much practical difference, though, I guess. And I suspect leaking the story is a way of saying, “If my funders finally stop throwing good money after bad, who cares?”
5 plus 6.4. That still leaves ninety-some million. I’m not feeling any sympathy yet.
Wolfson said it was split among 3 days: April 21, May 1 and May 5th:
CNN, via Carpetbagger:
Democrat Hillary Clinton has loaned her presidential race $6.4 million over the last month ….
Emphasis mine.
Tip: Here’s an easy way to embed your links. Let’s assume you wanted to embed this sentence:
“That Guardian story says she’s loaning her campaign another $6.4 million to keep going.”
Place a [ before the word [“That
After the word going” place your url=http:/…….networkfront
At the end of the url networkfront, place ] networkfront]
You get this:
That Guardian story says she’s loaning her campaign another $6.4 million to keep going.
of the race in the next week she is only hurting the party and the country. If she does not drop out in the next week she is setting herself up for one of two things…the vp slot or 2012. Which do you folks REALLY think she wants?
All I have to do is remember JFK/LBJ to strongly urge Obama not to take Clinton as Veep.
and done to Obama it would be mind blowing to me that he would ask her to be veep. I know I couldn’t do it but there is so much back room crap already in the works. You can be sure of that. I feel the party will pressure him to take her on. He could do that and then leave her haging in the wind once he is in office?
If he takes her as VEEP, he’s toast—plain and simple. And if he doesn’t know that then he doesn’t deserve to be president. But he does.
Absolutely correct. Even though I consider myself a strong Obama supporter, I could not vote for a ticket with Clinton on it.
I just spent some time checking out Talk Left for the first time and man, those HRC supporters are more delusional than Annie Oakley after shooting some crown royal shots.
They are attacking Donna Brazile for this exchange on CNN.
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=988
Brazile took offense to Begala labeling all Obama supporters as egg heads and African Americans.
Brazile was even better taking on the GOP hack and their 9/11 gag reflex is so predictable.
CASTELLANOS: He was a much broader reaching candidate when this
process started. And now I think it’s fair to ask: Would the people you
that see in Barack Obama’s life be the same people you see in his
administration? Would you see Bill Ayers? Would there be people like
Reverend Wright?
The answer may be no, by the way.
BRAZILE: Alex now you — that is so small, Alex. That’s so small.
CASTELLANOS: No, but I’m saying that whether — the answer may be
no. But the question is certainly out there for a lot of voters.
BRAZILE: Will he take us to war on a lie and see all of our troops
die on a lie? And not ask for forgiveness?
CASTELLANOS: With plane’s crashing into a building –
BRAZILE: Come on, Alex. Don’t do that.
CASTELLANOS: Planes crashed into a building. It was not a lie.
BRAZILE: You al want to make a superficial conversation, not a
real, substantive conversation. Let’s make it about substance and not
do this.
BROWN: OK guys, you know what?
Donna, let me — OK –
BRAZILE: That’s beneath you, Alex. You know better.
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-from-cnns-election-center/
TalkLeft has taught me a lesson about how easily a group of people can be led to delusional thought. I now have much more sympathy for people caught up in millenial fantasies.
Just because people may have certain rational opinions (I’m referring to Jeralyn and many of the commenters there), I am beginning to suspect that they may not have arrived at those opinions rationally. Or there is some kind of bifurcation of mental processes that allows for this kind of thinking dissociated from reality while being sane enough to dress oneself and function on a daily basis.
They are getting pretty frigging delusional over there. This is from FrenchDoc at Corrente — where, apparently, Lambert’s increasing desperation has driven off all the rest of the former “fellows”:
In further news, Hillary-dead-ender expert photographic analysis has detected a two-year-old black child behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, 11/22/1963.
I’m not sure what “WWTSBQ” means.
AP
McGovern, former Clinton backer, urges her to drop out.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) – Former Sen. George McGovern, who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton, is urging her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race.
McGovern said Wednesday he has decided to endorse Barack Obama.