February 20, 2008
Hillary Clinton Should Withdraw (Brent Budowsky)
The most likely outcome is that on March 5 Hillary Clinton withdraws from the presidential campaign and endorses Barack Obama.
At this moment, Sen. Clinton (N.Y.) has three options, two of which are acceptable, one of which would be disastrous for her and the Democratic Party.
In my view she should withdraw today, though she won’t. Her second option is to campaign through March 4 at least but suspend all negative attacks and whatever happens, do it with class and grace as a unifier.
Her third option is to continue and escalate the negative attacks in a wrecking-ball, demolition-derby, scorched-earth desperation play that will be rejected by voters and do permanent damage to her national stature.
Two facts are obvious. First, she cannot be nominated at a price worth the nomination. If she pursues the desperation strategy, it will be rejected by voters as her attacks were rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin and nationally. Such a strategy would drive superdelegates to stampede to Sen. Obama (Ill.) and would be viewed as a direct attack on the prospects of the Democratic Party and on the aspirations of political independents that would make her nomination both impossible and worthless.
The worst case for Sen. Clinton is not that she loses the nomination, which is close to inevitable today, but that she loses in a way where she is seen as a destructive and divisive force that leaves large numbers of a generation of young people largely angry and bitter towards her for the rest of her career.
The second fact is equally clear. Contrary to myths propagated by the pundits in the media and their embarrassing misreading of the history of our times, neither the voters nor the superdelegates want any part of any effort to steal the nomination, corrupt the democratic process of the Democratic Party or continue the politics of demeaning that the Clinton campaign has sadly trafficked in this year.
In the end, the superdelegates would never have considered violating and abusing the trust of the people who voted in primaries and caucuses. Equally ridiculous and offensive, the chance that Hillary Clinton could steal the support of elected pledged delegates is mathematically zero. The very notion that the Clinton staff would even consider this shows how far from the reality of 2008 the Clintons and their staff have been with tactics that have been a $150 million fiasco of division, mismanagement and self-destruction.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good person, a good senator and a good public servant who has many years left in a career that could well ultimately lead to the presidency. She and her campaign have done some very bad things, in a very bad way, with very bad results.
It is time to begin a serious discussion of her upcoming withdrawal, and hope as Democrats and Americans that in the closing days of her campaign she acts as a healer and unifier who does credit to herself and a service to our party and our country.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 36 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent,
For your years you are not a very good student of History.
Clinton is only 135 pledged delegates behind, and she could make all those up and be in the lead after March 4th.
She could walk into the convention ahead in pledged delegates to the dissapointment of novice pundits like you.
Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He clost Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota. Similarly,
Mondale also lost 14 primaries before clinching the nomination. And Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination.
There is also a chance Florida will be seated and another primary in Michigan could be held.
There is no question the nomination is Obama's to lose, but why would you ask a candidate to drop out with things this close?
Maybe you want her out because you're scared of the possibility she will win.
50% of the delegates for the nomination have yet to be harvested, and Obama could slip up, people elevated by the media this fast, with no scrutiny, usually do.
When the mathmatical impossibility is upon us for Hillary to drop out, then type away, but you are grossly premature on signing Hillary's death certificate in this campaign.
And your just showing you support for the other ticket.
I can't believe they pay you to write this stuff.
The nomination is still well within reach, and you should have done your homework regarding remaining delegates, Florida and Michigan, and the fact that Obama could mess up.
There is a 12-year-old on our street who did the math, assuming Hillary doesn't win again until March 4. With a little addition and subtraction, she was able to figure out Hillary still has a good chance.
If Hillary wins at least 58% of the vote in Ohio,Texas, and Pennsulvania, she could win the nomination.
Comment by Daniel — February 20, 2008 @ 9:54 am
When two losers cross over the same finish line who loses?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — February 20, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Daniel is right, she could still easily win with pledged delegates by doing well in the 4th. To claim her imminent loss so early is quite a bit pre-mature.
However, Daniel, Brent is also correct in that, her way of doing that needs to not be so negative. She needs to start campaigning herself out to others instead of campaigning against Mr Obama. She's overly divisive, aggressive, and in every single possible sense of the word. She's a Bitch. The only sad thing is that people still vote for her, showing they have no real knowledge of her work in legislature, and are voting on a name, not a person.
Comment by Sphynx — February 20, 2008 @ 10:31 am
If you look carefully at the math and the
rules, it is very close to impossible for
Hillary to win even close to a majority of
pledged delegates. Texas rules are very
eccentric, and heavily favor Obama through
no fault of either Hillary or Obama. More
imporant, with proportionate representation
Hillary would have to win such a huge percent,
and she wont. If she makes the wrecking ball,
desperation negative attack she will self-
destruct as she did in South Carolina, Virginia
and Wisconsin, to name three of many. She is
wrong for the times, she doesn't understand
what voters want, and the more she continues
the more she hurts herself going forward.
Comment by Brent Budowsky — February 20, 2008 @ 10:55 am
I agree. Hillary should step down, get out of the race, withdraw. Think how big that would be, if she did that now. 10 states in a row. Landslides. Face the music, baby. If you exit gracefully, you may still get to be VP. Then we get four-fer
Obamachelle & Billary, weeeeee!
Comment by Jefferson2008 — February 20, 2008 @ 11:04 am
After 10 victories of Obama, he become a big winner, while Clinton way back in her campaign.we can see Clinton is thinking to win Texas, while Obama in winning much delagates in the smalls states. I think for Clinton there aren´t possibility to win the primary election cause she can´t win Texas. if she will win texas it will be so later to win the primary.
Thank you very much
Comment by Jemael Saint-Firmin — February 20, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Great post Brent.
It is time for the distinguished Senator from NY to drop out. The dems can easily unite and begin the undressing of a lobbyist-fed republican't nominee.
Comment by Lester — February 20, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Hillary does have a chance with the pledged delegates to tie or take a slight lead; but not the nomination. Anything that is to decide at the convention will be messy for any nominee. The democrats cannot afford that in November. if Obama gets the nomination at the convention, it will take Hillary's supporters, which are hardcore democrats, a little time to grieve, and finally rally behind him because they care for the party. If Hillary turns out to be the nominee by superdelegates, sitting Florida's and/or Michigan's delegates, it will be much more messier. Keep in mind that, as Brent put it, she is a divisive figure. It's either you love her or dislike her to the point of hating her. Her attacks has done nothing, but worsen that situation within the democratic party. The Republicans would rally behind McCain, like he was a true conservative, just hearing the name Clinton on the ballot. One thing that has be proven true over and over again during this campaign is that while Obama can get Hillary's vote, she cannot reach his base. She would have great problems with the, young voters, and independents(where McCain is getting his piece of the pie), comes November. Unlike the Hillary's base(core democrats), the independents and young voters, which are largely supporting Obama, would never supports Hillary after a messy Denver Convention. With no tie with the party, and first time voters, those groups have a fragile heart that would excite no enthusiasm to get up and vote. It would be very problematic for the party to give the nomination to Hillary if Obama keeps his leading margin in the number of votes, and states win. One last point is that there may be something similar to the million men march with the African Americans depending on how things turn out to be if it has to be decided in Denver.
Comment by Charly — February 20, 2008 @ 11:43 am
It's funny how the Democrats posting here want Hillary to give up and hand the nomination to Barry Obama, yet I'm sure most of these same folks voted in the recent pundit poll that Huckabee should continue against McCain even though there is no mathematical way for Huckabee to win.
Can someone explain that to me?
Comment by John Simmons — February 20, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Pardon but what "democratic" process within the Democratic Party are speaking about? The party rules were designed in part to prevent (or at least forestall) a populist candidate without support from party leaders.
One thing is for sure, no matter what happens, two of the Democratic Party's most important constituencies, African-Americans and women, are going to be very upset that their moment in history is taken from them.
Comment by Ian — February 20, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Hillary does not need to step down. Doing so would unite her party behind her.
It is not impossible for her to come back, but it would take a major blunder on the part of Obama. The nit picking at Obama is not going to garner you much support.
She needs to sell us on her. He is doing a very good job of selling himself at the moment, she should learn how to do the same.
She needs to open up a bit more as well. Obama has been pretty open with the public. Hillary comes across as someone that has stuff to hide, because she is know for hiding what could be seen as flaws and secrets.
In order to make huge gains on March 4th and make up the deficit different in votes, she has to win both Texas and Ohio by nearly 25%. That is why Hillary is seen as a long shot at the moment.
No decision has been held on Florida and Michigan. Both may have to hold a new primary/caucus in order to get seated, and that is still has a large chance of not happening.
The Clinton's expected to lose in February, but I see no evidence that they were expecting to lose by so much. The name of the game was to keep it close. Obama has opened a sizable lead.
Even if Clinton manages to get 20% more of the pledged delegates from Texas and Ohio, combined that would only account for making up about 65 Pledged delegates. That closes the gap a bit, but doesn't reverse it. 136 delegates is hard to over come. She would need to pull closer to a 35% difference to make up the pledge delegates. This is of course ignoring some of the strange rules about congressional districts and such, going just on pure percentages.
With a 30% lead, Hillary could come away with 77 net votes in Texas, and a 56 vote net in Ohio. That gives her 133 gained votes and keeps the tables close. Unfortunately she wasn't even able to win New York, her state by that type of margins.
The race is really Obama's to lose.
Comment by Mike — February 20, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
I like your post it was some what truthfull. Hillary Clinton is in a bad spot right now. And all signs point to her going under. However, she very well could get 58% of the vote in Texas and Ohio. But here is the problem both these areas have some what large black populations. And all Obama would need is about half the white vote and some of the hispanic vote to win.
This is how Obama has been winning against Hillary. He's creating a diverse (women, men,young voters, Rep.,Indepandents) group to fight her off. All Hillary has at the moment is women, old people and hispanics.
But who knows maybe that's all she needs to win in Ohio and Texas.
Comment by John — February 20, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Hillary is facing big defeat in march for following reasons
1]her attempt to do anything and everything to win nomination is driving voters away from her.Most people do not think that winning nomination by Florida,Michigan delegate and super delegates is undemocratic and very bad.
2]Most think that Obama has far greater chance of defeating Maccain than she .She has very high negative rating which she has failed to decrease.
3] most do not want same old politics and wants go forward .
4] her campaign staff is divided due to repeated failures
5]she has failed to convince people about her case in nice way.now she is trying to demean him .it will not work.Too much negative is bad.
Comment by harshad — February 20, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
CORRECTION
2]Most people do not think that winning nomination by Florida,Michigan delegates and super delegates is democratic.it is very bad move.
Comment by harshad — February 20, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
I completely disagree that Senator Clinton should abandon the race and do it "with class and grace" as your sexist phrase puts it. It would do nothing to unify the Democratic party. In fact, that would be to disregard almost HALF the nation's delegates support for her.
Senator Obama is the flavor of the month right now and, those who support Clinton, can do practically nothing except hope that something happens within his campaign very soon to unveil his so-called veneer of smoothness.
Any move or statement that Senator Clinton's campaign puts forth in retrition would be so microscopically undermined by the press that it seems little can be done except for Obama's campaign to implode on its own. You think either side doesn't know that. The television press has been so one-sided in this campaign criticizing her from everything from pants suits to her hair style to them saying she didn't smile enough during the debates. "They" say it isn't about gender or race but the press has not kept gender out of it. Along with others, I might add, within these same comments back to you who pathetically cannot refrain from referring to her as a "bitch".
Semator Clinton is an unbelievably strong person which has been proven personally and politically for decades. Her experience is solid and I much prefer going with a bird in the hand rather than a bird in the bush.
Bush? Did I say Bush? Forgive me. But you don't want to divide the Democratic party. Think on this. Take Sentator Clinton out and this election could become very devisive. Many voters who do not want to see a "President" Obama may swing towards a President McCain. Do we want another four years of Republican leadership?
To paraphrase the now deceased Senator Lloyd Bentsen's famous remark to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle during the 1988 vice-presidential debate, the word needs to get out regarding Senator Obama: 'Sir, You're no JOHN Kennedy'!
Comment by Renee — February 20, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
agree..it really is time for clinton to have some class..and step down..its time for super-delegates to either vote the way their states did or against..the states that voted already should be easy for these..mutts..stop waiting to try to get something out of it for yourselves..and put it back in the voters hands..if the nom.. goes againest the one with the most popular votes..dem..lose again..in november..
Comment by tom — February 20, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Hillary will no go quietly.
Comment by Igor R. — February 20, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
Brent, kudos. Well-said.
Renee, ugh. Stop with the 'sexism' labels. It's making Democrats sick sick sick that it is being tossed around and is a purely inflamatory insinuation.
This issue of sexism really is about every woman aged 45 and up. It is about those like Robin Morgan, who vote for Hillary “not because she is a woman, but because I am.”
How disingenuous to shout ‘sexism’ then vote on sex – whether its Hillary’s or yours is irrelevant. It is sexist and it conflicts with the ideals passed to your sons and daughters – the Title IX generation – who you raised to look past race and gender. Don’t insinuate “sexism" here or at some generic phrase like "class and grace." Wrong argument. Wrong audience. Wrong decade. Wrong century.
But let me put Brent's point in a little more context. In a lecture I attended, Gloria Steinem explained that "Progress is the direction in which we have get to go." Do the Greatest Generation of Women truly want to be remembered as the ones resisting progress to pursue their own agenda? That is what is being talked about here.
The longer Hillary stays in the race, the longer one of two groups - voters under 45 (Barack's core/Title IX generation) or women 45 and up (Hillary's core) - become distanced from the Democratic party.
That's his point. And it has jack to do with sexism.
Comment by WM — February 20, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Nicely stated, Brent. Now we all wait for March 5th, and hope for minimal damage between now and then.
Comment by hillaryis44 — February 20, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Brent, what planet are you on? Washington frequently is regarded as another universe, but I think you're in another gallaxy. This sort of neck-and-neck race is what the democratic process is all about. How often in the past have we Democrates felt "railroaded" with only one viable candidate? It is different this year . . . New Hampshire and Iowa didn't get to choose our nominee, and I think that is fantastic!
Comment by DR — February 20, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
DR, if you'd have read some of Brent's past posts, you would realize he agreed with you a week or so ago. Brent's underlying premise is, to the trained eye, Hillary really is indeed done, she's cooked. I'm not saying she is a bad person.
Brent, and I, have seen enough elections to know when that point (done, cooked) in time is, and it is now. The sounds of democracy were indeed glorious and loud this election cycle and will continue to be during the general election. However, the primaries are really over for all intensive purposes.
The media would love for you to think it's not over yet because you'll continue to puruse thier programming. The media has to hype the race. It's like Baylor University playing football against LSU.
Barak (LSU) is up by 24 pts (over Baylor) with 3 minutes to play in the football game. And anyone who has watched this sport for as many years as me, knows that Hillary is done, depsite her being a very capable Commander in Chief. Obama just has more appeal.
Comment by Jimmy Delang — February 20, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
For credibilities' sake, I'm an EX-republican.
Comment by Jimmy Delang — February 20, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
Daniel: There is a 12-year-old on our street who did the math, assuming Hillary doesn’t win again until March 4. With a little addition and subtraction, she was able to figure out Hillary still has a good chance.
If Hillary wins at least 58% of the vote in Ohio,Texas, and Pennsulvania, she could win the nomination."
She thus displays the eternal optimism of a 12-year-old. As do you sir.
To illustrate: "If Hillary wins **AT LEAST** 58% of the vote in Ohio,Texas, **AND** Pennsulvania, she **COULD** win the nomination."
Which one of Hercules' labors was that?
Hillyanna is done.
Comment by Tom — February 20, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
Many say this race is neck and neck and by delegates it is still close; but neck and neck is a bit of stretch. The math that's "so easy a 4th grader" on your street could do it, was stated above to show Hillary with a very possible chance of tying and taknig the lead on March 4th. Right. If you believe that, I have some land I'd like to sell you (to borrow a line from Pres. Clinton). Taking into consideration that Clinton's staff itself doesn't think the chances are good for a victory in Oregon, Mississippi, Wyoming, etc. Thus, she's looking at needing 65% in Texas, Penn. Indiana, Ohio. A number she has reached only once in her "35 year" political career (aka 2 elections: 2000, she garnered 55% of New York vote; re-election 2006, she won a respectable 67% of New York).
I just don't understand what makes Clinton-supporters think she can reach these amounts. She has yet to reach 58% (not to mention 65%) in the first 24 contests, but now she has a believable chance at reaching these heights at a time when Obama's popularity is at a peek. It seems to me that Clinton supporters are unashamedly HOPING for something bad to happen to Obama. It really seems this way. The negative vibe has become contagious throughout her camp. And in summation, this hope of something bad happening to Obama is more of a do-anything-to-win mentality that the Clinton's have been preaching since Arkansas. She is strong and capable, this just doesn't seem to be her time. The sooner she realizes this, the better off she is.
Comment by Abraham — February 20, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Brent, I agree Hillary should do what Mr. Edwards and Mr. Romney did. They very gentlemanly and graciously stepped aside without damaging either party. Unfortunately, Hillary does not have the grace and graciousness to do so. Narcisstic people do not KNOW what these terms mean. Hillary is not only self-indulged, she thinks somehow she is entitled to the highest position in our country. When her campaign and the news medias talked about her as the "inevitable" nominee she acted like as if she was queen. In Iowa it dawned on her 50% of the population did/does not like her. So what does she do? She runs a "LIKEABILITY TOUR". Then she went through all those Hill-a-copter, Hill-a-this, Hill-a-that, etc. All of these things bespoke of total selfishness. Iowa got to see and know Hillary and they did not like what they saw; they called the race RIGHT…Mr. Obama-First; Mr. Edwards-Second, and Hillary-Third.
Hillary Clinton has proven to us all she is not cabable of of managing anything. Her campaign has been chaotic, infighting, loose tongues including Bill with his severe diarrhea of the mouth and uncontrolled hot temper; race cards, gender cards, mismanagement of funds, and on and on. To me, how a person runs his/her campaign IS THE LITMUS TEST of how he/she will govern. HILLARY HAS FAILED THIS TEST MISERABLY. She has proven without a shadow of a doubt she does not have what it takes to make a good president: Leadership skills, Good character, vision, integrity, honesty, cohesiveness, good judgement, a handle on financial issues. While she may be able to talk policy, without these pertinent attributes, she'll accomplish nothing. Just look at where she's at. She and her campaign want to blame the media, anything, and anybody for where they're at now. The fact is everything that has happened with her campaign lies squarely on Hillary's shoulders and she ought to be big enough to acknowledge it!
Comment by NinaK — February 20, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
And it's WAAAY past time for the corporate news networks to start covering third party candidates.
The American people deserve to hear ideas that aren't being discussed by the two corporate parties.
This election especially, there's more angry voters than ever. I think a well positioned third party candidate can peel off many republican, democrat and independent voters.
Comment by Larry from C — February 20, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
I think Hillary should wait until after Ohio and Texas. Regrettably, Americans are too easily swayed by the media. Barack has spent stupendous amounts of money to influence voters. I like him, but the fact is he has little to no experience (well a few as a state senator but not in the big show). We are in a recession, a war with two fronts (Iraq, Afghanistan) and our healthcare system is a wreck. Not to mention the illegal immigrant problem (I'm over here in Arizona where Hillary won and illegals are a definite problem). She should NOT go negative but not give up either. I think people are riding the Obama wave and overlooking the fact that to change the U.S. you have to work with Congress. Can he? Who knows! He hasn't been a senator long enough to tell!!!
Comment by R. Sachse — February 20, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Wow, the vitriol between the Clinton and Obama camps is getting a bit out of control. Calm down people. First they are both excellent candidates, each has some plusses and some minuses and in the end both are going to need the other to win in November. However, I will say Obama has run a better overall campaign with his 50 state strategy vs Clinton's it's over on Super Tuesday strategy. This was a huge tactical mistake. A mistake that could, based on present trends, end up being her real undoing. It also appears (emphasis on the appears) by her campaign staff choices she has valued loyalty over best person for the job. This concerns me, we've gone through 7 years of this type thinking.
As far as her bowing out, folks it ain't over till it's over. However I think both candidates know a scorched earth policy, win at any cost will only go a long way to handing the election to John McCain no matter who's the Dem. candidate. Should Senator Clinton come out of TX and Ohio without strong wins she'll do what's right for the party and herself
and get behind Senator Obama. However if she wins big then we go on. It will be too close for Senator Obama to bow out. If Senator Obama then goes on to get clobbered in PA then he will get behind Hillary, if he doesn't it will take his uniter mantle and rip it to shreds.
So folks sit back enjoy the show and hope neither does something really stupid. Creating a situation where we are faced with another four years, if not more, of Republican mismanagement, gunpoint diplomacy and a do nothing congress where good ideas are killed off because one party or the other didn't come with it.
My 2 cents
Comment by SF — February 20, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
A bit premature, my man. I'm voting for Hillary. I don't want an amateur in the Whitehouse. I'm getting tired of this kind of reporting, trying to get rid of Hillary through manipulation. Shame on you. I will not vote for Obama. He's arrogant and empty, no substance. If Hillary loses the primary, then I will have to vote on conscious and give my vote to McCaine because AT LEAST he has experience. How can we give the most important job of the nation to Obama who has no credentials for the job??? The presidency is no place for amateurs.
Comment by Joseph — February 20, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Clinton should carry on her negative attacks on Obama, only that she should do it as sneakily as he has been doing it - just use mailers and supporters to spread the negative charges, right or wrong, and use your campaign spokespersons to defend you, meanwhile be steadfast with the shoulder-shrugging I-didn't-do-it stance and say "negative attacks won't get any work done, either", so naive audience would believe you really never made any negative attacks. His politics are nothing new, but a new formidable level of sly. His campaign runs at full force with negative attacks on Hillary, but turns around crying "It's not fair!" or "It's racist!" every time she hits back or says anything that can be misinterpreted. The latest example of Obama-style double standard is their 527-organization criticism when they have Vote Hope going way back before Super Tuesday (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120353609734380611.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Accepting lobbyist money is bad, except if you're Obama and the amount is less than what others have received. Everybody has to play fair, except for Obama. If and when he's elected president and his present enemies (Hillary and McCain) have been removed, his next target will be the non-black citizens. It'd be a fascist state like the first year or so post-9/11, except anyone saying a syllable wrong that anguish a black person will face verbal stoning (if only that) where everyone either join in the slaughter or duck for cover. Why is a campaign about hope arousing so much fear? Why is a campaign about bringing people together talk little about how to manifest such goal, instead it brings out so much hate for their opponents?
Inspiring words of a campaign should be words that crystallize and solidifies a movement. A movement is not as such if without actions at least in plan. Martin Luther King's famous inspiring words were framed around the actions, e.g. protests and much more. Franklin Roosevelt's inspiring words framed around no specific plans, and as a result, the New Deal subsequently put together in a scramble, although appeased the frentic public, didn't rectify the nation's course into depression. Obama's words are disjoint from his plan of actions, and his plan of actions have been doing catch-up with Clinton's - you can't just grant tax relief alone, you've got to help the businesses, which he has now figured out, but his health insurance plan covering only people who need insurance will ultimately drive insurance premiums up. "Change" and "Hope" purport to offer a whole lot more than his solutions, which aren't any better than Clinton's, and his campaign uses the same old negative political strategies. He probably does have a good heart, but if change just means changing to have him as president and hope means hopefully not screwing the country up some more, it is too much a risk to take for something you can’t simply roll back the change, and disastrous consequences will resonate for years.
Comment by zf — February 20, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
I personally would love to see Hillary drop out. At this point, they're simply spending their money against each other vrs against McCain. However, it's way too close for Hillary to consider that option. March 4 is the only reasonable time to bale.
Comment by andy42302 — February 20, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
It's now or never for Hillary.
She won't get another chance and I think you need to consider that. She can also justify pressing on with her campaign in the belief that she is best suited to challenge McCain -and in that line of reasoning she could argue that she's doing the party a favor. Obviously, it would be to the party's advantage to already have their candidate by now and shift their focus on the General Election but in light of the many $MILLIONS$ that have been donated to both O & H , they almost have an obligation to keep going.
Comment by Rich — February 20, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
WM, Ugh.
Not only do you need a little history lesson, you need a wake up call to reality.
Sexism is rampant in huge ways and subtly in others. Consider this: The only people interested in sexism is women. Women don't get the raises, salaries, promotions, and kudos in the workforce the same as men. Women are the ones receiving the whistles, being raped and putting up with unsolicited advances. And what is the truth in advertising and the media which is run by men? Beautiful & sexy women. Who are the biggest buyers of pornography? Our universities, corporations and our government are run by men. Men benefit hugely as long as sexism prevails because it solidifies their position of power.
The 14th Amendment in 1869 gave black men the right to vote. The 19th Amendment in 1920, 51 years later, gave women the same priviledge. However, women rallied for the right to vote in Seneca Falls in 1848. It really took women 72 years to get it. Racism won over sexism.
In 1979 or 1982, whichever you deem correct, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed in which Section 1 states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." This is 60 years after we had to have an amendment passed to get the right to vote!
Your head is buried in the sand. And sadly, throughout history, because men needed to feel powerful, women needed to feel inferior.
Man, Obama = Power.
Woman, Clinton = Inferiority.
Sexism wins.
Go Renee!
Comment by Barb — February 21, 2008 @ 4:32 am
I find it utterly baffling that HRC could be out-classed by Mitt Romney, of all people. At least he is intelligent enough to "suspend" his nomination and back the front-runner, McCain. Whether or not that was for "the good of the party" or not, the fact is that he never dreamed of contesting the voting to the point of utterly ruining the Republican party. Way to go, HRC, you managed to out Republican the Republicans. You must be so proud.
Comment by bwilson — February 21, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Hillary is train wreck waiting to happen. She should put a zipper on her mouth and place a sign that says "do not open until general election" and that will be the best chance of her winning.
But don't worry. She'll be back in 8 years. Look at McCain. He's back 8 years later.
General people have a short term memory so they'll forget what all the commotion was about.
Comment by bill gorden — February 21, 2008 @ 11:58 am
I AGREE that Hillary should withdraw from the race now. But I disagree that Hillary has a significant legacy or any kind of special or extraordinary experience making her ideally suited to the Presidency. Let's review what Hillary's campaign has done thus far:
1.Poor Management Skills: HRC and her campaign have wasted $120 million of her supporters money without a coherent strategy and path to the nomination. Yet they have the audacity to ask for more money.
2. Alienated a significant portion of the Democratic base, including the black community, progressives and feminists with race and gender baiting tactics.
3. Told Obama's supporters, many of whom are highly educated party activists that they are delusional and being played for fools.
4. Insulted primary and caucus voters in 2o plus states that Obama has won convincingly by telling them that those states are of of marginal significance and really do not count. states that do not count.
5. ELECTION FRAUD IN NY: Had her surrogates and operatives increase her margin of victory in the NY Primary. Citizens Union is calling for an investigation: http://www.citizensunion.org/news_release/02_19_08.html
Comment by Christopher London — February 22, 2008 @ 5:39 pm