Primaries

Remove all ads!

Indeed - he struck me as probably the most charismatic and likable candidate among the big guns of either party, and I was only too sad that he was not meant to be the Democratic candidate. I wonder if his somewhat left-wing stances would resonate better with independents and some Republicans given the recent economic problems and scandals.

 

So I was watching a little bit of CNN last night -- first time I've ever watched Glenn Beck for more than 30 seconds. He's a right winger like me, but what a jerk! But I digress . . .

Two things caught my eye. The one was a poll that implied that the Democrats are split badly no matter what happens. If the Hill is nominated, a sizeable chunk of Obama supporters will stay home. The converse is also true. Not good for the Dems.

As for McCain, it was implied that his best bet was to put Romney on his ticket as VP, as Romney has knowledge in economics and McCain is weak in this area (at least according to Beck and his guests.) My question is, who do you folks think would be the best bet for McCain if he wants to get into the White House?

 

I think that's largely overstated due to the emotions running high in the campaign. Thinking, rational people will still vote for the other person on their party's ticket in the fall, especially once they've had time to come to their senses and realize how silly they're being. *

Let's examine that in context. If this plays out the way the consensus is going now, Hillary will eventually drop out and Obama will the the nominee. If you're attracted to Hillary Clinton because you agree with her policy positions on the economy, the war, health care, abortion, NAFTA, etc., and she doesn't get the nomination, you're left with two vote choices. Vote for her fellow Democrat who you have serious reservations about but otherwise has nearly identical policy positions as your preferred candidate, OR the Republican, whose policy positions are all the complete opposite of those championed by your preferred candidate. Only an idiot or a crybaby would vote for McCain in that situation, seemingly out of spite.

Also - I read somewhere recently that when Bush finally edged out McCain in 2000, over 50% of McCain's supporters said at the time that they were so disenchanted with Bush that they'd vote for Gore instead. Come November, they backed their party's candidate and the rest is painful history.

* Provided, of course, that the winner wins fair and square, and Hillary has no chance at this point of winning without strongarming the superdelegates.

 

LDK: The best choice would be Colin Powell -- but that's not likely to happen. Romney or Guiliani are the most likely choices. McCain is known for bucking the system though and could choose someone like Hutchison or Brownback. I think Frist might be a reasonable choice as well.

 

I see your point, but there are 2 reservations I have about this. One, there are still a couple of minor candidates - most importantly, I suppose, Ralph Nader - who may take a minor proportion of these votes. Two, they can just decide to stay home - and given how close the last 2 races were, these factors can matter.

 

I am still of two minds on this issue: First, The Hill is beaten, and this is just all for show at this point. Even if she wins in PA, she will still crash and burn in the end. She should try to endear herself to everyone by being gracious about it.

Second point is that it's really a shame for the women who felt that it was their turn to get a woman in the top slot. There are a lot of women who feel that sexism has won out, and I think that in some respects that is a part of the picture of unfolding events, yet not the entire story. The Democrats are just loaded with talented candidates atm, including O, Hill, Edwards and Gore. But Hill comes out at the bottom of the top tier, IMO. And without a doubt, Obama has won fair and square, clearly the choice of the Democratic voters, many of whom still admire and respect Hill and the others I mentioned, but still wanting Obama to be their candidate of choice.

The tragic portion of this, aside from a Republican back in the White House, is that the Clintons feel betrayed by a party for which they have suffered the "slings and arrows" of conservative pundits from over many years, and, that in many ways, they have given their professional lives over to for the advancement of the "party." Hill has more than paid her dues for "her moment." Nevertheless, the subtext is that Obama is now on the brink of becoming the leader of the Democratic Party. I don't think he will ever eclipse Bill in the hearts and minds of many of us, but it's clear that "change" is in the air. And, after the last set of years, that's a great thing, IMO. Give the new guy his chance all ready.

 

First for the VP choices. Barack, I have two words for you: Anthony Zinni. As you'd expect from his name, he is of Italian decent, he's Catholic, and most importantly to counter the military experience of John McCain, he's a retired 3-star general. He registered as an independent, but he appears to be Democrat leaning.

I'd also like to throw out another name for all to consider for McCain's running mate - Joe Liebermann. Liebermann's been stripped of his superdelegate vote by the democrats for openly supporting McCain. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

THAT is what concerns me the most. I agree with DR on his general point - that regardless of whether you support HRC or BO, the alternative democratic candidate is much closer to your views than McCain. However, if you are disenchanted enough with your party, it may be enough to make you stay home on election day.

Ultimately, I think which candidate wins the nomination will in large part determine how this plays out. If Barack wins, Hillary supporters will be disappointed, but will probably get behind Obama after some obligatory whining. If the superdelegates defy the will of the people and nominate Hillary, Barack's supporters will be outraged. Reconciling the losers back into the Democratic fold will be MUCH easier if Barack wins.

The more I think about this, I really don't have a problem with Hillary staying in the race through June 3rd (the date of the last primary). The odds of her catching Barack in the popular vote are very long indeed, and the delegate lead she's trying to overcome appears to be insurmountable. But it is not yet mathematically impossible.

Running a campaign requires any candidate to invest in it heart and soul. Dropping out of a race is an extremely humbling and devastating moment for a candidate, especially so in Hillary's case when it appeared for so long like she would be the winner. Some people really dislike Hillary for a variety of reasons, some justified and some not, but the fact remains that the Clintons have given a lot to the Democratic party throughout the years, and if they want to see this out to the end, I will give them the respect that I feel they have earned. There is no shame in waiting for every vote to be counted, every voice to be heard.

Shortly after the final primary, the remaining superdelegates are going to break one way or the other - most likely in Obama's favor. If, at that point, Hillary concedes, congratulates Obama, and tells her supporters to accept Obama, then there's no hard feelings. However, if she intends to fight all the way to the convention, then I think she will find that the respect she is afforded by me and others in the Democratic party has a limit.

 

I'm starting to come around to an "oh what the hell, let her keep going" state of mind on this, for several reasons.

1) There's really no historical precedent that says that "the longer this drags out, the more damage it does to the party," though it may be tempting to think otherwise. I have no doubt that Obama, once clinching the nomination, will easily make up any ground he may lose to McCain over the summer. McCain is, it pains me to admit (since I really like the guy), a remarkably weak candidate in many respects.

2) In some small way, I admire her for hanging in there. The Presidency of the USA is one of the most coveted jobs on Earth, so of course she's fighting tooth and nail to get it. If any of us were in the running to win a million dollars yet only had a 10% chance of winning, wouldn't we all stay in as long as possible? Sure we would. How about 1%? Damn right. Not a perfect parallel I know, but still.

3) I think the combination of her campaign's mounting financial woes plus a steady trickle of superdels endorsing Obama (which is already underway) will do this in before the convention showdown.

4) Even though she's promising to take this all the way to the convention, that doesn't mean it will get there - it just means there's nothing else she CAN say. Saying anything other than, essentially, "Victory or Death!" and acknowledging any of the realities she faces would pull the plug on her support and speed the bleeding. Every candidate always declares, with iron-clad conviction, "We're going all the way to the White House!" ...right up until the day they drop out. It's the only way to maintain any support.

5) The scenario by which she wins by somehow getting MI and FL counted (now dead) plus flipping over 2/3 of the remaining superdels seems completely at odds with the political futures of the superdels themselves, all of whom have their own asses to look out for.

I think the issue going forward is: how can she exit gracefully without losing face? This is essentially what this whole thing boils down to. She's fighting to avoid (or at least delay) utter humiliation, and going from Ms. Inevitable who'll "wrap this up by Super Tuesday" to this has got to be painful. I'd like to see some major grace and "being the bigger person" come from Obama going forward.

 

I love it. All the headlines today were "Clinton compares herself to 'Rocky.'"

Rocky lost in the first movie.

 

Yeah. You'd think she never saw Colbert's White House performance.

 

I agree that it's not big deal if it's resolved some time in June. However, there is plenty of historical precedent that if this drags out to the Convention in August that it does significant damage. See the Democratic primary in 1968 and 1980, and the Republican primary of 1976 as examples. Granted, those are pretty distant examples, but they aren't so far in the past that they are completely irrelevant. Ted Kennedy is still in Congress and he was involved in the most recent one!

 

Heard on the news that Hillary is telling Bush that the US should boycott the opening ceremony to the Olympics. Is she getting desperate, trying to score any kind of point she can? Whether you agree with her or not it is one of those silly populistic utterances you can do when you have no real power and dont need to back up your words with action that just plainly annoy me.

 

I agree. It seems like something a fringe candidate would say.

 

That would be Massachusetts not New Hampshire. My aunt used to drive around with a "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" bumper sticker on her car after Watergate

 

She's not the first politician to speak out against the Olympics, populist or no. And to be honest, China's actions in Tibet, Sudan and elsewhere do make a mockery of the whole peace principle of the games, so there's a point to be made there.

 

A point to be made, to be sure, but I just find it disgusting when opposition leaders make these wild, outlandish proposals for the sole purpose of grabbing some headlines. This might not be the best example, but idiots here in Canada are always saying things like "eliminate all income taxes and increase the immigration rate by 40%" when you know damn well that if they were in power they wouldn't implement those policies.

 

Me too. Boycotting the Olympics? And especially the opening ceremony, with all those great TV ads? Digusting. Wild. Outlandish. I mean those "proud sponsors" paid for those beer ads (with worthless US currency). The shame of it. No nomination for Hill.

 

Boycott Olympics... been there, done that, got the stuffed animal (Misha -- the Moscow bear). I don't think comparing herself to the Carter Presidency will help Hillary much. IMO, she's lacking when compared to Carter anyway.

 

We've boycotted the Olympics before, as T2 points out, and it didn't accomplish a damn thing. Since she is anything but ignorant and naive, Hilary Clinton knows this, and I think we all know she wouldn't do it if she actually had such authority. This grandstanding is so transparent that it's laughable.