Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Ballot Box of Joshua Marshall: Take Two
Joshua Marshall continues to bridge the divide caused by the emotional infantilism.
He shares a "most feared scenario" offered by a reader, which concludes with the same question heard over and over again: how can we get Candidate Hillary to go away?
She could start winning big time in this home stretch and make a convincing case the superdelegates.....
Hmmmmm....... What to do??
I don't speak for Sen Clinton or her campaign, but I believe your candidate, his campaign and his supporters have brought it on yourselves.
Time and time again, he failed to seal the deal with the voters.
Now we have the Wright problem to worry about.
Day after day he continues to alienate core Clinton support, because short of attacking her character he has nothing left to run on.
It started long before Iowa but it rang the alarm bells with "You are likeable enough". And we are now starting to see it on full display.
We tried to spin it using the pledged delegate lead as the key metric. When ignoring the nomination rules didn't help dislodge the evil lady from NY, we tried the opposite, urging the utmost respect for the rules for the MI/FL issue.
Now we have the latest idea: let's pressure the superdelegates to come out in droves for Sen. Obama, that will surely finish her off!
Let's go back to our premise: it would be better for Sen. Obama if Sen Clinton ended her campaign, effective immediately.
I have a suggestion: instead of trying to help Sen Obama by looking for ways to push Clinton out of the race, why don't you think if you are actually asking the right question.
Also, some thinking about emotional infantilism will go a long way.
And you could always check with John McCain about his answer to the famous question: "How do we kill the bitch?"
Short of all that, ricin could be an option.
Comments (6)
Time and time again, he failed to seal the deal with the voters.
And yet Hillary was even less effective in the race for pledged delegates.
And yet Hillary was even less effective at raising money.
And yet ... you know the rest. Can you even find one metric by which Hillary is ahead? You seem to like your chances with the popular vote, but even if you count Florida (even though by the rules the delegates won't be seated), and even if you count Michigan (even though by the rules the delegates won't be seated and even though Hillary was competing with "Uncommitted" because Obama wasn't on the ballot), she is still behind in the popular vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Now we have the Wright problem to worry about.
You'll be relieved to see that the latest polls show that Obama's speech went a long way toward erasing the negative impact of "the Wright problem."
Day after day he continues to alienate core Clinton support, because short of attacking her character he has nothing left to run on.
Other than demonstrably better judgment when faced with neo-con pressure to start wars, among other things.
pledged delegate lead as the key metric.
A reasonable view, since by definition it's a race for delegates.
And you could always check with John McCain about his answer to the famous question: "How do we kill
How do we beat ... was the question he was asked.
And then you bring up ricin???
You're losing perspective in a big way.
March 22, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo35adm,
If Obama has the most pledged delegates by the convention, and a higher % of the popular vote, would you support Hillary getting the nomination via the superdelegates?
If not, then the question becomes: can hillary catch up in either category? It's obvious that she can't catch up in the delegates, but she may have a shot at the pop vote.
If it gets to the point, however, where it would be impossible for Hillary to catch up in the pop vote, would you then support Hillary getting out of the race?
I guess I ask these questions as a means of clarifying the threshold at which even passionate Hillary supporters may agree that the race shouldn't continue.
For, what concerns many democrats such as myself, is that a long, protracted, and increasingly divisive primary is hurting the chances of either democrat to win the general election. Thus, you don't have to simply be an Obama supporter to want to see this primary come to an end soon.
March 22, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. No. From what i'm told, either you become the nominee by winning the set amount of pledged delegates. Or by winning the vote on the convention floor. Nobody has posted anything to the contrary from the DNC rules.
2. No. It's a choice of a candidate to start or to end the race. The media/supporters declaration that she should drop out is just the latest thing that creates resentment. It may seem inconvenient to your and your candidate, but many Clinton supporters would fing it out of character if she just suddently dropped out, on the even of the home stretch and hopefully big wins.
3. It is a divisive primary because nobody can win. In that context, the orchestrated campaign to create pressure for her to drop out is hypocritical at best. Again, given my reading on the rules, the suggestion for Obama dropping now has exactly the same merit. You could rationalize anything you like in a million different ways.
March 23, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
many Clinton supporters would fing it out of character if she just suddently dropped out, on the even of the home stretch and hopefully big wins.
Except that even with "big wins" it's too little, too late.
What you're hoping is that the super-delegates will do something that would rip the party apart, by giving the nomination to Hillary even after Obama wins the most pledged delegates.
It is a divisive primary because nobody can win.
What in the world do you mean by that? You could have a situation in which "nobody can win" if you had three competitive candidates, perhaps. But we don't.
gain, given my reading on the rules, the suggestion for Obama dropping now has exactly the same merit.
Except for the pesky fact that Obama is winning the delegate race. That's what counts.
But he's also raising money much, much faster than Hillary.
He's winning more votes, even if you count Michigan where Hillary's name was the only one on the ballot (and "Uncommitted" did quite well as a result).
Etc.
March 23, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on a second, I remember it was the Clinton camp that said what mattered was the delegate count. Then they insisted that the super delegates could vote however they wanted when the Obama camp said they should vote the way their state's voted. Then they told us it was about the popular vote. Now, it's the big states. Listen, if Obama were behind in the delegate count and the popular vote, Hillary would have her surrogates all over the place pressuring him to bow about. It would be all over the media. They would be screaming that he was dividing the democratic party because of his refusal to bow out. If that were the case, then he probably would've left gracefully. It's not healthy for the two candidates to be bashing each other when that energy should be reserved for John McCain. As far as many people are concerned, Hillary Clinton has crossed the line by saying that John McCain would make a better commander in chief. She's acting like John McCain's vice president and that's unforgivable. It's time for the super delegates to close ranks around the democratic front runner because it's for the good of the party and if Clinton supporters don't get that, then that's a shame.
March 22, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Lalo - you know the secret service watches these blogs, right? You might want to dial back the threats.
March 23, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment