# What now for Clinton?



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

By now, most of us know that Obama won by double digits in North Carolina, while Clinton just squeeked a win in Indiana. When we add the pledged delegates and superdelegates, Obama has 1835 and Clinton has 1681.

Most pundits have concluded that there is no mathematical way that Clinton can win this thing, even if they give her Florida and the both of them split Michigan.

So, what now? Why is Clinton hanging in there?

In my opinion, Clinton is hanging in there for one or more reasons:

1. *Sheer stubborness.* I think that two years ago from now, she was sitting there thinking that the nomination was hers for the asking. Frankly, I think that she is angry that she has to work for this thing, and she is hanging in there for no other reason that she can and she has the cash.

2. *Spite and selfishness.* I think that she is like a school kid that wants to be the captain of their team, and if they can't, they piss and moan until they can be. She could have graciously bowed out weeks ago and created a united front behind Obama. Instead, she has stayed in the race and continued to lob grenades. All of this does nothing but cause division. Furthermore, the longer we talk about comparing Clintona and Obama, the less time we will have to compare Obama and McCain.

3. *She's waiting*. It's obivous that her strategy is to wait long enough for something bad to stick to her Obama. She was hoping that this issue was Rev. Wright, but that didn't work. She's hoping that if she waits long enough and hangs around, another issue or event will arise that will take Obama out of public favor. If that happened, she is hoping that the superdelegates will swing to her side.

4. *She knows something we don't know.* Maybe there is something in Obama's past that she knows about that hasn't surfaced yet. Maybe she's hanging around in hopes of stepping into the top slot if and when that something becomes public.

So, which is it? I'm going for numbers 1 & 2.

Unless something changes, Clinton can't win this thing. Just think, she's had the best two weeks of her campaign and Obama has had his worst. Even then, she got her clock cleaned in North Carolina.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I agree with that but she has a point about the states she wins being important blue states.

North Carolina and some of the other states Obama carried may be tough for Dems in the general election.

I hate to admit it but I kind of admire her tenacity.

this election cycle is really something, nothing makes any sense


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

Welcome to politics. I'd much rather have Hilary than a Republican these days, so I commend her for fighting, even if it is against a fellow Democrat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think she is hanging in so Obama will loose. Why? Because if Obama wins it will be eight years before she can run again. If Obama looses she can run in four years.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

The Obama campaign has sent out a tough memo this morning telling superdelegates that Obama has played by the Democratic rules (unlike Clinton, who can only win by changing the rules and moving the goalposts) and the math is the math. With out saying so overtly, the memo clearly says:

*It's over. Obama will win the nomination. This pretense of an unsettled fight is ridiculous. Get on board. *

Here's the memo. Obama will be in D.C. tonight and tomorrow to make the case to the superdelegates himself.



> *TO: Superdelegates
> FROM: David Plouffe, Campaign Manager
> 
> RE: An Update on the Race for Delegates
> ...


Memo to David Plouffe and all the Obamatons who want to say now that the math is the math:

"Hillary Clinton isn't casting her lot with the elitist mathematicians. We need a president to represent all the real people who didn't get an A in Algebra--and who resent the dorks who did." 

Which reminds me.... why do we need a president that resents good math grades again? Oh, right. It's those pesky good students that have been screwing everything up. It wasn't for people who were good at math, I'm sure we'd all be living in pure peace and prosperity! Damn you, nerds! DAMN YOU! :eyeroll:

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Assuming she doesn't actually get away with stealing the nomination, it is fascinating to watch. The Clinton's seem to be forming their own Republicrat party -- I thought Lanny Davis was going to lose his mind last night on CNN. He was dishing out Clinton-speak so desperately, and you could hear the other panelists laughing in the background. It was good fun.

Another couple possible reasons she's hanging in:

1. She's staying in until she can negotiate herself the VP position. "Gimme VP, and all the autonomy I demand, and I'll concede. If not, I'll fight you all the way through November, as an Independent if I have to."

Note: There is no way in H E double chopsticks that I think this will actually happen, but maybe in her warped mind it is still a possibility.

2. She is asking Obama to pay her campaign debts to get her out

3. She needs to destroy Obama, ensure a McCain win, and then beat McCain in 2012. Hillary is determined to be President, and, having lost 2008, she is doing whatever it takes to win 2012.

If Obama were truly evil, he'd develop a vindictive streak and choose a female, like Sebelius, as VP, just to torpedo any 2016 possibility for Clinton.

Now that would be friggin hilarious.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ryan does Obama send you those memos :lol: :lol:

Just having fun :beer:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Ryan does Obama send you those memos :lol: :lol:
> 
> Just having fun :beer:


 :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

IT'S ALL OVER, SEN. CLINTON

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on May 7, 2008.

She lost hard in North Carolina, and barely held on to win Indiana. Hillary Clinton just doesn't have enough straws left to clutch. The best (or worst) she can hope to do the rest of the way is bloody Barack Obama enough to make him lose in the fall, allowing her to come back in 2012.

In fact, Obama basically clinched the nomination with his string of 11 straight primary and caucus wins in February, many by wipe-out margins - giving him a lead in elected delegates that Clinton couldn't hope to close, especially given the nutty proportional-representation rules that govern the Democratic Party.

Do the math. Last night's results leave him with a lead among elected delegates of 150 or so, and among all delegates of around 130.

Only a handful of states are left to vote, with a combined total of about 230 delegates. She'll probably win West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico - and lose Oregon, North Dakota, and Montana. She most likely could pick up a net 10 delegates, leaving him with a lead of at least 130 (110, counting in superdelegates).

If Hillary manages to get Florida and Michigan seated (which she won't), she'll net another 47 delegates. So Obama, worst case, will have a lead of at least 60 delegates. Most likely, it'll be more than 100.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean have all made it clear that they expect superdelegates to decide who to support within (in Reid's words) "days, not weeks" after the last ballots are cast on June 3.

In that environment, Obama - who'll be only about 100 delegates short of a majority - will be an irresistible choice. Few superdelegates will want to risk civil war by overruling the verdict of the voters - and almost all will want to climb aboard the victory bandwagon so as not to get shut out of the White House for four (or eight) years.

In the past few months, Obama has closed Clinton's lead among superdelegates from 60 to 20. The trend will accelerate after popular voting ends; he'll probably pass the 2,025 threshold in the first two weeks of June.

Clinton may stay in, hoping to can seat Florida and Michigan. But she won't win there, either.

The Credentials Committee, which will make the key report, consists of three votes for each state or territory. The remaining contests will leave him with, at worst, a 10-state lead. Howard Dean names 25 committee members, but she can't prosper unless he stacks them all for her - and, if anything, he'll go the other way.

Having lost there, her only option would be to appeal to the convention floor - where neither of the contested delegations can vote on their own credentials, virtually assuring an Obama victory on the credentials fight and the nomination.

Clinton may well fight all the way - she's stubborn and dedicated. More, she's also farsighted and devious: She could hope to so bloody Obama that he can't beat John McCain. If McCain wins, she could get the Democratic nomination in 2012 - and, with McCain closing in on 76 and after 12 years of GOP rule, win.

But one thing is clear: Obama has this nomination sewed up.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

only problem with that memo above, is that North Dakota already voted. He means South Dakota...

But who cares about those Dakotas anyways right? 

They're all the same... heck it should just be one state of Dakota!

8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's interesting alright, but I would still like to vote none of the above.

I guess I want the impossible. I want a president 
1. Strong on defense. One that doesn't look for trouble, but doesn't appease the enemy either. 
2. A president that doesn't think big business is more important than anything else. Is environmentally responsible, but not a chicken little the sky is falling either. 
3. Someone who caters to the American people as a whole, not every odd ball fringe group they can dig out from under a rock. 
4. A person that is compassionate of the needy, but not a sucker for the lazy, etc, etc, etc. I suppose nothing like that exists in DC.

I can't think anybody I like right now. Not a current politician anyway. Maybe we will need to draft someone for president.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman I agree with all of your points.Only problem is your number 3......The American people don't care who is president as evidenced by less that 50% of eligible voters actually voting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman I agree with all of your points.Only problem is your number 3......The American people don't care who is president as evidenced by less that 50% of eligible voters actually voting.


Yes I know isn't that a shame? You even hear sportsmen who say they don't want to talk about politics. Then who is going to protect our second amendment rights? I should have added that to my list also, but then there was many things I didn't list. 
I guess those that don't vote don't want to be responsible citizens. They sure complain when things don't go the way they like. It's just like starting an archery club and getting 100 members. Ninety of them sit around and complain about the ten that do all the work. Ten might be optimistic.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Plainsman this article jives with your theory about why shes staying in

HILLARY WON'T ADOPT THE HUCKABEE OPTION

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on May 7, 2008.

OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.

Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?

Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can't win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?

Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn't knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.

But Hillary won't avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1992, they fell flat on their face.

Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.

She is playing on his "elitism" by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.

Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can't stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama's ability to get elected.

This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy - it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.

The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party's prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?

Hillary doesn't have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don't beat up the party's nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.

Go To DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

The reason clinton is still in it is for two reasons for the democrat party.

1. The dems don't want to be the ones to pull the rug out from a Black candidate.

2. The dems know Obama can't win in the general election, not saying that Hillary could either, but both of them are far to polarizing to get any crossover votes. Obama for his voting record and comments, and Hillary because she is Hillary.

Obama's *extremely* liberal past and inexperience in the national political realm will stop him and his past will come back to haunt him, including his pastor's comments. I am waiting to see the first commercial of Obama out shooting some pheasants, just like Kerry ran. His neverending stream of promises will be exposed for the $$$$ it would cost to implement any of them.

As much as I dislike all three candidates, McCain is the only one who can truly claim to be in the middle at all.

For those worried about the judges that might retire, it won't be allowed to happen unless someone dies while the opposite party is in office.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Ed Schultz said it best...

...There are 3 parties in American politics these days. The Republicans the Democrats, and the Clintons.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

:beer: All the way Hiily Mae :wink:


----------

