Hillary Clinton Deluged With Calls For Her Withdrawal

Washington Post:

In her most definitive comments to date on the subject, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought Saturday to put to rest any notion that she will drop out of the presidential race, pledging in an interview to not only compete in all the remaining primaries but also continue until there is a resolution of the disqualified results in Florida and Michigan.

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring that she will take her campaign all the way to the Aug. 25-28 convention if necessary, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly anxious to avoid...

...Her remarks come as Clinton faces a mounting drumbeat, driven by the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and his backers, for her to bow out and avert a party crisis. Obama's supporters argue that he is too far ahead in pledged delegates for Clinton to catch up; Clinton counters by saying that neither of them has secured the 2,024 delegates needed for the nomination.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[rrafiringa]

It's good that Hillary wants to stay in the race.
Not only we'll be able to have a look at her tax records of the last 8 years (if she keeps her promise to release them), but by staying in the race, she agrees with Nancy Pelosi that the superdelegates will have to respect the voters' decision.

[IslandGyal]

I am not sure why Clinton supporters are not lamenting on the fact that Obama came out of nowhere and is beating Hillary who has been on the scene for the past 16 yrs. Doesn't that by itself say something to you all? She has name recognition, which helped her with the BIG states; we all know who she is, up until recently, no one paid attention to Obama, certainly I didn't.

[julescator]

Amen Amen. I have been saying that all along. If this guy is, as Hillary says, so naive, so inexperienced, not Commander and Chief material and all he has is speeches, then what does that say about YOU that he is beating YOU?

[bodi1313]

And it takes 'the big states' to win the general election. Winning Vermont is not going to be much help with the electoral college. I live in Georgia; despite his win here, come the General election, mine will be the first state called for McCain.

[AOGutierrez]

OK let me get this straight if you have to win the big states to win the general election and John McCain has already won the big states by very large margins in the Republican primary then he going to win in the general election too. So BOTH Hillary and McCain are going to be president, right?

[YouThinkAndTalk]

And we now know who she REALLY is.

[GBecker]

Personally, I'd like her to quit just 'cuz I'm sick of seeing her face and listening to her voice.

On the other hand, I'd like her to stay in just to see her go down in flames when Obama becomes the nominee! That is gonna be worth all the gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing and what-ifs.

Obama '08!

[babar77]

Hey Hillary, what happened to the last presidential candidate that majored in miracles and not math? Maybe we should just start calling you Huckabee from here on out.

[oshpd1]

Hillary cannot drop out. She has donations that are to be used for the General Election. But the question is DOES she still have the millions of dollars. If she does not make the nomination of the Dem party she has to prepay the millions. I dont think she still has the money. I think she passed the money ot her cornies and family. Hillary is is trouble and Bill will have to pull all his strings to get her out of legal trouble or she will need to go before one of the Judges Bill appointed to get off like she did with the Peter Paul donations.

[cheneyhasawarmachine]

the reason Hillary will not drop out is because she knows that it is possible that Obama could make a gaff that would kill his eventual nomination. it almost happened with the Rev. Jerry Wright stuff. Hillary might even know of some other 'story' about Obama that has yet to be told a vast clinton wing conspiracy if you will - dont think for a second she doesn't know that the voters are by in large against her and she can not win by the ballots being counted the only way she wins a story comes out that makes Obama unelectable in the general and people abandon him like they did Dean in 04 after the scream.

[butchie65]

If anyone has anything coming out, it would be Hillary, she has a lsit a mile long that could come out about her and, "The family ," and the Paul fraud case coming up in April. Hillary voters will soon find out, what she is all about.

[julescator]

Don't forget HSU.

[accountability]

while I can agree with you in part I have to disagree that the voters are against her by and large. There is less than 1 percentage point separating her from Barack in the popular vote. That isn't much and it is pretty much half of the Dem voters. If Michigan and Florida were factored in she has over O in popular vote.

I'm not advocating anything.
I support O and H both. Can't get worked up with all this hate and ugliness that the supporters put out. That is what is splitting the party not HRC, not BHO, not a tough competition.
It is the constant repetition of the lies, the hate, the divisive attacks on those who don't support your candidate, the constant declaration that Hillary is splitting the party. It just isn't so. Repeat something often enough it has the appearance of truth, a self fulfilling prophecy... but it is the ones saying it who are responsible.
They would do better to choose something positive to focus on.

[Aleka]

Well I am glad you are magnanimous when it comes to the candidates. It would be awesome if you demonstrated this "fairness" you profess to have by not posting Clinton's false talking points.

Voters against her = her last approval ratings are 37%, down near Bush. So, based on that it is pretty fair to state that the voters are against her. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx

Less than one percentage point in popular vote: At least 4 states didnt even submit numbers, so any contest where you have to "guestimate" numbers is not even remotely a reliable nor feasible measure. I realize that this is a "spin" on the Clinton side, however it fails to note differences between primary and caucus states, and Clinton has already decided that caucus states "dont count".

To try to make this any sort of realistic measure of the popular vote is like trying to get pure apple juice by mixing up apples and oranges. It may be close by "guesstimate" but it will never be accurate, and "guessing" is no way to choose a nominee. It is moot in any case because it is about pledged delegates, not popular vote.

If you speak of divisive tactics, you must realize that spreading Clinton lies is not the way to go. Spreading misinformation only frustrates the people trying to get factual information out there.

[Aleka]

If this is true, why does she not just "suspend" her campaign and stop actively trying to undermine Obama? If this is really her ONLY reason for staying in, she can be the "back up" just as well (if not better) from the sidelines where she's could cheer him on and then "regretfully" take on the nom after he trips. But no...she appears to be just actively trying to manufacture this "story" herself in order to undermine his electibity.

Also, my question is, if she DOES have some :mysterious Obama information: why has she not played it before now, when it would have helped?

[crl9]

If you think the Wright story has gone away, you are sadly mistaken.

[SuiginTou7]

Yup, The Grasping Straws Theory. Hillary's campaign has been gaff after gaff after gaff and totally mismanaged. It always a conspiracy with her isn't it? The victim of some grand plan to bring her down. The Professional Victim. That the way she dismisses the states that Obama won trival or the way she's been running a negative campaign has nothing to do with her drop in her approval ratings.. no ,it's shadowy forces of evil, yeah, good luck with that. get back to reality and accept she's not what we want.

[JohnKemp]

Damn, you Dem libs need to just chill.

A small goup of rich, White old men will soon tell you who your candidate will be.

[apogee2perogee]

Yeh, the same'll be true when McCrazy gets the nod. And you'll vote for him because he is Republican. And he is the R candidate because he flip-floped to bush's side of the mirror.

[accountability]

LOL

Cute.
A little levity is always a good thing.
A small group of rich ANGRY and jealous White old men.

[3811Billis]

As opposed to the large group of rich, elderly, white men that run the Repubichair party?

[rzan]

I'm an Obama supporter, and I have changed my mind about Hillary dropping out. I think she should stay in. It's an extreme longshot for her to get the nomination, but you never know.

[kevenseven]

Way long shot.

[tbone99]

yeah but hey look at McCain - his candidacy was basically DEAD and now he's the nominee.

[BardEric]

Americans LOVE a long shot! Or havent you noticed?

[accountability]

smart rzan.

If she stays in and loses... so what, she toughens up Obama further.
If she wins, so be it. She has gifts to offer, different gifts, strengths, and different weaknesses as well. I know many Obama supporters like to demonize her and push the evil Hillary myth and the Saint Obama myth but they both have gifts and they both have baggage as anyone can see with a little digging.

On top of that it is not in HRC's nature to quit. Anything. She wasn't raised that way, she had some tough parents who deeply ingrained certain attitudes and ethics.

And of course some smart ass will have to comment on that.
The haters love to say that HRC stayed with Bill because she wanted to be President. I don't think so. She refuses to quit or give up. PLUS she knew/knows that the neo-con machine had been gunning for her through him for years...(look up her role in Nixon resignation... we KNOW they don't forgive and forget. Cheney, Rove, Kristol, Rummy, Papa Bush etc from PNAC www.newamericancentury.org (the actual vast right wing conspiracy)
were in the Nixon administration here and there. Needless to say they weren't happy.
Anyway, given that I think she actually felt she was partly responsible... now this of course I am just tossing around, the rest though is fact and what I believe to be true given the circumstances and what we know about the players.

[julescator]

The problem I am having is that when I hear one of her "little" stories, I now wonder is she lying? I have lost all confidence in her. She tells Whoppers. I can take a little embellishments, but these are ALL WHOPPERS. We have one big LIAR in the White House why put another one in combined with her husband who we KNOW is a LIAR (I did not have sex with that woman - the fact that that come from a sitting President's mouth still astonishes me).

[kevenseven]

Yet another stupid idea perpetuated:

The fact that Clinton won most of the Big Blue Machine States means that she should be the nominee, because Obama cannot win the Big Blue Machine States in November.

The fact that Clinton won most of the Big Blue Machine States means that she has been working the last ten years to lock down the loyalty of the leadership of the party in the Big Blue Machine States.

In California, Obama would win if the primary were held today.

Obama will win all the Big Blue Machine States. Why would he not? They are, after all, Big Blue Machine States?

Somebody want to tell me that MA and NY are going to go for McBomb?

[fatherof5women]

the reason obama may not win ohio or pennsylvania against mccain is that obama has not yet shown that he can connect with the traditional democratic base of blue collar voters, people who make $50,000 per year, people who do not have college degrees, etc.....rightly or wrongly, these voters see obama as more of an intellectual who talks about process, etc...and they see mccain as a war hero, which he is..these voters want candidates who deliver meat and potatoes--health care, jobs, etc...without ohio, pennsylvania, and florida (where obama could simply not defeat mccain), obama could not get enough electoral votes even if he won new york, california, etc...

[3811Billis]

Such near sighted logic. On top of that, you apparently seem to think those "Blue collar" cannot make critical distinctions between Obama and McCain, because they will be razzle dazzled by the McCain war hero status. I don't buy your product. Just because someone makes a certain amount of money, or didn't attend a University, doesn't mean they can't know the differences between the candidates. These people are not workhouse animals devoid of intelligence.

I also have to say, it really infuriates me to no end when people like you use these "Blue Collar classifications" to America's working class.

[julescator]

YOu have that exactly backwards! She is the policy/process person - he is the PEOPLE person! Let's be clear.

[IslandGyal]

Let Obama win or lose like Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, and others before him.

[Oldtt]

No, but I'll bet Florida will, and maybe Pennsylvania, and Arkansas, and Ohio.

[Gary47]

This is just a bunch of Obamabots dialing away. They're up a couple points after the 3rd quarter and want to declare the game over. Dream on kids. This is where the adults play and you better be ready to finish. If you really want to win then stay out there and compete, and stop whining about the competition. With that attitude the repubs will turn you in to toast within a week.

[bluesnot]

Oh Wise One, could you please help me understand why the Clintons have been praising John McCain? As a "kid" and a "venomous" Obama supporter, I don't understand how this helps the Democratic party. He's the Republican candidate. That's easy to understand. The Clintons are supposed to be Democrats. Shouldn't they be more critical of McCain? And Lieberman? Why have they been so supportive of Lieberman?

[Gary47]

Thanks for the compliment. Agree about the Clinton's praising McWacko, and I called them on it more than once (as I presume you have). And Obama can be more critical of McCain as well - both campaigns have woefully ignored that task. Of course your comment was a complete non sequiter to my post - the point of which that the game isn't over and the opponents are in it to win it. Only fools ask for it stop early.

[tbone99]

I guess the same reason Obama is drooling over Reagan and Bush SR....
Dems don't care about progressives , they care about playing to the center, the center RIGHT.

[kevenseven]

First, take your condescending tone and stick it.

The fact is that 82% of the Pledged delegates have been awarded. Obama leads by 6.2%.

We are well into the third quarter, Obama has more than enough money to compete, while Clinton is broke, she has nothing but negativity, and Obama is ready to take the fight to McBomb.

Clinton would need to win ALL the remaining contests by 2 to 1 to get even with Obama.

Do you in your wildest dreams think she could do that? When on only one of the eleven days of voting has she earned more delegates than he has? A whopping 2% more on Texas Tuesday! Big win!

[Gary47]

You're probably right that Obama will win, but the game's on and no one gets to call it early. Consider this practice for November. Obama's got 10 more contests to blow Hillary out of the water. Instead of whining, go out there and lay down some crushing defeats. Believe me, Hillary's approach is nothing compared to what you'll see from the repubs.

[fatherof5women]

that's because you cling to the math argument as if it was the only possible way to look at this....it is indeed one way...but it is not the only way...electability based on polls in august at the convention is another way....the reason superdelegates were created was to address just this kind of situation...and the party charter says they should use their independent judgment...it does not in any way state or even infer that the superdelegates automatically support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.....if it did, the superdelegates would never have been created....you seem to want this to be over now....but it isn't....and it's going to continue...probably all the way to the convention....just think of how much has changed in the last 5 months....there is simply no way to know what will happen in the next five months until we live them....

[mdcolli]

Oh go away!

[GBecker]

Unlike HRC who in the 4th quarter wants to replay the 2nd quarter 'cuz she thinks she'll do better the second time around.

[mcnairbo]

Of course she's been deluged with calls......from Obama supporters that think they're entitled to it for some reason. It ain't over. Man up Obama.

[kevenseven]

Answer this question and only this question:

Assuming that Obama wins the race for pledged by 145 delegates or better, should the super delegates give him the nomination?

And if not, why not?

Just those two questions, please. Directly.

[fatherof5women]

1) Possibly, but not necessarily.

2) Because it is the superdelegates' job to decide who would best lead the party in November. If the convention were today, the superdelegates would almost certainly support Obama because he is indeed ahead and there is nothing compelling right now to make them overturn the pledged delegate total.

HOWEVER...

where this argument always disconnects with Obama supporters is that the convention is still 5 months away. We have no idea what will transpire over the next few months. Hillary could lose Pennsylvania and then the race would be over, yes. But what if she wins big there, and in several other states? What if there are more damaging revelations about Obama? What if the polls suggest in August that McCain will easily defeat McCaIN BUT THAT HILLARY WOULD WIN? None of that may happen. ALL of it may happen. The botton line is that it is the superdelegates' job to use their judgment AT THE CONVENTION in August. Not in March.

[rzan]

Her campaign is nearly broke. I hope all of you Hillary supporters are helping out by contributing to your candidate's compaign. I regularly contribute 15 to 20 bucks to my candidate's campaign. If you believe in her, you should be contributing. As much as I don't want her to win, I feel a little sorry for her that she is so strapped for funds.

[bodi1313]

She is raising a million dollars a day, how is that 'being broke'. McCain won the nomination with no money. I guess Obama thinks he can buy the election.

[kevenseven]

By the way, just about the worst idea in primary reform is the single day primary.

If you want to assure that only the moneyed interests get a candidate nominated, and that all dark horses never get a moment's notice, you would run a one day primary.

If you want people like Kucinich and Dean to get any attention at all, you will fight the one day primary with all your energy.

The one day primary is just stupid.

And the one day primary will not lessen the influence of the media in any way. It would probably increase it.

And there is nothing wrong with starting with some small states, but it would be good to rotate that around. Ethanol is even more stupid than a one day national primary.

Oh, and we should vote on both Saturday and Sunday, and not at all in the week. Especially in the General.

Caucuses are good. I prefer the opinions of people who can be bothered to give their party a few hours of their time every four years. Why do I want people who will only vote if it is convenient to choose my Party's nominee?

[Aleka]

And then there is this: I think many people thought Clinton was a fine candidate back in Jan/Feb, I know I personally was pleased with both candidates. She had a ton of money and name recognition.

Now, down the road, after seeing her ethics in actions, I am appalled. And that's not even counting the Bosnia problem. So..there is a lot to be said for dragging the process out somewhat. Personally I just wish there was a better way to end it when the writing is on the wall.

[kevenseven]

I agree. Back then, I was opposed to her for strictly tactical reasons: her national negatives. Now I detest her and her campaign. There is no honesty or sincerity in there at all.

[JohnKemp]

Valid points.

The primaries need to be rotated with four states going first one year & last the next; this nonsense of sparsely populated Iowa & NH dictating the next President is absurd.

[kevenseven]

Wow. A chill just ran down my spine. You wrote something that was not vile or a lie, and I agree with you.

This is indeed a dark day.

And actually, Iowa and NH are not "sparsely populated" the the way, say, Montana or Nebraska are. But they should not always be first.

Small states early on are a good idea, but not always those two.

[Tellmethetruth]

What do John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Gary Hart, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd all have in common? They all ran for the Presidency and failed to gain the Democratic nomination and suffered humiliation and defeat.

Bill Clinton is the only Democrat elected for two terms since FDR - that his a 60 to70 drought on the Democrats to get the office of President for two terms in a row by any one person.

So, the fact that Hillary Clinton will give the Clinton's another 4 years has got to have enraged into a jealous, spiteful and envious rage against the Clintons. Obama has captialized on hatred to get to where he is at, learning well from the cult movement in the church of Rev. Wright.

He has capitlized on Blacks hatred of whites, hatred of women, anti-authority hatred among youths, and yes, jealously of the Clintons among the Democratic leaders who all wanted to President at one time in their careers and failed.

Obama has shown on more than one occassion he can rally hate to his side, over and over again, as GW Bush used fear to get elected

[IAM4CLINTON]

Amen- I totally agree. Obama has benefitted from also the white guilt- especially among the libreal, latte drinking whites- a vote for Obama somehow cleanses their forefathers' sins away !

[3811Billis]

I wasn't aware Bill Clinton was running for a third term. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Oldtt]

These old Dems are just jockeying for advantage. They have all made their bets and will hope to collect some influence in what they expect will be the new Obama administration. Please don't confuse their endorsements with an attack of Obama worship. Kennedy wants to write whatever health insurance plan comes out; Richardson is termed out as a governor and is seeking an Obama appointment by going back on his private assurances to Clinton fundraisers that he would be endorsing her; Hart, Leahy, and Dodd all have their own motives. None look at Barack as anything but a vehicle to their own goals, especially Senators Dodd, Leahy, and Kennedy who know that Obama is a Senate showhorse with no appetite for legislative give-and-take. The world of politics is not constructed out of sunlight and daisies, as Obamites will learn.

[3811Billis]

How old is Murtha? Hell, how old are the Clintons? Your argument is pointless, and has all the intellectual weight of baby's soiled diaper.

[crl9]

Tellmethetruth,
That was a really interesting view and one that I hadn't considered. Thanks.

[presto]

Really misleading headline, Huffpo. You might note that the "deluge" comes from Obama supporters.

[kevenseven]

Shocking!

Yes. We know that we have won this thing and we are tired of Hillary attempting to kneecap Obama in order to preserve her chances of running in four years.

See, Democrats want a Democrat for the nominee. And there is only one Democrat left on the menu.

I think you and Hillary are going to be accusing the 2025+ delegates nominating Obama of trying to bully her out of the race. Right there in Denver.

[presto]

There you go with the "kneecapping" again, Keven. My point, that you drew such a hodgepodge of assumptions out of, was that Huffpo's headline was misleading. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Or, you could just read my post.

[BlueBoomer]

keven:
Can you or ANY of the rabid Obama supporters out there PLEASE explain to those of us out here who are paying close attention (and aren't HRC fans either) this dichotomy:

If he has such great middle-east conflict judgement, WHY DID BARAK OBAMA CHOOSE TO NOT EVEN SHOW UP FOR THE BIDEN-GELB IRAQ SENATE RESOLUTION VOTE AND THE KYL-LIEBERMAN IRAN SENATE RESOLUTION VOTE? (They were the same day/night, just before the Philadelphia debate)... AND, how do you justify his audacity to criticize HRC for HER Iran vote, when he didn't show up to vote at all? (Cynically, and obviously correctly, banking on the premise that by criticizing HER vote, the public would assume that HE voted the other way.)

Can you please explain how that isn't legislative cowardice at best, or cynical hypocracy at worst?

Anybody???

[carolek]

I would absolutely encourage Hillary to stay in the race. All the Obama supporters who are so sure that he is "the answer" should sitdown and analyze the results of the primary those far. Most of the states that Obama won are republican states. The fact that he won the primary over Hillary does not mean that he will win those states. In fact, according to the political pundits Utah,IdahoMontanand Wyoming (states that Obama won in the primary) are considered to be solidly for McCain. New Mexico and Nevada (states that Hillary won) are up for grabs.This gives the states with upcoming primaries a very important role. I think that it is vital to establish who the favored democratic candidate is in the remaining states where there is a possibility for that state to "go democratic"We are all caught up in this fervor of who has the most delegates etc. I think it is important to ascertain the reality of where these delegates come from. After all ,in a general election "one person one vote",winner take all in the state rules. This is far different from the rules of th e caucus's where they have weighted formulas for assigning delegates, and open registration.

[Aleka]

---We are all caught up in this fervor of who has the most delegates etc.---

Well yes, since that is what the contest is about.

Do you always find it this acceptable to try to change the rules of a contest after you have lost?

[abot]

no but HRC finds it acceptable.

What disgusts me, is she is trying to change the rules when they're not going in her favor (Caucus delegates are less important, it's not pledged delegates it's big states,etc.).

It's trying to win at any price. She can't win unless she cheats the system. No thanks. I don't support those tactics.

[kevenseven]

The fact that Clinton won a primary in a Blue state does not mean for a minute that Obama will not win that state.

In fact, if California was to run its primary in two days, Obama would win it.

Obama has won several Blue States, and many purple states.

Are you suggesting that it is bad to have a candidate who performed well in CO, WA, VA, GA, SC, KS?

Why would that be? You can assure us right now that there is no way that a Dem gets elected in those states? Really? If you want to say that Clinton cannot win in Virginia, I won't argue with you. But I know Virginia, I think that he has a real shot there.

But whatever your argument, answer this question: Assuming, as I do, that Obama wins the pledged delegates by a margin of 145 or better, should the supers over ride that and give the nomination to Clinton?

That question there. Answer it directly. No shilly-shally.

[presto]

No, the superdelegates should do what they are supposed to do. Vote their conscience. That includes taking into account, among other things, pledged delegates, popular vote, and electability.