ask.com


What happened to the Democratic Party?

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've volunteered in countless Democratic campaigns. I've managed campaigns for Democrats. I was a Democratic candidate for statewide office in California. For three years, I was Chair of the California Democratic Party. But I don't recognize the Democratic Party today.

The party I knew loved a good fight, loved debating the issues, recognized the value of a high-profile, hard-fought primary battle -- and believed in giving everyone a fair shot. Today, the Democratic Party's turned into a bunch of weak-willed weenies.

What's going on? The party is blessed with two of the best candidates ever to run for president. The party's making history with the first African-American and the first woman having a serious shot at the presidency. In every state, the Democratic primary is attracting record numbers of new voters and building a huge, new pool of Democrats that will benefit all Democratic candidates in November. And how do party leaders respond? By trying to shut down the primary. This is insane!

Bill Richardson endorses Barack Obama. Good for him. But he can't stop there. He calls on Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd endorse Obama. Good for them, too. But, same thing. Both feel somehow compelled to add that Clinton should quit. Why? There is no more rationale for Clinton to drop out of the race than there is for Obama to drop out of the race.

True, Clinton hasn't locked up the nomination yet. But neither has Obama. True, even if she wins every delegate in every remaining primary, Clinton can not reach the magic 2024 delegates necessary to secure the nomination. But neither can Obama. True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

Plus, and here's the most important point: It's not over yet. Until it is, we can't be sure of the outcome. And it would be a big mistake to end it prematurely. There's been many a boxing match where one fighter won 14 rounds, only to get knocked out in the 15th.

All these Obama supporters calling on Clinton to drop out aren't helping their candidate, either. They make Obama look like he's afraid of a fight. And they themselves look like a stereotypical bunch of men telling a woman she can't hack it in politics, so she might as well get back in the kitchen.

No, Hillary Clinton should not quit this race. And neither should Barack Obama. They're both great candidates. Either one of them will make a great president. So let the primaries continue and let the voters decide. If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll do handstands on the White House lawn. But only if he wins it, fair and square.

Get more thoughts and pre-order a copy of "Trainwreck: The End of the Conservative Revolution (And Not a Moment Too Soon)" at www.billpressshow.com



Comments
1098
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)
collapse zeph See Profile I'm a Fan of zeph

Thank you Mr. Press. I've long respected your work and writing. This is no exception.

I'm sure the comments are full of hopeful, uniting posts of thoughtful, logical Democrats, right? Well, I think I'll just be happy to read your post, thank you and move on.

Go Hillary!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 AM on 04/02/2008
collapse 2351 See Profile I'm a Fan of 2351

I usually like Mr. Press, however, I cannot agree with his analogy of everything. Point being, electoral votes are of no consideration at this point. It goes both ways, if after getting the most delegates, the poplar vote and the nomination is given to Hillary, how fair could that be? We are even talking about electoral votes at this point, and I think that Obama can win in those states where Hillary has enjoyed a small lead to Obama. When we get to the electoral college, then we will discuss electoral votes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse OmegaJamie See Profile I'm a Fan of OmegaJamie

I fully agree, but to be "fair and square" -- saying Clinton is ahead in electoral votes assumes that Obama would not win in November the heavily democratic states she has won -- states like California. Either candidate will win CA, so to say she is ahead in electoral votes is not very genuine. The argument that they should both stay in is a good one only when we consider that it garners more attention and motivates more voters. Let's just make sure it's not motivating hate against either of these excellent candidates. Let's stay unified while we argue this out.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

I no longer believe Hillary is an excellent candidate. Not the way she's smeared her opponent the past couple of months. I'll vote for her, even if she steals the nomination but I don't think I can accept her as being an excellent candidate any longer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse timran See Profile I'm a Fan of timran

yeah...that electoral vote argument is ridiculous!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

I don't get why seemingly reasonable people kling to easily debunked talking points in order to stay in love with Hilalry Clinton. Obama did not stop revotes, has not asked the remaing primaries be shelved, hasn't even called for her to drop out. You can bet if the tables were turned they would be screaming for Obama ot get out. This electoral argument is absurd. Of course Obama is going to win the traditionally blue states. It isn't even a factor in choosing the nominee. They think he's got scandals? Are you kidding me man? Hillary has more negatives than he. She unifies Republicans like no other Democrat and more than some Republicans could.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse RichLiberal See Profile I'm a Fan of RichLiberal


All the talk about rules no longer matters. The rules state that under the current circumstances that the nominee will be chosen by the SuperDelegates at the Convention.

SuperDelegates are empowered to do whatever they want and vote however they choose. As a result of this power, they are rendered thereby powerless until the Convention.

The reason is clear as Obama's strong man JJJr demonstrated when he intimidated Hillary's black SDs to break their commitment to Hillary and "switch" to Obama, whose campaign then had a big celebration at how clever they were.

But this reveals the powerlessness that the SDs have except to actually cast their vote. Because their word is demonstrably meaningless plus the fact that they are empowered to do whatever they want whenever they want, they cannot commit to a candidate in any meaningful way. They can say they do, but who's to believe them?

The only real power they have is to actually cast their vote, and they can't do that before the Convention.

I find the whole thing extremely amusing. As a Hillary supporter I look forward to the long months ahead trying to convince the SDs to vote for Hillary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse RichLiberal See Profile I'm a Fan of RichLiberal


I know I'm just talking to myself here, but the prospects of the reality of the current situation are truly fascinating.

What are there? 798 SuperDelegates? And they are all pretty much long time members of the Democratic Party.

And since most of them are elected in the Big Blue states, most of them are in districts that Hillary won.

And the ONLY thing now that determines the Dem nominee now is what these 798 people decide to do when they cast their vote at the Convention. Just like the electoral votes in Nov, the Dem process has turned from the people to 798 specific individuals empowered to cast one of these SD votes.

So, it's kind of a new game. We have the pool of 798 and we have the 2 competing sides and the game must go on until the Aug convention. No one has the power to end the game. The game ends when the SDs vote.

On the one hand we have Bill Clinton, pres for 8 yrs w lots of deep political connections to work this crowd of 798. And on the other hand we have Sen O, with whom? That's what will be so interesting to find out. Who is really behind the Obama "phenomenon"? I have answered this elsewhere and it is TedKennedy, but it will be interesting to see what the puppet master has to say as the curtain is drawn back..

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 04/02/2008
collapse RichLiberal See Profile I'm a Fan of RichLiberal


Oh, and not to say that Obama never has any good ideas, he actually does. The way he and JJJr intimidated the black delegates to switch to Obama from Hillary was to threaten them with a competitive candidate to run against them in the next election, i.e. 2008.

Since most of the SDs are elected officials, and I think all the Congressional Dems House and Senate are SDs this presents an interesting opportunity. Taking the lead from wise Obama, I expect the strategy over these long coming months will be to take note of how each SD seems to be leaning and if the SD is leaning to Obama, and the SDs constituents voted for Hillary, well then, it's time for the people to be heard. And we will be heard. Clearly we won't knock Nancy Pelosi out of her seat, but I'm sure there is some pissed-off Hillary supporter willing to give it a try just for the fun of it. And I think that will be the case around the nation as we prepare for the Convention and anxiously await to see how our SD casts their vote.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse Gadrielle See Profile I'm a Fan of Gadrielle

Bill, I listen to your show everyday on AirAmerica, and it's pretty good. But, you need to rent Warren Beatty's film, "Bulworth." It's about a DINO (like Clinton and all the DLCers, like her) who so regrets selling his soul to the repug-lite, centrist, corporatist agenda that he considers suicide. . . real suicide . . . not just the kind of political suicide Hill and Bill are now engaged in.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:06 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse hfjai See Profile I'm a Fan of hfjai

Ummm... you might want to look at opensecrets.org at which candidates Obama's Hope PAC has given to. They are almost ALL DLC Democrats.

Both Obama and Clinton have some serious centrist tendancies. But Hillary is by far the more progressive of the two. I don't know why the blogosphere refuses to see that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse Darnamell See Profile I'm a Fan of Darnamell

Because, last I checked, progressives weren't racist fearmongers who denigrate hope.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 PM on 04/02/2008
collapse Didi47 See Profile I'm a Fan of Didi47

Bravo Bill! I thought all voices of reason had left the country!
Go Hillary!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:00 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

Why, because they don't support your candidate? Press' argument is so incredibly weak. Electoral votes? Not a factor in choosing a nominee and it is very likely those blue states will stay blue if we run mickey or Minnie Mouse. Hillary's campaign have been spending time and resources trashing Obama. Going so far as to claim that McCain, the Republican nominee after all, has more experience and all Obama has is a speech. That's a nasty comment one would expect would be directed at the opposition party. What Bill is refusing to acknowledge is the scenario Hillary must use to win the nomination. Which would be to use super delegates to supersede Obama's pledged delegate lead. This isn't insignificant. It may be in the rules, but would be very damaging to our parties chances in November and beyond.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse accountability See Profile I'm a Fan of accountability

FrankBlackFrancis:
"Why, because they don't support your candidate?"

No, because they can't seem to have a reasoned conversation.

Reasonable people are quite happy to applaud you for whoever it is you support and have no problem debating on merits, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in their own and their opponents, and do not resort to venomous attacks, neo-con tactics, lies and talking points in trying to take down another candidate, and sophomoric name calling. They use objective analysis and critical thinking skills in both defending their own positions and disagreeing with another's points.

Since one seldom sees anything resembling objectivity and critical thinking skills here and consistently sees (and endures) the name calling, venom and hateful attacks,here it is easy to believe that everyone has lost their mind. It is pleasant to read a different framing of a conversation. It is in fact pleasant to read a well reasoned approach no matter who your candidate is.

That is two in one day on HuffPo. Be still my heart.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

Thank you so much. That was very sweet.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse Didi47 See Profile I'm a Fan of Didi47

Well thank God for you Bill Press! What do you know! I like you thought both the media and the politicians we've been forced to listen to lately were all more than a wee bit nuts. And to think these are the people who are supposed to be 'leaders of the country'!
This election in my opinion has been one of the most 'dirty' media driven anti Clinton smear jobs we've ever witnessed - and they've certainly given Ken Starr a run for his money.
The one positive that has surfaced from this charade - is - it's proven just how tough Hillary is - especially compared to her opponent - who has sailed along on the fawning disgraceful media's coattails for the past 4 months.

Go Hillary!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse Darnamell See Profile I'm a Fan of Darnamell

You must mean the "fawning" press like CNN that is full of paid Clinton campaign spokespeople.

Or maybe you've forgotten about your new friends over at FAUXNews. They love you guys.

For as many supposedly pro-Obama pieces I've read in various newspapers, there is always - ALWAYS! - some qualifier in the article. You may read it as partisan screed, but it isn't.

And that Special Comment by Olbermann awhile back? It wasn't pro-Obama. It wasn't even anti-Hillary. It was a warning from a supporter to run a better campaign. Too bad no one was listening.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse accountability See Profile I'm a Fan of accountability

Ummm, I don't want to rain contradict you but unfortunately I must.
A non partisan media watch dog group has released a newly published report of a study that shows that the evening news media averages 83% positive coverage for Obama and 53% positive for Hillary Clinton. That is a 30% difference. Are you telling me this isn't significant?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media. CMPA election studies have played a major role in the ongoing debate over improving the election process.

LEADS HILLARY IN THE RACE FOR GOOD PRESS
http://tinyurl.com/2n7u4t
Media Boost Obama, Bash Billary:NBC Is Toughest on Hillary

http://tinyurl.com/3dka98

If you would like to refute these numbers please include links to your information.
Thanks

Oh, Re: your remarks about CNN please post some proof for these allegations.
I have noticed they are less biased thought that isn't to say not biased at all.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

So both Barack and Hillary have equal parts negative and positive? Maybe just maybe that's not the case, which makes this research irrelevant. And just what is so bad about the media treating a Democrat reasonably and not smearing them? This sounds like crying to me. I must be honest. It would appear to me, that instead of a double standard, one candidate has a better relationship with the press and can better utilize them. But then again, I'm always looking on the bright side.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

That sounds like jealousy talking. Ever stop to consider Obama has fewer negatives and or handles the press better? Can someone explain to me what is bad about having a nominee that isn't skewered by the press like Kerry and Gore did?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse accountability See Profile I'm a Fan of accountability

The fourth estate is supposed to fairly present the candidates positions without their own opinions skewering the analysis. It is despicable. It is a horrible experience watching this happen in our country, to our elections and because it benefits Obama one is not permitted to discuss it. If anyone questions abusive venom is hurled... even if they are Obama supporters themselves.

Frankly when SNL did their satire I was relieved. The fact that no one from Obama's camp or supporters would cop to what was so obvious that a comedy show parodied it was a big turnoff. . Now I support them both. I support a Democrat for President. I can't fully support Obama, not because he plays the games that all politicians play but because he doesn't take any responsibility for it and turns it against the person he is going after. It is what Passive Aggressive manipulators are good at and I don't like it. I like him fine, just not his behavior and certainly not his campaign.
The fact that those who defend him so vehemently cannot be objective and attack Clinton for some of the same things is pretty irrational IMHO.
Its also pretty scary at this point.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse accountability See Profile I'm a Fan of accountability

Its great to have a candidate not skewered by the media. The media had a man crush on bush the idiot king, they wanted to have a beer with him and Gore and Kerry suffered for it... as did we.

It would be better to have two candidates not skewered by the press. To imply that it is Clinton's "fault" that the media is biased is blaming the victim. The media's job is to present the issues to the American people so we can determine who is the candidate that we feel is most able to address the nation's issues. (In this case a mess beyond anything we can imagine.) It should not be a candidates job to "handle" the media. In fact when she "handles" the media she is attacked for that. Clinton started protecting herself from the media back in the early days of the Presidency when they started all this crap and would take what she said and twist it. They hate her for not going along.

The point is not that Obama is not being skewered it is not even the unfair coverage that is so disturbing (though it is) the most disturbing part of this is that those who claim to be Progressives, Democrats are excusing the media and colluding with them in their "fixing" the election. They did it for the idiot king and they are doing it for Obama, will they be doing it for McCain next?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse kee See Profile I'm a Fan of kee

I guess we saw a brilliant candidate who wanted to run a clean campaign get the kitchen sink of lies, innuendo and desperation thrown at him by a fellow Democrat, who often aligned herself with the Republican nominee, John McCain. I suppose we saw this as a traitor type situation, when a Democrat who is obviously losing, suggests to other Democrats that the Republican is better than the inevitable nominee, because I'm a sore loser, and want to ruin his chances of winning!
Pardon us simple minded Democrats for caring more about this party, its eventual nominee and the down ticket candidates, than we do a good gutter fight. Let Hillary Clinton stay in this race. The more she talks, the more she makes it clear that she is not a leader, and will lie and whine when the going gets tough. The longer she drags this out, the more of her personality will shine through the smoke, and that, my dear, is more dangerous than any call for her to leave this race.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse kennedy See Profile I'm a Fan of kennedy

Barack Obama takes a shot at Ted Kennedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlvJ8bA6_xA

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

Do you want to continue to tear down the nominee or do you want a Democrat to win in November? This link you provided is as moot as Hillary Clinton's campaign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse kennedy See Profile I'm a Fan of kennedy

How Obama tried to steal Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LASNtFcqF4g

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

Get over it. He won Texas, 99-95. Try to get your head around the fact Hillary is not going to be the nominee. We have Obama, warts and all. Once you stop looking for negatives in him and ignore her negatives you'll realize what a great candidate we have.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:17 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse accountability See Profile I'm a Fan of accountability

"Once you stop looking for negatives in him ..."

Ohhhh, that's rich!

And said without irony too I'll bet!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:38 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse standforpeace See Profile I'm a Fan of standforpeace

"But Clinton leads in electoral votes." WTF! Just like that you throw your seeming non-biased view out the window and reveal yourself as a Clintonite. As a life long Democrat and as someone who makes a living commenting on politics, you must be aware that electoral votes play no role in the primary/caucus process. The Electoral College only comes into play in the general election. So on every metric that any reasonable person could use to judge the frontrunner so far -- it's Obama. Pouplar vote -- Obama. Most states -- Obama. And the one actually used to determine the winner, delegates -- right again Obama.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse suuzie See Profile I'm a Fan of suuzie

If this was a boxing match Hillary would have been disaqualified for hitting below the belt. Obama supporters are all for campaigning and debating the issues, but even in boxing as brutal a sport as it is, there are rules. A fight for the nomination does not mean anything goes, what Leahy was suggesting is play fair or get out of the race. Our young daughters are wathcing this race and she is not setting a good example, I am so embarassed by her antics. Please, Hillary stop being so evil, and telling lies. The world is watching and I can only imagine no head of state would want to do sit down and negotiate peace with you.







If this was a boxing matching Hillary would have been disqualified for hitting below the belt. We are for a good fight, but even a brutal sport like boxing has rules. I believe what Senator Leahy was implying is, play fair or get out of the race. We are electing a president who will have to neogiate peace with our enemies and to think we might be sending a president that has the audacity to get on a platform and tell a deliberate lie surrounding a once , war torn country . What enemy would have confidence in Hillary ,so really, maybe Senator Leahy was really telling her to stop lying, you are an embarassment to us all.




r remember, "what goes around comes around", two fold.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse MediaDiva2u See Profile I'm a Fan of MediaDiva2u

Thank you, Mr. Press. I was beginning to think no one in the media could see the forest for the trees. I cannot count how many times I want to shout out "Shut Up" to all the "experts" who want to end the political process before the Democratic convention in August. Isn't that something that the NeoCons would pull? Let the Democrats pick their candidate for the White House without race OR gender bias. Yes, it exists but come on Dems, rise above it and let the political process work for the first time in a LONG time. And if Obama and Clinton's surrogates (aka "spinners") could just dial down the hyperbolic rhetoric, perhaps WE Democrat voters can convince these two leaders to work together for the good of OUR country and not their own egos.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse FrankBlackFrancis See Profile I'm a Fan of FrankBlackFrancis

It's the math dear. And Mr. Press leaves out the math and demeans Obama supporters by implying they are sexist. Media spin aside, and this post by Bill is incredible spin, Obama can't be caught in the pledged delgate count, and the popular vote, and the states won. The likelyhood that super delegates would ignore all that and vote for Hillary is very small and for good reason. This is why some, like myself, percieve Hilalry's persistence a selfish grand standing move that puts her interests over the party's interests.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 04/01/2008
collapse Darnamell See Profile I'm a Fan of Darnamell

Absolutely correct.

For the record, I'm not against Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. I'm against her because her and her supporters are racists.

Get it right Press.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 04/01/2008