Should Obama Drop Out of the Race?

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

[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!!

[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.

[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.

[timran]

yeah...that electoral vote argument is ridiculous!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.

[Didi47]

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

[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.

[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.

[Darnamell]

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

[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.

[kennedy]

Barack Obama takes a shot at Ted Kennedy:

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

[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.

[kennedy]

How Obama tried to steal Texas.

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

[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.

[accountability]

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

Ohhhh, that's rich!

And said without irony too I'll bet!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[demlover1]

Excellent post.

[nachtengel]

The problem isn't the Race, the problem *is Race.

Hillary is no out saying, I'm like Rocky, I'm fighting the big mean bad black guy. imagine the big mean black guy beating up on the white person. wink wink nudge nudge.

The racist subtext to her and all of her supporters is getting quite insane these days. While not unexpected, she clearly knows it's getting to the people it is intended in PA.

The good news is racist would vote Republican before they would vote for Obama, so nothing lost, nothing gained either way. But this is the core of the issue of this race.... The Clinton's prey on the poor and uneducated, with Whitewater till now, and they play to the black population when they need their vote, and to the white racist when they need that vote like now. It's sad really, and in 2008 it's time for them to be called out and go away.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

I'm pretty skeptical but not that cynical. It could be pre-meditated on her part but there really is no way of knowing or proving that.

[accountability]

OMG.... knock it off alreaddddyyyyyy.
Banging my head on wall now.
No matter what comes out it is called racist or race baiting.
Stop! For Christ's sweet sake please Stop this crap!

Its already been admitted by Obama that the SC crap came from his camp. Go to Youtube and look for it, with Tim Russert.
Russert holds up 4 sheets of paper and asks Obama about it, 4 sheets of talking points directed to the media calling Bills comments racist and this is why and how and how to frame it. Russert asks Obama if in hindsight he regrets the continued pushing of the story even after he came out and said that it would stop and Bill wasn't racist but said something "unfortunate" (remember that?) The damage was done though... everybody, the media included (who never covered the Russert piece) kept up the race baiting narrative and every idiot who just needs a vehicle for hatred continues it.
My God, what is the matter with you people. Take the frigging LOG out of your own eye before looking for the splinter in some one elses.

You are deluded and colluding with the corporate media and powers that be in the DNC. Not because you are voting for Obama, he's great, but because you seem to feel entitled to crucify someone with lies and false premises and distortions,. WTF???... ISSUES!

BTW.... NOT a Hillary supporter, a fair, honest, objective, decency supporter.
I research.

[pecadillosam]

Ahem, sir,

Your Electoral College reasoning is rather flawed, in my humble opinion, for at least two reasons:

1) It assumes the "eighteen state" strategy, which was tried and failed in 2000 and 2004, will somehow work this time with Hillary as the Democratic candidate. Good luck. Hillary is a far, far more polarizing and divisive candidate in the minds of voters (especially independents and republicans!) than Gore or Kerry ever were, so right away you can throw out the traditional "red" states as automatic in the Republican category for electoral votes. And with Hillary running, forget the so-called "purple" states like Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. So now you're down to the few big blue states to try to carry the Electoral College vote, especially after a bloody convention fight that will surely alienate and embitter Obama supporters.

2) Why do you presume to imply that Obama can’t carry the large blue states just because Hillary won the popular vote in those states for the Democratic primary? Obama will carry California, just for starters, and you better believe Obama will carry New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania, just to name a few. When voters in those states are given the choice between McBush (McCain) and his promise to extent the Iraq War “until we get the job done” – whatever that means, since the reason to still be there is never explained - voters know that means war without end, and that choice will be an easy call.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

Well said, and i must say painfully obvious.

[hfjai]

It's not the "large blue states" that matter. It's the large swing states, specifically Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. In both 2000 and 2004, it was said that it came down to these three states, that whichever party took two of the three would win the election. There is no reason to think 2008 will be any different, and Hillary has beaten Obama in all three, hands down. The supers will notice that.

[campgranata]

hillary clinton is not a great candidate, Mr. Press, nor is she even a good liar. with all her experience in this sport one would think she would be as her experience lies in lying. But her greatest flaw is that she is running on the experience of another and it simply won't do.

[kennedy]

Hillary Clinton is a great candidate who is going up against a cult.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

Wake up. She can't win without doing serious harm to the party. If anyone is acting like cult members it's you. You'll grasp on to any alleged negative you can scramble up against Obama but that doesn't change the numbers and the facts.

[anticon]

What happened to the Democratic party?It vanished with NAFTA and welfare reform.We are trying to take it back but talking heads like you who enabled the DLC are not helping.

You sold your soul to stay employed on the corporate media.I can see your reasoning.One has to eat.

But please spare me the lecture!