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

[RichLiberal]

Bill, please stop giving Obama the satisfaction of including "number of states won" as a rationale for giving him the time of day. This is a non-value token that Obama uses to make his list a little longer. It is no different from other Obama lies and frauds.

Ok, let's say one candidate won New York and the other won Idaho and Utah. Whoopty-doo! The 2nd candidate is ahead in "number of states won".

How about if one candidate won California and the other won Nebraska and Alaska. Well, whoopty-effing-do again!!!

Lets add up the electoral votes.

With NY and CA Hillary has 55+31 = 86.

With his 4 states, Obama has 3+4+5+5 = 17.

So, Hillary is ahead 86 to 17. But Obama is ahead in states won 4-2. Whoopty-effing-doo!

[SethBullock]

OK, RichLib--though I can't fathom why a liberal would be for Clinton. How 'bout giving Obama the satisfaction of having the most popular vote and the most delegates? How would that be? When we change the rules to count electoral votes, lets make that the rule from the beginning. And if you think Clinton would have beaten Obama by those rules, I recommend you alter your smoking habits.

[RichLiberal]

Well it's pretty clear if we have those 2 categories that Hillary most likely will have won the popular vote including FL/MI. So, even by a strict reading of the rules Obama's claim to the popular vote is very flimsy.

The only solid claim he has, and I admit he has it, is that he will win a majority of the available pledged delegates, but will come short of the necessary number to clinch the nomination because of the super-delegate gap.

So, by defn of the rules the SDs will decide the nominee. Also, by the rules the SDs can do whatever they want as Tom Daschle foolishly was boasting on DailyShow couple weeks ago. The SDs cannot even "commit" to a nominee. JJJr demonstrated that with his strong-arming of Hillary's black committed SDs to break their commitment and "commit" to Obama. Who's to say they are not doing it out of fear and won't switch and vote for Hillary at the Convention?

So, Tom Daschle's boast boomerangs him back in the face, because the SDs are so independent and so immune to any commitment to anything, they are powerless to do anything until it is their turn to vote at the Convention.

Have a nice summer!

[mounthoodliberal]

your logic is as flawed as Bill's. there are no electoral votes in a primary...­.those occur in the general election. your analysis is wishful fantasy.

[oldrwizr]

This is what is called "grasping at straws".

[3y3kwah]

The electoral vote argument is the most disingenuous argument there is for two reasons.

The first and foremost being that it is simply not the way the primary/caucus system works. Anyone suggesting otherwise believes that "ifs and buts" are in fact "candy and nuts".

Second, and more disturbingly, the electoral argument necessitates the assumption that Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama in the general, should he become the nominee. If that truly is the case then McCain would beat Obama in the general because "McCain supporters" + "Hillary supporters" > "Obama supporters".

Unfortunately, to believe in this argument whole-heartedly, one must concede that the converse assumption would be true. That is, Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary in the general. And, guess what, by this warped logic, Hillary loses the general election to McCain too because "McCain supporters" + "Obama supporters" > "Hillary Supporters".

So to believe (foolishly) in this "Obama is not electable because of Hillary's electoral college lead (and her supporters would revolt and give their support to McCain)" would also mean that "Hillary is not electable (because Obama's supporters are going to take their (lesser but crucial) amount of electoral college votes and give them to McCain.)"

This electoral college/el­ectability argument is bunk.

[aesova]

Obama and Clinton are not competing for electoral votes, nor are they competing for "number of states won" or even "big states." They are competing for delegates, and senator Obama is ahead.

You can use whatever math you want, but the only math that will count is the DNC's math, and that math is based upon delegates, not electoral votes, big states, or anything else. Even if MI and FL were seated today according to the primary results, there is only a slim chance of HC catching up.

That said, I think that HRC should stay in as long as she and her supporters feel it is appropriate, but I would hope that she would focus on the issues important to the country - undoing the failures of the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.

As a lifelong Democrat, I will vote for the nominee, even the candidate is not my preference, because I am committed to the ideals of the Democratic Party, and I realize that BO's and HC's worst qualities still beat McCain's best.

[WGT]

Mr. Press:

By this time, many of us have taken our respective sides when it comes to the Obama and
Clinton candidacies. Perhaps, we have even lost some of our objectivity. But, surely, you
cannot truly believe in the “electoral vote” argument. I believe Hillary should stay
in the race as long as she wants but I don’t believe in false and deceptive arguments.
The electoral argument only works if we can safely assume that the states that Hillary
won during the primaries will not vote for Obama during the general election. Can you
safely say that New York and California will be lost to Obama in the general election
because they supported Hillary in the primaries? Of course not! So how can the electoral
vote be an issue in the primaries? Either you are not thinking or you are trying to
mislead us about your obvious candidate, Hillary Clinton. Let them run, and may the best
candidate win, but let’s keep it honest. This sounds like another Bosnia tale.

[RichLiberal]

Well, yes, because the Hillary Clinton supporters are fast evolving into the Stop Obama supporters. This is perfectly fair play since Obama at root, is Ted Kennedy's Stop Hillary nominee.

So, how will this all end up. I for one believe Hillary should stay into the race until the end and make it clear that Obama's insults to her supporters by calling us racists for his own personal gain starting with his distortion of Hillary's post-NH LBJ remarks, and the destructiveness that he has caused to the Democratic Party by stirring up this reverse racism by turning the black vote into a pure 90-10 racist vote, has eliminated him as a possible candidate for the Democrats.

If John Edwards is smart, and keeps his mouth shut, he may well end up being the nominee.

[Squirtapotamus]

Ever wonder why it's the Hillary bloggers who keep protesting about being called a racist? Obama has never made this claim. The claim lives on only because the Hillary bloggers keep bringing it up. If they protest enough, maybe someday people will believe it. Classic divisive politics.

[tomcj]

Note that RichLiberal's analogy means that Hillary is, like Carter in 1980, the sitting Democratic President. One thing that Hillary's supporters can not understand is that she has to Run For Office, the same as any non-Clinton.

And RichLiberal is telling a lie when he says "Obama's insults to her supporters by calling us racists for his own personal gain...."

There was no such Obama statement. It is disgraceful how low people will stoop to defend Hillary and The Clinton's.

[nivek]

Bill Press has been pumping Hillary Clinton shamelessly, all the while claiming a non-partisan stance . Disingenuous, unoriginal, and displaying his tin ear as usual.

[whatfreshhellisthis]

I hope that what you meant to say was, "Bill Press has been pimping Hillary Clinton shamelessl­y." And even if that was what you meant, how is support of Hillary "pimping" as opposed to simply supporting or promoting?

[suneelio]

I'm for Obama. I suspect that if the shoe were on the other foot -- Hillary were ahead -- there would be massive pressure for him to pull out. That said, as long as we can put the kitchen sink away, I absolutely agree that the campaign should continue until the last vote has been counted from Puerto Rico.

Florida and Michigan -- that I'm not so sure about. Those folks broke the rules, and don't rule-breakers get punished in our society?

[polish]

Excuse me, those "folks" didn't break the rules. 1.7 million people voted in Florida. Those "folks" expect our votes to be counted. I thought we had a democratic society where every US citizen had the right to vote and have our vote counted under our Constituition. If they aren't counted, then a candidate will win under circumstance that are underhanded and unethical. Obama's people are blocking the vote count. Check it out.

[LilyK]

She signed the pledge not to campaign. She went on television and said those primaries wouldn't count. And yet... This from "The Nation" (1/28/2008).

"So she has begun appearing in Florida in anticipation of Tuesday's Democratic primary there.

Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" ...and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.

That's the raw political reality of Clinton's move, even if she is spinning it as an embrace of participatory democracy.­..

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," she declared before arriving in Florida...­.

That may sound like a high-minded embrace of democracy ...but it's really nothing more than the latest political gambit from a Clinton campaign that is developing a reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules....

Her arrival is Sarasota was timed so that she could be photographed with palm trees behind her. "It is a perfect day here in Florida," declared a bemused candidate who officially was not campaigning in Florida as she posed for the classic Florida campaign photo. "

[HowietheScreamer]

Obama's "people" have NOTHING to do with it. It's the DNC rules committee. What is it whith you sHillary people? You just swallow talking points and spit them out on command? Don't you people BOTHER TO DO ANY ACTUAL RESEARCH?

NIETHER campaign has ANY control over this issue. It's up to the STATES and the DNC.

Geeze, a little bit of reality would be nice.

[aesova]

Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to the Hillary Clinton campaign and member of the DNC, voted to invalidate the MI and FL Democratic Primaries. Who among "Obama's people" did?

Meanwhile, one side of HC's mouth is saying "let the people vote!" while the other side is saying "pledged delegates aren't really pledged." She didn't fight for my vote when it was invalidated, nor did she fight for it she was ahead in delegates. As a Michigan citizen, I feel that she is using my state as a wedge issue, and that blaming Obama for "disenfranchising" voters when her own adviser voted to invalidate is pure hypocrisy.

I live in Michigan, and the recent decision not to hold a second primary was made by the Michigan Legislature. Not "Obama's people."

I can appreciate your frustration, but the the DNC and MI and FL legislatures are responsible for this. Clinton is far more connected to the party elite in Michigan and has been endorsed by Gov. Granholm and both Senators. While I share your anger and frustration, I think that it is misdirected.

[DrPayne]

Michigan and Florida are seperate sets of circumstances. The Florida issue is due to the Florida Republican majority moving up the Democrats primary (state run) so I don't blame the Dems in Florida. Also all the candidates were on the ballot. Hillary campaigning there speaks more to her willingness to do as she pleases then anything to do with the voters there.

BUT Michigan is there own problem. The Dems there mucked it up themselves.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

Technically she only held fund raisers. But I agree. We can sit back and blame those dastardly Republicans after the fact or we as Dems could expose them before the fact. I heard from friends in Florida that many Dems had no idea the primary had moved up. If the party is so disorganized they would allow all of this to happen, someone must clean it up. There is a reason why there is a stereo type that Dems don't fight back. you don't have to crawl in the gutter to fight effectively. That's a reason I like Obama. It's like he uses ju jitsu not karate. He'll let his opponent come at him and use their energy against them.

[kennedy]

REALLY?

ANYONE THAT CALLS FOR OBAMA IS LEAVE THE RACE IS CALLED A RACIST.

SO HOW MANY IN THE PRESS WOULD CALL FOR THAT?

[FrankBlackFrancis]

Really? I never heard that. Are you sure your not just projecting again?

[Grim]

Bill Press misses the main point. Elections today are about momentum and money; without either you're toast. For the sake of the party, one of these candidates must drop out. It's not about factionalism within the party, it's about electability in November.

In short, Bill Press is really part of the old guard and the status quo and has to learn that the rules that he knows and believes no longer apply.

Hillary Clinton must drop out and now.

[WillBFair]

Thank's Mr. Press. The atmosphere around here has been so ugly for so long. Your words are a breath of fresh air.
But to get back to the ugly atmoshphere, I just wish one of the candidates didn't rely on undemocratic caucuses and disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan and using republican smear tactics.
Ok. I'm sorry. It just shows that you're one of the few people around here who has kept his wits about him. Congrats.

[Tsunami]

Obama has the WRIGHT stuff and should continue in the race although he is unable to get the necessary number of delegates to gain the nomination.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

With super delegates he will. For Hill to supersede the pledged delegates with SDs would be disastrous. I say this not as an Obama supporter. But a life long Democrat who wants our party to re-take the White House. I do support him now, because the alternative would lessen our chances. I'm not a big fan of team Clinton, I'll admit, but I'll vote for her in a New York minute if she gets the nom. I just think our chances are severely compromised if she pulls the SD card.

[kennedy]

Obama can't win on his own. I thought he was GOD.

[Jaradan]

And another thing, Bill Press:

"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."

Every criticism of Hillary can't be boiled down to sexism. Maybe, just maybe her critics don't like her because she's a rotten human being. It's 2008. Sexism isn't that bad. I'm a black woman and I can tell you that I get discriminated against way more because of my race than sex. I've been called a "nigger" way more than I've been called a "bitch". I've been denied opportunities because other WOMEN thought my accomplishments are the result of affirmative action. As a matter of fact, I've gotten a lot of advantages because of my gender. I get out of tickets easy. I get men going out of their way to open doors for me, watching their language in my company, etc. I've found that men who are sexist usually end up being very impressed with me once I demonstrate my abilities and intelligence.

I'm a woman who doesn't know my way around the kitchen and I'm telling Hillary that she can't hack it in CLEAN politics. Maybe she ought to learn how to clean her kitchen before trying to run this country.

[ItsAlessandro]

lol, this isn't about you Jaradan.

[Jaradan]

Why did Huckabee drop out of the Republican race? Did McCain get the # of delegates he needed to win? No. (1334 is nowhere near close to 1877) So why did Huckabee drop out? Because he was afraid of a fight? No. He dropped out because McCain had such a substantial lead that he knew he was fighting a losing battle. He didn't want the Republican party to be at a disadvantage going into the general election with a figuratively bruised and battered nominee.

Sure, Obama's delegate lead isn't as great as McCain's, but it's a 100+ lead. That's not easy to make up, and I'm tired of pundits like you acting like it's a piece of cake for Hillary to catch up. Do you know how many states she has to win going forward to catch up? Do you realize by what margins she has to win these states to catch up? Maybe you should consider that before you start writing opinion pieces like this.

If the positions were reversed, and it was Hillary with the lead in popular votes, delegates, and states won, would the media still be encouraging Obama to stay in the race? I don't think so.

Lifelong democrat? Yea, your establishment horns are showing.

[Themo]

You sound like you give up too easily. This race should be about issues, not whether one should give up and go home. Don't look surprised but you have caved in to the MSM.

[csonger]

I agree with you but think you miss a key point. Huckabee knew how to stay in the race and not damage John McCain or the Republican party. He stayed on the circuit, kept to his positive message about his platform and bowed out when McCain cinched it.

Contrast that with ".... as far as I know", "he's lucky he's black", "it's 3am and McCain and I are ready" Hillary Clinton. The problem is not the protracted process -- this process could be a huge positive for the party. The problem is that when staying positive did not work, Hillary went negative in a manner that threatens to cost the party the election.

Just tonight the headline is: Hillary says Obama does not want you to vote. Where was her concern about disenfranchisement when they were setting the rules for Florida and Michigan? The truth is, Hillary only cares about Florida and Michigan because she is losing. Raw pursuit of power is at best unattractive and at worst reprehensible.

[HowietheScreamer]

Exactly. If Hillary were running a positive campaign there wouldn't be a problem. It might actually STRENGTHEN the Dem party. What she is doing right now IS devisive. It IS hurting the party. She's only helping McCain by continuing to push the negative.

[Hilleluiah]

Sweetheart, I thought John McCain needed 1,191 delegates to clinch the nomination: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/. Huckabee dropped out when that number was reached.

I was a democrat, but I left the party this week because of the sexism and the tone of some of the so called "democrats" in the party. I'm black Jaradan, and I'm interested in knowing where the hell you live that people are calling you the "N" word in this day and age? If you aren't able to see the sexism in this election, then you may have a bigger problem than being a woman or black, you just may be blind.

Hillary Clinton should not drop out of this race because neither one of them is going to get the 2,024 required to win the nomination. Ten states need to vote and what's wrong with letting them vote? If she were to drop out now, she would be disappointing so many of her supporters who support her because she's tough and a fighter. She has won core democrats and the last time I checked this was the Democratic Primary, not the Republican or Independent primary.

If people cannot accept the process and let it play out, then they need to go kick rocks. If Senator Obama's supporters are so concerned with keeping the party "united," then maybe they should have their candidate drop out. As Bill Clinton would say, Chill the "F" out!

[Squirtapotamus]

Why is it that being opposed to 4 more years of Clinton in the white house is sexism? Seems like an over-simplification of the issues to me. You all protest when we defend Obama by claiming that we have accused you of being racist and then you turn around and claim we're being sexist. Why do you keep bringing up "isms"? Obama and his supporters are bringing up neither.

It use to be true that if you repeated a lie over and over eventually people believed it to be true. I agree with Obama when he says "not this time." We are better then this. Can we not have learned anything about divisive politics from the last 8 years of Bush?

Please, stop with the "isms."

[dspell3000]

Obviously you don't know how to do the math. When Hillary was leading with over 100, you wanted your candidate to stay in. Why? Because in the big scheme of things, 100 lead is not much when there are more states. Hillary is beating Obama - he hasn't won any big blue state, and there is a reason for that. There's a reason why Hillary wins primaries, and obama wins caucuses. Think about it. Primaries are the fairest method for voting. One person, one vote. Why did your candidate not want do-overs in MI and FL? Let me guess, you probably think "some sign from up above". The fact that he caused Michiganders' to lose their right to vote, disqualifies him to be president. Period. Voting is a core democratic value - you learn that in 2nd grade.
Furthermore, I'm not surprised you would stoop to the level of bringing up the "n" word, at the same time saying OK to sexism. Neither is right and it's a shame that you compare the two discriminatory practices. As i said, not surprised, when you criticize the obama campaign, you get to be called a racist. On Maya Angelou's 80th birthday, you should be ashamed. She supports Hillary and she doesn't feel the need to bring up race or sex.
Obama supporters have been the most obnoxious on all websites. No wonder Hillary supporters won't vote for him if he's the nominee. You're blowin' it for him. chug down that kool-aid tonight.

[SethBullock]

Hillary never led by 100. I'm not sure she ever led at all, except in polling.

[Sneakerface]

Living in denial about how well Hillary is doing and not voting for Barack if he is the nominee doesn't help anything. We have two Democrats who will generally support the same things, though in different ways, and one of the 'glass ceilings' is going to be broken either way. Pretending that Hillary is "beating Obama" may make you feel better, but wishful thinking is not going to give her the nomination. The fact that Barack has won more traditionally Republican states than Hillary does not advance the notion that she is somehow "winning" - rather, it shows that Barack is more electable in the general election, as do the most recent polls. Obama did not oppose 'do-overs' in Mi & FL; I don't know where you get that. All he did was play by the rules - unlike Clinton - and expressed a desire to that any 'do-over' should be fair. It took me a while to choose between Clinton and Obama, but the more I see the Clinton campaign lose their integrity, the more clear it becomes that Obama is the candidate we need.

[SoulSistah]

"Clinton leads in electoral votes"
..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­...

Bill, when did electoral votes start to matter in the primaries? You're not a talking head for Hillary are you? Say it ain't so Bill.

[ItsAlessandro]

Sure, why should we care that Hillary is about to win 8 of the 10 biggest states, that two of those states "don't count". Wyoming and a 2,000 thousand difference in total votes cast "earned" Obama more of a swing in delegates than Hillary winning Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island vs Obama winning Vermont.

Obama won 11 caucus states selected delegates using 88% fewer votes per delegate.

Obama's lead is built with smoke and mirrors and the push to get Hillary out of the race is directly tied with HIllary doing better than Obama the rest of the way.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

That's quite a bold prediction. And I think very unlikely. Obama's wins including Texas, though Hillary ate slightly into his popular vote count. He's won blue states, and red states. He's brought out the youth vote, which was crucial to Bill's two presidential victories. He's won in predominantly white states, and states with high black population. He closed 20 point gap in Texas in a matter of a couple of weeks and I wouldn't be shocked if he beat Hillary in Pennsylvania based on these trends. Despite a "controversy" he managed to extend a lead over Hillary in the latest Gallup poll. He has twice as many states under his belt, 20,000 showing up to hear him speak in a state Hillary is supposed to blow him out of. Just what do you base your theory on? She won Ohio on a Rush Limbaugh crusade of of over 100,000 Republicans who switched party affiliation and a lie about her history regarding NAFTA and another lie that Obama's campaign told the Canadians not to worry about when it was her campaign that told them that. Smoke and mirrors? Seems clear to me who's whose using smoke and mirrors and it isn't Obama. Despite these lies and campaign trickery he still closed the gap significantly. And Texas? Please, he was down by double digits and still walked out with more delegates.

[Heaphy]

"And how do party leaders respond? By trying to shut down the primary. This is insane!"

Are you kidding, Bill? This is a political argument about whether or not it is time for Hillary to withdraw from the race. Leahy and others have every right to advocate that position - they have no power of compulsion over Hillary. You have every right to offer a counter-argument. Please just be more logical about it..

This Clinton "shutting down the primary" claim is spurious. Even if Hillary withdrew, the primaries would go on, for President and for all the lower offices as well. Presidential primary contests have been decided before California voted many times in the past, and we still held our primary. This year we moved up, but didn't break the rules like Florida and Michigan did.

This new Clinton "metric" of counting up the electoral votes for the various state wins is absurd, unprecedented and disrespectful of the Democrats in the so-called red states. I thought we were all committed to a 50 state strategy.

More importantly, will you try to argue that Hillary Clinton is certain to win California just because she won the Democratic primary here, but that Barack Obama is unlikely to sweep the Golden State? As California Democrats, you and I both know that our chances of winning in the fall are outstanding with either candidate. The same holds true of the other large states that have voted Democratic in recent presidential elections.

[Lvm]

I have to disagree with Bill Press. Hillary Clinton is not one of the best candidates. The majority of dems were against the war in Iraq. She was for it. The majority of dems. were against the Kyle/Leiberman amend. She was for it. She has used Karl Rove (Bill admires him) tactics to offend and insult the intelligence of loyal dems. She's used race, gender, fear, and fabrication to divide us.
Her campaign is sleazy. She tried. She lied. She doesn't wear well. It's been a real drag, Bill.

Sincerely,
loyal dem. who has voted for both Clintons, but never again.

[Lemeritus]

Lvm, I do not separate myself easily from positions I've taken or opinions I've drawn. In Clinton's case, I overlooked Clinton's initial vote to give Bush authority to use military force in Iraq (while writing vehemently against it). And I minimized her very, very, very disappointing vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution when I should have drawn a line in the sand. By the time I got to vote, the race was already between Obama and Clinton, however, and I was convinced that Clinton had the resources to defeat the Republicans. I've grown to respect Senator Obama (if not to the point of adulation) and to despair of Clinton's campaign.

Mr. Press, who I respect, suggests we go on to August. I am convinced we must determine our candidate by the end of June -- no new input from the voters will be forthcoming in the two wasted months until the convention. We cannot permit John McCain to go forward convincingly unchallenged.

Like you,
a loyal dem, who will vote for the Democratic nominee in November, but now hopes it's Obama.

[WilliamGossett]

It doesn't make a difference who gets the nomination as that person will lose.

The country is going headlong into stupidty and WILL elect McCain. SO all this debate about the inticacies of the nomination mean nothing - as at the end - they will lose.

[thatbeingsaid]

I am afraid that you might be right.

I understand that Vancouver, Canada is the north american city for the 21st century

[HCange]

To answer your headline's question: a resounding YES! Obama needs to quit because he is dividing the democratic party. He doesn't value the votes of Floridians or Michiganders and yet he tries to present himself as a uniter and messenger of hope. More like messenger of hype. Bye-bye.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

Sorry but all candidates signed the pledge. blaming this on Obama just doesn't hold water. It is Hillary that is dividing the party.

[Squirtapotamus]

We have to keep repeating this over and over because the Clinton bloggers never seem to understand. Stop blaming Obama for the decisions of Florida and Michigan to break the rules.

[leftcoastliberal]

Hillary is trying to rewrite the agreed-upon rules in the middle of the game. One could almost think she has no principles.

[baba2nde]

I agree, for a different reason: he ought to quit because he is on a different plane, a higher plane, too good to let all who have already voted for him down...No!

Start with MI and FL. They knew the rule. They (the states, not voters) broke the rule. They knew ahead of time what would happen, true? Why they broke the rule is different question, true? We are where we are. Surely, as reasonable people we can figure a way out, but certainly not by alienating the other 48 states which did not break the rule, no?

Next: 2024 delegates are needed to clinch the nomination, true? Why 2024? Consequence of another one of those pesky rules, I suppose.

For all the logic, we could here and now make a new rule: that the candidate with the fewest delegates wins! Silly? That is what can happen when we start to tinker with the rules in the middle of the game.

[LouKane]

"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."

Hmmm... it seems that Bill has forgotten the vitriolic statements that Clinton has made against our nominee Obama. Remember when she and the other Bill essentially praised McCain at the expense of Obama. She literally said that while she and McCain are qualified, Obama was not qualified to be Commander-­in-Chief!!­! That sounds like an arguement that McCain will make in the Fall. And thanks to Hillary, he can say that it's a bi-partisan concern!!! She is fully incapable of selling herself as a better option. So she resorts to damaging her DEMOCRATIC opponent and praising the REPUBLICAN.

The reason that people are asking her to leave the race is because her campaign has lost perspective on what's at stake. And it will be the Democrats and the American People that will pay the price!

[fedupguy]

I too, am a life long democrat. Yes, it's true that our history is one of long, drawn out primary fights. Now we are also becoming "Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it." In the modern political era, the party that is not united, when the other party has a presumptive candidate, has lost in November. What's more important, to carry on the tradition of fighting until there is only one left standing, or winning back the White House in November?

[allison]

The effect of stopping the primaries at this point when so many want their vote to be heard will be to alienate about half of the party -- it will truly be divided if these people are either disenfranchised or feel that their candidate was forced out. This will be the bigger harm to the party, forgetting that this is still a democracy and no one tells the other candidate to drop out before all the votes are counted.

[FrankBlackFrancis]

The only one implying the primaries will stop is Hillary. As is always the case, the primaries go on regardless of a clear winner or not. The harm being caused to the party is Hillary Clinton's insistence that she can woo enough super delegates to steal the nomination Obama earned.