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
Loading comments…
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
Please Note: Press made up a category (like "The Commander-in-Chief Threshold") that is as anti-DEMOCRACY as it is stupid.
Electoral Votes are cast by The Electoral College. If Hillary has ANY right now than she is subverting the Constitution of the USA and Press is abetting her.
It is no wonder my beloved Democratic Party, PRESS' beloved Democratic Party does not win even when we have all the issues in our favor. Press writes:
"True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes."
At best, Press is telling just a stupid lie. And Americans are already un-informed enough about The Electoral College, The Constitution, etc.
I wish Huffington Post had editors who would say "Mr. Press is pressing an absurd Clinton Talking Point. Hillary Clinton has NO Electoral College lead and Mr. Press knows that. He is trying to save Hillary Clinton by inventing a new Constitution which exists only in Propaganda and Focus Groups. Huffington Post has to carry articles like this because Senator Clinton is desperate and has no actual issues. We regret that we are contributing to the dumbing down of America."
What does the constitution have to do with the Democratic Primary??? Last I checked the constitution didn't mention anything about Super Delegates.
So if you want disclaimors by Obama...I mean Huff Post articles. Would it be ok for them to label 90% of the articles on here for what they are ..... " And heres another Hillary Hater or Obama Kool Aid drinker article"
Sorry Taylor Marsh dittoheads, you are the ones who are wrong here, as is Press.
Press writes "True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes."
These sentences are a lie.
Press COULD have written: " Hillary holds the lead in states where there Electoral votes, if the Democratic candidate carried the state, add up to more electoral votes." That would be an argument and true. It would have reminded people of how their Constitution and our Presidential Elections actually work.
The reason Press is claiming "Clinton won more electoral votes" is because The Clinton's make things up. "The Commander-in-Chief Threshold" sounds so formal, but is nonsense. And her experience in The Battle of Tuzla "I don't recall anyone offering me a cup of tea," Hillary said and then just got so carried away with her bravery that she finally did encounter sniper fire, from her against her chances.
As a college teacher, I KNOW even so-called "educated Americans" are unaware of what their nation and its constitution say.
Press wants to campaign for Hillary, fine. Don't invent "Electoral Votes". Look at what Press gave to Obama, what Obama actually won. Look at what he gave to Hillary, a slippery, meaningless Creation of The Clinton's designed to make Americans more stupid.
Are you being disingenuous or simply stupid? It's not too hard to figure out that certain states represent certain Electoral College votes in the general election. Of the states that have held primary contests, the ones Clinton has won represent more Electoral College votes in total than the states Obama has won. That's a fact. Whether you (or even I) believe that it means a hell of a lot in the end (since Obama would likely beat McCain in most or all of those states in the general election) is beside the point. It's a campaign's - or commentator's - prerogative to raise this issue to make their case. To call such a tactic a stupid lie is, well, stupid - or a lie.
Oh give me a break! Will someone please post all the video clips of Bill Press denouncing Ralph Nader over the years? Mr. Press doesn't enjoy a "good" fight any more than he enjoys a FAIR one. This is a new low.
Nobody cares if Clinton stays in the race. It's a question of the tactics she is willing to use. Next thing you know, she'll be floating a Clinton/Lieberman balloon.
Um...Ralph Nader wasn't running in a Democratic primary. He was an opponent of Democrats, and thus fair game. In fact, the nightmare that is the Bush administration may never have happened were it not for Ralph. If Press is bitter about Nader, who can blame him?
Um... the point remains: when Mr. Press felt that further debate might divide his party and make it vulnerable to opposition attack, he was front and center amid the calls for Nader step out. His current post is simply hypocritical.
One quote from another of his posts on this site, could just as easily apply to Clinton:
http://www
"Let me tell you, I used to be a big Ralph Nader fan. And, in his heyday, he was a mighty, effective champion of consumers in this country. But today, he's nothing but a colossal, misguided, egomaniacal jerk." - Bill Press
Something like this:
Let me tell you, I used to be a big Hillary Clinton fan. And, in her heyday, she was a mighty, effective champion of consumers in this country. But today, she's nothing but a colossal, misguided, egomaniacal jerk.
Why the double standard? If debate is good, why not let everyone debate? Doesn't everyone have I right to run, or is it just Clinton?
Is this site paid for by the Obama campaign? Just curious!
LOL- I can see where you might be confused but here are a few stats for you.PRINCE
When we're winning
We'll be singing
I get knocked down but I get up again
You're never going to keep me down
Want to join us? Just curious!
If Clinton was a more palpable candidate I would think Obama should drop out, since she clearly won't. The problem is Clinton is a Republican in Democrats clothing who will do more harm then good if she is elected. The Clintons failed on, the economy, healthcare, and regulation. They have not done anything to earn my trust since. If the Clinton Presidency was so good why did Democrats lose the Congressional Majority and not get it back until Bush screwed up so badly that (R) was a death sentence. If Hillary is the nominy it will be Republicans riding her cotails into The White House and Congress. Even if Obama can't win the general election, he will give us a stong congressional victory.
Wow, some of you people have become truly delusional.
Do you realize that if Bush left Clinton's budget in place, we would be on pace to have ELIMINATED the national debt in a few years? Do you realize how significant that would be?
Money for Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, better Schools, better roads... it was all there for us.
This myth that Clinton was not a good President has gotten out of hand. Everyone needs to return to objectivity and honesty. We know who would make a better president, so why aren't we supporting her?
Save your breath Heidfeld. Many Democrats have turned into GOP trolls against the Clintons. They are using all the same talking points that the GOP used, and now they are saying what a bad Pres. Bill was. IMO it's pretty disgusting and I'm a life long Democrat, who is considering switching to Indie because of it. HOw quickly they turn there back on the only successful Democratic president in recent history. They get a new shiny little fast talking toy and they are ready to cast away there old toy. Just remember like new shiny toys from China, they tend to break fast or contain lead paint...
How is it the Clintons fault for the Dems losing seats??? It was our own fault. The country was going along greatly and we as Dem's got complacent while the GOP was working hard to get back in the drivers seat. How did the Clintons fail on the econemy? Also, why do Obama drones continue to parrot this falsehood that Clinton is a Republican? Do you know how silly you look? Stop acting like an ignorant Kool aid drinker and maybe you'll stop being called cult like. .
Hillary and Bill played the race card early and heavily...
First of all, they didn't play the race card early and heavy, that goes to team Obama. Oh my god SHE IMPLIED? Wow, and Obama IMPLIED that HRC was her husband and would be more of the same. Obama has been caught in bold faced lies from Rezco, to Rev. Wright to meeting with the Canadians, to his father being helped by Kennedy, to not seeing a questionair, to lying on a questionaire, to lying on mailers etc etc. etc. Was she in a war zone in Bosnia? Yes, did she embellish the story, YES. Kind of like Obama and his legislative history...
"Embellish the story"?!! That's pretty funny! You may want to compare the definitions of "lie" and "embellish" - to embellish that story might have been "and I had to sit through a long and boring poem" - not "ducking sniper fire."
If their obvious lies then it shouldn't be hard to relay them to us simple minded Obama supporters. A questionnaire, ooh the horror. Embellish being in Bosnia? She told us on three separate occasions she was under sniper fire. That my friend is a whopper. Just how did Obama embellish his legislative history. Come now, it should be easy for you.......
Excellent post, Mr. Press.
Voter turnout has been high in the Democratic primaries not so much because Clinton and Obama are heroic figures. Rather, people have been voting in droves because Bush is so detested. Voter turnout is going to be high in November because the country has turned against George Bush. The more time Democrats spend reminding Americans of how deeply wedged McCain is in Bush's pocket, the better their chances are of winnning---and winning big---in November.
I think that Obama should agree to seat the voters from Florida, hold a caucus in Michigan and get through this process in the most elegant fashion possible. He is the nominee in spite of the fantasies being spun by others. He should maintain his moral high ground through the aforementioned charity, and simultaneously aid his chances in the general election.
Your argument would be insightful and relevent..
The basis of your argument (as I read it) is that HRC still has just as much of a chance to win as BHO does.
The problem with this argument is that, by even generous accounts from her own aides, she has a 10% chance of winning. For that 10% chance she's willing to force this party to delay unifying behind our nominee. For that 10% chance she's willing to force the frontrunner to spend millions of dollars in campaign dollars fighting her instead of McSame. For that 10% she's willing to take this race into the dregs of nasty politics and hobble the frontrunner.
It doesn't take a genius to see that her negatives are up as she attacks BHO. Wouldn't it carry then that if it was McSame attacking BHO that HIS negatives would be going up. Why should McSame get a free ride for the next 3 months just so HRC can pursue a 10% shot at beating BHO down to the point where she's unelectable and so is he?
Why should she step down when she has a chance to win? Obama wouldn't and his supporters wouldn't allow him. So stop with your BS hypocrisy and this claim about caring about the democratic party. Tell the truth, the majoriy of Obama supporters could care less about the Democratic party, many are new combers to the process who don't know the differences between parties. There is a reason that HRC is doing better among core Dem's, it's the newb's who are more likely to buy OBama's BS and his empty rhetoric. The think this is more of an American Idot (politics version) then a race for the leader of the free world.
Yours was hardly an objective post. No, she can't win, unless she subverts the pledged delegates, the popular vote and the state's won by Obama (inlcuding Texas) by calling in favors to super delegates. This is very unlikely and for good reason. It would hurt our chances in November. It would appear that the "core dems" you speak of who still support Hillary despite this are the real hypocrites. Your belittling of Obama is indicative of the arrogance that Hillary exhibits.
She's doing better in primaries because people can vote quickly and anonymously. Primaries tend to be more of a beauty contest based upon name recognition. Note that Hillary DOES NOT have a lead in primary votes so she's not winning in this category, she is just performing better than she does in the caucuses. Caucus participants have to spend more time and do it publically, which tends to draw party activists (read: "core dems") more than the average Joe. Obama is blowing Clinton out of the race in this category.
Obama is intelligent and honest. Your opinion of him is BS.
Dear Bill,
the problem is not that she continues her run, but it's that she's been running a negative campaign and aiding McCain ('kitchen sink', stoking Wright controversy (and throwing the black church under the bus) to cover-up her Bosnia lies, etc).
If she runs a clean, issues based and honest campaign, she has every right to stay in this as long as she's not mathematically eliminated from getting a lead in pledged delegates. A rough estimate is that by 5/20, Obama will have clinched a pledged delegate victory; she should drop out (if and) when that happens in the interests of the Democratic party.
Regardless, super delegates should make their decisions and publicly announce the same a couple of days after the last contests on June 3rd. By June 10th or so, we should wrap this up and start waging a serious GE campaign to defeat McCain and the Republicans in November.
And, why are the Clintons hobnobbing with Rush Limbaugh (and perhaps Scaife) etal scouring for spoiler votes?
The Democratic party is all about fairness, but Hillary Clinton should not abuse that by stretching this too far in pursuit of her personal ambitions and end up harming the Democratic party and progressive causes badly.
Sounds fair to you?
Have a great day!
The only one running a negative campaign in Obama. He and his campaign are the only ones attacking her character. You've not heard that out of the Clinton camp. Sure, they contrast and challenge whether he has the experience to be president but that is not about character. that is something one can acquire.
Bill Press has it right. Go Hillary.
Her campaign has accused him of lying. If that isn't an attack on character, I don't know what is. Obama just this last weekend called her an admirable and formidable candidate. I think they have both attacked each other's character at different times. And Hillary WAS caught in a bald-faced lie about Bosnia, unless you believe her 'sleep deprivation' excuse. She used that about Bill when HE messed up, too, said he was deprived of sleep. What he was deprived of, is truth. And Hillary too! Everyone is human.
Are you kidding? The Muslim rumor email originated from her campaign. They went to the Canadians and told them not to worry about NAFTA, then leaked to the press it was Obama. She mocks him on the stump all the time. And had the nerve to suggest John McCain would be a better candidate than Obama. While Obama has stayed above the fray, questioning her votes in the Senate.
This is a good fight. And if some people get a little brused up so be it. I am not concerned if Hillary gives the 'Republicans some talking points in their campaign as it continues on. Politics are politics and this fight is worth the price of admission. I am a big Obama supporter, and I am not worried about him. I am worried about his supporters. If you believe and truly want change then it is time to step up and make a difference. This campaign is not about window dresssing. And no matter what Hillary says or does, the people of this country are being challenged to think and act on their convictions, We are being asked if we want right the ship of America. We are being asked to break with the past. We are being asked to take back our country and elect representatives who represent us and not their own special interest. We want a President who acts with reason, and intelligence. We want a President who does not have puppet strings attached to his every movements. And we want a president who stands up and tell us when we are wrong. A good fight is what we need and the stakes are and should be very high. It took America a long time to put itself this mess that we are in today and its going to take a lot of work to change the course of America.
When I think of Bill Press, I think of the "slow on their feet" brigade of "liberal" pundits that make the rounds of the talk shows, never making the correct points that should be made and always letting the raging lunatics on the right have the last word. The only time Bill Press shows any teeth is when he is mouthing on other Democrats. You know Mr. Press the only way I would listen to a thing you have to say is if you publicly pop David Brooks upside the head. Thanks and take care.
The topic is not whether or not anyone should stay in the race. The issue has nothing to do with staying or not staying in the race anymore than it has anything to do with *who* stays in or bows out. This is NOT the issue and this topic cannot be honestly debated until we address the actual specifics of the real issue.
The *real* issue is simply this: does a protracted democratic nomination race have potential to harm the eventual democratic nominee? Is the current race exhibiting signs that may later hurt the democratic nominee? Can the republican opposition garner support from independents put off by a protracted democratic nominee fight? Basically, does this protracted nomination contest affect the general election chances?
If anyone drops out now it is either because he/she chooses to of his/her own will or the party elders unfairly force one of them out. There is no way around this as the numbers, even when absurdly skewed in one person's favor, aren't fully counted until the primary. No one *must* do anything until the primary and we cannot change the rules we've all already agreed upon. So instead of discussing what is fair and what is not, we should be discussing why you feel it is damaging or not damaging to the party to have a protracted fight. Some see it as the essence of democracy while others see it as a default republican ticket in '08.
Well said. If the DNC wants to shorten the primary season, it is within their power to move all the primaries to say today and we will have a nominee by 4/1.
On your argument, either Obama or Hillary should drop out. That is, if 'Yes' is the answer to the four questions you raise, and suppose it is, then one or the other should drop out. Will the true democrat please stand up...and drop out?
ASIDE from the fact that Hillary can't win...
Hillary asserts she has passed the test.
What's the biggest test in the past, oh, generation?
She voted for the War simply because she felt it was necessary in order to run for President.
For War!
Thousands of Americans have died.
Ten of thousands of Americans have been injured, many for life.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died.
3-5 trillion dollars will ultimately be wasted.
Terrorism has spread and grown around the globe.
U.S. reputation and goodwill have diminished around the globe.
But Hillary said, "it will be a global tragedy, but that's a risk I'm willing to take."
If that's not an important issue worth voting on, what IS? Her flag burning ban?
HRC's supporters are telling you that her candidacy was worth putting us, our children and our grandchildren into this global tragedy.
"What's the biggest test in the past, oh, generation?
She voted for the War simply because she felt it was necessary in order to run for President.
And Barack has funded a war because...
That Obama 2002 speech dog, that is not recorded in this day and age of YOUTUBE, will not hunt anymore.
Your argument is a straw man, and demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of military deployments. As someone with that understanding, let me explain a brutally simple fact to you:
YOU CANNOT CUT FUNDING TO FORCES DEPLOYED IN A COMBAT THEATER.
The whole notion of ending the war by "controlling the purse strings" was an idiotic red herring that anyone with any grasp of military reality knew from the outset was categorically unviable. Even if the administration had a plan for withdrawl (it didn't, and doesn't), pulling troops out of combat COSTS MONEY. It takes time, and during that time the personnel on the ground continues to need food, and water, and fuel, and ammunition
I was and continue to be shocked that anyone would suggest that this would have been a more moral stand for Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) to take.
"And Barack has funded a war because ....."
A good leader does not subject his troops to failure for the sake of politics. He knows, as much as you Clintonistas demonize him that it is not our soldiers making policy. You should be ashamed of the incenuation that he should do anything but. Maybe not support out troops. Is it all just Billspeak with you people?
http://en.
I know it happened, because I remember reading and hearing about it at the time. I had been protesting the war at that time and paid careful attention to those polticians, media people and other opinion leaders who had the guts to speak up. It was the first time I heard of him, and I learned that he was considered a rising star. The next thing I knew Kerry picked him to speak at the 2004 convention.
HRC played no such role for the progressive movement. She threw us under the bus for her political ambition; damned us to war.
I had no idea Hillary had the deciding vote on the war. Thank you to the huffington post for telling the truth and letting me know that if Hillary had been against the war, the war would not be going on right now.
She participated and was the ONLY Democrat to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein. She could have fought it, and her help could have been substantial.
Just because she wasn't the only one to vote for it doesn't absolve her. She threw the country under the bus for her political ambition. And don't forget it.
Hillary can win if something happens to Obama, i.e. if something awful about him comes out that does him irrepairable damage. How do we know it won't? How do we know that Hillary herself doesn't have something? If she does, when will she use it? It isn't true that she will already have used it, it depends. Whatever it is, she will use it when she knows he won't have time to recover from it, as he has the Wright thing.
I don't say she has anything. I do say that she is behaving like someone who is hoping something awful will happen, to make him, as some have said, unelectable. It is a long way to August.
Bill Press also argued against impeachment proceedings of Bush and Cheney. He's willing to ignore the Constitution and wiling to ignore the numbers in this campaign. I can't respect the man any longer.
But you respect Pelosi and Reid, right?
I'm not sure why you'd jump to that conclusion. I've been rather dissapointed with their leadership actually. Fortunatley it hasn't affected their ability to do math.
No, not really. Not sure why you'd make that presumption.
The Dems need Florida.
No they don't. Kerry would have won had Ohio not been stolen. Not saying we shouldn't try but no, Florida is not essential.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
