First of all, let's be clear on one thing -- this race is over. Barack Obama has won. Hillary Clinton has lost. Obama's pledged delegate lead is insurmountable. He leads by about 150 delegates in that category. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not catch up to him.

Clinton's supposed big win last Tuesday amounted to a measly 6 to 7 delegate pick up. If that's a big win, then she needs approximately 20 more of those to get competitive. Obama might have picked up more delegates than that in Mississippi alone last night. He picked up twice as many delegates as that in South Carolina alone.

Even if Senator Clinton won the remaining nine contests with landslide victories, she wouldn't even get to within a 100 pledged delegates of Obama. Even if they re-voted in Michigan and Florida and she won by overwhelming majorities in those states, she still wouldn't be anywhere near Obama's numbers.

Her big claim to fame now is that she wins the big states and the swing states needed for the general election. I don't know why people take these claims seriously. First of all, so what? If she wants to win on big states alone she should move to a country where there are only big states. But in this country, where we have states of all sizes, she has lost.

Second of all, when did Massachusetts, New York and California become swing states? The election she theoretically won in Florida was not contested. So, her claim is that since she won Ohio, why don't we just give her the whole election?

Third of all, the fact that she wins these states in the primaries means absolutely nothing about what would happen in the general election. She won California - does that mean Obama would lose California to the Republican candidate? Of course not. The Democratic candidate will win California no matter what. Rhode Island is the state with the heaviest Democratic vote in the country. Does Hillary's win there mean that the Republican will win in Rhode Island in the fall? Don't be ridiculous.

The reverse of this argument is also true. Just because Obama won Idaho doesn't mean that the Democrats will win Idaho in the general election. These are apples and oranges comparisons. It's not really an argument worth discussing, except for the fact that the Clinton camp has done a good job of getting the press to actually discuss it.

The overall argument that she has lost the pledged delegate count but that she has won the more "important" states is asinine. Come on people, snap out of it. Obama has won nearly twice as many states as she has (29 to 15 in the last count). Are these states not important? Will the general election only be held in the states Hillary picks?

I'd love for her to make this argument in the general election - well, I lost the electorate count, but I won the important states like New York and California! Congratulations. Now go home.

So, why is Hillary Clinton still in the race - and still spending millions of dollars against Barack Obama? It's important to keep in mind that every dollar she spends attacking Obama now is a dollar in John McCain's pocket. This might give McCain a $20-30 million dollar advantage, if not more. He can't raise enough money on his own, but when he combines his attack ads with Hillary's, they're in pretty good shape.

Well, Senator Clinton is still in this race because she thinks she can still win this primary. How? By stealing it. She is willing to overturn the will of the voters by getting enough superdelegates and switching Obama's pledged delegates to come up with a victory.

Remember, pledged delegates are supposed to vote the way their state voted. Earlier in the campaign, Senator Clinton's team said they would never go after Obama's pledged delegates. But now, Hillary Clinton herself in an interview with Newsweek has said that she will in fact do exactly that.

Now imagine if Obama won the elections with a comfortable margin, as he is clearly going to do, and then Hillary Clinton took the nomination anyway at the convention by getting super and pledged delegates to move against their own voters. How do you think that would play?

The convention would be an utter disaster. The election would be a fraud. The party would be in shambles. All so that Senator Clinton can win at all costs. It's too outrageous a thought to even consider the possibility. But that's exactly what the Clinton campaign is banking on right now. Come on, is she really going to do that?

Imagine how Obama's voters - the majority of the party, by the way - would feel if Hillary Clinton was selected by the party elders even if she lost the election. They would, justifiably, feel robbed. To say they would be disenfranchised is a gigantic understatement. Do you think they would show up to vote for Senator Clinton in November?

In the one year Democrats have an excellent chance of winning the presidency, would they really sink their own chances like this? Well, we know the answer to that question.

Speaking for myself, I can't imagine a worse outcome than having another Republican candidate who agrees completely with George Bush win the presidency. But can I really get myself to vote for someone who stole the election in the primaries? I don't think so. So, here's my solution: If Hillary Clinton tries to take this election at the convention by overturning the will of the voters, I will show up there with a pitchfork.

Senator Clinton has to understand that she can't do this. She can't win based on pledged delegates. It is now mathematically impossible. And she can't win without the pledged delegates because it would rip the party apart. So, she has to mercifully come to the conclusion that she cannot win. And every day she stays in the race from here on out is a day she spends money helping John McCain win instead.

Watch The Young Turks Here


 

Comments
153
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 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

Does Clinton even care that she and her ego are tearing the party apart? Does she even care that she is giving the Republicans ammunition to use against the Democratic nominee? Does she even care that she is giving McCain and the remnants of the Bush regime a head-start in money, time and resources?

I am reminded of the words of The Bard in Henry V; ( The nomination ) "France being ours, we'll bend it to our awe,
Or break it all to pieces".

We cannot allow this creatures madness, ego and self-interest to go on any longer! SUPERDELEGATES TAKE NOTICE! This is now YOURS to end! END IT NOW! Come out and declare!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 03/13/2008

As far as I am concerned, the superdelegates are on the clock.

At this point, the superdelegates should be held responsible for any additional infliction of damage to the Democratic Party and, thus, any damage to its chances of success in the general election. The math isn't going to change between now and a convention. Assuming it goes that far, Senator Obama will arrive with more pledged delegates, more popular vote, and more states won. Even seating Michigan and Florida "as is" isn't going to change that - and they aren't going to seat Michigan and Florida "as is." Howard Dean is appearing now with some regularity and he is consistently saying, "We are 3/4 of the way through the nominating process and we aren't going to change the rules now to the benefit of one candidate and the detriment of the other. Any new solution with respect to Florida and Michigan will have to be fair to both candidates." Fine. So does anyone have the power to tell Senator Clinton that it is over? Yes. The superdelegates do. The superdelegates can step in at any time and effectively end this thing and I think that is ultimately what will happen. The question is when.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 03/13/2008

GoGreen I totally agree if this keeps going on we will have nothing left of the party when we are done. We need to end this thing now and get moving on John McCain instead we are causing so much anger and resentment that it looks like there is no way the party can come together in the end. I hope they do whats right.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 03/13/2008

And I doubt they will before the convention.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 03/13/2008

rwferr, super delegates should not reverse what the public wants. They don't have super powers. And i think there would be riots if they did this.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 AM on 03/13/2008

So the superdelegates should not do their jobs because of riots? Sorry but the rule of law means a bit more than that. We won't be held hostage by a bunch of radical leftists and students.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 03/13/2008

amen. riots will not look good. they will be interpreted as "the dems can't handle their own house so how can they handle the whole house of america?"

and those interpretations will be correct.

hey superdelegates... don't fuck this up!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 03/13/2008

hillary clinton is looking like the new george w. bush. a willing and unrepentant thief. i wonder, if she were to somehow attain what it appears she views as her rightful throne (she won't... mccain will win if she usurps the primaries) will she be a gleeful murderer also?

probably. she's exhibiting those character traits.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 AM on 03/13/2008

Pitchfork. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I LOVE it. I'm there with ya buddy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 03/13/2008

You are a lawyer so you clearly understand the rules of the nominating process a lot more than you let on in this article. One can only conclude that you are an Obama schill as you have totally mischaracterized the nominating rules and you know you have.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 AM on 03/13/2008

Obama has not and cannot attain 2025 pledged delegates before the primary which means the contest will be decided by the superdelegates. If it was the job of the superdelegates to vote necessarily the way the popular vote went then there would be no need for the superdelegates as they would have no function. The purpose of the superdelegates is to break ties as in this case. Regardless of Obama's delegate lead, he cannot attain 2025 which means he has not won. Either of them can only win with the superdelegates. That is not stealing anything. They are both in the same position. Had Obama done well enough to attain 2025 you would be right it would be over but he did not and it is not. In breaking a tie such as this the superdelegates are only bound by one thing and that is the good of the party. Which candidate is more likely to win the general election. And the superdelegates by August could well decide that that person is Mrs. Clinton. To say that that would be stealing the election is just plain wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the system, why it is the way it is and how it actually works. The Obama people keep wanting to make it about the delegate count but absent 2025 its not about that anymore.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 AM on 03/13/2008

These Superdelgates are also elected officials and they are not blind they know what will happen to their party if the people in it feel that their say has been overturned it will not happen.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 03/13/2008

You are correct about the 2025 (that number actually may go up if Florida and Michigan have redos). However, if Clinton overcomes Obama's delegate lead by getting enough support from
superdelegates, it will be perceived by many as her stealing the election. And perception is everything in politics. It would not be good for the party.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 03/13/2008

All the math and logic, Hillary camp and her supporters still don't get it and they remind me of how George Bush and his supporters. the both groups never try to understand what or how or why, they only listen to their 'leader" and believe everything they're told. Hillary supporters do not even know Obama won more delegates than her in TX.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:03 AM on 03/13/2008

You fundamentally don't understand the rules of the process.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 03/13/2008

if this nomination is decided by the "super" delegates, this will be the last time I'll be participating in the general election. I'll do so because this election is so important, I'd rather have Clintons than McCain. but that's it. I won't have any confidence on the democratic party if they keep ignore its own people's voice.


See you understand perfectly. You just want to pretend here you dont.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 03/13/2008

Math and logic and the rules are how the nomination gets one. You Obama supporters want to hope and think otherwise but thats just the way it is.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 03/13/2008

I am talking about the nominating rules what are you talking about?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 03/13/2008

these technical inner workings will not play in the public consciousness. what will be repeated ad infinitum is that hillary usurped the will of the people and that she is illegitimate. she will be compared directly to george w. bush florida 2000. if the superdelegates are smart... they won't fuck this up and go with the actual literal loser (delegates, popular vote, double the number of states). they MUST realize that appearances count for quite a lot.

if they don't... and they install hillary if she is behind in delegates, popular, and number of states... john mccain will win the presidency. bet on it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 AM on 03/13/2008

So what you all are saying are the rule be damned then right? Obama gets the nomination even though he did not get 2025??? But when it comes to seating Michigan and Florida you are saying the rules should stand. Which way is it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 03/13/2008

The Clinton playbook:

HRC did her senior"hidden but not really " thesis on Saul Alinsky who was a community organizer and radical whom she knew.. He's an interesting guy . I think she really lives by this rule book. Here are Alinsky's rules for radicals. sound familiar?

"Personalize it"

Saul Alinsky's rules of power tactics, excerpted from his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals"

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

3. Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.

4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8. Keep the pressure on.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 AM on 03/13/2008

So she wrote a college paper about Saul Alinsky, the community organizer. Barack Obama really WAS a community organizer, for years on the south side of Chicago, and I guess he knows his Saul Alinsky backwards and forwards. If anyone doubts it, they should read those chapters in "Dreams From My Father"--he knows all these "rules" in his bones, and put them into action too.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 03/13/2008

Sounds like a pretty good strategy to me. The kind we would want a President to have unlike Obama who is gong to "bring Washington together" and already stated he would have republicans in his cabinet. I mean people keep saying Clinton is a closet republican but its Obama who has already pledged to put them in his cabinet!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 AM on 03/13/2008

except that her opponent right now is barack obama and she's currently splitting the democratic party. should she vanquish obama using the above points that you approve of... believe this... john mccain will win the presidency. the democrats will be the NEUTERED LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE WORLD... for being such idiots.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 03/13/2008

You know what, I think I get it.

I think she (Mrs Clinton) figured out since John McCain ain't conservative enough, so why not go right and try to pick up those disenfranchised GOPers. As for the left, well after she steals the election, they'll just not vote or just end up voting for Ralph Nader

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 AM on 03/13/2008

Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have always run their races to the "center". They think you have to appeal to the middle to get elected. Perhaps that is true, particularly when Bill Clinton won the presidency. The country was certainly to the right in keeping with the "Reagan Revolution". But it has been the 'death knell" of the Democratic Party ideals. The Democrats lost their voice and have never gotten it back. Thanks to the Bill and Hillary Democratic Leadership Council. Hence, all the Blue Dog Democrats in the Congress. Their motto is to "go along to get along". Take for example, Nancy Pelosi's (although better in the last few days) leadership in the House and Harry Reid's leadership in the Senate. They are overly 'fair and balanced' to the Republicans and much less courageous with their own party. This is Hill and Bill's legacy to the Democratic Party. This is why Hillary has no problem endorsing John McCain at every opportunity.

This is a year when the Democratic Party should clean up in the general election, but already they are allowing Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council to set the agenda. To their own demise, I fear.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 03/13/2008

I'd say that the Clintonian drive to the so-called "center" has deeper roots than the 1992 campaign. It must go back to the kind of compromising that Bill C. had to do, endlessly, to get elected and re-elected as a politician in a small, rural state that was sharing Dixie's trend toward increasing support for the Republican Party during his entire statehouse career. He sold out his principles long before declaring his presidential candidacy, all in the name of personal political survival.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 03/13/2008

Hillary Clinton and her supporters feel entitled, they feell they are owed, they feel that now is their time.

She and they will do anything to get her elected.

As everyone can plainly see Hillary has failed. America rejects her philosohy.

The MAJORITY has spoken.

Thanks Cenk

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 AM on 03/13/2008

Unfortunately for Obama supporters the majority has spoken are not the rules of the nominating process. I know all you Obama supporters think if you wish really hard that will become the rules somehow but it just plain isn't Obama did not win the nomination. It is a tie. In the delegate race unless on side or the other attains 2025 then the delegate count only means that that candidate has that number of pledged delegates to vote for them in the first round of balloting at the convention. The superdelegates will break the tie. They are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to vote in any way other than to choose the candidate most likely to win in November. Had Obama won we would not be in the situation and it would in fact be all over but its not.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 AM on 03/13/2008

that may be true... but if hillary should "win" in that fashion... it will be a hijacking of the will of the people. she will not have a mandate. and she will lose to john mccain. the din about her illegitimacy will drown out any technical talk of delegate rules.

not to mention that the superdelegate system is unnecessary to begin with.

i do not support a system that gives insiders more individual power than the average citizen.

i support first and foremost - fair elections. FAIR!

if hillary "wins" the dem nomination unfairly (i don't give a shit what the technical rules are)... my conscience will not allow me to vote for her or mccain in the general election. i will sit out... even though i'm dying to vote. i will sit out in protest of the war. mccain will then win the presidency and you can thank hillary clinton for that.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 03/13/2008

I'll vote I will just write in Obama.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 AM on 03/13/2008

Here's a difficult and unfortunate (but possible) thought:¨¨

Hillary doesn't get the nomination, Obama does. ¨¨

Hillary then pulls a Lieberman. ¨¨

She runs as an independent against both Obama and McCain. ¨¨

My thinking is, yes it is possible, as long as Hillary thinks she can actually win at that strategy and rationalize that it won't just throw the election to McCain. Which she might be able to rationalize, knowing her AND knowing how the voting goes in CA, NY, NJ, FL, MA, PA, etc... Where Hillary is probably stronger than both other candidates.¨¨

So, Obama really does have to beat her in states where currently she can beat him. It's true. And Obama has to beat McCain everywhere else. Or else it's Hillary and our first independent president. Anyone care to take a look at that math?¨¨

And if you're an Obama supporter, like me, there is only one choice. Time to pack up and get your ass to Pennsylvania (and then to Florida) to do some retail politics. I'm already loading up the car.

Latte for the drive anyone? Back seat open, room for at least three.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:25 AM on 03/13/2008

Chilling but unlikely. Right now there's no such thing as a formal Independent Party, just Independent voters. Clinton's campaign has been so badly run that I doubt it could create viable party underpinnings and machinery from scratch in the short amount of time she'd have, and she'd presumably have to accept federal funding to make a go of it, which would (handi)cap her at $85MM. Last, but not least, she and Bill cherish their positions as Democratic power brokers far too much to leave the party for obscurity and oblivion. Because, seriously, who's going with them? No current seated Democratic elected official would be insane enough to spit in the faces of the Democrats who voted them into office and switch party affiliations to follow Hill and Bill off the political map (and into a campaign fueled by spite and hubris whose only effect would be to propel John McCain straight into the White House).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 AM on 03/22/2008

In a year in which Democrats were supposed to take back the White House, Hillary & Co. have highjacked our primary and are about to drive it off a cliff.

Where are our party's elder statesmen/women? And why won't they put a stop to Hillary's wildly destructive behavior and tactics before she takes us all down with her? After the 7 years of hell that IS the Bush presidency, there is simply too much at stake for them to not stand up to the Clintons once and for all. Force Hillary to abandon her filthy, win-at-all-costs, kitchen sink strategy. Make her keep it on the REAL issues...in a clean and honest way. If she refuses, repudiate her for the ugly campaign that she is running.

By the way, I voted for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96. However, I thought it was selfish of him to remain in office after the scandal broke and he was impeached. (But, knowing the Clintons' lust for power and their willingness to hold onto it no matter the cost, I was not surprised.) Instead of allowing the country and our party to move forward with Vice President Al Gore after his presidency was, in effect, neutered...he outstayed his welcome. So...with a country divided over the scandal and its aftermath...and rampant Clinton fatigue, the election was close enough for the Republicans to steal. The result? The tragic presidency of George W. Bush.

I find it ironic that the Clintons could now bring about a third Bush term with John McCain. Even though Senator Obama has won twice as many states and is ahead by insurmountable margins in both pledged delegates and the popular vote, Hillary refuses to see the writing on the wall. Instead, she's resorting to lies and dirty tricks to steal the election from Senator Obama. In doing so, she is once again proving to be one of the most divisive, polarizing politicians in history. And we are all paying the price.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 AM on 03/13/2008

It is the far left that have driven the car off the cliff just like 1972 when they forced the ultra liberal McGovern on us in the same way. And like McGovern Osama will suffer the same fate in November.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 AM on 03/13/2008