Clinton to the Convention?
When the Democratic primary calendar ends on June 3rd, Senator Obama will have more delegates than Senator Clinton.
On what grounds could a candidate who is behind at the end of a race avoid conceding that he or she has been beaten? On the grounds that the race really isn't over!
After the primary calendar has ended, Clinton's campaign can only justify or explain her staying in the race if she makes the case that the Democratic Party still has not chosen a nominee conclusively. Clinton needs an argument that the game should go into extra innings. Overtime. Bonus round. Detention. Whatever. Clinton has now found that argument -- she says she will not stop campaigning until the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates is settled to her satisfaction.
The Florida/Michigan issue get settled, of course, by the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee... unless of course that committee's decision gets appealed to the Credentials Committee... unless of course that decision, too, gets appealed... to the floor of the convention.
Do you see where this is going? If there is an open, unresolved procedural issue involving the Florida and Michigan delegations, Senator Clinton will be able to cite that as her justification for staying in the race until the convention even though she is not ahead in the nomination contest at the end of the primary calendar.
If she can ensure that the Florida and Michigan issue stays unresolved until the convention (and by appealing it every step of the way, I don't see how that can be avoided), then Clinton stays in the race until the convention. Staying in until the convention buys her three more months of campaign time, three more months to make her case to the party and the country, three more months for some potential political unfortunateness to befall Senator Obama.
And it keeps the race for the Democratic nomination open, at least theoretically, for Senator Clinton to win instead of Senator Obama.
How could Clinton win at the convention? Seems to me that three months is a long time in this race, and if it gets that far, anything could happen.
Pffft! You say. Scoff.
Listen: you don't need a vivid political imagination to recognize that if what you really want is to be President of the United States -- a slim chance of becoming President (a fight at the convention) is better than no chance of becoming President (because you dropped out).
The Clinton strategy, as best as I can tell, is to stay in the race. You can't win if you don't play -- conceding the nomination is sure defeat, not conceding means there's still a chance.
The way for her to avoid conceding is for her to avoid conceding that the race is resolved.
As long as the Florida and Michigan dispute is alive, and it is being used as the basis of Clinton's claim that the nomination is unresolved, we should expect that Senator Clinton will stay in the race.
We should also expect that if the Democratic Party's committee system takes up the Florida and Michigan dispute through its rules as they stand now, Clinton's campaign will be able to keep the Michigan and Florida dispute alive until the convention. If there's a secret Democratic-insider plan to keep that from happening, it's time for that plan to become un-secret.
The pundit corps has been counting Clinton out and saying the race is over -- but saying it doesn't make it so.
If Clinton fights to stay in until the convention -- which seems utterly plausible to me -- then I believe the Democratic Party's nominee (Obama or Clinton) will lose the general election to John McCain. This last point is of course infinitely debatable -- but my take is that in November, the party that's had a nominee since February/March, beats the party that only got a nominee the last week in August.
So, how does the Democratic Party get a nominee before the convention? Seems to me there's two things that need to happen. One small, one big.
First, Obama's campaign should stop believing what most of the press says, and start believing what Clinton says -- she isn't budging. If they don't mind the prospect of a divided convention, then fine -- if they do mind that prospect, they'll have to fight for their desired outcome. Clinton is now arguing that taking the fight to the convention is OK for the Democrats -- even noble. This argument won't be defeated if it is ignored -- Obama's camp will have to rebut.
Second, if the Democrats are to avoid a divided convention, the Florida and Michigan dispute will have to be taken off the table -- settled in a way that avoids the risk of a rules dispute that stretches the nominating contest out through the convention. I can think of only one way to do that, but there may be others.
Here's my way: based on my read of NBC's delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination -- even according to the most pro-Clinton math -- if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.
If they so declared before May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws committee would have no reason to take up the Florida and Michigan dispute because it would be a moot point -- Obama's camp could concede every Clinton demand on the subject and still win the nomination.
Otherwise? I'll be the twitchy one on radio row at the divided Democratic convention in Denver... spooked by the ghosts of 1968, 1972, 1980...
Rachel
PS -- I should note here, briefly, that I don't have a personal preference between Senators Clinton and Obama as to who would run a better campaign against John McCain, or who would be a better President. I think both Obama and Clinton would probably be pretty good general election contenders, and probably they'd each be a good president. (50% of my hate mail tells me I'm in the tank for Obama and 50% of it tells me I'm in the tank for Clinton - although the level of vitriol on each side has risen and fallen with the tide of the campaign).
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
One new party rule might prevent this travesty from ever happening again. It's a rule with which Roman Catholics are quite familiar. It's called excommunication. Hillary is wounding the party she claims to support. She is wounding the party's obvious nominee. Whatever fancy strategic and tactical explanations the pundits try to assign to this behavior it seems obvious that it is rooted in emotional immaturity and that in turn makes Hillary unsuited for the role she seeks. The same is true of John McCain. He is a not very bright, not well informed Senator who sacrificed something for someone. I'm not sure it was his freedom for his country. More likely it is related to the overpowering shadow of his father. He appears to be unstable; quick to retort, quick to try to hurt others and showing an uncontrollable anger streak a mile wide. McCain should be excommunicated from the Republican Party just as the Democrats did to Senator Eagleton.T
Yeah, and that excommunication rule helped the Catholics a lot, didn't it? A little splinter group called The Protestants created their own competing churches and weakened The One True Church from being what it could have been. Excluding people forever is not the answer.
Abiding by established rules is the answer. Florida and Michigan negated their votes by moving their primaries outside the range established by the party. They made a choice of their own volition. They may be allowed to sit their delegation after the vote is taken, or after the matter is concluded, as a gesture of reconciliation.
"emotional immaturity" well put. This describes her character flaw most elegantly.
How can anyone support this woman at this point after the incompetent and sleazy campaign she has run? This was hers to lose and lose she did magnificently. Do Clinton supporters really want a President like this? She seems bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory this Fall, and the powers that be in the Party needed to stop it now. As far as her muscling herself onto the ticket, she adds no value to Obama whatsoever, and considering all the bad things that seem to happen to people who get in the Clinton's way, should Obama win in the Fall with her on the ticket, he will need a food taster and sleep with one eye open.
The DLC will trade OUR liberal principles, for their access to power,
just like the neocons did to the one time values of the conservatives.
Call or email your state's superdelegates today. In Wisconsin, that is Senators Feingold and Kohl and delegate Paula Zellner. Easy to find their emails/phone nos online. Check out Adrianna's article for those who remain out in the rest of the country. No more madness - it's time to move toward the general.
At one time, I thought either Obama or Clinton would be great. However, after witnessing Hillary's maniacal behavior of the last 3 months, I now concur that 20 years of Clintons and Bushes are enough. Obama 08
Senators Feingold just said Hillary should be VP.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Dem, in Missouri immediately supported Clinton. Even after his Obama won in his district, Cleaver said he could not look in the mirror if he went back on his word to his friends, the Clintons. Many of us have written to Cleaver, but never received a reply.
Cleaver is an African-American and a United Methodist pastor, yet, he has made many negative comments against Obama. For example, white people will vote for Obama to say they are not racists and can declare there are no further racial issues.
As a white person, I find his statements very offensive. There are several reasons I voted for Obama over Clinton. His stance about lobbyists and the Government Accountability law that he co-sponsored are a few reasons.
The superdelegate issue needs to be changed.
Mark my words, he will call her bluff. I think she will take it to the convention too. She will be embarrassed on the floor and it would serve her right! She has a high tolerance for pain; she is an addict and her and Bill are addicted to POWER!
well, if she's in it until the convention, he will lose the general. Please people do not be foolish enough to think that he can win a general election with only weeks to campaign as the nominee, and with 3 more months of her battering away at him and undermining his candidacy. He's great, but he's not that great.
The superdelegates have the power to end this right now. Every single one of us should be on the phones pleading with them to get off their asses and take a stand. They claim they want to wait until after June 3rd... why? That makes NO sense. The remaining primaries won't change the fact that Obama has already WON the pledged delegate battle. And by June 3rd it will be too late because the rules committee is meeting on May 31st to take up FL and MI and once that happens we are in for a world of pain
http://www
Rove Protégé May Dig for Dirt on Obama
By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
May 23, 2008
Timothy Griffin, a central figure in the U.S. Attorney scandal and a protégé of Republican political guru Karl Rove, reportedly has been hired to dig up dirt on likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
FirstRead, a political Web site of NBC News, cited a Republican source as confirming that Griffin was being brought onboard by the Republican National Committee to handle opposition research on Obama.
Griffin hung up on me when I contacted him at his home and asked him to comment about the report. An RNC aide told me he could neither “confirm nor deny the report.”
Griffin’s return to the RNC as an opposition researcher – a post he held during the Bush-Cheney campaigns – would seem to mark a return to a “dirty tricks” style of campaigning that John McCain has vowed to avoid.
Well written!
The question is: How do we know they won't come up with something new once Florida and Michigan get settled?
If she wants to get to the convention, she'll figure out a way to get there. If it's not Florida or Michigan, it will be the hard-working white voters, or women, or the elderly, or experience
It can't be right for her to claim 100% of the delegates from Michigan, can it?
BlueAsh, you are right on! How can someone admire Hillary for being a fighter? A fighter is a winner when they are ethical. Everyday she comes out with something new.
Hillary just said Bobbie Kennedy is the reason she is staying in the race, referring to his assassination. I had already thought about Hillary being VP and the odds of something happening to Obama.
Rachel Maddow has also made another prediction on her radio show which has me very nervous. She predicted that the Republican John McCain will win the election - as things stand now. This country simply cannot take another four years of Republican greed, avarice, and lawlessness. The super delegates must act NOW!
Rachel, so nice to see you in this forum. I'm a daily listener on 1150 am radio (streaming at work) and on MSNBC (Congrats! They should replace Gregory with you.)
Here's my scenario. Rules Committee rules that MI & FL seat & split delegates 50/50. Supers still don't commit. Now she stays in the media cycle because there no "presumptive nominee," as possible VP and anything else that keeps her in the news until the Convention, when she gives the biggest "I know you love me" speech. Obama wins the majority of delegates AND THEN, the Supers commit to him. Hillary gives a magnanimous "see, I'm not a sore loser" speech, exhorting her supporters to support the nominee, Obama. Then, right there in front of everybody, he offers her VP--and she declines. There's not a dry eye in the house. He hints at some other job she might like--she smiles coyly. "Well, after we WIN THE WHITEHOUSE!!!" [crowd goes wild!] BIG media moment and then after Obama's elected, she gets whatever she wants (leader of Senate, cabinet post, etc.).
But, I thought HRC was for the peolpe. You make it sound like its all about her.
It looses the sarcasm when it is typed.
I wish you were right about her turning down the offer of VP. If it were left up to Hillary, she would probably decline. However, it is Bill Clinton that is driving this in the vain hope that he will return to the White House in some form or fashion. I think he would make it difficult for her to say no.
He has gone from being loved and admired in my eyes, to being just another political operative, believing that the only thing that matters is what he wants. How does that make him different from Bush/Rove?
Again, if it takes til the convention for unity to happen, it will be too late. Just not enough time folks. I can't believe how naive everyone is being.
Also, what in Hillary's behavior over the last 3 months makes you think that she will somehow turn magnanimous at the end and reject the VP spot? Even if she does, Obama will be starting from so far behind McCain he won't be able to catch up. What do you think Hillary will be doing all summer? She will be talking to anyone who will listen about how she really won the popular vote and it was "stolen from her by a man". She will harden her supporters against Obama.
it will never happen this way.
What do you think Independents, left-leaning/cross over Republicans and conservative Democrats (In other words, everyone in the middle) will think as they watch the Democrats struggle through a very awkward Democratic convention to name a presidential candidate?
They will think: What a disorganized party. There is NO WAY they will be able to run this country. I'm voting for the Republican. At least that party pulls together.
And then that idea will be reinforced as the Republicans hold their convention with nothing but praise for their candidate.
It would handicap either Democratic candidate to the point of losing.
The republicans have their own problems. For starters the right wingers aren't supporting McCain. His only chance to get these people out is to get Clinton on the ticket. In other words slim and none.
First let me say that this is very insightful and well written. But I think that Hillary is hoping that your plan will not go through, because I think she wants to use this as leverage to get the VP spot.
Like you said, if this goes to the convention, the Democrats lose. I believe the Clintons know this. Therefore actually trying to get the presidency is not in their best interest, because they will most certainly be seen as ruining the Dems best shot. Instead, they want to use this as a bargaining chip to get Hillary on the ballet. They see what Dick Cheney has done to the VP position, and they want to do the same. They are accustomed to pulling the strings of the Democratic Party and Obama has already taken a hack saw to a lot of them. So they are in salvaging mode, trying to get to the last place they can maintain any real influence - the vice presidency.
Dick Cheney is only a powerful VP because Bush lets him be. Bush doesn't know how to lead and is like a little boy looking to his daddy. Traditionally (and this would be the case with Obama) the president does everything and the VP doesn't do sh*t. The VP has NO power. Hillary knows this and I don't see her wanting the VP spot (despite what the ratings-crazed networks are saying). Her endgame is to try to somehow get the nomination (because it gives her some chance to win, as opposed to no chance if she concedes), and failing getting the nomination she wants to ensure that Obama is weakened so that he cannot win. She can then run in 4 years. I don't see how anyone really paying attention to her actions over the last month can doubt this is her strategy. In FL she was saying things that are intentionally designed to hurt his chances in an important swing state.
"Lyndon Johnson"
If the Obama's supporters were as menacing as Hillary's, maybe, just maybe the spineless so called uncommitted "super" delegates would come out from under their mothers' skirts to take one side or the other and end this ordeal. If only my dream of an end to this ridiculous two parties system could be fullfilled!
Most of these cowards so called party's elders or leaders keep saying that they want to let the people decide, well the people have already decided and their voices alone so far have not been enough to give either Sen. Obama or Clinton the magic pledge delegates number to get the nomination and this fact will not change even with the primaries on June 1st and 3rd. What are they waiting for to take a side in the race? At this point I do not care whether they root for Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, let's have a democratic nominee and get this nightmare over with.
To all democrat leaning voters out there, let's give the signal to the remaining uncommitted superdelegates that we will hold them responsible for a possible democrat failure in November and they will be all voted out the next cycle when their seat is up for re-election. Just a thought.
Deparis
And so the name calling starts again.
The Dems do know that if Clinton steals this at the convention, a large number of Obama voters will sit out the election.
I think they are having a classic battle between loyalty and reason. The former is responsible for our current delema, the latter is, at least in my fifty one years, an untested theory in politics.
It is also probably a novel concept to them that Obama's support comes from people who like and respect him, as opposed to votes garnered from absolute disdain for the opposition.
First of all Clinton is not stealing anything. Is the other way around. Clinton wins Mass by 15 % , teddy, kerry, patrick support Obama . NM votes Clinton, Judas goes for Obama. Clinton wins NJ, payne goes Obama. Clinton wins AZ, Napolitano votes Obama. Clinton slams WV by 40 % Rockeferol and Byrd vote Obama.
Obama suporters will be drunk and stoned come November and regardless of Hillary, McCain will win
The only way dems win is by Nominating Clinton . As Begala said it , you can't win with ehggheads and African Americans alone.
You need women, latinos, bitter gun clinging typical white voters.
PS. Invest in kleenex. you will need it
Thats not stealing, its reality. People believe in Obama.
He's not conniving and low, he has values. Hillary doesn't even know what that means.
She's not going to steal anything but she's trying. The only way the Dems lose is to run the Clintons. Getting your info from a Clinton toady like Begala is not a good idea. He is often mistaken or lying about facts.
If Hillary wins anything, the nation loses. The Bushes and the Clintons are the same. Enough of it.
If McCain wins you'd better invest in gold and head to Canada. The country's economy will be flushed down the toilet and the dollar will be worth next to nothing. Anybody still able bodied and not in jail will be drafted to fight in McCain's wars.
But I'm sure you're a true flag pin wearing patriot and would be glad to go fight for the Big Oil companies while your country infrastructure and economy is destroyed.
Keep allowing your bigotry to direct your voting and you'll get what you deserve.
Bush/McCai
If HRC's devious plan works, yes, we will need Kleenex for the tears of sorrow that will fall from so many who got out their checkbooks or credit cards, ordinary people, to contribute so many small amounts of our hard earned money to FINALLY have a chance at a POTUS not bought and paid for by those who would control us and slight us and sell us down the river for greed and power. We, the unbrainwashed by the DC insider machine, will know that our chance to save ourselves has been squandered to ignorance, racism and greed.
Rachel, thank you for your continuing clarity. We love you.
The Dems do know that if it's Obama 48, a large number of Hillary voters will sit out the election.
Sad to say, Obama 48 = McSame 08.
We'll do more than sit out this election. Third party time if that happens. We need a party that speaks to the concerns of the citizenry not only to those of Washington insiders and the military-industrial complex.
This would be the cue for Ralph Nader to say "Here I come again" in Abe Simpson's voice.
Rachel,
I, like most here, would like to welcome you. You are a bright light and strong source in the media today and we love you for that. We believe you will speak truth and be fair at all times and that's a blessing in this media world.
Thank you from a true fan.
There is a real simple way for the democratic party to elect the nominee (I know its too late but maybe next time) Heres my idea:
1. Every person voting in the democratic primary will be considered a "Delegate"
2. There will be no super delegates.
3. Pick a one day in which to hold the election for all states...y
4. After everyone votes, the candidate with the most votes ...WINS!!!
Democracy.
Sounds good, except each individual state has something to do with setting the date, doesn't it?
I would prefer we ditch BOTH parties, and hold local, state, regional, and national primaries. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we are to cede power to two separate but equally corrupt institutions.
Except that there is a huge profit-making industry around primaries and elections that will never allow that to happen. The two-year presidential campaign has kept them employed and travel and advertising dollars flowing. This is also the reason there is no campaign finance reform. Candidates need to raise millions and millions spread over time to keep the media and consultant gravey train rolling .
Rachel, my husband and I are big fans. We always seek out your appearances and listen with heads nodding and smiles on our 60 and 61-year-old-faces -- even when we disagree with a comment or two ... We're Independents from a caucus state and happily voted for Obama back in Feb -- in a process that requires voting with your body and standing around for hours (though we have absentee votes in Maine). We are amazed at Clinton's dismissal of us and our form of voting. We also don't show up in the "popular vote" tallies she's NOW so fond of.
I am sooooo tired of being lumped in the demographic that supports her. Millions of women are for Obama and others will vote for him in the general if they value democratic principles and Roe v Wade!
I also find that Obama is more in touch with the Feminine Principle than is the "woman" in this race.
Thanks again for your intelligent commentary and grace.
Greetings from Maine ...
No need for you to hold down two jobs to support your family.
I agree about Hillary not being someone, who doesn't represent the "feminist principle", whereas Obama does.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
