Should Hillary drop out for the good of the Democratic Party?

[Muenkel 0]

A lot of pundits and party elders are suggesting this lately.

My personal opinion is no. She's not that far behind in delegates and like she claims, she has won a bunch of the larger states.

What do you think?

_________________________________________
Chris

[Gawain 0]

All the talk about her "dropping out of the race" is an effort to hinder her viability for the next three big primaries.

Sen. Clinton will not bow out of this race.

She will take it to the convention.

She does not care what damage is done to the party in the process, it was President Clinton and her that remolded the party for his run in 1992.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,111]

For the good of the party? Yes, it would help.

For the good of Hillary? Nope. The longer she's in, the more publicity she gets, and the more prepared she is for her next campaign.

[Muenkel 0]

I can see their motive behind this. They want to clean up this mess quickly, so the presumptive nominee can get to work on McCain. I think they fear the Clinton machine more than the McCain machine.

As much as I believe the Clinton's believe they are entitled to this nomination and the presidency; I do also think the numbers are so close that she has a valid reason for staying the course.

_________________________________________
Chris

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

A lot of pundits and party elders are suggesting this lately.

My personal opinion is no. She's not that far behind in delegates and like she claims, she has won a bunch of the larger states.

What do you think?

No. Her entitlement is more important than the good of her party, or the good of democracy for that matter.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Royd 0]

For the good of the party? Yes, it would help.

Quote

For the good of Hillary? Nope. The longer she's in, the more publicity she gets, and the more prepared she is for her next campaign.

They'll have four years to stock up on botox.

[quade 4]

Quote

A lot of pundits and party elders are suggesting this lately.

I honestly don't think she has a chance against McCain, so in that respect it would be better for the party if she did drop out.

However, the absolute last thing the Democratic Party needs right now is any sort of taint of dealmaking and "supers" calling for her to leave just doesn't sound right to me. I think that right this moment the pledge delegates are too evenly split for this to make sense. If there was a 60/40 split I could see it, but like I said, the numbers right now are too close to call.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

They'll have four years to stock up on botox.

If Obama wins, she'll need an 8 year supply. Maybe Pelosi can lend her some.

_________________________________________
Chris

[nathaniel 0]

It would be awesome and hilarious if she were to run as an independent.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

As much as I believe the Clinton's believe they are entitled to this nomination and the presidency

The Democratic Party owes Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton owes Hillary Clinton.

That's it.


Edited to add: The dems are looking at so many problems right now that they believe that the party would do best if Hillary drops out. They are not necessarily wrong.

There are many dangers to the party as a whole if she stays in:
1) She and Obama deplete the campaign warchests against each other, instead of McCain;
2) The winner of the two may emerge too bloodied. The party could not handle one of their candidates being borked by the other one too close to the general election;
3) Should Hillary emerge the winner in a truly brokered convention, the system that the Dems have set up a quarter of a century ago would be tested in a way that they did not want;
4) The Dem Party Leadership stripped Michigan and Florida voters of their votes in the primaries. Hey, they are rules. But the Democratic Party could lose WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too much credibility with their long-term plans to be viewed as the party of suffrage.
5) If Obama goes into the convention in front and Clinton comes away with the nomination, it could mean exodus of Obama's hardest supporters, and the Republicans will watch and chuckle as the Dems go into a schism. I cannot see a bigger problem for the Democrats than an Obama loss. The African-American groups will scream racism, perhaps with a lot of validity.
6) If Obama comes away with the nomination following the convention, and Clinton had a series of strong wins going into the convention, Clinton's camp may bolt to supporting someone like Nader.
7) What if the nomination has lawsuit issues? Will one of them mount a legal challenge?

One of them dropping out soon will prevent most of these. Hillary CLinton dropping out will be the one that eliminates more than the other way 'round.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Muenkel 0]

Your summation is right on Counselor.

Although, the party may still be pissed that Bill did not hand the presidency to Gore.

_________________________________________
Chris

[rushmc 23]

Quote

A lot of pundits and party elders are suggesting this lately.

My personal opinion is no. She's not that far behind in delegates and like she claims, she has won a bunch of the larger states.

What do you think?

They made thier own rules. I will watch to see if they have the guts to live by them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,590]

No one is working harder to put McCain in the Whitehouse, than Hillary.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[likearock 2]

Quote

It would be awesome and hilarious if she were to run as an independent.

Yeah, I'm sure McCain would get a big kick out of that.

[Muenkel 0]

No truer words.

_________________________________________
Chris

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

No one is working harder to put McCain in the Whitehouse, than Hillary.

It reminds me of a kickoff return. The blockers peel off and each take out a defender. The person that actually carries the ball will sacrifice their blockers.

Obama is loving that HC is still out there. She's like his personal lightning rod. All he has to do is nuttin'.
Hang out, be quiet. Let HC run around and do her best at attracting controversy.

In fact, he doesn't have to attack HC. She shoots herself in her own foot. How easy is that?

"Hillary, here comes the press, roll right and take that one out."

[tbrown 26]

I think it's time for both Hillary and Obama to stop running against each other and start running against John McCain. Because McCain's getting an undeserved free ride from now until Labor Day.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[crwtom 0]

Quote

No one is working harder to put McCain in the Whitehouse, than Hillary.

she shows stronger than Obama against McCain in all the big swing states (PA,OH,FL,...) see latest RCP

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[lawrocket 3]

So did Kerry against Bush, and it's the electoral college that counts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

There are many dangers to the party as a whole if she stays in:

even if after months Obama comes out on top (and this is where the best are) a long primary campaign has also its benefits.

One of the biggest vulnerabilities of Obama is that he hasn't been vetted -- and indeed a lot of stuff has floated to the surface that could have meant disaster for the dems if ti had come up November 2nd or 3rd instead of half a year earlier. McCain will not be able to say that we don't know Obama.

Generally, I'm also puzzled by a political wussification that seesm to take hold these days. Republicans and Democrats do have deep philosophical and political differences.

It is a serious difference whether your main goal in health care is to expand coverage through regulation and subsidies, or if you see the main problem in efficiency in health costs that should be improved with freeing up insurance market and tax incentives.

There is a big difference whether you aim for the fastest possible disengagement from Iraq seeing further involvement as an overall minus for the US, or if you aim to establish a US presence in the middle east as in Europe or S Korea for reasons not too far from the initial PNAC philosophy.

There is a huge difference whether your upcoming SCOTUS appointments will be counter balancing the appoinments and retirements of the current administration, or if the new appointments will continue the trend of the recent ones by someone who, e..g, openly likes to see Roe V Wade overturned.

In the end of the day one part of the country will not convince the other, or 300Mio will sit down and work out a complicated compromise which everyone is happy with. The differences in views are by all means fundamental and with that wishy-washy in between compromise has nearly nill chance of being actually functional . There will be a debate, a battle, a decision for one or the other, and there will be winners and losers. This is part of democracy. It seems half of the country has gotten scared of the democratic process.

Something else puzzles me: The democratic candidates are essentially one the same page in the above issues and other decisions, and the republican candidate is starkly on the other sides. That people would switch parties depending on who wins on the democratic primary seems to really indicate a considerable indifference to the policies for the country that these votes would entail.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[crwtom 0]

Quote

So did Kerry against Bush, and it's the electoral college that counts.

is this supposed to be proof that whoever is stronger in OH, PA, and FL now will be a weaker candidate later??

The point is that the claims perpetuated that Obama will be the stronger candidate originate from head-to-head polls made a moth or so ago -- which since have been nullified by newer polls or if you factor in the electoral system.

All the prognoses at this point that one candidate will be stronger against McCain in the fall are simply non-sense. There is no real evidence for any of this. Obama is as vulnerable to swing voter fluctuation and "desertion" as Clinton is.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Republicans and Democrats do have deep philosophical and political differences.

No, they have SHALLOW philosophical and political differences. On the deep issues, they both agree on: 1) More government; 2) Bigger government; 3) More intrusive government; 4) less rights for the citizens.

Where they differ? Republicans want a big security and war machine. Democrats want a big socialist machine.

Republicans want intrusion in adult bedrooms. Democrats want intrusion in the kids' bedrooms.

Republicans want a scaled back 4th Amendment.
Democrats want a scaled back Second and First Amendment.

They have deepseated political and philosophical agreement, just different priorities.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Oh, I agree with your assessment. Every candidate is susceptible to a swing. The polls now may not mean much in November. Or during the dem Convention. Things can change.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Republicans and Democrats do have deep philosophical and political differences.

No, they have SHALLOW philosophical and political differences. On the deep issues, they both agree on: 1) More government; 2) Bigger government; 3) More intrusive government; 4) less rights for the citizens.

Where they differ? Republicans want a big security and war machine. Democrats want a big socialist machine.

Republicans want intrusion in adult bedrooms. Democrats want intrusion in the kids' bedrooms.

Republicans want a scaled back 4th Amendment.
Democrats want a scaled back Second and First Amendment.

They have deepseated political and philosophical agreement, just different priorities.

As profound of post as I have seen I a great long while. Nicely done.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

A lot of pundits and party elders are suggesting this lately.

My personal opinion is no. She's not that far behind in delegates and like she claims, she has won a bunch of the larger states.

What do you think?

Hillary is going to continue to attack Obama because
1) She might win.

2) If she looses, the Obama animosity she fosters will help her get into the white house as McCain's running mate followed by 8-10 years in the Oval Office.

Clinton worked with Gingrich on health care, and he thought she was fine on defense

"She's been consistently solid on the need to do the right thing on national defense."

which is just what the Republicans need in a vice presidental candidate.

Some Obama haters would follow her to the Republicans. A few Republicans might not like it although they're not going to vote for Obama with his socialist leanings.

This is all intentional - Bill's cranium is almost as big as Karl Rove's.