_____________________________________________________________
The growing chorus among some Democrats and other interested observers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to get out of the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president is troubling. We're not promoting Ms. Clinton over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), or either of them over Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), for that matter. A time may come when someone should gracefully bow out. But their extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test them both. We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee...
One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we've "known" has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?
Last week they tackled the economy and the mortgage meltdown. But there are plenty more questions for voters to consider. How would the candidates pay for their billions in increased spending on health care, energy and education? With diplomacy toward North Korea faltering, how would they handle its nuclear ambitions? What's the future of affirmative action? The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate....
And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it's assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.
9 comments :
Politics Make Strange Bedfellows
Along with Rush Limbaugh urging republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary, Rupert Murdoch throwing campaign fundraisers for her, Ann Coulter declaring her more conservative than John Mccain and Richard Maillon Scafe (sp) giving the Clintons praising articles and endorsements, we now have Joe Lieberman singing their praises!! Why vote for Mccain when you have a bigger neocon running on the democratic platform.
ARTICLE:
Lieberman makes the Zell Miller transition final: ‘…the Democratic Party changed’
On ABC’s THIS WEEK, they played a clip of Joe Lieberman saying he wanted a Democratic Congress and President in the White House back in ‘06. ( h/t Nedheads for the clip on TW) When Stephanopoulos asked him why he’s backing St. McCain, he said some very interesting things—
video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play (Heather)
LIEBERMAN: I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Joe Lieberman joins us now. You’re now an independent senator from Connecticut. But no one in your position has ever crossed over like this. You ran for vice president as a Democrat in 2000, ran for president as a Democrat in 2000. And now you are backing John McCain. What do you say to Democrats who say that that shows you’ve abandoned a lifetime of commitments?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government.
It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.
He responded like Zell Miller because bloggers and activists made him lose the Democratic primary in CT over his warmongering. Zell Lieberman then was caught in a bunch of distortions by George. As he’s questioned on St. McCain’s right wing agenda, the agenda that he’s been opposed to for his whole career, here’s his response:
LIEBERMAN: No, I’m saying two things. First, as a matter of fact, George, John McCain is not for the private accounts to take the
place of Social Security. He’s for what Bill Clinton used to call “Social Security-plus.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: He disputed that in The Wall Street Journal this month, though.
LIEBERMAN: Yes. I think that’s right. But let me — there are two reasons why I support John McCain, when I did in December and I announced it, and I feel even more strongly about it today.
Well CT, here’s your man. He’s a warmonger and is supporting this war with Iraq and pushing for another war with Iran. St. McCain fills the bill for him on this issue completely. He throws out the bipartisan theme he talks about all the time. You know—Reach across party lines to fix health care and what not. OK Joe, the right wingers will NOT work with McCain on immigration—they shut him and the bill down so he had to flip flop on his position. Oh, and forget about health care reform for this country if McCain is elected. The economy you ask? Hahahaha! The Social Security gaffe was a major, major problem for Joe, but he just blew it off as if the question wasn’t asked. I guess Zelieberman missed Lindsey Graham whispering in his ear the correct answer…
Filed Under: Election 08, Joe Lieberman, This Week/George Stephanopoulos
Tags: Joe Liberman
^o, come on. Hillary Clinton is not a necon & for you to suggest she is is absolutely laughable. In many ways, she's more progressive than Obama---on healthcare, on the economy, etc. And if you're going by her voting record on the war, then Obama is just as big of a necon, since he voted the same way she did.
I wrote a post several weeks ago giving reasons why Clinton should not drop out of the race. Glad to see The Washington Post agree with my thoughts and position. The cry babies who support Obama and want Clinton to drop out could care less about the people's right to vote in the upcoming primaries.
J.Lucia said...
I wrote a post several weeks ago giving reasons why Clinton should not drop out of the race. Glad to see The Washington Post agree with my thoughts and position. The cry babies who support Obama and want Clinton to drop out could care less about the people's right to vote in the upcoming primaries.
^Whiners? Crybabies? You mean the ones who are calling for seating the illegitimate delegates, even though they signed a pledge in September not to seat them? You mean the ones who are running behind but think the front-runner would look good at the back of the ticket? You mean the ones who suggest that Super delegates and pledged delegates can change their minds but then call the ones who switch to Obama Judases? You mean the ones who have so little disregard for their own party that they'll trash the presumptive nominee by heaping praise on the other party's candidate? You mean the ones who have to win by landslides in all remaining primaries and caucuses to catch the other candidate in delegates and popular vote, even though the latest polls show them trailing in national polls by 10%, 52% to 42%. You mean the ones who don't live in the "comeback kid" fantasy world and can actually crunch the numbers? You mean the ones whose candidate is garnering money from as many as 2 million contributors while the other candidte can't even pay her bills and has seen her contributions all but dry up? You mean the ones whose contributors haven't tried to blackmail the democratic leadership to support their candidate or risk losing their financial support? Is THAT the whiners and crybabies you're referring to?
Joseph,
They passed trade bills that have been detrimental to American jobs, while simultaneously telling us the classic lie that Hillary was against it. After campaigning on a promise to allow gays in the military, they gave us "don't ask, don't tell", which kept the same government discrimination based on sexuality. They passed legislation allowing the major corporations to swallow up more and more of the news organizations. Fox News would be nothing but a republican dream without the Clintons. They passed more and more government deregulation which allowed corporate America to set their own standards and practices.
I'm sorry but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The Clintons helped pass a LOT of the neocon agenda that Bush gets credit for, including the first bills to remove legal obstacles for our government to spy on us without due cause or judicial restraints. Bush just continued what they started.
This just in!!! Now the Clinton campaign is claiming that Fox news is the fairest of ALL the news channels!! God, I can just see all of you former democrats echoing this Clinton mantra as they slowly destroy the democratic party!! VIVA RUPERT MURDOCH!! VIVA JOHN MCCAIN!!! VIVA FOX NEWS!!
ARTICLE:
The Clinton campaign has said before that Fox treats them more fairly than MSNBC, but prominent surrogate Governor Ed Rendell heaped the strongest praise yet on the Murdoch-owned network.
"I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present -- FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks...”
I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.
Myth: This race is tied.
No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.
Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.
There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.
Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!
Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?
Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.
This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.
Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!
Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.
Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.
That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.
Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.
There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.
Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.
Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.
Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.
Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.
Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.
Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?
Yes, and you should lie down, too.
The sad thing is, although I don't approve of Fox news, they probably have been the most fair. MSNBC has Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, & Andrea Mitchell--some of the most anti-Clinton people around. CNN hasn't exactly been fair either. That makes FOX the most fair (with Clinton) simply because they, since there all Republicans, have no horse in the race.
To all the Obama crybabies, Yogi Berra's rule still applies regardless if you like it or not, It ain't over till its over. If you can not enjoy this race, get a life. The Obama supporters think their candidate does not have to go thru the remaining primaries and that it should just be a gift.
Post a Comment