Clinton Asks Pledged Delegates To Support Obama (Updated)

Multiple Democratic sources say that Sen. Hillary Clinton, in a series of private conversations and conference calls, continues to urge her pledged delegates to vote for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Clinton plans a series of calls with superdelegates, interest groups and state delegations over the next few days. (One of them took place last night, according to this report from Iowa's Quad Cities-Globe-Gazette.)

“She’s doing calls with supports and delegates and various other groups of supporters,” said Mo Elliethee, a spokesperson. “What she did was reiterate what she said on Saturday. She thanked them for their hard work and their dedication and all that they did for her and celebrated some of the accomplishments of her campaign…. And she urged them to get behind Sen. Obama and to work just as hard to elect him president.”

A Clinton spokesman said that Clinton is not technically releasing her delegates -- doing so would cause many of them to be dropped from the slate -- but noted that both Bill Bradley and Howard Dean did not formally release their slates until their conventions.

Still, Clinton's moves this week suggest that she opposes grassroots efforts by some of her supporters to hang on until the convention and submit Clinton's name for president or vice president. It also suggests that her campaign does not intend to challenge the DNC rules and bylaws committee decision to award Obama some of Clinton's delegates from Michigan. Pledged delegates and superdelegates can vote for whomever they want, but a split convention -- even if the split was lopsided -- would no doubt embarrass Obama.

In other Clinton news, campaign manager Maggie Williams, senior adviser Cheryl Mills, and staffers from every other Clinton campaign department will remain on the payroll through at least June. The process of closing down a campaign is almost as complex as is the process to create one.

Comments

This is too bad. I'm not sure if I'm going to support Obama yet, but I really wanted to see Hillary Clinton's name be put in for nomination. Just for history's sake. I know Obama has the delegates--barely--but why not follow the rules? I wish Clinton would let her delegates vote for her. Obama needs to know that less than half of the Democrats voted for him during the primaries. I'd love to see the convention put her name in for VP too if Obama picks someone else. We need to make our Democratic leaders accountable to the people who supported Clinton.

Posted by Regina | June 10, 2008 12:42 PM

I think this is encouraging. NPR reported that Gerald Ford believed until the end that he would defeat Carter and that it took Ford a long time to recover from the loss. Clinton had many more reasons than Ford to be surprised, shocked, by her loss. It would be hard for a normal person to make that admission and even harder for someone with Clinton's personality. This action on her part tells me that her Saturday concession was genuine. It did come days later than it should have but the delay is understandable. And, I have to add that I'm not a Clinton fan but do feel for her in this instance.

Posted by Keith Hood | June 10, 2008 12:56 PM

It's nice to see Clinton doing the right thing, a split convention would look bad for Obama and only help McCain. This attitude should have been adopted a few weeks ago.

Regina: On the issues... how could you justify sitting out on an election that might award McCain the POTUS, SCOTUS and foreign policy decision making for the next four years?

Posted by TDE | June 10, 2008 12:57 PM

Regina, Clinton's historical import will be damaged if Obama loses and she, or her supporters, are seen as potential causes.

Clinton herself has acknowledged, indeed publicly embraced the fact that Obama will be the nominee and will choose his own vice president. She no doubt would reject out of hand any attempt to place her on the ballot for vice president if not chosen by Obama.

I recall staying up until 1:30 in the morning to hear McGovern's "Come Home America" acceptance speech at the 1972 convention. Various shenanigans at the convention delayed his speech. He was going to have an uphill battle, but I am sure his late speech and his inability to control the convention were important factors in his defeat.

I think it is wise to respect Senator Clinton's own decisions.

Posted by Bob Collins | June 10, 2008 12:57 PM

Good on Hillary. These gestures are important because they also help calm the hypersensitivity of some Obama supporters (myself included)who sense cynical motives in everything Clinton does. It will help shut some of us up (myself included - again) and this can only help bring disaffected Hillary supporters back into the Democratic camp come November. Having us trash Hillary at every step certainly wasn't helping this. Now that it's over, I'm happy to see both Hillary and Obama starting to take the high road.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 1:03 PM

Here's one unreported story I'd like to see. Maybe Ambinder can take it up. It's been awhile since we've had this close of a nomination battle. Hillary Clinton--contrary to the Obama campaign and media's claims--has moved perhaps the most swiftly of any candidate in modern primary history to concede and release her delegates. Would someone write the story comparing Hillary Clinton to Jesse Jackson in 1988, Gary Hart in 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1980, Ted Kennedy in 1980, Ronald Reagan in 1976, etc. These guys all hung on MUCH LONGER than Hillary Clinton, yet it was considered par for the course. To negotiate, gain leverage, etc. is acceptable for the male candidates who have lost, but screams abounded from David Gergen to Keith Olbermann about how Hillary Clinton should have conceded before South Dakota and Montana even voted.

Posted by Regina | June 10, 2008 1:09 PM

To Awesom-), you are right. Obama's minions trashing me and the other invisible supporters of Sen. Clinton did not help. A couple days of nice talk isn't going be sufficient. And threats regarding the Supreme Court provide me no reason to vote FOR Obama. Obama seems to care about 0 iotas about health care, as does McCain. Regardless of who wins, the issue of universal health care isn't happening. So for me, I lose nothing by sitting this election out. Obama claims he back universal health care, but his plan is weak. McCain's plan is bad too. Not voting for either one.

Posted by Regina | June 10, 2008 1:17 PM

Regina: Fair point, but I would also add something about all the candidates you listed: Each one of these Democratic candidates hung around for far too long and the eventual nominee was trounced in the election. This is particularly important for Kennedy as many believe it helped cost Carter the election in 1980 (whether or not he could have won regardless is another matter). Democrats are so eager to win this election at all costs that many are terrified of anything which might screw it up. Once it became clear that Hillary could not win the nomination, they pounced. I'm not saying this explains everything, but it is what a lot of Obama supporters felt. For these particular people, Clinton's sex had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 1:21 PM

Regina: Fair point, but I would also add something about all the Democratic candidates you listed: Each one hung around for far too long and the eventual nominee was trounced in the election. This is particularly important for Kennedy as many believe it helped cost Carter the election in 1980 (whether or not he could have won regardless is another matter). Democrats are so eager to win this election at all costs that many are terrified of anything which might screw it up. Once it became clear that Hillary could not win the nomination, they pounced. I'm not saying this explains everything, but it is what a lot of Obama supporters felt. For these particular people, Clinton's sex had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 1:21 PM

I don't believe it.

She has more pledged delegates than any other 2nd place winner.

Why would she do this?

Furthermore, if FL/MI were seated in full the way the votes were tallied, then Hillary would be the winner with 1725 pledged delegates to BO's 1706.

This makes no sense and further fuels those of us to fight on even without her.

I will not vote for BO - it was a STOLEN election.

Posted by Rita | June 10, 2008 1:22 PM

regina, you have plenty to lose besides health care if john mccain becomes president. he'll put another alito on the SCOTUS and you and every woman you love will be deprived of the right to control her own body.

if you won't take a stand for yourself, then at least take one for your daughter, mother, sister, aunt, friends.

the fact that i even have to spell this out for you is depressing.

Posted by lorelei | June 10, 2008 1:25 PM

Obama seems to care about 0 iotas about health care, as does McCain.

This statement is completely and utterly FALSE. The only actual difference between Hillary's and Obama's health care plans is that Obama's allows people to opt out, whereas Clinton's makes participation mandatory. I won't throw the Supreme Court in your face, but I will throw a possible war with Iran. If you want to see thousands of more Americans die just to prove a point about feeling slighted; go ahead.

Posted by Awesome-O | June 10, 2008 1:26 PM

Awesome-O

Why not throw SCOTUS about? It's on the freaking line over the next four years... Domestically it's as important as healthcare. When the surface of the hardcore Hillary supporters is scratched, underneath lies much irrationality.

Posted by TDE | June 10, 2008 1:34 PM

Regina: Less than half of the voters this Democratic primary season voted for Clinton, and as far as I know, there's no rule saying that candidates can't release their delegates.

Most of the nomination battles you mentioned seem inapposite. In 1976, Ford, unlike Obama, didn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination before the convention. In 1980, Bush dropped out in May—hardly hanging on "MUCH LONGER" than Clinton, especially since the Iowa caucuses were later that year. And in the other cases the eventual nominee ended up losing, which seems like a good enough explanation for the pressure on Clinton to drop out this year.

Posted by Raghav | June 10, 2008 1:35 PM

This "war with Iran" meme is getting a little bit much. For one thing it implies John McCain is going to start a war with Iran just for kicks. Second, it implies that Barack Obama would never fight a war with Iran. If that's true he's too weak to be commander-in-chief, and if it's believed by the Iranian the US almost no leverage in preventing their becoming a nuclear weapons state.

Posted by Tim K | June 10, 2008 1:36 PM

Furthermore, if FL/MI were seated in full the way the votes were tallied, then Hillary would be the winner with 1725 pledged delegates to BO's 1706.

This statement might have an ounce of truth, had Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe (both senior Hillary staffers) NOT BEEN THE ARCHITECTS of the plan to strip Florida and Michigan of their votes in the first place!!!

Further, the following quotes about Florida and Michigan were said by Clinton herself and are still available on her web site:

.. “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement."

It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.

Can any of her supporters here properly respond to this (simply saying that Obama should have kept his name on the ballot is not a response). Please reconcile how the Clinton camp can justify stripping Florida and Michigan and have any claim of legitimacy when they ask to reinstate them because it helps their cause.

The blatant lying and cynicism of the Clinton campaign is what made so many of us recoil from her. Prior to the start of the primary I would have happily supported Clinton as the nominee, but when I saw her employ precisely the same tactics as Bush & CO, I left her camp forever.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 1:37 PM

Oh yeah: If you truly believe not having a national health care plan seriously harms working Americans, then please consider this:

McCain has no plan to provide universal health care to Americans. Can we really wait another 4 years (when the political climate may not be nearly as favorable as it is now) to do this? How many families between now and 2012 will lose everything because they are uninsured but find themselves dealing with a major illness/injury? How many single mothers will continue to work dead-end jobs and be unable to improve their family’s lot because they cannot risk losing insurance? How many of these same single mothers will be forced to choose between paying the rent and taking a sick child to the doctor’s office?

If you truly believe in Hillary's platforms (and there are virtually no policy differences between her and Obama), then voting for McCain is a huge slap in the face to her and what she stands for!!!! It virtually guarantees that none of the issues important to Hillary get taken care for the next 4 years - at a minimum.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 1:49 PM

Rita: Furthermore, if FL/MI were seated in full the way the votes were tallied, then Hillary would be the winner with 1725 pledged delegates to BO's 1706.

Maybe my math is wrong, but judging from DCW's numbers, had Clinton been granted the most generous allocation of delegates (i.e., no delegates to Obama from Michigan except the uncommitted ones that endorsed him) she would have had 56.5 more pledged delegates than under the scenario that was adopted, while Obama would have had 2.5 delegates less. That would result in only 1696 pledged delegates for Clinton today, which isn't enough for her to gain the lead.

Posted by Raghav | June 10, 2008 1:51 PM

Seems like Regina is thinking of no one but her own bitter self when she says it won't hurt HER to sit this election out. Odd kind of feminism that puts its own righteous anger in front of a commitment to improve and protect the future rights of young women and girls. But I guess in her view the only person capable of ensuring such protection is Hillary, and everyone else is the equivalent of John McCain. Seems like an extremely selfish, simplistic, and most of all sexist point of view.

Posted by Carla | June 10, 2008 1:57 PM

Regina, you always lose when you don't vote. Lord knows, we don't always like the choices we're given. I know I've had to hold my nose when voting a time or two, but that's life. I wasn't real enamored with either of our choices last time out. But you're not picking a spouse, just the candidate that most closely matches your ideological views. So come November, I hope you'll find it in your best interest to come out and vote.

Posted by Erik | June 10, 2008 1:57 PM

I've disliked Hillary for a long time and her campaign made me despise her, but I always maintained I would vote for her as the nominee. Besides SCOTUS, the dozens of incompetent Regent University fundie drones need to be purged, and immediately. Not to metion McCain's "never met a war I didn't like" approach to foreign policy.

Any Hillary supporter who doesn't vote for Obama, holding your nose or otherwise, is cutting America's throat to spite your face. I'm sick of it, and I'm not going to play nice to sooth your hurt widdle feelings.

Posted by Jimmy Jazz | June 10, 2008 2:01 PM

Disappointing, but not surprising. But even though Hillary received my vote and my money during the primary season, her endorsement of Obama is of no consequence for my November vote. The novice has less than 5 months to do what he has failed to do since February 2007. Speeches about "hope" and "change" just don't prove competence.

Posted by Ethan | June 10, 2008 2:06 PM

Hillary has asked her loyal supporters to Unite behind Barack Obama, if some can't accept this then this is their choice, but the only person that is going to be damaged with silly campaigns is Hillary, as it will reflect on her that her supporters are damaging The Democratic Party, is this what you want??

Posted by John B Sheffield | June 10, 2008 2:16 PM

Hillary is a class act and always in favor of the democratic party but at this point there are bigger issues than a untied democratic party behind an empty suit that did nothing but play the race card.

I WILL VOTE McCAIN BY DEFAULT

I joined the fight for women's rights and the democratic party at age 18 and have voted democrat every time. This primary season, I wondered where the democrats were.

I watched as the media treated Hillary to sexist and slanderous commentary and wondered where the democrats were. A while back there was a TV host that while reviewing a basket ball game said the words "nappy headed hoes" and there was outrage. We saw jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the Civil Rights Association all outraged............but where were they now. This was Hillary, a woman that has worked all her life for equal rights for all and better education for all but when media called her a "B****" there were smirks and no outrage. Where were Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton and where was DNC Chairman, Howard Dean? For young voters please do research and learn about the rights you just lost. It is typical that in the work place, when the superiors decide they want a new young person in your position,.....you will be called a "B****" and that will be the cause for termination.

Where was Dean when Obama was rewriting the rules for nomination or at least convincing the public through media that this game was over while he was still 400 delegates from the required number? Obama would say that he had won "most pledged delegates", "most states" and "most popular votes". But Dean knew that the required number of delegates could not be met with "pledged" delegates alone and that it would require that Super Delegates decide on the nominee. Why didn't Dean explain to the public that Super Delegates have the responsibility to decide the nominee based on which is the "most electable candidate" and having nothing what so ever to do with who won the "most states"? Why would Super Delegates back a candidate which they know can not and will not win the general election? Simple! It is because they believe that they will lose black votes which keep them in office. So let's show them how many votes they will lose when they ignore women's rights. This primary has been an out and out attack on women's rights and if it is allowed to go unanswered we will have no more rights than an Iranian woman.

STAND UP FOR EQUAL RIGHTS VOTE McCAIN BY DEFAULT

1) Supreme Court Justices must have majority senate approval......means McCain can not nominate a justice that the dems do not approve and therefore Roe V Wade will remain.

2) 4 years of McCain is much better than a lifetime without equal rights.

3) Iraq war is ending and MCain will oversee the withdrawal much better than Obama.

4)Universal Health Care is not something that Obama can handle and we are much better off to wait the 4 years for Hillary to be elected and handle universal Health Care.

This is not a matter of whether or not to burn your bra, this is a matter of whether or not your daughters will have equal rights in the work place.

VOTE McCAIN by default

Posted by jodi | June 10, 2008 2:22 PM

I'm a Clinton supporter. BO has done nothing to win my vote. Don't blame Hillary! He should take responsibility for his own shortcomings.
Norma

Posted by NPT | June 10, 2008 2:37 PM

This is not a matter of whether or not to burn your bra, this is a matter of whether or not your daughters will have equal rights in the work place.

McCain opposes and continues to oppose all legislation that would guarantee equal pay for women in the workplace.

I seem to recall early on (pre-Ohio and Texas) Hillary touting that the superdelegates were all backing her and they were the ones who were going to decide the primary. Do I really need to provide at least 20 sourced quotes directly from Clinton to back this up?

You care nothing for women's rights, nor for the good of the country.

Note that I'm not meaning to imply that genuine McCain supporters care nothing for the country. I believe most of them care deeply about the country, but simply have a different vision of what they feel the best approach is (as much as I may disagree with it). The people voting for McCain clearly out of spite are another story and it's extremely disheartening.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 2:40 PM

By 1997-98, people of all stripes were sick to death of the Clintons. In 2007-08, Hillary played Dick Nixon incarnate, wearing a pantsuit. She was a fringe candidate at best. It was a bad, ill-conceived idea, made worse by piss-poor planning. And, the black widow’s venom would easily find its mark from the VP slot. So, Hillary's out of the question. But in the words of California Senator Dianne Feinstein: “No one brings to a ticket what Hillary brings.” Ditto that: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | June 10, 2008 2:43 PM

Jodi, I agree with all your points! And calling me names like "bitter" isn't going to change my mind one bit. Country before Party. I will vote for McCain for President and may be able to split the ticket in PA. I'm looking into it.

Shame on the Democratic Party!

Norma

Posted by NPT | June 10, 2008 2:49 PM

Awesom-O: True that Republicans have never been in favor of equal rights. The democrats have always been the party claiming to be for equal rights but this year the dems threw out the ideals of the party in order to nominate a less qualified candidate over a more qualified woman. That is why I will vote McCain by default. McCain certainly does not deserve my vote for equal rights issues but the dems deserve my vote less. I am voting for the lesser of 2 evils in an attempt to show the DNC that they can not use women to discriminate against women.

VOTE McCAIN by default.

Posted by Jodi | June 10, 2008 2:54 PM

I'm going to assume most of the pro Hillary comments come from Boomers. If so, then we definitely DON'T want universal health care. Having it will extend the lifespans of the generation which has - and continues to do - done the most damage to the US in its entire history. They are the first and only generation to lose two wars and leave the next generation with 32 trillion in debt. As a result, their children will be the first generation in US history who are not better off than their parents.

These die-hard Hillary supporters are the epitome of the 'Me Generation' which places personal feelings over the good of the country.

Posted by BS | June 10, 2008 3:00 PM

Some of the ignorance here is staggering?

You really think that your alleged majority is going to keep a SCOTUS vacancy till McCain leaves office? Give me a historical example of that claptrap?

Yeah, Jodi. It's the Dem's fault that Clinton's campaign failed to:

1) fight in the caucus states
2) agreed (and wrote) the rules for MI and Florida
3) made Clinton tell falsehoods
4) made Bill look like an angry insufferable stooge.

Yep, the ability of all of us Democrats to put words in Hillary's mouth is our fault. Hillary is not a sentient human being because she can be mind-controlled (in your fantasy world).

The relevant generation of feminists (my peers) who are greater than 50% of the law school population, hitting 50% of the med school population, hitting record numbers in B-school (at all the top 10 institutions) beg to differ with you. Oh, throw in the 2 female Rhode Scholars that I know. Trust me feminism isn't dead and for some reason, this younger generation isn't enraptured by Senator Clinton.

And frankly, having voted for Ann Richards, Anne Eshoo, Boxer and Feinstein, I have a better idea of feminism than someone like you, who probably has never voted for a black man.

Posted by DukeLaw | June 10, 2008 3:06 PM

I am so glad that the "MANDATE" for healthcare will not pass. I live in MA and I tell you, it is the worse thing possible for some people. They get fined, garnished wages, and or other penalties. Mandates are horrendous. It sounds good , but trust me. Ask anyone from MA what they think of this, and having to wait on services/specialist.

Posted by Flander Anapolis | June 10, 2008 3:09 PM

Some of the ignorance here is staggering?

You really think that your alleged majority is going to keep a SCOTUS vacancy till McCain leaves office? Give me a historical example of that claptrap?

Yeah, Jodi. It's the Dem's fault that Clinton's campaign failed to:

1) fight in the caucus states
2) agreed (and wrote) the rules for MI and Florida

Also, I guess it's us mere mortals that:

3) made Clinton tell falsehoods
4) made Bill look like an angry insufferable stooge.

Yep, the ability of all of us Democrats to put words in Hillary's mouth is our fault. Hillary is not a sentient human being because she can be mind-controlled (in your fantasy world).

The relevant generation of feminists (my peers) who are greater than 50% of the law school population, hitting 50% of the med school population, hitting record numbers in B-school (at all the top 10 institutions) beg to differ with you. Oh, throw in the 2 female Rhode Scholars that I know. Trust me feminism isn't dead and for some reason, this younger generation isn't enraptured by Senator Clinton.

And frankly, having voted for Ann Richards, Anne Eshoo, Boxer and Feinstein, I have a better idea of feminism than someone like you, who probably has never voted for a black man.

As for qualifications, are you somehow counting that 8 years of First Lady as some sort of qualifier? Do you think Hillary would have been Senator without Bill's name brand?

I didn't know merely being older was such a gauge of experience. Oh, and explain why her two generic drug bills over the last year and a half have such a flip flop on innovator exclusivity? Where's the intellectual consistency in her own legislation? Have you even read her legislation?

Posted by DukeLaw | June 10, 2008 3:10 PM

Hey, BS.
I guess being rude to Boomers will get BO a LOT of their votes. Just be cool, dude, or whatever!
I am not voting for BO because he has not shown me anything to prove he could be a good President. Not my fault or Hillary's. I don't have to vote for him, I have a choice!

Norma

Posted by NPT | June 10, 2008 3:17 PM

I TOLD YOU....I just confirmed...

THIS IS A RUMOUR.....AS USUAL THE OBAMA JERKS ARE TRYING TO CAUSE CHAOS AND FURTHER SCREW THIS WOMAN OVER.

Here ya go - HERE is the truth:

The Rumor is FALSE.

I have just received an e-mail message from Mary Boergers, a former Maryland State Senator and a pledged Clinton delegate. Mary was on the conference call with Hillary Clinton last night, and she has given us permission to publish her message in full:

"I was on that conference call and there was nothing in Hillary’s comments to indicate that she was releasing her delegates and urging them to vote for Obama on the first vote in Denver. In fact what Harold Ikes said was that the campaign would like to keep Hillary’s delegates together so that she can more effectively fight for issues like universal health care to make sure it is included in the party platform."

One of the super delegates who was in London in fact complained about the strong arm pressure from the Obama campaign to immediately (last Friday before Hillary’s speech) switch their vote to Obama.

So to me the strategy is clear. The Obama folks want to try and prevent us from nominating Hillary at the convention and voting for her at the convention. We need to STOP this. Historically losing candidates always have their names put into nomination, give a great speech and then there is a roll call vote. The presumptive nominee gets the majority and then there may be a call to make it unanimous.

We need to make sure that people are aware of this procedure. Once again the Obama people are trying to change the rule of the game, pretending that they were always the rules in order to push Hillary aside. We must keep them from succeeding.

To me this is the most important thing that we can do right now. We need to attack Howard Dean for saying that he hopes there isn’t a role call vote at the convention.

This pressure, heavy handed tactics and “shot gun” marriage effort must end. This is the fight that we need to continue!

Mary Boergers, Super Delegate

To repeat Mary’s call to action: We need to attack Howard Dean for saying that he hopes there isn’t a role call at the convention.

Posted by rita | June 10, 2008 3:19 PM

Jodi: You've contorted yourself into such a logical pretzel that it's not worth arguing with you further. If your arguments were the basis for an 8th grade essay assignment, you'd get an F.

I'll leave you with one more tidbit to ponder: Most of the women I know are outraged by the victim mentality of some of Hillary's supporters. They've struggled their entire lives for equal status and feel people like you cheapen it with claims like these.

OK, I lied. I leave you with another tidbit: Let's humor you and pretend Hillary DID lose the election soley because of sexism. If she couldn't even get out of the Democratic primary because of sexism, then how the hell was she going to win in the general election? By claiming sexism you completely undercut your earlier assessment that the stronger candidate lost.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 3:21 PM

What the Democratic Party Elite did to who- 18 million voters considered the most qualified candidate- was just plain wrong because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the nominee with FL and MI not getting justly resolved. The DNC Rules Committee voted in favor of the Male Jr. Senator of Illinois and against the more Senior Female Senator from New York City. That's how many people are viewing this.
That's PUMA Democrats are springing up everywhere with cries of "I will never drink the koolaid" and "Nobama" spreading across the internet like well- packs of pumas!

Posted by Evy | June 10, 2008 3:22 PM

To Raghav and others. Check your history books. Kennedy (80), Hart (84), and Jackson (88) came in 2nd and didn't concede until well after they had 'lost' by your definition and all of the primary and caucus voting was over.

To Awesom-o, I appreciate your response. But the difference between Obama's health care plan and Clinton's health care plan is not small. It is very big. There is no world in which we can have 'universal' health care where people opt out. The costs will be too high. His plan indicates he doesn't really care about health care because it looks like something hastily thrown together to sound good in a campaign but that is completely unworkable in practice. McCain's is no better. That difference of universal is huge, because if people opt out of health care coverage, then insurance companies will not be able to pay to cover only the sick who opt in.

Posted by Regina | June 10, 2008 3:22 PM

Hey, BS.
I guess being rude to Boomers will get BO a LOT of their votes. Just be cool, dude, or whatever!
I am not voting for BO because he has not shown me anything to prove he could be a good President. Not my fault or Hillary's. I don't have to vote for him, I have a choice!

Norma

I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a libertarian. I could care less if you vote for him, but it doesn't change the fact that your attitude is the epitome of narcissism.

I note how you didn't argue with that assessment.

Posted by BS | June 10, 2008 3:24 PM

Thank you Rita for posting the truth. This shows the Obama camp or someone behind Obama but perhaps not sanctioned by his campaign is behind these rumors. When will the pressure end for her to concede? She already has, people! Let this work the way it should. With roll calls and such as the Maryland delegate indicates.

Posted by Regina | June 10, 2008 3:26 PM

What the Democratic Party Elite did to who- 18 million voters considered the most qualified candidate- was just plain wrong because it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the nominee with FL and MI not getting justly resolved. The DNC Rules Committee voted in favor of the Male Jr. Senator of Illinois and against the more Senior Female Senator from New York City. That's how many people are viewing this.
That's PUMA Democrats are springing up everywhere with cries of "I will never drink the koolaid" and "Nobama" spreading across the internet like well- packs of pumas!

AGAIN: Please reconcile this with the fact that Hillary's campaign (McAullife & Ickes) were the among the ORIGINAL ARCHITECTS of the plan to strip Florida and Michigan of their votes!! Until you explain this, your arguments have ZERO merit.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 3:28 PM

Regina: Check your history books. Kennedy (80), Hart (84), and Jackson (88) came in 2nd and didn't concede until well after they had 'lost' by your definition and all of the primary and caucus voting was over.

I never said otherwise. But while we're checking the history books, tell me, how well did the eventual Democratic nominee do those elections? Could that experience possibly have anything to do with the calls for Clinton to drop out this year?

Posted by Raghav | June 10, 2008 3:34 PM

I never said otherwise. But while we're checking the history books, tell me, how well did the eventual Democratic nominee do those elections? Could that experience possibly have anything to do with the calls for Clinton to drop out this year?

Good points Raghav; thanks for raising that again. In 1984, I do remember repeated calls from the Mondale camp requesting Hart drop out. Geraldine Ferraro was the VP candidate at the time, so it's clear that she was horribly sexist for doing so!

Yup, this is an absolutely absurd statement, but it shows the perverse logic of some of the posts here.

I'm sorry that Hillary was treated poorly by some of the media. Some of the sexist crap thrown her way by various pundits made me wince and pissed me off, but it was simply NOT the reason she lost. A female leader of this country is LONG OVERDUE, but I feel that Hillary isn't the right choice for a plethora (I just watched Three Amigos last night, so pardon the usage) reasons.

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 3:46 PM

Tired of Republitrolls posing as aggrieved Hillary Clinton supporters and telling us why they will never, never, never vote for Obama? Me too! (Note to new arrivals: Clues include "empty suit" and similarly empty insults.)

C'mon, guys, get a real job. It's not like you're fooling anybody.

Posted by Mark | June 10, 2008 3:50 PM

Tired of Republitrolls posing as aggrieved Hillary Clinton supporters and telling us why they will never, never, never vote for Obama? Me too! (Note to new arrivals: Clues include "empty suit" and similarly empty insults.)

C'mon, guys, get a real job. It's not like you're fooling anybody.

Good point: I'll stop feeding them now. Slow day at work...

Posted by Awesom-O | June 10, 2008 3:52 PM

Ok, Hillary is now doing the right thing by making this election about the PARTY....from the very start of the campaign she has used this "I" mentality and its now just starting to change....

Barack Obama is an agent of Change, just look at what the DNC is doing now (no PAC's or Lobbyist money).....Hillary has to change in the ways that mirror what Obama wants on his team and in the White House....we are seeing the start it now with her....

I think if Hillary can adopt the Obama way of politics, the new era of politics that he wants....she should get that VP slot......but she has to prove to Obama and his supporters that she is on his program, not the other way around....they could do great things together

Posted by Oregon4Obama | June 10, 2008 3:56 PM

The best thing about Hillary releasing her candidates is that numbnuts (like Regina) may learn that this is not about empty gestures or feel-good theatricals; it is about electing a president, changing a government, and redeeming a government -- not to mention a society.

Posted by Miande | June 10, 2008 3:56 PM

Ok, Hillary is now doing the right thing by making this election about the PARTY....from the very start of the campaign she has used this "I" mentality and its now just starting to change....

Barack Obama is an agent of Change, just look at what the DNC is doing now (no PAC's or Lobbyist money).....Hillary has to change in the ways that mirror what Obama wants on his team and in the White House....we are seeing the start it now with her....

I think if Hillary can adopt the Obama way of politics, the new era of politics that he wants....she should get that VP slot......but she has to prove to Obama and his supporters that she is on his program, not the other way around....they could do great things together

Posted by Oregon4Obama | June 10, 2008 3:56 PM

Ok, Hillary is now doing the right thing by making this election about the PARTY....from the very start of the campaign she has used this "I" mentality and its now just starting to change....

Barack Obama is an agent of Change, just look at what the DNC is doing now (no PAC's or Lobbyist money).....Hillary has to change in the ways that mirror what Obama wants on his team and in the White House....we are seeing the start it now with her....

I think if Hillary can adopt the Obama way of politics, the new era of politics that he wants....she should get that VP slot......but she has to prove to Obama and his supporters that she is on his program, not the other way around....they could do great things together

Posted by Oregon4Obama | June 10, 2008 3:57 PM

Rita: no, the primary (not "election") was NOT "stolen." Admittedly, Hillary did her best to hijack it, but it didn't happen. Thank goodness.

Posted by Miande | June 10, 2008 3:59 PM

I'm rather amused at all the Republican trolls earning their McCain points for golf gear that flock here to post completely illogical and absurd arguments to support a decision no rational person could make. Of course, not a single one has or will actually respond to a single logical criticism of anything they've said, because anyone capable of such critical thinking skills wouldn't be making such arguments in the first place.

Sadly, these people get a vote too. Best of luck on the Titanic, though. The rest of us will be going about the task of fixing everything you've screwed up.

Posted by Adam | June 10, 2008 4:15 PM

I find it interesting that Hillary urged her supporters and delegates to back Obama while she does not! mmmm

Posted by Sue | June 10, 2008 4:16 PM

I find it interesting that Hillary urged her supporters and delegates to back Obama while she does not! mmmm

Posted by Sue | June 10, 2008 4:16 PM

I am a pledged delegate for Senator Clinton and have NOT received and instruction to vote for Obama at the convention. The rumor mill continues..... as does the effort to destroy her viability as a candidate. Why? Senator Obama has the nomination... UGH.

Posted by Colleen | June 10, 2008 4:23 PM

DukeLaw: Sweetie, the law requires that a President nominate a Supreme court justice and the senate must approve. McCain will not have a majority Republicans to pass who ever he wants. His choice for Justice will need to be approved by the dems and therefore there will not be a conservative appointed. It is that simple.

For your information dear, I live in MA and did in fact just elect a balck Governor whom I voted for. I would also have no problem voting for Colin Powell. This is not a black thing just because the Obama's need it to be. It was the Obama's that decided to play race cards before he announced his intention to run.

Awesom-O: You said:
AGAIN: Please reconcile this with the fact that Hillary's campaign (McAullife & Ickes) were the among the ORIGINAL ARCHITECTS of the plan to strip Florida and Michigan of their votes!! Until you explain this, your arguments have ZERO merit.

The agreement to strip a state of delegates for going early was not intended to cause a close race to be decided against the popular vote. Because they all signed this agreement I certainly hope they all realized as Hillary did that the Rules called for reinstating their delegates at a Rules Committe meeting or at the Credentials Board. Unless Obama failed to read the rules, he knew MI would count in the end. He made a calculated decision along with Edwards and Richardson to remove his name from the MI ballot (but not from FL) and then the 3 good old boys violated the spirit of the agreement they signed by campaigning for voters to vote "uncommitted". The reinstatment of these delegates was never in doubt. If Obama thought he could win MI, then he would have been fighting for rather than against rescheduling a primary. There is a lot you need to learn sweetie.

VOTE McCAIN by default for the sake of women's rights. HILLARY 2012

Posted by Jodi | June 10, 2008 4:31 PM

What I want to know is WHY this is not all over the News. You know why? Because it is a positive Clinton move. If she weren't doing this, the media would be all over her.

And Sue:
"I find it interesting that Hillary urged her supporters and delegates to back Obama while she does not! mmmm"

What else do you want her to do? Beg, grovel and humiliate herself. How much endorsement do you want?
She got 18 million votes and possibly the majority of the popular vote. Give us a break. Obama supporters are truly shameful and arrogant.

Posted by poh123 | June 10, 2008 4:34 PM

Regina,

Obama will be working with Elizabeth Edwards to fine tune his health care proposal. Look for some changes that I think you'll like.

I've seen the PUMA slogans being thrown around:

McCain 2008

Hillary 2012

NOBAMA!

Let's not be delusional here. If we get McCain in 2008, we have a better than even shot at McCain in 2012. That's EIGHT YEARS of Insane McCain. Hillary in 2012? Don't make me laugh. Unless she works her ass off and literally calls all the Reginas and Jodis personally and tells them to cut it out, she'll be blamed squarely for the loss. She won't make it past the Iowa Primary. Heck, she probably won't make it TO the Iowa primary. Oh, and I and millions like me will throw tens of millions of dollars at her next NY Senate primary opponent.

Remember:

McCain 2008 means

McCain 2012 means

NOHEALTHCARE!

Posted by John | June 10, 2008 4:35 PM

John posted:Remember:

McCain 2008 means

McCain 2012 means

NOHEALTHCARE!

Posted by John | June 10, 2008 4:35 PM

You must be an idiot if you believe that thwe 71 year old has any chance of running for a second term.

McCain 2008 by default for the sake of our rights.

HILLARY 2012

Posted by Jodi | June 10, 2008 4:41 PM

Maybe we just don't trust Obama. Nothing racial or sinister. There is just too many question marks, BIG question marks.

Posted by SouthernDem | June 10, 2008 4:42 PM

Too many feminists in here. no logic, too much emotional nonsense. why in the world would any democrat vote for McCain. no points made can justify it. Let it go. Clinton lost.

Posted by Dan | June 10, 2008 4:45 PM

Jodi...you had one of the most Ignorant comments I have ever read in my entire life, and thats alot of living! I dont know whats more depressing, that you probably took away a vote from Obama with your bitter comments or that your ideology has probably been taught to your kids.

Firstly, "nappy headed ho" comments have nothing to do with this presidential race WHATSOEVER. We are debating about the future of this nation...the democratic party can't withstand any more division, but people like you act as a wedge that keeps the country in a backwards motion...The time is now to reclaim the White House, and the time is now to better the nation!
Secondly there have been instances I have turned on the TV and have witnessed Cowbrained debates on topics such as : "Is Obama Black enough", and lets not talk about how long Rev. Wright was on TV for his remarks (even though Hillary and Bill's former pastor is in JAIL for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!) Both candidates had irrelevant controversies thrown at them, but at the end of the day OBAMA is the better candidate. He will care for this country better than McBUSH...so dont vote Jodi...and when you are writing on this same Blog 2 years from now about the downward spiral of this country, because you were too bitter and too stubborn to vote for Obama, I want u to SHUTUP, log off the computer and just buy a McCain shirt....and by the way if Hillary supports Obama and if their policies are closer too matching, then your way of thinking is about as smart as wearing a RAINCOAT when the SUN is SHINING. think about it.

Posted by BeSmart | June 10, 2008 4:56 PM

To all you ultrafeminist Clinton supporters that want to take the McSame ticket in November - go. We will win without you. Enough new voters, independents and reasonable Republicans are coming over to Obama to make your sore loser threats irrelevant. When you lose in November you can start complaining all over again. I'm pretty sure most of the more outrageous postings are from Repuglican shills anyway. I have faith that the mass of American voters want to see us get away from the excesses of the last eight years and will put Obama in the White House and make both groups irrelevant.

Posted by cataplasm | June 10, 2008 5:13 PM

First of all, according to Hillary Clinton's Saturday speech, she DOES back Barack Obama.

Second of all, I think it is absolutely pathetic that some of you are being so selfish and self-centered as to say "VOTE MCCAIN FOR WOMENS RIGHTS."

What about this woman's rights to not suffer through four more years of this crap?

You think all of your chest thumping and lie quoting will win HC any credibility to run in 2012? You who cannot see the forest through the trees think that your anger and your threats will help her in the future?? I think you are sadly only doing more damage to Hillary's future and the future of womens rights in general. Do you think this isn't a turn off to the average person?? If my candidate doesn't win, I'll vote for the other party.

Shame on you for thinking only of yourselves instead of the United States of America. Do us all a favor and just stay home on election day and surround yourselves in your own anger and bitterness.

Posted by Dani girl | June 10, 2008 5:24 PM

To Lorelai and all of the others who drag out this old, tattered yarn: women who vote for McCain will not be able "to control" their own bodies. The argument is specious and one that was force-fed into the blogosphere by the Obama campaign as a way to make Clinton's women voters toe the line.
First and foremost, everyone unless they're paralyzed or mentally incompetant "controls" his or her own body. Roe v. Wade is an amendment that once largely benefited young, middle, upper middle and upper class college women who found themselves pregnant. By middle age, "accidental" pregnancies are rare to unheard of and should they occur, they're usually welcome. By the time a woman reaches her 50s, Roe v. Wade has no personal relevance.
A little context: Birth control methods have dramatically improved since the early days of "the pill", which was en vogue when Roe v. Wade was made the law of the land.

In sunnary, I'm not buying the scare tactic of losing Roe v. Wade as a reason to support Obama. I don't see a return to back-alley, coat-hanger abortions. Besides, there are too many legitimate physicians with access to the best of equipment who would probably offer the service at an exorbitant price should Roe bite the proverbial dust. So don't please, please do not demean women with that simplistic fear bomb. It's not gonna work.

Posted by haviland smith | June 10, 2008 5:27 PM

2 points:

1. Hillary Clinton has NOT released her delegates. I confirmed this with the DNC today not once, but 3 times.

2. Obama wants Hillary to release her delegates because there is an excellent chance that over the summer, the shit is going to hit the fan re: further indictments in Chicago, and he is worried that rezko is going to sing like a bird.

Final thoughts:

Vote McCain 2008
Vote Hillary 2012

McCain can serve his 4 years and then Hillary Clinton, our strongest candidate, will be elected in 2012.

A vote for Obama is a vote against a Hillary Clinton presidency in the future.

And here's an added bonus:

The likes of Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and the rest of the the F'ing corrupt people in th DNC will be run out of town on a rail!

Again,

VOTE McCain 2008
AND
VOTE Hillary 2012

Country before Party in 2008!

The Hillary Clinton as President in 2012!

Enough said.

Posted by Hillary Clinton 2012 | June 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Haviland

I notice that you talk about post about post 50 women and Roe v Wade. How about those of us still in our reproductive years?? Pretty funny you mention "there are too many legitimate physicians with access to the best of equipment. . . . . service at an exorbitant price . . . " Don't you think that the rich could afford this when it was illegal - just not the middle and lower class. As it is, third trimester abortions are now illegal REGARDLESS of the woman's health thanks to Mr. Bush.

Again, selfish, self-centered arguments from somebody who is bitter because their candidate didn't win. You should all be ashamed of your small mindedness.

Posted by Dani girl | June 10, 2008 5:36 PM

And p.s. Three Cheers for Jodi! I agree with her 100% I am also a Clinton supporter who is casting my vote for McCain. Obama will never, ever, ever get my vote. Jodi's arguments are well-reasonsed and mirror my own.

Posted by haviland smith | June 10, 2008 5:47 PM

And p.s. Three Cheers for Jodi! I agree with her 100% I am also a Clinton supporter who is voting for McCain. Obama will never, ever, ever get my vote. Not after the shameless insults of his followers on this blog and others. Jodi's arguments are well-reasonsed and mirror my own.

Posted by haviland smith | June 10, 2008 5:49 PM

By the time a woman reaches her 50s, Roe v. Wade has no personal relevance.

One of the saddest sentences ever. Do you have any adult children? Do you care about the future of women in this country or doctors who support them? Are you actually a feminist? How selfish are you? You're too old to need an abortion so you don't care anymore? Jesus.

It's a joke (and ridiculously un-'feminist') for you to claim that middle age accidental pregnancies are usually welcome.

The point isn't back-alley coat-hanger abortions, although the women that need your support the most on this issue can't afford illegally practicing doctors charging 'exorbitant prices' for abortion.

Hillary Clinton would be disappointed in your reasoning and selfishness.

Posted by Summer Anne | June 10, 2008 5:51 PM

Posted by Jodi | June 10, 2008 4:41 PM

You must be an idiot if you believe that thwe 71 year old has any chance of running for a second term.

There have been plenty of world leaders of that age or older. People are living longer these days. You're an idiot if you discount the very real possibility of a second term. Running as an incumbent is worth 15 percentage points.

And, if you think that Congress will just leave 3 Supreme Court slots vacant, think again. McCain will throw one or two egregiously bad choices at the Senate and they'll duly reject them. Then he'll roll a candidate like Roberts at them, there'll be a few harrumphs, and then like with Roberts half the Democrats will vote for him and he'll be confirmed. And if that doesn't happen, there's always a quick recess appointment and judgment before the Senate is back in session.

Posted by John | June 10, 2008 5:53 PM

Haviland

I notice that you talk about post 50 women and Roe v Wade. How about those of us still in our reproductive years?? Pretty funny you mention "there are too many legitimate physicians with access to the best of equipment. . . . . service at an exorbitant price . . . " Don't you think that the rich could afford this when it was illegal - just not the middle and lower class. As it is, third trimester abortions are now illegal REGARDLESS of the woman's health thanks to Mr. Bush.

Again, selfish, self-centered arguments from somebody who is bitter because their candidate didn't win. You should all be ashamed of your small mindedness.

Posted by Dani girl | June 10, 2008 6:02 PM

Dani Girl,

If you're eager to have abortions then by all means don't let me stand in the way with my itsy-bitsy little ol' vote for John McCain. Have at it kid -- go after all the abortions you want. I may be a Clinton supporter but I am still a card-carrying liberal. So, please do not let me stop you.

But as for pitching that inspidly simple-minded notion that a vote for John McCain is a vote to kill Roe v. Wade is one I'm no longer willing to entertain. The possible death of Roe certainly isn't a reason to vote for Obama, who, by the way, is a master at getting his minions to endlessly repeat that meme. By now it has to be the most common cliche in cyberspace. It's a fear bomb that's lost its impact.

Havi

Posted by haviland smith | June 10, 2008 6:09 PM

For people on both sides of these arguments, three questions:

(1) If the person you are responding to in your post were sitting in front of you, would you speak to them using the same words as you do when you type your response? If not, why do you feel okay using the words you use?

(2) If the roles of Obama and Clinton were reversed on every dimension, would you hold the same point of view regarding, for example, how the Michigan delegation should be treated? If not, why do you feel okay making a demand that you wouldn't agree to if the roles are reversed.

(3) If you agreed that the differences between Democratic and Republican positions on health care, the Supreme Court and foreign policy (for example) were of paramount importance before your candidate won or lost the nomination process, what has changed? Why is it okay to suggest now that a McCain victory is acceptable.

As a final point for Clinton supporters in particular: do you see the Republicans that didn't vote for McCain threatening to rip their party apart at the convention if they don't get their way, however they define it? Is that so because they suddenly love John McCain? Or is it possible that Republicans are focused on what matters to them: controlling the White House and Congress?

Posted by wch | June 10, 2008 6:11 PM

And you, Sumner Anne, have bought into the bright light of day all of the tired and dingy old arguments from the 1970s. As a physician, I am well aware that abortions should not be used as a form of birth control, which is basically your argument.

Now that we live in an era with a wide array of birth control methods, prevention is far cheaper than the surgery, and a lot less messy. Trust me, I know. And even though I still support a young woman's right to choose, thoughtful young women don't get abortions for mistakes. Roe v. Wade is a baby-boomer coup that now lacks the social imporantance it once had in an era when the science of birth control wasn't what it is now.

If you want an abortion fine. But don't pitch it to me as a reason to vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by haviland smith | June 10, 2008 6:24 PM

Hey, DNC members (Pelosi, Dean, Reid and you Clyburn as well) and of course, Kennedy, Kerry and the hoard - can you learn from Hillary - some class?

How all of you just cospired so well to lose in November???

You guys just wait until November.

When McCain wins you would stop ever playing with VOTERS' psyche again.

Posted by Jkan | June 10, 2008 9:01 PM

The Democratic Party and the MSM selected Obama after the Iowa caucus. Trusted representatives endorsed a candidate that had continually lost their own state primaries. Respected party leaders such as Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Rockefeller, and Napolitano decided that they knew better than the Democratic voters from their own states. The "best interests" of the public were preempted, and Obama became a "selected rather than an elected candidate."

The pundits warned us months ago this was coming. The race was over in February. However, his lead in delegates is a result of the supers. Without the superdelegates, it stands close to 1800. We had the MI and FL debacle in Washington DC. Obama prevented any chance of new elections months ago even when top party fundraisers offered to finance it.

The party, the pundits, Obama, and his supporters believe that their judgment is superior to Hillary's 18,000,000 voters. We have been maligned as dead-enders, old, delusional, and hysterical. In our judgment, Obama is an unworthy nominee. He cannot unite a party that he has divided to win the nomination. He has had the assistance of a complicit media. They have shown utter contempt for the public when they did not back the "chosen" one. The voters in PA, OH, KY, and WV were labeled as racist, bitter, and low information types. Yet, Obama's wins with a wide margin of AA voters were glossed over. Hillary deserves the wrath of the AA voters because she is a selfish and racist b--ch.

So here we are in June and Obama is pretending that we will get over it. This issue goes beyond Hillary and Obama. It is about something more basic. In our opinion, the system is corrupt. It is reprehensible to "fall in line" behind a nominee and party that cheated their own voters. The irony is the best interests of Hillary's Democrats have meshed with the same interests of the Republicans to defeat Obama.

If McCain wins in November, Hillary can run in 2012. It is typical Obama spin to blame Hillary for every negative thing that happens to him.

Posted by EWard | June 10, 2008 9:02 PM

Jodi, You've got it exactly right! Truth to Power! We didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left us. McCain by Default!

Posted by JKR | June 10, 2008 9:16 PM

Jodi, You've got it exactly right! Truth to Power! We didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left us. McCain by Default!

Posted by JKR | June 10, 2008 9:16 P