Do the Clintons plan on holding the Democratic Party hostage all summer??

Supposedly, the message in RECOUNT is that the side most determined to win basically made it happen. Republicans were willing to do whatever it took ~ no matter what, and imo democracy be damned.

I find myself wondering if history is about to repeat itself. From the endless attempts to move the goal posts by the Clinton camp and the most recent talking points, it looks like HRC is bound and determined to win ~ no matter what it costs the party or the country.

If it's true that the side most determined to win will somehow pull it off (even if winning only means an Obama loss to the Clinton camp), OUR CHANGE MOVEMENT MUST BE THE SIDE MOST DETERMINED TO WIN!

So, what can we do to counteract a summer siege? imo Obama needs to focus on McCain, as he's been doing, and we need to make sure the campaign has enough money to do it. We can also keep working with our Obama teams to register voters and spread the message, and we can stay in touch with pledged delegates and superdelegates.

What else can we do to make it clear that WE are the ones most determined to win???

Valley of the Dolls scenario, only with egos instead of qualudes.

"Whichever FOX News analyst you are, I've always depended on the kindness of strangers..."

it seems like it.

It'll be a hot and long summer

The only way she can beat him now is for him to be out of the race.

If she hasn't found the metaphorical magic issue yet, chances are that she never will.

Its. Over.

...because, as she keeps pointing out, delegates can change their minds right up until the convention?

Since the race began, he is 11-0 for SD switches:

* Rep. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) switched to Barack Obama - 5/23/08
* Kevin Rodriguez (V.I.) switched to Barack Obama - 5/10/08
* Rep. Don Payne (N.J.) switched to Barack Obama - 5/8/08
* Jennifer L. McClellan (Va.) switched to Barack Obama - 5/7/2008
* Joseph J. Andrew (Ind.) switched to Barack Obama - 5/1/08
* Senfronia Thompson (Texas) switched to Barack Obama - 2/27/08
* Dana Redd (N.J.) switched to Barack Obama - 2/20/08
* Sarah Swisher (Iowa) switched to Barack Obama - 2/15/08
* Rep. David Scott (Ga.) switched to Barack Obama - 2/14/08
* Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) switched to Barack Obama - 2/14/08
* Christine Samuels (N.J.) switched to Barack Obama - 2/14/08

She can whine on the phone to them all day long and even host lame attempts at getting in the news cycle (to keep her base riled up), but I simply don't see this tidal wave she is hoping for.

These are 40 Clinton Supers that are jumping ship. The one that announced this move jumped on Friday (Cardoza).

More here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6124223&mesg_id=6124223

...and yet none of it actually stops Clinton from taking it to the convention ~ just out of spite or to make it difficult for him to win. It's amazing to me that her campaign is making noises about going that far!

It reeks.

Given her druthers, she would have the pot and pan brigade storm the convention and DEMAND that she be crowned queen.

The Clintons feed off of dysfunction, division and drama the way cancer feeds off of glucose. Before my dad died, he went from never eating anything sweet (5 jellybeans at a time, tops) to having double-chocolate with chocolate sauce protein shakes for breakfast, followed up with rocky road ice cream.

It was the cancer and it was bizarre.

I am witnessing the same feeding off the party and it stinks to high heavens.

Looks like we really have a mess on our hands ~ I'm glad the Obama teams are gearing up for the general!

Clinton wants to make sure the votes are counted. You have it backwards.

I cannot keep up with the double standards on DU.

You're off by 2 seasons.

...what do you mean?

Load up on supplies. :)

faith as I do in hilary ever admitting she lost.

That way Obama loses and she runs on the "I told you so" platform in 2012.

discussions - is that the people who voted for and support Hillary Clinton are members of the Democratic Party also.

If you only relied on the left wing blogosphere, you might arrive at the conclusion that Obama is running away with this nomination. He's not - it's very close, in fact, it's the closest nomination fight I've ever seen.

Who is holding who "hostage" is a matter of perspective.

But, seeing that Obama will have that number early in June, the Clinton campaign is now talking about taking it to the convention.

Candidates have taken it all the way to the convention with far less support than Hillary has.

But other than those...

every presidential race is unique.

the conclusion you draw from it is even stupider.

:rofl:

I think Hillary... the pasta done. :D

:hi:

Why in the world should anyone be concerned about such a trivial matter as the Democratic Party's well-being or the good of the United States when there is the much more monumental and important issue of the Clinton's political well-being? Silly you!!!

...wanting it more than Clinton does ~ and doing everything we can to help.

I would think the delegates will do the right thing before the 31st of this month. I believe that is the date, to have the nomination, before a convention hassle.

and the rest of the party will move on without her.

Obama will start campaigning against McCain and she will be desperate for a news cycle. Fox, her new BFF will be the only one giving her air time.

It will fire up her base (their new watchers) and give the rest of the Republicans plenty of entertainment over the summer, looking at us and saying "didn't we warn you about her?"

Think about it, we hung in there for impeachment and Monica Lewinsky. We knew about Gennifer Flowers. We said private lives don't matter, it is doing the public's business that matters most (I still believe that is true even in the case of Larry Craig and that NY Congressman).

We said it is a personal matter between a family (I still believe that to an extent).

Then when Al Gore should have emerged and took our attention, we said good, Hillary gets her turn. We got involved within that personal family matter and said she might as well run. The people of NY voted for her.


Al Gore was rooked but she at least she was in the Senate.


All of us were perfectly happy until she started showing us signs of what the Republicans had called her out on years before. What did we do? We pretended it was a mistake, a misunderstanding, or just a temporary lapse.

Now we are looking at the mess we were co-dependent in creating, wondering outloud what in the hell are we going to do with this self-created nightmare? Think about it, we have other brethren who are still caught in the cycle we used to be in who now see us as the enemy because the scales dropped from our eyes.


Don't we deserve the fallout when we helped create it?

Now we have to do some sort of penance.

I don't know if DNC can - with the nominated candidate - impose the rules of 50%, whether by using 100% and awarding 1/2 the points for each delegate so it shows all the votes were included.

Bill's true colors so he won't be able to make the money back very fast through speaking events.

in clear defiance of the arithmetic needed to secure nomination and in opposition to the will of a majority of delegates, the less her hold will be as a Senator in a revived chamber (as I feel we will pick up not fewer than 3 seats, and maybe 5 or 6) and the less sway she will hold in her own state with a view toward keeping that seat in the next election.

Senate Majority leader as a consolation prize? I hope not. There are many others I'd rather see in that role. Possibly Dodd or Durbin, to name only two.

Vice President? It could happen. I hope it doesn't. There are many others I'd rather see in that role.

After the last primary, Hillary will quit and endorse Obama and things will move on, it's the way things go in politics. There simply will not be all the drama that some people are saying there will be.

we?

After there are no more Primaries left and she doesn't have any path to the nomination (Barack has the delegates)a majority of her donors will desert her and embrace Barack. They maxxed out on her and haven't even given him a cent yet. Some of her donors will sit it out but most want a democratic President and will line up behind him.

Barack will probably raise 300-400 million for the GE which will be shared with down ticket races.

Democrats voted for Clinton, and that Obama cannot win the nomination without super delegates, I don't see how staying in the race "holds the party hostage."

When he reaches the magic number of delegates, he's the nominee. Super delegates don't vote until the convention. They are not obligated to vote for a particular candidate, regardless of whom they say they support today.

If Obama had reached that magic number without needing super delegates, it would not be close enough to take it to the convention.

overcome ANY benefit she could hope to gain from the FL MI debacle..

perhaps another pledge from the "pledged delegates" too..

It could say something like this:

We , the undersigned, pledge our support at the convention to Obama.

We will NOT switch our support to Bill Clinton's wife under ANY circumstances..


and they should add up to enough, that even if she counted the complete totals from MI & FL, he still wins..

they should also add that they will support revocation of ANY speech by her, or her husband at the convention..

OUT of our party Beer Belly Bill and Pant Suited Doughgirl !

such as labor, etc.

John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and others also enjoyed strong support, even enthusiastic support, from labor groups. And properly so.

Were Obama to have, from the beginning, opposed the initiatives associated with this constituency and had Senator Clinton, also from the beginning, endorsed them with all her heart, then her impulse to continue her candidacy would have an idea -- an issue -- an important one -- to hang her hat on.

But the other 8 Democratic originals all had very thoughtful and advanced proposals for key constituent groups. They differed in points of emphasis and in degrees of proposed application, yes. But in essence, a progressive found much to like on those initial debate stages. It was a very good batch of candidates, IMO.

Without an issue, it appears that Hillary Clinton is advancing not an idea but an ego. I don't mean that politicians should not have egos. But they must certainly have ideas -- at least one -- to provide definition for their request for public support and to sustain the mechanism of winning and keeping that support.

In my opinion, Senator Clinton has not accomplished this. She is not solely to blame for its not being accomplished, as her campaign is paying quite a few high-profile advisors and strategists to cover these very points in her behalf, and by all estimates, they haven't delivered.

Or can someone or a bunch of someones step up and put an end to this when the primaries are kaput?

democratic party and now they'll have to face the consequences.

IMO an informed Democratic or independent progressive will not support McCain owing to the likelihood of losing Roe v. Wade specifically and equally abominable judicial choices generally.

Take any of our 8 original candidates and IMO you get support from an overwhelming majority of voters who now prefer either Clinton or Obama versus McCain or any of the original 14 (?) Pukes.

Add in Bob Barr's indy run for the Libertarians and you peel even more support away from McCain's fading "maverick" image.

Once the florida suit is over donate to the DNC urgining them to make mccain ads too.Although money to help the law suit maybe a good idea too.

98% here Mrs. C

Ask Jimmy Carter:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2562414520080525

...until the convention. Yet another goalpost move.

for some time now and writes in her behalf in his column today, posted elsewhere on GD-P.

But even Krugman acknowledges that Barack Obama is the nominee. The remaining issues, he feels, involve how both these candidates manage public perception of their intent and role as members of the party so as not to alienate a margin of victory over McCain in November.

She is in this to win the nomination. Not for the good of the party. Dropping out won't allow her to reach her goal. So I don't see her going anywhere.

I've taken to calling Lanny Davis "Mr. Vertigo."

80-90 percent of the AA population will sit out the GE. And you don't want to know what will happen if Obama gets killed

Mike Gravel, and Bill Richardson, our original 8 candidates, all felt they had something to offer the country, all felt they had the chops to take the helm, all knew their way around proble-solving, all had a strong sense of public service, all had a good chance if nominated to be elected.

None of them remained in the race after a point at which it was clear they could not win nomination.

And it wasn't because any of them is less than tenacious, less than qualified, or less than presidential.

...their own ambitions. I miss those guys ~ hopefully they'll play important roles in the new administration.

the better part of a president's Cabinet on that original-8 debate stage.

have similar names for appointees... !

so holding the entire Democratic Party hostage kind of pales in comparison.

all their demands are met.

Election day 2008 is the 29th anniversary of the taking of the Iranian embassy and the ensuing hostage crisis. Your insensitive remarks make it obvious that Barak Hussein Obama loves Islamic terrorism and wants the US to be held hostage by our enemies.

OH MY GAWD!!!!!

OBAMA HAS TO APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY OR HE IS A DEATH LOVING HATE MONGER WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO ADVANCE HIS LUST FOR POWER!!!!!

You said "hostage", You said "hostage". Alert the press. Get Keith Olberman on the line. Call Chris Matthews. Where's Rachel Maddow?!?!?!

(See how you jerks liike it!!!)

...take one away for calling people jerks.

We're jerks?

Well I'd like to see how anyone will unify with a name calling Dem not putting forward a substantive argument.

Hostage does not equal assassinate. Political hostage versus political assassination...hardly line up to have the same result.