Sen. Leahy calls for Clinton to drop out

[Ignis]

Source: LA Times

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) today called on Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the presidential race, saying there is no way the New York senator can wrest the nomination from her rival Barack Obama.

"There is no way that Sen. Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination," Leahy, an Obama supporter, said in an interview with Vermont Public Radio this morning. "She ought to withdraw, and she ought to be backing Sen. Obama."

Saying Republican John McCain "has been making one gaffe after another is getting a free ride," Leahy said the sniping between Democrats hurts them more than anything the Arizona senator has thrown their way.

Leahy was the first prominent superdelegate to call on the New York senator to withdraw, but his comments came on the same day that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged superdelegates to make their preferences public.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign29mar29,0,5837464.story

---

I think Leahy's word will carry quite a bit of weight with the other superdelegates. This should make for an interesting next week, at the least.

(PS: 1000th post)

[LakeSamish706]

1. Congrats on your 1000th post! n/t

[Ignis]

16. Thanks, LakeSamish!

It's been an emotional 5 years, but I've always been thankful that DU has been here during the dark days after 2000.

:hi:

[Deep13]

2. Yeah, before she starts winning more states!

With all the bitching about superdelegates and improper voting in MI and FL, one might suppose that Obamists are concerned about democracy. That is until one gets to the subject of letting all the states vote. Then, they want nothing to do with democracy!

Of course he wants her out. He and the rest of O.'s side kicks know that they won't be able to keep her out after she wins Penna. They liked the position O was in just before OH and TX and they are trying to freeze public perception to that point in time.

[TwilightGardener]

4. So you want democracy in that all states will vote, and then you're all right

with OVERTURNING that same democracy if Obama is still leading in pledged delegates (from the voting), by having the superdelegates choose Hillary anyway?

[lark]

30. If votes from FL and MI aren't counted

then there is no democratic way of determining the victor because millions of people will have been disenfranchised. Count ALL (I do mean ALL) the votes and whoever is the victor is the victor. What is Obama so afraid of - the will of the people? This is the thing about him that makes me crazy. If the votes of the people aren't counted, then he loses even if he wins because so many in FL and MI will refuse to vote for him. If he doesn't value the votes of the people, he is not a democrat - small d.

[Turn CO Blue]

34. MI: Disenfranchisement ...esp if you DO count those votes

There were no other names on the ballot than Clinton's - that's not democratic (small d), that's akin to the ballots in a dictatorship. Why aren't you concerned about how the OTHER voters were disenfranchised by not being allowed to vote for their choice? Why aren't you concerned about how those same voters will be utterly disenfranchised if Clinton's votes ARE counted? That's disenfranchisement too.

[Ignis]

7. Interesting.

I don't think the numbers are there for Hillary at this point, but I do think that Dean's suggestion that the supers go public with their support will quickly resolve that question.

What do you think about Dean's idea? Seems to me that it would settle the math for us all--assuming that you accept the premise that Hillary can only win via superdelegate intervention at this point in the race.

(Fair disclosure: I'm an Edwards supporter leaning towards Obama.)
(Edit: ...but I will support the eventual nominee, of course.)

[Benhurst]

9. Has Obama reached the point where he can get the nomination without

Super Delegates? If so, good. Then that settles it. What's all the fuss about?

[Ignis]

14. So no comment on Dean's suggestion?

Again, I think that would settle the math quite quickly, and move us all on to the Kicking-McCain's-Arse portion of the race.

[Benhurst]

23. If Clinton's not very well funded efforts are such a threat to

Obama that they necessitate closing down the primary process, then he's not ready for prime time.

At this late date, he is still far from having been fully vetted. He managed to make it to the United States Senate with only token opposition, where he served less than two years before making plans for his presidential bid, all the while basking in the strangely-favorable praise of the corporate right-wing press -- even that of Bill Buckley's National Review. Do you really think they have been won over? Or are we possibly being set up? I don't know; but the right-wing's hands-off approach to Obama has always made me nervous, and it did so even when I contributed to his Senate campaign.

If anything, I'd like to see more of a contest over the next few months, not less of one. If Obama gets the nomination, he will be stronger for it, not weaker. If he doesn't, then he obviously wasn't up to the Fall campaign.

All the alarm here about Hillary's attacks damaging the party border on the ludicrous. If the party and Obama can't withstand her potshots, then they aren't going to have a chance against the withering blast waiting for them from Rove and Company once the nomination is made. And if the process is shut down prematurely, we may find ourselves in the general election having to spin awkward truths about our nominee, when our history shows we aren't good even dispelling outrageous lies.

[Ignis]

25. "Clinton's not very well funded efforts" -- ??

I couldn't get past your headline. What on earth would well-funded efforts look like?

Sorry, not trying to be a prick or a partisan, but the argument that Hillary's losing momentum simply because she's being outspent seems...well, out of touch with the reality of the situation. And it's certainly not the case that Hillary's "spending" includes the media frenzy over the several times people in her campaign have been guilty of "misspeaking" on Obama's history, race, etc.

I just don't understand how you're arriving at this conclusion. Please explain. Thanks!

[Benhurst]

28. I didn't say she was losing momentum because she is being outspent,

I merely pointed out that her efforts will amount to potshots compared to what our candidate will be facing in September no matter who he or she is. If you want to see what well-funded efforts look like, just wait until the general election starts up.

If her campaign falls of its own weight after Pennsylvania, so be it. But the effort of the party elders to cut the electoral process short, does no one any good, especially Obama. It's better for him to take a few hits in the primary and work his way out of them, than to be suddenly standing there with his pants down in the general election. If he needs to be protected from Hillary, he has little chance of succeeding in the Fall.

What Obama is facing now is nothing compared to what he will be up against in the Fall. The predominately friendly press will turn on him just as certainly as they turned on John Kerry. The Republicans really had nothing to use against Al Gore and John Kerry, so they turned their strengths against them, and thanks to the corporate media, succeeded in bringing them down, if not actually defeating them short of stealing the election.

At the very least, Obama's strengths will be used against him, and if history means anything, the press will play along. Charismatic will become cultist. The contest will be staged as the untested, fast-talking, non-veteran Barack Obama against the experienced, "straight-talking, veteran and war hero John McCain. That's if we're lucky.

Far worse will be if Rove and company have managed to dig something up, and there are number of potentially bothersome things out there which have not been vetted, then Katie, bar the door. The very same press which has ignored war crimes and corruption on a scale once would have been thought unimaginable, will leave no stone unturned going after Obama and whatever sins of omission and commission he will be alleged to have committed.

[Ignis]

29. Ah, that makes more sense.

I merely pointed out that her efforts will amount to potshots compared to what our candidate will be facing in September no matter who he or she is. If you want to see what well-funded efforts look like, just wait until the general election starts up.

It wasn't clear (to me) from your earlier post that you were comparing her current spending vs. the general election; it seemed that you were comparing her spending to Obama's.

Thanks for clarifying.

[lark]

31. Not there

neither candidate can win without the super delegates because FL and MI votes aren't being counted.

[Benhurst]

22. Delete

[Benhurst]

8. Until I'm given a chance to vote, I would appreciate Senator Leahy's

keeping his trap shut. I haven't even decided yet how I'm going to vote, and he wants to end the process.

Let's put the IC back in the DEMOCRAT PARTY. It's the DemocratIC Party, Senator Leahy, not a plaything for the high muckamucks.

Something smells in Vermont, and it's not the cheese.

[rateyes]

11. Yep, it's DemocratIC, and it's also LeAhY. nt

[Benhurst]

13. Thanks, rateyes.

It's been a long day, and my spelling is marginal at best.

:hi:

[rateyes]

18. No problem.

:hi:

[cali]

35. Tough. Pat calls 'em as he sees them and he has every right

to do so. And no, nothing smells in VT. Our politics are cleaner than just about anyplace else. Furthermore, Leahy stands to gain nothing from either his endorsement of Obama or this statement. He's Senator for as long as he wishes. He hasn't any ambitions beyond that. He's not a big pork barreler. He's not grown wealthy off his years in Government, and he's one of the most senior and most powerful dems in D.C.

[TomBall Democrat]

10. "Freeze public perception"

Is that like the look she had on her face when she was caught lying about the sniper fire?

BTW, Your candidate was on board with the decision to freeze out Florida and Michigan.

There she goes again, flip-flopping all over the tarmac!

[aquart]

46. Flip-flopping is a Republican sin, a Republican accusation.

Smart people revise their opinions and positions when they receive new information.

How interesting that Obama supporters use Republican tactics on a Clinton. Can't teach an old dog new tricks?

[TheWraith]

20. I hate to break it to you, but there's no way that she can win.

She'd have to win every remaining state by 30 points or more in order even to catch up with Obama's massive delegate lead. It's just not possible.

[frylock]

3. dead to me

:sarcasm:

[Ignis]

19. No kidding.

It's just a matter of time until we hear what a traitor Leahy is. It's tragic how much the divisive, slash-n-burn mentality is impacting this race.

Let's leave the "you're with us or against us" crap to ShrubCo, shall we?

[Autumn]

5. I think there is plenty of time

it can play out.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

6. K&R!

[Javaman]

12. This should make from some really good poop throwing fights in GDP. lol nt

[DainBramaged]

15. POOP THROWING

why them's is pooping words

[bdamomma]

17. the longer this goes on Mc Cain will get in.

because he is the only one who will gain the grand prize from all this infighting in the Democratic party. This election is too important and too serious to blow.

[goforit]

21. Hello!! Clinton is in the race just to degrade OBAMA for McCain.

Clinton and McCain are part of the Bushco team.

I wish the Blue collar PA white man would smarten up and realize that Clinton is using them like pawns.

[lark]

32. Dumb and not factual

She was in the race prior to him, she is not in favor of McCain, has spoken out many many times saying her supporters should vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Is Obama in it just to prove he's a bigger man than her? I think Clinton would take better care of working class people than Obama. Remember FMLA and SCHIP? Remember the great economy we had then? What has Obama done - nothing to date.

[EFerrari]

44. Bill Clinton isn't running for office.

And, in case you don't know this, the economy was good because the effen consequences of Bill Clinton's economic policies hadn't hit yet.

[Ignis]

24. CNN: "Leahy: Clinton should drop out"

Sen. Patrick Leahy is suggesting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton abandon her White House run.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and six-term Vermont lawmaker said there is no way that Clinton is going to win enough pledged delegates to get the nomination. Leahy told Vermont Public Radio, in a show that aired Thursday, that Clinton ought to withdraw and should be backing Sen. Barack Obama. But Leahy said that's obviously a decision only Clinton can make.

<snip>

"Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out.

But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make," Leahy said in the statement.

- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/leahy-clinton-should-drop-out/

[PittPoliSci]

26. Considering she is going to win Pennsylvania...

I don't think she's going anywhere just yet. Plus she beat Obama in major Democratic stronghold states like CA and NY, I think that is probably going to hold more sway in the eyes of superdelegates than what a senator is saying.

[Ignis]

27. "than what a senator is saying"

You do realize that Leahy is a superdelegate as well as a senator, right?

I'd also argue that he's an incredibly well-known and well-respected Democrat, rather than simply "a senator"--but I suppose even that's open to interpretation in the scorched-earth primary of 2008. :)

[PittPoliSci]

42. i think it might just be a perspective thing.

agree to disagree? :)

[DuaneBidoux]

37. She would have to have an absolutely massive win in PENN

to make much of a real difference in either popular vote or delegate count. I suppose she can wait until then but if Obama picks up more total votes and total delegates with this coming string of states and she still refuses to concede then as far as I am concerned she has become an operative for the Republican party.

[PittPoliSci]

41. she does have a pretty huge lead right now.

i'm not sure what it would require to really make a dent in the delegate count, but I know for a fact that she will win in pennsylvania.

[Voltaire99]

33. Ha. Tonya Harding isn't going anywhere.

Clinton's Plan B is to hobble Obama, hand 2008 to McCain, and run in 2012.

[DuaneBidoux]

36. Obama needs to start ignoring Clinton and go after McCain. She cannot win.

This prolongs the mess for him to pretend she can whatever she is willing to admit.

Right or wrong the debate over MI and FL is over with both state parties themselves deciding not to do it over. Even with the revote in these two states a Clinton win would have been extremely unlikely, now it is virtually impossible.

Obama MUST move on regardless.

[DrDavidLee]

38. Should Senator Clinton Drop Out?

I believe the Clinton's have campaigned aggressively and for this they should be applauded. I do believe however, that Senator Clinton should "drop out" before she is "knocked out". The hopes of a Clinton nomination seemingly is coming at the cost of the Clinton's legacy. In the last few months I have watched a woman for whom I have had a great deal of respect, lie and manipulate in order to win. (Not the kind of qualities I'm looking for in a leader).

It's hard to admit defeat especially when you want to win so badly and have already made up in your mind that you will do anything in order to win, including throwing sinks & going dumpster diving. It's better to leave the fight with respect and dignity as opposed to ruining any future chance of you or your children ever being able to fight again. Just like boxing, the Clinton's have spired with Senator Obama over the previous months and gotten him ready for the real fight which he will face with Senator McCain. Now that the practice is over, Clinton should go home and nurse her wounds so that we can get on to the main event. At this stage, Senator Obama is right to begin ignoring Senator Clinton and set his focus on Senator McCain. I just like so many others had some concerns as to weather Senator Obama could handle a good fight, but after watching him duke it out with Senator Clinton, I give him 11 out of 15 rounds and by my calculations he finishes this fight with fewer fouls and more overall points. She has already been knocked out, but no one in her corner seems to have the nerve to throw in the towel.

[someone else]

39. Connundrum

Nominating a black is an historic and watershed moment in our history, but so to is nominating a female. I think things would have been much better if both weren't in the same election cycle.

[Skeptica]

40. If Clinton is not on the ticket, not even as VP, Obama may lose.

The contest is close, and loyalty is strong. The only way out
is to join forces.

If either one is not on the ticket, we can expect party
defection. Many of us are ready to switch to the other side.
With Obama (1625) leading less than 10%, part of Clinton's
(1486) defection will easily make McCain (1325) the winner of
the election.

I, for one, being a card carrying Democrat all my life and
always voted along party line, am ready to vote for John
McCain if Clinton is not the ticket at all.

Toss a coin and make it either Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton
or risk losing it all.

[cascadiance]

47. Why does this always play around loyalty to Clinton, and not loyalty to substantive issues/ideals!?

[EFerrari]

43. Congratulations, Ignis.

:party:

[Ignis]

48. Thanks!

:hi:

[aquart]

45. So why is everyone afraid of Pennsylvania?

Won't she get her butt kicked there? Because, after all, the people of the United States support Barack Obama and not the evil monster ethanol-supporting shrew Hillary Clinton.

I don't understand the fuss.