WaPo: Don't Stop Campaigning

[OzarkDem]

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.

...

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?



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901846.html

[Bicoastal]

1. Or thinkin' about tomorrow!

:rofl:

[OzarkDem]

2. or supporting democracy and the USA!

apparently Obama supporters don't care for those either. But according to posts here today, they do like Bush's wars.

[wileedog]

3. This from the supporter of a candidate

whose only means to win is to have 800 party insiders and the Elite Money decide to throw away the Pledged Delegate vote and elect who they want?

You have an interesting notion of democracy.

[OzarkDem]

4. Welcome to DU

[wileedog]

6. Thanks! nt

[Kierkegaard]

10. I think it's called Hillaryocracy.

The tenets are fluid and are determined by whether or not they are beneficial to her.

[OzarkDem]

13. Not discussing the editorial?

Just ad hominem attacks on the poster? Sounds very much like a GOP political forum, doesn't it?

[wileedog]

18. The editorial is based on the supposition

that the process still provides a legitimate change for Hillary to win, which would justify the continued damage this campaign is doing to the party for the GE.

However there is not. Her only legitimate path to the nomination is to damage the elecability of the overwhelmingly probable presumptive nominee to the point where party insiders can justify tossing aside the votes of the people.

This is a disaster scenario that assures even if should Hillary win, we will lose the GE for sure as half the party members tell the Democratic party to go eff itself.

Despite the rhetoric about playing out the process, blah blah blah, its is wrong. The process is over. Obama will enter the convention with the most PDs. Editorials are not going to change that.

So, the Party can make a decision. Get on with focusing on the GE, or continue to drain money, time and credibility away from the voters as the candidates claw each others' eyes out for no good reason.

p.s. I've said before, if Hillary wants to take the high road, stop the kitchen sink tossing and campaign on her ideas and not the attacks against Obama (and praise of McCain), by all means she can Huckabee her way to the convention. But the scorched earth campaign has got to stop. I don't think she has that in her though.

[dionysus]

38. damg you just pwned Ozark

nice!

[Kierkegaard]

21. I have no idea what it sounds like to you.

Nor do I really care. Your inability to comprehend is more than a little disconcerting, though.

[Bicoastal]

5. How are we supposed to take you seriously after that "Professor" nonsense?

My mom was a Professor of English at USC. I myself am currently getting a MA at NYU. I know lots of people currently involved with academics, and I've asked several of them about this "issue."

Everyone I've asked thinks it's complete rubbish, and HRC should look elsewhere for her smears.

[OzarkDem]

8. Obama padding his resume

is something you'll have to take up with him. Yes, lying is a serious issue. Couple that with his thin resume, love and praise of GOP foreign policy and hard headed resistance to real health care reform and you have a very flawed candidate. Defend him if you wish, its a free country.

[Bicoastal]

15. PADDING HIS RESUME?! Obama's academic resume doesn't NEED padding!

Occidental College in 1979.

Transferred to Columbia in 1981, graduated in '83.

Worked as a community organizer in Chicago for 4 years.

Accepted into Harvard Law in 1988.

Elected President of Harvard Law Review in 1990 (First black president in its history)

Graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

Associate attorney specializing in discrimination and civil rights cases from 1993 to 2003.

Lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago from 1993 until his Senate Election in 2004.

Is it any wonder the school called him Professor?

[roguevalley]

31. but, but, he never ran across a tarmac with bullets flying!

[anonymous171]

36. Thin resume? I mean, he didn't dodge sniper fire, but

I'm sure he's done a lot more than what you imply.

[stillcool]

43. Are you referring to this? Again?

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/professor_obama.html
Professor Obama
The University of Chicago says that Obama is entitled to describe himself as a professor during his time teaching there
March 28, 2008 1:00 PM

Well here's a thing: after the Clinton campaign accused Barack Obama of falsely claiming to have been a professor at the University of Chicago, when he was merely a lecturer, it now turns out that he was indeed a professor - according to the University of Chicago.

In a press release issued today, the university's Law School explains:

From 1992 until his election to the US Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

What makes this utterly minor issue of nomenclature into an election issue? The Clinton sent out a press release this week, quoting Clinton's press spokesman ("'Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor...,' Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said."), and saying Obama had inflated his credentials:

Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor.

Obviously the Clinton campaign should now withdraw this statement. But I doubt they will.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/professor_obama...

[DJ13]

7. So I guess you thought it was good that Nader ran in 2000?

Someone with near zero chance to actually win only serves as a spoiler.

It was true of Nader in 2000, its true of Clinton now.

Has nothing to do with Democracy, but it has eveything to do with both commonsense and whether those supporting the lost Clinton cause actually WANT a Democrat to be President this year.

[OzarkDem]

9. Getting desperate, I see

No I didn't support Nader and comparing Hillary's candidacy to his is beyond foolish.

I support the Democratic party and so should you.

[DJ13]

11. No I didn't support Nader and comparing Hillary's candidacy to his is beyond foolish.

How?

They both would need an act of God to actually win.

In 2000 Nader cost Gore the election in Florida, in 2008 Hillary is only serving to keep McCain running uncontested for months on end (as she's certainly not going after him...).

And no, you do NOT "support the Democratic party" as far as I can see.

You prefer to support a candidate instead of supporting the party by your support of Clinton.

[OzarkDem]

12. Well lots of Dems disagree with you

and the WaPo editorial is correct in pointing out the outcome of this race is still very uncertain. Dem voters have a right to weigh.

Its bad enough Obama has tried to disenfranchise MI and FL voters, but trying to do the same in the rest of the states that haven't voted is not the Democratic way.

[DJ13]

16. the outcome of this race is still very uncertain.

If Hillary "wins" it will only be because the super delegates overrule the pledged delegates.

If you're honest you would have to admit that will be damaging to our party, and as a result Im right that you are NOT supporting the party, you prefer to support Hillary over the party.

[OzarkDem]

19. Yes it is uncertain

and that's why it would be unfair to deprive Dems of the right to vote again, after trying to do the same to the ones in MI and FL. Trying to stop the campaign when you're ahead isn't good leadership nor is it the Democratic party way.

After all we've been through with elections stolen by the GOP, to propose doing the same to fellow Dems is unconscionable. Obama and his supporters who push for this should be ashamed of themselves. They're behaving no better than the GOP.

[roguevalley]

29. and who voted for Bush's wars, ozark dem? Anyone we know?

I think you have it wrong which side likes Bush's wars. Imaginary and real.

[Unsane]

34. Since when is choosing a party nominee about democracy?

It isn't in fact, and the Supreme Court of the United States has all but said so. Hell, the national parties don't even HAVE to hold a primary process. The DNC's super delegate system has assured that it isn't "about democracy." So take your Clinton talking points and shove 'em.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. When the candidate is yelling "I ain't quitting"

and when the candidate's remaining media supporters are urging the candidate to 'not drop out', the campaign has already terminated.

[OzarkDem]

17. Why do you hate Democratic voters?

Why do you support a candidate whose number one campaign tactic is to disenfranchise them? What is good and honorable about that?

[wileedog]

20. More ridiculous logic

Hillary wants to disenfranchise EVERYONE by having Superdelegates overturn the vote. In fact she is fighting desperately to have MI and FL seated just so she can use those numbers to help justify why those votes should be tossed aside by SDs, along with everyone else's.

Honorable indeed.

[loveangelc]

22. the more you accept what is likely to happen, the easier it will be when it happens, ozarkdem :)

[Moochy]

23. "Why do you hate X"

Ozark you are pathetic, get some new right wing talking points.

Why do i hate lying right wing talking point spewing hillary supporters? I hate liars.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. How are you going to adjust in a few weeks?

Or will we be seeing the last of your nonsense?

[roguevalley]

32. obama isn't asking fat cat donors to arm twist the outcome. she

was in agreement to remove her name and she didn't (no surprise there) and now you cry foul? Jeez.

[Austinitis]

24. I'm getting sick of people

trying to push Hillary out.

[OzarkDem]

26. Agree, its very un-Democratic

Given all we've been through with the GOP and stolen elections, Dems should be the last ones to promote disenfranchising voters.

[roguevalley]

35. she's pushing herself out. she is armtwisting people with fat cat

blowhards, she is alienating all the SD with her threats about money, she is lying bald-faced to the world and denying it and she isn't getting donations or she would pay her damned bills on time. She is going to take herself out and it isn't going to be pretty. Have a good time in the senate when this is over, Hillary, when you've incinerated every bridge known to man.

[helderheid]

27. I must need more coffee - I read the headline as don't stop complaining! I am spending entirely too

much time here! :)

[Austinitis]

28. If anything, Hillary is doing a huge favor for Democrats

by staying in the race. The Wright thing shows that there's still a lot of Obama that we haven't seen. The longer Hillary stays in the race the more likely it is that that stuff will come out during the primary season, where either:

(a) It won't sink Obama and will seem like old news by the time the general election rolls around; or
(b) It will sink Obama, but at least then we don't get stuck with someone who can't win the general.

The reasoning here goes like this: Both Clinton and McCain have an incentive to find dirt on Obama. But where McCain has an incentive to hold onto scandals he finds out about until late in the race (so that it'll be more effective), Hillary has an incentive to get them out now (since she's fighting a clock). All things equal, if a scandal about the Democratic nominee is going to come out, it's better for us that it happen as far away from November as possible. And having Hillary in the race accomplishes that.

I think the Wright thing is the perfect example of this. Even though Obama's recovered, if it had come out right before the November election it would have sunk us. We would lose, and there would be four more years of Bush (in the form of McCain). It's important, then, that we have the vetting process happen now rather than five months from now.

[anonymous171]

30. The Media: DON'T STOP! WE NEED THE RATINGS!

[Vinca]

33. You beat me to it. The media wants a convention blood bath. nt

[closeupready]

40. Yep, exactly right. I was just going to re-interpret that headline for

DU. :rofl:

[redqueen]

41. Exactly. (nt)

[KoKo]

37. ...

[TomBall Democrat]

39. Stay in there, Hillary

Let's get rid of this witch once and for all.

When she is in ashes, the Democratic Party can rise again!

[stillcool]

42. I agree...this has been a great..

Primary Season. I think I've learned more about the candidates throughout this process, than in any primary that has gone before. The longer it goes on, the more will be revealed, and that has got to be a good thing!