New York Times, "The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts "

[Boz]

"Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we're talking about Democrats."

"lots of people are hearing from home, 'Keep it open, even if the odds make it look impossible,' because Clinton may self-destruct before the convention."

"a leading Democratic money-raiser, has called together 65 big party contributors to discuss 'how a brokered convention might work.' "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA133FF933A25757C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[SunsetDreams]

1. What no comment ?

lol giving you a hard time :)

The point of this I guess, is this stuff happens every election with the front runner, and look who won then?

[Triana]

2. Clinton will have destroyed the party before the convention...

...she already has a great start on that.

END

IT

NOW

[SunsetDreams]

3. She sure is

scorching up the place.

[MADem]

4. You want it ended NOW? Obama should go home then. He either EARNS it, or not.

What are you so afraid of?

The only "party destroyers" are chickenshit, fearmongering, crybaby party poopers who can't get into the contest. This is good for the party. It's energizing the established voters and bringing new ones in.

If -- but ONLY if -- a winner emerges after a FULL fight, not a truncated one, we'll have a unified party.

You INSIST that Clinton "end it now?" A quarter of her voters go to McCain under that scenario. And they don't come back.

Let it play out, and, if Obama wins after a full contest, then all those votes will stick with him.

You actually think you're gonna win it by fucking over Clinton? You fuck your OWN candidate that way.

Unless your candidate is McCain, and of course, that's certainly not the case....

[Boz]

6. Actually the only argument you are left with is, that he may not be electable

in the fall because Hillary beat him in pennsylvania and to say she is toughening him up by preparing him to fight the republican, How is Hillary doing that oh thats right by being the republican.

The democrats owe her nothing, because her husband was a democrat.

You only have to look at Carville, you know one of their top advisers, and his wife to see the way a couple can be a democrat and a republican.

Hillary is not a democrat, she just chose that moniker because her husband was and it makes the path easier.

Please feel free to tell me anything that shows her as a democrat other than her choice to say she is one.

Im not afraid of her, Im not asking for it to end, Im all for ignoring her failures and not rubbing it in as she fails more rather than drops out.

But I will not take arms for her because she "says" she is a democrat any more than I would for Lieberman or Bob Dole saying they were.

[MADem]

11. No, that's not "the only argument left." There's the matter of the popular vote.

But let's not talk about that, because then, that gets into that whole "will of the people" business, and we can't have THAT, can we?

You know, people who call candidates running on the DEMOCRATIC ticket "not a (funny how you use a small d) democrat" might want to look in their own mirrors. See, YOU don't get to make that decision, and your opinion is like...well, everybody's got one, and most of them stink.


I have some bad news for you--Clinton and Obama are so close in their views that it is difficult to see daylight between them in many instances. They're in the same book, in the same chapter, and even on the same page. They're just in different paragraphs. That might cause you cognitive dissonance, but it's true.

So frankly, your childish "she's not a (d)emocrat" assertion is not only untrue, it reflects badly on your candidate. Because if she isn't one, neither is he. And after all, by his supporters we shall know him, eh?

You ABSOLUTELY don't have to vote for Clinton. No one is FORCING you to. No one is going to BEG you for your vote if she makes it to the general. They'll ask, because that's what good politicians do, but you're free to say no.

Stay home, vote vengefully for McCain, toss your vote down the hopper for that nitwit Nader--do whatever the hell you want. Just stop trying to be a scold and suggest that a loyal member of the party isn't a Democrat, because that's just a dumb thing to say, and it's false. And your behavior, along with the behavior of everyone who supports your candidate, reflects on him.

That leaves YOU with a couple of choices. You can keep insulting Clinton and acquitting yourself poorly here in cyberspace, or you can take the high road and do your candidate some good.

And by that I mean you just might TRY, for a CHANGE, to actually "support" your candidate, rather than insulting his opponent and her supporters.

Build your OWN guy up, stop tearing Clinton and her supporters down.

After all, isn't that the HOPE/CHANGE/BELIEVE and YES WE CAN agenda?

Isn't it???

[dionysus]

40. oh shit..... n00B pwns MADem!!!!!

:evilgrin:

[cliffordu]

46. LOL

:rofl: :rofl:

[Samantha]

44. If Obama wins BOTH North and South Carolina

unlike most Democratic candidates for President, HE DOES NOT NEED PENNSYLVANIA IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Listening to the MSM, one would think Dems cannot win the GE without PA. But Obama can -- with both Carolinas.

Of course, I am hoping that Pennsylvania votes for Obama in the General Election; but if it does not because some older white folks can rise above their prejudices, that will be a bad reflection on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -- not Barack Obama personally. And he can win the GE despite that.

[hfojvt]

7. right, it's gotta be the fault of the activists

It could not possibly be Clinton's fault.

[MADem]

9. "Fault of the activists?" Whiners on message boards aren't "activists."

And funny how said whiners are so swift to assign "fault."

There is no fault when two candidates have a tough fight. Only cowards would assign fault.

May the best candidate win, and then the party will get behind that person.

Study history. This is what democracy looks like, ya know.

Weren't you the crowd that didn't want a coronation?

Gee, now you have a fight, but instead you want a coronation--of YOUR candidate.

Too bad. Suck it up, and slog on.

[hfojvt]

24. you have such a low opinion of yourself

I don't.

As for slogging on, it's part of a battle to accuse the other side of being a dirty fighter. Especially when they keep providing ammunition.

[MADem]

26. No, I don't.

Stupid comment, that. When ya have nothing, go "personal." Speaks to your debating skills, which apparently are wanting.

Unsupported by any evidence, as well, and designed to be perceived as a bit of a "dig."

Terribly transparant, though. Childish, too.

That's a perfect example, though, of what I meant by "whining activists." You fit the paradigm brilliantly.

[hfojvt]

29. you certainly seem to be going personal here

and "whining bloggers" wasn't personal? Also, since you are here too, you apparently included yourself in this group.

I might fit the paradigm. I don't feel like I do enough. I waste too much time on DU too instead of doing other things. I still have not updated the county party's website from the PA election results. I've got to contact he newspaper about our upcoming central committee meeting too, and in fact, I may have missed the deadline. I goto those meetings, but we don't seem to be accomplishing much or getting other people involved. Our last bean feed was kind of a bust.

Then there was the caucus. I told the County chair in advance that we should ask all the participants why they weren't at the bean feed, and tell them about the website and also mention we need some high school kids to sponsor a young Democrats club, but she didn't and neither did I since I got pulled into taking names at the door.

So far we don't have a candidate for the open seat in the state legislature so I am thinking of running for that, while also thinking that doing so is foolish and scary. I spent last night researching Kansas taxes as preparation. Now I am thinking of writing another LTTE which I have been composing in my head.

It's discouraging too because I just looked up election stats and Kerry got smoked in my Congressional district in 2004. I thought I had read that Gore won the district but I cannot get 2000 stats to download and I think the district was re-drawn between 2000 and 2004 anyway.

As for the dig, yeah it was there, but when you put down DU you are putting down yourself and myself too. Neither of which I think is warranted. Having seen you on more than one occasion pull up some links and quotes and demolish somebody's argument. So I had you on my respect list.

edit: why do I forget question marks so often.

[MADem]

32. Why do you feel COMPELLED to pick up that shoe and cram your foot in it?

Did I say "YOU whining blogger, you?" Did I?

My remark wasn't directed at you.

It was directed at the larger population of people here who don't want to discuss the issues, the race, the back-and-forth between the candidates, but instead want to stomp that foot and demand their way, and use racist or sexist snide remarks to stick the knife well and truly in. The number of "Leave NOW!" posts, for example, borders on fucking IDIOTIC. Like Clinton would actually "leave now" (because some whining poster/blogger sez so) when she has a shot at Indiana, and if she won it, well, the entire primary paradigm would certainly shift.

Seeing that kind of crap, over and over, day after day after day, is a bit like attending an eagerly-awaited PhD seminar class and discovering, to your horror, that George Bush was going to spend the next two hours singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" to the class, off-key. It's beyond disappointing. It's soul-crushing.

It's not my fault that you took my generic commentary personally. Once you pick up the shoe and wear it, though, you own the characterization until you shake that slipper off. That's not on me, however.

I call it like I see it, here on DU and everywhere. I don't go out of my way to be mean, but I despair of decent discussion lately.

[dionysus]

41. shillbot tries to jack up vocabulary level to appear more wise...

FAIL

[O.M.B.inOhio]

5. Funny thing is the extended primary could have been an asset.

They could have been positive and united about the need for change. It could have been a civil but spirited question of which of our two fine candidates is best to defeat McShame. We could have had lots of free press and put out the Democrats' united message of change from the corruption of the Republican regime. But the HRC campaign smells like a GOP campaign. She has practically endorsed McShame while mocking her Dem colleague. (Is she trying to be McCain's running mate?) Now if the superdelegates decide that they know better than voters how voters will vote and choose HRC as the safe candidate (like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry) then some of us will have to a decision to make: Try to make a statement to the Party by abstaining or voting 3rd party; or vote for HRC and continue the demoralizing trend of coming just short of beating an incredibly weak GOP candidate. I don't see how Clinton can beat Bush III if she and the party alienate the voters that Obama so energized, particularly as she is running on strengths where McCain's credentials are far stronger.

[Boz]

8. History has shown they will back Obama when the time comes. If she had enough to move to close

she would have already.

If the Supers were going to choose her and she had that clout, or even the possibility that they would choose her, why wouldn't she just say, close this down, move for me, send Obama packing?

Because they won't move for her and she knows it.

The next goal post move will be to tell the supers NOT TO ENDORSE anyone, her or him, that way she can take it to the convention floor and hope an act of god, like those random Illinois earthquakes takes him before then.

[MADem]

12. Huh? "History has shown?" Can you provide some cites?

Did you just get back from the future in your Time Machine?

:shrug:

[Boz]

18. The article is the proof. Read it.

[MADem]

21. Excuse me, how can history show something about a candidate that hasn't happened yet?

That's like me saying "History has shown that Clinton will win every state but Arizona in the general election."

It's just an absurd statement you've made. It makes absolutely no sense--unless you have a Time Machine.

[Boz]

23. Thats the exact point that Hillary has taken when she says Obama is unelectable.

Thank you for proving the point.

[MADem]

25. Excuse me? There's another absurd assertion.

Don't "thank" me. You're still stuck with that dumbass statement you made.

Making a prediction is not the same as claiming that "history has shown" anything.

You can't wriggle out of that Major Duhhh!!! Misspeak by waving a hand and saying "Eww, thank you." It's still an idiotic statement, unless you've got your little time machine all "fired up, and ready to go."

Turn off those cartoons and put your nose in a book, maybe:

[Boz]

38. Wow, get out of the basement once in a while.

The article demonstrates a pattern that you refuse to see. I doubt you even read it.

Bill Clinton was in the same exact position with the same exact doubts and the Supers moved for him. Thats a demonstrative analysis of common pattern that points to a predictive likely outcome.

Couple that with Mcgovern VS Humphrey where the outcome was Delegate lead under "popular vote" and you end up with a correlative pattern in history of what the outcome will be.

IN OTHER FUCKING WORDS HISTORY HAS SHOWN GIVEN THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHAT THE OUT COME WILL BE.

Get off your high horse and think in reality of how we live day to day once in awhile. Our whole lives are predicated on just such patterns, just like your actions point to you being a __________________

Im willing to bet tens of people could fill in that blank just by observing the pattern of your behavior and your demonstrated writing patterns.

Get over it.

Good day and please feel free to say anything you would like to denigrate and be deragatory as best you can to my family connections, my sexual orientation, my weight, my height, some form of beastiality and my intelligence if it it will make you feel less powerless than you are.

[MADem]

39. If anyone should "get out of the basement" it's you. Take an English class.

And stop getting so upset and doing that internet ALL CAPS SHOUTING business. It doesn't help your argument, such as it was, at all.

I read the article about Bill Clinton. Now, there'd be a paradigm there if Michelle Obama had been elected and served two terms, and been succeeded by George W. Bush, before her husband Barack decided to run. But that's not the case, so there's no real inferences to be drawn. That election cycle really wasn't like this one. And Paul Tsongas was dying, and we all knew it--except, maybe, you.

You can go back to McGovern v. Humphrey if you'd like, too. That was a contest between white males. Again, a different dynamic in a different time.

Engaging in childish "fill in the blank" rants that are aimed at "insulting" me is counterproductive. Not surprising though. Nor is that last, rather sick, disturbed sentence you finished your post up with.

Get some help.

You have a nice day, now.

[Boz]

47. Passive agressive fail, good luck with that.

Now, there'd be a paradigm there if Michelle Obama had been elected and served two terms, and been succeeded by George W. Bush, before her husband Barack decided to run. But that's not the case, so there's no real inferences to be drawn.

Um yeah, only if all you can think of is everyone is Hillary Clinton and therefore Obama is somehow Hillary, because that is how you just framed it.

[dionysus]

45. those who choose to ignore history will repeat it

[chimpymustgo]

20. She's doing nothing of the sort. Stop the hyperbole and vilification.

That's what needs to end. Let the voters keep having their say.

[davidpdx]

10. Boz, just a suggesting if you can post a few paragraphs of the article

I don't know if it's too late to edit your post or not. If you do, it will make the thread more interesting. Only after I read the article I figured out you were talking about 1992 not 2008. Good find by the way.

[Tesha]

13. Your headline is deceitful; this is an op-ed from 1992 by a now-dead journalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._W._Apple

And you trimmed off the last two words: "About Clinton",
leaving people to draw the conclusion (from your headline)
that this is a current Times main editorial about the
current front-runner.

You should be ashamed.

Tesha

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. I think that's the point.

The very same things that Clinton supporters say about Obama, this OP/ED said about Clinton.

[datopbanana]

16. HRC peeps always catch on quick

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. LOL

:thumbsup:

How many people read the links?

[BeyondGeography]

17. Great post

I would have added "1992" to the thread title, but then so many people wouldn't have made fools of themselves.

[flpoljunkie]

19. "...And 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President." Very interesting.

In the New York primary Tuesday, the turnout was exceptionally low, 29 percent of the electorate backed Mr. Tsongas, a ghost candidate, two-thirds of the voters said they were dissatisfied with the choice presented to them, and 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA133FF933A25757C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[MADem]

27. Four in ten got over that, didn't they, and enjoyed eight years of peace and prosperity. NT

[wileedog]

31. And watched the economy get shipped over seas right under their nose

as well as businesses de-regulated which helped lead them to the craptastic situation they are in now.

[MADem]

33. People want those Clinton years back, even if you don't think so. NT

[wileedog]

34. Unless she can orchestrate another Tech Boom

and 'peace dividend' while there are two wars going on, they are in for a rude awakening.

[MADem]

36. Well, she plans on shutting down one war, and throwing the dough we're already wasting there into

enviro-tech. I think it's a winning idea, myself.

[Boz]

48. She plans on expanding TWO wars into three fronts and an American nuclear police force umbrella

to much of the Middle East.

Continuing the hawk policies to prioritize and ship resources and monetary reserves away from domestic American concerns to expanded globalization efforts and corporatist privatized military industrialization.

[MADem]

49. Well, you have your mind made up. No need to let facts get in your way, I suppose. NT

[liberaldem4ever]

22. I still can't believe that the Democratic Party is even considering

Nominating a person for President who VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ FOR A PREEMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A SOVEREIGN NATION AND WON'T EVEN SAY IT WAS WRONG. Has everybody forgotten that happened? I certainly haven't heard anything about it lately.

[Cha]

43. No worries..she's not..that's when

she sealed the deal.

[Political Heretic]

28. NYT endorsed Clinton, and is saying the complete opposite of what SD's are saying

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9862.html

“I don’t think anyone’s shaken,” a leading House Democrat told me. The critical mass of Democratic congressmen that has been prepared to endorse Obama when the timing seemed right remains prepared to do so. Their reasons, ones they have held for months, have not changed – and by their very nature are unlikely to.

Essentially, they are three:

(a) Hillary Rodham Clinton is such a polarizing figure that everyone who ever considered voting Republican in November, and even many who never did, will go to the polls to vote against her, thus jeopardizing Democrats down the ticket – i.e., themselves, or, for party leaders, the sizeable majorities they hope to gain in the House and the Senate in November.

(b) To take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of one leading Democrat, “The superdelegates are not going to switch their votes and jeopardize the future of the Democratic Party for generations.” Such a move, he said, would also disillusion the new, mostly young, voters who have entered into politics for the first time because of Obama, and lose the votes of independents who could make the critical difference in November.

(c) Because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats.

One Democratic leader told me, “If we overrule the elected delegates there would be mayhem.” Hillary Rodham Clinton’s claim that she has, or will have, won the popular vote does not impress them – both because of her dubious math and because, as another key Democrat says firmly, “The rules are that it’s the delegates, period.” (These views are closely aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement earlier this year that the superdelegates should not overrule the votes of the elected delegates.)

[uponit7771]

30. NYT endorsed Hillary, they have little credibility

[JoFerret]

37. But a tad more than you nevertheless.

.

[NJSecularist]

35. A brokered convention is neccesary.

Hopefully the superdelegates listen to the people instead of cutting backroom deals with Obama.

[EFerrari]

42. Nancy Pelosi has said she won't have one. n/t