05/22/2008
Fighting On...
Whether you agree with her strategy or not, bewilderment at Clinton's continuing "crusade" to win the Democratic nomination is the consensus among most media at the moment, and pretty accurately reflected in this "flesh wound" clip which has begun going viral.
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Clinton's Last Crusade: 'Count Our Votes' [newsweek]
Clinton Goes On and On and On... [afp]
Clinton campaigns as attention wanders elsewhere [reuters]
Clinton Still in the Game, but Wants Rules Changed [abc news]
Opposition Grows To Clinton's Delegate Cause Celebre [huffington post]
Reuters FACTBOX offers up a few reasons why Hillary Clinton might still be running.
Posted 9:23 AM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
if hillary were to withdraw, she would disenfranchise the voters who still want to protest the msm's coronation of obama. since when is a good challenge bad? is the obama candidacy so weak?
apparently, barack's own advisers are much more circumspect than some of the commenters on this blog; they want the band to play on. to do otherwise, would further alienate the hillary supporters, whose numbers are roughly 50% of the democratic electorate. there are still many pissed-off white women voters and working class whites who feel that they have been given short shrift by what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, is an elitist, effete and somewhat peevish candidate. to attribute that simply to racism is stupid. if racism is the simple-minded answer, then what explains the latino reluctance to support obama?
slamming hillary and, by extension, 1/2 of the dem party is foolish in the extreme. level-headed obama supporters get it; the obamaniacs never will.
@MIKE, thanx for the heads up on MICHAEL J. at least ANDY has maintained a semblance of impartiality.
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 3:02:37 PM
oh please. Anyone who's gay and supports hillary has to be at least partially retarded
Posted by: Andy | May 22, 2008 3:24:24 PM
Any talk of dropping out before May 31st is premature
May 31st is when the rules comitee meets to discuss FL and Michigan
Yesterday a supposed Obama campaign staffer said that they were more than willing to compromise on more than 50% towards Hillary. The questions are will the rules comittee go with the WRITTEN 50% penalty DNC rule and what is Hillary willing to compromise on. Politics is compromise in the end.
FL appears to be the easiest to solve since the written rules do state up to 50% of delegates can be stripped. I will agree with Hillary supporters that 100% stripping is excessive and goes beyond the DNC rules. The next question on that is wether it is strip 50% of delegates or allow 100% delegates and only strip them down to 1/2 votes each. The latter being better in my personal opinion since that way all dleegates go and the state power is stripped 50% per the written rules
Michigan is the sticky issue.
Anyway; till May 31st at least! drop out BS should NOT even be mentioned. After that then it might be debatable.
As long as both candidates are nice Dems to each other and both go after McCain. A double punch against McCain is a very good thing if both sides can stay focused and not resort to going after each other.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:26:27 PM
PS
Andy (above poster and not Andy in charge of this web site)
Any supposed Obama supporter who says what you said about gay Hillary supporters obviously doesn't understand Obama's message and platform.
I am 100% an Obama supporter, but such bs is NOT Obama's message or platform.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:29:11 PM
Jimmyboyo -
If its just a white Appalachia issue then explain CA, MA, RI, NV and FL, where HRC won and carried white blue collars?
And while you're at it explain MS where she lost but took 73% of the white Democratic vote, and in GA where again, despite losing, she carried the majority of white democrats (59%) and white independents (50%).
That 37% of white Appalachia democrats you dismiss are the reason Bill Clinton won - twice.
Now I don't dispute that BHO MAY be able to cobble together a winning coalition without those voters - but the simple fact is no modern era Democrat has won without them.
So the question then is - who's the stronger candidate in November (assuming both can rally the base)?
The candidate who rallies the base but loses the Reagan democrats?
Or the candidate that rallies the base but loses the Reagan democrats?
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 3:29:13 PM
"This is a mean-spirited, violent, misogynistic, unfunny video."
Misogynistic? The other points are arguable but if you truly think this video represents misogyny then perhaps you need to review the definition of the word.
Posted by: sean | May 22, 2008 3:30:31 PM
AERES
No dem has won the majority of white working class voters since 1964
Bill Clinton did NOT win the majority of white lower income workers .
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:34:58 PM
I think you get my point - but edit that previous post to read:
"Or the candidate that rallies the base but WINS the Reagan democrats?"
Jimmyb:
I understand that - but Bill Clinton was far more competitive among low income white voters (particularly in Appalachia coupled with a significant 3rd party vote drawing away GOP voters) than BHO is - or Gore or Kerry were.
If past is prologue, then to me thats a metric worth watching.
The simple point is that (right now) BHO isn't nearly competitive enough among that demographic to consider him the "stronger" general election candidate (by any past measure).
But - like I acknowledged - this COULD be the year past trends are bucked.
For me however, I think the safer bet is to nominate the candidate that is strongest under the known (i.e. past) metrics that have delivered the White House to democrats. Which I believe to be HRC (again - assuming each can rally the base that voted for other candidate).
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 3:46:32 PM
"Any supposed Obama supporter who says what you said about gay Hillary supporters obviously doesn't understand Obama's message and platform."
Who said anything about supporting Obama?
To be honest they are both crap, but Obama is not a bad person, I just disagree with some of his views. I can understand the issue of "electability" but I'm still not going to "support" someone who is against gay marriage. I'm sorry but it's legal in major counties like Canada and Spain and the sky has not fallen.
Hillary on the other hand is just a despicable excuse for a human being. This is in addition to her bizarre views. She is just so obviously fake and disingenuous. The way she fakes accents when she is in the south, and acts as if she is so "blue collar", telling her preposterous stories of when she was a little girl and her dad took her out to shoot animals with a gun. Bitch, PLEASE!!!! She is completely using the gay community, and so many gays support her merely because she is a woman, without looking at where she stands on gay issues (based on her ACTIONS, not what she says). Barrack has been far more vocal in his support of Civil Unions than that ugly slutbag.
Why would you vote for someone who voted FOR the war in Iraq!!!, thinks DADT shouldn't be revoked, and yet wants to completely OUTLAW video games like grand theft auto? She also completely bailed out on supporting trans people in ENDA. SHAMEFUL!!! Her priorities are seriously screwed up, to the point where one wonders if she has a mild mental illness.
She voted FOR the war and is now so against it. This bitch will say anything to get elected.
She is utterly fake, a shameless user and pathetically DESPERATE.
If you can't see that then you are very easily manipulated.
Posted by: andy | May 22, 2008 3:53:53 PM
Aeres
We will have to agree to disagree for the time being.
We must remember that what we are currently dealing with is dem vs dem primaries/ caucuses. The general is so vastly different when repub against dem that nothing we are seeing currently in the dem primaries can be used to figure what will be then.
The mere fact that we have a 71 going to be 72 year old runniong as the repub throws a whole bunch of wrenches into the coming general election. The vast majority in polls say they do not think our president should be that old. Yet an argument could be made that older generations might change their mind and flock to the older guy. If that happens then the question is will the younger generations come out and vote in the general in the numbers they have been voting for both dem candidates.
Heck, I am just waiting for the rules comittee to meet and figure out what to do with Michigan. You couldn't pay me enough to deal with that situation.
Obama/ Clinton 08
PS Per an article over at Huffpo, Bill Clinton is pushing for Hillary to be VP. I personaly like that idea. There are a lot of Obama supporters who currently (could be persuaded I bet) do not
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:56:34 PM
poster Andy
I wish there was an "Ignore button" option here at Towleroad.
LOL, though the majority would probably put me on ignore. :-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 3:59:05 PM
JIMMYBOYO, have you ever heard of a term called "truthiness". If not you should look it up. It's a lot like willful ignorance.
Posted by: Andy | May 22, 2008 4:04:43 PM
"poster Andy
I wish there was an "Ignore button" option here at Towleroad."
JimmyB:
We can at least agree on that! ;-)
And if I remember correctly, its a Time magazine article thats prompting this talk of Bill pushing HRC for VP. (which is also being pushed by Drudge - the perfect HRC opinion bookend to the Huffington Post)
Honestly, I'm completely torn as to whether she would (or should) accept it were it offered. Lately I've been leaning towards no. But that opinion will change in 5 minutes
Which I think may in a nutshell sum up the wildly swinging opinions/emotions held by alot of HRC supporters these last few weeks. Sigh.
Posted by: AERES | May 22, 2008 4:31:55 PM
no, SEAN, perhaps YOU should. if you think the depiction of the dismemberment of a woman by a group of men is not misogynistic, buy a new dictionary.
i am completely aware of the context of this scene in the original movie. i thought then, as i do now, that the movie is hilarious. however, in the present application it is, indeed, "...a mean-spirited, violent, misogynistic, unfunny video." i would hope that the "monty python" crew had nothing to do with this abomination.
@ANDY (no, not blog ANDY), change your fu*kink username!!!! btw, if JIMMYBOYO were to look up "truthiness" he would find your "what, me worry?" mug next to bill ohreally's and dubya's as illustatives.
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 4:34:39 PM
this is what happens when i get annoyed.
the words should be "fucking" and "illustratives".
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 4:43:36 PM
@ dc8stretch: "This is the real American Idol (but with less voters)- if pundits pontificated about AI, they would have been calling for David Cook to drop out, that David Archuleta was the presumptive winner all season. We now know how that turned out."
So, the perfectly pressed and prepped candidate of inevitability was heavily favored to win at the beginning (like the senator from NY) loses because the people vote for the guy who takes creative risks and advocates change, and you're using this as proof that your candidate should stay in? Next, you'll be saying that votes from all previous episodes should be totaled and counted, but only the votes of real voters, girls between the ages of 8 -17 and women, white women, aged 60 and over, because those really are the swing voters that we have to win in the fall.
She needs to go away. Seriously. Go. Away. She has lost the nomination. She lost it a month ago. She needs to go home. But I guess you can't say that, because apparently reality is just sexist.
Posted by: Cameron | May 22, 2008 5:16:12 PM
Cameron- whats that sound I'm hearing? Is that you stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum?
Posted by: dc8stretch | May 22, 2008 5:34:28 PM
Since this is a competition, why not go to the very end? Do baseball players stop playing the game in the eighth inning because one team is up?
She just won two states by 30+ percentage points. I wouldn't drop out either.
Posted by: jmg | May 22, 2008 5:35:54 PM
NIC
LOL
You slipped into typonese like me. Now you just have to make atrocious gramatical mistakes and your conversion is complete
:-)
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 5:42:13 PM
JMG
I agree with you up to May 31st and however long it takes the rules comittee to do whatever it is going to do.
After that point, I have no consistent opinion. That fluctuating opinion/ emotions thing that Aeres mentioned though in context of an Obama supporter.
After may 31st and whatever the rules comittee comes up with.........we will have to talk then about going on or not
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 5:46:37 PM
Pretty pathetic ANDY...and viral?
Hmm you and your bama buddies may hope.
But as a Democrat and a gay man I RESENT being told that I have to vote for Obama to unite the party and heck where else can we go...(ask you buddy chris Crane about that asinie logic)
HELL That cochair of his Claire MacCaskill even said on CNN that it's Clinton responsibility to get her supporters to vote for him.
BULLS%@T!!
NO he needs to work for my support.
He does not get it by default.
And I'm Tired of his fear tactics as well...
If not me then more BUSH!!
That is just politicals as usual.
And the sooner you and the Obama campaign wakes up to that you might just be able to win in Nov.
So COUNT THE VOTES OBAMA.
What are you afraid of?
Posted by: MCnNYC | May 22, 2008 5:59:19 PM
MCNNYC
Hillary Clinton has already stressed many times that she expects her supporters to support the nominee even if it isn't her. Recently she stressed that it is a fight against the repubs and the continuation of bush and that all dems should be united on that.
I didn't see the Claire Mccaskill thing you mentioned so I really can't comment. BUT, if she said it exactly the way you mentioned then I would agree it was a bit callous. If that is the quote.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 6:11:28 PM
JIMMYBOYO, even though "the things that we're liable to read in the bible, ... ain't necessarily so", the bible does suggest that satan is a seducer.
you got your claws in me, boy. i must be strong, must resist.... typos are venial sins; grammatical errors are mortal. yet, you say resistance is fyoo-tile. lol.
Posted by: nic | May 22, 2008 6:33:57 PM
@ MCNNYC: Right on. To think that Hillary supporters automatically have to fall in line behind Obama is absurd. We can choose (1) not to vote at all (2) vote for McCain
I would definitely choose (1), but that's just me.
@ JimmyB: Seriously dude, are you the gatekeeper of all things Presidential Campaign? Must you always have a reply for everyone who disagrees with you or doesn't support Obama.
I have noticed that you've changed your tune to a more 'compassionate' one towards Hillary and pushing for the Unity ticket.
I for one am against that. I'd rather see Obama steer his sinking ship without Hillary on it. New Quinnipiac polls show him losing in all the key swing states by more than 5 percentage points to McCain -- polls take in the last 48 hours.
Make your own conclusions.
Posted by: TimmyYoYo | May 22, 2008 6:48:15 PM
NIC
LOL
:-) xxooxxoo
Timmy
SUSA the most acurate polling group this cycle shows differently. It even shows Obama taking former blue states like Virginia by 7% (Hillary also takes some Blue states from McCain)
SUSA and other polling groups show that BOTH dem candidates beat McCain and take former blue states. I bet that has you quaking in your boots and thus you a most likely log cabinite wish to stir trouble between dems because the repub brand is DOA
Peace be with you
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 22, 2008 7:09:21 PM