 |
|
Add to My Group
|
April 23, 2008 at 07:51:17
No End in Sight... Well, not until Denver. by Rob Kall Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
BTW, it's easy to know who wins with this continuing on, ad nauseum-- the MSM, who get four more months of democratic conflict and bloodletting-- and the GOP, which gets four more months of slack, with minimal aggression targeted against McCain. 
"All the way" takes on new meaning, with Clinton. It means unrelenting, total, scorched earth destruction and devastation of her opponent. It means that when Obama actually gets the backing of enough superdelegates to cross the threshold to win, it will still not be over. Hillary will be insisting that the Florida and Michigan votes must count. She will take this all the way to Denver, no matter what.
As I write this, Tim Russert is saying that if Obama wins South Carolina and Indiana, then "he could put this away." Russert is suggesting that that will have given the superdelegates an excuse, or cover to put OBama over the top. "Otherwise it will go until June."
Sorry Tim. It ain't happenin'. She is going all the way, no matter what. If you think Terry McCullough or Bill Clinton or Howard Wolfson are going to EVER advise Hillary to "give up," you are fooling yourself.
It is clear that Hillary and her hangers on will not give up until she is flat out rejected at the convention. She will work to destroy Obama's chances, even after he gets enough superdelegate votes to win. She will go into the Denver convention demanding that Michigan and Florida votes be counted. She will go to Denver showing how effective she has been at destroying Obama, arguing that he held back, was weak.
The NY Times offers an op-ed today, The Low Road to Victory which says, The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead."
The question is, in destroying Obama, will she also destroy the Democratic party and its chances of taking back the whitehouse? I am hearing from more and more people who WILL go third party rather than vote for her. I know how hard it will be for ME to vote for her, let alone go out and campaign for her. When you're a member of a team, even if you're the quarterback, you don't kill the team's chances, don't injure the quarterback your competing with to be the one to start the game.
Just a moment ago Hillary tells Joe Scarborough, "It's going to be up to delegates. They have to make the independent decision." Sounds like August in Denver talk to me. This isn't even close to over.
Get used to it. This is going to persist for FOUR more months. We won't know until November whether clinton's experiment in Right Wing, Rovian Republican political strategy will work. But for many of us, the answer is already in. You don't become the enemy to beat the enemy.
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 8 comments |
|
Let the chips fall
Sure, and that as it should be. That's why they call it a convention. Nobody is destroying nobody. The electorate and superdelegates decide not only the winner but also the consequences for the party. If that's what it takes, than that's what it takes. by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 330 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:56:51 AM  (0+)
|
|
HRC and Barack in PA:No end
I think you've said it all correctly, Rob. It is sad that, here we are, on the eve of something really, potentially momentous and she has gone right-wing and Rovian. ....and is willing to "Obliterate Iran"? And the MSM just refuses to get into the fray, get down and dirty, and deal with the issues. Let's see, where did I put that flag pin? Oh, it's Wright here, under this plate of bitters that I'm clinging to religiously, next to my gun. Denver is gonna be ugly and I'm sure McCain is grinning, widely. by Ivan Hentschel (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 302 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:21:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Hillary is still Clinching!
Why even dream? The reality is we have three , almost, undifferentiated mad-men/woman. The fix is in and we get Dracula, the Wicked Witch of the East, or Lil Lord Fauntleroy. VOTE, yes, but vote your conscience. If that requires not holding your nose for any of the three wise-guys, so be it! Go green, or chartreuse, or pink if you will! But the presidential nominees will only bring us down on to our knees. Wolfie wants Mc lame to lose, but not to either of these Dem-o-rats. Dear Zeus, what would the good doctor Seuss do with all this abuse heaped upon an obtuse pooch! by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Unless..
Obama and his people openly announce what we all understand- that Clintonians are aiming for the defeat in November- he will not be a nominee. It is as clear as a whistle. It is not clear if Obama is a part of the whole plan (GOP-Dem deal) or he and his people are just naive as Hell. Most likely both. The MSM works like a perfect orchestra. slowly but surely sqeezing Obama out of the game and preparing the public for the 'strategic' Denver decision when Obama is going to be acknowledged but for the good of the party Hillary will become a nominee. As I said before, GOP will win no matter if Obama or Hillary are nominated but the GOP bosses of the Dem process( Yes!) do not want any surprises. If Obama plays by the rules he will be given a good Committee, if not- they will come out guns ablazing BEFORE the Denver with some story about him being Dracula or something. Now, again, if he cares for the country he should go ahead and do what is right- announce Hillary to be in cahoots with GOP and heading for the ironclad defeat. Then he will take over the Demparty. Otherwise.. you folks and me too are facing McCain/Lieberman for 8 years ( God save us from harm) and I am not kiddding. by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well Mark
I don't think it is as clear as a whistle. At least I hope it's not. Call it optimism or even call it naivety but I still believe Obama will ultimately get the nod. But I also believe that Hillary Clinton has no reason to give up this election. Had Obama recognizably carried that big state I would feel otherwise. This election is close, to close for Clinton to give up. If it was like this in the general election with Obama holding all of the big states and McCain all the small ones, would we want Obama to concede to McCain in such a close race? I think not! And Hillary makes a good point that this is a battle, not a pie eating contest. The gloves are off! She's in this thing to win same as Obama. Both sides have hit the other candidate below the belt. Both teams have made blundering misstatements and both teams have given the McCain campaign equal amounts of ammunition. The dems have plenty on him too and it won't be a pie eating contest then either. Also Mark and sadly, you may be right about the fix being in. Where and when might also be the question, or is this thing perpetual? I do believe our biggest concern should be about what our own Mr. John Riggins said about Diebold and other electronic, no paper trail voting machines that will take part in the upcoming general election. By far this is the most detrimental aspect of the entire process. More than half of the voting precincts in this nation will be using them, just as they did in the last two presidential debacles. I would add further to all of those wo can't stand Hillary Clinton, whether you hate her or not, if John McCain becomes the next president of the United States we better all hold on to our lug nuts! by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:54:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Super Delegates
The Democratic Party has Super Delegates to protect the party from the whims of the unwashed masses. Super Delegates, in theory and if I understand it properly, are supposed to keep the party from nominating someone who does not have a chance of winning no matter what are the results of the voting in the primaries and caucuses are. There are enough uncommitted Super Delegates at this point to give the nomination to either candidate. If enough Super Delegates are convinced that one candidate or the other is unelectable then they will vote for the other one. Or should. Of course, there are so some reasons why they wouldn't vote for the most electable candidate but we won't go there. There are some factors like the delegates and votes in Michigan and Florida that could still come into play with or without a revote in the those states. Another factor is the popular vote. After screaming at the top of their progressive lungs for the last 8 years that Gore should be president because he won the popular in 2000 it will be more than ironic if the party gives the nomination to a candidate who has not won the popular vote in all the primaries. Of course, there is another fly in the pie there too. A lot of Republicans voted in the Democratic primaries. How are those voted counted or discounted? Can they even be identified? If so, how? Tea leaves? Hanging or dimpled chads? (Anyone who doesn't think the nominating process for both parties needs to be overhauled is out of touch with reality.) Don't count Clinton out. In my opinion Obama still has to close the deal with the Super Delegates that he is electable. I don't think that that has been done yet. Until it is, Clinton has a chance. Not much of one. This fught might be good for Obama because right now he shares the spotlight with Clinton Once he is nominated the spotlight will find him and everything he says, does, or has said or done will come out and be magnified ten fold. The Clintons won't be there trying to drown him out day after day. We, folks, are in political junkie heaven. by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:35:18 PM (0+)
|
|
She Might Call It Quits
First, "South Carolina" needs to be changed to "North Carolina." There is something that does play into Hillary calling it quits, after either North Carolina and Indiana if Obama wins both of those primaries, or at end of the primary season with South Dakota and Montana. What is that "something"? It's 2012, and 2016! The Clintons are utterly convinced that Obama cannot win against McCain. If Obama does get the nomination, he will go down in flames and Senator Clinton will then be able to pick up the party pieces, move the party to the right, and then be in a prime position to capture the nomination in 2012. If Obama did win against McCain, then the Clintons would have a more difficult time winning the White House, and would of course have to wait for 8 more years. As for age, there is not a problem. She would be 64, or 68. Now, if Clinton does too much destruction to the party, and appears to be making Obama unelectable, and then Obama goes down in flames, it would be more difficult for Clinton to capture the nomination in 20012. Yes they are fighting to win the nomination this year, yet if Obama does win the nomination, they want his defeat against McCain to be the result of his actions and not Hillary's action, or at least appear not to be her actions. At a certain point, then, and I think before the Democratic Convention in Denver, I believe Hillary will bow out, and get themselves ready to pick up the pices after Obama loses. That's my take. Yet, those Superdelegates could switch, and if that happens, then the streets Denver will explode. Denver 2008 will look a little, maybe more than a little, like Chicago 1968! by Stewart Nusbaumer (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:57:48 PM (0+)
|
|
There is an old saying in police work
If there's a domestic dispute, never get between a husband and wife. It's Bill/Hill all over again. At the grand gala in Philadelphia after the PA win, the Heiress Apparent was beaming, the Party machine was pumped, and Bill Clinton stood off at the side in a pose ready for Mount Rushmore. Once, he loosened up long enough to raise a finger of greeting to someone out of camera range. In my opinion, this is a matrimonial saga. Heck, if HBO can do Abagail and John, what's to stop me? Bill, as wrong as he has been in some political maneuvers this time around, has not lost his grip on trends. And he knows her campaign failed to understand that 2008 is not 1992. He, the one who was not considered to care about money, is losing some as we speak. Her position in the gamble is to wing it. Taking an unsolicited maternal approach, I say what I said first in SC. Bill is tired, can appear like the trouper who can still dance but doesn't know what music they're playing next. The best analysis I've seen of the plot comes from a story that if Hillary can't run her own campaign, how can she run the government? I say if we lay off the "two-man" show and concentrate on the one with top billing, reality and the Democrats in Denver will recognize that nostalgia is not a party platform. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1853 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
