In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 3049 of 8827
- next ›
Axelrod: Okay, Fine. Just Take Michigan and Florida
Obama's top strategist seems aware that the Democrats can seat the Florida and Michigan delegations under almost any calculation and Obama will still have the lead in pledged delegates. From an upcoming NPR interview:
"We are open to comprise [sic]. We are willing to go more than half way. We're willing to work to make sure that we can achieve a compromise. And I guess the question is: is Senator Clinton's campaign willing to do the same?"
Axelrod continues: "Well, obviously, any compromise is going to involve some give, and that means if there's something on the table, we're willing to consider it. That may include us yielding more delegates than perhaps we would have, simply on the basis of the rules."
Now if you seat Florida and Michigan and Clinton does better than expected in the remaining primaries, including Puerto Rico, she may take the popular vote lead. The Clinton campaign will likely hammer that point while making its case to the superdelegates. It's probably worth pointing out that if popular vote was the key criteria in the race from the beginning, both campaigns would have run different races.
For the last time...Obama played by the rules of the game. He won. If Clinton doesn't like the rules, she can get them changed for 2012. But in 2012, she'll have to face the formidable foe of Obama's VP. Who after 8 years of prosperity and peace under Obama will be assured a landslide victory over Hillary "Hey remember the 90s?!" Clinton.
Make that 2017.
Plus, how old will she be by 2017? She won't have a chance.
JS:
It's probably worth point out that if popular vote
Maybe add "ing" to point?
If this campaign has pointed to anything it is, Hillary and her supporters give poor losers a bad name. The sour grapes coming from her supporters,(they'll actually vote for McCain in the fall?) is absolutely sickening. What a joke.
If Hillary had been the candidate in 2000, the Democrats wouldn't have lost Florida. So much for poor losers.
Dan,
I love how one of the sore losers followed your post immediately with more sour grapes.
They are zombies!! "Must bring back Clinton from dead" "Must alter rules of election" "Must come up with ridiculous excuses for loss"......
I'm sorry, but isn't "If Hillary had been the candidate in 2000, the Democrats wouldn't have lost Florida." overwhelmingly crazy-talk?
In 2000, after 8 years of Bill, with nothing much to complain about on a political scale past a blowjob, Florida of all states was ready to not only vote female, but wife of the last president? I'm not buying that for a second.
We're having this historic battle between Barack and Hillary because the 8 years of W has broken down a lot of people's barriers. I'd gladly vote for the first Brainstem-in-a-jar President, or the first Swamp Thing President or even an effing Mr. Potato head if it meant putting a stop to BushCo.
In 2000, everyone had a sense of "Hey, if Bill can do it, maybe I could too." Now we've seen what would happen if any idiot got to play king for nearly a decade and the sense is much more "Holy Shi, who is MORE opposite of this numbskull?"
I don't think "tenacity" would be counted among the more dominant character traits of Gore or Kerry. Clinton has been told to get out of the race for months not only by anonymous bloggers but by prominent Democrats. DESPITE the steady drip of super-delegates toward Obama, Clinton has won four races in the last 30 days.
The party elders WILL pick the best candidate because the country CANNOT AFFORD a Republican win. Right now they are having to BUOY OBAMA UP!
With ALL THAT BIG WAD OF CASH, with ALL THOSE SUPER-DELEGATES during these last weeks, Obama can't -- I believe the pundits say --"close the deal". And today, the new polls are out showing Clinton cleanly beating McCain in the swing states and Obama failing to do so.
And the polls are showing this with an incredibly hostile press and horribly skewed coverage!
Obama has received early endorsements from presidential losers who share his values, his style and his constituencies. The winners either support Clinton -- as in the case of Hillary Clinton's husband -- or they have refrained from formally endorsing a candidate as in the case of Carter.
As for super-delegates "respecting the vote", did Kerry and Kennedy respect Massachusetts's vote?
Did Byrd respect West Virginia's vote?
Super-delegates are there -- by definition -- to "correct" the initial vote and prevent one of those electoral disasters that the Democratic Party has been far too familiar with.
So it might just be Clinton in the end. And then, I hope that you will heed your own criticism : no sour grapes, no poor losing.
Kathi,
the only reason he can't close the deal is because of "democrats" like you who are so stubborn, they wont support the democratic candidate, only HILLARY......YOUR GOD
Once she is finally put out of her misery officially, are you still going to go down with the ship.
If she sues over Florida and MI you still gunna be there clapping away like a monkey.
Our country is doomed.
So Kathy, are you saying that Hillary should get the nomination because she has tenacity and keeps going despite all odds? Just like George W. He likes to point out how tenacious he is and how he keeps on going despite what people think.
"Super-delegates are there -- by definition -- to "correct" the initial vote"
Oh, the very essence of modern democracy; let the people vote, then we'll "correct" their vote. Sounding more and more Republican all the time.
Of course Kathy has a lot to loose by a Republican win. I guess in the comfortable remove of France she'll be frowned on if a Dem loses? I admire your personal tenacity in remaining so loyal to Hillary, Kathy, but since you've reminded most of us over the last few months, ad nauseum, that you are no longer living in America, please don't pretend that your interest in a Dem win is as vested as ours. Besides, if Clinton were to win, we've just got another Republican in office. More lobbyist bullshit, more elitism, more wheeling and dealing for the high rollers. Obama's only problem is the bigotry of so many Americans - being half-black and running against a familiar white candidate [the former first lady] put him at a great disadvantage in what might be called 'the hick states'. Had Hillary stepped down months ago, giving these bigoted country Dems a chance to warm to the idea of an inevitable half-black Dem candidate, they would have, I believe, shown support for him over McCain in polls. Hillary is now as she has been for months nothing but a spoiler, driven by motivations that are entirely personal and definitely not in the best interest of the American people - the ones of us who've stayed to defend our principle values.
How can anybody who believes in the democratic process accuse other voters of making their candidate lose?
Yet, Christian, that's exactly what you're stating:
"the only reason he can't close the deal is because of 'democrats' like you".
You don't own my vote. You have your own. One vote per person.
By the way, I'm not a registered Democrat and in no way feel ultimately compelled to vote for a major party candidate.
I come originally from Pennsylvania which was relentlessly hammered with advertising from the Obama campaign -- to borrow Paul's term -- ad nauseum.
As for dismissing states as "hick", I might have used that term myself before traveling more widely and living abroad.
People from what you consider "hick states" have posted recently on this blog and I suggest you re-read some of what they say.
The last thing is that the African American vote is more racially skewed than the white vote and their bias is not regional.
Kathi,
Not sure what you are talking about when you mention "hick states"....that wasn't me whoever you are quoting.
Also, you didnt answer my questions.
Are you still going to be clapping away when she sues over Florida and MI?
You wont support someone who has a very very similar platform to your candidate?
You will continue your "posts" accusing this and that after the party has moved on?
FINALLY, by saying the african american vote is racially based is ignorant. I can't believe you are a teacher and living over seas.
YOU ARE LUMPING PEOPLE TOGETHER WITH STEREOTYPES....THE "BLACK VOTE" IS A DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE AND IDEAS
MAYBE THEY DONT LIKE HILLARY BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION AND WATCHED HILLARY AND BILL PLAY THE RACE CARD AND THEY DIDNT LIKE IT. MAYBE THEY HAVE OTHER REASONS FOR LIKING OBAMA.
It's now August 2008 and it's Obama who is widely accused of playing the race card. Despite her enthusiastic support for Obama, Hillary Clinton cannot convince certain REGISTERED Democrats to vote Obama. Maybe "they have been paying attention and watched" Obama "play the race card and they didn't like it."