Destroy the party? I think it's great that this contest is going to every single state.

I keep seeing threads about how Hillary knows she can't win and is only in this to destroy Obama, or worse yet, the entire party. Threads that say she should drop out. Threads calling on the superdelegates to "end this" by flooding toward Obama.

I just have to say...Hillary is not in this to destroy Obama, or the party. She is in this to win. She may, or she may fall short. We will see.

I really don't get the outrage over allowing the process to play itself out. Whoever is going to win will win. We have a system for a reason. We have a schedule of primaries for a reason. We have a finish-line in the form of a required number of delegates to reach in order to win for a reason. And that is a line neither candidate has yet crossed.

We're involving record numbers of voters. We're drawing new people into the party. I think it's great that the country is focused on the Dem primary at this point. McCain is marginalized and we have the mic.

And I think it's great we're giving all 50 states a say in who the next president might be. (Well. only 48 as of now, but that's another threaad)

It's democracy in action. If it is what we are all about, then I don't see why we should fear it.

have felt that way for a while Im more of a responder and not original poster (at least of anything serious)

Part of it is the timing of the conventions. In the meantime the negative campaigning weakens the candidates. It is partly a problem with the process. Seems like the parties should take a good look at changing it a bit to adapt to current needs.

In the interim, continuing this challenge by going heavily negative puts the entire nation at risk of another Republican president. Maybe we deserve that...

Dean the other day commented on how beneficial it is that the Democratic party is getting acquainted better with the entire country through the primary system.

Obama will be allowed to peak and cruise to victory in November.

The problem is HILLARY and her nasty campaigning. If she would tone it down and stop the lies and smears this would be good for us.

The republicans never liked her, but at the beginning of this process most Democrats were at worst neutral - but by campaigning like a republican she has turned huge numbers of Democrats against her, even many who previously excused her for her IWR vote and flip flopping on NAFTA.

I wish it had been a long, clean campaign rather than the extended flaying it has been.

"I've been in politics since I was in school, and I've never heard the "drop out" theory before." - Charles Rangel

They always go to every single state? Even in years when the contest is settled early - they still go to every single state.

It will mess up the "for democracy" stance they are using to try to prop up her campaign.

x(

But she's not. She's hurting both Obama AND herself.

She is trying to damage our other candidate.

And she's launching filthy attacks against against the nominee.

It's astonishing.

Michigan, for starters.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Any other candidate in any other party would have dropped by now to make sure the party was as solid as possible before the GE. Especially in a year as important as this one.

This is not democracy anymore, its vain narcissism. And it could lead to a McCain presidency that will kill tens of thousands more people.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win when the voting ends. I don't see how you can say either one has already won. It's just not factual. Clinton hasn't lost, and Obama hasn't won. The contest continues. And it is close.

Clinton's "big" win in PA netted her 10 delegates. That still leaves her over 150 behind. She has LOST the PD vote. And that is the ONLY vote that matters. There is no legitimate math in the universe that is going to win her the Pledged Delegates votes. And that is what the system is designed to measure. It is the only scorecard.

There is no such thing as popular vote when there are states who run caucuses. All she is left with is a vague "electability" argument, that is not supported strongly enough in the polls or in actual reality to overturn that vote without MASSIVE fallout.

She has lost. It is the media that unfortunately still continues to drive poor followers like you into believing there is some legitimate path to the nomination for her.

There is not. There is only her misguided ego and the MSM only too eager to feed it.

It has been over for a while, unfortunately for all of us her last name is Clinton or we could be moving on to fighting the GE fight.

All this rosy stuff like "this is democracy in action" and all that is nice, as long as your not also someone who supports the superdelegates vetoing the results of that "democracy in action." Are you?

Democracy in action is nice. It's a pretty saying. But in reality the GOP already has its nominee and the RNC has five times as much money in the banks as the DNC has. It would be one thing if the Democratic candidates were staying positive, focusing on issues, and aggressively going after McCain. But they're not. I'm not interested in which campaign is more negative or dirty than the other. So that you won't miss the point, for the purpose of this discussion I'll just assume they both are. They have turned negative on each other, driving up each others unfavorables, driving wedges in voting blocks, chipping away at their support among independents. All the while McCain sits over there getting a free pass and smiles.

I really don't get all this sudden concern over giving every state a "say." All 50 states haven't had a "say" before, at least not in long memory. Where were all the people complaining every other year when we locked a nominee long before all states had their "say?" Why is this suddenly an issue. I notice that it only seems to be an issue with people who support a candidate who isn't winning. Could that have anything to do with it? Hmm...strokey beard moment. :shrug:

We WERE involving a record number of voters, and now we're in danger of alienating a record number. Political fatigue, being sick of negative campaigning, polarization of the electorate rather than uniting - this is all a recipe for a lot of these formerly "energized" voters to stay home in November.

Just because I think this long drawn out process hurts the party and hurts our chances in novemeber doesn't mean I am directly accusing clinton of willfully trying to do those things. She just wants to win. I get that. In fact its part of the reason I don't support her. It's ok to want to win, but its not ok to be willing to sacrifice every principle, every person, every moral, and be willing to lie cheat and steal in order to do it. Still, I'm not accusing her of purposely trying to destroy Obama or the party - she is wants to win, by any and all means.

...except Hillary's future in the Democratic Party.

duke

You're right that neither party has won a majority of delegates, so Hillary has all the right in the world to run if she wants.

But that's a legalistic argument that closes its eyes to the reality of the damage she's done and is doing.

I'd be saying the same thing about Barack if he were behind by as much as Hillary is behind. The race between these two has opened up a schism in our party, and the longer Hillary runs, the more she deepens that schism. What's more, at every stop she reminds voters of the GOP framing of Obama and reaffirms it. She does it in every speech, her surrogates do it in every TV appearance. How does that help us as a party? Answer: It doesn't. It hurts us.

Democrats have increasingly come to define themselves as the reality-based community, and if you're part of that community, then you have to acknowledge that Hillary is on a no-win course these days.

She can't close the pledged delegate gap, so for Hillary to be the nominee, the candidate with the most pledged delegates will have to be passed over. Do you have any idea what kind of damage that is going to do to our party? Open your eyes and face reality. If Hillary could possibly convince the superdelegates to do that, she would sink her own boat. You'd see a protest vote against her forming in our own party.

And I don't want to minimize the damage Hillary's continued run is doing to Bill's legacy. Bill Clinton was not my favorite president, but he can say he did something that hadn't been done in 30 years -- he balanced the budget. Most people remember the Clinton years as good years, and the Democratic party has benefited from the afterglow. But if Hillary is able to strip the nomination away from the winner of the majority of the delegates, the internal protest vote she generates will amplify the attacks on Clinton's legacy, further weakening the party, driving away young voters, black voters, and driving older voters into the arms of McCain.

It's just so duplicitious to blink, doe-eyed, and say, "Whatever can people mean when they say she's hurting the party? Don't we believe in democracy?" Democracy is just a method for coming to consensus, and the more that Hillary attacks that consensus, the more damage will be done to our party... and to America, for that matter.

they come at the risk, however, of Obama losing the election to McCain.

I suspect an internal fight was necessary for the state faction of the party led by Dean to win out over the beltway and DLC factions.

Obama has a chance to complete the changing of the guard. However, if Obama loses, the party will go right back to the old hierarchy.

and validated both candidates in peoples' minds as possible Presidents. I agree -- we've come this far; let's let all Dems have a chance to participate and support their candidate.

...against the person who has won and destroys the party and its chances in the General, that's great?

When she climbs into bed with Republicans and uses the SAME tactics they use against a fellow Dem thereby splitting the party and driving the primaries into a rediculous spectacle, THAT'S great? 'Cause she wants to 'win' at all costs. Nevermind the party. Nevermind the GE. But Gawdammit little Hillary is gonna get her lollipop no matter WHAT -- or she's gonna destroy us in the process of trying to get it even if it's impossible.

When she has ZERO integrity and can't be trusted to tell the TRUTH, that is great? If Hillary can't seem to get her priorities in any order that doesn't have HER and what SHE wants (even if it's impossible or almost impossible to get) at the top of that list, that IS GREAT? (and you want her to RUN A COUNTRY?!)

Ha.

Hyea. Whatever.

Funny you Hillary supporters didn't think this was so great when REPUBLICANS did it.

Just don't try to tell ME you all are voting for Hillary because you want CHANGE. BWAH! :rofl:

You all must LIKE the way this country has been run for the past eight years. Because Hillary is going to run it the EXACT same way. For the EXACT same reasons. On behalf of the EXACT same people. (clue: it ain't YOU).

That's how she's running her campaign. That's how she'll run the country. And you're lapping it up like cats to cream. Pfft.

With far LESS valid reason, Ralph Nader was ex post facto rat-packed for his "obstinacy" in 2000. And let me take a guess: By some of these same voices. Bingo? Call it a lucky guess!

At this point, I'm solidly for O'Bama, but otherwise "neutral" on this topic. Just observing.

pnorman

the primaries are going to go on. That's a given. Turnout is at record highs because Obama is bring out people that never believed in the process.

I've never called for her to drop out, there is going to come a point where she needs to make the call. It's going to be a painful moment for Clinton and her supporters.

Personally I don't see it ending this Tuesday, but instead on May 20th with a combination of super delegates and pledged delegates putting him over.