No, Hillary should not get out yet.
I'm a Barack Obama supporter. Before that, I was a John Edwards supporter.
And before that, I was a Howard Dean supporter in 2004.
One of the things that frustrated me tremendously in 2004 was that the media declared the race "over" long before John Kerry had a majority of the delegates. In fact, the race was declared "over" before Kerry was even halfway to a majority of the delegates.
I was screaming at the walls during the primaries in 2004 (we didn't have BlueOregon then to vent on) -- arguing to anyone that would listen that the presidential nomination process is about delegates. Not momentum. Not money. Not media.
I went into 2008 fully expecting to see the same sort of ridiculous thing. I even pitched a few DNC aides I know on trying to re-brand the primary season as a "nine-inning game" to emphasize to folks that we shouldn't end it just 20% of the way through. Until one candidate has a majority of the delegates, it's simply not over.
Some 14% of the nation's population lives in states that have yet to vote, and we should hear from them. (From us, my fellow Oregonians.)
Of course, it may also be impossible for Senator Clinton to win a majority. Given the proportional awarding of delegates, and the narrow nature of the race, unless something dramatically bad happens to Senator Obama, it appears certain that she can't catch up.
It's ironic, of course, that many of us who were wary about another short-circuiting of the process were worried that it was the Clinton campaign that would win early, and put pressure on the others to get out early. Certainly, that was the Clinton campaign strategy - win big on Super Tuesday, declare it over.
And while it's great fun to see them hoisted on their own petard, it doesn't change the bottom line: It ain't over until one candidate has a majority of the delegates. At least, until one candidate has a majority of the pledged delegates chosen by voters in primaries and caucuses (because the superdelegates shouldn't overturn the will of the voters. That's a no-brainer.)
Until then, let the games continue and let the voters vote...
And when they do, I'm quite confident that in the end, Senator Obama will prevail.
|
March 31, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (64 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 2:04:38 AM
I think she might be out by then anyway. She's riding a train that has her losing NC and IN on the same day, which combined is bigger than PA. She might justify and hang on with a 10 point win in PA, but if she gets skunked in those two states I think she waves the flag. And Oregon's delegates count, but are once again part of a foregone conclusion.
Posted by: DF | Apr 1, 2008 2:31:00 AM
"Say it ain't so, Joe!"
Sorry but I couldn't resist that one.
I actually think that she will probably drop by then too, but it'd be nice to see her drop the day after our primary. (No offense Hillary supporters)
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Apr 1, 2008 3:26:17 AM
I'm a little worried about what's going to happen on the day you people vote out in Ore-Gone (as Bill pronounces your state). That same day, if I recall correctly, Kentucky votes, and it has virtually the same number of delegates that you do. I saw a poll yesterday that has Hillary up by 28% there. Are you all prepared to support Barack by that same percentage?
As for Hillary getting out, it's a moot point. No matter how many people tell her to get out, she won't get out until after the superdelegates register their views.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 1, 2008 6:16:00 AM
More Sniper-fire resume' stories. This one on NAFTA:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/new-video-hilla.html
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 1, 2008 6:19:16 AM
Sunday-Obama "Hillary should stay in the campaign."
Monday- Clinton "Obama wants to stop the voting."
Hillary loves to play the victimization story. It brings in a few more donors to a bankrupt campaign.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 1, 2008 7:42:38 AM
As for Hillary getting out, it's a moot point.
Yeah and a major fund raising tool. Barack keeps saying that "no one should call for her to get out", "she's a tenacious campaigner", and so on, but every time anyone anywhere in the world expresses concern for the damage that may be done to the party, she sends out a fundraising email stridently proclaiming that "Obama is trying to disenfranchise the voters of XXXX", so that she can appear to be unfairly picked upon. Her surrogates even claim a conspiracy between Dean and Obama, which is pretty ridiculous on the face of it.
This whole little bit of kabuki theater payed out again yesterday.
So it's all good for the Al-Clinton Martyr's Brigade.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 1, 2008 7:43:02 AM
Leave it to Kari who, among the many highly-educated insiders who support Sen. Obama, is smart enough to know that trying to push Hillary out of the race has been backfiring horribly. Kari, PLEASE start reading your Obama surrogate campaign talking points and follow along. You're supposed to follow Sen. Leahy's lead and shove her out while Sen.Obama takes the high road. ; )
Seriously, what are you guys worried about? Sen. Obama had a pretty nice lead here (according to every public poll and reputable pundit) even before he and President Clinton kicked off the campaign in Oregon. Are you worried Oregonians won't proceed with the coronation if we have an issue-based campaign in this state?
Posted by: Robert G. Gourley | Apr 1, 2008 8:05:06 AM
Are you worried Oregonians won't proceed with the coronation if we have an issue-based campaign in this state?
It's been a long time since I've seen such a pleasing campaign, and I'm in no hurry to see it end. But then I often find myself in a position like this with my colleagues, which just as often puts them at a disadvantage - its lots better to be pleased than pissed.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Apr 1, 2008 8:15:44 AM
Josh,
There are no published polls that show Obama in the lead in Oregon. Do you have some at hand that you can post? While I expect Obama to win here based on personal conversations and an understanding of the state, I have seen no hard data to back up my gut.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Apr 1, 2008 8:27:41 AM
Are you worried Oregonians won't proceed with the coronation if we have an issue-based campaign in this state?
Uh, Josh, have you been paying attention to Hillary's campaign?
Issue-based? C'mon, dude, that's just silly.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 8:33:26 AM
"trying to push Hillary out of the race has been backfiring horribly."
Evidenced by what? His return to outside-the-margin national polling? His cutting of her lead in PA in half, or maintenance of his NC lead? Perhaps it's the additional superdelegates (cf Klobuchar) declaring for Obama this week. Or maybe the aides to CLINTON saying yesterday that they will urge her to drop out if she doesn't win IN (and of course PA)?
I'd like to have it backfire me on that way, I'd think.
Posted by: Sadie | Apr 1, 2008 8:59:07 AM
When the numbers just aren't on your side and reality doesn't support your concept of what is, then sometimes others have to intervene to help you see the bigger picture. The reality is that if Hillary were not a Clinton, the media and everybody in the party would be a lot harder on her.
That said, like Kari, I'm not troubled by her staying in. For all I care, she can keep going all the way until Denver and fight it out on the convention floor. She's kind of entertaining to watch, in the same way a drunken relative is amusing at a wedding as they make a complete ass of themselves - causing the whole family to forever remember that aunt Lulu is the fool of the bunch that nobody should ever take seriously again.
I think it will ultimately help our party to publicly allow the Clintons to play themselves out and be rejected fair and square by the entire collection of American Democrats. In my opinion, we are showing those undecided Independents and convincible Republicans that unlike the Republican Party, the Dems don't judge their candidates' abilities just by their name. Having the middle name, Hussein, is just not scary. Sharing a last name with a former President doesn't guarantee you a place on the ticket. You have to win us over with your character and platform - if you can't do that eventually no matter how hard you fight or how many lies you tell, eventually it will become impossible for you to continue to deny that you've lost.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 1, 2008 9:18:46 AM
Seriously, what are you guys worried about?
In many cases it is not so much the guys are worried as a case of Hillary and her supporters pushing their anti-Hillary buttons. As one example, any time someone insults another's intelligence - Tuzla, "explaining" her war on Iraq vote, etc. - there is a good chance of a visceral reaction.
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Apr 1, 2008 9:19:03 AM
She's lucky Al Gore is not in the race. Then she'd be in third instead of a long shot second place.
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | Apr 1, 2008 9:21:35 AM
I agree, Kari, that the primaries should go to their end. To force Clinton out would send the message that Obama had to win through backroom deals while, as we all know, she is the one trying to win that way. Obama can win fairly. Knock on wood, he is only 5 points behind her now in PA, and he will win Oregon, SD, NC, and Montana. If Obama has a majority in delegates, popular vote, and number of states won, the superdelegates will coalesce around him after the primaries to put him over the top. And if FL and MI are not seated, I would think the number of their delegates would be deducted from the total so that he would not have to meet a 2025 number anyway. I am optimistic except that we don't know what dirty moves are going to come out of the Clinton camp in the meanwhile. That is the only thing that scares me.
Posted by: Sandy | Apr 1, 2008 9:42:07 AM
What matters is that people stop pretending that Hillary has a chance to win. She doesn't. We've got 8 states left. She only has a chance to win 3 of them. Pennsylvania isn't going to decide anything. It's ridiculous for people to pretend it matters. They said she had to win Texas and Ohio or it was over. Well she didn't win Texas. If we keep letting her pretend she has a chance, she'll just keep throwing dirt until something sticks. It's funny that she's the won that has the worst scandal, lying about Bosnia and Ireland, and yet she keeps saying a scandal might take out Obama. Time for people to face reality. She lost. It's over.
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 1, 2008 9:44:10 AM
I find all the blather about "Clinton surrogates" and "Obama surrogates" alternately nauseating and amusing. What the devil is a "surrogate"? Someone like a professional campaign manager (Penn, Axelrod) delivering a carefully crafted message to the press? Or someone--probably another elected official or policy advisor--speaking off-the-cuff and possibly making a fool of himself/herself (Ferraro, WJ Clinton, Samantha Power)?
It seems to me that supporters of BOTH candidates are doing a lot of opportunistic picking and choosing. Whenever a supporter of candidate X makes an obnoxious comment about candidate Y, candidate Y's supporters jump out in unison and cry out, "Your sleazy surrogate is attacking my candidate again."
Nobody's wearing any halos here, folks.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 1, 2008 9:48:00 AM
Alternet has two related articles: The Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race and Anti-War Campaigners Have to Change Electoral Tactics
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 1, 2008 9:53:26 AM
Seriously, what are you guys worried about? Sen. Obama had a pretty nice lead here (according to every public poll and reputable pundit)
I'm with John Calhoun on this one. Where's the poll?
As far as I know, the last polling done in Oregon was by Riley Research, and it ended on 1/29/08 according to Pollster.com showing Clinton ahead at the time.
Now we all Heart Riley as the Gold Standard of accuracy, but Pollster hasn't even put their customary aggregate trend line into the Oregon graph for lack of data.
************
So color me bemused rather than worried.
Still, makes for a great fundraiser email, and a couple of barely clever screeds from Marie Cocco rehashing the meme.
Whatever works I guess.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 1, 2008 9:56:30 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-bennetts9mar09,0,2140085.story
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 1, 2008 10:11:17 AM
Here's the Pollster.com aggregation of all past polling for the Oregon presidential primary. It ain't much.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 1, 2008 10:29:34 AM
I have seen the light Katy. Since Carl Bernstein and the South Park guys and some Republican 527s, and the towering intellect of Chris Mathews have been picking on your candidate, it naturally follows that all men who oppose her are misogynists.
Ms. Morgan's little screed was at least as fact free and slanted as anything ever dreamed up by R. Emmet Tyrell of the American Spectator (once the point man for Scaife's Arkansas Project and now Clinton's new BFF).
Just for fun try this. Reverse the use of the words "men" and "women" in her essay and then come back and tell me that it's not one of the worst cases of ersatz victimology you've ever read.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Apr 1, 2008 10:35:25 AM
Once again someone has made a snide and unwarranted aside about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Irish peace process.
I’m surprised at the lengths that the Obama supporters are going to in order to score rhetorical points. Aligning yourselves with people like David Trimble --the person who made the comment to the effect that all Mrs. Clinton did was “have tea” with women --would seem to be a bad fit for all you “progressives.”
Mrs. Clinton in fact played a vital role in, first, organizing and speaking at the Women in Democracy conference and later in supporting the work of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition. These groups represented the nonsectarian center in Northern Ireland that was an essential part of forcing the extremists (like Trimble) to the bargaining table.
For every sexist comment like Trimble’s there are dozens from every other key player, including George Mitchell, Mo Mowlam and Bertie Ahern. In fact, here’s a comment on the subject from Mr. Ahern only a few weeks ago during his visit to Washington:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA_LBieb8PQ
Many more details of Senator Clinton’s work with the women of Northern Ireland can be found here:
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=214
It’s work like this that makes me more convinced than ever that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to effectively move a truly progressive agenda here and abroad.
John
Posted by: littlevoice | Apr 1, 2008 10:36:22 AM
Are you worried Oregonians won't proceed with the coronation if we have an issue-based campaign in this state?
Haven't 42 states already voted? The outcome at this point is a flat out win, hardly a coronation. Get over it.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 1, 2008 10:41:04 AM
I don't think she should withdraw yet either. I'm confident that Obama will win in the end and in the meantime I just don't see the harm in letting the process run it's course. That's admittedly a new perspective for me... having previously wanted her to give up. But the more I think about it the more I think that continuing will only leave Obama better situated and it deprives McCain of the limelight.
Posted by: Miles | Apr 1, 2008 10:57:45 AM
There's a reason that conventional wisdom says it's better to avoid a fiercely contested primary so that you can prepare for the general election. CW is often wrong, as it may be here, but not always.
Reasons to worry:
1. Fundraising. Yes, Obama is a juggernaut, but how much will he spend through June? Another $100 million? $150 million? Is anyone really claiming that it's better for him to spend that money fighting Hillary instead of fighting McCain?
2. Divided party. The longer a campaign goes on -- any campaign -- the more entrenched each side becomes. While we all start out saying we'll support the eventual nominee, both sides are permanently alienating people on the other side. Maybe that number will be small, but it grows each day this fight continues. Some of the losing voters will defect to McCain.
3. Voter fatigue. Sure, this contest keeps the Democrats in the news. But we've pretty much exhausted the policy issues, now we're going through the personal issues. There ain't a whole lot to fill the next two months, and voters could tire of the whole thing.
4. Oppo research. I don't buy into the idea that Clinton will come up with anything that McCain doesn't already have. But the reality is that if McCain launches an attack, it can be dismissed as partisan mudslinging. But if McCain can cite Clinton's attacks, it's more powerful.
5. Hillary can win. Those of you saying she has no path to the nomination are blind. Her path is quite clear: win PA, keep the rest close, and argue that her wins in big, blue states make her the stronger general election candidate. All through this thing I've been hearing predictions about the superdelegates (they'll start moving after Super Tuesday, they'll start moving after Texas/Ohio, they'll start moving after PA). Guess what? Clinton still leads by roughly 30 SDs. I put her odds of winning at between 10-15%, but make no mistake, she can win. And if so, that will tear the Democratic party apart.
Given all of this, there is a high likelihood that Obama will be (has already been?) weakened in the general election by this protracted fight. The question isn't whether Hillary should be "pushed" out. It's whether she should think hard about the future of the party, and of the country, and decide on her own that pulling out is better for both.
Posted by: Viki | Apr 1, 2008 10:57:58 AM
[Entire copyrighted article cut-and-pasted... deleted. -editor.]
Posted by: Terri | Apr 1, 2008 11:00:56 AM
I remember reading something about how Obama would have to cut down his available cash flow considerably when officially in the race against John McCain, because of some agreement they made about limits on using public funds for the presidential campaign. Isn't this a good enough reason why "Hillary should stay in the campaign"? As long as the contest is between them, he can draw from the bigger pot of the primary campaign.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 1, 2008 11:12:43 AM
No, Terri. Obama suggested long ago that the two campaigns could discuss an arrangement where they would return to the public financing system that's financed every single general election campaign since the system was created.
But there's no agreement yet.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 11:29:34 AM
Also, McCain is claiming he's out, but is already in violation of his agreement and by law cannot spend another dime until September.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 11:35:13 AM
5. Hillary can win. Those of you saying she has no path to the nomination are blind. Her path is quite clear: win PA, keep the rest close, and argue that her wins in big, blue states make her the stronger general election candidate. All through this thing I've been hearing predictions about the superdelegates (they'll start moving after Super Tuesday, they'll start moving after Texas/Ohio, they'll start moving after PA). Guess what? Clinton still leads by roughly 30 SDs.
That's not a path, that's a pipe dream. Under what scenario will "I won a couple of big states Democrats won't lose no matter who is running" be an effective lever against pledged delegates and popular vote?
Clinton may lead by 30 SDs, but she's well behind overall, and there are only a couple of hundred supers left. For her to stop Obama, she needs about 80% of the remaining. Have ANY superdelegates declared for Hillary since March 4th? I don't think so.
There is no rational scenario that leads to a Clinton victory at the convention, failing the intentional destruction of Obama's campaign. Winning PA by less than 10 points (and holy hell, Rasmussem has him within five) will totally negate any momentum. It's simply too little, too late--which is why for everyone else in this situation who isn't on a mad power trip, they quit.
Posted by: Garrett | Apr 1, 2008 11:52:30 AM
For every sexist comment like Trimble’s there are dozens from every other key player
Like when she was dodging sniper fire? I'm plenty tired of her playing the victim because she's a rich white ex first lady that had to deal with a lot of personal attacks from Newt Gingrich and his mom. She's running against an African American man. Who do you think has had it worse in their life?
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 1, 2008 12:08:04 PM
Divided party. The longer a campaign goes on -- any campaign -- the more entrenched each side becomes. While we all start out saying we'll support the eventual nominee, both sides are permanently alienating people on the other side.
Breaking news!! The Democratic Party has been divided for generations. The Dixiecrats were a split, so were the Reagan Democrats and their follow-ons who voted for Bush in 2000, there are the DLC in one camp and the Progressive Democrats in the other, etc. Now there are the Clinton Democrats who have decided it is Hillary or no one or McCain and, apparently to a lesser extent, Obama Democrats who will have a hard time voting for Hillary. Then there are the small-d democrats who took a hike and re-registered as NAVs or independents or other party affiliations.
Posted by: Viki | Apr 1, 2008 12:22:36 PM
To editor.
I posted article form different media, but I did provide source including name of the author, name of the source, date and link to the original text.
You should check it more carefully before delete it. (I could think that you are deleting pro-Hillary information)
Thank you.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_men_try_to_shove_hillary_o.html
Posted by: Miles | Apr 1, 2008 1:19:37 PM
Under what scenario will "I won a couple of big states Democrats won't lose no matter who is running"
Are you putting Ohio in that category?
My one big remaining concern about Obama is his inability to put Clinton away. It was one thing early on, when he was the underdog. But for 8 weeks now he's been the leader. Why did he lose Ohio? Why did he lose the popular vote in Texas? Why is he still behind in Pennsylvania? Voters in OH and TX had a lot of focused time to look at the candidates, and he couldn't convince a majority of Democrats to vote for him. Maybe he'll still pull it out in PA, but what if he doesn't?
Hi inability to put her away will give some SuperDs pause. Again, he's the overwhelming favorite at this point, but stranger things have happened this year.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 1:43:09 PM
"Are you putting Ohio in that category?"
Yes. McCain cannot win that state whoring for NAFTA. Obama failed to seal the deal in Ohio, largely IMO over the dirty trick Clinton hit him with on NAFTA before that primary. But the OGOP is heading towards shambles, and their Pres candidate's message is about as bad as you could expect for that state.
I dunno, I think an insurmountable lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates pretty much points one to the truth that he HAS put her away. She just won't accept it.
Why is he still behind in PA? You mean after cutting her lead by 75% in two weeks?
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 1, 2008 1:47:12 PM
Viki--the issue is not what you posted but the cut and paste job. I got reprimanded for that here once myself. Next time provide a short excerpt and use HTML tags to provide the link. Instructions for doing so are given just below the box where you write your comments. :-)
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 1, 2008 1:50:27 PM
Just wondering, if torridjoe dropped his frequent calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out, how much would the overall "drop out Hillary" traffic on Blue Oregon be affected? Probably about a 50% drop, I'd guess :-)
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 2:11:49 PM
"if torridjoe dropped his frequent calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out, how much would the overall "drop out Hillary" traffic on Blue Oregon be affected? Probably about a 50% drop, I'd guess :-)"
And the drop in rationale? Zero percent.
If there weren't a cadre of constant new commenters spouting the same erroneous figures and misapprehension of the facts, it could have been said once and been done with. Failure to grasp simple math has necessitated repetition.
Posted by: bill Bodden | Apr 1, 2008 2:25:31 PM
The Telegraph (UK) on Hillary and Northern Ireland: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims
The Washington Post Fact Checker: Clinton and Northern Ireland
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 1, 2008 2:31:20 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 2:11:49 PM
Still on your one-man Crusade to run roughshod over every single principle in Dale Carnegie's classic How to Win Friends and Influence People, eh?
Damn those new commenters... who do they think they are coming here and voicing opinions contrary to yours???
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 1, 2008 3:04:29 PM
I can understand how Kevin is confused, but delegate counts and the laws of probability are not particularly subject to opinion. For instance, it is not an opinion that Clinton won Texas. It is a misstatement of fact.
Posted by: Miles | Apr 1, 2008 3:35:16 PM
I think an insurmountable lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates pretty much points one to the truth that he HAS put her away.
Doesn't it bother you just the tiniest bit, though, that he lost the popular vote in TX and OH? And that his "goal" for PA isn't to win, it's just to keep it relatively close? He could have ENDED this thing had he won the popular vote in TX and OH, and he still can end it if he wins in PA. Why leave it up to Hillary to decide, why not just force the decision on her by beating her in PA? And if he can't, what does that say about his overall strength?
Posted by: DF | Apr 1, 2008 4:57:38 PM
Doesn't it bother you just the tiniest bit, though, that he lost the popular vote in TX and OH?
Not in the way you are referring to considering NAFTA-gate and Limbaugh Democrats.
Doesn't it bother Clinton supporters that your candidate has to use the SC 'illegitimate black baby' type stuff to eek out wins in places she had 20 point leads just a couple of weeks prior? Doesn't it make you mad that she has shown a pattern of repeated lying to make herself look better (or even stay in the race)?
Posted by: Katy | Apr 1, 2008 5:13:50 PM
As a Clinton supporter, this type of thing bothers me a lot:
http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18614
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 1, 2008 5:55:21 PM
Josh Kardon,
Read this:
MR. DOOCY: Would you be "the comeback senator"? Would you be "the comeback gal"? Have you thought about that yet?SEN. CLINTON: I'm going to leave that to you. You all have a great way with a turn of phrase. But what I'm going to do is to just keep working hard every day, knocking on doors, making phone calls, talking to people.
I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination. And I believe that I will get the nomination and that I will be the next president.
That is Hillary on December 17, 2007 on Fox and Friends. Super Tuesday is the "end of the campaign." Note how NO super delegates were involved in her plan.
This shows how Hillary had the primary schedule custom-made for her (thanks to Harold Ickes) - stacked to favor her in a quasi-national primary where she expected to clinch the nomination. That was her plan.
HILLARY PLANNED that NO STATES after Super Tuesday were going to need to vote in the primary. AND NOW FOR HER TO COME OUT AND LIE!!!!!! ABOUT IT - AND SCREAM "VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT" - it makes me want to VOMIT. It is such a bald-faced, deceitful, conniving, evil lie.
Did you hear me, Josh? Hillary's lies and accusations ("Obama wants to disenfranchise voters") make me want to vomit.
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 1, 2008 5:59:52 PM
The Democrats in Ohio and Texas are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. Unless HIllary is running as a Republican against Obama as the Democrat, using "the winner of the popular vote in the Ohio primary" as a talking point is just a plain stupid - really intentionally deceitful - argument to make.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 1, 2008 6:27:33 PM
Wow anonymous you need to calm yourself...you are having a freak out. My 2 year old niece has these when she doesn't get what she wants too.
Are you saying that Hillary Clinton has the audacity to keep campaigning AFTER February 5th!!!!!!!!??????
I'm just trying to use as many exclamation points as you did but my finger got tired.
I'm feeling much like I did when the Bush campaign told my candidate, Al Gore, to "just drop out of the race, there's no way you can win." It feels pretty crappy to have my fellow democrats do that - have you forgotten how that feels? It was a mere 8 years ago.
And to be clear, the voters in Michigan and Florida have been disenfranchised. Their vote won't count this time. I think it sucks. I would hope I would still think it sucks if I was an Obama supporter (which I will be if he wins the primary) because I'm a democrat and I believe in everyone's right to vote.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: DF | Apr 1, 2008 12:11:09 AM
I've seen analysis that suggests it is actually the day of our primary that Obama finally captures the majority of pledged delegates.
Then we can all stop complaining about how Oregon's primary doesn't ever matter.