FORUMS > General Discussion Forum Rules

I'm listening to NPR right now, and they're talking about Hillary Clinton's campaign. In particular, they're making a point about how even her own supporters are telling her that it's time to withdraw, but she won't. Some of supporters are starting to throw their support behind Obama. I'm just curious to hear what you guys have to say about this. I even want to know what those of you outside the US have to say about this.

I started out cheering for Hillary Clinton, but her obstinance about not facing up to reality and putting the party first has really pissed me off. She is coming off as a power hungry egotist who wants to beat Obama more than McCain.

If she really cared about the Democrats winning in November she would do the graceful and noble thing and throw her support 100% behind Barack Obama and start mending the rift that has developed.

That is my rant for the day.

I agree...in the beginning, I was supporting John Edwards. When he dropped out of the race, I started looking at the remaining 2 candidates. What I saw coming from Hillary was disgusting. Typical mud-slinging that only serves to bring the party down in the end.

A competitive campaign has lead to incredible interest where normally there is little. 300,000 new democrats in Pennsylvania. A campaign office opened in Guam for the first time EVER. The Democratic party in Wyoming has grown by 300%. This illusion of competitiveness has done great things for the party.

But now registration deadlines and the usefulness of an illusion of competitiveness have passed. It is my opinion that whether she stays or goes is irrelevant at this point. She will most likely have big wins in WV, KY, and PR. But it wont do her a lick of good.

Well i seen Hillary as power hungry egotist, long before the election race. This was something she did not have planes for while in the White House. This may well be her last chance to achieve, her goal of being the first Mrs President.

Hillary first not the party. The gay movment would not move forward at all, with her in the top job, as this would not help Hillery. The gay vote may.

She should hold on to some dignity, and let go off her ego, and her balls, and step down.

Actually, I continue to believe that she should stay in the race for several reasons, even though I am completely convinced that she will not win the nomination.

1. Showing that the Democratic Party is a true testament to democracy by allowing all states their chance to vote. There are only five states and one territory left to vote, and only one month more of this primary campaign. I think it would be a travesty if we didn't, at this point, allow the race to go on and give all Democrats in all states a say in this election. This is a great thing for the party to showcase to the country.

2. It doesn't allow McCain the opportunity to get his name out there in a big way. As the race continues, the media continues to focus almost entirely on the Democrats. This is a good thing for the party, as it creates an enormous amount of name recognition. Any negative name recognition can be fixed after June, but at least the nominee will be known to everyone.

3. The potential embarrassment Obama would face if Clinton dropped out and ended up winning in one of the remaining primary states anyway. This has happened before, to Bill Clinton in 1992 in fact. After his main rival--Sen. Tsongas--backed out of the race, Clinton was expected to cruise to victory; however, he ended up losing to a lesser rival--Gov. Brown of California--in Connecticut. It was a huge embarrassment. Clinton's continued presence in the campaign ensures that Obama will not be embarrassed in the way that McCain is being embarrassed right now, since voters in Republican primaries continue to register some major numbers for candidates like Huckabee, even though he dropped out.

I think that the gnashing of teeth on the part of Democrats is incredibly overstated and we in the party all just need to calm down a bit. There was an excellent piece in Glenn Greenwald's column from Salon.com about how Democrats need to stop worrying so much about the media echo chamber that is being created by right wingers who have no honest intentions of helping out the Democratic party.

I will always support Hillary, always did and continue to do so. She wants to keep going, she is within her right to do it. WV will be a big win for her, she wants to end on a higher note than Tuesday. Hillary has a done a lot of good for the party, like being instrumental in getting the last Democrat elected president. I believe she keeps running because she still believes she will win and the party has turned its back on her. After being set up by the media and the party since 04 as the presumptive Democratic Nominee, that is a lot to give up on. I think she is sympathic in that regard, this was suppose to be her history making moment and its slipped away. You can all make those comments about entitlement but a nomination battle is not the election, there is more going on than just party members voting.

My only concern is for her legacy than anything else, because of how twisted and cruel Obama supporters and liberal grassroots have become towards her. When I have to read comments that compare her to Hilter, call her a beast, a racist, and whatever words equal a demon; then I worry about her. I probably shouldn't, Hillary does have an ability to fight back and knock down those trying to beat her. No one took her seriously back in AK and now she is running for President, and coming so very close to getting there. She is a great democrat, no matter what the idiots say, she is the one that has been fighting for Democratic ideals like universal healthcare a lot longer than Obama. I just have a hard time stomaching the ideas of validating those people by voting for Obama.

I have to laugh though when all these people bitch about mud slinging, people must have no idea of political history and should stop being such babies. She drew hard constrasts and pointed out his flaws, I guess I can expect a similar bitching when McCain does it. I guess thats another reason why I like Hillary, she doesn't make politics to be more than what it is. It's hard, tough, dirty and winning is all that matters.

Chewey, those are some interesting contrarian ideas. I was just going to agree that she should drop out now, but I'm going to have to reconsider.

I will say that initially I preferred her to Obama because of her concrete ideas about certain policies, particularly health care. But since then, she has lost a lot of my support. The gas-tax holiday looks like foolish pandering to me.

I am kind of hoping that she does not become the candidate for VP (if she is even interested in it).

I don't believe Hillary has done any major damage to the party or to Obama , and he'd better be prepared for an onslaught in the general election. It's true there is basically no way she can win, but she has the right to continue on. It is amazing how the right and the left have demonized her, though the right has softened a bit (probably for cynical reasons since they know Obama will be the nominee). There is an article in the Nation which is particularly creepy about how feminists are torn over Clinton. It is biased and one sided.

I'm no longer a Clinton supporter -- the sniper fire thing made me withdraw my support -- but she is entitled to press on until it's over. And she's right that under a "winner take all" approach, she'd likely be the nominee. Hillary is winning in Democrat states.

Anyway, people were furious at Al Gore for giving up too soon, so she probably figures she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Why not try to win until it is absolutely clear she has lost?

I'm not even a Hillary supporter, but I don't think she should drop out at all. It's WAY too close, there are still several states to vote, and Obama may have a few more "smoking guns" hiding in his closet. If he does, you can be sure that the Hillary camp will be dragging them out for all to see, and in true Clinton fashion the timing will surely be impeccable. It's gonna be a NASTY general election. Fasten your seat belts!

I think Jon Steward said it best when Obama was on the Daily Show last week. He asked Obama:

"Are you worried that come January, during your inauguration while you're being sworn in, Hilary will STILL be campaigning?" lol.

Barack Obama will not win the general election if he's nominated. He doesn't have a chance with the middle class. He basically said that people cling to Jesus because they're bitter, not because they genuinely love him.

MaximForLife saidBarack Obama will [i]not

win the general election if he's nominated. He doesn't have a chance with the middle class. He basically said that people cling to Jesus because they're bitter, not because they genuinely love him.[/i]



I totally agree, and I think this is exactly why Hillary is staying in the race because the bottom-line is that she probably has a better chance beating McCain than Obama does. I don't think Obama can win when push comes to shove. Hillary on the other hand probably has a shot.

MaximForLife saidBarack Obama will not win the general election if he's nominated. He doesn't have a chance with the middle class. He basically said that people cling to Jesus because they're bitter, not because they genuinely love him.

I don't really think I believe that. One benefit of Clinton's campaign is that it's forced him to focus his main message more on substantials instead of just the message of change that resonated so well with the upper and educated crusts. I think Obama's got a lot of middle class appeal, and once Clinton throws her support behind him--and she will--he'll pick up a lot more of those middle and working class voters.

MaximForLife saidBarack Obama will not win the general election if he's nominated. He doesn't have a chance with the middle class. He basically said that people cling to Jesus because they're bitter, not because they genuinely love him.

Polling suggests otherwise. Clinton and Obama have very different, but equal electability.

And exit polling shows that the middle class is not a problem for Obama but the lower class. But even in the most recent contests we can see that he was competitive with people of all income levels.

I don't think the polls mean crap. If they did, John Kerry (shutter to think) would be our President.

The dems have a huge task ahead of them to unite the party, and it remains to be seen if this will be enough to take back The White House. I think McCain will prove a far more formidable candidate this fall than a lot of people give him credit for.

The "Ice Queen" is Melting thank God!!!!!!!!!!!

darkeyedresolve said
My only concern is for her legacy than anything else, because of how twisted and cruel Obama supporters and liberal grassroots have become towards her. When I have to read comments that compare her to Hilter, call her a beast, a racist, and whatever words equal a demon; then I worry about her.

Yeah, because no Clinton supporters have ever done anything like that to Obama. I think focusing on what a small group on either side does gives them more attention than they should be getting.


As for if should drop out, I think that is her choice and others really shouldn't try to make it for her. I am curious her motivation is since she lost months ago, but that is just morbid curiosity.

It is time for HRC to drop out of the race. When someone puts $6.4 million into her own campaign, as she has had to do within the past month, that is a clear indication that her support is dwindling. Too much is at stake (i.e. likely Supreme Court nominations) in November's General Election to gamble with the possibility of a continued and prolonged challenge and what its impact might have in November.

An old Finnish proverb says that "Stubbornness is a virtue, pigheadedness a vice". HRC and Bill, as I see it, simply are being pigheaded and are not dealing with reality. The Clinton era is over and it's time to move on and the sooner this reality is clear to the Clintons the better it will be for the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole.

CuriousJockAZ saidI don't think the polls mean crap. If they did, John Kerry (shutter to think) would be our President.

Without polling there is no other metric by which we can judge a candidates electability. Polling is also different than it was in 2004. Then Zogby was considered the gold standard. Today it is almost admired for its immense suckage. So, barring polls such statements are just fluff.

MaximForLife saidBarack Obama will not win the general election if he's nominated. He doesn't have a chance with the middle class. He basically said that people cling to Jesus because they're bitter, not because they genuinely love him.

I think most of America's working class is smarter than you think and can figure out what Barack meant when he made that statement. The numbers in Indiana show that he did well enough with working class white voters to keep the sizable win that she'd expected to have from happening.

Hannity, Limbaugh, and others are now trying to get everyone to say that "Eve was weak" (I'm talking about their new reverse psychology battle cry to tell everyone that Barack is weak so vote for him) because they see Barack as a threat and will do anything to knock him down.

Hillary only hurts herself by staying in. She's had several years of campaining for the presidency, yet now her campaign is in debt and she hasn't sealed the nomination herself. Her fighting has helped swing voters who are part of the working middle class, like me, study and recognize that Barack is the best Presidential candidate that we have for this election cycle. She's shown just how power hungry she is and I don't like it.

I wish she would drop out, but if she stays in until June 15, as has been stated, then whatever. What doesn't kill Barack has only made him stronger. So let her stay in so she can continue to sharpen him and make him a better candidate.

I'll stay tuned to what is being said on The Huffington Post, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, MSNBC, Crooks And Liars, and Think Progress. Barack has the numbers in favor of him, and I don't think that the electoral college is made up of a bunch of working middle class whites. Aren't they more the "elite" types?

MunchingZombie said[quote][cite]MaximForLife said[/cite]Barack Obama will not win the general election if he's nominated. He doesn't have a chance with the middle class. He basically said that people cling to Jesus because they're bitter, not because they genuinely love him.

Polling suggests otherwise. Clinton and Obama have very different, but equal electability.

And exit polling shows that the middle class is not a problem for Obama but the lower class. But even in the most recent contests we can see that he was competitive with people of all income levels. [/quote]

Polls now are interesting, but not a great indicator of how things will turn out in November.

It will be interesting to see how "dirty" the campaign will get between McCain and Obama. McCain does not seem to like negative ads and Obama tries to come across as a new type of politician. Maybe we will actually have a couple of candidates that have a sheen of common decency (although I am not holding my breath on that one).

I'm Canadian but i'm obsessed with this right now.

I love the Clinton's but I think for the good of the democratic party she should step aside and let Obama move forward, by June 1st at the latest. This has to be causing division within the party when all democrats should be uniting.

I was an early Hillary supporter, but after some research into her background, Obama became my first choice. I respect her, but wish she would simply back out. She's hurting the party in general by staying in the race. The very notion of her continuing even though she has no chance of catching Obama in the delegate race, suggests to me a kind of snug elitism. As if she thinks she could sway the superdelegates dispite what voters have decided so far. If she were to do that, it could damage the faith many new Democratic voters have in the political process.

Wysiwyg60 said

Polls now are interesting, but not a great indicator of how things will turn out in November.

It will be interesting to see how "dirty" the campaign will get between McCain and Obama. McCain does not seem to like negative ads and Obama tries to come across as a new type of politician. Maybe we will actually have a couple of candidates that have a sheen of common decency (although I am not holding my breath on that one).

What McCain does is not really the problem. Don't expect this election to be nice, however, because 527s are going to come out full force with some really nasty attack ads this season. McCain's going to feign offense, but not really do a damn thing to stop right-wing 527s from slandering Obama with racist, Islamophobic remarks (you know they're going to try and convince people he's Muslim, because religious bigotry is alive and well in this country).

Wysiwyg60 saidPolls now are interesting, but not a great indicator of how things will turn out in November.

Oh ya, the dynamics of the race are completely different now than they will be in November. As polling in states like NC showed, the dynamics of a race can change dramatically over a weekend. But I think my statement holds, that without polling we have no reasonable metric to discern electability.

MunchingZombie, I sometimes wish for the good old days before accurate polls, when you went into an election not having any idea who was going to win! Mind you some of those elections were corrupted (e.g. 1876 Hayes vs. Tilden).

I will be more interested to see how many eligible voters will vote in November. Hopefully it will be one of the highest in years.

It is frightening to think that the most powerful democracy in the world gets less than 60% of its' voters to participate in a presidential election.

I am not bragging, but I don't think I have ever missed an election at any level (Federal, Provincial, Municipal) since I was 18. I always thought it was my civic duty.

I voted for Obama in Louisiana's primary but I still don't think Hillary should just quit.

I don't think its a bad thing that the major political discussion right now is between two democrats, because it has done nothing but get those democratic principles out there, under major scrutiny, so whoever wins the nomination will have already been "vetted" so to speak.

The process is working itself out. It was designed this way.

I think the call for Hillary to drop out is mostly based on the media wanting to feel like their back in control of how people choose. They want to tell us who to vote for. It seems to be the first time that the media hasn't been successful in selecting the options for us and they're stamping their feet like petulant children who aren't getting their way.

This is only my third presidential election, but its the first time I'll be going to the polls wanting to vote FOR someone as opposed to just voting against someone.

why the hell should she quit? I want a god damn fighter to lead my country. Every day she further solidifies my support. kick ass girl!! don't take no for an answer!

genqb saidwhy the hell should she quit? I want a god damn fighter to lead my country. Every day she further solidifies my support. kick ass girl!! don't take no for an answer!

She has lost. It is over. There is no fight. If you think otherwise I would love to hear you explain the scenerio in which she wins the Democratic nomination that doesn't sound like a fairytale.

Quitting would be in the best interests of the DNC. But she won't quit until she has exhausted her options for paying off campaign debts. Yes, there's ego involved, but I'm guessing this is more of a financial move. Obama could always pay down that debt for her...

I love politics. Waiting for the results from Lake County, IN was so intense. Could they have been any slower in getting those results out? However I did pass the time in forums with my fellow Obama supporters.

Clinton has this ability to really piss we off every time she opens her mouth. She should have left the race along time ago but she is just too stubborn to realize her time is up. She is losing supporters, her campaign strategy was flawed from the very beginning and because of her current debt situation she is unable to correct the problem.

Clinton's persistence in the race is dividing the democratic party but if she steps aside and allows Obama to move forward I really think we could really win against McCain in November. Many say that Obama doesn't have the support in the rural blue collar areas but if Hilary just stops this madness of trying to bring about a wish fullfilment of all those women who invested their hopes in her to see a woman president and just accept that what she is doing a dis-service to her party's chances of winning in November, I think Obama would get the support of these blue collar areas. If they are really democrates they would support him.

Additionally if Hilary really loves her party as much as she says she does then when she drops out, which is no longer a question of if but when, she should focus her time on trying to heal the divide among party members so we can really ensure a win against McCain. Doing that would speak more to her character than her entire campaign ever did and who knows she could even come back and run for presidency again in a better position.

And all this talk about MI and Fl's votes being accepted. WTF? They all agreed not to count them because they clearly broke the rules, including Ms. In-denial herself. Hilary reallys needs to stop looking for a miracle and just accept defeat. I know her supporters won't hate her if she ends her campaign here because honestly we all know she is fighting a losing battle which is speeding to an end like a run away train.

webinfront said
She has lost. It is over. There is no fight. If you think otherwise I would love to hear you explain the scenerio in which she wins the Democratic nomination that doesn't sound like a fairytale.

Remember when presidential candidates were actually chosen at the party's convention? strange how history is often perceived as fairytale when you allow yourself to be manipulated by the media. stop letting 'political correspondents' tell you what to do.

as a side note, if obama could convince me that he won't fuck up the general election and hand our asses over to the republicans for 4 more years of hell, maybe then i wouldn't be so concerned.

genqb,

Do you really think that Hill won't be back in 4 more years if Barack does an equal job to the 2 term ass nugget we have in there now? The fear mongering didn't work in that Lousiana seat that just went to the Democratic party and it won't work in the GE.

Just be ready to get behind Hillary and back Barack when she finally drops out.

I don't see why Hillary should give any help to the Obama campaign, unless she were to get something out of it in return. The way his supporters talk about her, it would seem like that would rather have the reanimated corpse of Nixon do it. If Obama loses this election, I am pretty sure she will get the blame. She drug out the primary too long, she damaged him too much before the election...whine whine whine. Thats my only real fear, that the activists devote themselves to ruining her after this.

She will help out in the end, I am sure the party will broker a deal. Obama, DNC, and other Dem bodies will offer to cover her debts and give her an exit. Hillary has a big base of support, Obama will need them to win...he cannot just win the GE with the McGovern Coalition 2.0.

But hey if not, I'm not going to cry about it...Democrats more often than not lose the election.

Hillz is now that person at the party who's had 6 too many jello shots, is talking abnormally loudly and is incapable of understanding the fact that she has overstayed her welcome. And she's starting to hiccup.

C'mon Hillz, let's get your coat and we'll walk with you to the door...

darkeyedresolve saidI don't see why Hillary should give any help to the Obama campaign, unless she were to get something out of it in return. The way his supporters talk about her, it would seem like that would rather have the reanimated corpse of Nixon do it.

Again with this claim of evil Obama supports. Seems like you are the person smearing people here.

darkeyedresolve saidIf Obama loses this election, I am pretty sure she will get the blame. She drug out the primary too long, she damaged him too much before the election...whine whine whine. Thats my only real fear, that the activists devote themselves to ruining her after this.

Wait, you are complaining about her being a victim making up a conspricy to get her and then saying other people are whiners?

darkeyedresolve saidShe will help out in the end, I am sure the party will broker a deal. Obama, DNC, and other Dem bodies will offer to cover her debts and give her an exit. Hillary has a big base of support, Obama will need them to win...he cannot just win the GE with the McGovern Coalition 2.0.

So Obama supporters are evil for saying bad things about Clinton but you as a Clinton supporter are free to say that her political allegance is basiclally for sale? Sounds like a pretty crappy thing to say about a person to me. Ohh well, someone is going to have to take responsiblity for the mess she has gotten herself into since she clearly is not going to do so. Also you think Clinton has a big base? Well so does Obama. In fact his is larger and that is why he is winning this thing. So if he needs her base then that would go double for her.

genqb said
Remember when presidential candidates were actually chosen at the party's convention? strange how history is often perceived as fairytale when you allow yourself to be manipulated by the media. stop letting 'political correspondents' tell you what to do.

So what I am getting here is you cannot actually lay out a scenario in which Clinton wins the nomination other than to say there is a convention. Yes there is a convention and yes that is where the candidate is nominated but that based on the process that Clinton failed to get through. Contrary to what you are saying I am not being manipulated by the media. The media has perpetuated the idea that this contest is close though it has been over for months. I would say the media has been enabling the Clinton in this silliness.

Again I ask you to simply lay out the scenario where by Clinton can win. Sorry the fact that there is a convention doesn't cut it. Tell me how a campaign that has been essentially bankrupt for three months, behind in delegate counts, behind in popular votes and has only one half as many sates as the front runner wins the nomination. Please lay that out in some sort of way that shows a clear victory for Clinton.

genqb said
as a side note, if obama could convince me that he won't fuck up the general election and hand our asses over to the republicans for 4 more years of hell, maybe then i wouldn't be so concerned.

I really like this line of thinking. Obama can't win the general election but the person who can't even beat Obama is clearly the answer. Losing is the new winning!

Ah, Mrs. Clinton helped ban guns. She's the devil.

Did you ever see that news clip of that Repulican (Kerry I think) here he was helping some blue collar fellows cook some hamburgers? He dropped one on the ground, bent over, scooped it up, and dropped it back on the grill. Really, if you're shooting for the 'i'm one of you salt of the earth' types, don't try and serve them a hamburger with dog shit on it.

I just thought that clip was funny as hell. If I was there I woulda been staring... "What the hell are you doing, man?" lol

Seriously, if your burger goes over the edge, the dog gets it.

A note from Holland:
Hillary should admit to her loss. It is becoming pathetic and a little embarrasing to watch from this side of the ocean.

When this started I couldn't care if Edwards, Clinton or Obama would win. During the campaign Hillary turned into a scary, manipulative candidate. Obama showed himself to be a worthy candidate.

If Hillary wants to continue, let her. She has the money and what harm does it do? To the demos winning in November? I don't think so.

I prefer Obama, but I'll vote for whichever democrat wins. Unfortunately, I'm afraid neither has a very good chance against McCain unless something totally unexpected happens.

Charlie (in Mexico)

It's become almost like the end of a slasher movie
where you think that the killer's dead and everybody's breathing a sigh of relief?

...and then the music starts...? Dum..Da..Dum..Da...
and the killer starts getting up again?

After every primary now I'm yellin' at the TV Screen

Barack!!! Barack!!! Look behind you! It's the Bride of Chucky!!!

Charlie:

Hillary has money, but her campaign does not. She has been lending her campaign money from her own pocket. $6 million, recently, in fact.

Obama, on the other hand, has millions of dollars at hand and has the financial momentum to battle McCain in November.

Isn't a convention more interesting/exciting when it's not a foregone conclusion?

CarlosGringo saidIsn't a convention more interesting/exciting when it's not a foregone conclusion?

Yes it is that is why the US should scrap the primary system and do what Canada does. Have a convention with party delegates from across the country voting. Usually there are six or seven candidates in the running, and it is gripping drama from beginning to end.

I don't admire much about Clinton but I admire her tenacity. She aint no quitter. I do like that.

K so I was listening to The Rachel Maddow Show last night and she and her guest said something that I thought was a really good point.

The comment was on the lines that Hillary will not drop out until she has to because if, for some reason, Barack is disqualified or can't run, she wants to make sure that everyone in the DNC knows to go to her next. She may want the powers that be to know that she's ready to step in and take the lead should she have to. Further, if she were to drop out, she may not get that same chance.

Interesting point, and if true, makes her decision to stay in a little less insane than how she's coming off. However, she should still take the approach of being more gracious to Obama instead of looking like she needs to take her estrogen tablets to calm the effects of menopause.

Auryn saidThe comment was on the lines that Hillary will not drop out until she has to because if, for some reason, Barack is disqualified or can't run, she wants to make sure that everyone in the DNC knows to go to her next.

I believe after today Obama has more Superdelegates than HRC. He leads in every category except distinguished party leaders and DNC members. If they are unaware that she is ready to step up she has their balls in hand to tug on.

ABC is the only newsgroup that shows him in the lead with superdelegates, unfortunately. I'd like to see a consensus, so I can be more excited about his lead, and it won't be long before that happens.

Also, MZ, I didn't say it was a good reason for her to stay in, just an interesting assessment.

The Democracy national Committee has to meet this fall to set the rules for 2012 and beyond. First thing get rid of the Superdelegates. Get rid of the causus system well except for Puerto Rico Guam and another other areas that can not vote for the President. Series of Super Tuesdays. Regional based. This process has gone onto long

I dont' really care if the convention is exciting. It's not a Roman Gladiator match. The dynamics of campaigning is different now than 50 years ago. We have a huge difference in media outlets, amount of contributions, transportation which make campaigning a giant non-stop roller-coaster public relations marathon. Waiting until after the convention to name the candidate cuts down on the time they have to fund raise and develop on-the-ground resources in each state designed to contact all voters - not just party members.

So we need to have things resolved before the convention - which is why Pelosi, Dean and Reid are telling Superdelates June is it.

----
Mathematically, Hillary could still win. So if I was her, I'd say keep going. You never know what might happen.

According to CNN
Obama has 1860 - needed to win 165 more.
Clinton has 1696 - needed to win 329 more.

Total outstanding delegates: 474.

The superdelegates can vote however they want. It doesn't have to be 'with the will of the majority of voters' or ' in proportion to the pledged delegates'.
They can vote however they want to. Them's the rules.

Also, if Obama doesn't get the 2025 needed - the reality is that he failed to win the nomination. The convention will be the place it will be decided and it might not be him. It could end up being someone other than Hillary or Barack. It would not be decided by the people but by the delegates. Which is how it is designed.

OHhiker said
Mathematically, Hillary could still win. So if I was her, I'd say keep going. You never know what might happen.

I think that she should be the only person to decide when or if she drops out. That said I think it if she is staying in because it is "mathematically probable" then she might as well go with other likely strategies like Obama gets hit by a meteor or Obama eats a baby on TV. Because while her win mathematically possible it is as just as likely as the meteor or baby eating scenario.

To give an idea of what the math would be like, Clinton could win 100% of the vote in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico and would still need to get 44% of the remaining superdelegates.

Current polling has her winning big in West Virginia and Kentucky and Obama winning in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana. I am not sure about Puerto Rico so I am giving it to here. To be generous I went with an 80/20 split for West Virginia Puerto Rico and Kentucky. For the other 3 I went with a 50/50 split. If this played out then Clinton would need 79% of the remaining supers to win.

This doesn't even factor in that her campaign is broke and that she has actually been losing delegates.

Updated post after looking up South Dakota and Montana.

From the Los Angeles Times
CAMPAIGN '08
Democrats seek graceful exit for Hillary Clinton
The party worries that another month of rough campaigning could further hurt Obama's chances in the fall election.
By Mark Z. Barabak and Janet Hook
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
This article is from the LA TIMES yesterday -

May 8, 2008

WASHINGTON — Dogged by defections and signs of financial trouble, Hillary Rodham Clinton faced a significant shift Wednesday even among supporters as talk turned from how she might win to how she can end her presidential campaign gracefully.

As more ballots trickled in from Indiana and North Carolina, Barack Obama padded his lead in the delegate count and national popular vote, increasing the already long odds against Clinton winning the Democratic Party nomination. Democrats worried that another month of rough campaigning could further hurt Obama's chances in the fall election.

Clinton showed no signs of quitting. She made a hastily scheduled visit to West Virginia, which votes Tuesday, and revealed she had lent her campaign $6.4 million on top of an earlier $5-million infusion.

"I am in this race," the New York senator told a gathering of nearly 1,500 women supporters at a Washington fundraiser Wednesday night. "I am staying in this race."

But a day after losing North Carolina in a landslide and barely squeaking past Obama in Indiana, Clinton was suddenly in the position her rival had occupied for the last few weeks: confronting doubts after her perceived underperformance.

Among those expressing concern was California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton superdelegate.

"I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I'm very loyal to her. That said, I'd like to talk with her and get her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is . . . ," Feinstein said. "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party."

Others were blunter still. "I think effectively the race is over," said strategist Tad Devine, a 30-year veteran of Democratic politics who has remained neutral this primary season. "Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. It's a question of how the end game comes about, its orchestration, whether or not he gains strength from it or is somehow diminished."

Obama had a day off at home in Chicago. Though he plans to campaign in West Virginia and in Oregon -- ahead of that state's May 20 primary -- aides said his focus would increasingly turn to the general election. Already, the Illinois senator is talking more about the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"Everyone is eager to get on with it," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

Obama continued to gain support, picking up four superdelegates -- including former Clinton backers from North Carolina and Virginia -- as well as Inola Henry, a California member of the Democratic National Committee.

A more high-profile defector was George S. McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, who endorsed Clinton last fall at a campaign stop in Iowa. McGovern said Clinton had "run a valiant campaign" but stood no real chance of winning the nomination. But even as the former South Dakota senator endorsed Obama, he stopped short of urging Clinton to quit.

"Hillary, of course, will make the decision," McGovern told the Associated Press. "But I hope that she reaches that decision soon so that we can concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November."

Clinton politely brushed aside McGovern's comments, saying in West Virginia that "he has a right to make whatever decision he makes." She touted the support of Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a superdelegate who endorsed Clinton after she carried his district Tuesday.

In a further sign of her financial straits, Clinton sent an e-mail appeal for money Wednesday; she planned to attend a Los Angeles fundraiser next week. "As long as she is fighting, I'm going to fight on," said Sim Farar, a Los Angeles entrepreneur who has raised millions for Clinton.

Some major donors were offended when they received calls and e-mails from Obama backers urging them to abandon Clinton's campaign.

"The fact is, this is a marathon. She should be able to finish," said Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, who is among Clinton's top Northern California fundraisers.

At this stage, the presidential campaign has become largely a matter of metrics, and Obama made gains Wednesday in two of the most important measurements: the number of pledged delegates and the popular votes cast in more than 40 contests nationwide.

Obama picked up at least 97 delegates in North Carolina and Indiana, according to the Associated Press. Under the party's proportional allocations, Clinton won at least 86.

That gives Obama 1,846.5 of the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination at the party's convention in Denver this summer. Clinton has 1,696 delegates, according to the AP.

Neither candidate can win solely with the support of pledged delegates, which has heightened the competition for superdelegates -- members of Congress and other party leaders who are automatically seated at the convention.

In the popular vote, Obama made up the ground he lost to Clinton two weeks ago when she beat him in Pennsylvania by nearly 10 percentage points. He now leads Clinton by about 700,000 votes, excluding the disputed results in Michigan and Florida.

Neither candidate contested those states after they were stripped of their delegates for breaking party rules by holding their primaries too early. Both had agreed to honor the party's decision, and Obama kept his name off the Michigan ballot.

In a news conference at Sheperdstown, W.Va., where she had attended a college rally, Clinton suggested she would press her fight to seat delegates from the two states -- which she won -- all the way to the convention floor if necessary.

"Those were legitimate elections, and they deserve to have those votes counted," she said.

Though the fundamentals of the race were unchanged, there was a widely held view in political circles -- shared within the Clinton camp -- that Tuesday was a serious setback for her campaign. Obama's 14 percentage-point win in North Carolina, where former President Bill Clinton made a strenuous effort, was seen as a particular blow.

"It's a tough race," said Don Fowler, a former national Democratic Party chairman and Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "If things had been a little better in North Carolina, we would be stronger than we are today. But the game's not over till it's over."

Others, however, urged Clinton to reassess her campaign. "She has to look realistically at the vote [Tuesday] and decide what's best for her candidacy, what's best for the country, what's best for the party," said Democratic Rep. Dale E. Kildee, a longtime Clinton backer.

Capitol Hill, where superdelegates gathered en masse, was the place where the mood shift among Democrats was most detectable Wednesday.

Rep. Jason Altmire, whose Pennsylvania district went heavily for Clinton, said the sense of resignation among her supporters was evident when lawmakers gathered on the House floor for roll call votes.

Undaunted, Clinton continued her superdelegate lobbying. She dispatched a senior aide to meet with about a dozen House supporters Wednesday morning and attended a big Washington fundraiser Wednesday night.

"Let's have the people have their say," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland told the crowd, which included some congressional supporters. "We're riled up. We're revved up. We're ready to go."

mark.barabak@latimes.com

janet.hook@latimes.com

Barabak reported from Indianapolis and Hook from Washington. Times staff writers James Hohmann, Noam P. Levey, Dan Morain and Peter Nicholas also contributed to this report.

Even members of her senior staff have said it's been over for months. If Hillary had been any other candidate, she would have stepped down. Until recently I loved the Clintons, and I probably will again. But she and Bill have really damaged their legacy. They need to step back and let the Teflon grow back.

To address those who say Obama can't get elected, I just don't think you're right. Paul Krugman, prominent NY Times columnist whose been in Hillary's corner all along, has a pretty decent column today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp

I don't agree with everything he says, especially where he takes Obama supporters for attacking those who supported Clinton, when it's Clintons people saying "whites" voted for her and that "more than eggheads and African-Americans" are going to be needed in November. But, that said, he does offer historical evidence that still strongly points to a Democratic victory in November:

"First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election.

"Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power.

"Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row."

There are a lot of REALLY pissed off Republicans right now. And just because polls show McCain pretty much even with Obama or Clinton right now, shouldn't bare out. In June of '92 Ross Perot was leading in the polls, Bill Clinton was third. There are going to be a lot of Independents and Republicans who are going to reject McCain because of the war and the economy.

And wait till the debates. McCain is going to look old and tied to the past, Obama is going to look vibrant and tied to the future. McCain shouldn't be underestimated -- I'm sure he'll be a more able debater than Bush was, but I think the imagery will be powerful.

It's ok Clinton fans, Chelsea will be ready in 2016. She'll have had a lifetime of grooming and experience in politics; especially if she uses her mom's arguement about experience. According to wikipedia, she was, at one time a non-spouse First Lady.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady_of_the_United_States#Non-spouse_.22First_Lady.22_or_.22White_House_hostess.22


Hillary's been a worthy opponent but let's focus on the present... Obama 2008. (I'll switch my allegiance if Hill pulls the 80% of the remaining delegates that she needs to win.)

and to the future....

Chelsea Clinton 2016!!!

It seems almost like in her own way is she backing down though. She is saying that she'll fight until the end, but at the same time she hasn't been attacking Obama with nearly the same feistiness as before. Likewise, Obama hasn't been attacking her and giving her a chance to gracefully back down. I also read that there are rumors of a mid june deadline for her to drop out of the race based on how everything goes. should be interesting regardless.

I like people who stick with the race to the end. Just cause a runner passes you on the track you don't jump off and give-up. It's called competition, that's what she's doing staying strong and running the race. I support her, and I appreciate a candidate who doesn't just throw in the towel.

I was against an Obama-Clinton ticket, but then I saw this article by Andrew Sullivan, and I am thinking maybe it would be a good thing:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3866584.ece

The thing that really amazes me that it's Andrew Sullivan supporting this. He hates the Clintons.

Well One heard on the news last night, down here in Oz. That she was about to pull out. God has blessed America, and the rest of us too!

SockMonkey: I enjoyed this quote in response to top Clinton advisor Terry McAuliffe saying a joint ticket would be nifty

"Prediction: The public enthusiasm among top Hillary supporters for an Obama-Hillary ticket will rise roughly in proportion with their growing recognition that Obama is the party's presumptive nominee. "

I know you said Andrew Sullivan is not a Clinton fan. But I suspect issues of party unity will disappear around May 20th.

I wholeheartedly support Hillary. Who says that the race has to be over prior to the convention? Just because it has been for the last 40+ years? While I in my heart of hearts don't think she's going to make it, I'm not ready for her to give it up. At least my home state (IN) and my adopted state of the last 20 years (PA) redeemed themselves in my eyes by pulling out wins for her.

I also fully agree with the concept, foreign though it may be, of actually letting the VOTERS decide the outcome. Never have either PA or IN had any say in the nomination process in my adult life. How can that be a bad thing?

I will embrace Obama as the nominee IF that is the case, but I'll need the summer off just to get over it . . .

EricLA saidEven members of her senior staff have said it's been over for months. If Hillary had been any other candidate, she would have stepped down. Until recently I loved the Clintons, and I probably will again. But she and Bill have really damaged their legacy. They need to step back and let the Teflon grow back.

To address those who say Obama can't get elected, I just don't think you're right. Paul Krugman, prominent NY Times columnist whose been in Hillary's corner all along, has a pretty decent column today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp

I don't agree with everything he says, especially where he takes Obama supporters for attacking those who supported Clinton, when it's Clintons people saying "whites" voted for her and that "more than eggheads and African-Americans" are going to be needed in November. But, that said, he does offer historical evidence that still strongly points to a Democratic victory in November:

"First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election.

"Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power.

"Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row."

There are a lot of REALLY pissed off Republicans right now. And just because polls show McCain pretty much even with Obama or Clinton right now, shouldn't bare out. In June of '92 Ross Perot was leading in the polls, Bill Clinton was third. There are going to be a lot of Independents and Republicans who are going to reject McCain because of the war and the economy.

And wait till the debates. McCain is going to look old and tied to the past, Obama is going to look vibrant and tied to the future. McCain shouldn't be underestimated -- I'm sure he'll be a more able debater than Bush was, but I think the imagery will be powerful.

The "imagery" may also be powerful seeing the younger, inexperienced Obama up against the seasoned veteran and War hero that is McCain. I would not underestimate McCain at all, or the American people. They are not going to hand the keys to The White House to Obama before he is thoroughly put to the test, and I don't think they will ultimately be convinced that he's ready. Time will tell. It's gonna be interesting to watch unfold.

For the first time as an adult I am not impressed or energized with (in this case Obama). If he ends up being the nominee, he has a lot of work to do.

I've always said I'd vote for him if he were the nominee, but perhaps to save the Supreme Court. It (would be at this juncture) an uninspired vote.

Wysiwyg60 saidI started out cheering for Hillary Clinton, but her obstinance about not facing up to reality and putting the party first has really pissed me off. She is coming off as a power hungry egotist who wants to beat Obama more than McCain.

Um at this moment she has to beat Obama and not McCain.

What is this topic doing in this category.

I never noticed it until now.

http://madatoms.com/2008/05/edit-hillary-clinton-psycho-ex.html

This parody sums up my feelings about Hillary's failure to drop out pretty well. She has basically VASTLY overstayed her welcome. Time to pack it in Hill, when you have to loan yourself $11.4 million that should tell you something.

Hillary Clinton: The Psycho Ex-Girlfriend of the Democratic Party

It's 2:31 AM. The Democratic Party is sleeping peacefully when it hears its phone buzz on the night stand. It rolls over and sees "Hillary" on the caller ID. It pauses briefly, considering pushing "END" and not dealing with this shit tonight. The thought is appealing but the Democratic Party knows that if it doesn't take this call, another one is only minutes away.

DEMS: ...Hello?

Hillary: Hey baby.

DEMS: C'mon Hillary. Enough with this.

Hillary: Don't you get it? You NEED me.

DEMS: No, I don't. It was fun while it lasted but I'm with Barack now. I made my choice, it's done.

Hillary: You can't really mean that. How can you say that after all the good times we had?

DEMS: To be honest, I started hanging out with you because Bill's pretty awesome.

Hillary: But I'm just like Bill!

DEMS: No, you're not. Bill is charismatic, inspiring, and gets me really good weed.

Hillary: Fuck you. You're elitist!


DEMS: I'm going back to sleep.

Hillary: No, no, wait. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. Listen... there's still got to be a chance. Remember when people told George W it was all over. When the numbers were against him?

DEMS: Yeah but...

Hillary: Remember?! And remember how everyone said America didn't really want to be with George W? But they stuck it out anyway?

DEMS: Yeah and they're really fucked up now, Hillary.

Hillary: But WE'LL make it work. Forget Barack, baby. Just take me back and we can forget this ever happened.

DEMS: Look, I think you're a really good Senator... let's just keep it that way, OK?

Hillary: ...I'll see you at the convention.

DEMS: No! Hillary I told you...

CLICK

DEMS: Dammit. Crazy bitch.

Even though I'm a strong Obama supporter, I would like to see Hillary Clinton end her campaign on a high note. She can no longer win so she should bow out gracefully.

I have supported Hilary Clinton, but feel that Obama has too much support now, she can't possibly win the nomination and she should back out of the race with some dignity without being pushed out at the Democratic conference.

Whoever gets nominated will win against McCain, as his sleazey dealings are just coming to light, and after 8 years of a frankly, as it appears to the rest of the world, inadequate republican leadership, America needs a change to lead the country out of it's problems into a new prosperity.

Loz