Search The Archives
Feinstein: Clinton Should Resist Calls to Drop Out
Not so fast, says California's senior senator, after hearing calls from supporters of Sen. Barack Obama that Sen. Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race unless she scores big wins in Ohio and Texas.
According to the New York Times, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said on "Fox News Sunday" that Mrs. Clinton should ignore the pressure to bow out and decide for herself what is best. "Hillary Clinton is a major candidate," Ms. Feinstein said. "She has every right to stay in the race if she chooses to do so."
Feinstein also weighed on the press coverage ("I read a lot of columns. I'm amazed at the number that are spent on really picayune things about Senator Clinton -- her hair, her suits. And I think some of this just drives toward the insecurity of having a woman running for this office. If anyone is qualified to run for this office, Chris, Senator Clinton is -- eight years in the White House.")
Read the entire transcript here.
Richardson: After Tuesday, Party Should Close Ranks Behind LeaderPosted by: david_t on March 03, 2008
Actually, Bill Clinton and other members of the Clinton high command have publicized the view that unless Sen. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she is unlikely to win the nomination.
Bill Richardson added today that the party should close ranks and nominate whoever is ahead in elected delegates after this Tuesday's contests. Unless Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island by 90-100%, that will be Obama.
As for Feinstein's remarks: "she has every right to stay in the race if she chooses to do so" is not exactly the strongest possible endorsement I have ever heard.
My honest assesment of this situation goes like this: I think Clinton has been getting a lot of negative press lately (although I believe some of it is well deserved at the ridiculousness of her spin machine's inability to admit to the fact that they are losing) but I think if any candidate were down this many delegates and had this much of a mountain to climb to be able to pick up the nomination, they would likely be seen as out of the race. I think Hillary is in the same neck of the woods as Romney was right before he dropped out but people think because it is the former First Lady they are not going to rule her out until it is mathmatically impossible. Even the Ragin' Cajun James Carville who is 100% Clinton has admitted that if she does not win Texas and Ohio big, it is over. If the Clintons end up moving the goal posts yet again after a small win or a loss in either of those states, they will make a mockery of themselves.
Why should we expect anything short of a battle to the convention?Posted by: billorton on March 03, 2008
Considering that the delegate count on the nomination race is roughly equal and the two Senators are each appealing to very different voters within the party and nation, why should we expect anything short of a battle all the way to the Convention? Others can argue whether such a scenario "harms" the party or the eventual nominee, but frankly, it would be arrogance on the part of anyone to state categorically that either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama should exit the race. The only people who can make that decision is the candidate themself. To this end, I am one who would argue that the graciousness displayed by Senator Kerry and Vice President Gore following their respective general elections have helped to save our nation from even further ruinous division. When the time comes and the nomination outcome is certain, or a fait accompli, let us hope that the candidate with a folded hand will show the grace and dignity needed not simply for their own personal honor, but to ease from primary to general election. In the meantime, back your candidates, engage fully in the race and keep your politics above board lest your own person suffer from the graceless act of a staffer or advocate.
Including the Superdelegates, right now Obama leads by over 100 delegates (1,378 to 1,269). Some experts are predicting that if Hillary doesn't win lopsidedly in Texas and Ohio, she will have to win 80% of remaining pledged delegates and win only because of Superdelegates (which may not be there if she wins only because of them due to the fact that there may be a riot in the middle of the convention if a candidate wins only because of Superdelegates and loses the popular vote/pledged delegate count). To say that they have roughly the same amount of delegates is (to quote a candidate in 2000) "fuzzy math".
Being a supporter of the gentleman from Illinois, I am aware of the numerical differences cited in the earlier post. But if one really wants to get mathematical, the 1378-to-1269 figure is roughly (again... roughly) a 52%-to-48% tally of delegate strength. I certainly hope that the person I voted for prevails. I'd love to see that. But having worked in politics as an aide and consultant, I know that the only person that a candidate must face when making the choice of getting into a race or out of one is the face in the mirror. I'd say that a race where less than five percent is separating the two candidates at this late a stage could be called "pretty close..." again, in that roughly sort of way. And if, in a race that is "pretty close," does it truly honestly harm the American democracy or our party to have these two candidates slug it out? The answer would be "yes" if either goes nuclear on the other and purposely burns the house down soas to deny the other their chance at victory. But to me, though I'd like to see the general start right now, I think there actually is a strategic value in this race going on so long. It is sucking the oxygen out of the room for the Republicans. Just like Bob Dole languished in the spring and summer of 1996, so too now is John McCain getting scant attention while all eyes turn to the Democratic race. I think the vibrancy in this historic race is keeping people engaged. Even if this thing goes to Denver as a floor fight, would even THAT destroy our nominee's chance in November. I really don't think so. So, on this 75th anniversary of the first Inaugural of our greatest president, I am comfortable that spring is approaching and the question of who shall be our nominee still awaits us, like the unopened cherry blossoms along the Tidal Pool.
If I had confidence that the race would proceed without either candidate burning the house down, I would probably agree with you. But I have no such confidence, because the house is already on fire.
Clinton herself set the house on fire in Ohio yesterday, with these words: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
That kind of fire, if permitted to continue, will destroy Clinton as well as Obama, and with them, the Democratic chance to retake the White House. It's time to put out the fire, and unify behind our nominee.
This may be the 75th anniversary of a great president but this year will also be the 40th anniversary of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I just hope we don't have a candidate win the nomination despite losing the popular vote/elected delegate count or we might see something more similar to the 1968 event than the inauguration of Mr. Roosevelt...
The Majority Vote