From Politico:
"One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.So, basically, the Clintons must have a masochistic love of self-destruction because the overwhelmingly likely outcome of the Democratic primary will be what it has going to have been since Iowa 2+ months ago: Obama will be the nominee.In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."
1. Why keep fighting?
As easy as it would be to simply chalk it all up to the legendary Clinton hubris and stubborn arrogance, not to mention sense of entitlement, (all of which are most certainly at play) I think the real motivation is, sadly, more sinister. She's taking the Mitt Romney route and setting herself up for another presidential run in 2012.
Romney had to drop out when it was clear he couldn't win because he couldn't be seen to hurt the party's nominee. That wasn't so bad for Romney because, frankly, McCain probably won't win and a salt-the-earth-for-McCain-even-though-I-can't-win-the-nomination campaign would have soured Republicans on Romney in a way they wouldn't have forgotten in four years.
Since the momentum in the country right now is fiercely anti-Republican, Clinton doesn't have the same luxury. If Obama wins the Dem nomination, he'll probably win the Presidency and then, unless she wants to give him a primary challenge in 2012 (unlikely, but see above hubris, etc. comment), she's going to have to wait until 2016 to make another run. By then she'll probably have to compete with Obama's VP (cause it ain't gonna be her - Go Jim Webb!) and a whole crop of names that we probably don't even know right now - most of whom, if all goes well, will probably be trying to emulate Obama, something Clinton can't do even with 8 years of practice. (She would have to add more to her public persona than being able to pretend to cry.)
So, the answer to this question is, quite simply, Clinton wants Obama to either have a spectacular collapse before the convention so she can be the nominee, or have a spectacular collapse after the convention so McCain will win and she can run again in 2012 with Obama so stained by his loss in 2008 that he won't be able to run again and she'll be able to say, "See? You should have listened to me last time. Now shut up and get in line, peasants!" (Alright, she probably wouldn't say "peasants".)
2. Why the hell is the media pretending Clinton can still win the nomination?
Answer: The Horse race. The Horse race gets ratings. The Horse race sells papers (if people still bought newspapers). I touched on this last month when I commented that less than 7,500 votes and a healthy dose of the media in love with the trite, hackneyed "Comeback Kid" storyline (the kind of story they love because they have a Word doc with 75% of the story already written saved on their laptop) kept this crap alive. The Politico story actually does a good job of pointing this out. (Kudos Politico!)
In summation, the Democratic nomination process is over. Don't give me this crap about letting everybody vote; when the hell has that ever happened in a primary? The fact that it actually went past South Carolina (although it shouldn't have) is noteworthy in primary history. So, listen up Clinton, I've said it before, I hope I don't need to say it too many more times: cut the $#!#. Seriously. You are not more important than America. You are not entitled to be either the Democratic nominee or the President of the United States. Ever. Stop embodying the stereotypical selfishness of the Worstest GenerationTM and get out before you do irreparable damage to your party and its nominee, Barack Obama.
In all seriousness, is there some reason why this young woman's opinion is more significant than anyone else's such that this has gotten the play it has? Because when she was seven she filmed some stock footage?
I mean, would you care what Todd Bridges had to say about policy issues connected with foster care?
While I am 100% supportive of the involvement of all people in the political discussions of our time, particularly young folks, the attention that was paid to this was kinda lame, IMHO.
In summation, the Democratic nomination process is over. Don't give me this crap about letting everybody vote; when the hell has that ever happened in a primary? The fact that it actually went past South Carolina (although it shouldn't have) is noteworthy in primary history. So, listen up Clinton, I've said it before, I hope I don't need to say it too many more times: cut the $#!#. Seriously. You are not more important than America. You are not entitled to be either the Democratic nominee or the President of the United States. Ever. Stop embodying the stereotypical selfishness of the Worstest GenerationTM and get out before you do irreparable damage to your party and its nominee, Barack Obama
In summation, kiss my ass and go to blazes. American IS more important and that is why we and Hillary will continue to fight for it. And even thought Obama is blocking the voices of the people Michigan and Florida being heard (good idea there for the fall), we sure as hell are not going to let you disenfranchise all the voters in the upcoming contest. Might your shallow request stem from the fact Hillary has 10 and 20+ point leads in many of the states coming up and drawing even in what used to be safe Obama states?
Since your guy is the one with the general election problems, how about you and your guy get the hell out, for the good of the country!
Based on "Electoral Math" by SUSA (Obama, Clinton)
Electoral College - Hillary +63; Obama -50
The results:
Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
Tie 13
John McCain 288
Barack Obama 238
Tie 12
I see your cutesy little video with an Obamabot and raise you with 34 flag officers and leave it to you if college kids with their rock star idolatry contains more gravitas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Lastly, your theme of some grand rapprochement and unity sure sounds like more Obama deception and shallowness with your kick in the crock at the baby boom generation. As a member, feel free to once again kiss my ass.
Yes, I am again sorry I stumbled into Obamaville. It is bad for my blood pressure and general health. It was a mistake and obviosly I had a moment of weakness.
Using the term "Obamabots" is pretty darn offensive (notice that I didn't use profanity as you did, which is quite trollish). Many of us who are supporting Obama are critical thinkers who thought long and hard who we were going to support. We are many who weighed the pros and cons to chose our preference for the Democratic nominee. And..many of us also greatly admire Hillary Clinton and will admit that it was a hard decision to make. I considered her a role model throughout college, sent her $$ when she ran for the Senate, ran out to buy her books as soon as they came out, et.
And I am greatly disappointed that her campaign is following the lead of Mark Penn & co. I do not like the tone and innuendos.
You comment about college studets was flip as well. I work for a state University and was very happy to see so many college students politically engaged. It was refreshing.
Yes, many of us who support Barack Obama want unity. I cannot stand the idea of this party that I love so much getting shredded to bits during this primary. We have come so far since the dark days of 1994 in both Virginia and our country.
I am sorry NN Dem, our "guy" will not:
"get the hell out for the good of this country".
I believe that Barack Obama has helped raise the level of discourse in our country- although I disagree with Rev. Wright's comments, I am happy to finally see a discussion of race.
Your comment "Obamaville" is also quite offensive. Yes, this site DOES support Barack Obama. However, RK is so much more than just one candidate. Look through the last weeks postings and there is a great cross section of informative topics.
If I let the supporters of a candidate influence my decision, I would say that your post would turn me off to Senator Clinton. I do not like Democrats tearing down other Democrats. Furthermore, asking others who disagree with you to, not once but twice, "kiss your ass" is crude, crass, and disrespectful. Profanity lowers the discourse and is offensive.
Thank you for your rude comment, I'm now going to head over and donate another $20 to Barack Obama. Anyone care to join me?
You can say whatever you want about me or some video (which BTW I didn't post, apparently your anger rendered you unable to read) but that doesn't change the fact that Clinton had her chance to win the nomination, she couldn't get it done, and now she needs to get behind the party's nominee, Barack Obama. But she won't because she is arrogant, selfish, and feels entitled to the presidency.
Whatever vitriol you spew at me (and thanks again for epitomizing the stereotypical, selfish member of the Worstest GenerationTM), that won't change the math. She can't catch him in elected delegates and it would be almost impossible for her to catch him in popular vote.
And, oh BTW, Clinton didn't give a crap about Michigan and Florida until she realized she needed them. If Democratic primary voters in those states are upset about this, they should vote out every public official who voted for or supported the decision to push the elections ahead despite the fact that they knew what the consequences would be. The representatives of the MI and FL constituencies failed them, not Barack Obama. Clinton wasn't railing about disenfranchising voters when she agreed to the DNC's rules about not campaigning etc. in those states (although she cynically left her name on the ballot). So, please quit trotting out that crap.
As for the SUSA data, it is actually more favorable for Obama in as much as any poll taken eight months prior to the general election can be about anything. (I would also add that the fact that there is no single Democratic nominee hurts Obama.) If you look at the breakdown of the states, Obama is winning or very close in many states that Clinton doesn't have a chance in (see Nebraska or, I don't know let's take a random example, VIRGINIA). And I'm sure your blindered response will be the well-worn Clinton meme: a Democrat won't win those states anyway. The real fact is, SHE won't win those states. Her campaign would continue to lock us into the current Red state/Blue state map that cynical political hacks think is set in stone (despite the fact that if you go back prior to 2000, the patterns change). Obama changes the map. That's good for the country and (of much lesser importance to me, as I am an independent) it is also good for the Democratic party and the down ballot contests where Dems would get a boost from Obama and would be pulled down by Mrs. 44% Negative Rating.
Or, do you simply think we are all a bunch of chumps getting duped by Bill and Hillary?
Beyond your deductive reasoning (I'm not commenting on the quality of the reasoning or the accuracy of your premises) , do you have at your disposal a single fact, a simple piece of what could fairly be considered direct evidence, to establish that Clinton is remaining in the campaign for the "quite simple" purpose of weakening Obama?