Dear Billary: Let’s Make a Deal

March 31st, 2008
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist

Print Print

01aa29demsA1.span.jpg

Hillary Clinton says she will not allow the “big boys” to “bully” her out of the race, and I think she is absolutely right.

Although it twigs me to no end that Clinton continues to play the gender card (when she or her surrogates are not playing race card), she has the right to soldier on despite the formidable obstacles standing between her and a presidential nomination that she long assumed would be hers for the taking.

So I will say this:

Let’s let things play out through that all-important Pennsylvania primary on April 22. But anything less than a resounding Clinton victory should be the opportunity for a gracious if not overdue concession.

This is because Obama has a commanding lead in North Carolina and a growing lead in Indiana, the two states of consequence with post-Pennsylvania primaries. (Oh, and by the way, pardners, Obama actually won Texas.)

No more moving the goalposts, Hillary.

No more demanding ad hoc primary and delegate rules changes.

And no more whining about the meanies in the media, some of whom have indeed been a bit over the top.

It will be time for Obama, Clinton and other top Dems to turn their guns on John McCain and the centerpiece of his campaign, The Forever War, like these good folks have.

Deal?

Very likely not because the Hero of Bosnia is nothing if not a tenacious fighter who vows to string things out all the way to the convention where she will try to get the Michigan and Florida delegations seated even though that still won’t give her the math she needs.

The upshot will be to allow McCain what is essentially an eight-month free ride, while Obama will have barely eight weeks to go after him.

And meanwhile, the Mister — who is more responsible than even the Missus is for her dire straits — will further cement his calls for party unity by stepping up his praise for McCain.

In any event, absent a spectacular showing in the Keystone State — and I happen to believe that Obama may actually eke out a win — there is only one reason beyond sheer ego to not quit — because voters in North Carolina, Indiana and the eight other remaining primaries would be “disenfranchised” if Clinton bails.

Allow me to play my teenie-weenie violin because this argument is easily undercut:

The voters of these states also won’t get to show their support for John Edwards and all of the other failed presidential race wannabes as did voters in many other primary states because the Democratic field was pared to two candidates relatively quickly.

As it is, the last several primaries have been rendered moot in previous election cycles, and Bill Clinton himself clinched the nomination in late March of 1992 despite his claim that the primary fight went on until June, so get over it.

Then there are those superdelegates, a goodly number of whom happen to believe that Clinton doesn’t have a chance of prevailing but lack the cojones to tell her because of The Billary’s well deserved reputation for revenge.

And how about those negatives? Clinton can’t even pay her bills, while one recent poll shows that two out of three voters wouldn’t open the door for her if she came knocking on a stormy night and another poll gives Obama a 10 percent lead nationally. As Senator Jay Rockefeller puts it, “You don’t get elected president if people don’t like you.”

As this guy notes, all the dirt that her campaign is flinging is sticking to her.

Take the unending efforts of Clinton and her surrogates to continue to try to smear Obama over his association with a preacher who has said some unsavory things about America, most recently her remarks while she was pole dancing for Richard Mellon Scaife.

Obama has come clean about that relationship, got a nice bounce in the polls because of his candor and managed the feat of turning a nuanced 45-minute speech on race and religion into a wildly popular YouTube moment. Clinton, meanwhile, lied through her teeth for months about what really happened in Bosnia and only sort of fessed up when my buddy Will Bunch had her backed against the wall the other day. It turns out that Clinton and not Sinbad was the real comedian.

At least there is one guy who is showing some class. His thoughts:

“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”

Photograph by Damon Winter/The New York Times




This entry was posted on Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 3:57 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Negative Campaigning, Superdelegates, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 24 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Popular vote in Texas.

    1,358,785 Obama

    1,459,814 Hillary.

    Once again we find another Post using the word Billary to disrespect Ms. Clinton.

    You know how we can tell which side someone is on in this primary?

    If they are calling other people names. Its almost guaranteed they are from the Obama camp. If they are spinning, twisting and distoring facts they could be from either camp.

    Like the above. Clinton did not win Texas. Technically no. Technically yes. Depends on which yardstick your using. But one yardstick that becomes true.

    Billary. We know this is an Obama supporter.
    • ^
    • v
    Whocares,
    The Texas election was more than just the popular vote, there was also a caucus component that you're conveniently leaving out. Those are the rules. Get over it.

    If Hillary wants to run on the strength of her husband's term in the White House, then she all but invites the co-presidency Billary stuff.
    • ^
    • v
    Ah, and here we see the duplicity of the Obamites in full flower. When the rules say caucuses can overrule "the will of the people" and disenfranchise voters like in TX, MI, FL, then it is "those are the rules, get over it. or Shaun claiming that Obama won TX even though the actually voters expressed a clear preference for Clinton. That is all perfectly fine. Disnenfranchise voters, reverse the voters will, its all good - those are the rules.

    But when the rules say the decision will be made by Superdelegates in Denver? Oh the hue and cry, the rending of garments, the lamentations and the gnashing of teeth. Poor babies! I feel so bad for them. But ...


    The rules say that Superdelegates will decide in Denver. Get over it.
    • ^
    • v
    Disnenfranchise voters, reverse the voters will, its all good - those are the rules.

    And it could be just as easily said that you're disenfranchising the participants in the caucuses. The point is, the prima-caucus system was defined by the rules beforehand, just like the reality of MI and FL not counting because they moved their primaries up. Hillary knew the rules going in, has said as much, and only now has she changed her mind. Too late.

    But when the rules say the decision will be made by Superdelegates in Denver? Oh the hue and cry, the rending of garments, the lamentations and the gnashing of teeth.

    Straw man. No one is saying that the superdelegates wont or can't make the decision. Obama supporters are just making the argument to the superdelegates that they should support Obama because of his all but unassailable lead in the popular vote and delegate count. Obama supporters are just making the case that they should do support him now so he'll have time to properly campaign against McCain.
    • ^
    • v
    Chris.
    Then you are the rare Obamite, that thinks it is perfectly fine for the Superdelegates to decide in Denver. You and i are on the same page. Your argument is with Shaun Mullen.
    • ^
    • v
    I have my reservations about Obama, but I honestly think he'll make a better president than Hillary and a far better president than McCain.

    Given the low chance that Hillary will overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count or popular vote, I think she should concede now. Beating McCain, the candidate of more war(s), should be the first priority of all Democrats. The sooner the better.
    • ^
    • v
    Oh - and the popular vote is not unassailable. There are no rules on how to count popular vote in MI and FL that Obama was so afraid of that he blocked the re-vote . It is perfectly legitimate to include those votes in the popular vote total to make the argument to the Superdelegates in Denver. Which you agree is the right way for this to be decided. By the time PA, IN, PR are added to MI and FL - it is highly likely that Clinton will have the popular vote plurality by Denver. That should make it an easy vote for the superdelegates. You know - "will of the voters" and all that.
    • ^
    • v
    Given the low chance that Hillary will overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count or popular vote, I think she should concede now. Beating McCain, the candidate of more war(s), should be the first priority of all Democrats. The sooner the better.

    Everyone continues to miss the point of the superdelegate.

    The superdelegate was invented to save the party from themselves.

    Republicans crossed over in huge numbers to vote Hillary out and Obama in. Good for Obama supporters, bad for the party. A Majority of Obamas strength comes from states that will vote for McCain. Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, Georgai, Mississippi, etc.etc.etc. Hispanics vot e for Hillary, they will vote for McCain vs. Obama. Blacks vote 90 percent for whomever is the Democrat. Obama or Hillary.

    The long and the short. The super delegates are there to save the party from itself and this is one case where the party needs to be saved from Obama and the reckless arrogance of the republicans who crossed over and voted for Obama to insure that Hillary is not elected.
    • ^
    • v
    DWSUWF,
    Aren't you at all embarrassed to even bring up Michigan and Florida when everyone including Hillary Clinton agreed that those elections wouldn't count in any meaningful way?

    "It's clear, this election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything." - Hillary Clinton, Oct. 2007

    She didn't like that MI and FL weren't going to count, but she knew and had agreed they wouldn't.

    By the way, I don't care if they do a revote or not, but counting the votes from MI and FL as they are now is simply ludicrous and you know it.