How can Hillary win

The Clintons are power-hungry narcissists. Hillary's sense of entitlement will keep her scheming and spinning right up to the Democratic Convention in August.

Her only chance is to sway the superdelegates to come to her camp, which becomes more and more unlikely each week.

She can still "legitimately" win, as the total number of superdelegates in theory could all vote for her, and put her over the top... they are not legally pledged to anyone, as are the regular delegates.

This of course will not happen, but is within the rules. So she's just hoping Obama does some horrible faux pas and she can slip ahead of him by getting the vast # of those legally uncommitted supers to vote for her.

a) Obama might slip on a banana skin and hit his head,

b) Clinton campaign might dig up huge scandal, much bigger than the Reverend Wright thing... something that makes Obama completely unelectable, or at least even more unelectable than Hillary.

Other than that I can't see how she can win either.

................ wrote:

b) Clinton campaign might dig up huge scandal, much bigger than the Reverend Wright thing... something that makes Obama completely unelectable

maybe they already have.

care to elaborate?

Dumbycrats wrote:

The Clintons are power-hungry narcissists. Hillary's sense of entitlement will keep her scheming and spinning right up to the Democratic Convention in August.

It doesn't matter. McCain is winning the general election. Nader will take away votes from Democratic Nominee in November. A vote for Nader helps McCain. In 1992, a vote for Perot, hurt Bush and allowed Slick Willy to win.

Clinton or Obama will end the war. McCain will draft you and I and will send us to die for Israel. They aren't even white people. In the new Selective Service there are no student or conscientious objectors, and the Pentagon will stop taking 1st timers in the CG, AF, Navy and will only take AR amd MC vets. In other words, I will be seeing you on the front-line ;-(

The GOP wrote:

It doesn't matter. McCain is winning the general election. Nader will take away votes from Democratic Nominee in November. A vote for Nader helps McCain. In 1992, a vote for Perot, hurt Bush and allowed Slick Willy to win.

It's amazing the amount of crap flying all over from both sides of the table. McCain will get you drafted. Obama hates the US. Clinton has a chance.

As for the Nader thing, it would hurt McCain much more than Obama. Nader detracts from the middle, not the far reaches of the party. The base of McCains strength is at the middle. The right of his party aren't too keen on him. Though he's tried to make a transition for them to jump on board in the past couple weeks. I'm just not too sure that it isn't hurting him with the independents by doing so. I'd be interested to hear from one if it's affecting them how he's trying to lean a little more right.

As for Hillary's "chances". She's done. However everyone came out and told her that she's done, so she won't quit now. She wants to come off as a fighter, so everyone saying "you're washed up, get out of the race" means she's going to say hey screw you guys I have $100 mil in the bank. I'll do whatever I want. Logistically she has no shot right now. Obama's supporters would see any move which wins her the nomination a steal of the election. So to her supporters who can't stand african americans (whoops, we're not allowed to say that out loud right?) sorry but she's done.

Are you willing to the chance and have McCain send you to die for nothing. Not me. I'm not into the hate-thing like the GOP is.

don't be an idiot. he's not going to restart the draft

Political experts have come on shows like Larry King , Hardball with Chris Mathews, etc. and stated that "if it's close, there is a good chance Hillary will get the Democratic nomination" Meaning, that even if she doesn't get more votes, the Democratic party feels that she has a better chance when matched up against McCain.

Either way, McCain wins.

Many Democrats will vote for him. That's not the same with Republicans for Hillary of Obama.

Souper Tuesday wrote:

As for the Nader thing, it would hurt McCain much more than Obama. Nader detracts from the middle, not the far reaches of the party.

How can you post so many other intelligent things and then let this absolute falsehood slip? Nader attracts the far left and other space cadets. Trust me, I live in Berkeley.

Nadar is a dead fish. Perot was the only third party candidate in history to do anything and he took almost 20% of the popular vote.

It won't be close enough in November for Nadar to do any harm.

Another way for Hillary to win is to just move the goalposts...similar to what Bush has done with the war. If we get Michigan and Florida to vote again then that moves the total delegates needed to win further down the road by almost 200. But, Michigan and Florida screwed their chances when they moved their primaries. Then if she wins by large margins in those two states, cutting the delegate lead down to under 100 THEN the super-delegates would have more incentive to push toward her.

In all reality....she's a dead fish as well.

Alan

I agree that Nader won't affect this election. But you would be completely wrong to say that he didn't affect the election in 2000. That's just denial.

I think Hilary is staying in for several different reasons.

1) Sheer dogged persistence...as Faulkner would put it (and with apologies to WF)...the blood-knowledge transmitted from generation to generation not ever admitting defeat even in the terrible unutterable time of extremity, with stern pride indomitable even again to the breach. Etc. She wanted it real bad from the jump and don't know how to quit.

2) Sticking around and hoping for a huge Obama gaffe.

3) Knowing there won't be a gaffe, discovering after this past Tuesday that he has weathered the bad s--t so far, but still hoping against hope that the remaining superdelegates will give her a back-room win that won't lose her the entire black vote (i.e., depending on her black surrogates to cover for her)

4) ???

#4 occurred to me yesterday and I humbly submit it. Suppose she damages Obama marginally by continuing to stick in, but not so much that, if he chooses her as his VP, he/she end up with an unbeatable ticket--i.e., she wins him back far more votes than she's lost him by sticking around.

Before you dismiss #4, carefully consider it. An Obama/Hilary ticket is unbeatable. Yes, of course she is NOT the person the Obama people want, but what if, by gracious accepting her as the #2, and by her graciously accepting, the Democrats are able to argue: we make DOUBLE history this year! First black President, first female VP!

After all, the great majority of their policies are pretty close. Much closer, frankly, than the average 1-2 ticket.

Plus, Obama gets all the Clinton nasty machine to help him on the campaign trail.

You get Obama's youth and visionary leadership. You get Clinton(s) experience backing him up if the 3 AM call comes in. (I.e.: Who does he call? Hilary!)

You get ALL those newly registered democratic voters. You get a huge, insurmountable will-of-the-people bounce. You don't get any of the "white people stole it!" loss that Hilary would suffer if she forces superdelegates to choose her. You don't get any of the "I won't vote for Obama!" sulking that Hilary's forces currently threaten.

You get Hilary urging her white working-class voters to vote for her and Obama.

I wouldn't even have considered this #4 possibility a few weeks ago, but I'm starting to think it may be the devil's bargain that the Clinton's are hoping for--the best worst-case scenario, so to speak, if she simply can't take the #1 spot.

And I think that Obama will consider it. IT WINS HIM THE WHITE HOUSE. Yes, he can win without taking this step, but imagine if you were him and you knew that if you took this step, you WOULD be the President.

I believe an Obama/Clinton ticket is that unbeatable. "The will of the people." That's a powerful rationale--even more powerful than the idea of a new beginning. He and America will have their new beginning, and the Democrats will club oldster McCain.

That should be Clintons, not Clinton's. 6:15 AM leads to this sort of mistake.

rombus wrote:

Political experts have come on shows like Larry King , Hardball with Chris Mathews, etc. and stated that "if it's close, there is a good chance Hillary will get the Democratic nomination"

but it's not close

Fresh talk of 'dream team' emerges in White House race

9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The notion of a Democratic "dream team" uniting to face Republican White House contender John McCain has resurfaced amid increasing calls for Hillary Clinton to abandon her presidential bid.

But even though Clinton herself hinted at such a possibility two months ago, her campaign now insists she has no interest in being vice president and will fight until she beats surging rival Barack Obama for the Democratic party nod.

"I have not heard her evidence any interest in such a ticket," said Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson this week.

"We have not had any conversations with the Obama campaign about such a ticket. And Senator Clinton has said that it is premature to discuss such a ticket."

A squadron of young political activists close to the Clinton camp has also launched a campaign for a "dream ticket" with the website voteboth.com, compiling news stories and blogs about the possibility.

"Originally my goal was to have a place for Clinton-Obama supporters (in that order) to organize," said founder Adam Parkhonenko.

"But over the last few weeks, I have talked with Obama supporters who talk about a Obama-Clinton ticket. And they're right, too."

A centrist Democratic party leader, former congressman Harold Ford, this week urged unity and floated the idea of a single ticket to heal the torn party.

"Does an Obama-Clinton ticket unite this party and erase concerns that Barack Obama has to have when it comes to attracting white middle class, white working class voters?" he asked on MSNBC.

"Is Hillary Clinton the answer to that ticket? It is a question he is going to have to answer and we in the party are going have to think seriously about as we seek to unite."

But some analysts say the responsibility lies with Obama to offer his rival the vice presidency, as John F. Kennedy did in 1960 with rival Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan did in 1980 with George H.W. Bush.

"It's possible that despite all the ill-will and bruised feelings, Senator Obama could very well decide that the prudent course is to reunite the party in the most visible way imaginable," said analyst William Galston, a former aide to president Bill Clinton now with the Brookings Institution.

"As difficult as it is to imagine in the heat of this moment, we have seen this kind of political reconciliation before," he said. "If she does not accept, she will not be forgiven by the party."

Some political onlookers have dreamed for months of a superstar joint ticket, even as the race grew increasingly acrimonious.

Among those were the New York senator's husband, former president Bill Clinton.

"You look at most of these places -- he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when ... Reagan was president," he said in March after his wife won primaries in Ohio and Texas.

"If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."

But even as Obama edged further ahead with victory Tuesday in North Carolina and a narrow defeat in Indiana, the Illinois senator who dreams of becoming America's first black president has offered no indication of his willingness to offer the second seat to Clinton.

"Obviously when we secure the nomination that's a decision that Senator Obama will need to make about who he wants to choose as his running mate, but I think it's premature to talk about who that might be and the timing of that," Obama strategist David Plouffe said.