Should Obama Drop Out of the Race?

[metta 0]

HuffPo

Should Obama Drop Out of the Race?

What happened to the Democratic Party?

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've volunteered in countless Democratic campaigns. I've managed campaigns for Democrats. I was a Democratic candidate for statewide

office in California. For three years, I was Chair of the California Democratic Party. But I don't recognize the Democratic Party today.

The party I knew loved a good fight, loved debating the issues, recognized the value of a high-profile, hard-fought primary battle - and believed in giving everyone a fair shot. Today, the Democratic Party's turned into a bunch of weak-willed weenies.

What's going on? The party is blessed with two of the best candidates ever to run for president. The party's making history with the first African-American and the first woman having a serious shot at the presidency. In every state, the Democratic primary is attracting record numbers of new voters and building a huge, new pool of Democrats that will benefit all Democratic candidates in November. And how do party leaders respond? By trying to shut down the primary. This is insane!

Bill Richardson endorses Barack Obama. Good for him. But he can't stop there. He calls on Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd endorse Obama. Good for them, too. But, same thing. Both feel somehow compelled to add that Clinton should quit. Why? There is no more rationale for Clinton to drop out of the race than there is for Obama to drop out of the race.

True, Clinton hasn't locked up the nomination yet. But neither has Obama. True, even if she wins every delegate in every remaining primary, Clinton can not reach the magic 2024 delegates necessary to secure the nomination. But neither can Obama. True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

Plus, and here's the most important point: It's not over yet. Until it is, we can't be sure of the outcome. And it would be a big mistake to end it prematurely. There's been many a boxing match where one fighter won 14 rounds, only to get knocked out in the 15th.

All these Obama supporters calling on Clinton to drop out aren't helping their candidate, either. They make Obama look like he's afraid of a fight. And they themselves look like a stereotypical bunch of men telling a woman she can't hack it in politics, so she might as well get back in the kitchen.

No, Hillary Clinton should not quit this race. And neither should Barack Obama. They're both great candidates. Either one of them will make a great president. So let the primaries continue and let the voters decide. If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll do handstands on the White House lawn. But only if he wins it, fair and square.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Should Obama drop out? Of course not. He's leading by all measures. And that won't change.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

LOL...that's one way of looking at it...assuming that if Obama were the nominee, those Democrats who voted for Clinton won't throw their support behind Obama. The national polls indicate otherwise.

Edited March 29, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

LOL...that's one way of looking at it...assuming that if Obama were the nominee, those Democrats who voted for Clinton won't throw their support behind Obama. The national polls indicate otherwise.

It's the silliest of arguments. Just because she carried a state in a democratic primary does neither mean that Obama wouldn't carry it in a general election or that she would carry it. To use the results of a party primary in any given state as an indicator whether a candidate can carry that state in the general election is the greatest nonsense anyone has ever come up with. And that nonsense is the only argument the Clinton camp has to support her carrying on. Laughable. And pathetic.

[dalegg 143]

True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

LOL...that's one way of looking at it...assuming that if Obama were the nominee, those Democrats who voted for Clinton won't throw their support behind Obama. The national polls indicate otherwise.

It's the silliest of arguments. Just because she carried a state in a democratic primary does neither mean that Obama wouldn't carry it in a general election or that she would carry it. To use the results of a party primary in any given state as an indicator whether a candidate can carry that state in the general election is the greatest nonsense anyone has ever come up with. And that nonsense is the only argument the Clinton camp has to support her carrying on. Laughable. And pathetic.

Silly argument? Isn't it just a flat out lie ( or perhaps the author "mispoke")? You cannot possibly talk about who HAS more electoral votes for the national primary when nobody has any. The writer doesn't even try to explain that statement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

LOL...that's one way of looking at it...assuming that if Obama were the nominee, those Democrats who voted for Clinton won't throw their support behind Obama. The national polls indicate otherwise.

It's the silliest of arguments. Just because she carried a state in a democratic primary does neither mean that Obama wouldn't carry it in a general election or that she would carry it. To use the results of a party primary in any given state as an indicator whether a candidate can carry that state in the general election is the greatest nonsense anyone has ever come up with. And that nonsense is the only argument the Clinton camp has to support her carrying on. Laughable. And pathetic.

Silly argument? Isn't it just a flat out lie ( or perhaps the author "mispoke")? You cannot possibly talk about who HAS more electoral votes for the national primary when nobody has any. The writer doesn't even try to explain that statement.

The fuzzy "logic" behind this silly argument is the comparison of states that each candidate won thus far in terms of their respective electoral votes during the general election. It's like suggesting that she'd carry Texas in November. Or that Obama wouldn't carry California, Massachussets and NY if he was to run. It's fuzzy thinking or grasping at the last straws at best. But really, it's just nonsense.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the simplest answer would be No.

[simple_male 1]

HuffPo

Should Obama Drop Out of the Race?

What happened to the Democratic Party?

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've volunteered in countless Democratic campaigns. I've managed campaigns for Democrats. I was a Democratic candidate for statewide

office in California. For three years, I was Chair of the California Democratic Party. But I don't recognize the Democratic Party today.

The party I knew loved a good fight, loved debating the issues, recognized the value of a high-profile, hard-fought primary battle - and believed in giving everyone a fair shot. Today, the Democratic Party's turned into a bunch of weak-willed weenies.

What's going on? The party is blessed with two of the best candidates ever to run for president. The party's making history with the first African-American and the first woman having a serious shot at the presidency. In every state, the Democratic primary is attracting record numbers of new voters and building a huge, new pool of Democrats that will benefit all Democratic candidates in November. And how do party leaders respond? By trying to shut down the primary. This is insane!

Bill Richardson endorses Barack Obama. Good for him. But he can't stop there. He calls on Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd endorse Obama. Good for them, too. But, same thing. Both feel somehow compelled to add that Clinton should quit. Why? There is no more rationale for Clinton to drop out of the race than there is for Obama to drop out of the race.

True, Clinton hasn't locked up the nomination yet. But neither has Obama. True, even if she wins every delegate in every remaining primary, Clinton can not reach the magic 2024 delegates necessary to secure the nomination. But neither can Obama. True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

Plus, and here's the most important point: It's not over yet. Until it is, we can't be sure of the outcome. And it would be a big mistake to end it prematurely. There's been many a boxing match where one fighter won 14 rounds, only to get knocked out in the 15th.

All these Obama supporters calling on Clinton to drop out aren't helping their candidate, either. They make Obama look like he's afraid of a fight. And they themselves look like a stereotypical bunch of men telling a woman she can't hack it in politics, so she might as well get back in the kitchen.

No, Hillary Clinton should not quit this race. And neither should Barack Obama. They're both great candidates. Either one of them will make a great president. So let the primaries continue and let the voters decide. If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll do handstands on the White House lawn. But only if he wins it, fair and square.

So the candidate who is in first place in all measures (popular voted, delegates, number of states won) should drop out, but not the one who is trailing?

[Teacher Mark 53]

Yes, and the Giants shouldn't have shown up for the Super Bowl either!

[nane1104 146]

Shouldn't the topic be "Should Clinton drop out of the race?"

My last info was, that Obama is still ahead of her and I don't see his popularity drop anywhere....

[Peikko 1,575]

Did you even read beyond the title of the article? Basically it's suggesting that neither candidate should drop out, that the continuation of the fight is valid on both sides and that there is nothing wrong with the two candidates having a good scrap to get the nomination. I agree with all those points because this is the way the Dems choose to elect their nominee.

[SqdnGuns 21]

Should be an interesting convention, maybe a replay of the '68 Dem convention.

From WiKi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democrat...onal_Convention

The selection of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year because of the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to seek re-election (announced March 31st), and Robert Kennedy's assassination (June 6). On one side, Eugene McCarthy, a U.S. senator from Minnesota, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.

The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Did you even read beyond the title of the article? Basically it's suggesting that neither candidate should drop out, that the continuation of the fight is valid on both sides and that there is nothing wrong with the two candidates having a good scrap to get the nomination. I agree with all those points because this is the way the Dems choose to elect their nominee.

The bolded part is where you and the author of the piece err.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Should be an interesting convention, maybe a replay of the '68 Dem convention.

From WiKi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democrat...onal_Convention

The selection of a Presidential nominee was particularly difficult for the Democrats that year because of the split in the party over the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to seek re-election (announced March 31st), and Robert Kennedy's assassination (June 6). On one side, Eugene McCarthy, a U.S. senator from Minnesota, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson's, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.

The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.

There has been more than that one occasion where the nominee was selected at the convention. The Democrats did not win the general election in any of those years. If Hillary keeps dragging it on much longer, history is bound to repeat itself.

[Dan J 277]

True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.

LOL...that's one way of looking at it...assuming that if Obama were the nominee, those Democrats who voted for Clinton won't throw their support behind Obama. The national polls indicate otherwise.

Its a poor argument. Some states are going to be red, and others blue no matter who is the candidate. The real question is, who can pull more of the swing states.