[Kerrigan]

Can Hillary lose with grace? Last week, Peggy Noonan didn't think so.

This week, we see that Hillary is still holding out on congratulating Obama for all of his recent victories.

If and when she loses her bid for the Democrat nomination, how will she handle it? Will she lose ugly, or will she imitate grace, back out, and revive her ambitions in the next election cycle?

For my part, I think her campaign will continue to play the race card, continue to lose ground to Obama, and Hillary will continue to appear as a bad example of sportsmanship.

For my part, I think this stubbornness and irascibility, which manifests itself in a lack of sportsmanship or grace, is part of the problem of the Democratic party which Obama is offering to change.

[Oversoul]

I think not.

Her campaign has already played the race card. As Frank Rich pointedly wrote in his editorial in the NY Times this weekend:

[O]nce black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself).

The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons

I think this has proven itself out every time Hillary dismisses Obama's wins as a product of the black vote. This excuse is getting lame and exposing its lack of foundation as Obama continues to pick up wins in states with only small black populations.

Already, Hillary is running a negative ad against Obama in Wisconsin. A bit disingenuous because (1) the candidates have already held 18 debates this election cycle (what's changed other than the fact that Hillary is now trailing), (2) there are 2 scheduled debates coming up; (3) Hillary herself refused to debate her last Senate challenger, claiming her need to be on the trail to meet her constituents, and (4) it's well known that Hillary has been insisting on a debate a week because she cannot compete with Obama in buying ad spots. Debates are not something for Hillary to pick and choose on her own time when it suits her best and then twist it as a detriment to the electorate to be blamed on the supposed evasiveness on Obama's part.

Moreover, her campaign already plots an end run to the nomination:

The Clinton campaign has said that the leader in pledged delegates will not necessarily be the party’s nominee, as superdelegate votes have equal weight in the Democratic nominating process. The campaign has also said they will fight to seat delegations from Michigan and Florida, which were stripped of their voting privileges for violating party rules in scheduling their presidential primaries. Source.

So Hillary's going to have a number of superdelegates who owe her or her husband favors or who cut deals with her in back rooms decide the election after Democrats across the states have all but decided the election? And Hillary's proposing on changing the rules of the game after the game's been played? Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot nor did he campaign in Florida, per his word. Hillary on the other hand, defied the Democratic party's sanction, did not take her name off the Michigan ballot, and held "fundraisers" in Florida. Now she's trying to claim rightful victory and legitimize her defiance of party rules?

I'm sure this will all go down well in Denver. As Frank Rich in the above editorial pointed out, civil war. If it comes down to Obama winning more pledged delegates and more states, Hillary would be best advised to drop her bid and bow out gracefully, or, and I'm not kidding, she'll destroy the Democratic party and taint her candidacy.

[Cold Warrior]

I don't think she'd lose gracefully. She and her campaign machine will blame others -- blacks (for siding with "the black candidate"); the media (for gushing over Obama and abandoning her); her advisors (for strategy failures); her lobbyist backers (for not recruiting enough donations); and the voters in general for being stupid enough (what I think her and Bill's mentality will be. Not mine!) to vote for Obama.

It's going to get ugly if she loses.

[chris v]

Is it possible she could be so normal? Politicians lose battles, it's part of what they do, win and lose. But she does not know how to lose. Can she lose with grace? But she does grace the way George W. Bush does nuance.

This is some sloppy-ass writing. Where is Ms. Noonan's editor?

[Sherman Homan]

So far, the only constant in this race is that every candidate who seems to be "inevitable" loses the next primary.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

So Hillary's going to have a number of superdelegates who owe her or her husband favors or who cut deals with her in back rooms decide the election after Democrats across the states have all but decided the election? And Hillary's proposing on changing the rules of the game after the game's been played? Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot nor did he campaign in Florida, per his word. Hillary on the other hand, defied the Democratic party's sanction, did not take her name off the Michigan ballot, and held "fundraisers" in Florida. Now she's trying to claim rightful victory and legitimize her defiance of party rules?

I'm sure this will all go down well in Denver. As Frank Rich in the above editorial pointed out, civil war. If it comes down to Obama winning more pledged delegates and more states, Hillary would be best advised to drop her bid and bow out gracefully, or, and I'm not kidding, she'll destroy the Democratic party and taint her candidacy.

I agree on the Michigan & Florida thing, but not about the superdelegates. I've heard this argument many times now about how the superdelegates will be stealing the election if they go against the voters. But the rules are the rules, and the current rules are that the superdelegates have a vote. They are not required by the rules to follow the primaries. If people try to now say that they must follow the voters, they're the ones changing the rules. I'm not sure I understand or agree with the whole idea of superdelegates, but that's how the Democratic party has set the rules.

Furthermore, it's not at all clear to me that the system favors Clinton. People are assuming right now that Obama will have the advantage in primary-based delegates and Clinton will have the lead among superdelegates. But there are still lots of primaries left, and it's close enough right now that Clinton could come out ahead. On superdelegates, she has the lead right now because when most of those announced their support, Clinton looked like the inevitable winner. But, first, it's possible for them to change their minds, and second, I think they will on balance favor Obama - they can read the polls showing Obama the (slightly) stronger general election candidate, and they know that having Hillary as the nominee will energize Republicans against Democrats. so I could easily see the superdelegates going for Obama over Clinton, even if Clinton has the lead in primary delegates.

Either way, those are the rules. To now set up a requirement that they have to follow the voters doesn't seem fair to me, when those haven't been the rules in the past.

[Cold Warrior]

Politically I think the dems have put themselves in a tough spot with super delegates if they vote against the majority regular votes. Here's why: after Gore lost the electoral vote in 2000, dems complained a lot about the system and that it was supposedly unfair to go against the majority vote. They also like to rail against Bush for suppressing civil liberties and freedom.

I don't see how they can realistically reconcile the difference. But I'm open to arguments.

[vmarks]

Pay attention.

Ms. Clinton will be the Democrat party's nominee.

Delegates don't matter. Super delegates don't matter. All of Obama's recent victories do not matter.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are going to go to convention, and delegates will vote. These will be counted. Then the two candidates will go into a back room and meet with party leadership. Mr. Obama will graciously concede to Ms. Clinton, as she becomes the nominee.

She's a Clinton. There will be no losing with grace. For her, there can be no losing. She wasn't supposed to have had to contend with competition this far. It will not continue.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Edit: Re: Cold Warrior
I'm not sure I'm following you. If the super delegates do go against the popular vote, I don't see how you can indict all democrats for them previous railing against the electoral system. I imagine the outcry from democrats will be fairly loud.

[Chuckit]

That would be suicide for the Democrats. If Hillary loses and still gets the nomination, there will be a friggin' riot and McCain will beat her so badly her great-grandmother will feel it.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I guess it wouldn't be a complete loss then.

[Chongo]

More bad news
Clinton Ex-Campaign Manager Backs Obama

[smacintush]

No she won't lose gracefully. If she loses I think it's pretty safe to say that it'll be AT LEAST 2016 before she'd have a serious shot at it again and she'll be 68 by then. I think this is her last shot.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That would be suicide for the Democrats. If Hillary loses and still gets the nomination, there will be a friggin' riot and McCain will beat her so badly her great-grandmother will feel it.

Actually, watch how quickly everyone gets in line behind her once it happens.

Democrats haven't rioted since 1968 in Chicago. I expect they've forgotten how to do it.

Clinton's weak point right now is that she's got 50% support 50% against her going into this thing. But McCain is unlikely to pull Democrat voters when those voters can vote for Clinton.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Politically I think the dems have put themselves in a tough spot with super delegates if they vote against the majority regular votes. Here's why: after Gore lost the electoral vote in 2000, dems complained a lot about the system and that it was supposedly unfair to go against the majority vote. They also like to rail against Bush for suppressing civil liberties and freedom.

I don't see how they can realistically reconcile the difference. But I'm open to arguments.

In my view, the rules are the rules. Superdelegates get to vote. To try to change that now, to say they have to rubber-stamp the popular vote, is to try to change the rules. I don't recall any serious Democrats saying in 2000 that we ought to change the electoral college system for that election. They may have said we ought to dump the electoral college in the future and just go by popular vote, but that wouldn't be changing the rules for that election. The main complaint about the 2000 vote (and I agree with it 100%) was that the machines and vote counting methods were so screwy that the fact that more people tried to vote for Gore in Florida wasn't reflected in the final totals. That doesn't seem to me to be related to this superdelegate issue.

[Oversoul]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Pay attention.

Ms. Clinton will be the Democrat party's nominee.

Delegates don't matter. Super delegates don't matter. All of Obama's recent victories do not matter.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are going to go to convention, and delegates will vote. These will be counted. Then the two candidates will go into a back room and meet with party leadership. Mr. Obama will graciously concede to Ms. Clinton, as she becomes the nominee.

She's a Clinton. There will be no losing with grace. For her, there can be no losing. She wasn't supposed to have had to contend with competition this far. It will not continue.

Dad?

(You're not the only one I know who thinks this is how it will play out.)

[Oversoul]

The superdelegates should vote and their votes will count. But I think if several factors are working on Obama's side leading up to the convention, including winning more states or riding on a string of victories, having more pledged delegates, winning the popular vote, polls showing he's in the better position to challenge McCain, the superdelegates will be hard pressed to deny their vote to Obama and will be asking for a riot if they coronate Hillary instead. Even worse is if it is leaked that Hillary lined up these superdelegate votes in an underhanded manner and the insinuation will be that the nomination was bought by political favor.

Same goes if it were other way around..

[ink]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Ms. Clinton will be the Democrat party's nominee.

Delegates don't matter. Super delegates don't matter. All of Obama's recent victories do not matter.

You're completely wrong, but we'll see, in Denver.

[vmarks]

Come on, you don't want to make Mrs. Clinton cry* do you?




*again. and again.

[Eug]

I think this illustrates why this system is such an idiotic waste of cash.

Just have them ALL vote on the same day, and the amount of money spent could be 1/10th as much. $200 million would feed a lot of hungry kids in the US. IMO, a true Democrat should donate his or her $100 (or $10000) to a nice charity than to a bunch of grandstanding politicians.*

*I NEVER donate money to a political candidate or party, and donate my money to various charities instead.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think this illustrates why this system is such an idiotic waste of cash.

Just have them ALL vote on the same day, .

That makes too much sense.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Pay attention.

Ms. Clinton will be the Democrat party's nominee.

Delegates don't matter. Super delegates don't matter. All of Obama's recent victories do not matter.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are going to go to convention, and delegates will vote. These will be counted. Then the two candidates will go into a back room and meet with party leadership. Mr. Obama will graciously concede to Ms. Clinton, as she becomes the nominee.

She's a Clinton. There will be no losing with grace. For her, there can be no losing. She wasn't supposed to have had to contend with competition this far. It will not continue.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

[BadKosh]

Gee, I hope not. I'm hoping for a major blow-up this summer some time. Just imagine the entertainment value!

[Eug]

Maybe they should just have a cage match. Winner wins all. Loser is beaten to a pulp, so is unable to utter anything after losing.



Or perhaps they should have an America's Next Top Model-like competition if you guys are relishing nasty comments about the winner by the loser.

[subego]

Obama looks better with hair.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Obama looks better with hair.

Um, that's Hillary.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Um, that's Hillary.

This thread is useless without Photochop.

[Dork.]

The fact that we're even asking this question is a sign that many of us don't feel she has the capability to be genuine. After all, when did her campaign gain the most "buzz"? When she let down her guard for a little while and let her true emotions show through. Was she crying? It doesn't matter, she was just being genuine. That couldn't last, though.

Perhaps it has a lot to do with how the press was portraying her, but she was the frontrunner going into this and had an air of invincibility about her candidacy. Having the nominating contest last this long means that even if she wins, she now looks mortal. It's like she's expecting to win just based on her record earlier in the season, and when Obama stays in there and starts a competitive race, she isn't prepared for it and starts to blow it. (Similar, in a way, to a certain baseball team which shall remain nameless....)

Personally, I think McCain was the best nominee that could have come out of the Republican side. I'm going to give him a good, hard look this year, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That would be suicide for the Democrats. If Hillary loses and still gets the nomination, there will be a friggin' riot and McCain will beat her so badly her great-grandmother will feel it.

Could wing up being a good point.

Then again, McCain looks like he could be her great-grandmother.

I still think Hillary is going to wind up losing. She will not bow out gracefully, and she will probably be abandoned by the majority of Democrats forever out of fear that she is unelectable. If the majority of Democrats don't want her, how could the majority of the country want her (especially with her track record of being an incredibly polarizing figure)?

People are getting sick of the Clintons. Obama, while not exactly the most experienced, presents a fresh change for Democrats.

[BadKosh]

Fresh change for the worse?

[subego]

Worse than who?

[Dakar the Fourth]

You liked Kerry better?

[subego]

That was my second question.

Edit: actually that was my first question, but then I changed it to "who" because I guess he could mean Clinton, or Bush.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by subego 

Obama looks better with hair.

So it seems the consensus is that we should go with an America's Next Top Model type nomination process.

So be it. Here are the entries in the hair category:

[Dakar the Fourth]

Barry
ahahahaha

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I still think Hillary is going to wind up losing. She will not bow out gracefully, and she will probably be abandoned by the majority of Democrats forever out of fear that she is unelectable.

That's what always happens with Democrat presidential candidates.
Once they've failed to get the nomination, they never are given another chance.
Reagan ran against Goldwater in 1968, against Ford in 1976, and against Carter in 1980. Democrats almost never do. Edwards is the recent example, where he tried last time, but won't even make it to convention this time. Other than that, failed efforts to try and recruit Gore are about the sum of it. Democrats tend to run someone once and then give up on them as unelectable forever.

[Dakar the Fourth]

That's actually rather interesting.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's what always happens with Democrat presidential candidates.
Once they've failed to get the nomination, they never are given another chance.
Reagan ran against Goldwater in 1968, against Ford in 1976, and against Carter in 1980. Democrats almost never do. Edwards is the recent example, where he tried last time, but won't even make it to convention this time. Other than that, failed efforts to try and recruit Gore are about the sum of it. Democrats tend to run someone once and then give up on them as unelectable forever.

I guess that's the price of being the party of Change.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's what always happens with Democrat presidential candidates.

I've heard this stated from the other direction in that Republicans are more about giving someone their "turn", whereas the Democrats aren't.

[vmarks]

That occasionally happens, but mostly it's that Republicans will give second and third chances if someone is a good candidate.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's what always happens with Democrat presidential candidates.
Once they've failed to get the nomination, they never are given another chance.
Reagan ran against Goldwater in 1968, against Ford in 1976, and against Carter in 1980. Democrats almost never do. Edwards is the recent example, where he tried last time, but won't even make it to convention this time. Other than that, failed efforts to try and recruit Gore are about the sum of it. Democrats tend to run someone once and then give up on them as unelectable forever.

Reagan campaigned for Goldwater in '64. He was Gov. of CA from '67 to '75

[Chongo]

NY Times-Democrats Look to Avoid Convention Rift

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Pay attention.

Ms. Clinton will be the Democrat party's nominee.

Delegates don't matter. Super delegates don't matter. All of Obama's recent victories do not matter.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are going to go to convention, and delegates will vote. These will be counted. Then the two candidates will go into a back room and meet with party leadership. Mr. Obama will graciously concede to Ms. Clinton, as she becomes the nominee.

She's a Clinton. There will be no losing with grace. For her, there can be no losing. She wasn't supposed to have had to contend with competition this far. It will not continue.

1. What do you get out of using the misnomer Democrat Party? How does this advance your cause, and does it make you feel good to insult those with different views by taunting them or what?

2. Your theory would cause a freaking civil war. If it comes down to a convention fight, the candidate with the most delegate votes will win the nomination. Hillary may go down swinging, and with little or no grace, but nobody in the party besides her and a few of her closest aides are willing to risk civil war. They'll be hung out to dry if they try. Of course, she could still win the nomination fair and square, by garnering the most delegates as well. It's going to be an interesting spring and summer.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by chris v 

1. What do you get out of using the misnomer Democrat Party? How does this advance your cause, and does it make you feel good to insult those with different views by taunting them or what?

2. Your theory would cause a freaking civil war. If it comes down to a convention fight, the candidate with the most delegate votes will win the nomination. Hillary may go down swinging, and with little or no grace, but nobody in the party besides her and a few of her closest aides are willing to risk civil war. They'll be hung out to dry if they try. Of course, she could still win the nomination fair and square, by garnering the most delegates as well. It's going to be an interesting spring and summer.

The numbers have been run and with the way the delegates are awarded (proportional, there are no winner takes all) the only way Hillary can pass Barack and win is if she get 80-90% of the votes in the primaries from now until the convention. There are concerns neither can get the 2K+ required to win outright (Barack will be well ahead, though) and it will come down to the "Super Delegates" and the money is already flying Superdelegates get campaign cash - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The numbers have been run and with the way the delegates are awarded (proportional, there are no winner takes all) the only way Hillary can pass Barack and win is if she get 80-90% of the votes in the primaries from now until the convention. There are concerns neither can get the 2K+ required to win outright (Barack will be well ahead, though) and it will come down to the "Super Delegates" and the money is already flying Superdelegates get campaign cash - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

Well, what vmarks seemed to be suggesting was that Obama would win the vote at the convention, superdelegates and all, and then would somehow then be dragged off into a back room where he would be induced to "concede" to Hillary despite his victory. I find this to be a tad farfetched.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by chris v 

1. What do you get out of using the misnomer Democrat Party? How does this advance your cause, and does it make you feel good to insult those with different views by taunting them or what?

2. Your theory would cause a freaking civil war. If it comes down to a convention fight, the candidate with the most delegate votes will win the nomination. Hillary may go down swinging, and with little or no grace, but nobody in the party besides her and a few of her closest aides are willing to risk civil war. They'll be hung out to dry if they try. Of course, she could still win the nomination fair and square, by garnering the most delegates as well. It's going to be an interesting spring and summer.

Your two points are linked. His view of the "Democrat party" is biasing his assessment of the situation. There's no issue here - there's no way the party (i.e., the superdelegates) are going to give the nomination to Clinton despite Obama winning the primaries. Most believe Obama is the stronger candidate anyway, so they're probably glad he's going to win.

I'd like to ask vmarks to bet on his allegedly certain scenario. If you're as confident as your certainty suggests, you should be willing to bet on it. It seems likely that Obama will win the primaries, so it should be easy to test your theory. So let's bet on it. Whoever is wrong has to put "I'm a big dummy" as his signature on MacNN for 6 months. Deal?

[ebuddy]

I'm telling you now, Hillary will not be the nominee.

She feels she has a better shot at the generals. She will follow the lead of Lieberman, select the most moderate running-mate she can find with a name and run as an independent. With the support of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter, she will win.

A less likely scenario is that the two make nice and Hillary becomes Obama's running mate; a kind of "look how progressive we've become" show of solidarity to one another and to society. The running mate is not nearly as important as people make out, but the Republicans would find Hillary too blatant a choice to ignore and waste most of their time bashing the #2, leaving Barack an open road to the White House.

[Kerrigan]

I don't know what planet you're living on, ebuddy. Hillary running as a third party candidate? How on earth would that work? Most Democrats will vote for the Democrat nomination, and not a single Republican on earth will vote for her.

It's far more likely that she and Obama would be on the same ticket, but even that is far fetched, and a bit of a stupid prediction. She hasn't even congratulated Obama on any of his last 8 victories, I would not see her as being favorably disposed towards playing second fiddle to him.

[ebuddy]

ebuddy quatrain 1:2;

The blue head will inflict upon the red head with as much evil as Moore has done them good, but not first without conflict between the head and hand of the former. Freedom her first love is a lonely endeavor, but as a new hand be raised against her she comes again to companionship; a young king has been chosen for her. United, a formidible body shall silence those with pen and ballot.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Um, that's Hillary.

OMG! I'm rolling around on the floor.