CNN: 'Clinton allies question reliance on superdelegates?' ... drip,drip,drip

[JackORoses]

Hillary Clinton probably doesn’t like the message coming from some of her supporters, who are now questioning her reliance on superdelegates in order to beat Barack Obama.

New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, who is one of Clinton’s top African-American allies, insists it’s the people, and not the superdelegates, who will select the Democratic nominee for president. Rangel adds, “The people’s will is what’s going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people’s will is.”

Then there’s New York Senator Chuck Schumer, another big Clinton supporter, who doesn’t seem pleased with Clinton’s willingness to fight it out with Obama on the floor of the convention in August. New York’s senior senator is calling on both Clinton and Obama to agree on a winner after the last caucus in June. He says, “I don’t think either candidate wants, or can even get away with, forcing their will down the throat of the other.”

Meanwhile, Clinton shows no signs of letting up. She’s been calling on superdelegates to make their own decisions about whether to support her or Obama. She says they should “exercise independent judgment” and should not just anoint the candidate who is leading after the primaries. Sure, why give the nomination to the candidate who has the most support from the people?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/18/clinton-allies-question-reliance-on-superdelegates/

***

Now even Hillary's New York crew is reading the writing on the wall.

It will be up to them to talk her down. Otherwise, she is going to make quite a scene.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

[anamandujano]

1. If it's not a clear view, then they should go to the convention.

The number 2025 was chosen for a reason.

Because Repukes have been allowed to meddle in our primaries, one can hardly call a hundred or so delegates the will of the people.

[XemaSab]

2. Gotta be careful with ultimatums:

They may not go the way you want them to. :(

[JackORoses]

3. What are you referring to?

you mean the notion that Hillary's is finished? that's actually quite clear if you look at the numbers.

[XemaSab]

4. I'm saying that with regards to Hillary trying to strongarm the superdelegates:

You'll find out who your friends are that way, but will you be happy with teh knowledge?

KnowwhatImean?

[CorpGovActivist]

22. .

[CorpGovActivist]

5. Already rec'd kick n/t

[TexasObserver]

6. The Superdelegates who are elected officials will not suicide their careers for Hillary.

Even the ones who have previously supported her.

[CorpGovActivist]

7. Savvy and salient point. n/t

[TexasObserver]

8. They all know that Hillary will be a down ballot killer. She'll kill the straight party vote, too.

The carnage to county and state officials will be massive. We will have Democrats all over Texas running AGAINST her to try to salvage their own political careers. We can kiss off winning in 35 states or better, from courthouse to the state house.

I do not want to see us lose the House and Senate, and that is a very real possibility if Hillary tops the ticket, even if she were to win with a big state strategy.

[CorpGovActivist]

9. Down-ticket disaster? Yes. Lose Senate/House? Doubtful.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I don't even want to think about that result......

Yes, Hillary = downticket disaster for Dem

Her husband lost the house in 1994.....just like that!

[CorpGovActivist]

12. Ah, I see your political memory is as sharp as mine where Clintons and Congress is ...

... concerned.

:toast:

You should see the phone lines lit up from OHIO and TEXAS media outlets right now, FrenchieCat.

- Dave

[TexasObserver]

13. Sure it's possible to lose the House or the Senate, or both.

I'm certain I've been more involved in more US Senate and House races the past 40 years than you, so you might want to consider the possibility you're not an authority on all things.

[CorpGovActivist]

17. Which Senate seats do you see vulnerable if Clinton is the nom?

I'll bite.

- Dave

[TexasObserver]

21. I see no point in playing that game. It's destructive and unhelpful.

If she gets the nomination, I'll be focused on the ones we might lose, and I won't be posting about it, as that serves no good purpose.

I would suggest to you, however, that historically when the top of the ticket is bad, it causes straight party votes to drop off, and causes the Dem turnover to drop. Both reduce the ability of Dems to hold seats and gain new ones.

If I didn't sincerely believe that she will jeopardize the House and Senate, I wouldn't post it. Certainly, it's a judgment call. You have yours, and I have mine. I've had to fight this fight before in years we had losers at the top, and it's not pretty. It's not impossible to win against the grain, as we did in '84 senate races, but it is difficult. We produced a good crop of new senators that year, but it was because we abandoned the Mondale race entirely and focused only on the races of John Kerry, Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Paul Simon and Jay Rockefeller.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. well maybe they will get the same Clinton treatment Obama got

ever think of that?

Someone like Ted Kennedy can stand up to Hillary, but can the rest?

[Tatiana]

20. YEP. Can you imagine her campaigning with, say, Rick Noriega?

I sure as hell can't.

[Cha]

11. Wow! Charlie Rangel sounds like

Alma is having some good influence on him..:)

[Eurobabe]

14. She's slowly cooking her own goose. n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

15. Or cooking in her own juices...

But the juice isn't Kool-Aid!

[Eurobabe]

16. No its hydrofluoric acid, have you watched Breaking Bad on AMC?

OMG what a cool show.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. SEXIST