Dodd Calls on Party Leaders to Bring Nomination Battle to an End

[jefferson_dem]

Dodd Calls on Party Leaders to Bring Nomination Battle to an End
Thursday, March 27th, 2008



Connecticut Senator/Obama supporter tells National Journal’s Linda Douglass:

“Certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion…instead of having this sort of drip on for the next five months — that is devastating in my view.”

http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/27/dodd-calls-on-party-leaders-to-bring-nomination-battle-to-an-end/

FULL TRANSCRIPT ---> http://nationaljournal.com/onair/transcripts/080327_dodd_chris.htm

[Lucky 13]

1. Good man. Now where are Edwards, Carter, and Gore?

[anamandujano]

50. They would never sign on to this sh*t, especially Gore

who will remember his and our struggle against the calls of the Repuke media to shut down the process in Florida in 2000.

[AX10]

72. Chris Dodd is calling on the party to cut the process short.

Just how the media and the USSC did in 2000.

Dodd will never get another vote from me. Worthless SOB that he is. :puke:

[Birthmark]

2. Why? Is the process broken in some way?

Are the states with later primaries less worthy of having an effect than might Iowa and brave, noble New Hampshire? If so, why?

And if the process IS broken, then let's fix it.

[stahbrett]

Hillary cannot win without destroying the Democratic party

So here's the deal - Obama will enter the convention with the most pledged delegates. The consensus from the superdelegates, even some of Hillary's superdelegates, is that the superdelegates should not overturn the will of the people as expressed in the existing primaries/caucuses system.

The only way for her to convince the superdelegates to do so will be to be successful in destroying Obama somehow, which will completely destroy her chances of attracting the crucial and normally solid voters Democrats need in order to win.

So I want the superdelegates to make a statement soon - get a group of 10-20 of them if not more, and hold a big press conference explaining why they felt the need to come out now for Obama. That should start a chain reaction of superdelegates, and hopefully be enough to force Hillary from her attempt to destroy the Democratic party.

[Birthmark]

40. That's a charming story.

I can't wait for the movie!

OTOH, we can just wait for the voters to actually finish voting.

[polichick]

11. Late state primaries don't usually count - and yes, the process is broken...

But Hillary's stance has NOTHING to do with voters and EVERYTHING to do with her.

[Birthmark]

41. So what?

Isn't she entitled to under the rules? If so, then it's merely a matter of individual taste as to whether or not she should quit. Or whether Obama should.

[ShadowLiberal]

30. I'm from a state that hasn't voted, and I say screw waiting for all 50 states to vote

I have not been able to vote in the primaries yet this year, and unless they change how it's decided who goes first I'll probably never be able to cast a meaningful primary vote for a presidential candidate in my entire life.

I don't care much about that however, I'd much rather have the early states quickly get a nominee chosen, even if it's not who I wanted, and see us win and push a liberal agenda through Washington. I'll gladly give up my primary choice for a far greater shot at winning the general election, I'm sick of us losing, and sick of neocon rule, I don't want another 4 or 8 years of it under McCain.

I say it's about time that party leaders start pressuring these people to end this thing already. There's a darn good reason why the neocons are just sitting back laughing at us gleefully. In my opinion it's probably already too late now, the damage is done to both Hillary and Obama's images, they've both become unelectable against McCain, and we're probably going to see 4 to 8 more years of neocon rule because of this mess.

[Birthmark]

43. It's your right to negate your own vote...

...but others may not agree. And they have a legal right to vote. I think that they have a moral right to have it count for something. (I do think that the process is broken.)

I do agree that McCain will win, though not for the same reasons you do. I think both Obama and Clinton are the wrong candidates at the wrong time. But the next President, no matter who he or she is will serve only one term...unless they move radically to the left.

[FogerRox]

71. I voted for Kerry in June of '04, a completely meaningless effort on my part.

[catgirl]

58. Cheers to ShadowLiberal

I admire you for saying this. :-)

[billybob537]

32. The numbers make it Highly unlikely

That Sen. Clinton could gain the lead. She would have to swweep just about all the remaining primaries. Polls In NC alone Obama 68% to Clinton 28% make this near Impossable. Hillary is just hoping for Something Like Obama strangeling kittens on live TV. It aint gonna happen. I nthink she'd rather see McCrazy win so she can try again in 2012. It's time for her to stop harming our party and endorse "The Next President Barak Obama."

[Birthmark]

45. Your unspoken premise is...

..."all things being equal." And you're right, imo. It IS unlikely for Clinton to come back. However, a million things could happen between now and the convention.

[Deep13]

3. So the remaining states don't get a voice? What an asshole.

Typical we-know-best ivory tower North East liberal.

[GarbagemanLB]

4. So you care about the voice of the people? I guess you believe whoever wins the pledged delegates

should win the nomination, right?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Conversation over.

Oddly enough.

[PetraPooh]

12. There is mathematically no way for Hillary to win. The voters have spoken.

That being said, I think it should go all the way to June, but Hillary should be sanctioned somehow if she makes any more lies or swiftboat manuevers.

[Mooney]

13. What's wrong with North East liberals?

Do tell.

[blm]

15. Hillary planned for it to be over on Feb 5 - and that would have been fine with you.

Don't give us any of the faux outrage over other states. The ONLY reason that this is continuing is the Clintons determination to make McCain president so she can start again for 2012.

[Mooney]

20. Thank you. n/t

[cascadiance]

29. Makes you wonder if they didn't want Kerry to win for the same reason in 2004!

We need leaders that work for the people and our party, not for themselves!

[blm]

36. They were undermining ANY Dem nominee and McAuliffe was in position to make sure the party DIDN'T

work well for the nominee - the party infrastructures in many crucial states had been collapsed since before 2000 and Terry Mac had no interest in rebuilding them for 2002 amd 2004.

They didn't WANT Kerry at all - Brinkley has said they were undermining him throughout 2003, too, and many speculated at the time that Wes Clark was set up to run to dilute Kerry's base and curry favors for a future Hillary2008 run. Who knows how many maneuvers they pulled off, but it would have been done with ANY nominee.

[truedelphi]

67. Thanks for posting this. As you know,

my disillusionment with Hillary began in 2005 when several voting reform activists told me that Hillary had scolded John Edwardson the day after the Nov election. With many many unocunted ballots, Edwards was saying that every vote should be counted.

Hillary informed him that he was grandstanding.

Then it came out in Woodward's book that Hillary's boy, Carville, had also attempted to dissuade Kerry from continuing fighting for a full count in ohio. yes I blame Kerry for conceding, but the actions of Hilary herself and of Carville have never let me think of her with anything but contempt.

[cascadiance]

68. I still remember Carville RIGHT AFTER networks called it for Bush...

... in the night already jumping up and trying to do an "analysis" of what the Democrats did wrong to explain why they lost, rather than trying to step back and make sure that the votes were counted properly, which there was a lot of doubt about with what happened in Ohio. Right then you could tell Carville was trying to pound nails in to the coffin before any kind of challenge could be made.

Putting what has happened now in perspective with what they did then, it really isn't hard for one to see that they've been playing us for all these years for their own power.

[truedelphi]

69. i am so jaded now that whenever I mull over those moments when

Bill Clinton woul dsay things like "We just don't hae the muscle in Congress to take on the Republicans - we HAVE to give them their way!" that I now think he wsn't all that unhappy about it.

[blm]

77. That's inaccurate - There were NO votes to count as Blackwell controlled how many

provisional ballots were handed over.

It's a myth that the votes weren't counted and there WAS an automatic recount that kicked in - but the recount was by OHIO'S RULES which meant a sampling. The time to secure these matters were in the years BEFORE the election.

The Clinton-McAuliffe run DNC made sure Ohio's Dem party was not strong enough to asser any control over the election process.

BTW - Carville DIDN'T dissuade Kerry - Carville SABOTAGED the VOTES made by provisional ballot so Kerry WOULDN'T have the math with him to put up a battle.

Edwards wanted to delay conceding till the next day - Kerry sided with Edwards on that and they waited till the next day. The story that Edwards fought to not concede at all is internet myth.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. At this point it doesn't matter how the remaining states vote.

It's essentially mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to overccome Obama's pledged-delegate lead. The idea that the remaining states should 'have a voice' when the outcome is inevitable is like arguing that the last three games of a best-of-seven series should be played after one team sweeps the first four, because the other team might WIN those. It won't change the outcome. (And there's generally been a nominee well before this point in the process; there was in 2000, in 2004...late-voting primary states didn't select the nominee then, either).

[H2O Man]

34. This is one

of the responses to an OP that deserves to be "nominated."

[PylesMalfunction]

57. Thanks!

I really like that analogy.

[Shakespeare]

60. PERFECT analogy.

:applause:

[anamandujano]

62. Nothing is inevitable except death, taxes and the simplistic way

your mind works.

[stahbrett]

21. Late states could either move up their election dates (but not too far up :D)

Or enough states' Democratic parties can get together and revamp the nomination process - but they should do it within the rules. I have TONS of ideas that I think would improve the nomination process, but the CURRENT nomination must occur under the existing system. And the existing system usually sees a LOT of states with late primaries have little effect on the nomination.

[superkia]

23. I dont think you would see this kind of thing from these guys if the...

Clinton's weren't running a campaign on dirty tricks and spin, instead of on the issues. It wouldn't make sense to end it then, its just that they and most people that aren't Clinton supporters see what the Clinton's are doing to the party and think its despicable.
This is why I loved my UFO seeing Kucinich, he told the truth and only talked about the real issues, none of this "kitchen sink, look the other way so you don't see who I am" shit!

[my3boyz]

46. Why the hell does it matter if it won't change the numbers?nt

[loveangelc]

47. Which states after April is she favored to win? besides puerto rico kentucky and west virginia?

[ourbluenation]

52. No, not when it won't matter they shouldn't. The longer this nightmare goes on, the better the odds

for he who shall not be named. (Rhymes with disdain).


strategery

[high density]

65. I wish I could have voted for Dodd

But he dropped out before my state held its caucus, so I didn't get to voice my preference for him. What an asshole he was for realizing that he couldn't win.

[anamandujano]

5. Dodd Calls on Party Leaders to silence the voters.

[cascadiance]

33. Whereas Hillary wants to silence the MAJORITY who has already voted!

[anamandujano]

48. If new voters put her over the top, then the so-called Majority is now

a Minority. BTW, he has a little more than half the voters, it's a puny majority at best.

[cascadiance]

54. Realistically, this is impossible unless she works with Diebold on this...

... or works on the super-delegates, and you all know it.

John Edwards was probably "asked" to leave when he had a FAR GREATER mathematical chance of winning than she does now! And having "causes" other than himself (unlike Hillary), he had more of a reason to continue staying in the race even if the odds were against him, whereas the only perceivable reason she's still in it is that "she can win", when the numbers show that she can't.

[anamandujano]

59. You just can't predict the outcome of a vote. Remember New Hampshire.

Hillary could very well get her math in order. Why is everyone so afraid to let the process play out.

Your yelling Diebold at this point shows you will never accept Obama's defeat, no matter how badly your nose is rubbed in it.

[cascadiance]

66. I'm not a big Obama fan either...

But I think I see the numbers when I see them...

Unless one counts the democratically FLAWED votes of Michigan and Florida now, she needs 64% of the remaining delegates to be voted on to win a simple majority of pledged votes. That's eight states and two territories all voting with these numbers. And how many SINGLE states up to this point has she had that kind of majority? Chances of her getting that majority in ALL of those states is probably between slim and none. Even if ALL of the 11% of the undecideds in the latest North Carolina poll break her way and Obama wins 55% to 45% there, then even if she wins 68% of all of the other states delegates, she still loses. And you know that Obama isn't just going to win North Carolina. Go to the Slate calculator and see:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

It's trying to play a losing poker hand when you should fold. Now if she's saying she needs to stay in there to keep a "cause" going for what she perceives is not being talked about enough in the Democratic Party, then I don't mind people sticking it out in that instance. But what cause does she have but her selfish self?! She's in effect putting her own selfish interests ahead of the country and the parties'.

Funny you mention New Hampshire, when that is when the questionable counts from Diebold started to work in her favor there, when elsewhere, where one could establish more reliable polling (like caucus states), Obama was more clearly in the lead.

[gateley]

35. Did you read the transcript? It's not that severe at all.

More than giving Obama the nod, although that's who Dodd favors, he's concerned about getting a nominee so we have time to come to grips with the outcome and come together to turn our focus to the GE.

As Dean said:

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/dems.switch.poll/

I think you knee-jerk reacted out of an assumption that Dodd was calling on Clinton to withdraw -- but he didn't.

[anamandujano]

49. The guy is clearly a stooge who watches too much TV. He is on

board with letting the Repuke MSM decide our nominee.

He is taking a snapshot of the race and drawing unfounded conclusions. He is another in the line of so-called leaders who are trying to get us to buy into shutting down the democratic process. It's reminiscent of the 2000 race where Tweety and his friends called for Gore to stop asking for the vote to be counted because "it's hurting the country."

If Dodd thinks any nominee is going to have a walk in the park and that the Pukes don't have their opposition research ready to go on Obama, he needs a brain transplant asap.

"I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are."

Dipsh*t!

[TheDonkey]

6. Thank you Dodd. Hear that DU leadership? Time to endorse Obama and end this nonsense.

[tishaLA]

7. drip drip drip

Après Dodd le Déluge

[DJ13]

8. Now we know why Carville was so pissed at Richardson

It signaled that super delegates should be free to end this now that Clinton has no chance to win.

[Mme. Defarge]

10. Sign me up

for the Obama/Dodd Squad!

[BeyondGeography]

14. But we've only had 43 contested elections so far, Chris

:sarcasm:

[jefferson_dem]

17. And Hillary only wants three more months to fuck up Obama's chances in the General...

:sarcasm:

[Mooney]

18. You never know.

HRC might win 100% of all the votes and delegates of all the remaining states. Why do you hate democracy?

[billybob537]

38. You're absolutly right.

that's entirely possable And monkeys could fly out of my ass.

[Mooney]

39. And HRC might discover

some as-yet-unseen inner reserve of dignity and drop out on her own without being threatened.

[EFerrari]

16. Good for Senator Dodd. The more I get to know him

the more I appreciate him.

[sniffa]

44. I love Dodd

He does what's right.

[cerebellum]

22. I don't think HIllary is hurting the party

If she were, Obama wouldn't be leading McCain in the latest WSJ/NBC poll.

[PetraPooh]

26. You've got a good point, she is only hurting herself, let her continue to do it.

[gateley]

24. I'd recommend that everyone read the transcript.

It's very interesting, and clues us in to what the thinking behind the scenes may be.

[anamandujano]

61. It's very similar to what goes on in a banana republic.

Not so interesting when one is used to thinking they live in a democracy.

[Skip Intro]

25. Half my party is scared to death of its own damn Democratic process.

How dare Hillary, who has broken no rules and is breaking no rules, not step aside and allow the crowning of the chosen one.

Freakin cowards, if you ask me.

[anamandujano]

63. They will not like the way history remembers them. They are right

there with the Supreme Joke of 2000.

[1776Forever]

27. This has to stop soon - Just realized the convention is at the end of August!!!!!!!!

It is going to be hard on her supporters for HRC to do it but it would be best for the Party I think for her to drop out after NC. The Repub's are loving this! With the convention at the end of August that means we only will have Sept, Oct, and a few days in Nov. to wrap this up. It has got to invade on her reputation if she stays in until then.

Or it is going to be McCain answering the phone!!!!!!!!!!

[tularetom]

28. He is as much of a party leader as anyone

So why doesn't he get off his ass and deliver a strongly worded message to the klintoons to get the fuck out.

[Mooney]

37. Because he's still holding out some hope that they'll act like adults

and do the decent thing. We'll see where he is with that in a couple of weeks though.

[H2O Man]

31. Thank you.

He is a good man.

[Joe the Revelator]

42. Its going to happen sooner rather then later

[workinclasszero]

51. Yeah, 5 more months of this will hand the white house to McCain on a sliver platter

Of course that may be Pig Penn and Hillary's plan.

The party needs to stand up to Hillary and tell her to GTFO of the race...NOW!

[anamandujano]

64. You all don't show much faith in your inspirational leader's ability to inspire and lead.

If he can't handle Clinton. If he can't handle the Repukes. He can't handle the presidency.

Everyone has been making his undeserved and meteoric rise easy for him.

[SoCalDem]

53. Supers should all be UNCOMMITTED until there are 2 candidates remaining

and as soon as #3 drops out, they should all vote by secret ballot..and line up behind their candidate.. That would be early enough in the "game" for each candidate to be able to assess their standing, and as "extra" delegates get added via state conventions, they should also vote anonymously..

No arm twisting..and they could truly vote their conscience..

had that been the case this time...after the 12 in a row, there would have been NO question of whether to continue or not.. as long as there are 300+ sitting on the sidelines..the water's totally muddied..

[cascadiance]

56. Arguably, super delegates shouldn't be used at all, except in emergencies which we DON'T HAVE now!

If Obama were found as a suspect in a murder case or something like that now, and that news would keep him from getting elected, then having the super delegates (or even pledge delegates) be able to revote for someone untainted in that case might make sense. But trying to "invent" all of these false emergencies just to get an angle on getting elected when most of America says they don't want you is trying to game the system.

If we didn't have super delegates normally, then they'd be more free to support who they truly believe would be the best nominee, and help campaign more for what that candidate will do. Now they are "muzzled" to do what their state has voted to do, or they "contradict" what their state wants with their "more powerful" super delegate votes. The way it is now leads to distrust and manipulation in so many directions.

[Kurovski]

55. K&R. (nt)

[Scurrilous]

70. K & R

:thumbsup:

[BringBigDogBack]

73. Kick

[ORDem]

74. K&R

:kick:

[Beacool]

75. Hey Dodd, how about letting voters decide the outcome of this race?

What the hell is this drumbeat about? If the Obama camp is so sure that their guy will be a winner in November, then let the process continue until the end.

[loveangelc]

76. you go dodd