Hillary Clinton: 2008 or 2012

@djbtol (5497)
United States
August 21, 2008 12:22pm CST
This is a time of decision for Hillary Clinton. As we approach the Democratic National Convention next week, things are no longer what they were when Hillary acknowledged Obama Hussein as winner of the democratic primary. Political observers from all sides have observed and commented that Obama's popularity has fallen sharply. Whereas before he had enough poll margin that a win was anticipated, current polls show McCain in the lead. Concern is growing througout the DNC that Obama may not be able to beat McCain in the November election. Meanwhile Hillary and her supporters have taken the steps to make her prominent in the DNC convention. Both her and Bill Clinton are speaking. Hillary has even hired her own media folks to make sure she gets adequate coverage. In addition, Hillary's name has been added to the ballot for the delagate count. Things are in place for a DNC surprise. The ultimate goal for the DNC is to beat McCain. Will they decide that Hillary is their best shot? Hillary supporters are going to be looking for this. Forget party unity, most of the folks that really wanted Hillary to be the candidate have not embraced Obama Hussein. Do you think Hillary should go for it? It would be a startling and courageous move, but you know she is quite a fighter. Or do you think she should play it cool and save her fight for 2012? djbtol
1 person likes this
4 responses
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Rumor has it that Obama will name her as his running mate, forming what they hope will be a Dream Ticket with his supporters and hers combined. It didn't seem likely last week since she was scheduled to speak and she's not the key note speaker but stranger things have happened. I've heard this rumor...prediction...from several political outlets in recent days so who knows? As for your question. I don't believe that she can come in at this late date and beat McCain so, if she's not the V.P., she should wait.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Spalladino, I have got to say that IMO there is no way on God's green earth that Michelle is going to share the Whitehouse with Hillary! There will be no dream ticket! Watch for the fourth of July fireworks in Denver next week!
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
21 Aug 08
It seems like a long shot to me, too, but I've heard it's a possibility more than once so it's not completely out of the question. As for Michelle Obama, at this point I would imagine that her husband is more focused on becoming the president and less focused on how she feels about his running mate.
1 person likes this
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Spalladino, I submit to you the old saying---If momma ain't happy, nobody's happy!
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (76209)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I think there is a possibility that hillary could force herself onto the ticket. I dont know if it will be as the VP or as the top part of the ticket. I dont really think she will try to get the presidential nomination, but if her supporters are strong enough I think it is possible she could get the VP nod.
1 person likes this
@djbtol (5497)
• United States
21 Aug 08
As one not prone to watch the DNC, this one certainly has more appeal! Thanks, djbtol
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Hello Djbtol, I anticipate an a well-planned coup. What sealed my suspicion was the Clinton demand for a roll-call vote. No matter what the 'agreement' between Clinton and Obama was, if the majority of the DNC delegates nominate Hillary, and not Obama, then there is no way that Hillary will decline the 'majority' nomination. To do so would position irreparable 'in-fighting' within the DNC because of the perceived abandon of the principles of Democratic rule. We must remember that a delegate vote can be changed right up until the moment of the vote. This is not so of just superdelegates -- all delegates can change their pledge. This is why I was so stunned that Obama would have conceeded the roll-call vote. I can assume none other than that Obama has never participated in an 'open', roll-called, convention. I dare say that Team Obama is in for quite a surprise. We will not know if the Clintons have dislodged enough delegate votes to succeed in the coup until after the first round of roll-call voting. Perhaps I'm seeing it differently than Team Obama because I was in attendance at the 1976 DNC convention where Jimmy Carter emerged the victor from an open, roll-call series of votes. Unless one has seen it first hand, it's impossible to imagine such a fiercely competitive battle without weaponry. Like you, I've got my lawn chair set up, a cool drink in hand, and am waiting for a fireworks display to match the best 4th of July display ever!
@djbtol (5497)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Could it be that Team Obama has underestimated the Clinton's? As people have said for several months - what are the delegates going to do? Thanks, djbtol
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Hello Djbtol, In fact, that is precisely what I believe has happened. There's a reason why experience matters, and I'm quite confident that Team Obama is about to learn what that reason is. Although, I suspect that the lesson will be much to the chagrin of Team Obama, and a sizeable portion of the Democratic base. If those who call for unity and civility among the ranks of the party ever saw, first-hand, how cut-throat it all is, they would be absolutely stunned!
• United States
21 Aug 08
If she makes a power play now, she dooms the democratic party. It would destroy any sense of unity still left in the party. And there is no way she would do that. I can guarantee you she will step aside for at least four years, and then we may see her in 2012. But she will not be VP or make a move for some nomination this election. She should instead work to bolster support for Obama, and realize that this is bigger than some petty power grab for presidency.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Aug 08
Hello Rose, Unless Sen. Obama chooses Hillary Clinton as his Veep, before the roll-call vote in Denver, then he will likely face a roll-call challenge from the Clinton delegates. There is no other reasonable explanation for the Clinton team having demanded a roll-call vote. All of the hullabaloo about Sen. Obama being the nominee is bunk, until the convention vote is verified. He is only the "presumptive nominee" at this point. Until such a time that the required number of delegates cast their votes to nominate Obama as the party's candidate, he will remain the "presumptive nominee". What is going to happen at the convention, on Hillary's behest, is the traditional, competitive way of choosing a candidate. Delegates cast their votes, and unless one of them reaches the established 'majority' (which may or may not be a simple majority) then the delegates will vote again, and again until a victor emerges. Then, the DNC rules committee will certify the convention vote. And, then and only then, will one of them become the nominated candidate. IF Sen. Clinton has been working behind the scenes to convince the delegates that Sen. Obama cannot win in a general race agains Sen. McCain, then yes -- Hillary Clinton could become the nominated candidate. Because, every delegate is free to change their pledge until the vote is cast. Below is an excerpt from the DNC '08 Rules page: [i]"Pledged delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot. A pledged delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the Convention, while it is assumed that delegates will cast their votes for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required. Delegates are not legally “bound” to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for another presidential candidate at the Convention. As a sign of good faith, most former candidates have “released” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate with or without being “released.” The last time the presidential nomination required more than one ballot was at the 1952 Democratic Convention in Chicago.If neither candidate reaches a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot for president, the nomination and the race for delegates becomes competitive. The last time the presidential nomination required more than one ballot was at the 1952 Democratic Convention in Chicago. At the 1952 Convention, 11 names were placed in nomination in a heated contest between Adlai Stevenson, Estes Kefauver, Richard Russell, Averell Harriman and Paul Dever. Adlai Stevenson became the nominee on the third ballot with 617 ½ votes."[/i] http://www.demconvention.com/delegate-voting/