If Clinton Cares About His Legacy He Should Encourage Hillary To Drop Out (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 09:15:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  If Clinton Cares About His Legacy He Should Encourage Hillary To Drop Out (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If Clinton Cares About His Legacy He Should Encourage Hillary To Drop Out  (Read 2707 times)
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« on: December 02, 2007, 06:41:29 PM »
« edited: December 02, 2007, 06:58:49 PM by Politico »

Because, despite the millions that have been spent and the millions that are currently being spent, she is falling fast. Many insiders are now saying next month will be a very ugly new year for her. "Inevitability" is living history.

If Bill Clinton really cares about his legacy he ought to encourage her to drop out and encourage former Vice President Al Gore to enter the race in her place. Everybody knows that Gore had a much larger role in the Clinton/Gore Administration than Hillary. The vast majority of America feels he was "robbed" in 2000. A majority of Americans feel that the nation would be better off today had he become president seven years ago instead of Bush. As the candidate with far more experience and gravitas than Edwards and Obama combined, he would easily win the Democratic nomination with Bill and Hillary Clinton's support. He would easily win over Obama's staunchest supporters by choosing Obama as his running mate, making Obama the first African-American on a major party's presidential ticket.

The nomination of Gore is the right thing for the party, the nation and, yes, even the Clintons.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2007, 11:35:55 PM »

Oh god not this again...

I thought we'd dispensed with the Gore people after the NH filing deadline passed...

It's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton's support is a mile wide but only an inch deep. She is not the "inevitable" nominee. In fact, her campaign is perhaps headed towards disaster, both for herself and the party. The new numbers are bad news. I suspect that even Bill Clinton is beginning to see what is going to unfold in a month if she continues on the current path.

Instead of dividing the party, Democrats ought to do what must be done to get Al Gore the nomination by February. The party cannot afford an ugly, divisive 1980/1968-style battle.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2007, 01:21:43 AM »
« Edited: December 11, 2007, 01:28:18 AM by Politico »

I am sure that some, if not most, of you thought I was a little nutty when I originally started this thread a little over a week ago. By now, though, I am sure you have read the numerous news articles about Bill's reservations and the increasingly severe tension in the "Clinton Machine."

Bill Clinton sees the writing on the wall. If the "Clinton Machine" continues on its current trajectory, we are looking at a sweep for Obama next month. Will that rub out Clinton and make Obama the nominee? Considering their extensive warchests, along with relatively stable support throughout the northeast for Hillary Clinton, I would venture to say that it is far more likely to produce a long, bloody, divisive battle from February onward, the bloodiest presidential feud since 1984 if not 1968, that may or may not produce a nominee. Obama and Clinton, along with a significant amount of delegate support for Edwards and Richardson in a select few locations, very well could split the delegates almost evenly when the dust settles, resulting in neither one securing the nomination. Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidate will probably have three or four months worth of campaigning underway, not to mention a very effective running mate, before the Democrats even have a presidential nominee, let alone a presidential ticket.

Bill, one of the most gifted politicians of his generation, should have talked Hillary out of this campaign of fantasy "inevitability" a year ago. He should have done it both for the sake of the party and for the sake of his legacy, which will be further tarnished by Hillary Clinton's impending defeat. Oh, and let's not forget about doing something for the sake of the country. Just like in 1994, the Democratic Party is now poised to face great peril next year due to the political ambitions of a second-rate politician named Hillary Clinton and the personal weakness of a great politician named Bill Clinton.

Thanks to the Clintons, all Democrats who desire to win next year can now hope for is a convention that somehow results in the nomination of Al Gore, a true leader that all Democrats can proudly support and a truly electable nominee that would be tough for the Republicans to defeat next year considering the current state of affairs.

Who wants four more years of the GOP? Like it or not, that is where we are currently headed.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2007, 12:12:45 AM »
« Edited: December 16, 2007, 12:21:47 AM by Politico »

They will stop at nothing to destroy Obama or anyone else who attempts to get in the way of another Cliton Presidency, no matter what they have to do.

Maybe so, but victory is not certain in Hillary's case just like a Democratic victory was not certain in 1994. Heck, Hillary would most likely not even be a US Senator, let alone a candidate for president, had she never married the right guy. With Bill, Hillary is a presidential candidate with huge question marks about electability who is merely staying afloat in the Democratic primaries due to the incredible political talents and connections of her spouse. Without Bill, Hillary would not even be a presidential candidate. In other words, she is an incredibly weak presidential candidate. As such, I am not convinced that, even when the Clintons go "all-out," that victory is "inevitable."

If she becomes the nominee, how long before Republicans run away with the election based on the mantra, "If she can't even satisfy her husband how can she satisfy the nation?"

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the Clinton campaign continues under any circumstances into at least the middle of February. However, a Clinton campaign that fails to win the necessary amount of delegates to win the nomination is a campaign that will lose the nomination to somebody else, even if it all comes down to a brokered convention. A brokered convention will happen if Clinton and/or Obama and/or Edwards and/or somebody else split the delegates in such a way that no nominee secures over 50% of the delegates after the conclusion of the primaries/caucuses. A brokered convention would likely produce a candidate that all Democrats can rally behind (Al Gore, of course, would likely be at the very top of that list)

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is looking more and more like fantasy rather than inevitability. If Bill has to settle for "the next best thing," which he may have to, I am sure he would be fine with seeing his administration's Vice President, Al Gore, succeed his successor, George Bush.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 14 queries.