Video: McAuliffe refuses to concede after Clyburn endorses Obama
posted at 8:58 am on June 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
After superdelegate James Clyburn endorsed Barack Obama late yesterday, the media apparently decided that the Democratic primary came to a close — even though South Dakota and Montana still have primaries today. Terry McAuliffe lashed out today at the notion that the race is over and especially that Obama has the numbers to win outright already. He tells Meredith Viera this morning that Hillary Clinton has no intention of conceding:
This curious push to get Hillary out of the race with just days to go seems rather desperate on the part of the Democrats. The Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting this weekend exemplifies this, with its strange sense of timing. Why did they rush to hold this meeting on Florida and Michigan with the end of the primaries in sight? A solution afterwards could have been less provocative and perhaps reached without the divisiveness that the Democrats fueled, especially with the manner in which it split the Michigan delegates.
Now everyone wants to pretend that Obama has “won” enough delegates to clinch the nomination, but it’s simply not true. Neither candidate can clinch this nomination without the superdelegates, and those cannot be won or even completely claimed until the convention’s first ballot. The rules allow them to change their minds at any time, and so only the pledged delegates can be reliably counted before then. If Hillary chooses to wait until the convention to concede, she is certainly within the rules to do so, and Howard Dean is violating the rules by forcing superdelegates to explicitly commit beforehand.
It’s pretty unseemly, but it’s the Democratic Party.
My predictions for tonight: Hillary wins both South Dakota and Montana, but the latter within 3 points.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I wonder where Terry stands on Global Warming “science”. Does he believe that the debate is over and “consensus” constitutes scientific proof?
So yeah, as Ed says, It’s pretty unseemly, but it’s the Democratic Party.
Buy Danish on June 3, 2008 at 9:05 AM
That is a very bold prediction and I sure hope you are right!!!
Reaganite84 on June 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM
That is a very bold prediction and I sure hope you are right!!!!
Reaganite84 on June 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM
There’s nothing democratic about the democrats nomination system. This punishing the voters of Florida and Michigan over this pissing match between local and national officials stink. The voters had no say in scheduling the primaries. This concept of super delegates stinks.
Blake on June 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM
There is no reason for Hillary to “drop out”. Let the event play out.
She knows (and I bet really knows) one torpedo can sink Obama’s campaign.
*
The good news for conservatives; if ever the “select not elect” is raised, or “all the votes weren’t counted”, or he lost on popular vote blah, blah…it is now meaningless. They have lowered the bar for election integrity.
right2bright on June 3, 2008 at 9:09 AM
I sure hope your right, Ed. I really want her to win both.
The DNC is looking more and more ham fisted every day in their approach to Hillary. Every day this goes on more Dem voters get disgusted with their party.
This Hillary backlash may be just enough to counter the Obamassiah ground swell.
It makes it look like somebody said, early in the campaign, “This is the Dems race to lose” and they took it as a challenge.
EJDolbow on June 3, 2008 at 9:09 AM
When one contrasts the donk’s lack of curiosity about Barry’s strange selection of traveling companions and lack of accomplishment with the Clarence Thomas witch hunt, it is obvious they aren’t interested in real black leadership as much as Marxist ideology dressed up in whatever color will work.
a capella on June 3, 2008 at 9:09 AM
A sweep of both states would present a real problem for the Democrats Wednesday morning, other than to hope the Obama people and their fans in the media can spin it as a non-event. At least a split would allow them to continue to spin some sort of momentum for Barack and continue their calls for Hillary to get out of the race (which she might do with the split or a double loss, which was what was predicted as little as five days ago. With the Clintons’ egos, there’s no way they step on their own triumph of a two-state sweep by ending the campaign).
jon1979 on June 3, 2008 at 9:09 AM
The Clinton Dynasty slowly sinking like a Malibu sunset is like a dream finally coming true. Epitaths by “journalist” will be written about how the annointed failed because the left wing media supported the more socialist candidate.
Exit predictions: Barring Hillary getting on this current ticket, divorce papers will be filed in 6 to 8 months.
Terry McAuliffe will pull a Scott McClellan with in a year.
Rovin on June 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM
He won’t lose Montana, that’s my prediction. I’d even say a blow-out isn’t out of the question. Small states like these, convincing even a few more people to go out to the polls can make all the difference.
Typhonsentra on June 3, 2008 at 9:12 AM
My guess is the DNC is desperate to drive Hillary out of the race before her much-feared “secret police” (that Dick Morris keeps talking about) digs up something even uglier on Obama. McCain’s campaign is so disorganized and behind the times that the Obama people don’t really have to worry about McCain doing any significant oppo (besides the typical “you gave earmarks and you voted X way on Y bill”) on him. The knee-capper is Hillary and they want Obama’s knees kept intact.
The DNC’s nominating process is a complete joke. The Democrats seriously should be ashamed of themselves for how undemocratic it is. The rest of us should ask ourselves whether a party that can’t even run its own primary process should govern the country.
Outlander on June 3, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Terry McAuliffe will pull a Scott McClellan with in a year.
Rovin on June 3, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Oh, once the fear of the Clintons starts to subside , one can only imagine the rush of tell-alls that will swamp the circuit.
bbz123 on June 3, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Remember that “the Democrat Party” is still split between support for Obmama and support for Hillary. This push to make Hillary quit is only supported by roughly half of the party. It is the MSM, more than the Democrat Party, that is 100% behind trying to make Hillary quit.
But guess what? For those with eyes to see, the same corruption happened in the Republican race as well. The MSM and the powers that be in the Republican party were trying to force the mantra of “McCain is the presumptive nominee and it is mathematically impossible for Huckabee to win” long before McCain passed the 1191 threshold.
Neither Romney nor Huckabee had to reach 1191…they just had to, between the two of them, win enough of the primaries after Super Tuesday to keep McCain from reaching 1191. That would have forced a brokered convention, from which anything could happen. It ain’t over until it’s over.
The MSM was pushing McCain then as strongly as they are pushing Obama now.
Who is behind that control of the MSM?
Who is trying to manipulate our elections?
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 9:19 AM
As a Montanan, I can tell you that Obama has worked this state hard and heavy over the past several weeks. We are a population of less than 1-million. Obama owns the college-young-naive-plain stupid vote, and Hillary owns the 30 and up vote. It should be close, but based on what I’ve seen, my gut tells me that Obama will win Montana.
Keemo on June 3, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Terry McAuliffe has pretty much been living in a fantasy world going back to his glory days as head of the DNC, before Howlin’ Howie Dean turned it into the 3-ring circus it is now. In the case of McAullie’s idiotic insisting that Shillary can still pull off an upset, fantasy has rapidly turned into delusion. If this keeps up, Terry may wind up being considered as a prime candidate for a nice straitjacket, a rubber room, and a nice long stay at the local funny farm.
Not saying this would be a bad thing, of course.
pilamaye on June 3, 2008 at 9:27 AM
You are correct, sir.
So ask, “Who does have a say in scheduling the primaries?”
I believe Hillary played a direct role in both the rescheduling and the initial decision to not seat the FL and MI delegates.
Why?
1) Those are two battleground states.
2) Those are two states where Romney had a good shot at beating McCain.
3) Her ego didn’t allow her to believe her hand-picked VP choice (Obama) would challenge her for the Dem nomination…ergo she didn’t think her challenge would be in the primary but rather the general election.
4) Hillary wanted to face John McCain, not Mitt Romney, in the general election.
5) By moving the FL & MI primaries up and saying the Dem delegates would not be seated, Hillary created her own “Operation Chaos” designed to get Democrat voters to crossover and vote for McCain. That plan worked in Florida (estimates are that 10% of the Republican Primary voters were not Republicans), but that plan failed in Michigan.
6) Hillary was successful in helping McCain gain an early advantage, so that the MSM mantra of “McCain is the presumptive nominee” could start.
7) Neither nomination (D or R) will be official until their respective conventions.
8)If Hillary had left FL & MI alone and won them at full strength, she might have had enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.
9) Hillary’s game plan (to help ensure McCain was her opponent) may end up costing her the Dem nomination.
10) I know it ain’t over yet, and I know it’s not very Christian of me, but it is sweet, sweet schadenfreude to see the Clintons reap what they have sown.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 9:44 AM
If I’m Hillary, I’m in to the finish line as long as the money allows for such. The revelations about Obama are coming out now; the MSM won’t be capable of providing cover much longer. Anything could break at any moment providing Hillary with the support of the supers. If the money is there, she should stay in.
Keemo on June 3, 2008 at 9:45 AM
remember. We don’t want Hillary to win. The Clintons can beat McCain, Obama can’t.
JiangxiDad on June 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM
If anything demonstrates what a truly bad President would have been it is the way he has fulfilled the job of DNC chair. The delegate flap was predictable (there was no way that Michigan and Florida were really going to be shut out). The “resolution” of the delegate flap is heavy handed and unfair. Furthermore, this whole thing was completely preventable by the DNC leadership making it clear early on that they didn’t want to set up a race v. gender squabble within the party and brokered a deal where Clinton would have Obama as the VP nominee.
None of that happened and I hope Hillary declares war.
highhopes on June 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Never say never. McCain has largely gotten a free pass from the press (yes, they’ve attacked him consistently, but it’s always been stupid and immature sniping and not the product of serious oppo research). Once the nomination process is over, the press will focus 75% of its attention on Obama, and the balance on attacking McCain.
I definitely believe McCain has a stronger chance of beating Obama than he does Hillary — but I would be very careful in saying things like “Obama can’t win.”
Outlander on June 3, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Obama can beat McCain. It’s youth and the promise of something different v. cranky old bastard who doesn’t even have the support of a large part of his own base. This is campaign 1976 all over again.
highhopes on June 3, 2008 at 9:55 AM
JiangxiDad on June 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I agree JD… However, keeping Hillary in through the convention has it’s benefits. Hillary is the stronger candidate, but I fear her less than I fear Obama and those creatures behind the curtain pulling his strings.
Keemo on June 3, 2008 at 9:57 AM
I’m disappointed with Terry McAwful. I was expecting him to make the point Ed made: that not a single superdelegate gets to vote until the convention. It doesn’t matter who they claim to support now.
Come on, Terry. Operation Chaos!
infidel65 on June 3, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Just think..
if the Repubs had such a system, we would not have McShamnesty McShane as the nominee… maybe the poster boy “Romney” (the choice of the last minute crew), or lets see…Fred (the choice of the I’m not satisfied with any of them crew)… instead.. it’s the geriatric brigade (I’m feeling safe already).
oh well, we can wish …
TOPV on June 3, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Hillary will stay in.
You are correct, sir.
1) Obama ain’t got game. He is the empty suit puppet of Communists/Democratic Socialists like George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor(!), and “foreign policy advisor” to Barack Obama).
2) The reason Hillary wanted McCain as her Republican adversary in the general is because she knows she can beat him. This is the woman who abused her husband’s office to get FBI and IRS files on her enemies. She has dirt on McCain. McCain voted “guilty” on the Bill Clinton impeachment. Hillary wants to shame McCain with his own dirty laundry, and (she thinks) win the Presidency at the same time.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I totally support Hillary’s right to stay in this until the convention. Unlike Huckabee on our side (whom I wanted out because it was clear he had no chance whatsoever and was just an annoying distraction), Hillary really does have a chance because of the superdelegates’ ability to change their minds up until the convention. If this were happening on our side, and I liked the one in Obama’s position and hated the one in Hillary’s position, I would still stand up for the right of the one in the Hillary position to continue the fight. It’s what’s right, and it would prove that the one who wins the nomination really does deserve it.
If I were a Dem, I’d be so ticked off right now at the party leadership. They’re totally botching this whole situation. Of course, I still fully expect the Dems to win on every count in November despite the ineptitude of the DNC and their candidates. But this should have been a walk in the park for them, and instead they’ve made themselves so weak (as usual) that they’re going to have to fight for what would have been easy.
aero on June 3, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Selected, not elected. Now, where did I first hear that?
a capella on June 3, 2008 at 10:09 AM
For most of the very reasons you wrote here aero, this will be the upset in the making that will put McCain in the WH. When 30% of Hillary’s voters punch the McCain ticket, (with her blessing) she will have set the table for 2012. Watch deligently over the next 48 hrs and see exactly how she goes about “uniting the party” without making it look obvious where her support is sliding to. The political machine that the Clintons created will not allow Obama to get seated for eight years.
Rovin on June 3, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I can definitely see that as being the Clinton strategy at this point. If Clinton subtly helps throw this election to McCain, then she runs again in 2012 once Obama is in the ashbin of political history and McCain is looking way too old to run again . . . Yeah, I can see that.
aero on June 3, 2008 at 10:42 AM
There was an originally-planned CNN debate set for February 28th that CNN cancelled saying “McCain is the presumptive nominee”. Huckabee sent a letter to McCain, along with thousands of voters’ signatures in support, asking McCain to debate him before the March 4th primaries. Here’s what McCain did. Remember who wanted to debate…and who didn’t.
McCain had accepted public financing for the primary, and was running out of money. If people had seen a 1-on-1 debate between McCain and Huckabee (where you can guarantee that Immigration would have been a key topic), it is very possible that Huckabee could have won Texas, and the race could have been very different if it went on with McCain running out of money. Huckabee didn’t have to get to 1191. He only had to win enough of the remaining primaries to keep McCain from 1191 and it would have forced a brokered convention.
Anyone who doesn’t like McCain as our nominee should have supported Huckabee and hoped for a brokered convention, rather than incessantly asking, “When will Huck quit?”
Allahpundit cheers Hillary on (and has even said he might vote for her in November), but lets his “abiding antipathy to Huck” bias him as much as the MSM is biased.
If the Mitt supporters were right in their assertion that Huckabee was McCain’s stalking horse against Romney, then why didn’t Huckabee quit at CPAC after Romney quit at CPAC?
The answer is that the only two Republican candidates who were willing to “go the distance” were McCain and Huckabee.
When Romney quit prior to McCain reaching 1191, and then proceeded to try to make Huckabee quit on February 7th (with his “I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror” line) and again on February 14th (with his “release” of his delegates to McCain) he revealed the truth. It is not Huckabee who was in McCain’s back pocket, it was Romney.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:43 AM
There was an originally-planned CNN debate set for February 28th that CNN cancelled saying “McCain is the presumptive nominee”. Huckabee sent a letter to McCain, along with thousands of voters’ signatures in support, asking McCain to debate him before the March 4th primaries. Here’s what McCain did. Remember who wanted to debate…and who didn’t.
McCain had accepted public financing for the primary, and was running out of money. If people had seen a 1-on-1 debate between McCain and Huckabee (where you can guarantee that Immigration would have been a key topic), it is very possible that Huckabee could have won Texas, and the race could have been very different if it went on with McCain running out of money. Huckabee didn’t have to get to 1191. He only had to win enough of the remaining primaries to keep McCain from 1191 and it would have forced a brokered convention.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Anyone who doesn’t like McCain as our nominee should have supported Huckabee and hoped for a brokered convention, rather than incessantly asking, “When will Huck quit?”
Allahpundit cheers Hillary on (and has even said he might vote for her in November), but lets his “abiding antipathy to Huck” bias him as much as the MSM is biased.
If the Mitt supporters were right in their assertion that Huckabee was McCain’s stalking horse against Romney, then why didn’t Huckabee quit at CPAC after Romney quit at CPAC?
The answer is that the only two Republican candidates who were willing to “go the distance” were McCain and Huckabee.
When Romney quit prior to McCain reaching 1191, and then proceeded to try to make Huckabee quit on February 7th (with his “I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror” line) and again on February 14th (with his “release” of his delegates to McCain) he revealed the truth. It is not Huckabee who was in McCain’s back pocket, it was Romney.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Anyone who doesn’t like McCain as our nominee should have supported Huckabee and hoped for a brokered convention, rather than incessantly asking, “When will Huck quit?”
Allahpundit cheers Hillary on (and has even said he might vote for her in November), but lets his “abiding antipathy to Huck” bias him as much as the MSM is biased.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:51 AM
If the Mitt supporters were right in their assertion that Huckabee was McCain’s stalking horse against Romney, then why didn’t Huckabee quit at CPAC after Romney quit at CPAC?
The answer is that the only two Republican candidates who were willing to “go the distance” were McCain and Huckabee.
When Romney quit prior to McCain reaching 1191, and then proceeded to try to make Huckabee quit on February 7th (with his “I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror” line) and again on February 14th (with his “release” of his delegates to McCain) he revealed the truth.
It was not Huckabee who was in McCain’s back pocket, it was Romney.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 10:57 AM
I don’t remember hearing this stuff about Huckabee/Romney and a brokered convention before the fact, or when Florida was being played out. I don’t know if you made comments then, but I don’t remember the candidates spelling out the possible outcomes either. What’s up with that?
JiangxiDad on June 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM
There are no soldiers at the airport! There were, but as usual we slaughtered them all!
DrW on June 3, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Red Pill,
Huckabee didn’t have a chance – not even a theoretical one. Hillary did/does. There’s really no comparison here. Move on, dude! It’s been over for the Huckster for a very long time now. I abhor Huckabee, but if he had had an actual chance under RNC rules, I would have grudgingly supported his right to fight on. But he didn’t, so I didn’t. He was holding back the party and the presumptive nominee by hanging on like that. Hillary is actually doing the right thing, in my opinion, and I hope she doesn’t concede tonight. She needs to make a strong point about the inherent unfairness of the DNC and the superdelegate system on their side.
aero on June 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I didn’t start figuring this out until February. The McCain blitzkrieg was practically complete by that time, and those with “an abiding antipathy to Huck” refused to listen. It is spiritual warfare, but some people (including myself) didn’t have eyes to see it at first.
The fact of the matter is that if McCain had not received over half of the pledged delegates (1191) before the convention, it would have resulted in brokered convention.
And I doubt that McCain could emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention.
There’s still a chance that the Ron Paul supporters might find a way to force a brokered convention. While I am not a Ron Paul supporter (I disagree with him on National Security among other things), he is right about our need to abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve. The Fair Tax and the Gold Standard are the right path for our country, and would reverse a large portion of the gains that the Democratic Socialists made in the 20th century. The IRS and Federal Reserve are used to invade our privacy and control us. The IRS has no constitutional right to abridge the freedom of speech in churches. If a pastor wants to endorse a political candidate, let him. People are free to leave that church if it offends them. But for the IRS to threaten a church (only conservative churches, by the way, hint, hint) with financial penalties (loss of tax-exempt status) is in direct violation of the first amendment:
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Correction: The only three Republican candidates who were willing to “go the distance” were John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is still in the race, and he has every right to stay in. I for one am not going to stomp my foot and demand that he quit.
I apologize to the Ron Paul supporters for leaving him out of my prior comment.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM
And that is why you don’t have eyes to see.
Your vision is clouded by your hatred.
It is a fact that if any candidate (or combination of candidates) won enough primaries to keep McCain from reaching 1191 (which McCain did not claim that he had until the Missippi primary on March 11th!) it would have forced a brokered convention.
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM
McCain didn’t display the “1191″ sign until his victory party following the Mississippi primary on March 11th. He didn’t display that on March 4th, and I think it’s quite possible that the reason he didn’t is that he hadn’t actually reached 1191 on March 4th.
Interesting blog post I just found (via Yahoo) dated March 10th:
Has McCain really reached 1191?
Red Pill on June 3, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Well, I hate Hillary more than I hate Huckabee, but somehow my hatred for her doesn’t “cloud my vision” enough to keep me from seeing that she has a theoretical chance. My intense dislike for Huckabee similarly did not keep me from having the “eyes to see” that he did NOT have a chance. My love of Fred did not “cloud my vision” enough to cause me to see that he had no chance – I admitted it and moved on when it became clear that it was so. My indifference to Romney did not keep me from having the “eyes to see” that he had no chance. My initial support of Giuliani did not cause me to be blind to his inability to win, either. In other words, I think you’re projecting your own political blindness here. You’re the only one not admitting to reality.
Dude – Give. It. Up.
aero on June 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Aliens might land and install Hillary as a vichy-like world leader. She could be someone they could work with and through.
Barring that outcome, it is hard to imagine Hillary assuming the throne.
Terry, start spending time on Orbits and Travelocity. You’re going to have a big block of free time opening up in the very near future.
moxie_neanderthal on June 3, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Did Terry say Hillary spent 17 hours in the back of a pickup truck?
I thought that was Bill…..
moxie_neanderthal on June 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Comment pages: