Sunday, April 13, 2008

Godfathers of Dems to Whack Clinton

Unless someone is blowin' a breeze up a's kilt, this is just too precious. The Democrat demagogues are planning to rub out Hillary Clinton's presidential nominee run. Nobel Peace Prize weeners, Jimmy "Hamas" Carter and Al "Rev Al" Gore, are to be the hitmen because, according to the article, they have "gravitas."

H/T Sweetness and Light

It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid

By Chris Stephen in New York

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grĂ¢ce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.

Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.

Obama has an almost unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates, and is closing the gap with Clinton in her last stronghold, Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22.

Clinton remains publicly defiant, insisting she will continue the battle with Obama all the way to the Democratic convention in August – when superdelegates, or party top brass, will have the chance to add their weight to primary votes.

But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.

Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen – in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.

Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.

Gore blames his loss to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election on the impeachment of Clinton triggered by his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Carter, who has carved out a successful career as an international mediator, is believed to detest the flashy style of the Clintons. He recently told an interviewer that his entire family are committed Obama supporters.

A number of options are being considered by the higher echelons of the Democrats, but they fall roughly into two categories. One is for Carter and Gore to go to Clinton privately and ask her to step down. The other is for both men to appear in public and endorse Obama – a move which would see a majority of superdelegates go with them.

The campaign to force Clinton to make an early exit is being masterminded in Congress, home to the most influential of the superdelegates. Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called on superdelegates to hold an unofficial congress in early June to anoint a winner, rather than waiting for the convention in Denver.

Pelosi has drawn withering fire from the Clinton camp for saying that these superdelegates must follow the national vote, with Clinton insisting that they should "vote with their conscience".

Yet some in the Democratic elite are wary of moving too soon. Polls show that 30% of Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain if she fails to become the nominee. To close off Clinton's bid before millions have had the chance to vote risks causing the very split that officials are desperate to avoid.

But a loss to Obama, or even a single-digit victory, in Pennsylvania will seal Clinton's fate. Pennsylvania is the last big state left in the race, and the last chance for Clinton to claw back Obama's delegate lead. "If he (Obama) wins (Pennsylvania) flat out, I think the big foot will come down," a source said.

Anything less than a resounding victory by her will probably see the race choked off ahead of the final primaries on June 3.

In the 10 remaining primaries, only a catastrophic loss of support by Obama will see Clinton overcome his lead of 160 delegates.

She admits she has little chance of winning the public vote, and is basing her strategy on convincing party-appointed superdelegates that she is, in her own words, the more "electable" of the two candidates.

Clinton enjoys strong support among superdelegates, many from a party elite who worked for her husband Bill during his years in the White House. There are more than 350 superdelegates who have yet to show a preference, potentially enough to rub out Obama's lead and give the presidency to Clinton.

But historically, superdelegates have never gone against the public vote, and party insiders say they would face a revolt, or even riots, if they were to do so now.

Obama's campaign has been a phenomenon in American politics, bringing in record numbers of new voters and record funding, and few think the superdelegates would dare deny him victory if he wins the popular vote.

It would also invite the unedifying spectacle of a mostly white elite denying an African American candidate a chance for the presidency. "It would cause a scandal to do that," says one party official. "To turn around to the black community and say, 'You got the most votes, but no'? Unlikely."

Clinton insists she will see her campaign through to the final primaries in June, and then on to the national convention, where her supporters have powerful lobbies in the organising committees.

But a chain of events in the past two weeks has worked to undermine this strategy, pulling the rug from under her claim to be more experienced and better organised than Obama.

It began with her extraordinary suggestion that she braved sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, a statement contradicted by TV footage showing the event was peaceful.

There are suggestions that the long list of wealthy benefactors may be expecting favours to be returned once Hillary is in the White House, suggestions sharpened by the Clinton's refusal to release the list of donors to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library.

Such conflict-of-interest issues came into the open last week when it emerged that Clinton's chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, was lobbying for the Colombian government to secure a free trade agreement with America, despite Clinton's public opposition to such a deal. Penn stepped down, the second high-profile sacking of a campaign manager this year.

Together with reports that Clinton's money troubles have left her unable to pay event organisers and even the health insurance of her staff, the impression is of a campaign in trouble.

These issues have undermined Clinton's claim to be more "electable", with her own stormy campaign contrasting with the disciplined control of Obama's organisation.
Obama himself has refrained from criticism on these issues, his staff keen to portray their candidate as "presidential" and above the fray.

Conspiracy theorists among her opponents claim Clinton is prolonging the race not because she hopes to win, but to inflict such damage on the party that a weakened Obama loses to John McCain in November, allowing Clinton to have a second tilt at the nomination in four years' time.

For Clinton, defeat in the nomination process would mean consignment to the political wilderness.

Losing nominees rarely get a second chance to run, and although Clinton's seat as a New York senator seems safe, failure in the nomination process leaves her politically neutered.

Talk of a possible consolation prize, in awarding her the job of Senate Majority leader, has petered out with several more senior senators also coveting the job.

Meanwhile, Clinton's poll numbers continue to slide. Obama now leads her nationally by about 10 points, and a CNN poll in Pennsylvania showed him closing the once-yawning gap to just three points.

Should Clinton lose Pennsylvania, the defection of growing numbers of superdelegates from her to Obama could become a flood.
Isn't that special! The "Every Vote Counts , We Are All Equal" Democrat Party will now hold a conclave obscurum of superdelegates, whose only super powers seem to be super egos, to anoint the party boy from on high.

OMG, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are leading the coup! Oh yeah, success is guaranteed now.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.


helen orendain said...

In my judgement, this year we are faced with three inadequate candidates, Republican and Democrat. On the Democratic side,
the media appeared to have created this mess by claiming very early that Hillary was unstoppable, was ahead in all polls etc. Other more qualified contenders failed to gain sufficient funding and dropped from the race.

The mass media did not like Romney and faulted him for his Morman religion and being a flip flopper, a selective choice since most candidates are the same.

The remaining choices, McCain, Obama and Clinton are flawed, ill equipped for the job.

Gayle said...

I don't agree that McCain is "ill equipped for the job" as the above commenter states. He has experience and regarding national security he's our best bet of the three running. No, I don't agree with him on all the social issues, and he needs to get a reality check on this global warming scam, but as to our most important issue which I believe to be national security, he's as good - if not better - than any Republican out there.

As for Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Algore and Jimmy "Hamas" Carter attempting to sabotage Hillary, they hatched this plan before Obama stepped into the fallout of his own stupid words. Hillary is running with it and making points... lots of points. I guess they'll have to come up with another plan.

Good Lord, these people are scum!

Indigo Red said...

Nail on head, Helen. We have all too often got ourselves really great campaign candidates. They don't, however translate to great or even mediocre office holders.

The last time we had both was in the person of Rutherford B. Hayes, 19th President. He started the Easter Egg roll on the White House Lawn.

Gayle, McCain is a good candidate. I think he will be far from being an adequate President, though. In my last post, "How Does McCain Compare..." there are 20 issues and 19 of them won't amount to a hill of beans if he doesn't control illegal immigration. That one failing makes a failure of all the other issues and a failure of a McCain Presidency.

Of course, they're scum; they're politicians and I think the Good Lord already knows.

Vote McCain

Tom C said...

I've got a friend that is the gop party boss here. I would tell you that he isn't scum, but he is so busy with the party's business that he sometimes forgets the wee folks that make up the party.

Indigo Red said...

I, too, have a friend in politics. He has been one my closest friends since we were 12 yrs old - we will be 54 this year. Personally, my friend is (biased opinion alert) one of the finest people to ever walk this Good Earth.

Politically, he's scum. He has never met a numbskull, lamebrained liberal cause he didn't love. He worked closely with Gavin Newsom to win the San Francisco mayorship. He has managed the campaigns of both Democrat and Republican candidates, sometimes at the same time in different countes. He has run for local office himself spending over $300K only to lose to a $30K opponent. He opposes the death penalty and supports killing babies via abortion. He agrees with Jesus to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and free the oppressed, but when it comes to actually freeing the oppressed, except those poor gangsters in prison, objects to necessary measures; vanquish evil, but don't harm the evil doer.

I love my friend with all my heart. I will defend him in all things, except politics, and even in that, I will lay down my life for my friend and he for me.

He is still political scum.

Mike's America said...

That Scotsman article was last updated on Saturday, the 12th. Even though they appear to have added the last paragraphs about Obama's big gaffe about the bitter gun totin, Bible thumpin folks in small towns upset about their jobs, it's way too early to assess what the damage will be.

Gore and Carter can do or say whatever they want. Hillary doesn't like either of them and could care less. She's not going to quit because they ask her too.

And this sentence says what many Democrats secretly fear:

"historically, superdelegates have never gone against the public vote, and party insiders say they would face a revolt, or even riots, if they were to do so now."

Can you imagine anyone in the GOP threatening to "riot" if they don't get their way? Just shows you what kind of people many Democrats are.

Indigo Red said...

Gore and Carter do say and do whatever they want. More's the pity. I still say former Presidents an V.P.'s should just sit down, shut up, and die gracefully. If not gracefully, then just die.


Imagine GOP riots, it isn't hard to do, no one in the streets, and no destruction too.

Someone should write a song...