Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Don't push her! Clinton's campaign chair warns fellow Democrats

Some people have been looking for signs of a graceful exit from the Democratic presidential race by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. They probably should not be holding their breath.

Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe warns Democrats not to try to push his candidate from the ongoing primary struggle with illinois Senator Barack Obama

Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chairman and himself a former head of the Democratic National Committee, made it clear Sunday that isn't happening anytime soon.

And Clinton's chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, went on "Fox News Sunday" to state and re-state a firm belief that his boss would win and she was in the race until somebody got 2,209 delegates, which would mean counting Florida and Michigan.

McAuliffe was in there swinging too on both "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press," arguing that Clinton still has a chance to win the party nomination.

It's a good time for her campaign to make that argument because, if you believe some state polls, Clinton is poised to crush Barack Obama in West Virginia in Tuesday's primary voting there, some suggest by as much as a two-to-one margin. Once a solidly Democratic state, it's gone to the GOP two straight times now.

And if the superdelegates are smart, McAuliffe suggested, they'll resist the Obama bandwagon effect, hold out and not do anything that might turn off the many....

...millions of Democrats, some Republicans and independents (and don't forget the millions of women invested in this woman candidate), who form much of the party's traditional base and have voted for her this primary season.

"Most of the superdelegates will wait till the end till everybody's voted," McAuliffe suggested. That would be June 3, after Montana's primary. Clinton will be ahead in the popular vote, he predicted, and ahead in delegates. Few would agree with McAuliffe's delegate math.

The airwaves, newspaper pages and e-mails among Democratic loyalists are full of certain messages that her chances of winning are nil and it's not if she gives up a quest that once seemed certain but when -- maybe after a big win in Kentucky? Or in Montana June 3. Then go on a quick campaign victory/unity tour together with Obama.

But the suggestive chatter and at-large urging of surrender forgets a crucial historical fact about the Clintons. Even when the situation is clearly hopeless to everyone else -- dead, gone, deceased, buried, cold -- quitting doesn't seem to be a page in their playbook. They cling to an almost mystical belief in something unexpected happening to save their bacon. And with serial justification.

Maybe you remember 1992 when Gov. Bill Clinton was about to disappear from the Democratic race until New Hampshire, which he lost and, like some slick Vegas magician, somehow turned second place into "the Comeback Kid." He only went on to become the sole two-term elected Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Or how his wife's national health care fiasco helped cost Democrats historic control of congress in 1994 and some speculated his party might dump Bill come '96? Or when Clinton was clearly going to be forced to become the second president to resign the presidency, and the first to do it over an intern?

And remember how Sen. Clinton was just about cooked after her lackluster third-place finish in January's Iowa caucuses? And the next week she found her voice to scoop up New Hampshire?

Or the South Carolina loss that was gonna sink her, until along came Ohio and Pennsylvania and Texas, where she actually did lose the delegate race but millions still think she won.

To be sure, the superdelegates do not want to be seen to take the victory away from Obama and perhaps split the party for a generation. But what if Obama fumbles the ball on his own before mid-June and gives the supers sufficient pause to pause in their flow toward him?

Something could happen. Obama's made several rookie mistakes, most recently departing from his text to announce that he's now campaigned in all 57 states. Minor slips, to be sure. Fatigue probably. But serial.

Think of it this way. What if those Rev. Jeremiah Wright "God damn America" videos had circulated just before Iowa? Do you think all those newly-involved, churchgoing Iowans would have turned out for the Illinois senator the same way? Or in South Carolina?

McAuliffe wasChief presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod for Illinois Senator Barack Obama heard by millions of Americans today. But he was really addressing only a few hundred superdelegates. "They understand we're in a fragile time in our party," he said. "Let's let the process finish. People need to be careful not to alienate" the Clinton supporters. The party will need them either way come November.

Over on "Fox News Sunday," Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, was clearly on his best behavior, predicting ultimate victory but refusing to take any anti-Clinton bait from Chris Wallace, praising her and saying Clinton would decide how to run her campaign.

He even disagreed with Wallace when the host asked about a continuing flood of superdelegates endorsing Obama. Axelrod thought "trickle" was more accurate, at least until the primary process is completed.

McAuliffe argued that the nomination game is still on until the DNC's rules committee meets at the end of this month to discuss how and whether to seat the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention in Denver come late August.

When he was the committee chairman, McAuliffe took a hard line on stripping delegates from states that refused to follow DNC rules. But Sunday he told Tim Russert he thinks party leaders are now talking about going beyond the rules to strip Michigan and Florida of all their delegates.

"The rule is 50 percent," McAuliffe said. "That's the point I like to make."

So awarding half the delegates as won in those two states would be acceptable?

"Yes," he said, arguing that the party can't deny that a lot of voters showed up to vote in those primaries, even though the candidates didn't really compete in them.

"We have to win these two states in the general election," McAuliffe noted.

He also brushed off Clinton's recent comment about "hardworking white voters" supporting her over Obama. He said she was "paraphrasing" an Associated Press story that didn't say that explicitly.

Meanwhile, former candidate John Edwards gingerly voiced an opposing view.

On the AP story, Edwards said, he's sure Clinton "feels like she didn't choose her words very well there." As she makes the case for herself, he said, "she has to be careful that she's not damaging our prospects," defining "our" as the Democratic Party and what he called "our cause."

But like many others, he refrained from urging Clinton to give up the race and from suggesting she has lost the nomination race.

"The problem is, you can no longer make a compelling case for the math," was the most Edwards would say. Although as The Ticket noted earlier today, Edwards may have accidentally tipped his endorsement hand in an earlier TV interview. And as we pointed out a couple of days ago, Obama might actually fear a sudden Clinton withdrawal.

-- Christi Parsons and Andrew Malcolm

Christi Parsons writes for the Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.                                 Photo Credits: AP

Comments () | Archives (31)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I hope Hillary runs as an Independent.

"Don't Push Her" Auliffe is right, we should Drag Her Screeching and Screaming from the Race as Hillary is not gracious enough to do what is Right! for Party and Country.

What if everyone who did not get there own way behaved like this? what state would our Country be in, the very same with the veiled threats from Hillary's fervent supporters now to vote McCain and we dare preach to other Countries about DEMOCRACY!

No, don't push her. She would use the scorch earth strategy and ruin the whole Democrat party.

Sexism and racism are at their worst! Both candidates don't earn the REQUIRED # of delegates for the nomination. To just accept 'majority' is a change of the rule to steal the election and give it to Obama.

It is ok for 91% of the blacks to vote for a black candidate, but Clinton is being crucified to repeat the words 'white votes"? if it is ok for 91% of the blacks then the non-blacks should feel no guilty that they vote for a non-black candidate.

The liberal and the blacks may get a AA for their nominee by they will go down in history as the ones who cause the party to loose an election that they should have won easily. On top of that, they drive millions of voters to leave the democratic party!

Funny how you guys always neglect to mention that the only reason why Bill Clinton won in 1992 was because of Ross Perot. Otherwise the first George Bush wins a second term with 53% of the vote which easily crushes Bill's measley 43% that he got in 1992.

Keep pushing Obamabots and you will push this Hillary supporter to either vote for McCain or stay home. You guys don't have the monopoly on strong feelings of support for your candidate. Let the race play out. She will concede at the end of all the elections if she has to. In the meantime, let's be nice to each other. Just because I wanted someone different doesn't mean that I am not a Democrat. I am really sick of all the “you are either with us or against us” crap I have been hearing. Now I see what all the Republicans have been talking about for so long. Not everyone is an evil villain because they don't agree with you.

Her staff sounds very angry. Playing victim was one of the many failed strategies they already used.

And what is this supposed to mean: "not do anything that might turn off the many millions of Democrats... (and don't forget the millions of women invested in this woman candidate), who form much of the party's traditional base" I have never voted for a republican, always voted straight democrat up and down. In primaries I went with the one I liked, but when that person lost, I went with the party standard. So because I voted for Obama I am not part of the party's traditional base? Am I less a democrat? Should my vote be discounted? Say 3/5s? Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards all wanted the presidency very badly. They were not happy when they lost, but who are they supporting now (or soon will be)? So your ultimate fantasy didn't come true. Grow up and move on.

„Le Climat Defavorable a la Politique” ?

Depuis l'annee derniere nous vivons dans le nebuleux des dites elections. Les institutions ont cesse de fonctionner. Les arbitraires camoufles par de constants pirouettes se sont intensifies. Parallelement on nous charme par: des epouvantails, gaoche, droite, droite, goche,... On nous developpe le mirage de l'Etat de droit, en cherchant, comment nous duper en realisant des amnisties pour les exactions avec non fonctionnement de la Cour des Drpoits de l'Homme, voile par les constants camoufles du Parlement Europeen, confirme aisement cette triste affirmation!

Pourqoi, aujourd'hui, je n'ai toujours pas recu aucune reponse de la Cour Europeenne des Droits de l'Homme. Les elections non rien a voir avec son fonctionnement bien confirme par ses diverses decisions prises au cours de ces periodes!

Nous avons bien observe au sein de l'Union Euripeenne ou du Conseil de l'Europe, que chaque nebuleux est camoufle derriere un nouveau nebuleux. Dailleurs, ils savant bien recopier les textes des autres, mais ils ne savent pas respecter leurs propres decisions ou des lois creees par eux – s'il faut les appliquer envers eux-memes! Il est evident, qu'aussi longtemps que les decisions a la Cour seront prises sur la base des souhaits d'eux-meme et non pas sur la base de textes definis des requetes appujes par les documents joints aux requetes (tous les documents) et dans la Convention, aussi longtemps les depenses pour maintient du Conseil de l'Europe realisees par les Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe seront injustifiees, sauf, l'Institution est creee et maintenue specialement par ses membres pour farder leurs citoyens de la haute vertu de la Declaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme contrefacee par la Convention, et ainsi liberer les Etats membres de leurs obligations prises lors de la signature de la Declaration.

Monsieur le President de l'ONU, est-ce que la JUSTICE c'est l'action par laquelle une autorite reconnait le dri\oit de chacun ?
La Justice c'est l'action par laquelle une autorite reconnait le droit de commettre des exactions sur chacun ?!

La, le requete N74217/01 est remarqable.
L'Union Europeenne a banni arbitrairement ma famille pour nous priver de nos droits de poursuivre nos investiqations aupres de la Cour Europeenne des Droits de l'Homme apres la dissolution de Gouvernement Francais 15.04.1997. Or, sur le formulaire officiel d'une requete il est mentionne la nationalite du plaignant – requete N33594/96.
Les faits nouveau concernant la requete N74217/01 portees contre les 15 Etats constamment classee depuis janvier 2005 par la mutisme.
La decision du classement de ma requete N33594/96 a ete rendue le 10.04.1997 ma fut adressee beaucoup plus tard pour detourner mon attention. Lettre du 15.15.2001 – la confimation apres 23 mois de ma lettre de juin 1999 – denoncant les faits nouveaux et caracterises considerant la requete. Les courrers anterieures de la Cour n'ont jaimais confirme la bonne reception de ma lettre de juin 1999.
Jnformation sans decision du classement de la requete 1684/06 est pareille comme tout cet l'affaires – caricaturale!

Personnellement, je suis convaincu, si mon analyse est erronee, alors le 05.05.2008 je na recevrais pas une „recherche d'un aliene acceptant la migrene du jour de son monsegnor” (fax:05.05.2008 – requete N1684/06: aout 2006 – accomplissement d'art.35; septembre et novembre 2007 – informations considerant la violations d'art.35 par l'Etat; decembre 2007 – information sur irresevabilite de la requete 1684/06 sans jugement, non conforme avec la Convention – violation caracterises de la Convention) mais la decision retablissant immediatement les nebuleux, avec l'information de l'expulsion immediate, de ceux, qui portent attente a l'image et a la reputation de la Cour!

Le „sans plus” que j'ai recu 05.05.2008, confirme que l'opacite de cette institution est voulue par sescreateurs – donc ce n'est plus l'opacite de l'institution, mais seulement l'opacite de la presentation de la definition de la base de la creation de cette institution, tres bien amalgament la Declaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme.
Seulement l'amalgament!

La, il leur a fallu plus de 16 mois (requete 1684/06) pour repondre „sans plus” a des questions simples – voir simplistes, donc combien de temps leurs faudrat-il pour qu'ils puissent etre capables de predre des decisions (requetes: N74217/01; N33594/96 depuis 1997), et combien de temps encore faut-il pour que ces decisions puissent etre realisees. Il est evident, que la decision da plus simples: respecter l'existant – creee par eux-memes, c'est la plus difficile decision a prendre pour eux!

Ce ne pas etonnant en Europe. La faits sont incontestables. Il ne suffit plus de faire de belle promesses en realisant des contraires. La resolution du Parlement Europeen sur les Droits de l'Homme dans le Monde en 2001 et sur la politique de l'Union Europeenne en matiere de Droits de l'Homme est la meilleure confirmation.
La resolution et le programme:
les Droits de l'Homme – 93 fois;
rapporte – 14 fois.
Mais, je n'y ai meme pas une seule fois:
- realise;
- diminue;
- respecte.

„Le fait que les Etats qui battent en breche l'etat de droit et violent les druits des citoyens constituent une menace non seulement pour leur propre peuple, mais eqalement pour leurs voisins et, en derniere analyse, pour le monde entier; estime des lors que la promotion et le renforcement de gouvernements legitimes et democratiques constitue en defi d'envergure mondiale”. ((PS.TAPRU (2002) 0203)

Le poisson rouge effectue un nombre incalcoulable de tours de bocal par jour. Pourtant, a chaque tour, c'est comme si c'etait la premier, car le poisson rouge a une memoire d'environ 3 secondes”

Est-ce le 10 decembre, c'est l'anniversaire la plus grrand joie pour tous les 'HOMMES”?
L'annivesaire de la plus grande CALAMITE des Hommes ?

Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur, en vous remerciant pour votre aimable attention, je vous demande de bien vouloir transmettre cette lettre a toues les Institutions concernees.

Veuillez agreer, Madame, Mademoiselle, Monsieur, mes plus hautes considerations distiquees.

Stanislas Kalinowski
28-100 Swidnica

Please spare us all of the details, Terry & Hillary, & get out of the race right now!! We lose BIG down ballot with you at the head of the ticket... We win all the way down the ballot with Obama leading us... Please, just get out of this race & stop all of the unnecessary bloodshed. You are, by far, the poorest LOSER I have ever seen!! Oh yeah, & take your racist husband with you! it's beginning to smell in here!

When I read post from some of you who are apparently and clearly uneducated or overly emtional it's easy to see why you support your candidate.

Even Hillary said it, "Dumb white people vote for me!" Okay, she said "uneducated white people" same thing no? For the record; the problem with Clinton saying this is that she said it. Imagine if Obama had said, "Well you know democrat's need the black vote and Hillary just isn't getting it." That would be a problem as is her comment is a problem. It's funny how she's branded you as being dubm and yet you don't mind. Is it because it's true?

Move out the trailor park and do something about your life! 'Tis why I became republican!

Ron Paul should either run as an independent or take it to the convention in September! Just take a look at recent Republican primary results that have been largely overlooked by the liberal media. We are boosting our delegate totals and we will influence platform debates come convention time.

Go Ron Go!
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America!

I love when people like Loyd in Cerritos talk about Hillary supporters being uneducated when they can barely spell or write a coherent sentence. Go back to school Loyd. Hillary isn’t doing anything bad by stating the obvious. She has more white working class support. Those are the facts, and it is not racist to be in touch with reality.

Thank you, Terry! When the DNC accepts that we must include Florida and Michigan in this process, she will win. Obama is only dragging this out as long as possible to see if the superdelegates will go ahead and pledge for him and to have others resign themselves to his bid, then maybe the votes from these vital states won't matter. Please, please, please superdelegates! Don't play this game with him! Insist that all Democats have a chance in deciding their nominee, then when the votes are counted, make your decision.

Funny how the Obamite sandwhich eaters trashing Senator Clinton are so hypocritical. They claim she is destroying the Democratic party yet it is They who are hijacking the Party a lot like the Neocons hijacked the Republicans in 2000, extreme conservatives gained control then trashed those in their party who disagreed with the course they were on. Now the chickens have come home to roost for the extreme policies of the Neocons in the form of we pay approximately $4 a gallon for gas, are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and are being slammed by inflation due to the resulting weak dollar and overall weak economy and sub-prime mortgage mess.

But the Obamabots keep stealing the Neocons' playbook, using the "victim blaming" strategy, shouting "wolf" (i.e. crying racism) when it suits you and accusing those who disagree with the notion that Obama is the greatest candidate since Jesus Christ walked on water to bash their opponents into submission are turning people off to Obama and the Democratic Party. Your scorched earth policy of take no prisoners will probably get Obama the nomination but is pushing away voters Obama needs in November to win the presidency. The only thing is many of us who've been through these things before see through this ploy and aren't buying this time. So keep publicly and loudly trashing Senator Clinton Obamabots, the Democratic party you destroy will be your own.


I am neither dumb, poor or white. And I would like my vote to count - irrespective of who the final nominee is. The primary is NOT over until one of the candidates gets to the target number of delegates. So why are people pushing one of the candidates to quit before this happens?

As everyone keeps repeating, neither Obama nor Clinton will get to the number without the superdelegates. So why are people so eager to not let the process play out.? What is the fear factor?

There is no end to the wisdom that touts that if the vistory is "snatched" from Obama, all hell will break loose. Why then is the reverse not the case? Democrats are not going to object to the outcome once the process is completed. Take a cue from your candidate and be intelligent enough to understand why the process is important.

Obama is cleverly letting his supporters clamour for Clinton to drop out; while he stays above the fray. But his silence in itself speaks volumes.

Maybe he is the kind of leader who lets others do the dirty work while he keeps his hands clean and his options open. Umm .. food for thought for those who believes he will make a trustworthy and transparent leader.

What is the difference in saying that 90% plus balck voters are voting for a black candidate, but when the whites are overwelmingly voting for Hillary, she gets called a racist. Is that fair, NO. Lets stop and think here now who is racist. Hillary should stay in until someone gets the magic number 2209. She is the stronger candidate and all the suoerdelagates know it. John McCain looks better every day.

Let all the votes count including Florida and Michigan! And stop accusing the Clintons (specially Bill Clinton) of racism. Bill Clinton dedicated his life to protect minorities and because of blacks' unconditional votes to Obama - Obama has to accuse Clinton of racism.

How can anyone defend seating Michigan where there was only one name on the ballot? The uncommited number was pretty high and if you add all the peole who didn't go out to vote uncommited because Obama wasn't on the ballot...he would have surpassed her.

She proving that she lacks common sense and dignity. Has she no pride?

This is amazing. America is enduring a fouled-up, "optional" war, a foreclosure crisis, gas prices that only a OPEC sheik could love, (while Nero, I mean Bush, does absolutely nothing), a devalued dollar, out-of-control health care costs and a myriad of other problems the GOP has failed to deal with adequately. Under normal circumstances, this election should be a cakewalk for the Democrats. But my gut feeling is that they are going to lose anyway. Incredible. And before anyone blames Hillary's obstinance, look to the top--that is, Howard Dean. Michigan and Florida still have no delegates to the convention, clearly, due to a lack of leadership. Now many sore loser HRCites claim they won't vote for Obama due to hard feelings. (Not surprising, since they back the most polarizing candidate in modern history.) And McAuliffe makes the rounds of the talk shows sounding like a farmer with a terminal disease trying to borrow against next year's crop. Face it, unless the dems. get their act together and quickly, they are going to lose an election which they should have won easily.

Bill Clinton broke the law when he lied to a federal grand jury. Hillary is now demanding that the DNC rules be cast aside so that she be allowed to steal the nomination. Why would anyone expect HRC to abide by the law if she did manage to manipulate the election process and become the party nominee?

Hello Independent forever? Who has polarized the nation between black and white? I would say the person who's campaign accused Bill Clinton of injecting race into the campaign (with the help of an antiClinton press) dividing the nation between black and white. It has stayed that way since. The media didn't have to focus on that gaffe, but they did for some reason, hmm. Barack Obama has used many many campaign tactics that drew the majority of the support of African Americans his way----i.e. mailers demanding black people vote for the black candidate, and that is just one example. Why wasn't he sending out mailers to the white people asking them to vote black? And you certainly didn't see Hillary's campaign sending out mailers to the black or white people telling them to vote white. So c'mon, the only polarizing, divisive, hypocritical candidate I see is Barack Obama. He literally mastered the right moment to call someone a racist. It was unbelievable. Hillary is the person who actually has worked with republicans, has worked hard for ALL minorities, women, and children and she is called divisive and polarizing? C'mon people...that was a campaign tactic that Obama used against the Clintons (the folks of his own party) to win the contest and he used it because they have been in politics forever and he was going to have to do something significant to beat them. To me, he had one of the most negative campaigns I have ever seen. He was nasty to Hillary Clinton. He's been dismissive, rude, and disrespectful of Bill Clinton and his record, although Bill is the only two term democrat we've had in a very long time. He obviously accomplished something. According to Barack Obama none of it was significant and he even praised Ronald Reagan before he would give Bill Clinton any decent praise. I still can't believe the people of America so easily fell for that crap. Slogans and bumper stickers and big speeches read from teleprompters. Unreal. And I find it incredibly offensive that people would call those of us who support Hillary Clinton stupid, ignorant and racist. That's not to say some people are not racist or ignorant that support her, but you can say the same for Obama in that respect in the reverse form. But not all of the supporters for either candidate should be lumped into one stereotype of uneducated racists. That is one reason that I will not vote for Obama. I'm a white person who graduated from college that works hard to support my family. I don't know where they get these polls or what kinds of questions they ask, or even how they phrase those questions to come up with the results they come up with. But i wouldn't trust any poll result out there, ever. They are all biased in some form or fashion based on the way the question is worded or phrased. You can come up with whatever result you want to from any poll. I think this election is going to wind up a disaster just based on the fact that America is running on "Hope" instead of substance. The way I see it, all those uneducated, white people have more common sense than the ones who lack common sense but are highly educated voting for Obama. Just because you have a Ph.D or a masters does not mean you have any sense whatsoever. No offense, but I've seen too many folks with high I.Q.' s that you wonder how they got to where they are. Other's just plain lost their minds. I'll stick with substance and common sense and hard work. Thanks.

1. Obama removed his own name from MI - huh, wonder why?

2. Obama looses in FL

3. Obama "won" TX even though Hillary got the popular vote

4. Caucaus states won't release the popular vote but Obama "won" them because bullied the small quantity votes for Obama because they hate Hillary

5. Obama didn't "won" IL because his rival was indicited - good way to "win"

His "new" poliitics - okay


In the end I believe Hillary will win....

Both Democratic candidates are socialists, which makes them unfit for public office. As neither believes in the sanctity of the Consititution, they would be in breach of their oath of office 10 seconds after taking it.

Oh, and I'm not a Republican. I normally vote Constitution Party, and have hoped Ron Paul, as the only qualified candidate for either major party running this year, would get the Repub nomination. The dumbed-down mass media froze him out, sadly.

It amazes me how so many people would rather put themselves and our country in the position to slip further into the depths of uncertainty because of this blatantly obvious sectarian divide between Democratic supporters.

I find it troubling that so many "Democrats" can actually admit to potentially voting for a Republican candidate based solely out of emotion.

It’s as if many of the Hillary and Obama supporters alike that I run into have forgotten the state that this country is currently in. That they would much rather endure 4 more years, than wake up and see that an important change will come no matter which Democratic candidate enters the White House.

So I urge you...please, as a representative of the Democratic Party myself, being heavily involved in the process, and working for the DNC professionally...

Do Not commit to calling yourselves Democrats, and being the face of the party if you would much rather create a damaging rift between it, than finding an internal message both supporters can believe in.

I have never in my life been more ashamed of Democratic voters than today. I know that emotion is running strong, but remember the strides we have taken as a party, and understand that it will all be for nothing if we do not come together.

To the older those who remember the last major movement in the political process…to those who found themselves entrenched in the air of politics of the 1960s and 70s, to those who felt wronged as voters due to the GOP’s ability to use fear and uncertainty as a tactic to sway moderates and conservatives alike. Remember how it felt to be portrayed as criminals and terrorists by individuals in your own country in order to gain more votes.

Remember the alienation, the betrayal, and the resulting apathy that worked its way through the future generations of Americans. The younger generations who felt their votes didn’t count.

Remember that political rut we as Americans found ourselves in for more than 40 years, unable to voice our support for a president that we truly believed in. One that we felt wasn’t just like any other politician. Remember Nixon. Bush. and Bush.

To the older generation of voters… remember the alienation you felt in the political process- we should make sure that no individual that comes after us should feel the same. Take a moment that think to yourself…your decision as voters, voters of an aging generation- do you want to be credited with continuing the cycle of disenfranchisement for younger generations? This time, it will not be the politicians that betrayed us…it would be ourselves.

We tend to lose sight of the real reasons for democracy- and the purpose of the vote. Voting for a presidential candidate is not based on popularity or likeability, it’s based on supporting a message they present both at home and abroad- this is not a message of hope or change, but of the future. We must stop voting based on emotions, and start looking at the policies they have presented to us.

You-the older generation- the adults, Mothers, Fathers, Grandmothers, and Grandfathers; have the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the younger generations, your children. Your vote isn’t just for yourself, but it’s for everyone that will come after you. Your vote will directly impact your children and the generations after them more than it could ever impact you.

As a nation, this is our defining moment- our message to a world that has lost confidence in our ability to lead.

What will our legacy become? How will we be remembered?

Will we become the generation of voters that had the chance to usher in a new era of politics, international relations, economy, and energy? Or will we become the generation of voters credited with America’s continued fall from grace because of infighting within the Democratic Party.

Do we want to be looked at with the same disappointment as those who voted for Bush- the SECOND time?

Our time is now- we are facing a new frontier in American politics. Let’s not fumble it because of intense emotion.

I've seen a number of stories of late suggesting that Obama has used cocaine in the last 10 years...has he ever been asked this question? Would he be willing to take the test for this (that could show traces of cocaine if consumed in the last 10 years?). Better to know the answer to this now then in the fall.

Why is it considered racist to describe the outcome (anticipated) in factual words? For Obama to say most black people will vote for me is racist is it?It is a simple fact and probably some of the reason he is running. At this stage Hillary can say most poor white people will vote for her. This is also a fact. So why is it considered racist by her opponents when Obama's claim(unspoken) is not?Are we now afraid to exercise our freedom of speech lest others use theirs to call us names?

Gore was defeated because he was perceived as aloof,not one of the people. So they tried to foist Kerry on us. Failed again.So they said lets use a black man, that will show that we are like the people.But he turned out to be just another Gore and Kerry, only black.We want our ordinary run of the mill democrat who is like us not an east coast patrician liberal effete snob.Whether he is black or white the average Democrat knows when he is being hoodwinked. and he is being hoodwinked by Barack.Tell Kennedy we are not fools and a black Kerry is no better than a senior prisoner of war Bush.

Republicans must be licking their chops. A black man whp spent 20 years with his racists pastor friend thinks whites are going to vote for him in November. Not going to happen!

Go Hillary!

How completely hypocritical and predictable the anti-democracy pro-obama fanatics, ineffectual rich white democratic party elitists (Dean, Pelosi, Reid) and media punditocracy are -- again, as usual.

The very same ones calling on Clinton to GIVE UP & QUIT before Obama has actually EARNED the nomination with at the very least the required number of delegates are the same ones who viciously bemoaned, lamented and whined all the myriad and multiple ways Al Gore, John Kerry and Michael Dukakis totally WIMPED OUT, gave up, failed to fight back -- and guess what? They all LOST (gave up, wimped out, got swiftboated, tarred/feathered, failed to fight back).

And they are the same ones dismissing the importance and primacy of women voters once again. Time for women to become independent voters, stop working for the democratic party that takes them for granted

I don't see any reason why we stalwart has-been, supposedly uneducated, working class and 'older' women shouldn't sit this one out and let the chips fall where they may. They made their choices; fine, let them live with it since we're not deemed worthy enough for their typical lack of experience and elitist notions of lofty ideals with no specifics.

They've counted on us as women to do the majority of unpaid volunteer work all these years -- time to let them get it done some other way if Hillary is not on the ticket.

If she's not offered the VP slot or the promise of the next supreme court appointment -- or Senate Leadership or whatever it is she's willing to settle for, then I'll be writing her name in on the ballot as my preferred write-in candidate. You don't need Hillary? Fine, you don't need me.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: