Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dean Warns Against Prolonged Primary

Updated and corrected: 10:03 a.m.
By Paul Kane
As the Democratic presidential primary heads into its third month of voting, party officials said Monday that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean privately warned last week about the potential fallout from a protracted battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dean sat down last Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a scheduled meeting at DNC headquarters. He told the congressional leaders of his concerns that an extended contest could pose potential long-term harm to the party's presidential ticket, according to several strategists familiar with the closed-door meeting.

The sources stressed that Dean was expressing a long-held view that a lengthy primary campaign only hurts the eventual nominee's chances against the Republican Party's candidate -- this year, almost surely Sen. John McCain. But each of the party leaders has become increasingly worried about the consequences of the Clinton-Obama race.

All three have remained neutral in the race -- aides say Dean will not vote for a presidential candidate, but will vote on other local matters in Tuesday's Vermont primary -- and no position was taken on the matter by Dean, Pelosi and Reid, the sources said.

While some may look to the three party leaders for direction to avoid an increasingly tough primary campaign, their relations have been cold and at times openly hostile the past three years.

Dean has talked about post-primary unity, while Pelosi -- whose closest allies are backing Obama -- has said that whichever candidate has the most votes and delegates at the end of the campaign would gain the support of most superdelegates to secure the nomination. Reid's son and other key political allies in Nevada backed Clinton, while he has ducked for several weeks questions about how to bring the campaign to a close and what role superdelegates should play.

Note: This item originally reported that Dean would vote "uncommitted" in Vermont's primary; he simply will not be voting for a presidential candidate.

By Post Editor  |  March 3, 2008; 10:55 PM ET
Categories:  The Democrats  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rezko Trial Opens in Chicago
Next: Clinton Down, but Not Out, for the Count

Comments

I'm from Mich. and if Howard Dean and the other 100 or so idiots of the democratic party don't want to count mine and 2-3 million other voters votes in helping to pick a Democrtic candidate for the general election.Maybe we should send a message to the democratic party and all the democrats in Mich. and Fla. sit the election out.How can 100 or so party officials which the people had no say in keep 2-3 million peoples votes from counting.We have people fighting in Iraq for Iraqs right to vote.Only in America

Posted by: bookjp | March 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD-I heard a rumor that McCain is wanting a "Brain"!

I HOPE I am not being Led On.

McRomney! :-)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so you stop the primary and declare Obama the nominee. What happens now if some damaging dirt comes out and obama is deemed unfit as a presidential candidate? Supposing some unwanted disclosure much worse than the Rezco connection comes out on Sen. Obama? It will be more damaging to the the democrats to lose a presidential election before it even starts.

I say let the contest goes on, regardless of the results of today's primary until the date of convention. This date is the coronation date and will assure the people that the nominee has been vetted fully and the probability of damaging disclosures is almost non-existent.

Posted by: tim591 | March 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

I actually supported Mitt Romney, so I don't know if that "proves" your point. I could be in it for the sheer entertainment value, at this point.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You're a McCain supporter, so of course you'd say yes.

in a way, I guess that proves my point, eh?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 4, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister:

Yes.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Where would the NY Giants be if they walked off the field in the 3rd quarter of the Super Bowl. I find it interesting that all these BO supporters are demanding that HC give up now, what are they afraid of. The light is dimming

Posted by: jmfromdc | March 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I think Dean's message should be very clear about where the party should go. He stood on a message of a 50 state strategy, not just typical blue states. It doesn't matter that Hillary won California because those folks will vote for Obama too in the GA. Same holds for NY. More importantly is the tactics by the Obama camp. They are going into every state, have planned for every state and are winning and calling to question typical red states. This is significant and fits in with Dean's 50 state strategy. Who would have thought pundits would be talking about Virginia being in play in November? Talk about a typical red-state...and now it's possibly up for grabs?? How about the significant turnout in other typical red states that could go blue for Obama in November? THAT would be best for the party and Americans. Full Disclosure: I'm neither a full Hillary or Obama supporter. I want to see a Democrat in the WH and I want the American system to run in a fair, Democratic and just way. Right now, I have to lean towards Obama.

Posted by: deljunk | March 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean has done the math and knows that this contest must end soon for one simple, 800-lb.-gorilla reason: the Florida and Michigan delegate issue. If the race were to end today, Obama would be uncontested in the remaining contests between now and the convention and would sweep up more than enough pledged delegates to win the nomination even if Michigan and Florida were allowed to seat their delegations. In that scenario, Dean could afford to be magnanimous and let the now-irrelevant Michigan and Florida delegations cast their votes, thereby lifting an ugly cloud from the convention.

However, if Clinton stays in the race much longer, she will have amassed enough pledged delegates to make the Florida and Michigan delegations relevant. The resulting floor fight over whether to seat these two delegations will cause incredible damage to party unity for years to come, and make no mistake, if Clinton thinks she can still win the nomination, this is a fight she *will* wage. Dean knows this full well, which is why he knows if Clinton continues her campaign much longer, the endgame will be an August bloodbath.

No matter which candidate you support, you have to face this inescapable fact: A continuing primary campaign will result in a convention that will make 1968's look like an Up With People rally. So is it worth it?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 4, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

No matter what happens today or in April, the country will be rid of the Clintons by this Fall. Thank you God!

Posted by: sperrico | March 4, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

All you voterd who say that Hillary is not to be voted for an you show your support for Obama yet no one can say what he has done beside being elected to the Senate
maybe he should thank Rezko an Bill Ayers

Posted by: yankeenana2 | March 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Howling Dean-Bad News! :-(

Since the "Independents were so successful in derailing Mitt Romney in favor of the RINO John McCain, WE, the Republicans, are NOW able to return the favor!

I admitted to HATING the Primary System, when this one is over, and the RepubliCANS have decided the Dimocrat Socialist Can't-idate, maybe there will be a few million Americans agreeing with me! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

My friends and I have made a pack that we will not vote if Hillary keeps up her tactics . She has lost so much integrity with her campaigning for me.
We will take our chances come November

Posted by: okinawathree | March 4, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I see the signs of some stealing going on in the Clinton campaign. I'm fired up and ready to go along with a vote blackout if she steals the nomination with the Superdelegates in play. Will under no circumstance vote for her.

Posted by: hosanna26 | March 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I think that it is so crazy when people say they will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, or Barack because he is black.
I know I am voting for the best person who I think will win the general election which is Obama because I am an independent and after all the baggage Hillary and Bill have they are going to slaughter her because they hate her and Bill.
My friend calls the Repulican Party sleeping giants,and just because they aren't coming out in enormous numbers now. I guarantee you in November if the candidate is Hillary The Democrats WILL lose.
With that Hillary is trying so many tactics to make Barack look bad that Mccain doesn't even have to go looking for anything because even though the attacks hasn't been earth shattering against him they have a starting place now.
In my views he is the best choice to beat Mccain come November

Posted by: okinawathree | March 4, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

If Haward Dean, Polasi, and Reid cannot resolve issue regarding democratic nominee after this March 4th, then Democratic Party stands to lose in November.
Winning the White House in November is the desired result by Democratic Party, than so much protracted nominee selection. USE YOUR BRAINS. KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE BALL. THE BALL IS WINNING THE PRESIDENCY.

Posted by: apanyakora | March 4, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

it`s all about Bilary,isn`t it? not about winning the oval office ,toppling the proxy Bush 2 re-election...were it that, Clinton would fold,as she cant win,period. she will go down as destroying the democratic party...ugh...I will vote for McCain before Bilary, but will hopefully be voting for Obama.

Posted by: tabbott1 | March 4, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't sad to hear DNC Chairman Howard Dean say that he will not cast his vote for any candidate in Vermont, but rather vote on local issues. How does that square with casting your vote being an act of real citizenship? I think Dean should participate in the process. We all need to, whatever our preference for one candidate or the other.

Posted by: kamaldziri22 | March 4, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

From Newsday, looks like Clinton was the one that missed votes on Afghanistan because of campaigning.

"Department of glass houses

Hillary Clinton, beginning with the debate last week, has been complaining that Obama didn't hold any oversight hearings on Afghanistan during the past year as chairman of a foreign relations subcommittee on Europe, which has jurisdiction over NATO, which is fighting in Afghanistan.

Obama says he just took over the committee as his presidential campaign began. Hillary says that excuse isn't good enough.

Except, it turns out, her Senate committee -- Armed Services -- did hold a couple of oversight hearings on Afghanistan. And she didn't attend. Because she was campaigning.

David Corn: "As Clinton throws the kitchen sink at Obama, she ought to make sure nuts and bolts don't bounce back at her.""

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/department_of_glass_houses.html

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 4, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

vishalg_99
First, what is this "For Hillary there is no second chance - she is too old to be a VP. It's end of the line for her."? You comments are pretty bad - there is no upper age limit to the presidency and why is Hillary "too old" if John McCain is running?
Second, what about this Obama should "wait his turn"? Since when is the presidency a matter of waiting turns? If a younger candidate is better prepared, so be it.

Finally, you say "There is NO WAY anyone is about to jump straight from a state legislature to White House." And what, do tell, justifies Hillary's jump from the White House to the White House? Maybe Laura Bush should come out and run on her 16 years of experience. Fact is, Obama has been an elected official for much longer than Clinton.

Finally, I saw today that Clinton's lawyers have asked a court to allow them NOT to release Clinton's telephone records for her years in the White House. They argument? It would take too long to get them ready for release. Ironically, it is taking even longer for them to fight the release in court. I admit that the Rezko issue makes Obama look less than perfect, but I cannot believe that Clinton's critics turn a blind eye to this almost irrational secrecy - it is even worse than the tax return explanation that you all swallowed hook-line-and-sinker! This is not just a matter of Clinton saying "oh, I am too busy running for president right now." She has actually gone to court and is fighting the release of those documents with a legal team. And she wants us to trust her to be president? What is she hiding?

Posted by: Salty1 | March 4, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama has a serious problem in his Iraq posture. He says that he would have voted "no" had he been in the senate. Actually he had three choices: Vote "yes", Vote "no" or Vote "Present". Knowing his record of votes, this one is a no-brainer. He would have voted "Present" because that is the way he always voted when he had to choose on an issue where he would have to defend himself against future attacks. It is just one addition to his 130 other "present" votes in the Illinois senate. If he was passionate against Iraq war, he would have supported Howard Dean in 2004. If he was passionate against Iraq war, he wouldn't have defended John Kerry's "yes" vote during the 2004 convention. If he was passionate against Iraq war, he would have organized antiwar rallies after his lone speech in 2002. If he was passionate against the Iraq war, he would have voted "no" to war funding after he got into the senate. Let us not kid ourselves about Obama's anti war passion. I didn't hear a word against the war from him after 2002 speech. As a senator, he has tremendous resources to make his passion known. He now says that he was always against the war. So were Hillary, John Kerry and many others who voted for the war resolution. The media have given him a pass on his claim. The result may well be a defeat for the democrats in November. I do wish him well, and I hope he wins if he is the nominee. I think it is about time he realizes that oratorical gifts by themselves don't make a president. You can not take tough decisions by voting "Present" on every inconvenient issue where you are damned if you say yes, you are damned if you say no. And if Obama can not take a stand on tough issues, he can not walk away with the nomination.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Voters to superdelegates: Support Obama

We are a coalition of voters calling for the Democratic superdelegates to support Barack Obama:

http://www.votersforobama.com

Obama is ahead by nearly a million in the popular vote, and has won twice as many contests as Hillary Clinton. He also leads Clinton in delegates won in primaries or caucuses.

Obama is bringing a wave of young people into the political process that will give the Democratic party a huge boost for the future. His appeal among independent voters makes him a strong general election candidate. But if Clinton is nominated, the race will be too close to call against John McCain.

Take five minutes and use the tools on our website to call or e-mail an undecided superdelegate in your state.

We can make a difference by letting superdelegates know how many of their constituents want Obama to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

Posted by: votersforobama | March 4, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I don't whether I am more disgusted with Clinton or the press. Are people really this gullible?

If I shout "Hillary's a lesbian" loud enough, long enough, would it get taken seriously and investigated? And if Obama said "Hillary's not a lesbian _to the best of my knowledge_", he would (rightly) be attacked as all kinds of a sexist.

The reason Rush wants Hillary to go on is because, like him, Hillary has no scruples whatsoever. Most people, most Republicans, do.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 4, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Obama is only 46 with hardly any experience. Almost certainly Hillary will make him the Vice-President. So here is the chance for Obama to demonstrate that he is not power hungry and let Hillary be the nominee.

It boils down to this: Obama may be a very well-meaning person but there is NO WAY anyone is about to jump straight from a state legislature to White House. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN. Obama knows this in his heart, thus his original stance to not run for President immediately after being elected to the Senate.

Obama should set aside his misplaced ambition and wait for his turn. He is young enough for that. For Hillary there is no second chance - she is too old to be a VP. It's end of the line for her. But, first and foremost, she is the most qualified for the most demanding job in the world.

Posted by: vishalg_99 | March 4, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

All the superdelegates are waiting till Wednesday morning to see what the primaries/caucus results are. If Hillary wins narrowly in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, she will stay in the race and the uncommitted Superdelegates will wait till the next primary/caucus March 11th. If the Democratic campaigning gets more negative and Obama wins on March 11th, then I think some superdelegates will have a meeting with Bill and Hill. However if Obama wins Texas and Vermont, Hillary will stay in the race but some uncommitted superdelegates will come over to the Obama camp because Obama will probably end up with slightly more pledged delegates on March 4th. If Obama wins Texas, Ohio, and Vermont, then it is all over for Hillary. She will be pressured out by the leaders in Democratic Party, and many uncommitted superdelegates will flock to Obama.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 4, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Harm's done. HRC will never get the black vote, youth vote, and independents to back her in the general if she manages to get the nomination.

Posted by: jr_1123 | March 4, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have received a huge mandate in November 2006 and reduced it to a 18% approval rate. Hillary Clinton had comfortable two digit leads against Barack Obama and reduced those to tied races. Now she goes on wreaking havoc on the Democratic Party's chances in November, by aggressively campaigning against a very popular fellow Democrat. Never mind the voters, let her go for her very own agenda dictated by her very own ambition. A sure-fire way to lose in November, against the party which brought you the worst President ever. We Europeans are banging our collective heads on our collective desks!

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/comment-this-cannot-go-any-further/

Posted by: old_europe | March 4, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

mul,

Nice how you're rewriting history for your own convenience.

The Clintons haven't been kicking Republican @ss for years. What happened in 1994? If the Clintons were do great at kicking Republican @ss, why did they lose Democratic control House for the first time in 40 years, along with the Senate? Why couldn't the Clintons win back either chamber in 1996 or 1998? And Gore should have won easily in 2000. Sure, part of it is his fault for not winning his home state of TN, but all the Clinton scandals and "Clinton fatigue" made it that much more difficult for Gore. Gore should have been able to just travel around the country with Bill, but after the past 8 years, the Clintons were a double-edged sword.

It wasn't the Clintons who helped the Democrats win back the House and Senate in 2006. That was the Republicans and their own scandals.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 4, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Of course, Reid's son endorsed Hillary, because they share a sweet common interest - the lobbyist connection. There should be laws against donations with such conflicts of interest.

Although Hillary claimed that she will not be influenced by lobbyists after taking their money, if she is such a saint, why we call it conflict of interest? I don't believe her a bit. She works for whoever or whatever that gives her money, including Norman Hsu among other Chinese. Hsu is in jail now and she had to return almost one million dollars to him. However, the mysterious donations taken from Chinatown is still under investigation. You just can't bite the hands that feed you.

Posted by: dummy4peace | March 4, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Democrats, especially Howard, should trust the process and let it unfold naturally. And, rather than conduct in uninformed debate -- read the rules and move on.

Posted by: gkmtn | March 4, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

OK Obama cultist there is an election - have you seen it in the paper. You guys don't like strong women, courts, satire, or elections from what I can tell.

If the people voting in the primary vote for Obama he will win. If they give Hillary the nod she will win. If they tie the supers get the decision those are the rules. If she wins she will put Obama on the ticket and he will take it (yes its true). Maybe she will only serve one term so Obama can run in 4 years.

If you want to fall in love with somebody next time make sure they have a strong record.

Posted by: mul | March 4, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Someone is trying to pull our strings. The Truth will come out, however. Hopefully, America we can see through this Rouse this time and elect CHANGE!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 4, 2008 07:53 AM

If you are correct they would have done this last month. They waited until Obama had it in the bag. But they forgot about

Rambo!

The Clinton's have been kicking republican A** for years and years. They even got Gore Elected (but not selected) and that took some doing. Hillary is bullet prof. We now all the bad stuff 1. they are political- 2. Bill is a horn-dog.

Hillary is not a horn-dog. She is a women got forbid.

Posted by: mul | March 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton wins at this point, it would tear the party apart. After Obama won 11 contests in a row and it became clear that Hillary would need superdelegates, she should have put her ego aside and taken a bow gracefully. Imagine how strong the Party would be right now if Dems were focusing on McCain while McCain fights off a Huckabee 'miracle' challenge on the right. Ah, but no - we're all still watching the Clinton Show, and waiting for the end. Someone change the channel!!

Posted by: maq1 | March 4, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Republicans keep saying that Obama is the Man.

Means they want to run vs. Obama.

One of Obama's (U of Chicago Prof. peeps) kills his own man by showing off how smart he is to CANADA's trade officials. Then Obama lies about it. Wink Wink

I am from there we do not want U of C people running the county. Just let them do there research and be done with it.

Posted by: mul | March 4, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

HRC staying in and staying negative is not good for ANYONE but the GOP and HRC. HRC staying in and staying on message, I think is good for HRC and the DEMs as a whole.

She needs to decide which way she goes forward. She is welcomed to stay in, but the negative comes across aas if not me, then damn the party.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 4, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

The Republican's New Agenda is to Stop Obama, they want to run against Hillary. They have so much dirt in their Arsenal on the Clintons just waiting to be Unleashed (movies, scandals, lawsuits, books) -- that is why Rush Limbaugh is Begging, Begging his listeners to vote for Hillary. Limbaugh declared: "I want the funeral music to play at some point to the Clintons, but not this early." America, if Hillary becomes the nominee, we haven't seen nothing yet!

Who released the Canadian Memo and distorted its contents--, where did that come from and who called Goolsbee to a meeting and conveniently set him up? Who pushed up Rezko's trial which, was to start much later this year? Why did the Somali picture come out, along with Farrakahn endoresement and a radio jock mocking of Obama's middle name? Which was allowed to be played over and over again by the Main-stream media. We have to ask these things? Who wants to Kill unity and hope? Was this part of the Kitchen Sink or may be the Basement (Swiftboating)? I do know its dirty politics and until we reject this kind of politicking in America we will be a pawn in their hands, the people of power, and never find our true Independence and Voice which Obama is offering. The Evil Ones are just getting started, warmed up. Someone is trying to pull our strings. The Truth will come out, however. Hopefully, America we can see through this Rouse this time and elect CHANGE!

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 4, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse


Texas Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Texas Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1793

.


Ohio Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1794

.


Posted by: jeffboste | March 4, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Talk about a free ride from the press! As a result of Hillary Clinton's self-pitying storyline about being given a raw deal in media coverage, the mainstream media has responded with endless coverage of her complaints and an obvious effort to become more critical of Senator Obama -- even stretching the truth to provide "balance". In all of the coverage, Senator Clinton continues to get by with her refusal to release her tax returns. Instead of broadcasting all the scurrilous attacks on Senator Obama's religion, why haven't you provided the same scrutiny on the tax return issue? It is obvious that there is something in the returns they don't want voters to know before they make their decisions. More Clintonian scandals perhaps? Who funded the Clinton Library? What about Bill's shady business dealings? What about favors accepted from corporations? What about HRC's own ties to questionable fundraisers? The list could go on and on. The press should not let up on her until these questions are answered!

Disgusted Reader in Minnesota

Posted by: lindake | March 4, 2008 6:26 AM | Report abuse

Yep, This needs to end in the next few days if the Dems are going to win in the fall. Donations to Clinton are as good as donation to McCain, or better. Clinton makes McCain's vote for me or die by the hand of terrorist case with her "Children" ad. Clinton is erasing the Democrats fund raising advantage by spending 8 Million on a knife fight that McCain will finish in November with an assault rifle with out getting any blood on his hands.

Rush is right Clinton can attack in ways that Republicans can't:
1) Less press blow back when she suggests Obama "is not a Muslim to my knowledge" and floats a picture that causes protests over seas.
2) Making the 2008 campaign focus on national security, the Republicans strongest issue. And McCain's best match up against Clinton or Obama.
3) Making the press find an Obama scandal for each Clinton scandal (no matter how stretched), by pushing some insane idea of fairness. The same weird concept of balance that required one anit-global warming expert for every discussion of the fact of global warming.

Posted by: grahampoor | March 4, 2008 4:49 AM | Report abuse

As a Dem Im sure we'll figure out a way to lose the 2008 election in a year we should certainly win. Republicans must be enjoying this race...

Posted by: the964kid | March 4, 2008 4:12 AM | Report abuse

An open letter to my fellow Democrats:
When this was a three-candidate race I often said I would be happy with any of John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton as the nominee for the Democratic Party. I still feel that way about all three. But I am urging every supporter of Hillary Clinton who has not yet voted to consider the situation in which we find ourselves:
If Senators Obama and Clinton evenly split the remaining pledged delegates between now and Puerto Rico - which seems to be the most likely scenario going forward - Senator Clinton would need to persuade 263 of the remaining 364 superdelegates to cast their votes for her in Denver in August in order to reach 2025 delegates and clinch the nomination. On the other hand, Senator Obama would only need to persuade 162 of the remaining undecided superdelegates to vote for him in Denver to reach 2025.
If this race continues all the way to the convention, as Senator Clinton has said, as a party we will only have about 8 weeks of general election campaigning time during which to build the case for the American people why the Democratic candidate, rather than John McCain, should be the next President. This is, by any informed and intelligent perspective, a recipe for disaster and an almost guaranteed victory for the Republicans. This is not lost on the Republicans - tonight I learned that Rush Limbaugh is now proposing to Republicans in Texas to cross over to vote for Clinton just to keep the Democrat race tight in order to gain a strategic advantage. If this primary season lasts until Denver, then the Democrats will lose in November, regardless of whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee.
But it doesn't have to be this way. We have a chance to put the party back on the track to victory by uniting behind a nominee now. For this reason I urge every Democratic supporter of Hillary Clinton, who may have ever had a feeling for Barack Obama that he would be an acceptable second choice, cast your vote for Barack Obama. This cannot be a fight about personalities any more. Any further campaigning is going to hurt the party and the American people whose well-being depends so much on a victory for the Democrats in November. A decisive series of victories for Barack Obama in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, Mississippi and Wyoming this month will send a clear message to the media and the GOP that the Democrats are united and serious about regaining the White House. Anything short of that will mean we have failed as viable political party.
We have had so much going for us as a party this primary season. But we are now beginning to destroy what we had built up. To stop the damage, the time for action is now. We don't have any more time to lose. Any further fighting between Obama and Clinton is only going to weaken both candidates as viable alternatives to John McCain. Please, vote for Barack Obama because it is the only way to keep the party focused on the true prize: the White House.
Best regards,
Salty1 Saltillo,
A Texas Democrat

Posted by: Salty1 | March 4, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

The Dem's are starting to get the picture; [apparently a few are slow]. The longer the better for this show where the Dem's have top billing and a nation wide audience. Hillary and Obama have the entire nation mesmerized. THAT'S not tearing apart a party; that's a huge boost for the party.

What in the world!??are you thinking Dean?

Posted by: thinktank | March 4, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

It ain't over until the fat lady sings! (which fat lady I don't know)

Posted by: Changdc54 | March 4, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Barack will likely win in Vermont, Hillary in Ohio and Rhode Island, who knows about Texas.
The net result may be a small gain in delegates, up to about ten, for Hillary, but there will be very little chance of her fairly winning the nomination.

She may thereby continue as a candidate until at least April. The Clinton campaign, if it continues its recent highly negative, smear tactics, will make a John McCain victory in November increasingly likely.

Posted by: Koreen | March 4, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Hillary all the way! All the way to the Convention! All the way to the White House!

VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 4, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

I do not think we will have to wait much longer, after Obama takes Texas;

Barack vs Hillary Analysis- Texas Primary:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

It is all but over- or has Hillary's last minute pr ploys paid off?

Posted by: davidmwe | March 4, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Dean might not get what he wishes for. The latest OH poll released just an hour ago shows Clinton jumping to a 14% lead!! Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/03/is-clinton-actually-coming-back.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | March 4, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Someone is going to have to have a word with Bill and Hilary and explain that this isn't about them, it's about what's good for the country and the Democratic Party. If Dean, Reid and Pelosi can get through to them it'll save a lot of money, teeth gnashing and bad blood. It will allow the democrats to put a team together that can rescue this country from the Republican/Bush imposed disaster that they've brought upon us.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 3, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Dim Strategy! An oxymoron!

Was that Harry Reid-The MORMON?

Ninny Peloser the Illegal Employment promoting Employer, who has HR:1940 Birthright Citizenship Act, Stalled and collecting dust on her desk?

Rally them troops there Howling Dean!

YEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 3, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company