MyDD :: President Jimmy Carter Tells Hillary to "Give it Up" (W/Video)

President Jimmy Carter Tells Hillary to "Give it Up" (W/Video)

by NCDemAmy, Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST

As Hillary continues to vow to stay in the race, the pressure and calls for her to withdraw increase.

President and Superdelegate Jimmy Carter, while hinting at an Obama endorsement, told Sky News that he expects the remaining super delegates to endorse right after the last primary and "at that point [June 3], it'll be time for her to give it up."

"I'm a superdelegate ... I think a lot of the superdelegates will make a decision quite, announced quite rapidly, after the final primary on June 3," he told Sky News.

"I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up," Carter said

President Carter is the first Party Elder to publicly weigh in so directly on calling for Hillary to drop out of the race.

John Edwards recently made the case, shortly before endorsing Obama, that Hillary must decide at which point she's no longer advocating for herself but damaging the party stating, "It's important we get united as a party."

It's expected that other party leaders, such as Al Gore will also issue public statements encouraging Hillary to withdraw, if she continues on beyond June 3rd.

The final primaries are occuring on the heels of Hillary's embarrassing moment where she invoked the assassination of Bobby Kennedy while discussing why she'll remain in the race. Hillary issued an apology for the remarks but it didn't stop a firestorm public criticism:

Hillary remains adament, nonetheless, to remain in the race claiming she can "still win."

Clinton Says She Stays in Race Because She's the Best Candidate

By Dan Hart

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton, criticized for a reference to the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, said in a New York Daily News commentary she is still campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination because she believes she is the strongest candidate.

``I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain,'' the New York senator wrote in the op-ed piece. Senator John McCain of Arizona has wrapped up the Republican nomination.

``Delegate math might be complicated, but electoral math is not,'' she wrote. The campaign of her rival for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, said May 22 that he is only 56 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to secure the nomination. Clinton said she has won in the crucial swing states needed to win the general election, such as Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Clinton wrote that she can still win on the merits, and because ``my parents did not raise me to be a quitter.'' She said that, while ``pundits and politicians'' have called on her to end her candidacy, recent victories in West Virginia and Kentucky show that Clinton is still winning votes from people despite being told the ``race is over.''

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, Al Gore (all tags)

Permalink :: 81 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: President Jimme (1.33 / 3)

Forgive me for not taking the guy that would meet with Hamas seriously.

Jimmy Carter is and remains a disaster.

Now I really understand why my folks are Reagan Democrats .

There is no way in hell I would have voted for him if I was able to vote then.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST

Re: President Jimme (2.00 / 2)

Do you consider yourself a Democrat?

John McCain

by Mandoliniment on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (none / 0)

yes! but you have to put country above party !carter is a real example why you can't vote for president for somebody who has no credentials for that job.
life before pleasure, the security of the u.s. and the whole world is the most important thing in evaluating who to vote for president, like it or not ten's of millions of americans feel that way, nominating obama would be a suicidal mistake

by awayer on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (none / 0)

Bull....

Carter's main problem was not that he was not qualified, it was that he tried to micro-manage the largest job in the world. You cannot do it... there are things that must be delegated.

Obama would make a fine President as he is intellectually curious and is smart enough to surround himself with smart people.

Head and shoulders above Bush (who s not running) and Bush-lite (who is running)

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (none / 0)

but it seems obama is surrounded by carter people

by awayer on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (2.00 / 1)

Are you serious? You would have voted for the Republican over Jimmy Carter?

Wow. Just wow.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

Lori did not say that. Try to save your fainting spells for when they are actually warranted.

by Montague on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

She said she would not have voted for the Democratic nominee, Carter.

So, one can only assume she'd either vote for the Republican, which I asked her if she would have or sat out and not voted. Or of course, voted third party. In any case, she said she would not have supported the Democratic nominee.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. You cannot assume that. (none / 0)

That's a stupid assumption and an insulting one.

by Montague on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. You cannot assume that. (none / 0)

Umm. no, it's not.

If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, the only alternatives are: 1. Sit out and don't vote 2. Vote Republican 3. Vote third party or write in, as I noted in my comment.

What other alternatives are there?

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What other straightforward way is ... (2.00 / 2)

... there to interpret "Now I understand" 'Reagan Democrats' ...

... which is to say, those who claimed to be Democrats but voted for the leader of the radical reactionary wing of the Republican party, and one of the chief architects of the "dog whistle" politics of racism with plausible deniability, Ronald Reagan.

"Now I understand" why people voted for the person who used the "welfare queen" myth to fracture the New Deal Coalition, because Jimmy Carter ...

... wait a minute, because he does what terrible crimes? ...

... oh, yes, because the architect of the Camp David peace deal, which has held and continues to hold, despite all the turmoil in the Middle East in the last 30 years (and in part thanks to "Reagan Democrats" supporting the Republican politics of militaristic posturing in lieu of national defense), points out that any responsible national leadership will meet with its adversaries ...

... and points out that, now that Senator Clinton no longer has a path to the nomination, the undeclared super delegates are likely to declare in much larger numbers once the primary process has been concluded. Given the delegate math, once undeclared delegates declare, it will be all over for Senator Clinton.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What other straightforward way is ... (none / 0)

Well said, BruceMcF

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My father, a lifelong Democrat (none / 0)

till that point, voted for Reagan TWICE. He finally admitted it one day years later.

My father DID vote for Carter the first time, though.

I did not.

I hate Reagan and what he did with a passion, but Ford wasn't so bad and I knew Carter was going to beat him, and Carter had pissed me off big-time, so I saved myself the annoyance of supporting him. I ticked the box for Mondale as VP and the left the box above empty. When it was reelection time and Carter had shown he was a political incompetent and stood a great chance of losing while I knew Reagan had a chance of winning, I voted for Carter. Lot of good that did.

Other than that, I've voted for every Dem president. I didn't love Bill Clinton but I knew the Reagan-Bush years had to end so I not only voted for him, I also worked for the campaign.

2008 is going to be another of those 1976 contests. Obama is going to lose, and he's pissed me off big-time, so I'll be either leaving that slot empty or doing a write-in.

by Montague on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My father, a lifelong Democrat (2.00 / 1)

Obama is not going to lose... McCain is suffering foot-in-mouth disease on a regular basis and Bob Barr is talking about running as a third party candidate which my peel off conservatives from McCain.

The only real question mark is whether or not Bush will actually surrender his post.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My father, a lifelong Democrat (none / 0)

Stop the drama. I do care what McCain will do but I cannot stop it. Neither can you. Neither can Obama.

Game over. Obama is all about himself, and his hubris will cost us the White House.

by Montague on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You couldn't have known that ... (none / 0)

... in May of 1980.

2008 is going to be another of those 1976 contests. Obama is going to lose, and he's pissed me off big-time, so I'll be either leaving that slot empty or doing a write-in.

McCain is no Ford. Not voting against McCain, irrespective of whether the Democratic nominee is Senator Change or Senator Experience, is aiding and abetting the Republican war on voting and the principle of Constitutional Government under the rule of law.

So boo, hoo, hoo, your candidate didn't win the nomination. My candidate didn't win the nomination. Lots of people's candidates didn't win the nomination.

Big fat hairy deal. Perhaps it because of the online echo chamber effect, where every little sliver of difference is exaggerated into some monumental towering conflict ... but the reality is that if somebody supports Senator Clinton for the stands she takes, they 90% support Senator Obama, and visa versa. And if someone supports Senator Clinton for the stands she takes, they can support no more than 20% of what McCain stands for.

And if there are enough supposedly Democratic voters who are willing to allow grossly inflated, and in some cases entirely imaginary, slights and differences distract them from the fact that the political faction currently dominating the Republican party has been pursuing an extra-Constitutional fascistic system of government ... well then, in that case I guess that the US populace no longer gets to enjoy the benefits of Constitutional Government under the rule of law.

And, indeed, Obama at the tail end of a long, bruising nomination struggle is better positioned right now to win the White House than either Gore or Kerry were at May of 2000 or 2004 ... and even though we lost both vote counts, in terms of the election itself we won at least one of those two elections. So someone saying, "Obama is going to lose anyway" is just rationalizing away their complicity with the Republican war on voting and constitutional government under the rule of law.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What other straightforward way is ... (none / 0)

because carter made a mess of the whole country, thanks to him there are reagan democrats who got in to habit of voting republican for president, they came back for clinton, to imagine they will vote for obama is wishfull day dreaming

by awayer on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What other straightforward way is ... (none / 0)

to say that a fair margin of them will not vote for Obama is simply not true.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This shows the power of the mess media. (2.00 / 1)

We did a better job of coping with the late 70's oil price shocks than we are going to do coping with the oil price shocks that have just started to hit ...

... but in the 70's, it was Carter's "fault" that an oil price shock generates cost push inflation and that the Federal Reserve is able to drag the economy into a recession one handed ... and the fact that the economy performed better at job creation under Carter than under Bush just doesn't matter because the talking heads of the corporate oligopress are not worried about losing their jobs. They are far more worried about the value of their portfolios.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This shows the power of the mess media. (none / 0)

the american people judged the problem that carter is incompetent, so is obama, in 1980 reagan was considered much more extremist than mccain, still he won in a landslide against incompetency what proof do you have that obama is up to the job

by awayer on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

Are you serious? You would have voted for the Republican over Jimmy Carter?

- I have voted for both republicans and democrats .

I don't believe in party line voting , if someone doesn't fit what my views or values is , I am under no obligation to vote for him.

Jimmy Carter is a disaster . I don't see how Carter gets my vote under any circumstance in light of his behaviour and activities if he were running as the dem standard bearer.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (2.00 / 2)

Nobel Peace Prize....? Those activities....?

I hate to break this to you, but dialog is important... even with people you disagree with.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

I don't subscribe to former presidents whoever they are going to have a chit chat with Hamas .

Carter no doubt has done some good things post his presidency but in terms of foreign policy / national security , Israel , Iran I understand why folks who voted for Reagan that I know would do it again against Carter..

I give him kudo's for his humanitarian work but he is a disaster nonetheless and I won't want to see him as president under any circumstance.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (2.00 / 3)

well, you won't have to worry about him as President.. I don't think he has any intention of running again...

I totally disagree, obviously. He is far from a disaster. He is an admirable former President and an admirable man.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter (none / 0)

Agree, JenKinFLA. Carter is a noble and admirable man and former President.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are those who seriously care about ... (2.00 / 1)

... Israel's survival and refuse to accept anyone talking with Israel's adversaries.

The thing is, those are two distinct groups, and they do not overlap.

Those who are serious about Israel's survival will oppose anyone who refuses to talk to Israel's adversaries.

While those who refuse to talk to Israel's adversaries in the name of Israel are putting a higher priority on political rhetoric than on Israel's survival. For them, "Israel's survival" is a hot button issue to win debating points, rather than a serious goal to be pursued seriously.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Israeli's ARE speaking with Hamas (2.00 / 2)

Amazes me when there are these Republican talking points here on a Dem site.

Diplomacy is an art we've gotten rusty at - the Israeli's take one posture publicly but use other intermediaries to conduct a variety of negotiations.

They've had face to face talks with Sadat (may he rest in peace), with Arafat...

Jimmy Carter is a man, and former President to be proud of.

Not only does he enhance our standing in the world (one of the few US politicians who is respected)- but he also does things here at home like Habitat for Humanity.

Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity

by NeciVelez on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why should that amaze anyone? (2.00 / 1)

The compliant mess media repeats radical reactionary talking points, and then those online commentators who drink the mess media cool aid rather than analyzing it and picking it apart repeat the radical reactionary talking points online.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (2.00 / 2)

President Reagan TRADED ARMS for HOSTAGES with IRAN. It was all under the table, and it was conduct disgusting and unbecoming of a potential president. Read your history, PLEASE. The ignorance of many Republicans is breathtaking. You'll have to do your own research, though, because most of the mainstream media won't want to embarrass their darlings.

by CyberCitizen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (2.00 / 2)

Exactly! Carter indirectly endorses Obama, so he is now a bad Democrat who doesn't count anymore. He gets thrown on the pile of other worthless Democrats with Richardson and all the other Bad Democrat traitors.

by rf7777 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (2.00 / 2)

yeah, I agree... that whole Habitat for Humanity... what a sham. He should have just gone on the $$$$ talking circuit....

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimme (2.00 / 2)

More uneducated and ignorant nonsense... Considering you've already proven you don't even understand BASIC foreign policy I don't think your commentary carries much weight

by CaptainMorgan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A majority of Israelis favor meeting with Hamas. (none / 0)

Carter botched the meeting, yeah, but he had the right idea. He was just the wrong person to pull it off. I give him credit for trying, though, especially since nobody else is willing to.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?

by Elsinora on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter Tells Hillary to (none / 0)

How is he telling her to drop out of the race when the last contest will be over by then? If anything, he's arguing that the nomination should be resolved before the convention.

Just because you emphasize those two words doesn't prove your point.

by rfahey22 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST

Re: President Jimmy Carter Tells Hillary to (none / 0)

Right. He said that after the final primaries, which end June 3rd, she should give it up.

IOW, she should not continue on after June 3rd and certainly not take it for another month or so beyond that, to the convention in August.

The point is, party elders are now even issuing public statements. Likely because Hillary has not hinted that she'll withdraw any time soon.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter Tells Hillary to (2.00 / 1)

Sorry, I've read so many diaries lately from the opposite perspective that I misread your point.

by rfahey22 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: President Jimmy Carter Tells Hillary to (none / 0)

No prob! Thanks for clarifying.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good diary, Amy (2.00 / 1)

Keep up the good work.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:23:48 PM EST

Re: Good diary, Amy (none / 0)

Thanks.

I'm glad the primary process if finally coming to end. We need to get on to taking on the real challenge: McCain.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Like they say on the Daily Show ... (2.00 / 1)

... "The Long, Flat, Bataan-Death-March to the Nomination".

But, yes, since my birthday is early June, I will look on the end of the primary process as a slightly late birthday present, from the Democratic Party to me.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Like they say on the Daily Show ... (none / 0)

A great BDay present, indeed.

Happy (early) Birthday!

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a terrible thing for him to say (1.00 / 0)

Can he not let the remaining states vote?

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:49:16 PM EST

Re: What a terrible thing for him to say (2.00 / 1)

Did you read the quote? He said, after the last primaries, June 3rd, the remaining superdelegates will decide and at that point, she needs to give it up.

Carter didn't anything about that last states not voting.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He said she will *probably* ... (2.00 / 1)

... etc. ... and its just a calm observation from the sidelines. After the primaries are over, there is going to be nothing changing the delegate count but the super-delegates themselves, and the ones just waiting for an excuse to declare for Obama despite Senator Clinton winning their district/state will all have the pledged delegate totals to point to ...

... and since they each know it, they each know there will be a rush in the week after June 3, so they each know that if they declare in the week after June 3, their individual declaration will be lost in the rush, so its safest to do it then.

The odds that it will follow any other script are surely under 5%, which justifies saying "probably".

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a terrible thing for him to say (2.00 / 1)

Can you not read what he actually said? Dammit

He said it should be over after the damned primaries are over.

Read first, then comprehend, THEN get mad.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

However, it you read, then comprehend ... (2.00 / 2)

... then get mad:

(1) That slows down the pace of "flood attacking", when keeping up the pace is the whole point of having set talking points that you repeat irrespective of what a diary actually says

(2) If you comprehend before answering, sometimes you won't get mad, which drains flood attacking of the essential adrenaline energy that it runs on.

So basically your advice misses the whole point, which is to, (1) skim, (2) get mad, (3) find the closest talking point and drop it as a comment, (4) repeat.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a terrible thing for him to say (none / 0)

Weird to say this. How can "he" stop people from voting? They always go through all the primaries even when the nominee is known.

by Becky G on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Give it up, woman (1.00 / 0)

is a terrible thing for a former president to say before the votes have been counted.

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the superdelegate meddling thing (1.00 / 0)

like the elites of our party are trying to shut it down. Why can't they let B.O. just win this on his own? Looks like the party elders are helping junior along because he can't do it by himself.

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:40:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the superdelegate meddling thing (none / 0)

I think it's more that party elders are working to ensure a victory in the general election and to protect/promote party unity.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well Democrats don't like that (1.00 / 0)

At least the half that are not already in the tank for Obama.

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:55:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a terrible thing for him to say (none / 0)

What remaining states are there after 6/03...?

Did we add a few while I was asleep last night?

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

misleading (none / 0)

You should alter your title to be accurate. The implication of your title is in the present tense "Give It Up", as in "NOW". As you acknowledge yourself, Carter is referring to June 3rd.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST

Re: misleading (2.00 / 1)

Those are his exact words and I provided the full quote in the diary in text and in video.

A title is not long enough to allow for the entire comment. There is nothing misleading about providing it in full, in the diary.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: misleading (none / 0)

No, it doesn't allow for the entire comment but you chose an interesting way that the only way to read the title is to jump to the conclusion that Carter wants Hillary to "Give Up", as in now. I'm just saying it's better to be accurate than not. You could have easily chosen to shorten your title and make it more accurate but you chose not to. Just calling you out on it.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: misleading (none / 0)

Yes and i agree the title is not correct. What he says is after the last primary (if BO has more delegates) she should give it up?

Duh. That is what everyone says.

david

by giusd on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: misleading (none / 0)

actually, not everyone says that....

Read some of the comments on this site from people who want her to continue to the convention regardless...

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: misleading (none / 0)

Well fair enough. But i say that and i guess we shall see.

david

by giusd on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have you looked on the calendar? (2.00 / 1)

Even if the quote had been in present tense, its a week and a half. That may not be "now", but it definitely is "presently".

However, anyone reading the following quote gets the time frame:

"at that point [June 3], it'll be time for her to give it up."

Are you arguing that you are unable to wait until you are finished reading the third sentence of a diary and therefore, to accommodate your disability, the entire context and information content of a diary must be contained in the title?

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Have you looked on the calendar? (none / 0)

No I'm saying it's senseless to insinuate something else based solely on the title. A shorter, better title would have been "President Carter Tells Hillary to Give It Up on June 3." Accurate, not misleading, and much clearer.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are the one who is insinuating .... (none / 0)

... something based on the title. Are you perhaps claiming that the diarist is insinuating something with the title?

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are the one who is insinuating .... (none / 0)

No need for fancy language, it is what it is.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary believes that she has a shot (2.00 / 3)

at the nomination. I wish Carter and everyone else would stop telling her quit. It's pissing off half the party. Half of whom will likely not vote for Obama in the fall anyway, because A LOT of them believes he's not qualified, which will probably lead to a democratic loss.

The people voting for Hillary tend to swing republican at times in the GE, and Obama cannot win without them. So as far as I'm concerned, we have nothing to lose by going to the convention.

Nothing. The party is already divided. I don't think it's going to change anytime soon, especially if pundits and talking heads keep urging her to quit.

Just let the thing play out. If Obama ends up as the nominee, then that's that. But at least it will have played itself out to entire party's satisfaction. I don't see the party uniting any other way.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST

Re: Hillary believes that she has a shot (none / 0)

But here's the thing. The longer Obama gets attacked from both sides, the longer we delay moving on to the real contest: the general election, spending huge amounts of money.

Further, division at the convention will seriously damage our chances at beating McCain.

The fact is, there is no possible way or Hillary to clinch the nomination at this point. IMO, it does more harm than good, with respect to our chances in the fall, to continue in the primary contest.

McCain is making headway as his party's nominee, we are falling behind.

I think Carter and Edwards have offered sage advice her and Hillary would be wise to heed it.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some telepathy gift you have there. (none / 0)

Hillary says that she believes she has a route to the nomination ... what she actually believes is not something those of us not gifted with powers of telepathy are able to determine.

More to the point, what President Carter says above is that undeclared super-delegates will declare in fairly large numbers after the last primary, which is less than a week and a half from now. And at that time, it will probably be time for Senator Clinton to quit the race.

Anyone without an emotional investment in either Tweedle Change or Tweedle Experience can see that there is nothing either surprising or objectionable in that statement.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the thing... (none / 0)

undeclared superdelegates can end this thing TODAY. The fact that they have not done so is speaking volumes as far as I'm concerned. To me, that means they actually want to go to the convention. Not just Hillary, but the rest of the undeclared supers. If she in fact does get or not get her FL/M she can persuade enough of them based on her electoral map strength to back her. It's possible.

People keep saying that taking it to the convention will likely cause us to lose in the GE, based on history, but you know what, this is one of the most historical primary season ever, none of the old rules, common beliefs really apply. Right now, as far as I'm concerned nothing is off the table in this crazy season.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the thing... (none / 0)

The supers know exactly what they are doing by trickling out enough endorsements for Obama to get him close enough so that the the last state primaries put him over the top. After that, the remaining supers will make sure to seal the deal.If Clinton still tries to take it to the convention, all but a handful of her supers will flip to Obama, and Clinton will be sidelined with no prospects for advancement in the party.

by haystax calhoun on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary believes (2.00 / 1)

At this point I think many more people should be telling her to quit. It's really gotten ludicrous and is hurting the party. I don't believe she will quit until the convention any other way so maybe she has to be humiliated into it. I don't think her supporters (the ones who are still defending her staying in) are a good reason to let her ruin the party. I feel that Hillary has whipped them into a frenzy and now there is nothing we can do about it except let them go where they want to.

by Becky G on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Donna Brazile disagrees with you (1.00 / 0)

Seriously - it pisses off Hillary supporters, and some women are really pissed me off - that people are calling for her to leave the race before he has it clinched. Donna Brazile said she's vacate her DNC position:

I believe that if this process is prematurely shut down because we want to rush to get a nominee to take on John McCain -- meaning we will not hear from the voters in some of the upcoming primaries and caucuses -- I will vacate my position on the DNC. I will always be a Democrat, I'm a lifelong Democrat, I love my party, but I will not support a party that shut the vote down. And on that note we have to do something about Florida and Michigan....those two states did not comply with the rules but we should find a way to ensure that the voters in those two states have a voice in this process as well.

Now are you a paid Republican troll trying to split the party by doing this? Or are you a Democrat who wants party unity.

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donna Brazile disagrees with you (none / 0)

But, the reality is, the nomination is clinched. The reality is, Hillary cannot win this.

I know how difficult that is to accept about your candidate. Being an Edwards supporter, who was very involved volunteering/donating/blogging for my candidate, but there reaches a point in which a candidate must put the party first, our chances of winning the general election, before merely promoting themselves.

Since Hillary cannot clinch this nomination, according the numbers, we've reached that point.

She's already made a big gaffe with the assassination comment. What else may happen if she drags this out?

Just sayin...but again, I feel your pain. It's not easy to see your candidate lose.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In your reality maybe (1.00 / 0)

the nomination is not clinched.

I searched through emails last night - calls for her to drop out have come since March. MARCH.

So your calls for her to drop out now sound like crying wolf.

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In your reality maybe (none / 0)

Carter isn't calling for her to drop out now, he's calling for her to drop out after the last primary.

by haystax calhoun on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary believes that she has a shot (none / 0)

Is this snark? Obama consistently draws more republican defectors in GE polling matchups with McCain.

by CaptainMorgan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was mostly before the Wright... (none / 0)

riding dirty tapes. Since that time his support has dwindled in republicans, independents, older voters. The other they were discussing Obama's problem with Jewish voters. He has problems with Hispanic voters. On MSNBC, aka the Obama network, they were actually discussing why was Clinton electoral map looking so much stronger than Obama's.

It's not like Obama doesn't have problems. And one of dumbest thing I've read over and over again is that these problem will disappear when he clinches the nomination, when in fact they will be highlighted. OMG.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I try to understand both sides of the issue on (2.00 / 1)

this whole flap (and yes I am a Hillary supporter). Your diary was fine, imo, until that clip of Keith Olbermann. Look, it was "sweeps week" at the network. Olberman was just trying to fan the flames of this fire for his own personal gain. The rate of advertising that he gets for his show from now until November, depends on his ratings during sweeps week.

I can understand how people would be hurt by Hillary's comment, or see it as divisive. However, Keith Olbermann lays it on way too thick and is a phoney imo. He has lost all credibility with me.

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST

Re: I try to understand both sides of the issue on (none / 0)

Fair enough.

I wont deny Olbermann spiced up his "special comment" with some drama. That is part of his television persona, afterall.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hilarious. (1.00 / 0)

Jimmy Carter he who took a vibrant Democratic party and put it in political wilderness for 12 years??? And Keith the clown. Yeah very respectable commentators indeed.

by tarheel74 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST

Let's see what happens in June (none / 0)

First - it has been quite some time since Pres. Carter made those remarks. More voters have made their preferences known since then; and we still have three states to go. In the meantime, Senator Obama continues to behave less and less like someone who could be President and leader to all Americans. In spite of overwhelming media buys, lots of free positive PR, and increasing unbalanced treatment from both the traditional "liberal" media talking heads as well as the traditional "right-wing conspiracy" pundits, nearly half the rank and file of the American populace who call themselves Democrats continue to make the case for the inclusion of the FL and MI primary results and for the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Those party leaders who care about something other than their own personal benefit are waiting for this week to play out. The fact that the Obama camp cannot be gentlemanly enough to let the argument play itself out is indicative of his character and motives, which I hope more and more thinking people will find suspect.

by pan230oh on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:05:59 PM EST

Re: Let's see what happens in June (none / 0)

Actually, Carter just made those remarks today. It hasn't been some time.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washingto n/politics-usa-politics-carter.html?_r=1 &oref=slogin

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

re (none / 0)

The Clintons won twice and guess what? Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc all hate them for it, the jealousy is just oozing out of them. Its never been about Hillary with them, its all about sticking it to Bill

by rossinatl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:55 PM EST

Re: re (none / 0)

Now, that's just silly.

Not every Democratic leader is jealous of the Clintons and want to stick it to them.

by NCDemAmy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.