PDA

View Full Version : Clinton to suspend campaign this Saturday


Gio Takahashi
06-05-2008, 09:30
Clinton to suspend campaign Saturday The former first lady will also reportedly endorse rival Barack Obama
MSNBC News Services
updated 12:24 a.m. ET, Thurs., June. 5, 2008

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/) will suspend her campaign and endorse Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday, NBC News confirmed, bringing an end to a ground-breaking presidential race.


Hours after Barack Obama (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16438329/) sealed the nomination on Tuesday, Democrats coalesced around his candidacy, sending a strong signal to Clinton that it was time to bow out. The former first lady told House Democrats during a private conference call Wednesday that she will express support for Obama's candidacy and congratulate him for gathering the necessary delegates to be the party's nominee.

"Senator Clinton will be hosting an event in Washington, D.C., to thank her supporters and express her support for Senator Obama and party unity. This event will be held on Saturday to accommodate more of Senator Clinton's supporters who want to attend," said her communications director, Howard Wolfson.


Aides told NBC News that there would be a private staff event Friday in Washington, followed by the public event on Saturday. They said that she would not waive her right to have her name placed in nomination and that she had not negotiated for anything from Obama, such as debt relief for her campaign.


She was also leaving her options open to retain her delegates and promote issues important to her, including a signature call for universal health care.
One adviser told the New York Times that Clinton would concede defeat, congratulate Obama and proclaim him the party?s nominee, while pledging to do what was needed to assure his victory.


Also in the speech, Clinton will urge once-warring Democrats to focus on the general election and defeating Republican presidential candidate John McCain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16438320/).

Options for ending it
She will be bringing to a close an epic five-month nominating battle pitting the first serious female candidate against the most viable black contender ever.


A senior Clinton adviser said the candidate and her lieutenants had discussed various ways a presidential candidacy can end, including suspending the campaign to retain control of her convention delegates and sustain her visibility in an effort to promote her signature issue of health care. This adviser spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to discuss the conference call Clinton held with her congressional supporters.


The other options include freeing her delegates to back Obama and ending her candidacy unconditionally. The official stressed that neither Clinton nor her inner circle had decided specifically what course to take other than to recognize that the active state of her bid to become the nation's first female president had ended.


On the telephone call with impatient congressional supporters, Clinton was urged to draw a close to the contentious campaign, or at least express support for Obama. Her decision to acquiesce caught many in the campaign by surprise and left the campaign scrambling to finalize the logistics and specifics behind her campaign departure.


?We pledged to support her to the end,? Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Clinton's told The New York Times. ?Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.?
Clinton?s speech Tuesday, in which she praised Obama but gave no clear signal that she would exit the race or endorse the presumptive nominee anytime soon, stirred concern among some of her top supporters.
?By the time she got on that podium ... she knew it was over and that she had lost,? Hillary Rosen, one of Clinton?s most ardent female supporters, wrote on the Huffington Post Web site. ?I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace.?


Others close to Clinton were puzzled ? or plain frustrated ? by the mixed impression she left as Obama effectively wrapped up the nomination with a flood of support from Democratic superdelegates.


Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat with close ties to Obama and Clinton who had kept neutral throughout the presidential contest, told the Times that he was ?coming out from my desk? to endorse Obama. ?The fact is that he is the nominee,? Emanuel said.


?You don?t answer about whether you want to be vice president unless there?s no doubt in your mind that he is the nominee,? he said, referring to Clinton?s reluctance Tuesday to congratulate Obama while simultaneously telling supporters she would be open to being considered for a spot on his ticket.


An Obama-Clinton ticket?
Wednesday brought only more questions about Clinton's motives and the possibility she was jockeying for a vice presidential nod.
Obama disclosed he had spoken with Clinton earlier in the day.
?I just spoke to her today, and we?re going to be having a conversation in coming weeks. And I?m very confident how unified the Democratic party?s going to be to win in November,? Obama told reporters as he left the Senate.


But the Wall Street Journal reported that Obama advisers had signaled an Obama-Clinton ticket was unlikely. The Journal reported that people in both camps said there was a stumbling block ? that Bill Clinton might balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library.


Sure thing comes unraveled
For Hillary Clinton, it was an inauspicious end for a candidacy that appeared indestructible when it began 17 months ago.
She was armed with celebrity, a prodigious fundraising Rolodex, a battle-tested campaign team and a popular two-term former president as a husband, and many observers believed her victory in the Democratic nomination contest was a sure thing.


But in Obama, the New York senator faced an opponent who appeared perfectly suited to the time ? a charismatic newcomer who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning who offered voters a compelling message of change. Clinton voted for the legislation that authorized military force against Iraq.


After a disastrous showing in the leadoff Iowa caucuses Jan. 3, Clinton won New Hampshire's primary Jan. 8, setting off the state-by-state war of attrition with Obama that followed.


Her fortunes rose and fell like a fever chart: She was up in Nevada, down in South Carolina. Then, after a roughly even finish on Super Tuesday, she suffered a string of unanswered losses that, almost before Clinton noticed, put Obama so far ahead in the delegate hunt that all the big-state victories she piled up couldn't close the delegate gap.


By March, her options limited, Clinton adopted the persona of a fighter for the middle class, and powered through in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, showing grit that earned her valuable political currency.


White men, blue-collar workers, socially conservative Democrats ? however you slice the electorate, she brought many of those people to her side while exposing Obama's vulnerabilities among those groups.
Voters, whose No. 1 concern had been ending the Iraq war at the campaign's outset, started worrying more about the economy. That was a switch from Obama's strength to hers.


Information from NBC News, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal contributed to this report.


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24974674
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24974674/)




----



Looks like it's now down to Obama vs McCain

Charlie
06-05-2008, 16:01
If those are our options, McCain better win. I don't want to see Obama in office.

Bloodcinder
06-05-2008, 16:28
I'm surprised she's finally conceded. This ongoing ordeal demonstrates why we need a one-day nomination process. I guess campaigning for the general election in earnest can start now.

Gio Takahashi
06-05-2008, 16:41
As anyone probably knows me, I'm never a big fan of republican nor am I a big fan of McCain, considering how they feel that the communication companies should control the internet: an idea that I could never agree with. but this is beside the point.

I've always been a supporter for Democrat and will stick to it. It's good that Clinton finally conceded. There's too much fighting in democrats area. They need to get unified and focus on getting Obama into the White House.

Bloodcinder
06-05-2008, 16:45
I understand. But if our preliminary elections took place in one day like our general elections do, we definitely wouldn't have McCain and we probably wouldn't have Obama. The states that come at the end of the process get ignored when the media and pollsters start presuming who will win.

deathofcheese
06-05-2008, 19:12
Gah, an Obama-Clinton ticket.....

*shudders*

Might be enough to vote McCain...or libertarian....

Seegtease
06-05-2008, 21:30
I understand. But if our preliminary elections took place in one day like our general elections do, we definitely wouldn't have McCain and we probably wouldn't have Obama. The states that come at the end of the process get ignored when the media and pollsters start presuming who will win.


Terrible sad truth. Due to the slowness, the media messes everything up.

I'm also very sad how the Republican party got screwed over this time, by Democrats skewing the votes for Republican, but apparently it couldn't work the other way around. But Republicans were stuck with McCain from a very early point. I'm discouraged enough to not even bother voting at all.

Bloodcinder
06-05-2008, 21:49
Just vote Libertarian. Bob Barr 2008!

Seegtease
06-05-2008, 22:13
I'll probably end up voting Constitution party. I'd like to have had Ron Paul though. You should like him. You know, being a Ron yourself.

Bloodcinder
06-05-2008, 22:24
My roommate's name is Paul. I call our apartment The Ron/Paul Headquarters.

Arainach
06-05-2008, 23:45
Terrible sad truth. Due to the slowness, the media messes everything up.

I'm also very sad how the Republican party got screwed over this time, by Democrats skewing the votes for Republican, but apparently it couldn't work the other way around. But Republicans were stuck with McCain from a very early point. I'm discouraged enough to not even bother voting at all......what? The Democratic primary was quite hot enough to keep voters enthused; the Republican chaos was all your own work.

Who would you have rather had anyway? Huckabee's totally insane, Giuliani couldn't have won even if he had stopped shooting himself in the foot long enough to reload. Romney could have been nice, but your voter base tends to distrust anyone who's not Protestant.If those are our options, McCain better win. I don't want to see Obama in office.Why, exactly? What could he POSSIBLY do that would be worse for our nation than Invading Iran and continuing to destroy the economy?

Killer_Man_
06-06-2008, 03:11
And what do Obama or Hilary have to offer? I am just curious to see your side. I just don't find it pleasing to have Clinton in office and Obama seems to inexperience.

Bloodcinder
06-06-2008, 11:48
FIGHT! FIGHT!

Arainach
06-06-2008, 18:05
And what do Obama or Hilary have to offer? I am just curious to see your side. I just don't find it pleasing to have Clinton in office and Obama seems to inexperience.1. Government Accountability - McCain has already stated that he would continue if not expand the warrantless wiretapping and other madness. We need investigations, we need transparency. Obama has already stated he would provide both.

2. Getting us out of Iraq - the war that's costing us billions, damaging our reputation and security, and destroying our economy.

3. Some actual progress on national healthcare.

4. The restoration and expansion of environmental protections rather than their systematic destruction.

5. A return to talk-first, shoot-later diplomacy.

6. Policies that don't treat women as second-class citizens.

Care for me to continue?

Bloodcinder
06-06-2008, 18:09
I like how your medal right now is "War In Iraq Champion." It's kind of cutely ironic, right?

Seegtease
06-06-2008, 20:34
I like how your medal right now is "War In Iraq Champion." It's kind of cutely ironic, right?

I was thinking the same thing.

Also, Ary, it's pretty known that Democrats were voting for the Republicans early on, for no better reason than to ensure we would have a terrible candidate. I know plenty of Republicans who would have rather had any of the other candidates. McCain is the least Republican of them all. I know Republicans did not want him, but now they're stuck with him.

Romney would have been fine.

Bloodcinder
06-06-2008, 20:39
Romney? We're a predominantly middle-class, Protestant, white country, Zeit.

Nobody would have voted for a person with three homes.

Seegtease
06-06-2008, 20:54
Perhaps nobody would have voted for anybody. On another note, did you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh's operation chaos? I found it entertaining, in the very least, if not somewhat effective.

Bloodcinder
06-06-2008, 20:55
No, I try not to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Seegtease
06-06-2008, 20:57
Well to be fair, I only do because my employer does. Lately I've not been overly fond of the Republican party anyway. Not that I was ever extremely devoted. I just can't restrict myself to 1 of 2 categories, and most Americans shouldn't be willing to do that, either.

Bloodcinder
06-06-2008, 20:58
Preach, brother!

Killer_Man_
06-06-2008, 23:20
1. Government Accountability - McCain has already stated that he would continue if not expand the warrantless wiretapping and other madness. We need investigations, we need transparency. Obama has already stated he would provide both.

I would have agreed that McCain is wrong in that.

2. Getting us out of Iraq - the war that's costing us billions, damaging our reputation and security, and destroying our economy.

To pull out like Vietnam? It would wreck the country already, I will agree we shouldn't even be in Iraq but since we're there we might as well make them stable first before pulling out.

3. Some actual progress on national healthcare.

The problem with health care is that even if you progress in it, it'll cost the tax payers money. So either way, it's a double edge sword.

4. The restoration and expansion of environmental protections rather than their systematic destruction.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

5. A return to talk-first, shoot-later diplomacy.

Agreed.

6. Policies that don't treat women as second-class citizens.

Linkorz me, cause I'd rather have proof of that please.

Care for me to continue?

Yes, because this is my first election and I'd rather have more opinions from people I know but the sad thing is though. What about Obama's pastor? Something disturbs me when he was being kinda racist condeming 'white america' blah blah blah. Sorry just for the sheer fact that he's been in that church for about 10 or so years(Not sure I'd have to pull up some links.) Yes, it is right for him to speak out and even if Obama doesn't agree with him. Just a heads up and pay attention to what Obama does.

Though sadly, I still don't know who to really vote for. One, I never ever heard of Obama, so it makes me think he's inexperienced. That and do you really think that the 'average' person would vote for a black man with a Muslim(Sp?) name? I mean the average joe, not people who are enlighten like us.

Seegtease
06-07-2008, 00:40
National health care (see: Canada) is not at all what our country needs, and I'm saying this as somebody who doesn't have coverage myself. I could go into more detail as to why, but not here, just saying it's by no means a selling point for voting for somebody.

deathofcheese
06-07-2008, 01:17
Has anyone seen the Michael Moore propaganda film about national healthcare? (The name escapes me at the moment.) If you have, keep in mind that he only looked at some of the few shining examples of the parts of those systems that worked, yet tried to paint a picture that suggested "national healthcare is like this big blanket that keeps you warm and safe; once we get it, you can go to any doctor, any time all the time." In reality, what will probably happen is that all the extra money you get to pay for national healthcare will end up going to the druggies, trailer trash, and bums that live off the fat of the system, who never work a day in their life and when they can't afford to buy their next hit, or a case of beer, bitch and moan that their government isn't doing enough for them until the government hands them a check.

Yes, a little extreme, a little ignorant, but that's what will happen. All the money for national healthcare will get spent on people who realize it's now all free (and since this will come out of tax money, people who don't pay taxes, including illegal immigrants and ridiculously weathy people, will still get the same privileges that taxpayers do, despite not having contributed a dime to it) any time and any where they want it. Then, when something actually does happen to you and you have an opportunity to go see your tax dollars at work, you'll end up going to the same uninspired (dude gets the same amount of money no matter how many patients he sees or how well he does his job), overworked doctor that every one and their brother goes to, and if you want to pick your own private doctor, you will have to pay out the ass on top of what you already pay through taxes.

Although our current system is broken as hell and something needs to be done about it soon (let's truly fix SS and medicare/medicaid first, though; get rid of the welfare estate too), the "OMG national healthcare FTW" system isn't the answer. A little bit of a national system, like subsidies for doctors that come from taxes, but moderate rationing depending on how often you pay taxes, and a little bit of the old system, where you do get covered if something happens that you can't afford, no loopholes, sounds like a nice start.

Killer_Man_
06-08-2008, 00:47
I have to agree on national health care. For the sheer fact when I was talking to Dinowoman, she lives in GB, I do believe that they have it and she says at times you have to wait a long time. Especially since I think England is still socialism? I can't remember if it was Dinowoman or someone else but most of the time the hostipals are just jammed pack cause of it.

Arainach
06-08-2008, 01:36
OMG, we might have LONG LINES.

Long Lines >>> No Health Care whatsoever. Which is what an increasingly large proportion of America has.

KM: Saying women shouldn't have control over their own bodies or that they must be 'informed' or have unnecessary procedures such as ultrasounds before having medical procedures they've chosen to have treats women as second-class citizens. Requiring women to get a man's approval, even if that man is a husband or father of a fetus, treats women as second-class citizens. When McCain is not directly supporting such policies he is supporting the selection of judges who support such policies.

Seegtease
06-08-2008, 02:18
OMG, we might have LONG LINES.

Long Lines >>> No Health Care whatsoever. Which is what an increasingly large proportion of America has.

There are places in Canada where you have to get a room for pregnancy post-delivery 10 months in advance to ensure you get it. 10 months. Can anybody recall how long pregnancy takes? I've read an article about a couple living in a big city near the border (the province escapes me) and had to actually come to America to a small town to get into a hospital. They got services in a town 1/10th the size of theirs, because theirs didn't offer it.

And does anybody know when health care started to become very expensive? Pretty much around the time insurance for it came out. When medical staff suddenly didn't have to deal with a person, but an insurance company, and they realized they'd pay whatever they had to. The real answer is to abolish all health insurance period. You try that for one year, and watch the prices at hospitals change beyond what you can even imagine.

Killer_Man_
06-09-2008, 13:47
OMG, we might have LONG LINES.

Long Lines >>> No Health Care whatsoever. Which is what an increasingly large proportion of America has.

I have to agree on Zeit, it would be absurd. Besides, I don't really have to worry about that since my medical bills for my arm(I broke my Ulna bone on black ice), went to prompt care, had same day surgery and all that. Since I have -no insurance- and no really good way of paying off 12k. I got help from a financial adviser and I got free medical till next year for being poor. Now, I don't go out and abuse it. I'd only use it when I really need it(Such as my eye which hurt so bad and was leaking pus and had a red line from the outer of that color part[Forgot the name] towards my tear duct. Comes out I guess I am starting to get allergies like my dad). All I have to do is pay for meds.

KM: Saying women shouldn't have control over their own bodies or that they must be 'informed' or have unnecessary procedures such as ultrasounds before having medical procedures they've chosen to have treats women as second-class citizens. Requiring women to get a man's approval, even if that man is a husband or father of a fetus, treats women as second-class citizens. When McCain is not directly supporting such policies he is supporting the selection of judges who support such policies.

So your saying that if for some odd chance that I should have no say over my child? That's absurd IMO, though I do treat women as equals, if they are equals I should have equal say in ALL MATTERS regarding birth. Though I'd never force my lover into anything she didn't feel right at the time but I am just saying.

Arainach
06-09-2008, 20:15
For as long as it's in her body, it's entirely her decision. The idea that the government or any person could force someone to carry something inside them is apalling. When men are capable of becoming pregnant, then they'll get an equal say.

Bloodcinder
06-09-2008, 20:20
Listen, guys. All that's important is that Hillary's going to be President!

Killer_Man_
06-09-2008, 20:43
For as long as it's in her body, it's entirely her decision. The idea that the government or any person could force someone to carry something inside them is apalling. When men are capable of becoming pregnant, then they'll get an equal say.

I said I wouldn't force her into anything since I would impregnate only the one I love/married, but if it is her body and all men do is spread their seed and it's all the decision of her. Then I shouldn't have to pay money to a money grubbing woman.

By that I mean in highschool, two of my friends who were dating each other who were 18 at the time. He got her pregnant and he was going to be very supportive of her, work and all that. Even pay for the abortation if she was going to have one. She didn't, she felt that he should stay out of her life and should keep away at all cause it was all his fault for corrupting her. Two years later he gets a summon to court and is even thrown in jail for not supporting his child. Do you think that is fair? I just don't like the double standard that men are totally worthless in reproduction and shoudl have no say but yet have every responsibility to 'support their child money wise and at times don't see their child.'

The only way I could see it being that case is if the man is a total slob, worthless, is a bad influence, and all that.

Arainach
06-10-2008, 01:00
In your example, it's his fault for not getting the fact that she wanted him to stay away and not support into a legal document. If there's no such document, he's liable for child support in the eyes of the law.

Killer_Man_
06-10-2008, 02:05
In your example, it's his fault for not getting the fact that she wanted him to stay away and not support into a legal document. If there's no such document, he's liable for child support in the eyes of the law.

How can you get it into a legal document when she wouldn't even 'talk' to him? What does he have to do, get a lawyer and then go about the way of getting her to sign an agreement? I highly doubt she would have done that to BEGIN with. -.-;

So either way it's a lose lose situation and quite sexist at least in my opinion.

Besides as I always stated, if you want to be equal, everything should be equal down the line. Not this and that. Though I'd still personally not force any woman that I love to force her to carry a baby she doesn't think we're ready for and all that jazz.

Arainach
06-10-2008, 02:17
What does he have to do, get a lawyer and then go about the way of getting her to sign an agreement?Pretty much.

And it IS equal. You have control over your body, she has control over yours. Your control is your choice to use or not use protection, with the knowledge that if, on the slimmest of chances it fails, you are potentially liable for the consequences and that the outcome will be in her hands. Her control is the choice to use or not protection, with the knowledge that if it fails she will be faced with the choice of carrying around something for nine months or whether to terminate.

Killer_Man_
06-10-2008, 02:18
Sounds like something that will never ever happen, ever. Cause the brightest idea she would have gotten is, OH I CAN GET SUPPORT?! Blah, there is no way unless someone witness or someone recorded her saying get out and stay out.