Posted on 05/07/2008 2:26:58 PM PDT by The_Republican
There is a high-level meeting of 49 superdelegates going on behind closed doors right now.
It's the weekly party policy luncheon in the US Senate. And while there are a number of important legislative topics on the agenda (the war supplemental, a gas prices control bill, the farm bill and more) you can bet that last night's returns from Indiana and North Carolina are being discussed as senators queue up in the buffet line.
Going into the lunch, reporters asked senators for their assessments.
On his way to lunch, Sen. Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass, one of Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., high profile backers said the Democratic nomination seems to belong to the Illinois senator.
"I pay tribute to Senator Clinton. She has been making her case and doing it effectively, but the outcome is very clear as to what's for the Democratic nomination. It's effectively Barack Obama's nomination. Its pretty effectively sewed up and I don't see any possibility of altering or changing that inevitable fact," Kennedy said.
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who was Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., chief backer in Hoosier State said he is operating on fumes after returning to Washington at 4am this morning, admitting that Clinton's path going forward is treacherous, but he that bringing state voters to the table for yesterday's primary was worth it.
"Obviously the numbers are what they are, but things can have a way of changing," Bayh said.
"Some of these voices say that was effectively over had been listened to we wouldn't have even mattered. Those 1.3 million people that went to the polls yesterday, they wouldn't have bothered to go vote. And that would have been a shame. It would have been a shame for them, for our state, and I think ultimately for the Democratic party. So I'm just a little reluctant to call for the disenfranchisement of the people in other states," Bayh said.
That is not an argument that works for Sen. Chris Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who endorsed Obama after folding his own presidential campaign earlier this year.
Dodd pointed out that as the race is moving to West Virginia, a state Democrats may need in the fall. And the primary battle, he said, could confuse voters when Clinton makes the argument to voters they should cast their primary vote against Obama.
"To turn around and ask the very same people a few weeks later to reverse themselves and now vote for him on election day in a state you've got to carry as part of that electoral college map. I just don't see it," Dodd said.
Bayh put one caveat on how the race should continue: respectfully.
"As long as it is a respectable debate and doesn't become bitter or personal, I don't think this will be harmful for the Democratic party," Bayh said, speaking to party unity. "There are going to be some temporary hurt feelings. That happens in politics. That happens in life. But I think once people have a chance to take a deep breath, focus on the stakes of the election, compare our nominee to the other parties nominee, Democrats will come together."
She seems to be having an awfully hard time to be able to take a hint.......
All Slick has to do get that fat checkbook out and buy Hillary the nomination.
What a party.
Obama is the most far left candidate the Dems are going to nominate since good ol’ George McGovern back in 1972. He (Obama) is much too far to the left for the average American.
Nixon won in 1972 with 49 states and 520 electoral votes vs. McGovern’s 1 State (plus D.C.) and 17 electoral votes.
It’s not going to be that much of a landslide this year, but there is no way an extremist like Obama is going to win the Presidential election.
Of course the real politically correct thing to do would be to nominate Hillary. I think that they ultimately shall do just that.
Politicians are a ruthless bunch, and they will try to get Obama to somehow accept not being the nominee. I hope that he has the sack to hang on.
Dividing the Democrats is simply brilliant politics. I'm loving it.
>It’s not going to be that much of a landslide this year, but there is no way an extremist like Obama is going to win the Presidential election.
Don’t be so sure. I’m not.
I think that everything will have to go perfectly with McCain for him to prevail, and I do not see that happening at all.
But he does now have a shot, which is more than he will have if hillary is on the ticket.
I believe I heard on Rush today that "Bobber" went into the 1980 convention down 700 delegates. Didn't seem to bother him none.
So the logic is, we can't let these people vote, because they won't vote for Obama, but we want them to vote for Obama, so why let them vote against Obama?
Why bother having a Democratic primary at all?
I think what he was trying to say, and didn’t say too well, was that Hillary might go negative on Obama, and convince them that Obama isn’t qualified to be pres, etc. etc. Then Hillary wins WV primary, but then in the general election, you have to convince those people who voted for Hillary that Obama should get their votes.
If everybody stays positive, it wouldn’t be an issue. But with the Clintons running a negative campaign, there’s that concern of how to convince the Hillary voters in primaries to support Obama in the general election.
Now O’Really and Rove are speculating/agreeing that an Obama scandal is in the works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.