Clinton will concede
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.
Obama is 40 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, but he is widely expected to make up the difference Tuesday with superdelegate support and votes in South Dakota and Montana. Once he reaches the magic number of 2,118, Clinton will acknowledge that he has secured the necessary delegates to be the nominee.
The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City.
She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.
Most campaign staff will be let go and will be paid through June 15, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge her plans.
The advisers said Clinton has made a strategic decision to not formally end her campaign, giving her leverage to negotiate with Obama on various matters including a possible vice presidential nomination for her. She also wants to press him on issues he should focus on in the fall, such as health care.
Universal health care, Clinton's signature issue as first lady in the 1990s, was a point of dispute between Obama and the New York senator during their epic nomination fight.
Clinton was at home in Chappaqua, N.Y., with her husband, former President Clinton, and was placing calls to friends and supporters.
On NBC's "Today Show," Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."
In a formal statement, the campaign made clear the limits of how far she would go in Tuesday night's speech. "Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination," the statement said.
Clinton field hands who worked in key battlegrounds said they were told to stand down, without pay, and await instructions. Speaking not for attribution because they didn't want to jeopardize their jobs searches, many said they were peddling resumes, returning to their hometowns or seeking out former employers.
Clinton officials have said they would not contest the seating of Michigan delegates at the convention in Denver this August. The campaign was angry this past weekend when a Democratic National Committee panel awarded Obama delegates it thought Clinton deserved.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And somewhere, the Taliban is celebrating . . .
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TacoBellB
I'm missing something here. Why would the Taliban be celebrating?
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am curious as to why the Taliban would be celebrating as well!
I am excited about Obama!
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe TacoBellB is referring to Obama now being the democratic candidate for President. He is the best friend the Islamic radicals could ever wish for. He is an extreme left-wing liberal who, by his own words, advocates negotiating with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez rather than risk confrontation (appeasement, by definition). He also advocates an immediate surrender in Iraq which would lead to a bloodbath such as the world has never seen and quite likely bring the battle for Islam to our shores and cities. Obama also favors disarming the American public which would be a most advantageous situation for any terrorist or hostile enemy of The United States. Correct me if I'm wrong here, TacoB.
Posted by Iloveemporia (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
come on everyone you really think that the congress would want a women or african american as a president??? Mccain is going to win it cause he has no other competition
Posted by srochat (Scott Rochat) on June 3, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It may not be over yet. The Clinton camp is now saying the AP report is incorrect and that she won't be conceding tonight. I guess we'll see what happens.
Scott Rochat
Longmont, Colo.
Posted by Iloveemporia (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AP tally: Obama clinches Democratic nomination
Story by The Associated Press
12:55 p.m. Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Barack Obama has effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination.
Based on an Associated Press count of convention delegates, Obama has enough delegates to become the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
The AP count is based on public commitments from delegates, and more than a dozen private commitments.
It also includes a minimum number of delegates that Obama will win even if he loses today's final two primaries in South Dakota and in Montana.
Posted by hartford (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Iloveemporia:
You do have a very good point!
In my opinion, this is exactly what the republican party wanted. They know that they may have lost if it came down to McCain and Clinton.
I am not being predjudice but I am sure some will take what I am about to say the wrong way:
This country probably isn't ready for a female or a black president. However, between the two, it's my opinion that Hilary could have beaten McCain, or given him more of a fight.
Now that it is between McCain and Obama, well, McCain will win by a landslide!
I however, am not sure who to vote for now. I would have voted Hilary in a heartbeat. I have my doubts about Obama.
Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hartford, I hear you but I don't agree. Hillary tends to be a very polarizing personality -- people either love her or despise her. I think the GOP would have had a field day with her candidacy; they've been running against her for years as it is. Obama has the edge of being a fresh face.
I doubt it'll be a landslide. All the indications look like this will be a very close election. And the most recent Gallup poll gives Obama a slight lead. This will definitely be one to watch.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wanderer: You are accurate in your assessment. It will be a very interesting, and close, race for the White House. However, keep in mind that Mr. Obama has an overwhelmingly powerful ally: the national media. He is treated like a rock star by the liberal left-dominated TV networks and newspapers. They shamelessly portray him in a positive light and play down his negatives. All the while, they have been either ignoring Hillary and McCain or magnifying every little error they made. It is quite possible the biased, slanted, liberal left media, including the blatantly left-wing liberal Emporia Gazette, will push Obama into office.
Posted by jasper007 (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope rumours are false. I believe Hillary Clinton would serve our country well. I do not support Obama. Where are we headed? McCain is not the one. Obama is not the one. Of course we all know the President is limited. There is the Congress, Cabinet, Senate, etc. that really ends up making the decisions. Now you just have to decide which "talking head" you want to stand in front of the Presidential Seal!!!!!!!
Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on June 3, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hillary will only concede to Oboma in exchange for second billing. She is counting on Oboma not surviving the election and on the outside chance he would, she knows his chances are great at not surviving long as the President; thereby, defaulting the position to her. This election is the same as the many before it, the lessor of the evils. My personal opinion is a John McCain/Elizebeth Dole or John McCain/ Mike Huckabee White House.
Posted by UsayULoveGod (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 1:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it does not matter just get Bush out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bj - yes you nailed it. I assumed to most people that was common knowledge, so thank you for explaining to all.
Posted by bjohn (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course Obama has had it easy. Reverend Wright wasn't and issue. His attendence at that church for 20 years wasn't an issue. His wife's comments were not an issue. The media hasn't reported anything bad about him at all....Give me a break people!
Everything all the candidates did were under the microscope. Hillary ran her campaign poorly and lied in public, frequently, and its the media's fault? How do you think she couldn handle the country when she couldn't keep her campaign from oweing money? As for the evil liberals that will ruin the country....the conservatives had their shot and see how that turned out? Maybe its time to give a liberal a shot and see what they can do.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately, bjohn, we have seen what the liberals can do.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NBC = National Barack Cheerleaders
Ya know, Kstr, I've wondered about the eeriness of that date myself. However, to be accurate, it is not actually "the end of the world" that the date is supposed to signify, but more like "the end of an age", or "the beginning of a new age of enlightenment/understanding". So, no matter who we have in office the next 4 years, I'm sure that 4 years from now we'll be ready for a new era......
Usay, I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing in 4 years:
"it does not matter just get (insert name here) out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Usually, the election comes down to voting for who you agree with 60% of the time vs who you agree with 40% of the time. Sadly, this election looks like it will be more like 25% vs 15%....
In the words of Jed Clampett, (now there would be a great president!)
Pitiful, 'jes pitiful.......
LOL :-)
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 4, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CNN actually DID do a piece on Obama the other day about how he came to office in Chicago, anybody catch that? They played his remarks on how he believes in running on principles, and not resorting to tactics to be elected. Then they showed how he got the incumbant and another candidate removed from the ballot by cherry-picking over the list of signatures needed to be on the ballot. They got them to throw out things like if the name was printed, instead of written in cursive, and all sorts of little technical points. All perfectly legal, of course. It was just funny how it was the exact opposite of his statements about not resorting to "tactics" to be elected. I thought the whole expose' we pretty hilarious, actually.....
Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"If our colleges and universities do not breed men who riot, who rebel, who attack life with all their youthful vision and vigor then there is something wrong with our colleges. The more riots that come on college campuses, the better the world for tomorrow."
Who wrote that? A notable Kansan. To find out who, read this important article from the June 2008 issue of Vanity Fair.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/featu...
The year may be 2008, but the similarities to 1968 are parallel.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The context in which William Allen White wrote those words was totally different than the way that Kennedy implied in his speech. White was writing rhetorically. Thanks for the website - it is an interesting article. I noticed that Jim Slattery was promoting liberal causes even in 1968. Not much has changed with him.
Posted by bdprotheroe (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From Merriam-Webster...
LIBERAL (noun):
: a person who is liberal: as a: one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways bcapitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c: an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal." -- John F. Kennedy
On a similar note, the term "conservative" has positive connotations, too.
CONSERVATIVE (noun):
1 a: an adherent or advocate of political conservatism bcapitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party
2 a: one who adheres to traditional methods or views b: a cautious or discreet person
So, during this election year, is it possible for each of us to set aside the labels? We've already seen what happens when refuse to compromise and play nice. "Divided we fall." Over the past eight years, we as a country have certainly taken a big fall.
Vote for whomever you want this year, but let's all do our part to keep the dialogue healthy and constructive. I would like th next president to begin his term with as much support, and as little squabbling, as possible.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree totally with your last sentence, and have said as much myself. However, the "liberal" and "conservative" labels are helpful in predicting what a candidate will do once in office. This election will be over the issues of the day. However, the decisions that he will be faced with in the next term will likely be about issues that we haven't considered. For example, who would have guessed that the winner of the 2000 election would be faced with an attack on American soil just 7 months into the new president's term? I don't use either term as a positive or a negative about a candidate; I use it to describe him (or her). I submit that that is not only fair, but useful in understanding the candidate and his outlook on the world.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In one sense Conservatives tend to be cautious. They do look at history and tradition and ask the question, as G.K. Chesterton did, "If you decide to tear down a fence first ask yourself why the fence was put up to begin with."
But in another sense Conservatives can be very ambitious, bold, and forward looking. It was a conservative President, Ronald Reagan, who sat down with the Soviets, negotiating from a position of strength.. He was firm in his conviction that communism was an oppressive system, but he sat down with Gorbachev and worked out the elimination of more weapons of mass destruction than any previous Cold War administration. Prior to Reagan the defense strategy of this country was MAD (mutually assured destruction). That policy was designed by Robert McNamara and the rest of JFK's brain trust. I don't believe most thinkers faulted the Kennedy administration or the Johnson administration for that policy. When Regan proposed Star Wars he was held in contempt by Cold War thinkers. It took time, but his thinking has been vindicated by history.
The problem with the labels too often given is that they are touted by those from a differing political perspective. Thus, conservatives too often label liberals and liberals too often label conservatives.
Russell Kirk, who many consider to be the father of the modern conservative movement, defined conservatism this way:
"The conservative is concerned with the recovery of true community, local energies and cooperation, voluntary endeavor, a social order distinguished by multiplicity and diversity."
For example, I consider myself to be a conservative. During the primary cycle I supported Mike Huckabee, in part for his positions on "life" and in part because of his economic message of inclusion and in part because he had/has the ability to inspire. He called his politics "vertical politics." He saw the value of hope as an element of a political platform. I think Obama is, from the other political spectrum, doing the same thing Mr. Huckabee was. He's tapping in to those elements that transcend the labels. Bobby Kennedy did the same thing 40 years ago. Ronald Reagan did the same thing in 1980. The interesting paralells between this election cycle and the two I mentioned is that the country in those times was in a time of economic uncertainty, unpopular war or intractable international crisis. and a very unpopular incumbent President. The message of hope and inclusion would have propelled Bobby Kennedy to the presidency in 1968. It did for Ronald Reagan in 1980. It just may do the same for Barack Obama this year.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 6, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Netloafer: Very well stated.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)