Reconciliation Needs to Begin

Written by: Bob FunkMay 7th, 2008
Comments:9 Comments
Category:2008 Election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Montana Politics
Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

I’m not going to say too much about the two latest primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, because not all that much has changed. Obama has widened his lead over Clinton, but Clinton is using her slim victory in Indiana as a justification to continue her campaign.

We have six relatively small primaries left: West Virginia (May13th), Kentucky (May 20th), Oregon (May 20th), Puerto Rico (June 1st), South Dakota (June 3rd), and Montana (June 3rd). Clinton should win West Virginia and Kentucky; Obama should win Oregon. There is limited polling information in terms of the primaries in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota.

So what will change after the final primaries on June 3rd? Not much in terms of delegates. Party leaders, however, will feel even more pressure to tell Clinton to drop out. Unless there is a major turn of events, North Carolina and the strong showing by Obama in Indiana put him in place to be our nominee.

Do I think the nomination process will go until the convention? I doubt it. Clinton will have essentially run out of options come the post-primary world. What super delegate is going to pledge against the candidate with the most pledged delegates won and the winner of the popular vote? Not many.

Reconciliation needs to begin as soon as possible - Clinton’s people need to be greeted with open arms and Clinton encouraging them to back Obama full heartedly. I know this probably won’t happen till after the Montana and South Dakota primaries, I just hope it happens, period.

We must be the party of unity. “After months of bickering and tough campaigning, the party still came together to defeat the bane of America’s future: McCain.” How powerful of an image would that be?

It is my hope that this hope of mine becomes more than just a simple hope.

Related Posts:

Sheehan and the First Amendment

The Insufficient Record and Carroll College

Attention Conrad Burns: you can’t claim to be a deficit hawk

Wed, May 7, 2008

2008 Election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Montana Politics

This post was written by:

Bob Funk - who has written 47 posts on Intelligent Discontent.

Contact the author

9 Comments For This Post

yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 7:52 am

That’s what hope is … that what we hope for WILL become more than just a hope.
And you did, I am sure, listen to Mr. Obama’s NC speech … it does reflect your concerns, all of them.
Btw, if you have any thoughts on why the Edwards aren’t endorsing/haven’t endorsed anyone, I would enjoy reading them.

Shane C. Mason Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am

I’m not going to say too much about the two latest primaries in North Carolina and Indianapolis

They let the whole state vote.

You are right here though. Any backdoor path she might have for the nomination is backhanded and wrong.

Bob Funk Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Re: yal
My “hope” comment at the end of the post was a less than subtle reference to the Obama campaign’s rallying call.

Re: Shane
Thanks for catching my “Indianapolis” mistake - it was late.
In terms of Clinton being “backhanded” in any attempt to garner the nomination, the only thing that I can say is that I’m not sure I am totally opposed to Michigan and Florida being thrown into the equation. Yes, it would disrupt the current flow of things, but should the voters be punished for a poor decision that they didn’t have make? This is really the only legit way I could see Clinton getting the nomination, but I doubt it will happen.
Her supporters, that might push for Michigan and Florida to be seated, will not back her unless she makes large gains in the next six primaries and is able to convince more delegates the Obama is not electable. Both stipulations are unlikely.

yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

1)Duh! Even yal understood that!
2)If the DNC’s decision in re Michigan and Florida was so wrong, it was wrong from the beginning and attempts to undo it should have been made a long time ago, not now.
3)Any thoughts in re the Edwards?

problembear Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

I believe in democrats coming together also to prevent Bush’s 3rd term from happening, but it is difficult to trust a woman who, along with McCain and our own senator Baucus voted to enable Bush to go to war. Obama did not. OK everybody make nice but real change cannot occur if the same compromisers who got us into this mess are given too much power.

problembear Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Bush’s threatening to close Malmstrom Airbase in order to keep Baucus and Tester voting to fund the Iraq war is exactly the type of politics that needs to change in this country. Maybe the evil is too deeply ingrained into our politics to fight,but I finally feel that Obama might be actually sincere when he talks about giving government back to the people. Right now our government belongs to whoever can blackmail congress into voting their will.

Bob Funk Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Re: yal
1) Clinton has been fighting for the Michigan/Florida votes for a long time now. I doubt she’ll win on the issue after the latest primaries and the latest news blitz. Nonetheless, to me it’s not who is behind the push for the Michigan/Florida delegates to be seated - it’s just worth thinking about. I know, if I lived in one of those two states, I’d be pretty upset my vote didn’t count in my party because of something I didn’t have control over. Isn’t that taking the power away from the people and giving it to the central command? Aren’t Obama’s supporters the ones that are constantly pushing for the people’s voice over the “party insiders’”? Why isn’t the same true for Michigan and Florida.
But, like a said, it’s probably a mute point.
2) In regards to Edwards: honestly, I don’t know. I’m not sure who he’d back, in any case. It’s really a toss-up. I do think he should come out though for the person that best represents his policy, but that’s up to him.

Re: problembear
You’re right, Obama didn’t vote for us to go to war. But I think you’re not giving Clinton enough credit for her policy.
I am at a bit of a loss. The pro-Obama camp, where I reside, is constantly saying that Hillary is tearing the party apart. Is she? Aren’t we Democrats? Don’t we have some responsibility in OUR party? Constantly attacking one of our own only further divides the country.
Obama has most likely won the nomination, so let’s STOP attacking every one of Hillary’s moves and start bringing everyone into the fold - even Hillary.

yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

1)why is it worth thinking about now but wasn’t worth thinking about before … back before January 29th, for example? I’m not so much on HRC’s back on this one (her approach is understandable) as on the DNC’s.
2) Do you by any chance know if any of Edwards’ 19 superdelegates have come out for either of the two candidates? Yesterday, I believe, one NC superD came out for Obama but I believe she was an “undecided” up until then.
3) The pro-Obama camp is not the only source for the “Hillary is tearing the party apart” line … and, imho, if you look back to when things started getting ugly, it was because of comments like “No, he isn’t. Not as far as I know.” That was a watershed moment.
Here again, however, I was hoping for more leadership from the DNC.
Yes, we are Democrats and, yes, we are responsible for our Party … but how well represented by our Party have you felt over the last eight years?

yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm

p.s. re 1) … before I get an OBVIOUS explanation to my first question, let me say that I DO understand what has changed since January. My question is basically rhetorical, in response to your comment that you’d be “pretty upset” if your vote in your homestate didn’t count. Why didn’t the Democrats in those two states stand up for their rights earlier?

yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 7:52 am
That’s what hope is … that what we hope for WILL become more than just a hope.
And you did, I am sure, listen to Mr. Obama’s NC speech … it does reflect your concerns, all of them.
Btw, if you have any thoughts on why the Edwards aren’t endorsing/haven’t endorsed anyone, I would enjoy reading them.
Shane C. Mason Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m not going to say too much about the two latest primaries in North Carolina and Indianapolis

They let the whole state vote.

You are right here though. Any backdoor path she might have for the nomination is backhanded and wrong.
Bob Funk Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Re: yal
My “hope” comment at the end of the post was a less than subtle reference to the Obama campaign’s rallying call.

Re: Shane
Thanks for catching my “Indianapolis” mistake - it was late.
In terms of Clinton being “backhanded” in any attempt to garner the nomination, the only thing that I can say is that I’m not sure I am totally opposed to Michigan and Florida being thrown into the equation. Yes, it would disrupt the current flow of things, but should the voters be punished for a poor decision that they didn’t have make? This is really the only legit way I could see Clinton getting the nomination, but I doubt it will happen.
Her supporters, that might push for Michigan and Florida to be seated, will not back her unless she makes large gains in the next six primaries and is able to convince more delegates the Obama is not electable. Both stipulations are unlikely.
yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
1)Duh! Even yal understood that!
2)If the DNC’s decision in re Michigan and Florida was so wrong, it was wrong from the beginning and attempts to undo it should have been made a long time ago, not now.
3)Any thoughts in re the Edwards?
problembear Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I believe in democrats coming together also to prevent Bush’s 3rd term from happening, but it is difficult to trust a woman who, along with McCain and our own senator Baucus voted to enable Bush to go to war. Obama did not. OK everybody make nice but real change cannot occur if the same compromisers who got us into this mess are given too much power.
problembear Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Bush’s threatening to close Malmstrom Airbase in order to keep Baucus and Tester voting to fund the Iraq war is exactly the type of politics that needs to change in this country. Maybe the evil is too deeply ingrained into our politics to fight,but I finally feel that Obama might be actually sincere when he talks about giving government back to the people. Right now our government belongs to whoever can blackmail congress into voting their will.
Bob Funk Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Re: yal
1) Clinton has been fighting for the Michigan/Florida votes for a long time now. I doubt she’ll win on the issue after the latest primaries and the latest news blitz. Nonetheless, to me it’s not who is behind the push for the Michigan/Florida delegates to be seated - it’s just worth thinking about. I know, if I lived in one of those two states, I’d be pretty upset my vote didn’t count in my party because of something I didn’t have control over. Isn’t that taking the power away from the people and giving it to the central command? Aren’t Obama’s supporters the ones that are constantly pushing for the people’s voice over the “party insiders’”? Why isn’t the same true for Michigan and Florida.
But, like a said, it’s probably a mute point.
2) In regards to Edwards: honestly, I don’t know. I’m not sure who he’d back, in any case. It’s really a toss-up. I do think he should come out though for the person that best represents his policy, but that’s up to him.

Re: problembear
You’re right, Obama didn’t vote for us to go to war. But I think you’re not giving Clinton enough credit for her policy.
I am at a bit of a loss. The pro-Obama camp, where I reside, is constantly saying that Hillary is tearing the party apart. Is she? Aren’t we Democrats? Don’t we have some responsibility in OUR party? Constantly attacking one of our own only further divides the country.
Obama has most likely won the nomination, so let’s STOP attacking every one of Hillary’s moves and start bringing everyone into the fold - even Hillary.
yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
1)why is it worth thinking about now but wasn’t worth thinking about before … back before January 29th, for example? I’m not so much on HRC’s back on this one (her approach is understandable) as on the DNC’s.
2) Do you by any chance know if any of Edwards’ 19 superdelegates have come out for either of the two candidates? Yesterday, I believe, one NC superD came out for Obama but I believe she was an “undecided” up until then.
3) The pro-Obama camp is not the only source for the “Hillary is tearing the party apart” line … and, imho, if you look back to when things started getting ugly, it was because of comments like “No, he isn’t. Not as far as I know.” That was a watershed moment.
Here again, however, I was hoping for more leadership from the DNC.
Yes, we are Democrats and, yes, we are responsible for our Party … but how well represented by our Party have you felt over the last eight years?
yal Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
p.s. re 1) … before I get an OBVIOUS explanation to my first question, let me say that I DO understand what has changed since January. My question is basically rhetorical, in response to your comment that you’d be “pretty upset” if your vote in your homestate didn’t count. Why didn’t the Democrats in those two states stand up for their rights earlier?

Intelligent Discontent