Clinton Camp says it will use Nuclear Option

[kinggovernor]

UPDATE | May 5, 11am ET : Hillary Clinton's campaign today acknowledged plans to try to win seating of the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations to the Democratic Nation Convention at a meeting of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31.

In a statement issued in response to a story on The Huffington Post ("Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option," see below), the campaign declared:

"There is no secret plan.... The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn't publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that the delegations from those states should be seated."
The campaign's public assertions stand in contrast to its response to inquiries prior to publication of the story. At that point, Clinton aides insisted on keeping all comments either off the record or on deep background, or did not respond to questions at all. The campaign statement appeared to be designed to try to reduce the significance of the story.

In a more typical reaction to the story, political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said: "Wow. The nuclear option will yield nuclear winter for the Democratic Party."

---

Hillary Clinton's campaign has a secret weapon to build its delegate count, but her top strategists say privately that any attempt to deploy it would require a sharp (and by no means inevitable) shift in the political climate within Democratic circles by the end of this month.

With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.

Using the Rules and Bylaws Committee to force the seating of two pro-Hillary delegations would provoke a massive outcry from Obama forces. Such a strategy would, additionally, face at least two other major hurdles, and could only be attempted, according to sources in the Clinton camp, under specific circumstances:

First, this coming Tuesday, Clinton would have to win Indiana and lose North Carolina by a very small margin - or better yet, win the Tar Heel state. She would also have to demonstrate continued strength in the contests before May 31.

Second, and equally important, her argument that she is a better general election candidate than Obama -- that he has major weaknesses which have only been recently revealed -- would have to rapidly gain traction, not only within the media, where she has experienced some success, but within the broad activist ranks of the Democratic Party.

Under that optimistic scenario, some Clinton operatives believe she could overcome several massive stumbling blocks:

-- Clinton loyalists on the Rules Committee would have to be persuaded to put their political futures on the line by defying major party constituencies, especially black leaders backing Barack Obama. Committee members are unlikely to take such a step unless they are convinced that Clinton has a strong chance of winning the nomination.

Former DNC and South Carolina Democratic Party chair Donald Fowler -- a Hillary loyalist -- would, for example, face an outpouring of anger from South Carolina Democrats if he were to go along with such a strategy.

-- A controversial decision to seat the two delegations, as currently constituted, would be appealed by the Obama campaign to the Democratic National Convention's Credentials Committee.

The full make-up of the Credentials Committee will not be determined until all the primaries are completed, but the pattern of Clinton and Obama victories so far clearly suggests that Obama delegates on that committee will outnumber Clinton delegates. Obama will not, however, have a majority, according to most estimates, and the balance of power will be held by delegates appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean.

For the scenario to work, then, Dean would have to be convinced of Clinton's superior viability in the general election, and that she has a strong chance of defeating McCain next November.

One of the arguments the Clinton campaign is privately making to autonomous "super" or "automatic" delegates, as well as to delegates technically "pledged" to Obama as a result of primary and caucus results, is that the campaign shifted dramatically in roughly mid-February. At that point, Clinton supporters contend, the economy replaced Iraq as the dominant issue among primary voters, and that transition led to Clinton's successes in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Clinton people also make the case that the past six weeks have seen examples of Obama's political vulnerabilities: his wife's "proud to be an American" remarks, the emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, wider coverage of Obama's ties to 1960s radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "bittergate," the flag pin imbroglio, and "hand on the heart" accusations -- all impugning Obama's patriotism.

Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option - Politics on The Huffington Post

I really see her taking this from Obama, no matter the cost to their party. Obama can thank Rev. Wright and himself for losing, his hope message got old a long time ago.

[Scrum]

This is Clinton grasping at the straws of her failed campaign. It's not going to work.

And I love this part.

Clinton people also make the case that the past six weeks have seen examples of Obama's political vulnerabilities: his wife's "proud to be an American" remarks, the emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy, wider coverage of Obama's ties to 1960s radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, "bittergate," the flag pin imbroglio, and "hand on the heart" accusations -- all impugning Obama's patriotism.

Wow, not one of those things has anything to do with his ability to lead the country.

I really hate seeing us turn into a foxnews society where this type of crap matters more than the issues.

[DosEquis]

I simply can't believe or accept that the actions and statements of his rev. is going to cost him anything. The only people that care about what his Rev. Wright is saying are the people that won't vote for him anyway.

Its like, who are you voting for? Barack or wright? Lets cut through the bullshit seriously. I really hate our campaign/political system.

[IminWonderland]

Why isn't this thread about Hillary Clinton admitting she would OBLITERATE Iran in a conflict?

I am more concerned about her trigger finger than some no name Reverand of a church in the middle of nowhere Chicago.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

This is Clinton grasping at the straws of her failed campaign. It's not going to work.

And I love this part.Wow, not one of those things has anything to do with his ability to lead the country.

I really hate seeing us turn into a foxnews society where this type of crap matters more than the issues.

Obama's statements and relations have everything to do with his ability to lead the country. We don't know very much about him, his resume is short, so we can only go on his statements and relations for the type of leader he will be.

[kombayn]

Jesus! Rev. Wright doesn't speak for Obama. The GOP and the Clinton campaign are grasping at straws here, they'll try anything to stop this man from becoming president.

Use this Barack Obama on the Issues as your source for Obama information, it's quite simple. Not what Rev. Wright has to say... This is why I would never join the GOP, they've completely lost the conservative base.

P.S. If Clinton comes back in office, the Nuclear Holocaust might actually happen. Jesus Christ! If a 3rd A-Bomb is dropped, it'll be done all by the United States! That's evil.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Jesus! Rev. Wright doesn't speak for Obama. The GOP and the Clinton campaign are grasping at straws here, they'll try anything to stop this man from becoming president.

Use this Barack Obama on the Issues as your source for Obama information, it's quite simple. Not what Rev. Wright has to say... This is why I would never join the GOP, they've completely lost the conservative base.

P.S. If Clinton comes back in office, the Nuclear Holocaust might actually happen. Jesus Christ! If a 3rd A-Bomb is dropped, it'll be done all by the United States! That's evil.

YouTube Video

even his supporters that they put on television are unaware of his accomplishments in office. So you have to go on what Obama says and what relations are to understand what he stands for. Many of those On the Issues citations are from his speeches.

[IminWonderland]

So, does this mean that the propsed nuclear holocaust under Hilary Clinton isn't as bad as....

Obama getting married by a Pastor who preaches black theology?

World of sh8t.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

So, does this mean that the propsed nuclear holocaust under Hilary Clinton isn't as bad as....

Obama getting married by a Pastor who preaches black theology?

World of sh8t.

State by State breakdown McCain v. Democrats

She is doing better than he is against McCain in the big 3 battleground states. That is the real crutch of her argument.

[kombayn]

I would have to vote 3rd party or not vote at all if she wins the nomination. Even if Obama wins the nomination I still might vote 3rd party.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

State by State breakdown McCain v. Democrats

She is doing better than he is against McCain in the big 3 battleground states. That is the real crutch of her argument.

Then why have an election at all? We could just look at the polls in certain special states and decide by that.


It's too late for her. She's trying to take the party down with her and that's why you guys are cheering her. Republicans are scared as shit of Obama.

[motivez]

I still am torn about seating MI and FL tbh. I know they broke the party rules and it's entirely up to the party to seat them, but I feel like if they aren't.. it's going to cost us in the fall

I know if I lived in one of those states and my voice didn't matter in who became the nominee, I'd be much less likely to vote for the selected candidate in the fall

[Simius]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

So, does this mean that the propsed nuclear holocaust under Hilary Clinton isn't as bad as....

Obama getting married by a Pastor who preaches black theology?

World of sh8t.

I'm pretty sure she said that IF Iran nuked Israel she'd nuke Iran. Newsflash: If Iran nuked any country any president would nuke them.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Then why have an election at all? We could just look at the polls in certain special states and decide by that.


It's too late for her. She's trying to take the party down with her and that's why you guys are cheering her. Republicans are scared as shit of Obama.

I am not disagreeing with the first part of your post. It is completely against normal rules and logic for Hillary to win, but that is why the democrats made the superdelegates and proportional delegates their primary election system. So everyone feels they got an equal voice, but in the end the party leaders get to decide.

I would say if you asked me a few months ago, I would have said that Republicans were afraid of Obama. I think this is the real reason Rush launched Operation Chaos, but everything that has transpired with Obama, I almost think the Republicans would do better against him.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Simius

I'm pretty sure she said that IF Iran nuked Israel she'd nuke Iran. Newsflash: If Iran nuked any country any president would nuke them.

its all about context, and it sucks when your candidate is taken our of context.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its all about context, and it sucks when your candidate is taken our of context.

I'm an Obama man... but yeah, it was clearly taken out of context.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Simius

I'm pretty sure she said that IF Iran nuked Israel she'd nuke Iran. Newsflash: If Iran nuked any country any president would nuke them.

Isn't that part of the problem?

Clinton has no regrets about threat to 'obliterate' Iran


by Staff Writers
Indianapolis, Indiana (AFP) May 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton said Sunday she had no regrets about vowing to obliterate Iran if it used a nuclear bomb on Israel, but Barack Obama accused her of George W. Bush-style "bluster."
The Democratic White House rivals locked horns over the Islamic republic on separate television shows, two days before their next nominating showdowns in Indiana and North Carolina.

Clinton was asked on ABC News whether she had any regrets about threatening to "totally obliterate" Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel, which prompted Tehran to complain to the United Nations.

"Why would I have any regrets? I am asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for," Clinton said.

"I think we have to be very clear about what we would do," Clinton said. "I don't think it is time to equivocate about what we would do.

"I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing."

Clinton however said her priority as president would be to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, though even if it did so, the former first lady said she did not expect Tehran would use such a bomb against Israel.

Moments earlier, on NBC, Obama rebuked Clinton's comments on Iran.

"It's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of (President) George Bush," he said.

"We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran," Obama said.

"Israel is an ally of ours, it is the most important ally we have in the region. And there is no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against (Israel), nuclear or otherwise.

"But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush."

Obama also said he was not yet ready to go as far as Clinton in promising to extend the US nuclear umbrella to US allies like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, if Iran were to go nuclear.

Iran's UN mission last week complained to the UN Security Council over Clinton's earlier threat, accusing her of making "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible statements."

Obama said that Iran's complaint had elicited sympathy from other UN members, underlining in his view the misguided nature of Clinton's remark.

In an April 22 interview with ABC, Clinton was asked what she would do as president if Iran were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," she replied.

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she added.

Clinton has no regrets about threat to 'obliterate' Iran


She's not talking about the leader, their military, or their weapons. She is talking to the WHOLE COUNTRY.

To me, when I hear potential leaders talk like this, which I have before under the Bush Administration, it is totally trigger happy cowboy diplomacy, that solves nothing, and is more of the same "America" that has gotten this country in hot water before.




At least Obama would be willing to take the action a step below NUCLEAR weapons. How about some of our cool gadgets like tanks or guns first. I mean, if we are going to obliterate a nation, we should probably try and do it the old fashioned way.


This country is too comfortable with its nuclear capabilities.

[kombayn]

The last thing that needs to happen is Nuclear Warfare, we all as the human race would be truly fucked. Especially the people that live in major metropolitan areas because we're big targets for other countries. Shit like this scares me.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by kombayn

The last thing that needs to happen is Nuclear Warfare, we all as the human race would be truly fucked. Especially the people that live in major metropolitan areas because we're big targets for other countries. Shit like this scares me.

Part of the "problem" has been that not enough people are disturbed and furious when leaders make these remarks. All of us should be disarming nuclear capabilities. If we're gonna War, it should be the old fashioned way. That way everyone involved knows what is at stake, instead of this invisible button that will kill EVERYONE. What does that solve anyways.