Prominent Clinton Backers Slowly Backing Off

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Despite Terry McAuliffe’s insistence that the race is not over and may not even be over when Obama gets to the (new) magic number of 2,118 delegates, the Clinton campaign is facing a serious challenge from within. Key surrogates are weakening in their support.

Here’s former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack:

“It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday’s contests, she needs to acknowledge that he’s going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him.”

Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

“It would be most beneficial if we resolved this nomination sooner rather than later… The more time we have to get through a general-election period and the more time we have to prepare in advance of the convention, the better.”

Former national party chairman Donald Fowler, on whether to appeal the Michigan/Florida decision:

“Unless something happens that I don’t expect to happen in the next, say, by the end of June, my answer to that is not only no but, hell no… What good does it do? What good does it do anybody?”

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, on the same:

“I think it’s outrageous they took four delegates away from her… But I think with 170 delegates separating them, it’s not worth making the case.”

Harold Ickes, who emerged as the Clinton campaign’s primary voice in the fight over Michigan and Florida, contradicted Terry McAuliffe when he said, “It’ll be over when one candidate secures the number for the nomination.” Ickes admitted that the race could be over this week, signaling a resignation (or acceptance) that probably exists across Hillaryland.

If I had to gamble, I’d say Clinton leaves the race one day after Obama gets to 2,118. I’d also bet that when Obama gets to 2,117, his campaign receives a rush of endorsements from superdels who want to be the deciding vote.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest