But that's exactly what Kristof said! I don't see any difference! What? What? Explain it to me again!
It's not what Kristof said, but how he said it.
Anyone can tell her to give up if they want to, but I still say, it is her right to continue running as long as she has the money and the will to do it.
That being said, I don't think she can catch up in the delegate count, and I do think the fighting between Obama and Clinton is helping the Republicans.
His phrasing wasn't sexist like Kristof's was. But this oft repeated meme is getting on my last nerve.
Obama's not going to have enough delegates by the end of the primary season, either.
Either way, it's going to come down to the Supers.
it is her right to continue running as long as she has the money and the will to do it.
Absolutely.
And that's another difference between the Leahy approach and the Kristof approach - Leahy's not taking it upon himself to say she doesn't have that right.
Obama's not going to have enough delegates by the end of the primary season, either.
No, but he'll lead among pledged delegates and in the popular vote. It's going to be next-to-impossible for the supers to overturn that, and there's no evidence whatsoever that they will.
Hillary's path to the nomination essentially depends on Obama spontaneously combusting. And I tend to think if Wright didn't immolate Obama, nothing's going to.
It's not what Kristof said, but how he said it.
I know. I was playing oblivious in, um, honor of another thread.
Winners don't quit and quitters don't win.
Obama's not going to have enough delegates by the end of the primary season, either.
That was the first thing I thought, too. The second thing I thought was "How will this play at Shakeville?"
Thanks for making the distinction, Jeff.
Cue Scott...
There's another counter-meme that seems to be going around, which is that since all of the primaries that have come before haven't "closed the deal," they're totally irrelevant.
It's not what Kristof said, but how he said it.
But it's also why he said it the way that he did -- which is also at play here: "he thinks Obama has the nomination sewn up, and that he thinks it's time to rally 'round the standard-bearer."
Well, bully for him. Except the thing is, for a very long time, Clinton was regarded not only as the presumed nominee but as unbeatable, what you might call the "standard-bearer." A long time. And when people suggested no one else should bother, when people suggested Obama shouldn't bother, he and the rest of the lads should just get behind Clinton, it was quite rightly regarded as undemocratic, presumptuous, and demeaning to her challengers.
So Clinton has no way to win the nomination. So what? Neither does Obama. Neither did Joe Biden from Day One. No one from his own party was making public statements that he should get out of the race -- even when he made ridiculous racist "gaffes" that made him and his party look bad.
But now that it's down to the wire, and it's tough, and Hillary's fighting hard for something she wants very much and has worked very hard for, suddenly it's perfectly reasonable to tell her to STFU and get in line.
That stinks to high fucking heaven.
To me, there is less difference between what Kristof said and what Leahy is saying here than you suggest, because he's still telling Clinton what to do: "She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator [Barack] Obama."
What would make a difference is if someone could lay out their case without talking to or about Hillary like she's a bad girl who doesn't know her place.
Don't think it's possible? Try this: "There is no way that either senator is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. I would like to see one of them withdraw and throw their considerable talents behind the other, so we can focus on defeating McCain. There's been a lot of criticism being thrown back and forth between the two, and I think that's unfortunate."
Same idea. But fairer -- and, frankly, more generous. It gives Clinton room to drop out gracefully and with her head up, instead of looking like she's been chased out of the room by the big boys.
I really think we need to question why so many people in her own party are so reluctant to give her the room to bow out with dignity and on her own terms.
Patrick Leahy: Not misogynist, but still wrong.
Oh yeah, and also: what Liss said.
FWIW, my concern is, once again, not on Clinton's specific behalf, but speaks to the particular issues of being the first woman in her position. It's incredibly dangerous for feminists to support her being scolded out of the race on the premise that her presence (and/or her playing hardball) is standing in the way of Obama's victory.
'Liss, we must have mind-melded. I think this still smacks of sexism at some level.
Kucinich was still campaigning until four days before the 2004 primary -- no party big-wig called for him to "step aside" for the sake of the party, that I can recall.
I really think we need to question why so many people in her own party are so reluctant to give her the room to bow out with dignity and on her own terms.
Everyone was hoping she'd do that after Ohio/Texas. She didn't. And now we're in the abyss.
The fact is that Obama is winning, and will ultimately win. That doesn't mean that Clinton must withdraw or else -- she can continue on if she wants to. But it's fair to say that Clinton is hurting Obama, the party, and herself by fighting hard when her chances of winning are negligible. It's fair, in short, to criticize Clinton's decision to stay in the race, as long as one accepts that it's hers to make.
Sorry -- not four days -- that was when he endorsed Kerry. But very close to the convention.
Kucinich was still campaigning until four days before the 2004 primary -- no party big-wig called for him to "step aside" for the sake of the party, that I can recall.
Apples and oranges. The better analogy is 1984 and Gary Hart, who was running close enough to Fritz Mondale that it had to come down to superdelegates. And you'd better believe people were calling on Hart to drop out and endorse. Kucinich in '04 was an asterisk.
I finally realized what this "quit" meme reminds me of -- posturing. You know, that moment before battle when the warriors puff up and make scary noises and wave their weapons hoping the other side will turn and run.
"But it's fair to say that Clinton is hurting Obama, the party, and herself by fighting hard when her chances of winning are negligible."
No, I don't think that that IS fair to say. Clinton isn't hurting Obama or the party, imo.
HaloScan seems to have eaten my comments, so I'll try again. I agree with everything Liss just said. It's silly to be telling Clinton to drop out when she has a huge lead in a big upcoming primary and a good shot at being ahead in the popular vote by the convention. Neither one has a clear shot at the nomination without superdelegates. Telling her to shut up and get in line is stupid - and by the way, has anyone ever brought up all the shit Obama's been saying about her that could be damaging to Democrats in the general election? Of course not. It's only her responsibility to play nice.
Shorter Pat Leahy: I'm not as misogynstic as Nick Kristof, but I'm still wrong.
Everyone was hoping she'd do that after Ohio/Texas. She didn't.
But she won Ohio and Texas. Was it reasonable to expect her to drop out immediately after winning two big primaries?
I think Clinton is only hurting Obama insofar as she's keeping him from turning and fighting McCain. And I personally think Clinton's earned the right to campaign through North Carolina, at least, and should she split NC/IN, I don't see any reason why she should drop out before June. But I think the argument can be made, and it's not necessarily sexist. If it was Clinton with the impregnable lead, I think the chorus calling on Obama to drop out would be much more vocal.
Speaking of Leahy, his office sent out a fundraising email for Mary Landieu, who votes with the Blue Dogs. I couldn't believe I was seeing the request. Here's a thought: the coming election doesn't have to be between Landrieu and her presumed fire-breathing opponent. The party could replace candidate Landrieu with someone who actually votes like a Democrat.
And you'd better believe people were calling on Hart to drop out and endorse.
If the delegate count was reversed, and party bigwigs were calling on Obama to "play for the team" at this point, I think people would think there was racism in it -- and I think they'd be right.
a good shot at being ahead in the popular vote by the convention
Clinton will not be ahead in the popular vote by the convention. To get there, she has to win the remaining states 60-40, and she didn't even win Ohio by that much. She *might* get there in Pennsylvania, but given that Obama is almost certain to win back NC by a similar margin, it's as unlikely for Clinton to overcome Obama's popular vote lead as it is for her to overcome his delegate lead.
Clinton is, to put it mildly, in big trouble, and as I said before, her path to the nomination depends on Obama imploding. And that puts us where we are now.
I'm really tired of the "Clinton is hurting the party" meme. For a long time Shakesville was an oasis from that, since it was also popular on a couple prominant feminist blogs that I enjoy and respect.
Why is it Clinton hurting the party, being divisive, and not the people who are treating an active debate about who is best for this country (you know, the democratic process) like the worst thing to happen to the Democratic party?
I understand primary fatigue. I get that we want to go after the republicans. But, damn, a lot of that fatigue is all the people complaining instead of finding something interesting and engaging in the debate about who has a better policy.
The fact is that Obama is winning, and will ultimately win.
you have a crystal ball there or something? how can you lay down something in the future as being a fact?
you have a crystal ball there or something? how can you lay down something in the future as being a fact?
Math is relentless. Obama is a mortal lock to win the pledged delegate count, and a better than 95% to win the popular vote. If you think supers are going to overturn the decision of voters and reject, not for nothing, the man who would be the first African-American nominee of the party, then I have a bridge over the Mississippi to sell you.
If it was Clinton with the impregnable lead, I think the chorus calling on Obama to drop out would be much more vocal.
That's funny! Oh...you weren't joking?
I don't understand why Clinton had any reason to drop out of the race right after she won Ohio and Rhode Island in landslides, and Texas by over 100,000 votes. Why on earth would anyone think that made sense?
Also, I generally like Pat Leahy, and he's a very nice man. But he's an Obama surrogate and should be called such. And frankly, saying she "would have a tremendous career in the Senate" is fucking bullshit. She wants to be President. This crap about how awesome she'll be in the Senate - while, in my opinion, true - really smacks of, "Well, little lady, we don't think you're right for management, but you're such a great team player, you'll be fantastic at running my office. Now, go get my coffee."
I don't think most men realize how incredibly insulting that is. But they should.
The longer the primary goes, the better it is for voters. You know why? Because the candidates are forced to make more commitments, more promises about what they will actually do once they're elected. After the primary, we (left) are stuck with the standard bearer, who is going to turn around and pander to the middle/right in GE mode.
I can see why the candidates find this inconvenient; after all, who wants to have pesky campaign promises looming over their fun days in the Oval Office, but boo .... hoo.
I think Clinton is only hurting Obama insofar as she's keeping him from turning and fighting McCain.
This week, Obama went on holiday and then came back and launched an assault on McCain's economic plan. And Clinton's big headline yesterday was telling people to support Obama if he gets the nomination. That doesn't sound to me like Clinton's hurting Obama, or hindering his ability to attack McCain.
But wev. Other people will have different impressions than mine on that score, and that's cool. My issue is really just about the way Hillary's being pushed out of the race. As I've said before, the irony is that the more she's bullied, the harder it is going to be for her to drop out with dignity and without looking like she caved under the pressure of misogyny and to the will of its purveyors.
The people who want her to drop out would be wise to STFU instead of going after her full-throttle, because she is, of course, keenly aware of the weight she is carrying as the first viable female candidate, and if she appears to have given up without a fight, that’s got problems all its own.
Everyone who's going on about how she wants to ZOMG DESTROY THE PARTY!!!11! don't seem to understand that, while there may be "good reasons" for her to drop out, there are also "good reasons" for her to stay and fight until the bitter end, which are separate from winning the nomination.
During the whole Edwards-Donohue fiasco, when I eventually had to resign for personal security reasons, I got some of the nastiest emails I've ever gotten from progressives who told me I'd let down "the Left" by caving in to Donohue, O'Reilly, et. al.
And I was some dumbass nobody. Imagine the pressure Hillary is under to not appear to cave to misogynist attacks or look "weak" by quitting if she doesn't have to.
And, btw, Obama would be under the exact same pressures if the situation were reversed; that's the burden of "going first." And, yes, of course I would defend his right to stay in to the bitter end, too -- because I've felt that shit firsthand, and it is incredibly complicated and difficult to be in that position.
I would just like to point out to everyone that Clinton won the popular vote in Texas. Obama won my delegates due to the way they figure things between the caucuses and the primary down there in the Lone Star State.
The super delegates are going to decide things, but I really doubt that they will go against someone who has more elected delegates and more popular votes.
Btw, it's that whole "going first" thing that makes the Gary Hart comparison inapplicable.
Clinton has considerations (as would Obama, if he were in the same position) that straight, white, male presidential candidates just don't have.
And when we ignore those considerations, we necessarily ignore the burden of institutionalized sexism or racism. We cannot talk about Clinton or Obama as if they are any old candidate. There is much wrapped in their individual success or failure behind who gets the Democratic nomination.
Clinton, as a feminist woman, has a particular burden to carry of not looking weak.
CE | 03.28.08 - 11:40 am | #
If this was, say, the day after Super Tuesday, I'd agree with you. There'd be plenty of time for Clinton to make up the difference, and no reason whatsoever for her to think about dropping out.
But this isn't the day after Super Tuesday. Clinton won Ohio and Texas, but lost net delegates for the month of March -- and her campaign was counting on picking up ~50 delegates and a significant chunk of the popular vote.
Clinton's not being passed over for a promotion by the Democratic leadership. She's competed hard, run a very good race...and she's almost certainly lost. That doesn't mean she must drop out, but it does mean she's not going to be president. All things considered, U.S. Senator isn't a bad fall-back, especially if Clinton ends up majority leader, a position I think she'd be a natural at.
If it was tied, then it would be different. It isn't. And while it's close, the split is too large for Clinton to overcome. Given that reality, it's reasonable to ask what Clinton is accomplishing by remaining in the race. Not because Hillary has no business being in the race because she's a girl -- Hillary's outlasted every man on the left side of the aisle save one. She has more right to be in the race than any man on the left side of the aisle, save one. But I can't envision a scenario that gives Clinton the nomination that doesn't tear the party apart and prevent her election as president. I think she deserves a nice send-off in Pennsylvania, and then hopefully Obama can deliver the coup de grace in NC and IN. I don't think she needs to pull out quite yet. But I don't think suggesting it is ipso facto sexist, or indeed wrong at all.
Was it reasonable to expect her to drop out immediately after winning two big primaries?
Dang it!
I meant to add: But those times Senator Obama let her win, because she's a girl. Yeah, that's it.
Damned tags.
Given that reality, it's reasonable to ask what Clinton is accomplishing by remaining in the race.
Asking what Clinton is accomplishing by remaining in the race ≠ Telling Clinton to get out of the race.
I really think that's where the disconnect is happening here.
It's the telling to which those of us who are objecting, are objecting. And it's not a small thing.
Recent polls show a relatively small percentage of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton. (As compared to Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain).
So, um, where's the evidence that her nomination will tear the party apart?
The harm won't be done by voters unwilling to vote for Clinton. It would be done by the pundits and media shouting about how she stole the nomination because she didn't get out when they told her to.
There is much wrapped in their individual success or failure behind who gets the Democratic nomination.
And I wholeheartedly agree with that. But that's also what concerns me about Clinton dragging this on past reason -- because Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully. And I'd say the same about Obama if the situation was reversed. In politics, you have to know when it's time to give up. Stay too long in an untenable position and you can end up doing more damage than you would have had you just given up.
Clinton should not shutter her campaign. When she withdraws, she should suspend it; she should get a prime speaking spot at the convention, she should be assiduously courted by the Obama camp and given recognition by the party for what she's accomplished. If she stays in too long, though, it will make that harder for the Obama campaign to accede to.
It's the telling to which those of us who are objecting, are objecting. And it's not a small thing.
IMO, that's not what Leahy did. When you say, "I don't think Clinton should stay in, but it's her decision," that's not the same as saying, "Drop out, Hillary."
"would have a tremendous career in the Senate ...."
wait, wait. Isn't she already a Senator?
Huh.
But I'm not supposed to read this as patronizing, or sexist, because that would be divisive. Put up or shut up is par for the course.
" frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate"
IOW, not as president, but as an underling, as all women should be.
If Obama does take the nomination, I hope to hell I see the party bigwigs putting pressure on him to take Clinton as his running mate -- because anything else would be just . . . stupid.
What about Jerry Brown I seem to remember him fighting pretty close to the end and even causing a dustup at the convention, but the democratic party somehow survived.
This is just plain bullying and its pretty damn undemocratic if you ask me. If Obama can't handle any competition in the primary when he is already (according to the psychics around here)going to win, how in the hell is he going to survive the general election? My thought is he probrably won't, but hey something else to blame on Hillary Clinton! Not to mention alot of voters are going to be pretty damn pissed that their voices were not heard because their candidate was pushed out before the final tally, and in two states they were denied the vote completely. Do not think for a second that those moves won't have repercussions come November. That is what will ultimately hurt this party, not because one candidate decided to finish what they started. She's not quitting and she has EVERY RIGHT to keep going.
All things considered, U.S. Senator isn't a bad fall-back
Yeah, but the point I'm making is that it is a fall-back. I never said Clinton is being "passed over for promotion." This is an election. She's running for an office and has every right to pursue it. But yeah, you're telling her it's no big deal if she doesn't get what she wants, because she'll be fine in a lesser position. BVB and F.Lynd have just pointed out why this is crap. It is. Please try to understand this, because it is not a small thing.
I should also, perhaps, mention that equal numbers of Democrats - 22% - want each of them to drop out. Meaning 22% want her to go, and 22% want him to go. It's not anything like a one-sided thing, regardless of what Obama surrogates and certain pundits would like us to believe.
She has more right to be in the race than any man on the left side of the aisle, save one.
Jeff. For God's sake. She has. every. right. to. be. in. the. race. Period, full stop.
But I can't envision a scenario that gives Clinton the nomination that doesn't tear the party apart and prevent her election as president.
I'm not surprised. Many of us can't envision a scenario that would give Obama the nomination without the same thing happening. This all depends on one's perspective, of course, but it is perspective. Not fact. Please try to keep them separate.
Boo, tags! And yeah, S.H. is right. Michigan and Florida will come back to haunt the DNC. I'd count on that.
Melissa, excellent point on Leahy upthread, the way you explain it makes it clear Leahy could have said it even better than Jeff described.
I am with you on elevating the level of discourse as far as handling this issue. It IS close. And I think it is incumbent on the candidates and the power borkers like Leahy, Dean and others to be sure to be careful and sensitive to the means they use to reach the ends.
But where the rubber meets the road on this issue I am with Jeff.
One of them has to go, and at this stage Hillary is just postponing the inevitable. She may have "won" March 4th as you alluded, but ended up NOT winning more delegates in Texas, and lost ground to Obama since that supposed "last stand."
Now we're supposed to string it out to PA, then Puerto Rico...and so on...She needs to win every reamining contest 60/40 to catch him, and she only pulled that margin in Arkansas!
The math is NOT there. It's not gender, it's math.
But it is crucial that it is presented that way, and ONLY that way.
Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully.
Two things here:
1) Next woman? A Clinton loss, by whatever means, makes me think that the next woman candidate will be in the GOP. The Dems won't have another one for at least 20 years.
2) lose gracefully?
"because Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully."
OMFG Jeff! Tell me you did not just type that! Do you even get how sexist that remark is?!?!?!
Michigan and Florida may very well come back and haunt the DNC, but it will not be Obama or Clinton's fault, the DNC made the rules. They both signed a statement agreeing that the votes would not count. I think we should have a national primary on the same day, and all this crap would be eliminated.
If Obama does take the nomination, I hope to hell I see the party bigwigs putting pressure on him to take Clinton as his running mate -- because anything else would be just . . . stupid.
I think the pressure will be on him to offer the position, PD, but I don't see her taking it, simply because it would be a step down in terms of actual power. Clinton, if she stays in the Senate, would have a real shot at being Majority Leader when Reid eventually steps down (or she could try to force him out), but she's not likely to run for President in 2016 because of her age. This was her main chance at it.
And I hope that pressure extends to choosing a woman as a running mate--Kathleen Sebelius would be a hell of a choice, in my opinion.
" Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully."
Oh.my.GAWD.
How on earth could that have come from Jeff Fecke's fingers?
I agree Leahy's comments regarding Clinton's role in the Senate jumped out at me. And, to me, were worse than anything Kristoff said.
That, to me, was a real, "be happy with what you've accomplished" moment.
I think we should have a national primary on the same day, and all this crap would be eliminated.
Well, you'll get no argument from me there.
"because Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully."
And, uh, yeah. Jeff, this statement is a big, big problem.
A Clinton loss, by whatever means, makes me think that the next woman candidate will be in the GOP. The Dems won't have another one for at least 20 years.
I disagree. I think there will be prominent women in every Presidential race from now into the foreseeable future. That's what Melissa was talking about earlier when she mentioned the difficulty of being first. Hillary wasn't the first woman to run, but she was the first with a real shot at winning the nomination, and she still may pull it out. But others will follow in her footsteps, and it won't take long.
I agree Leahy's comments regarding Clinton's role in the Senate jumped out at me. And, to me, were worse than anything Kristoff said.
That, to me, was a real, "be happy with what you've accomplished" moment.
Mr Furious (not Todd) | Homepage | 03.28.08 - 12:12 pm | #
I'm glad you caught that, because a lot of people who should know better clearly haven't. Who knows, most of them probably actually think Clinton would make a great Senate Majority Leader and don't mean to sound as demeaning as they do - but that's a benefit of privilege, of course.
The Dems won't have another one for at least 20 years.
Nah. I don't agree. Hillary broke a lot of ground. And just because you can't point to the next up-and-comer today doesn't mean there couldn't be a clear choice in four years...
Did anybody put money on Obama in 2005?
I don't think it matters Lark whose fault it is, what I'm trying to point out is the disenfranchisement of voters in the primary will have ramifications regardless of how it's done or by whom, and I think that will have a bigger impact than if Hillary stays in the race. I cannot think as a causual voter I would not vote for Obama because Hillary stayed in too long. However, if I was a Hillary voter or in Florida or Michigan I might have some serious resentment.
What S.H. said. Truly, if the Dems want to point fingers about who is hurting the party, why not pick on the DNC -- which is breaking its own rules.
Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully
Clinton cannot "lose gracefully" (or, as I said drop out with dignity) as long as party elders and liberal columnists et. al. are telling her to get out of the race. That's kind of my whole point.
In which case, it's not Clinton who risks doing "a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency," but the people who keep insisting that she should get out of the race on their terms.
Holding her accountable, when she's been pushed into a corner where she looks weak and bullied and undignified if she quits but looks like an uppity bitch who wants to destroy the party if she stays, comes perilously close to victim-blaming.
---------------
(And, yes, Leahy did tell her to get out of the race "She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator [Barack] Obama," despite his generous caveat that she has the right to stay in.)
I hope you guys are right --- but so far I haven't heard a woman disagree with me yet. Clinton is the one who's managed to live up to the impossible double standard; I think it will take a lot of preparation for another woman to follow.
"And, to me, were worse than anything Kristoff said.
That, to me, was a real, "be happy with what you've accomplished" moment."
THANK YOU. That's exactly what I was getting at. Be happy with what you've accomplished, girl, and stop trying to break that glass ceiling. Penises required here on up.
if I was a Hillary voter or in Florida or Michigan I might have some serious resentment.
??
I'm an OBAMA (or, "uncommitted") voter in Michigan and I don't have any.
I would have a serious fucking problem with a revote here even if it looked like Obama would win (which he might).
Michigan fucked up and so did Florida. To, in effect, reward them with the most important, if not deciding, votes of the whole damn primary for breaking the rules is not even close to fair.
Split the delegates and seat em, or seat em once it's settled. But they doo NOT get another bite at the apple.
And in my opinion, NO super-delegates from those states should be seated regardless of the arranged outcome/compromise.
THEY deserve punishment for allowing this to even happen.
Clinton is the one who's managed to live up to the impossible double standard; I think it will take a lot of preparation for another woman to follow.
I think so, too. In fact, looking at what's happened to her, it's hard for me to think of any woman who might be able to follow her. Or, frankly, who would want to. Because the shit she's been taking from all sides - including feminists who should fucking know better - just kills me, and it's not even being said about me. Even though, of course, indirectly it is.
"because Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully."
I agree. Sexist it is, but she is representative of Woman Candidate; if she seems to cry, or bitch, or whine, or accept her place as winner or loser with anything less than perfect serenity and grace-under-pressure, it will be viewed as a blotch on the escrutchon of all women, everywhere, for ever n ever, amen.
I do NOT think she should drop out: she still has an okay chance of winning the big one -- I would say "fair chance", but there's been nothing fair about it.
I guess, reading, my comment, it is inaccurate to say I "have no resentment." Clearly I have plenty. But it's not directed at Obama, Hillary or the DNC.
I'm looking straight at Granholm, Levin, Stabenow and Mark Brewer.
Mr. Furious -- unfortunately, it's not a matter of opinion, but of party rules. Other states broke the rules and their delegates are being seated in toto.
the power borkers
As much as I'm interested in this discussion, I'm totally distracted by this typo. Borkers...heh.
PD,
I've heard that argument, and I am not convinced. The other states had to move further up in response to MI and FL. And if I recall they were given a dispensation to do so.
The schedule was set, the rules laid, out and MI and FL tossed the board. When things were settled, other dates were tweaked to realign the agreed-upon four early states.
HEre in MI, we knw about this last year, and the case wound through the courts right up until Decemeber.
These states made a power-grab to become more important. They gambled and lost.
The irony is, if they had kept their traditional dates, they might have been decisive.
Many women will run for, and win, high offices in the future. I don't believe for a second that they will be too scared to run. Others, besides white guys can serve our nation well, and will do so.
What S.H. said. Truly, if the Dems want to point fingers about who is hurting the party, why not pick on the DNC -- which is breaking its own rules.
I read that piece, PD, and I have to say that the poster completely missed the point. Whether it was deliberate or not is in the eye of the beholder, but the fact is that the reason Florida and Michigan were popped was because the DNC was enforcing the first in the nation status for those four states. Now, we can argue whether the DNC ought to be doing that--I'd like to see the system blown up, and I've said that before--but to argue that Iowa, New Hampshire and SC ought to be punished because they were preserving the status the DNC had said they should have is a little ridiculous. The two situations are not equal.
National primaries, same day, that's what we should do.
FL's move was a result of the (Rep-dominated) legislature. Where does that leave the rights of voters?
And, what larkohio said.
National primaries, same day, that's what we should do.
Absolutely. I was (and am) incensed that my preferred candidate dropped out before I could vote for him - and there are many, many other valid considerations for a National Primary Day.
Given that reality, it's reasonable to ask what Clinton is accomplishing by remaining in the race.
One of the things she's accomplishing, as Melissa and others have pointed out, is demonstrating that she is not weak and will not be bullied. I'm not holding my breath for her to get the nomination, but as I said to you weeks ago--the first time you wrote that she ought to step aside and have a nice career as Senate Majority Leader--it is incredibly important to me, and a whole lot of other people, that she go down swinging.
And what you don't seem to be getting is something that, once again, Liss has been trying to explain all over the place. The very fact that the whole world is screaming Why Won't The Stupid Bitch Quit right now is exactly what makes it impossible for her to step aside "gracefully." There is no grace, no dignity, in stepping down when everyone is calling her delusional/damaging to the party/power-mad/whatever. To step down amid all this would mean utter humiliation. If the media and bloggers and Obama proxies WEREN'T fucking frothing at the mouth for her to quit, I would have no problem with her making a reasoned decision to quit at this point. She's done me proud as a woman, a Democrat, and an American. But as it is, she can't. Because it would not look like a reasoned decision; it would look like capitulation to a bunch of goddamned bullies. And if you don't think THAT would hurt the next woman who comes along, you're high.
The idea that it's Clinton who's hurting the party by staying in--not the Obama proxies and pundits calling for her head who are hurting the party by alienating the millions of people who voted for her and all the women who would rather not see her go out under a cloud of bullying and humiliation--is so absurd I cannot even believe people can say it with a straight face.
Six months ago, I didn't know if I would vote for Obama or Clinton. Two months ago, I chose Clinton--but would have been thrilled to vote for Obama in the general. Today, I am very much into "I'll hold my nose and vote for him" territory, and if this shit keeps up, there is a real chance that I will stay home in November--something I NEVER, EVER imagined doing before. And something that, two months ago, I couldn't even begin to fathom.
I am THAT pissed off about the way Clinton's being treated right now. And I am not the only one. If the party wants my vote in November, they need to put a stop to this shit RIGHT NOW and give her some space not only to continue running if she wants to but to actually make the decision to step aside with some dignity if that's what she wants. As it is, the former is currently flat-out impossible.
National Primary Day -- as a paid national holiday.
As it is, the former is currently flat-out impossible.
Oops, I meant latter. It's the dignity that's impossible right now, and that ain't her fault.
For Hillary Clinton to withdraw or suspend her campaign she has to have a good reason not just, hey we want Barack Obama to win.
Personally, I do want Barack Obama to win, not only the nomination but the presidency, and I want it to be not a narrow victory but a massive one in November with huge coattails.
Of course, if Hillary Clinton is eventually going to want Barack Obama to win, she might not want to do certain things now that make it more difficult to back down later and keep her credibility -- which may be a larger problem for her at the moment anyhow. I think she should stop praising John McCain and she has improved her posture on that, but she should not go back to the position that Barack Obama is in any way unqualified to be president.
In other words, keep it friendly if a friendly exit strategy is desired.
Clinton cannot "lose gracefully" (or, as I said drop out with dignity) as long as party elders and liberal columnists et. al. are telling her to get out of the race. That's kind of my whole point.
Better phrasing is "drop out with dignity" -- agreed, all who criticized "lose gracefully." Though I will defend myself insofar as I think gracefulness is not an inherently female trait; I've suggested before that John Edwards needed to bow out gracefully.
I don't know if I agree with your point, Melissa. I tend to think that at some point, people do need to start putting pressure on a losing candidate to drop out. I just don't think we've hit the point where it needs to happen yet. But after North Carolina, when there are virtually no delegates left? Yeah, that will probably be about the right time.
FWIW, by the way, I expect after North Carolina, when the writing's on the wall, that Clinton will drop out. But that's just a guess. And I, for one, want to reiterate that I don't think she does need to drop out yet. She earned the right to go on after Ohio and Texas. And I think calling on her to drop out now is premature, even as I think that she's almost certainly going to lose the nomination.
Okay let me try to clarify again, I'm not saying blame this candidate or that entity. I'm asking what are the things that will hurt turnout in Novemeber, and I think regardless of who is to blame, this might be a big one. Isn't that the argument for Hillary dropping out, that it will hurt turnout? The phrasing used is "hurt the party" which doesn't really mean much. So if the correct inference of that argument is to mean hurt the November turnout, than I'm still waiting for the logical reasoning behind that. I didn't really mean to open up the FL/Mich can of worms, I personally believe it sucks but others think it's a fair punishment. I'm really just trying to understand the larger argument here in regards to Hillary hurting Obama.
I don't think so, Jeff. Personally, I'd like to see Clinton continue in the race through all the states, and I'd really like to see Obama make a statement encouraging just that, if for no other reason than because this is an historic race.
FL's move was a result of the (Rep-dominated) legislature. Where does that leave the rights of voters?
Bingo. It's all well and good to say "Michigan and Florida fucked up," but it was not the voters of Michigan and Florida who fucked up, and they're the ones who are now being punished with disenfranchisement.
Yet another reason why the talk of magical, automatic party unity if we hand the nom to Obama right now is addlebrained. The party damn well needs Clinton's Florida primary voters in the general, and if I were one of them, I would be seriously hard-pressed to bother going to the polls in November.
I don't believe for a second that they will be too scared to run.
Well, nobody said that. But there is a very clear double standard that Hillary Clinton has managed to meet, and I'm not sure when the next woman will. You have to be attractive, but not too much or you're a bimbo. Dress well, but not too well or you're a clotheshorse. Be smarter than all the men, but not remind them about it because that would make them feel badly about themselves. Be tough, but not too tough because then you're a bitch. You have to be a "convincing mom" with perfect children, or you're not actually female. Know about the military or you can't be CiC, but also be "soft" so no one will be afraid of you. Laugh at bad jokes so the boys feel flattered, but in male-approved tones or you're called a cackler.
It's just the beginning of the list, really. Because it's a long, long, long list, and those are mostly superficial things. Any woman without credible military, foreign policy and national security credentials can forget about it, even though we've had plenty of male presidents - and a current Democratic frontrunner - with hardly any. Hillary Clinton has managed very closely to manage this impossible standard, but please know that it is an impossible standard. I don't know when another woman will come so close - and it pains me that pundits and bloggers don't see that the loss of that dream, for many women, is devastating. Do we ever see that fact considered?
She earned the right to go on after Ohio and Texas.
She earned the right when she got herself on the ballots in those states, Jeff. What's so hard to understand about that?
I've suggested before that John Edwards needed to bow out gracefully
Bow out ≠ lose.
You're right, Jeff. Math is relentless.
National primaries, same day, that's what we should do.
I think doing that would eliminate a major virtue of our current system. As it is now, less well-known, less well funded candidates have a fighting chance of putting their limited resources into a two small states up front. This gives marginal candidates a fighting chance to gain name recognition, and the funding that they need to continue. I'd like to that possiblitiy strenthened, not weakened. Maybe lining up the states from smallest population to largest, keeping New Hampsire and Iowa first for tradition's sake.
The party damn well needs Clinton's Florida primary voters in the general, and if I were one of them, I would be seriously hard-pressed to bother going to the polls in November.
Kate,
What percentage of voters in a state vote in a primary? How many people are active, and then are willing to take it out on a candidate in the general? Not many, I'd wager, and I live in Hillary country down here in Florida. I just don't see that resentment around me right now.
Look, the polls right now say that Clinton leads McCain in Florida, and that Obama is within 5 points. If Florida doesn't go to McCain by more than 5 points, I'll be shocked, frankly, and it won't have anything to do with disenfranchisement. It'll have to do with the fact that the state party is a mess and a half.
She earned the right when she got herself on the ballots in those states, Jeff. What's so hard to understand about that?
Exactly.
Jeff, you keep talking about her "right" like it's a conditional thing. Perhaps you haven't yet realized this, but it's the exact same thing Kristof did, so can it, please.
Incertus, my point is, in a state like Florida, Democrats can't afford to be cavalier about ANY votes, as the last few elections have proven. McCain might take it either way, but a hell of a lot can happen between now and November.
I don't know if I agree with your point, Melissa. I tend to think that at some point, people do need to start putting pressure on a losing candidate to drop out.
If you think my point is "People don't ever need to put pressure on a losing candidate to drop out," then you haven't been reading my comments very carefully.
Irrespective of my personal opinion (or anyone else's, for that matter) about the necessity of putting pressure on a candidate to drop out, my point is, in two pieces:
1. There are ways to do that which don't humiliate Hillary and back her into a corner.
2. There are special considerations as regards the first ever viable feminist female candidate, which are being totally disregarded, and it is that -- not Hillary staying in the race -- which has the capacity to hurt women's chances in the future.
Damn, I miss Canadian politics.
Thank you, Liss. I'm seeing too much red to be that articulate.
Actually, you know what, let's just clear this shit up once and for all.
Article II, Section I. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
Okay, let's see. Is Hillary Clinton a natural born citizen of the United States? Check. Is she over the age of thirty-five? Check. Has she lived in the United States for fourteen years? Check.
Guess what? That means she has the right to run for President. And so does anyone else who meets those qualifications, even if only two people vote for him and one of them is his mom. So let's fucking stop it already with "earning the right." It comes from the Constitution, which I've helpfully quoted for anyone who still doesn't grok. And last time I checked, it was still the law - at least in theory. So let's STFU about what kinds of conditions are necessary for Hillary Clinton to have the right to run for President, because every single one of them is helpfully pointed out to you in bold-face type.
If Obama does take the nomination, I hope to hell I see the party bigwigs putting pressure on him to take Clinton as his running mate
That presumes Hillary would agree to that. I'm not at all convinced she would. If she wants to go along with that, then I think it probably would be a strong ticket.
BTW, a national primary would be a disaster for representative democracy. You ain't seen nothing in the way of disenfrachisement like you'll see it then.
Damn, I miss Canadian politics.
Sniper | 03.28.08 - 12:56 pm | #
You have to admit that they are quick- 6-8 weeks start to finish and your leader had beter be ready and in place from day one.
I'd like to that possiblitiy strenthened, not weakened.
Huzzah! FINALLY, someone else on this blog who gets it!
I'm not at all convinced she would. If she wants to go along with that, then I think it probably would be a strong ticket.
Hillary Clinton will not be Obama's running mate.
If he is the nominee, I would imagine he'd go with a white dude with strong military credentials. I could be wrong about that, though.
Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully.
Maybe she can dance The Dying Swan from Swan Lake.
If Clinton were not the first viable female candidate for the presidency, it's possible I might agree that she should consider dropping out. (It's possible I wouldn't, too; I think the "hurting the Democratic Party" meme is ludicrous.) But the fact is, she is the first viable female candidate. Whether anyone, including Clinton herself, likes it, she's the standard bearer, out there in front holding her flag with her supporters behind her, facing down the old assumption that women just aren't suited for this sort of thing.
No one in that position has a graceful exit. No one. She can no more say, "Oh, well, nice try, I'll be moving along now," than could the surviving members of the Fellowship of the Ring standing in front of the gates of Mordor with the army of Sauron arrayed before them. There are situations where walking away, however prudent, is nothing more than a repudiation of everything you stand for.
She may yet do it, I don't know. I'm not in her position and I don't feel the pressure she does. But I hope she takes this all the way to the convention, fighting to the end, win or lose. It's better to be defeated than to quit.
beter = better, shouldn't type while eating raw cookie dough.
If a floor fight was good enough for FDR then it should be good enough for BHO and HRC. Modern politics has become the politics of the wimpy, whiny media soundbite. Neither could just drop out from the moment that they entered the race and both knew it from the beginning. Real democracy is messy and demanding. I like that both candidates are showing more spunk and staying power than just about any politician in recent history and that is good.
The party brain trust needs to stop badgering Clinton and start planning on selling a real floor fight as a party good. It is time for the party to take the message back from the pundits.
National primaries, same day, that's what we should do.
You really want a nominee chosen with 20% of the vote? Don't forget that when Iowa voted, there were still approximately 8 candidates still on the Democratic side and 10 or so on the GOP. Only Iowa's caucus rules squeezed Obama up over 30%; he'd have had less than that in a primary.
It is time for the party to take the message back from the pundits.
HUZZAH!
I've pointed out Jeff Fecke as an example to my husband of a male feminist who "gets" it. Jeff, you're still not getting it here. Hearing a man, even if it's a male feminist, talk about how Sen. Clinton has "earned the right to go on after Ohio and Texas", as if *your permission* is at all relevant is infuriating.
I'm a far left Green who always votes Democratic, but I can't talk about this election with any man, including my husband (so far), because they totally do not get how unfair and crazymaking the treatment Sen. Clinton has been receiving is. My husband, predictably, is an Obama supporter, who just *loves* reading Kos and the others piling on her, but none of it is sexist or entitled, that's all a freaking coincidence. Right.
I want to point out to portlydike and others that Kucinich never once said the GOP canidate was more able than any other democratic canidate.
Also, it is just a bit too ambulance chaser to stick around waiting for a skeleton or two to come bouncing out of a closet for my tastes. There was all kinds of discussion right here on these pages about this going on in the GOP primaries a few months ago, but when it is someone you respect doing it, it's harder to see. Step back take a breathe and look at it.
I for one feel that very few true progressives are left with their first choice of candidates but none the less we all knew that in the end "there can be only one".
I think I am starting a Nadai fan club. Coz the totally rockin comments just keep coming!
Nadai, you rock.
T-Ray, it's pretty presumptious to say that "very few true progressives are left with their first choice of candidates."
Hillary, bar none, is my first choice. She has been since the beginning and nothing she's done has made me doubt her as my first choice.
Melissa, I understand your point, but while I think there are definite reasons for partisans to hold of pressuring Clinton to quit, I also think we've seen the party as a whole be tremendously reticent about pushing Hillary out. Clinton has fourteen of the last seventeen primaries/caucuses, most by double-digits. Do you think if Hillary Clinton was anyone else -- including Barack Obama -- that we'd still be talking about this as a viable race?
I agree that the party needs to be careful not to push Hillary Clinton out, and I agree that Clinton has more than earned the right to keep fighting. And I think putting too much pressure on her to drop out is going to be counterproductive to anyone trying to get her out of the race. But I also believe that given the lay of the land, she's got only a slightly better chance of winning the presidency than I do. Clinton needs to be allowed to withdraw from the race in a dignified manner, on her terms. But she also does, at some point, need to withdraw from the race, to preserve what can and should be a very positive and effective future political career. Whether that's now or mid-June can be debated, but unless America's about to add a mystery 51st state with a population of 90 million, five hundred delegates, and a population that skews older, blue collar, and Latino, Clinton's not going to win.
Incidentally, on the pressuring Clinton to take the Veep slot -- there's no way Clinton should take that. Average senator from New York is more powerful than your average V.P., and Hillary's not just an average senator. Granted, Dick Cheney runs the country right now, but that's primarily because the nominal president is lazy and stupid -- two qualities that do not apply to Obama. The reason I keep touting Clinton as majority leader is that I don't think she can win the presidency at this point, but I do think that majority leader is a nice consolation prize -- it would only tie her for second-most-powerful American politician (with Nancy Pelosi), and indeed, a powerful Majority Leader can wield almost as much power as an average President.
That, and she'd be an excellent majority leader, better than pretty much anyone in the Senate I can think of, with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy -- and if Teddy had wanted the job, he'd'a had it by now.
Two reasons why I have problems with the idea that Clinton should drop out before the convention.
(1) The primary is not over. People still want to have a choice when they enter the voting booth.
If Obama is "the" candidate, those people's votes do not count. Their opinions do not count.
Is this REALLY a message we want a party called the DEMOCRATIC Party to send?
One of the biggest, most exciting things about this election was that, for the first time in my entire life I was able to vote in an election where there was a chance that my vote would matter.
If you argue that Clinton should drop out now, when she is still going strong, and before the primary is over, you're arguing that voters do not, in fact matter - that experts and pundits do.
(2) There are sound strategic reasons for Clinton to stay in even if she can't win.
First, her presence serves as a reminder that her constituency is large, significant, and ought not to be ignored.
Recommending that she quit early is tantamount to recommending that that constituency be considered of lesser importance to Obama's. This is unacceptable.
Second, it gives her more leverage at the convention. If she leaves now, she lessens her ability to influence things like the choice of vice president, the future direction of the party, etc.
She has the energy and the money to keep going. Why shouldn't she?
Why SHOULD she quit?
The only answers I hear are (a) because she's going to lose or (b) because she's going to ruin Obama's chances, or (c) she's going to damage the party.
Honestly, I don't find any of these compelling. (A) - I've already addressed - there are reasons to stay in even if she loses. (B) - if Obama lacks the stamina, resources, or money to make it through a long, contested primary, what the heck is he going to do come the general election, when he goes up against McCain? How, also, is he going to deal with the demands of the presidency itself? and (C) - from what I can see, the long horse race has energized the base, brought record turn-outs of voters, captured the media's attention for months why McCain languishes - how is any of this a bad thing?
Step back take a breathe and look at it.
Oh, I'm sorry. Should we calm down? Perhaps a bit hysterical for your taste?
And like megan kay, and many, many others, Hillary Clinton's been my first choice from the beginning. I'm not holding my nose to vote for her, I'm proud of it, and I think she'd make a fantastic president. Plenty of people disagree, and that's fine, but plenty of people also deeply underestimate the depth of her support. Hmm. I wonder why that might be.
You have to admit that they are quick- 6-8 weeks start to finish and your leader had beter be ready and in place from day one.
And Question Period! Can you even imagine Mondo Fucko during Question Period? Sigh.
Jeff, I still don't think you're getting it.
I also think we've seen the party as a whole be tremendously reticent about pushing Hillary out.
The party shouldn't be pushing anybody out. God, why has everyone gotten so wimpy? It's not usual for these things to be settled this early. Plenty of conventions have gone to a floor fight. Who cares? This is politics. Sometimes it gets messy. Buckle up and deal with it. If Obama can't take it, he won't be able to in the GE, either, so let's stop acting like he must be treated with kid gloves.
I do think that majority leader is a nice consolation prize
Please, Jeff, I'm begging you: examine your privilege. You have no idea what this sounds like. Please.
Rant: You know what else bugs me about the "quit" meme? It's exactly what Edwards supporters had to put up with over at DailyObama. Every day, diaries would come out saying that Edwards should quit because he was splitting the anyone-but-Clinton vote. If only Edwards would quit, then Obama would easily defeat Clinton. Then Edwards quits, and guess what? It turns out that the plan for defeating Clinton is calling on her to quit. OMG. Is this the plan for November too? Obama's campaign is going to call on McCain to quit before election day? I don't understand why Obama supporters don't see how weak this makes their candidate look.
/rant
Rana--this is the best reason for her to keep running:
First, her presence serves as a reminder that her constituency is large, significant, and ought not to be ignored.
That said, I fear that if she keeps getting beat, it has the potential to marginalize her constituency. I do not want to see that happen.
At any rate, the only thing I'd add to your list of reasons to drop out is this: Hillary Clinton continuing to run can do damage to Hillary Clinton. If President was the only worthwhile office in American politics, that would be one thing. But if she's not going to win (and I'll reiterate, it would take a miracle for her to get the nomination), she could make it more difficult for herself to start building a new power base in the Senate. No, it's not the Presidency, and I can understand why she's hanging on by the skin of her teeth here -- if I was 175 delegates back and 3% back in the popular vote, I'd find it hard to quit myself, and I wouldn't have anything bigger than myself to be fighting for (after all, America has had fat presidents before). But if she's not going to win the presidency, she can still have play vital and important role in shaping America's political future. And that is what she's potentially jeopardizing, should she stay in the race too long.
Upthread, Jeff said Clinton can't really catch up in delegates or the popular vote.
Until Florida and Michigan are counted, the popular vote will remain in question. This could have been fixed, at least in MI, but Obama's people blocked the re-vote.
I'll tell you why all the pundits are piling on the HRC-should-drop-out-now wagon: Obama's in trouble and they know it. It's a testament to Obama's weakness that he's expected to lose PA-- and by a margin. It's a testament to his weakness that his lawyers worked behind the scenes to block the MI revote.
His surrogates, in the media and the party, are terrified the next few primaries will show him losing more strength, more support, more votes. By cutting out HRC now, they avoid this embarrassment.
The problem as I see it is this: if he's so weak now that he has to be "protected" from Hillary, what do they think is going to happen to him in the GE when the RNC really starts to unload their venom?
I say let it play out and if she does reclaim the momentum and his numbers go down, let it go all the way to the convention. If she proves herself to be the stronger candidate, they should nominate her. That's the reason SDs were invented in the first place!
for a very long time, Clinton was regarded not only as the presumed nominee but as unbeatable, what you might call the "standard-bearer." A long time. And when people suggested no one else should bother, when people suggested Obama shouldn't bother, he and the rest of the lads should just get behind Clinton, it was quite rightly regarded as undemocratic, presumptuous, and demeaning to her challengers.
That's very true. And then, people started voting, and despite her early lead before that, Clinton started losing. Which is what makes now different from then.
But now that it's down to the wire, and it's tough, and Hillary's fighting hard for something she wants very much and has worked very hard for, suddenly it's perfectly reasonable to tell her to STFU and get in line.
Now that she's desperately attacking the presumptive nominee, propping up the Republican candidate, and spewing RNC talking points, yes, Democrats are starting to tell her to STFU. And that's a good thing. Of course, if she had decided to run a cleaner campaign, had she ditched Mark Penn and friends, were she not helping out her good friend Sen. McCain, etc., then I doubt that many people would be calling for her to drop out at all.
In short, it's not that she's the one running for President, it's how she's been running for President.
I really think we need to question why so many people in her own party are so reluctant to give her the room to bow out with dignity and on her own terms.
Why should they give her what she hasn't given them? Her campaign has regularly and consistently marginalized and belittled not just Sen. Obama, but also all the people and the states who have voted for him. Not much call for dignity there.
Clinton can do a lot of damage not just to herself, but to the next woman with a viable shot at the presidency if she doesn't lose gracefully
She is not the one doing the damage. She is not the one screaming day in and day out about how the democratic process is TEH END OF CIVILIZATION. I don't want to hear about HOW SHE DID IT TO HERSELF what do you mean she gets lied about and condescended to every moment of every day? Bitch had it coming, apparently.
The "pressure" people put on losing candidates to bow out? Is the act of not voting for them. It's refusing to support them in polls. That's not happening because people still like her. If she were actually losing so clearly it's not worth it, do you think that people would be hyperventilating about HOW SHE SHOULD DROP OUT? Do you think superdelegates would still be coming out and endorsing her?
And frankly, as someone who hasn't voted yet, I'm pretty pissed that people who are claiming to have the Democratic party's interests at heart want to take away my choice for next month.
If Leahy were that seriously concerned about a unified front against the Republican nominee, he could have given a speech about the Republican nominee. But no, much easer to lecture HRC about how she should just give it up already because being behind by 600,000 popular votes is an insurmountable challenge that shows how much the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to see her STFU.
She's not stopping anyone from going after McCain. They're choosing to freak out about WHY THAT STUPID BITCH WON'T QUIT rather than going after McCain.
And she does have an illustrious career in the Senate. She has been elected and re-elected.
Aside from which, "not as sexist as Kristof" is still not exactly grounds for a cookie and a pat on the head, let alone actual plaudits.
And Question Period! Can you even imagine Mondo Fucko during Question Period? Sigh.
Sniper | 03.28.08 - 1:24 pm | #
Why stop at Question Period? Imagine an American politician in the Scrum, (circle of reporters shoving their mics in the Prime Minister's face as they all vie for a soundbite in two languages.) especially if one of the comedy news shows is on site that day with joke wuestions.
I do think that majority leader is a nice consolation prize
Personally, I think naming her Miss Congeniality would be a nice thing to do.
I just wish sexist men would just admit they hate Clinton just because she is a woman and not because of some pseudo-rational-logical-reasoned excuse that they know damn well is not what they really feel.
Here is a way for sexist men to bow out gracefully. “Logically I understand that Clinton has the right to run for president, and reasonably I know that she is a viable candidate, and rationally she could very well pull off the nomination, but emotionally, deep in my bowel, I just hate the bitch but I know intellectually that I should not think this way but I still feel this way because at the end of the day I feel a man is the best candidate always.”
I do think that majority leader is a nice consolation prize
Personally, I think naming her Miss Congeniality would be a nice thing to do.
Nadai | 03.28.08 - 1:40 pm | #
For real. Cheerlead while the manly men play football.
Plenty of conventions have gone to a floor fight.
None since 1968. And '68 wasn't exactly a high-water mark for progressive politics.
CE, Hillary Clinton won't win. She won't win before the convention, she won't win at the convention, and if I'm wrong about that, you tell me how the Democratic party mends fences with the African-American community in the brief time between the convention that overruled a majority of voters and took the nomination away from an African-American candidate and gave it to the candidate who got fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates. There's no path to the nomination for Clinton that ends with her winning in November.
That's the perspective I'm bringing to this. It's not male privilege -- I can understand why one would not want to see one's chosen candidate pushed out of the race at all, and I can certainly understand why that would be all the more important if that candidate was the first major candidate to look like you.
But Hillary Clinton is not going to win. That's the truth. You don't have to like it, but it's the truth. And I say this as someone who has yet to support the winning candidate at a start of a presidential nomination process except in 1996 (Glenn - Simon - Tsongas - Clinton - Bradley - Clark - Edwards), it's no fun to hit that point. But we're awfully close to hitting it. And as someone who wants Hillary Clinton to have a future in American politics, I'd rather see her steer down the Tom Harkin/Gary Hart/John Edwards path than the Jerry Brown/Dennis Kucinich one.
I'm just calling this like I see it, and if you can see a way for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and the presidency, then I'm an idiot for thinking she should preserve what she has and retrench for the future. I can't. That's what informs my viewpoint.
Plenty of conventions have gone to a floor fight. Who cares?
The Dems. do! Frankly, your assertion is flatly wrong. The last time the Dems. had a true floor fight was 1968, the most infamous political convention of the post-WWII era.
If you make that assertion about what went on prior to WWII, fine, but the rest of us live now, not then.
“Logically I understand that Clinton has the right to run for president, and reasonably I know that she is a viable candidate, and rationally she could very well pull off the nomination, but emotionally, deep in my bowel, I just hate the bitch but I know intellectually that I should not think this way but I still feel this way because at the end of the day I feel a man is the best candidate always.”
Kitty, if I thought Hillary Clinton could "very well pull of the nomination," I wouldn't be suggesting she even consider pulling out of the race. I think Jane Hamsher figures it right when she factor's Hillary's odds as less than 5 percent.
As it is now, less well-known, less well funded candidates have a fighting chance of putting their limited resources into a two small states up front. This gives marginal candidates a fighting chance to gain name recognition
an anonymous kate | 03.28.08 - 12:48 pm | #
Public, and only public, financing for campaigns. Whoever mentioned banning TV ads upthread -- that's also an intriguing idea.
So, Dems haven't won since 1996, despite not going to the convention since 1968 ... this proves that going to the convention guarantees defeat?
I just wish sexist women would just admit they hate Obama just because he is a man and not because of pseudo-rational-logical-reasoned excuse that they know damn well is not what they really feel.
Here is a way for sexist women to bow out gracefully. “Logically I understand that Obama has the right to run for president, and reasonably I know that he is a viable candidate, and rationally he could very well pull off the nomination, but emotionally, deep in my bowel, I just hate the bastard but I know intellectually that I should not think this way but I still feel this way because at the end of the day I feel a woman is the best candidate always.”
I find, as I read this thread, that I'm far less distressed by the generalized call (logical or not) for Hillary to end her campaign than I am by the subtle and not-so-subtle sexism that I read in some of the comments here, from people who have claimed that they are feminist.
Jeff, if you are going to take the kudos of feminist women when they thank you for being a man who will speak out about sexism, I'm of the opinion that you must address their concerns when you express things that are subtly (or not-so-subtly) sexist.
Several women (myself included) have pointed out to you in this thread that you are using language that reeks of privilege, but I don't think that you have addressed these concerns.
I request that you take a look at your privilege in light of your many comments about HRC's "right" to continue. I believe that your opinion is stemming from unexamined sexism.
votermom | 03.28.08 - 1:49 pm | #
Since 1968, the Dems won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000. The GOP won in 1968, 1972 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. Frankly, I like our trendline better.
Incidentally, three of the GOP's victories -- '68, '80, and '84 -- came after bitter and divisive Democratic primaries that lingered into the convention.
Jeff, you're making one assumption, and you keep making it, so I'm going to call you on this.
It is this:
A candidate who is not going to win should quit.
That's the root of your whole argument.
And I do. not. get. it.
WHY shouldn't a candidate, even one who's only getting 1% of the vote, quit before the end?
Why?
Because that candidate's presence makes other people uncomfortable?
Because they're afraid that the candidate who wins won't be seen as the "mandate" candidate?
Why?
If a candidate wants to keep on truckin' all the way to the hard, bitter end, bankrupting him or herself, fighting tooth and nail for a handful of voters, I say, let 'em.
You're going to have to come up with a much more convincing answer than "because she's going to lose" to justify asking her to drop out.
You know what would be nice, Jeff? If you could stop arguing electoral math with me and address the numerous things I've said about the fact that you're talking like an ignorant, privileged, sexist asshole. I've been reading this blog for a long time and I don't think you're any of those things. You're a feminist ally, but you are studiously ignoring the fact that you're saying stupid, sexist, and hurtful things.
That's the perspective I'm bringing to this. It's not male privilege
Oh, I'm totally sure your "perspective" has absolutely nothing to do with male privilege. Jeff, you're a guy. You have male privilege. It informs your perspective no matter what you think you're doing to address it, and it's leaking all over this thread. I'm far from the only woman who's called you out on it. Care to address any of that, or would you just prefer to ignore it and keep talking about math? Because, you know, I'm a girl, so math makes my head hurt.
you tell me how the Democratic party mends fences with the African-American community
Yeah, coming up right away, as soon as you tell me how the party mends fences with women. Because if you don't think those fences are going to need mending, you're out of your mind. Unless you'd rather just keep on merrily ignoring what is staring you in the face all over this thread: attitudes like yours, coming from men, are going to damage the party. And they also damage women, as people. Christ.
Jeff.
If she is not going to win, then why waste time and money and valuable resources attacking her and berating her and insisting that she drop out?
Even if that were true - and I disagree with you there, but that's not the point of this comment - then they are still abusing the power of misogyny in the American media. It's much easier, after all, to get MSNBC'S attention if you are pontificating on the "Pathology of HRC Daring to Show Her Face In Public And Shit" than if you are pointing out that Senator McCain is, well, a horrible choice for the presidency. It's sexist, self-serving, and not in the interests of the Democratic party.
A person who supported Bradley calling Hillary out for underhanded campaigning is HILARIOUS to me.
A person who supported Bradley calling Hillary out for underhanded campaigning is HILARIOUS to me.
Hilarious in a bitter, ironic way, but I second.
The math and the notion that Hillary can't win hinges on Florida and Michigan not counting. If that's really the case, I'm willing to bet my crystal ball that the Dems will lose in November.
A person who supported Bradley calling Hillary out for underhanded campaigning is HILARIOUS to me.
For realz. Consistency: ur doing it rong.
Public, and only public, financing for campaigns.
Great idea! When are you putting together the action to get the necessary constitutional amendment passed? In 1976 the Supreme Court equated $$ donations to political campaigns as speech. In light of that, fat chance of only public financing without an amendment to the Constitution.
pocochina,
What's amazing to me is that with MSNBC, CNN and others doing round-the-clock "let's pull Hillary down" marathons alongside their continuously protective coverage of Obama, she's running neck and neck with him in the national polls.
I can't get over that.
If she is not going to win, then why waste time and money and valuable resources attacking her and berating her and insisting that she drop out?
Even if that were true - and I disagree with you there, but that's not the point of this comment - then they are still abusing the power of misogyny in the American media. It's much easier, after all, to get MSNBC'S attention if you are pontificating on the "Pathology of HRC Daring to Show Her Face In Public And Shit" than if you are pointing out that Senator McCain is, well, a horrible choice for the presidency. It's sexist, self-serving, and not in the interests of the Democratic party.
Yep.
A person who supported Bradley calling Hillary out for underhanded campaigning is HILARIOUS to me
Silly! When dudes do it, it is all because of tough muscly fighting spirit!
I request that you take a look at your privilege in light of your many comments about HRC's "right" to continue. I believe that your opinion is stemming from unexamined sexism.
It's a legitimate point, and a fair one. Understand that I'm using "the right to continue" in the sense it's used in primary politics. Barack Obama earned the right to keep going toe-to-toe with Clinton after his win in South Carolina. Mike Huckabee earned the right to go on after winning two of the post-Super Tuesday primaries. This isn't talking about one's rights vis a vis the Constitution, but in terms of the race itself.
I will try to substitute another well-worn phrase: "earned his/her ticket," as in, "Mike Huckabee earned his ticket into the top tier of candidates when he won Iowa." Clinton has earned her ticket into the upper tier of Democratic candidates, and in my opinion, her ticket's good through at least North Carolina.
My feeling about Hillary Clinton continuing are mixed; I do think she's doing short-term damage to Obama, but nothing that won't be rapidly repaired once this is all over. And I certainly think she has the "right" to stay in the race as long as she wants to. But at some point, neither she nor the party benefits from her continued presence in the race. I don't think we're there yet, but I do think we're close. And I think at that point, for the good of herself, the good of her supporters, the good of the issues she champions, and the good of the party, that she'll need to step aside. And that has nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with the political reality that at some point, it's time for partisans to rally around the standard-bearer. I don't see how that isn't Barack Obama. And mind you -- if the delegate counts were reversed, I'd feel exactly the same way toward Obama needing to plan a soft landing. Candidates have the right to run as long as they want to. That doesn't always make it the smart thing to do.
" I do think that majority leader is a nice consolation prize"
All right - who the hell are you pretending to be Jeff Fecke?
the Supreme Court equated $$ donations to political campaigns as speech
oddjob, as I understand it, "public funding" = "federally supplied funding" - that is, the money would come from a pot of federal monies that would be available equally to all candidates.
It's not funding directly by the public, it's funding by taxpayers through the medium of the government.
I just gave Clinton another $50. When I get paid, she gets paid.
And I think at that point, for the good of herself, the good of her supporters, the good of the issues she champions, and the good of the party, that she'll need to step aside.
I can decide for myself what's "good" for me, thank you.
(And that's why you're getting the sexist label here - you're not trusting her, or her supporters - many of whom are women - to know what is good for them, while, mysteriously, you do. I'm sorry. You're not female, and you're not one of her supporters. You don't know what's good for that group, because you do not belong to that group.)
When I get paid, she gets paid.
Kitty Glendower | 03.28.08 - 2:05 pm | #
Heh. When I get mad, she gets paid.
It's not funding directly by the public, it's funding by taxpayers through the medium of the government.
Yes, but if in so doing you are denying a private party the right to speak (ie., denying that party the right to contribute financially directly to the candidate of that party's choice), you are going to run afoul of the Bill of Rights' protection of speech.
To either group, I should say. Hillary supporters and women are overlapping, but not identical sets.
In any case, Jeff, you don't belong to either one - so, please, TRUST those who do to know their own self interest, and stop claiming that you know it better than them/us?
And I think at that point, for the good of herself
Uhm. Hey, guess what? Hillary Clinton is an adult human being, even an unusually smart one, so I'd bet she can probably figure out for herself what the best thing for her is.
God. You just keep digging!
And as someone who wants Hillary Clinton to have a future in American politics, I'd rather see her steer down the Tom Harkin/Gary Hart/John Edwards path than the Jerry Brown/Dennis Kucinich one.
IIRC, Gary Hart retired from the Senate to run for President, got caught up in a sex scandal, and has never held elective office since. Likewise, John Edwards ran as VP with Kerry and lost, then ran for President himself and dropped out, and is currently unemployed. Tom Harkin I will give you.
Somehow, this is not the list I would have made to convince Hillary Clinton to quit.
Heh. When I get mad, she gets paid.
So, so true.
oddjob - Ah. I see what you're saying.
Still, it seems to me that if everyone is subject to the same restriction - no money for candidates - then one can't argue that it's a form of discrimination.
There are certainly other avenues for expressing one's political opinions, so saying that doing so with money, while still allowing all other public forums, shouldn't be a problem.
(But, yeah, this particular Court isn't likely to support that line of argument.)
" I just gave Clinton another $50"
Me too.
I am so fucking pissed off it's not even healthy anymore. Yeah, god fucking forbid the democratic process get in the way of Obama's wunderpresidency!
I have this same fucking argument over and over and over, and no one has still managed to explain to me why the democratic candidates DOMINATING the news for the next five months is going to hurt their chances against McCain, let alone why having two strong candidates arguing their points at the convention means "stealing" the election.
Fuck this shit. And fuck this "lose gracefully" idiocy, and its stinking fucking privilege.
There is no such thing as losing gracefully for Senator Clinton. They won't let her. Not now, and not after the convention, and not in November, and not in a million years. She's been branded the scapegoat, and she'd better resign herself to taking the blame if this all goes south in the general. Because, you know, SHE was the one who pissed off the voters, not the party.
Fucking fuck.
And that's why you're getting the sexist label here - you're not trusting her, or her supporters - many of whom are women - to know what is good for them, while, mysteriously, you do. I'm sorry. You're not female, and you're not one of her supporters. You don't know what's good for that group, because you do not belong to that group.
Fair enough. And maybe what I believe is best for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party is at odds with what is best for women and Clinton's supporters, and Clinton herself. I can't know that. Indeed, I'm not even suggesting she drop out quite yet.
Maybe I'm wrong. Indeed, I've been wrong many times before, and will be wrong many times again. My fear is that Clinton's continued presence in the campaign will, past a certain point, begin to do damage to a drive toward an egalitarian society and the chances for the next major female candidate for the presidency. And I think that would be a bad thing.
I'm holding Clinton to the standard that any major candidate would be held to. She sure as hell has earned that. And if she continues on through June, well, then she continues through June.
But I really do believe that continuing on through the convention, after all hope is extinguished, could be bad for Clinton and for the feminist movement in general. I understand others will disagree. But that is my fear, and I don't think it's an invalid one.
I don't think the party has any idea how alienating it all is. I started out as an ABC voter last year, simply because of the Bush-Clinton-Bush thing, and very excited about Edwards. I wanted to support Obama. But the sheer injustice of the attacks on Clinton made me start defending her, and Obama's own behavior has me totally turned off.
But I really do believe that continuing on through the convention, after all hope is extinguished, could be bad for Clinton and for the feminist movement in general.
I keep seeing this and I don't understand it in the least. Why will continuing be bad for Clinton/the feminist movement? What is it that you think will happen as a result of her continuing?
"But I really do believe that continuing on through the convention, after all hope is extinguished, could be bad for Clinton and for the feminist movement in general."
So, if Obama runs and loses in the GE, will that be bad for those opposed to racism?
Melissa, I understand your point
You know what? You really, really don't.
"Why will continuing be bad for Clinton/the feminist movement? What is it that you think will happen as a result of her continuing?"
Don't you know this song, Nadai?
a verse, let me sing it for you
back of bus bitches
back of the bus
Roe v. Wade!
Play nice or we won't support you
Roe v. Wade!.
Do as we say or you're divisive!
McCain!
Your past accomplishments are accomplishments enough!
McCain!
You're only hurting your cause
Obama unites!
My fear is that Clinton's continued presence in the campaign will, past a certain point, begin to do damage to a drive toward an egalitarian society and the chances for the next major female candidate for the presidency.
And that fear is based on what, precisely, considering you have a slew of intelligent, politically active, feminist women -- some of whom don't even support Hillary, btw -- arguing precisely the opposite, and carefully detailing for you exactly how it is not Hillary, and never will be Hillary, who will do long-term damage if the push-her-out strategy continues?
I understand others will disagree. But that is my fear, and I don't think it's an invalid one.
Fair enough. So far, I'm not seeing what you're seeing, but I don't mind disagreement, so long as it stays within the bounds of "Here's what I think, but I'm only one perspective. You're free to disagree."
mael,
The negative primary campaigning and increased polarization has already been driving down both Obama's and Clinton's chances against McCain in the polls, to the point where roughly three in ten supporters of either Democrat say they'd support John McCain over the other Democrat. In the meantime, John McCain has now run his first general election ad.
So the argument is that for a Democrat to win the White House, to campaign for the general election, and before that to rally the party around a nominee, the party definitely can't wait until August to resolve this, and certainly shouldn't do it with a fight at the convention. Some think it should be settled in June, once all the primary contests are over. Others think it could be settled by early May or even late April, depending on the outcomes of the PA, NC, and IN primaries. And some people think that it should have been settled already.
In any case, I do think that if it gets much worse, even the notoriously cautious superdelegates will start voting with their feet, or perhaps they already have. I'm sure they are and have been paying a lot of attention to everything that's been going on in the race, and especially to the primary results, the polling, and the words and actions of other superdelegates.
But I really do believe that continuing on through the convention, after all hope is extinguished, could be bad for Clinton and for the feminist movement in general.
And it's not like feminists have ever been told that they're hurting their cause because they won't shut up. They're too strident, they're too bitchy, and they're driving the menz away omg! It's their own fault people don't like them. If only they were a little nicer and more accommodating....
And if Clinton has the gall to keep going, it's her fault that people don't like feminists. She's entirely responsible for the movement. Christ.
I've been lurking on this blog for months, and this is the first time I've commented because I'm so disappointed that a feminist ally keeps using language like this, over and over, and doesn't seem to see what's wrong even when called on it.
Thank you, Liss, for making this a place I want to come back to.
a verse, let me sing it for you
Heh. I think it's a lot like those spooky voices in old-style scary movies: "Turn back! Turn baaacccckkkk while you still caaan............."
Obama likes to play poker ... all about the bluff when you hold the weak cards.
Betty Vagynomite Boondoggle | 03.28.08 - 2:30 pm | #
*sob*
I'll have to download that from iTunes.
What Melissa just said.
Re: what Anonymous (please, just make up a name? Any name?) just posted -
The division is already there. If Clinton quits, it doesn't go away. From what I see here, it's going to get worse.
Demanding that she quit is part of the division. The way her activities have been framed is part of the division. The highhandedness of some Democrats toward other Democrats is part of the division.
None of those can be laid at her feet, and if she quits, many will not only not disappear, but will worsen the divide.
Again, I'm not seeing how her continued presence in the race is going to tear the party apart to a greater degree than it will continue to do so if she quits.
Also - if the party cannot handle this level of disagreement (which, honestly, is pretty damn mild, all things considering), it's a piss-poor excuse for a party, and probably lacks the cohesion to survive another election regardless of who's running or not running.
Why will continuing be bad for Clinton/the feminist movement? What is it that you think will happen as a result of her continuing?
I think that at some point, Clinton's continuing in the race will make the feminist movement a target. Right now, the calls are for Clinton to drop out. But if Clinton doesn't get over the top, but keeps going, it will be not just Clinton, but her supporters, who get pilloried.
Is it fair? No, it's not fair, but politics is not fair. It wasn't fair that Edwards had to withdraw after Florida, but he pretty much did: he was out of money and wasn't going anywhere in the polls. If Edwards was still slogging along, taking 10-15% of the vote, what would people be saying of him? Of his supporters? Of his policies?
Clinton has done much better than Edwards, and that's why her ticket is punched much farther than his, good for sometime between May 15 and June 3. But if Clinton's still talking about wooing pledged delegates on Independence Day, she's going to be hurting herself and her cause, because even if you think that she's right to keep going on, the volume and intensity of opposition to her at that point will be off the charts.
That's my fear -- that the upside for Clinton -- the ability to show that a woman can compete effectively for the presidency, the ability to push equal opportunity for women, her superior health care plan, her iron will -- that this will all disappear in a chorus of indignation. I don't think it's fair, but it will come. And it will be devastating to her, to the party, and to her supporters -- whether you believe me or not.
I'm holding Clinton to the standard that any major candidate would be held to.
And that would be where you're wrong, as just about every woman in this thread keeps telling you.
Clinton isn't "any" candidate. She is the first viable feminist female candidate for president in this nation's motherfucking history, and, by virtue of that distinction, defending Patrick Leahy's or anyone else's attempts to push her out or tell her to quit or in any other way back her into a corner where she can't appear to quit on her own terms, and saying it's because you're treating her like "any other candidate," is not only demonstrative of a blindness to the particular circumstances of her candidacy, but a failure to honor what's so goddamned amazing about her candidacy in the first place -- which, yeah, has nothing to do with her name and everything to do with the fact that she's got a cunt.
The math and the notion that Hillary can't win hinges on Florida and Michigan not counting.
Nope, at this point it doesn't. You can make it close, if you undercount caucus states *and* give Hillary her totals in Florida and Michigan *and* don't give "uncommitted" Michigan voters to Obama, but even then he's leading.
Personally, I think any appeal to Clinton should be to run a positive campaign, not to drop out.
But it should still be recognized that that's ultimately her call to make, as she has "the right" to run her campaign however she wants. (I've gotta say I was pleased at her recent rebuke of the folks making "I'd sooner vote for McCain than Obama" ultimatums, though.)
I've been trying to avoid staying out of this fray but finally decided to throw in my two cents' worth into this ongoing discussion. First, I should state that I am someone who, after vascillating a million times, chose to vote for Hillary on Super Tuesday. At that point, I did so because I really wanted to vote for both and, since I live in Illinois, it was clear that Obama would easily win. Or so I rationalized it. I saw her--and still do--as a strong, smart, capable and inspirational candidate. I have, however, come to regret my vote.
Since that time, both candidates (or their advisers/surrogates) have pissed me off for various racist/sexist reasons. However, it's Hillary's scorched-earth approach to this race that has really concerned me the most. The goal posts get changed every week, it seems--not unlike the Bush administration's "policy" in Iraq. Perhaps there will be a Democratic party that, by the time August rolls around, is indeed strengthened rather than weakened by all of this, but it seems to me that the person who she is doing the most disservice to is herself. I see nothing of the feminist candidate of whom I was once so proud. She has every right to stay in the race until the bitter end, as did Huckabee, but what I see as her team's frequent and desperate attempts to change the rules, intimidate Nancy Pelosi, imply that she can woo away pledged delegates and the like really depresses the hell out of me. If it were Obama or any white male candidate I respected in this position, I'd feel the same way.
So, what am I trying to say here? Perhaps it's not just about sexism. I guess I agree with Jeff on the main points of his post.
I will tell you why they keep telling Clinton to quit. It's because Obama can not go into the convention after a string of consecutive defeats and look like a winner to the super-delegates. he can't point to his last major victories being 5 months old and say he is the favorite to win in November. There is no momentum then.
That is the reason.
And it's not like feminists have ever been told that they're hurting their cause because they won't shut up. They're too strident, they're too bitchy, and they're driving the menz away omg! It's their own fault people don't like them. If only they were a little nicer and more accommodating....
I can't help but remember that in the wake of Geraldine Ferraro getting so roundly trashed by the media back in '84, Molly Yard of NOW suggested that a feminist women's party be built. And of course, all people did was tell her to sit down and shut up, that we'd have nothing but decades of Republican rule if that happened.
Well, guess what? Other than the (Bill) Clinton interlude, if that counts as an actual exception, that's about what we got. If we'd only listened to Molly Yard back in 1984 and built a feminist women's party featuring prominent feminist leaders from the ground up, we'd have had something by now. Women are never going to get anywhere in the Democratic party unless they are waving pompons and baking cupcakes and smiling smiling smiling and smoothing the way for the menz. They'll tolerate us if they need us to pad their numbers, but take us seriously? Never ever.
I was all ready to vote for Obama when Clinton made her "all he has is a speech from 2002" comments. Now all the "Tonya Harding" garbage, the "she's destroying the party by not dropping out" meme (Jeff, NOBODY and especially NOT party officials ever said that about Gary Hart in 1984 -- trust me, I was working on his campaign then), the "why can't she just be a good girl and accept that she's meant to be subordinate," stuff, makes me want to vote for her just out of spite. Keep it up, Obamabots -- if you're trying to piss me off and drive me away from your candidate, you couldn't possibly be doing a better job.
back of bus bitches
back of the bus
Gotta say I find that verse a bit pitchy, racially. (That's the most appropriate metaphor? Really?)
I think that at some point, Clinton's continuing in the race will make the feminist movement a target.
Jeff, normally I agree with you, but here you're coming across as concern trolling.
votermom | 03.28.08 - 2:43 pm | #
That presupposes that Clinton will win the last ten primaries, which, not for nothing, she won't. Best-case scenario for her would have her go 7-for-10, but Obama will win the second-largest prize (North Carolina), which counts as a major win, and one that will come after Clinton's win in Pennsylvania.
Jeff I agree completely with your 2:02 summary. But that's as far as I'll go with you.
I'm not even looking at any of this beyond the politics of the moment (meaning winning THIS 2008 race).
I think it's foolish to assume a greater, long-term damage to the Party or particularly feminist progress from this.
We have no idea what candidates will emerge in the future to pick up wherever Hillary leaves off.
Jeff, normally I agree with you, but here you're coming across as concern trolling
Not trying to. And believe me, I'd like nothing more than to be proven wrong about all of this.
At any rate, I believe one can call for Hillary Clinton to withdraw without being a sexist. But I also believe it's premature to do so. If lightning strikes, and she pulls off an upset in North Carolina...well, it probably won't happen. But there's nothing wrong with tabling this argument until then. If Clinton didn't pull out after the early March primaries, there's no reason she should before Pennsylvania, for goodness' sake.
My fear is that Clinton's continued presence in the campaign will, past a certain point, begin to do damage to a drive toward an egalitarian society and the chances for the next major female candidate for the presidency
Jeff, you still don't seem to get, despite so many of us tearing our hair out here, that these calls for Clinton to drop out are not exactly indicative of the party wanting "a more egalitarian society." The party doesn't seem to care that what's happening right now--as opposed to what might happen in the future--is hurting women, and it is NOT Hillary who's doing it to herself. It's hurting all women because it's so undeniably suffused with sexism, and it's especially hurting those of us who support Clinton, because every one of us is feeling both the condescending pat on the head and the swift kick in the ass she's getting right now.
To hold Clinton responsible for dividing the party--let alone damaging the chances of future female politicians, despite the UNBELIEVABLE amount of ground she's already broken--is rank victim-blaming, and it is beneath you, Jeff.
Jeff, I'm trying to follow you here and not just flip out because you've now crossed the line and are basically saying bitches don't know their place. But I have to ask what the hell are you really trying to threaten the feminist movement with? it "will be made a target"? by whom? Obama? The democratic party? The left wing blogs? And a target for what, for God sakes? What exactly will be our punishment take away our right to vote? Do you have any idea how fucking bad Obama will lose if he pisses off the majority of women? He AND his supporters have no bargaining chips here let alone the ability to attack the women's movement. He simply can't win without women. It seems to me if anybody should be watching their tone right now it's those incessant Obama supporters shitting all over the first viable female candidate and simultaneously condescending to and not so subtley threatening the women's movement.
And okay, like ten people said the same thing I did while I was typing that, but still.
"I don't think it's fair, but it will come. And it will be devastating to her, to the party, and to her supporters -- whether you believe me or not."
If you don't think it's fair, and you really are a feminist ally, why aren't you strenuously voicing your opposition to it, rather than simply accepting this as inevitable?
Oh -- and as an over 50 feminist, I've heard all this shit before -- we'll ruin the party, the backlash will damage women -- honest to god, Jeff, I think you've been body-snatched.
If you don't think it's fair, and you really are a feminist ally, why aren't you strenuously voicing your opposition to it, rather than simply accepting this as inevitable?
*ding*
At any rate, I believe one can call for Hillary Clinton to withdraw without being a sexist. But I also believe it's premature to do so.
Not for nothing, but if you believe it's premature to do so, then why does this comment thread even exist?
Because, unless I've lost my mind, the post was not only defending Patrick Leahy saying Hillary "ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator [Barack] Obama," but pointing to it as an example of being a gentlemanly way of shooing Hillary to the sidelines now.
As opposed to, ya know, a post saying, "Hey, Leahy, STFU," which is the sort of post that would actually jive with a belief that it's premature to call for Clinton to withdraw.
(And why is there any need for Leahy to do that publicly, anyway? Does he not have Clinton's number? Or do you think it's because it's not enough to pressure her personally to quit; she has to be publicly flogged into it?)
Rana,
Thanks, I'll think about making up a name, then.
I think you're right that if it is widely seen by at least a lot of her supporters that Hillary Clinton was unfairly forced out of the race too soon and that she could have won, and thus they are permanently soured on an Obama candidacy and instead end up staying home or voting for McCain as a result, that could be worse.
I think that for that to happen, Hillary herself and the Clinton campaign would have to not go gently into that good night. I am making the assumption that if she did bow out earlier, then it would be for the reasons I suggested, and thus, she'd throw her support to Obama and help him against McCain. Her recent comments give me some hope that she might do this. If, on the other hand, she left the race but didn't endorse Obama, or continued to attack him or embrace McCain, then I could certainly see it playing out the way you do. And there are probably a few other intermediate scenarios as well.
I do think that some of those things you mention can be laid at her feet, or at the feet of her campaign, which I hold her responsible for to the extent that she condones their actions. And honestly, I do think that some of her campaign staff, some of the advice that she has taken, has had a lot to do with the direction the campaigns have gone. And the media, of course, hasn't helped, with their biases towards shallow sensationalism and conflict.
As for the party being potentially incapable of handling this relatively mild level of disagreement... yeah, that can be a problem too, but not a new one. The Democratic party: herding cats since 1824--or was it 1792?
My admittedly male-privileged opinion is that Hillary lost this race by failing to plan beyond February 5, and underestimating her opponent.
She approached this race with the same old swing-state strategy and I actually place that failure on the shoulders of her incompetent fucking staff like Penn and Solis Doyle.
My opposition to Hillary has NEVER been about the fact that she is a woman, or about her personally as much as it's been about the people surrounding her.
Never seeing the faces of 90s retreads like Carville, McAulliffe, Penn, and the rest would be the best thing that could happen to the party.
The thought of all the recycling that would go on in Washington with a renewed Clinton Administration makes me want to wretch.
PArt of me wishes to God "the first viable feminist female candidate for president in this nation's motherfucking history" was anybody but Hillary Clinton.
She is too shackled with baggage to win, in my opinion, and too tied to the past to make the changes I want.
Not because she's a woman, or because she's Hillary Rodham Clinton, but because she is a DLC-molded triangulator.
Is it possible for me to have formulated those objections in a vacuum regarding her gender? I like to think so.
The Democratic party: herding cats since 1824--or was it 1792?
*laughs*
(Though - donning persnicketty historian's hat - the DP as we know it didn't really exist until the middle of the 20th century. Before then, the "radical Republicans" were the ones for equal opportunity, women's votes, etc.)
if anybody should be watching their tone right now it's those incessant Obama supporters shitting all over the first viable female candidate and simultaneously condescending to and not so subtley threatening the women's movement.
Exactly.
Can I also just point out that the only people calling for Hills to drop out right now are Obama surrogates and supporters? And certain elements of our famously corrupt Fourth Estate, who have had their knives sharpened for her since 1992?
And Clinton staying in the race is going to damage feminism?
Holy fucking shit. I can't remember the last time I've been so disappointed with a so-called feminist.
She is too shackled with baggage to win, in my opinion, and too tied to the past to make the changes I want.
What kind of baggage? That her husband cheated on her? Because that's what people mean when they say "baggage," but perhaps you're thinking of something else, and I'd rather not go apeshit until I know what you actually meant.
(And why is there any need for Leahy to do that publicly, anyway? Does he not have Clinton's number? Or do you think it's because it's not enough to pressure her personally to quit; she has to be publicly flogged into it?)
He's doing it because he's an Obama supporter, and he loves the sound of his own voice. Honestly, as an Obama supporter, I'm not sure it's helpful.
As for my post, I wasn't agreeing with Leahy, only saying that if you're going to call for Hillary to withdraw, you can do so without attacking her gender. I continue to believe that, and continue to believe that while Leahy may have been wrong to call for her withdrawal at this time, that his call was much better-phrased than Kristof's.
Mr. Furious (not Todd) - I think so - because I share many of those opinions.
Unfortunately, I don't think they really are relevant to this particular instance, because the big voices calling for her to quit are, by and large, members of the DNC and other old-school Democrats. So this isn't really about the Democrats being divided between old and new, but about the old not liking that their representative isn't playing ball the way they want.
They're jumping on the Obama train because they're afraid of being irrelevant in the future, not because they disagree with Clinton's approach or policies. That she's female, and a Clinton, are what allow them to get away with this without looking like johnny-come-latelies trying to look all hip and cool wit' teh kidz.
But I have to ask what the hell are you really trying to threaten the feminist movement with? it "will be made a target"? by whom? Obama? The democratic party? The left wing blogs? And a target for what, for God sakes? What exactly will be our punishment take away our right to vote?
This. What exactly will be our punishment, and who exactly will be doling it out? And will it possibly be any worse than the sexist vitriol that's already out there in the left-wing blogosphere?
(Oh, wait. Our punishment will be to have Roe overturned if we don't fall in line. Better be careful, ladies, or our rights will be taken away!)
I'm honestly bewildered here, Jeff, because it's reminding me of the Scott thread from yesterday and I thought you were better than that. I'm seeing an awful lot of fingers-in-the-ears "Lalala it's not privilege!" instead of really listening to what people are saying to you.
Yeah, if we don't sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, bad things are going to happen! But it's not a threat, ladies, it's a warning!
How the hell can you argue that the only way to stop this hypothetical backlash against feminism is to give up? How is that a viable solution to the problem? Why not stand up, be louder, and decry the sexist media and their sexist frames?
Oh, sorry. I know why. Because that gives women agency, rather than removing it from them for their own fucking good. Cheers. And I thought you were a feminist, Jeff.
Sincere question here...
Jeff's acknowledgment that others—not him—will assign damage to the party and feminist movement directly at Hillary's feet is really drawing a lot of fire and animosity.
I think he has pointed out that it will be unfair, and undeserved, but it is his estimation that it is inevitable.
He may or may not be right, but I don;t think it makes him an asshole or diminishes his credibilty.
Wow, I wonder what it would be like if the feminist movement were a political target? I'm racking my brain to imagine what that would be like.
And Gayle, What's amazing to me is that with MSNBC, CNN and others doing round-the-clock "let's pull Hillary down" marathons alongside their continuously protective coverage of Obama, she's running neck and neck with him in the national polls. obviously means she should quit right now. For the good of, uh, THE MEDIA NARRATIVE.
As for my post, I wasn't agreeing with Leahy, only saying that if you're going to call for Hillary to withdraw, you can do so without attacking her gender.
Unfortunately, Jeff, Leahy isn't actually doing that - as many of us have pointed out. He's doing it a more subtle way, and, well, it's worked. You've spent much of this thread echoing the arguments anti-feminists use against Clinton, while thinking that it's about strategy and tactics and win-ability and party integrity.
It's not, not really.
Salieri | 03.28.08 - 3:05 pm | #
I'm not making threats. I myself think it would be insane to blame feminism for diddly jack squat about anything related to this election. I'm afraid, though, that an attack on feminism could be an outcome of all of this. Am I supposed to not say what I'm worried about? I can just shut up and say I think it's totally hunky dory for Hillary to keep running come what may.
"He may or may not be right, but I don;t think it makes him an asshole or diminishes his credibilty."
I understand that Jeff may have this fear or concern. Fine. For me, any diminishment of his credibility as a feminist comes from his language choices and tone in this comment thread.
He may or may not be right, but I don;t think it makes him an asshole or diminishes his credibilty.
Well. Remember in 2004, when bunches of liberals blamed gay people for Kerry losing because some of us think it would be pretty great if we could get married? Remember that? And instead of saying "Actually, it's not gay people's fault they want to get married; it's homophobes' fault for being bigoted assholes," our big, awesome liberal defenders blamed us. Because it was our fault for wanting civil rights.
That's called victim-blaming, and yeah, it does make you an asshole. An ally's time would be better spent denouncing such tactics, not engaging in them.
Mr Furious (not Todd) | Homepage | 03.28.08 - 3:06 pm |
Exactly. Nowhere have I said, and nowhere will I ever say, that I believe those attacks will be justified. But unjust attacks are still attacks, and I'm honestly concerned about them.
No, Mr Furious, because it's based on a false premise.
Jeff's acknowledgment that others—not him—will assign damage to the party and feminist movement directly at Hillary's feet is really drawing a lot of fire and animosity.
Any "damage to the party" - damage done by Democratic officials refusing to see through the process they've set up, and failing to do their jobs and attack McCain, because it's just easier to go on TV and say how much we all hate HRC - will be laid at her feet regardless, because of a sexist narrative, and if we accept it and don't call it out, it's just going to keep happening.
We are going to get it anyway. Even if the Democrats do win in November, it'll be HEY LADIEZ WE DON'T NEED YOU and the same bullshit treatment of feminist issues.
If that happens, it'll be laid at HRC's feet because she is a scapegoat, and she will be a scapegoat because she is a woman and it is incumbent upon us to point that out, rather than furrowing our brows and wondering WHY SHE IS BRINGING IT ON HERSELF.
I think Howard DEan has actually done a much better job handling this whole imbroglio, by never publicly stating a preference one way or the other.
Leahy and others should really take notes there. Calling for unifying the party behind ONE candidate, and SOON without naming any names would be far preferable.
Dean is in all likelihood doing whatever he can to consolidate the party but he is NOT calling anyone out.
Is it possible for me to have formulated those objections in a vacuum regarding her gender? I like to think so.
Of course. Aside from wishing that it was someone other than Hillary going first, I agree with pretty much everything you said.
I didn't work for John Edwards because I thought Hillary Clinton was the perfect candidate, you know what I mean, lol?
The thing is, just as you don't have to be a sexist to dislike her as a candidate, I don't have to be a blind supporter to vociferously defend her right to be treated fairly.
I'm quite certain there are people who would be well surprised by my feelings about Clinton's politics. But then again, I defend Ann Coulter as a feminist, too. I don't believe that only women I like deserve the full-tilt treatment of my feminazi cootery.
What I find so terribly ironic about all of this is that, considering the total turnout in every Democratic primary or caucus thus far, both Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would have soundly defeated every Democratic primary candidate that has been fielded in the history of the nation. Their respective vote counts are both lightyears ahead of anything that has ever come before.
They are both running insanely historic candidacies in a nation that is so terribly thirsty for something new, and it's reflected in the turnouts for both candidates. But because they are both so historic, they are splitting that incredible momentum fairly evenly between them (Yes, I realize that Senator Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates, but it's still pretty narrow when the whole pie is taken into account).
The irony comes in when you realize that this unprecedented enthusiasm for the two of them, split roughly evenly, creates the perception the the Democratic Party is divided and weak. Divided? Well, yes, for the time being. But it's far from weak. It is the strongest it's been in a generation. Once the dust settles, we're still coming into this race with more money, more vision, and a greater mandate for a new direction than the GOP can hope to match.
Support for Barack Obama is not de facto sexist, just as support for Hillary Clinton is not de facto racist. Race and gender issues have been so poorly addressed in this country for so long that a lot of the framing of their contest takes on these shapes, sometimes even intentionally, but we're all moving forward, people, not backwards.
I had it explained to me by another blogger, a woman who supports Obama, that a lot of the sexist language being slung at Clinton from the lefty blogosphere comes from personal dislike of her, not actual sexism, as if that makes it okay. My response: My reservations about Obama have nothing to do with his race. However, were I to express those concerns using racist "shorthand", I would deservedly be accused of racism.
There is a huge blind spot on the left re: sexism, even from people who call themselves feminists.
Support for Barack Obama is not de facto sexist, just as support for Hillary Clinton is not de facto racist.
Of course it isn't. But some of it is.
Exactly. Nowhere have I said, and nowhere will I ever say, that I believe those attacks will be justified. But unjust attacks are still attacks, and I'm honestly concerned about them.
Maybe, although to be honest I really can't tell that from the tone of your post or comments. But by saying that she's bringing it on herself by daring to run for office, you're still granting the general premise that it's something she's doing that's creating this narrative, and not the underlying misogyny of the primary and the media.
I'm afraid, though, that an attack on feminism could be an outcome of all of this. Am I supposed to not say what I'm worried about? I can just shut up and say I think it's totally hunky dory for Hillary to keep running come what may.
Worrying about it is fine. I myself am heartsick at the thought that, if Obama ends up with the nomination, anything and everything that goes wrong in the general election will be laid at Clinton's (and her supporters') feet, because I know that's the way things work and I hate it so much I can barely speak.
But you were framing this as, "...and that's why she should step aside." And that's what I'm calling you on. Sure, feminism will probably be attacked. It always is. But you hit on one of the oldest anti-feminist tricks in the book: that we should step back and not raise a fuss because something much worse might happen to us. I find that offensive. And as Kate mentioned earlier, it reeks of victim-blaming.
Well, Jeff, if you're concerned about them, then stop engaging in the sexist media narrative.
If you truly believe Clinton's candidacy will draw fire against feminism, then better buckle up and be ready for that backlash so you can fight it then.
You do realize, right, that we can't win for losing? It is NOT Senator Clinton's fault, nor her responsibility, if the sexists worry themselves into a tizzy and cry and lunge at our rights with the intent of stripping them. It is not our fault, nor our responsibility, to make the sexist comfortable or to pander to them in order to keep them happy.
Your privilege is showing. If you were arguing about Obama being somehow responsible if the racist right wing decided to attack minorities, wouldn't you agree that it would be blaming the fucking victim?
But it's different with women, isn't it? It's different when it's Hillary Fucking Clinton. It's all her damn fault.
Mr Furious,
I think you're right about Feb. 5; not sure if you've quite allocated the blame correctly amongst her campaign staff; it's a nitpick, but here goes.
Old swing-state strategy: blame goes to Terry McAuliffe. He's also the one who said early on that the primary calendar was set up so that Hillary would win, and he got proved wrong.
Solis Doyle: responsible for spending too much money too soon, and not being responsive enough to the campaign's supporters, i.e., not raising as much as she could have, either.
Mark Penn: responsible for the confrontational and unemotional framing in the campaign, to project strength. Remember, this is the guy Dick Morris hired on back in the '96 campaign.
Hillary Clinton: responsible for putting them all where they are in her campaign, and letting them do what they've done.
James Carville: responsible for being an idiot in public, but what else is new.
I do think that from the beginning, this nomination fight was Hillary's to lose. She came into it with huge advantages, and she was not well-served by her campaign staff. If her staff had been half as competent as Obama's, and his staff half as incompetent as hers, then I think she would have wrapped this up by now, and the Democratic party would already have been united around Hillary Clinton. Now, that's unlikely to ever be the case.
But unjust attacks are still attacks, and I'm honestly concerned about them.
That's okay. I do appreciate that - truly. And I don't want you to think that I'm seeing you as some bad mean MRA-type dude ('cause I'm not).
The thing is, the attacks will happen no matter what Clinton does. The attacks have already happened, moreover, and have already caused damage of all kinds.
If she quits, they will not go away. The bad feelings will not go away.
They may, in fact, get worse.
So, there are negative effects whether she stays in, or whether she quits.
BUT.
The arguments in favor of her staying in have tended to come from feminists, from women, from her supporters, from people who are used to dealing with all sorts of crap being thrown at them for being uppity women.
The arguments in favor of her quitting have tended to come from men who have noticeably bad track records with regards to sexism, from men who are outspoken supporters of her political rival, from men in power who would be threatened if she got to the convention.
So the question then becomes - whose agenda do you find more sympathetic? Whose line of argument carries more baggage?
You've been siding, apparently, with the group of people who are sexists, self-interested, and/or concern trolling. That doesn't make you any of the above, necessarily, but can you now see why it might make some of us here start to raise our eyebrows with scepticism and suspicion?
People attack feminism all the time. How will anything Senator Clinton does make any difference? Remember ERA? Any time women step out of line, feminism is attacked. Also, any time women don't step out of line.
Remember in 2004, when bunches of liberals blamed gay people for Kerry losing because some of us think it would be pretty great if we could get married? Remember that?
A bunch of ignorant assholes blamed gay people, or a bunch of liberals?
I live in MI where we passed a draconian measure that discriminated against gay rights way beyond marriage. It was already against the law to marry in MI, but Prop. 2 ensured all kinds of additional bullshit regarding benefits, etc.
I was more upset the next day to face my gay coworker that this could happen in this country than I was disappointed that motherfucker Bush got reelected.
I never blamed her, nor did I ever hear the clarion call you allude to. I definitely heard people lament the GOP drumming up votes on it, but I don't remember anyone on our side victim-blaming.
So yeah, I remember 2004 well. I also remember DOMA.
Any time women step out of line, feminism is attacked. Also, any time women don't step out of line.
So true. And so depressing.
A bunch of ignorant assholes blamed gay people, or a bunch of liberals?
Well, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, you know.
I'm not sure what DOMA has to do with anything I said - pointing out an instance of victim-blaming among the Democratic party, as we're seeing right here in this very threat - but wev.
...and that would be "thread," not "threat." I think.
DOMA is relevant because it was 90s triangulation that worked toward the same goal.
I'm not gonna blame it on Hillary, but I won't absolve her either.
both Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would have soundly defeated every Democratic primary candidate that has been fielded in the history of the nation.
Exactly.
I think it should be pointed out at every opportunity that, going by vote totals, McCain's running in a distant third place. And he'd probably be in fourth if Edwards' campaign was still active.
DOMA is relevant because it was 90s triangulation that worked toward the same goal.
I'm not gonna blame it on Hillary, but I won't absolve her either.
Mr Furious, that "90s triangulation" is what kept a marriage amendment out of the U.S. Constitution - an amendment that likely would have passed in that climate. And this is not a thread about gay rights, so I'll say no more about it. I only used the example to illustrate what's going on - though there are plenty of examples to be found in feminism, and indeed all over the news. So.
Of course it isn't. But some of it is.
CE | 03.28.08 - 3:15 pm | #
Oh, no doubt about that. But I've too often seen supporters on both sides of the debate crying racism or sexism in response to any criticism of their respective candidate. I'm not necessarily tarring any of my fellow Shakers with that brush, but I do think that all of our respective sensitivities are dialed up to 11 right now.
Unfortunately, that often has the side-effect of causing those of us with mounds of acknowledged privilege (I am, like Jeff, white, cismale, and mostly het) to start overparsing every single thing we say whenever we wish to comment on anything that touches on those sensitivities, and once we take that into places where we're talking about how the mythical Other people might react to this or that, our plumage becomes indistinguishable from the markings of the Concern Troll. The funny thing about overparsing something to avoid overt offense is that it's been used to dog-whistle racist or sexist sentiments too often in the past. So even when it's being used "in good faith," it presses a lot of buttons in those who've encountered it too often in our enemies.
I am totally fucking appalled (but too jaded to be surprised) that so many people who call themselves feminists/allies don't see the sexism dripping off of the calls for Clinton to drop out, and in conversations about the topic generally. This sexist bullshit is doing more to "hurt the party" than anything Clinton could dream of.
"I'm not gonna blame it on Hillary, but I won't absolve her either."
Huh?
And what CE said.
Anonymous @ 3:17...
That blame pie gets passed out in interchangable slices as far as I'm concerned.
As I said, heading into the campaign, enpowering that fucking team of losers and hangers-on was what I dreaded about Hillary most of all.
If she won, all of that swing-state, 90s triangulation bullshit would be wrongly vindicated, and the grassroots 50-state, internet-driven model would be tossed aside for another cycle.
If she lost, well, I was ready to pin it on what I knew would be a fatally flawed campaign.
Both of those outcomes rise from my one major objection, and is not related to her gender.
--
The damage to her specifically in my eyes is that she failed to adjust. There was a critical window where I think she could have salvaged her campaign and it was missed. She stuck with her team, and followed them to, what, twelve straight losses?
I shook my confidence in her as a manager, an executive, and yes, a potential President.
Only then did I personally object to "Hillary Clinton" as the nominee.
But I would always support the party in November.
My fear is that Clinton's continued presence in the campaign will, past a certain point, begin to do damage to a drive toward an egalitarian society and the chances for the next major female candidate for the presidency.
But I really do believe that continuing on through the convention, after all hope is extinguished, could be bad for Clinton and for the feminist movement in general.
Jeff Fecke | Homepage | 03.28.08 - 2:19 pm | #
Coincidentally, I just started reading Backlash this morning... 
Jeff, I've been reading all your campaign-related posts and comments the past week or so, and I'm just confused. I understand what you're saying about how Clinton's continuing could hurt the party (I disagree, but I understand the points you're making). I don't understand how her campaign could hurt feminism and the drive toward an egalitarian society, though--are you saying that if Obama loses, she would be blamed and that blame would be imputed to all feminists? Not trying to stick words in your mouth, just trying to figure out how you get to the "hurts feminism , feminists, and equality" point.
"I'm not gonna blame it on Hillary, but I won't absolve her either."
Huh?
Just like NAFTA. HRC cannot pick and choose accomplishments from the Clinton era. I think DOMA was a cop-out.
And, yes, it is an off-topic response to the reference about 2004 and anti-gay measures. So I'll leave it there.
DOMA was passed to head off the recognition of civil unions or same-sex marriages in other states if they became legal in any state, i.e., concerns over Hawaii at the time.
I don't think the party has any idea how alienating it all is. I started out as an ABC voter last year, simply because of the Bush-Clinton-Bush thing, and very excited about Edwards. I wanted to support Obama. But the sheer injustice of the attacks on Clinton made me start defending her, and Obama's own behavior has me totally turned off.
I heartily second this one, votermom. The hysteria of the anti-Hillary movement is telling and makes me wonder why they are so threatened by her. The worse it gets, the more I support her efforts and the more I get turned off by pretty much everything the party has done to damage her chances right from the get-go. The funny thing is, I foolishly believed that the party was going to be solidly behind her and that would make Edwards' chances more difficult. As a male, I radically underestimated my own gender's fear of a strong woman. I'm betting you wouldn't have made that same mistake.
The more people give HRC shit the more I like her and want her to stay in the race. I sent her another hundred bucks.....maybe those in the states that have not voted would like a chance to voice their views.
I do think that all of our respective sensitivities are dialed up to 11 right now.
Once again, I just want to note that many of the women in this thread either aren't Hillary supporters or are Hillary supporters who will vote for Obama if he's the nominee; I haven't endorsed Hillary or Obama. I'm exactly as impassioned about this issue as I am about any other feminist issue -- and I trust, since you identify as a Shaker, that you don't presume I am "too sensitive" to be rational about feminist issues.
If that's correct, I would appreciate, as I'm sure would the other feminist women in this thread, the presumption of operating in good faith. Perhaps the reason that people seem exercised is not because we are "dialed up to 11" about the election, but because something has happened in this thread that has warranted our legitimate frustration, bewilderment, and disappointment.
What Liss said.
And this: crying racism or sexism in response to any criticism of their respective candidate
crying racism and sexism?
*headdesk*
This primary season has, more than anything else, demonstrated the visceral contempt a lot of people feel for women, especially older women.
How does that not hurt the party? How is feminism not already a target?
I supported Edwards. He dropped out a few days before I could vote for him. I hated not having that choice and see no reason why Clinton supporters should lose theirs now.
You know, I have to say, as an Obama supporter, I really don't get the calls for Clinton to get out of the race.
Has she said somethings that sometimes make me wish she would? Sure. But the same could be said about Obama and his surrogates. No one's hands are clean in that regard.
But in terms of the overall question -- should she stay in even though her chances of winning are slim to none -- I say let her stay and make her case, the way the process intended. Forcing her out now only makes Obama look illegitimate as a nominee, and as a supporter of his, I do NOT want that. I have full confidence that he will maintain and widen his lead in the delegate count and in the popular vote in the races to come. I'd much rather have this race play out and prove me right than have people who support my candidate try to force Clinton out of the race early and make it look like we want her out of the way because we're afraid Obama can't win otherwise.
I don't have that fear, and I'm getting really tired of other Obama supporters acting in such a way that it makes us all look bad. (That's not directed specifically at you, Jeff... though I think Liss's criticisms and those of others made in this thread are applicable).
I apologize if what I've said has caused offense. I've tried to explain my thought process, and evidently it's a horrible one. I've tried to express my hope that despite defeat, Hillary Clinton can move on and stay a vital force, and I've been told that I clearly don't want women to succeed. I've tried to express my concerns that this back-and-forth could end up hurting us as a movement, and for that I've been told I'm threatening women.
I had thought I'd demonstrated by now that I was not frightened by the idea of women in politics, that I do not want to see women relegated to second-class status, and that Hillary Clinton is a superlative candidate. Evidently, none of that is sufficient to overcome my belief that yes, there may come a time when it's best for Hillary Clinton to withdraw.
I frankly don't know what to say anymore. It's been a lousy week already. Thanks, everyone, for making me feel even worse.
I hate to disagree with y'all - but I gotta say Jeff's right on this one. Politics ain't beanbag, as they say in Chicago.
How does Hillary overstaying in the race hurt the party? Because at least 2 things in this campaign are finite: the number of people who will take office as President in 2009, and the amount of time we have before the election. With regard to time, every minute that the democratic primary goes on is a free ride for McCain. Every day that goes by is one less day for the nominee to set out how clear the differences are between the Dems and McCain. Time is precious. (Leaving aside the truly frustrating, ugly campaign tactics that have come out of the CLinton campaign of late - Obama's campaign has not been free of those either).
Moreover - Being Majority Leader is not an f'ing consolation prize. It's a frickin' honor that has to be earned. In the same way that the Presidency has to be earned. And only one person gets it. And right now - Clinton is significantly (not substantially, but significantly) behind in earning the democratic nomination.
It seems to me that Jeff is dicussing Clinton in the same terms he would use for any other candidate - which is what is pissing many other commenters off, because of course, the first woman is NOT any other candidate. (Though the same applies to race). But to me - it's not the only angle to look at it from. It's also the case that the presidency is NOT any other job. And this election is NOT any other election. And frankly, the thought that Clinton shouldn't be treated like any other candidate (who all receive calls to step down, and all deal with them in their own fashion) just so that she can save face - or step down with dignity or whatever is a. kinda sexist and b. terrifying given the stakes at stake in this election.
Clinton's tough - that's something I admire in her. She can take it *and* do it with grace and dignity.
Full disclosure: I voted for Obama - though I quit actively campaigning for him after the McCurkin mess. Clinton's too much of a hawk for me. But I would definitely vote for her int he general & cry over it, if she were winning. Which she's not.
Jeff:
You have your hands pretty full here.
When you get a calm moment, perhaps you could define "egalitarian society"
as you see it. The term is too vague to understand what it means from an implementation point of view. No hurry, thank you.
What kind of baggage? That her husband cheated on her?
Sorry, I missed this query earlier. No, not THAT.
She just started out with negatives too high, and is too polarizing. I saw her as the only factor that would GOTV and mobilize a demoralized Republican base.
And I am also counting the DLC, McAulliffe, and the rest as baggage as well.
--
In addition, I have a big fucking problem with handing off the Presidency between two families for thirty years.
Leaving "work" now. Have to go home, where I'll actually be to busy to check in for a while!
Have a good weekend everyone.
Hang in there Jeff! (hug)
Jeff,
Just to clarify something that I should have mentioned in my previous comment: I never claimed that you, personally, were threatening women. You weren't. But you had stated that Hillary's continuing in the race could bring about an anti-feminist backlash, and I just wanted you to clarify where, exactly, that supposed attack would be coming from.
(And I'm sorry you're having a bad week, truly. But I don't think it's cool to ask us to take responsibility for making you "feel even worse" by standing up for ourselves again what we see as sexist language and attitudes. I know it got a little heated in here, but the hyperbole isn't necessary. No one is saying you're a monster.)
When is Obama going to drop out? All this in-fighting is only hurting the party.
And I'm sorry you're having a bad week, truly. But I don't think it's cool to ask us to take responsibility for making you "feel even worse" by standing up for ourselves again what we see as sexist language and attitudes.
Yeah, you know, not to pile on, but "Asking me to examine my privilege makes me feel bad, so I'll just shut my mouth and you should all feel guilty about it" is a pretty classic silencing tactic.
And I say that as someone who felt really uncomfortable and defensive just last week when asked to examine my white privilege with regard to my other corner of the blogosphere. I can completely understand your reaction, Jeff -- it sucks when you feel like you are trying so hard, and someone tells you it's not hard enough. It's natural to feel like you're not being given the benefit of the doubt you've earned, that just maybe the person pointing out your privilege really IS hypersensitive, even if you don't think women/POC/whatev are as a rule, etc. When you've read up on the concept of privilege and you make a habit of trying to examine your own, it feels like a slap in the face if someone says you blew it. What more can I do? I'm trying over here!
But it's precisely because we DO understand the concept of privilege and we DO care about being allies that we need to recognize those responses as fucking textbook kneejerk defenses of privilege, even when they're coming from us. We're not above it. No one is. One person of color tells me I'm not being inclusive enough, she could be right or could be genuinely oversensitive. But if a whole slew of POCs whom I already knew to be fair, thoughtful, and fans of my work start telling me I'm using racist language, however unintentionally, and that my attitude reeks of unexamined privilege, I've damn well got something to think about. No matter how frustrating that is and how defensive I feel.
Sure, we COULD have gone a little easier on you, and maybe it would even have made the conversation more productive, in terms of persuading you faster that your language has been really problematic here. But we're angry about the whole situation, with good reason, and you are seriously talking like a freakin' Bingo card today. Which is doubly frustrating because you've been such a strong feminist ally. So we're not in much of a mood to sugarcoat it.
And at the end of the day, I still have faith that you can take it, and you're going to reflect on this thread and realize what happened here. You're too smart and too thoughtful not to.
and fans of my work
Jeff: This is a really important point of Kate's comment -- because a lot of what I saw in this thread was not anger so much as disappointment. This is the flipside of all those times that feminist Shaker women were heaping praise on you and wanting to have ten thousand of your babies.
And it goes back to what I said the other day about how identifying oneself as an active ally means greater responsibility and meeting more rigorous expectations: "I've been an active LGBTQ ally since serving as an officer in my university's LGBTQ group; I've done everything from march in the Pride parade to make LGBTQ rights a prominent theme of my blog. That doesn't make me immune from criticism. If anything, calling myself an ally signifies that I should get greater scrutiny than someone who sort of generally supports gay rights but doesn't consider themselves an activist or advocate."
When you identify yourself as a feminist ally, you are effectively signifying that you want feminists to call you out on your privilege when you exhibit or trade on it. It's no fair taking the pats on the back when you done good, then turning around and using passive aggressive silencing tactics on the same people whose opinions you ostensibly respected when they agreed with you.
Take a step back. Remember that we want you on our side. Try to hold onto the fact that when you're an ally, and people are calling you out on your privilege, what feels like pushing you away is really the only way to get closer.
What I see is the dudeocrats saying, "Ok, we've let a woman run, now she should shut up so we can get a man elected. Step aside, little lady."
Her refusal (thus far, and I hope she doesn't give in) to cave to the pressure gives the lie to Obama's so-called 'strength' - as so many here have already said, how strong is the dude, really, if he has to have so much help from the mainstream machine to stay ahead?
And that has nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with the political reality that at some point, it's time for partisans to rally around the standard-bearer.
Bullshit. You are exercising your privileged gender-blindness by pretending Hillary's just the same as any other candidate.
Guess what? You can only say that so blandly because you're a dude. Imagine being a woman, and having the very first ever woman candidate for president, with a real shot at winning.
Your detachment, adherence to logic, remaining 'oh-so-calmly-above-the-fray' is the result of your MALE PRIVILEGE. It doesn't touch you, can't touch you, can't affect you, because you can't feel this in your gut the way we can.
Nice to be so oblivious, Mr. so-called Feminist.
Whew! I have been in blogs and message boards all over the map during this primary and the responses to this post have tackled the "should Hillary stay or should Hillary go" issue better than any other blog out there.
I hopes she fights until She decides she is done.
Can someone check Jeff's basement for pods?
Others have said much of what I'd have said, but I would like to add that it's utterly amazing to me that those who are calling for Clinton to step aside when she still has a shot to win are not only missing the fact that bullying her into quitting in favor of a man is sexist, but they're also missing the fact that pushing her aside so that the nomination can be handed to Obama will taint his nomination.
Affirmative action referenda are on the ballots of at least three states this fall. Does the party really want to open their nominee up for charges that he got the nomination as part of a rigged process?
Posted those two comments before reading all the way to the end of the thread - see that the thread changed direction, and now my comments appear to be out of context. Sorry about that.
Take a step back. Remember that we want you on our side. Try to hold onto the fact that when you're an ally, and people are calling you out on your privilege, what feels like pushing you away is really the only way to get closer.
Nicely said, hope someday I learn to be both this tactful and this articulate.
Hillary isn't just the same as any candidate. And neither is Obama.
Hillary is the first non-male candidate with a real shot at the nomination. Obama is the first non-white candidate with a real shot at the nomination.
Hillary is also the spouse of a former President. She started the race with huge name recognition, high positives, and high negatives. He has had to work to overcome her name recognition advantage, but she has had her work cut out for her with her already high negatives.
Hillary also started the race with a lot of cash, a favorable primary schedule, and a lot of superdelegate support, especially within the DNC. Obama started the race perhaps with some goodwill and recognition from his 2004 convention speech and from his 2006 campaign. Advantage Hillary there, I think.
So yeah, it's not just that she's a woman, or that he's not white -- it's quite a bit more complicated than that. But, all things considered, I think Obama has had the harder row to hoe here, and I think he's really risen to the occasion. Any other major things I missed in my broad survey here? 
So yeah, it's not just that she's a woman, or that he's not white -- it's quite a bit more complicated than that. But, all things considered, I think Obama has had the harder row to hoe here, and I think he's really risen to the occasion. Any other major things I missed in my broad survey here?
Yes. The fact that if Hillary were an unknown like Obama, coming out of nowhere, she'd most likely no longer even be in the race. So Hillary needed all those so-called 'advantages' to even get her on the playing field at all, let alone to level it.
Obama has made it this far in spite of his almost complete lack of any real experience because of the adulation of the male-identified media. They'll never say so, but Obama was the only male with a real shot at this presidency, the only one who is centrist enough to have a chance to siphon off enough voters from the right to win an election. So the media, and the powers that be, put their full weight behind him.
Like I've said before, it's easy to 'rise to the occasion' when you're being lifted up on all sides.
I'm probably going to get my backside toasted for saying this, but as I see it, if the pundits have to choose between a woman and a man, color doesn't even come into it. "What? You say he's black? Yes, but he's a man, that's what matters. We don't care if he's green with purple polka dots, just don't let that uppity b*tch in there!"
I think that at some point, Clinton's continuing in the race will make the feminist movement a target. Right now, the calls are for Clinton to drop out. But if Clinton doesn't get over the top, but keeps going, it will be not just Clinton, but her supporters, who get pilloried.
But that's the whole thing, Jeff. Women have gotten blamed for anything that goes wrong since Eve and Pandora were in pink diapers. It doesn't matter whether she quits the race now, (unlikely) or wins the nom and then loses the GE. (even more unlikely).
If Obama loses (which I'm afraid he will), then it will be all Hillary's fault, whether she campaigns for him 24/7 or retires to a nunnery. It can never be that he just doesn't have enough experience, or lacks stamina, or can't shake off the Wright flack or because his followers have pissed off too many Dem voters, or that's he's taking the Clintons for granted; no, we can't blame a cool guy like Obama when there's a feminist like Hillary to take the blame and make the menz feel good about themselves.
Given that, why should she drop out, disappoint her followers and lose what is her only chance at the nomination???
You say you'd say the same if it was Obama who was losing by a small margin, and I believe you. But I doubt you'd say "Well, Obama better drop out soon or there will be horrible repercussions for the civil rights movement."
...I think that at some point, Clinton's continuing in the race will make the feminist movement a target...
A "target" of what? From where? By whom? Will feminists be called bitches, hard-asses, cunts, uppity women who don't know their place, man-haters, etc.? Good goddess. We can't have that.
I'm sorry about your tough week. Frankly, my "tough week" around these subjects has lasted for about 47-1/2 years now.
ShyLurker,
I think Edwards, at least, had a real shot at the Presidency. And of course the field was originally quite a bit more crowded than that. But don't forget all the other factors that went into the race. As I've said before, if Clinton's campaign had been half as competent as Obama's, or Obama's half as incompetent as Clinton's, then Hillary Clinton would already have wrapped up the nomination. As it is, she's still in it.
If Hillary were an unknown 'like Obama' -- a compelling and charismatic figure reaching out and appealing to all parts of the political spectrum -- then I think she could very well still be in the race. But she isn't, and she's still in it anyhow. Her campaign has literally been bashing the caucus process the various states that didn't vote for her, and the various demographic groups therein, and she's still in it anyhow. However, you're right, she isn't brown, and no one thinks she's a Muslim. Too bad for her.
Anonymous (12:34),
Huh?
Man, it sucks that I missed this discussion. Damn my human need for sleep!
Anyway, Jeff. I think the problem here is that you've momentarily forgotten the skill that anyone calling themselves an ally to a group needs: listening. Really listening, not this fake "I understand you think I'm being sexist, but I don't" malarkey.
I know that at least some of the time, sexism is obvious not only to women, but to everyone. However, just like with the cultural suppression of racism, sexism is becoming more covert. There are and will be more and more times where you won't recognize it, where you'll actually agree with the sexist language because it's hidden in other, seemingly valid points. And in those cases, you'll need the one group of people equipped to point out that sexism - women - to let you know. When they do, listen.
I'm probably going to get my backside toasted for saying this, but as I see it, if the pundits have to choose between a woman and a man, color doesn't even come into it. "What? You say he's black? Yes, but he's a man, that's what matters. We don't care if he's green with purple polka dots, just don't let that uppity b*tch in there!"
I gotta say, some of the comments in here have gotten kinda racist. As though folks were buying into the false dichotomy that a vote for Obama is inevitably a vote for sexism and a vote for Hillary is inevitably a vote for racism.
Let's not forget, Shylurker, that white Dems have overwhelmingly been going to Hillary. Let's not forget the enormous bile-filled hatred against Muslims that is caught up in the fact-free slur that Obama might be one.
This thread makes me heart sick, because so much of it seems to buy into the 2nd wave of feminism that ignored women of color, ignored the ways that racism and sexism intersect - ignored the ways the patriarchy tries to set up different oppressed groups against each other (and against their allies like Jeff).
Allie - My objection to Jeff's choices of language in this comment thread are not about ignoring racism or its intersectionality with sexism.
I am not a Clinton supporter, nor an Obama supporter, yet barring some complete clusterfuck of a magnitude that I cannot currently imagine between now and November, I will vote the Democratic nominee, and will campaign for them.
If the situation were reversed, and people were calling for Obama to pull out at this point, I would be saying exactly the same things -- that it's important for him to keep going precisely because of the historic nature of his campaign, and if the person arguing for his pull-out was using language about his "right" to run, or offering something as a "consolation prize", or said "because Obama can do a lot of damage not just to himself, but to the next person of color with a viable shot at the presidency if he doesn't lose humbly." (which I believe would be a comparable stereotype-call for a black man) or stating unequivocally that he was "hurting the party", or that his continuance would cause backlash against the civil rights movement -- I would be saying "That's racist. That's unexamined privilege. That's victim-blaming."
If I had written such a piece about Obama, and a whole bunch of people of color that I know and respect had called me on my language, I'd be taking another look at my privilege pack -- and thanking them for the opportunity.
Allie, I'm sorry if you took my comment as racist - I truly believe that sexism gets more of a pass in our culture than racism. That men (of all colors) get away with sexism and deeply ingrained misogyny (and so do women, as Melissa and others are constantly pointing out) in ways that I personally haven't seen racism overlooked. It's an endless exercise in consciousness raising, and I'm the first to admit that I've spent very little time on improving my awareness of racial issues. So I may have a long way to go. I'm not saying racism is gone, not by a long shot. I just think people get called on it in a way people don't get called on sexism.
But that's another topic that's been thoroughly covered elsewhere and I'm sure will be covered again.
Let's not forget, Shylurker, that white Dems have overwhelmingly been going to Hillary.
A quick Google search isn't backing up your statement, I'd be interested to see a source for that contention, if you have one.
Let's not forget the enormous bile-filled hatred against Muslims that is caught up in the fact-free slur that Obama might be one.
Again I'm not as up on this as I might be, since my objections to Obama are primarily about his near-total lack of experience and a sense that his status as a 'visionary' and 'prophet' are media-driven hype concocted to serve their own corporate ends (which I don't claim to understand).
As far as the 'bile-filled hatred', I think both Clinton and Obama have been subjected to more than their fair share of this, and I wish politics didn't have to be this way.
PortlyDyke - I wasn't talking about you. Though I disagree with some of the opinions you've written here (I *do* think knowin' when to fold 'em is a critical political skill, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for folks to comment on whether or not Hillary does - and if now is an appropriate time to do so.)
What is making me heart breakingly sad are the comments that assume Jeff (or I) am saying she should, "run along like a good girl" in the interests of letting a MAN take over. Obama's not just any man. In the same way that Hillary is not just any candidate - neither is Obama just any man. Both of them are special and ground breaking.
That's the part that makes me sad. The part that makes me frustrated is the political analysis I wrote about above.
Oh, and ShyLurker - try looking up the Texas or Mississippi exits. Try this article,the headline of which is "Ohio Exit Polls: Clinton Hold White Voters".
And if you need anymroe info about the bile-filled hatred of Muslims (which should have been obvious to anyone paying attention oh-say-during the Iraq war, you can read more about it's application to Obama:
On Digby
and on Greenwald
Off the top of my head, after 250+ comments, commenters Liss, Kate, C.E., Salieri (sp?), Rana, PortlyDyke and Pizza Diavola have all said so much of what I would have liked to say to Jeff in this thread, but am typically too frustrated and oriented towards a taking-my-ball-and-going-home response to do. I used to love Jeff's posts, but so many of them have had this subtle privileged blindness in them for awhile, and I haven't been able to put my fingers on what it is. This notion of candidates "should" do this or that or the other thing - I think that tone, language and position is what it is. As I love to say, to those who tell me what to do, in all my mature 30-something years, "you're not the boss of me!"
I'm so late to this post party. Damn vacation!
All I'd say about Hillary is what Rachel Maddow has been saying. I don't think she has the delegate count or the votes to get the nomination, but I have no problem at all with her staying in the race. I just think they both need to stop sniping at each other and go after McCain.
This thread may already be stale by now, but I did want to make sure that I said this before it moved out of sight -
Jeff - please do not take my comments and criticism as an indication that I think you're an enemy, or that you don't get it. If anything, my comments come from my frustration that so often you DO get it, and express your understanding so well that others get it too.
You're human. Sometimes you're going to screw up - and this time it happened in a situation where you didn't intend to, and in a context where everyone's feelers are on high alert.
So, for my own peace of mind, and for the larger audience that is learning from these conversations, I felt I had to speak up.
But I do NOT want you to stop speaking, to stop providing your so-often valuable insight. I just want you to recognize the limits of your insight, so that you become an even better spokesperson on these issues.
We'd miss you, man!
"Gotta say I find that verse a bit pitchy, racially. (That's the most appropriate metaphor? Really?)"
Um, I'm not white. Therefore, I'm paying homage to both bigotries. What's the point of ignoring one?
Commenting by HaloScan
