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