Hillary Clinton has gone on for far too long while not going far enough toward her party’s nomination. Today’s leads in Salon and Slate, as well as many papers, join Obama in exasperation.
Slate asks Can Obama do anything to get Clinton out of the race? Over at Salon, In Iowa, Obama reaches toward victory suggests that the answer is to let her alone, concentrating on John McCain and November.
In an increasingly irrational and bizarre spectacle, Clinton seems to be channeling Sunset Boulevard‘s Norma Desmond. Setting aside both logic and grace, she seems determined to head to the pathetic from the noble.
Most unfortunately, Clinton has been reduced to claiming the iffy, that it’s not her flaws or missteps causing problems here, rather sexism. Quite simply, that’s unprovable and weak. People not wanting to vote for a such a well known and exposed woman is inseparable from her personal traits.
Yet the analysis in today’s New York Times asserts just that from her. “Rather, in private conversations and in interviews, Mrs. Clinton has begun asserting that she believes sexism, rather than racism, has cast a shadow over the primary fight, a point some of her supporters have made for months. Advisers say that continuing her candidacy is partly a means to show her supporters – especially young women – that she is not a quitter and will not be pushed around.”
Much like the current George Bush’s dogged approach to Iraq, she continues beyond reason and hope. The end effect seems from here to be painting herself as a loser who doesn’t know how to manage her campaign, not even its exit. That would not be the image she’d want for another run at the White House later.
However, the Times reports too that Clinton’s aides interpret staying in the race differently. “(A)massing a strong popular vote, and going out on some high notes, would help Mrs. Clinton emerge from the long nomination battle on better footing, aides say. And making herself an appealing vice-presidential prospect – or setting herself up to run again in 2012, if Mr. Obama should lose, or perhaps 2016 – is not altogether out of the question.”
She received support from the WomenCount PAC with full-page ads in USA Today, the Times and a few regional papers. A recreation of the ad is here.
The ad states that the group wants every single vote counted. “We know that when women vote, Democrats win. Now it is the responsibility of our party to hear our voices and count all of our votes,” the ad reads. A wag can easily note that the majority of registered and actual voters are women. Then we should be able to praise or blame them for all of our Presidents and legislators. I doubt that is what WomenCount want to say.
The ad concludes, “We want Hillary to stay in this race until every vote is cast, every vote is counted, and we know that our voices are heard. ” A bit of irony there is in the implied dependence on those nasty superdelegates. Those roughly 800, largely party insiders, represent votes that can overrule the popular votes of thousands. These are Clinton’s only sliver of hope at the nomination. The anti-popular vote deal making is not what the ad calls for, but it is what Clinton looks to. Female or male, those voters are not represented fairly in this most undemocratic of procedures.
Clinton’s end game strike me as delusional. The longer she displays herself as the loser in denial, the less political capital she appears to have. She may even increase the disappointment of her supporters, making it harder for them to work to defeat the Republicans in November. Hurting the nation thus to make herself feel better is not exactly a noble achievement.
Every popular vote already cast
<
p>Every popular vote yet to be cast
<
p>Every popular vote from MI and FL (delegates allocated proportionally and uncommitted from MI going to Obama)
<
p>And yes, every superdelegate vote.
<
p>I can see why some would reasonably argue to cut MI/FL delegation in half or strip superdelegates from those states. However, the fact is other states got waivers and/or aen’t being enforced against so the argument about maintaining credibility on rule-enforcement already appears to be lost.
<
p>You ask for a rationale and mine is simple: Barack Obama has not yet achieved 2025 (or whatever higher number applies if MI and FL are counted), so there is still a race.
<
p>Yes, superdelegates are part of the equation and Obama needs them too. Nobody ever suggested this is or even should be the purest form of democracy. Governors and members of Congress are elected by the people and DNC members are elected by state committees elected by the people. Think about this: At least we have proportional representation unlike the GOP or the Electoral College. Also, in most party systems there are no primaries and candidates are chosen only by party leadership.
<
p>There is actually one more rationale for Hillary remaining. Polls I have seen consistently put Clinton comfortably ahead of McCain in the Electoral College, whereas McCain generally beats Obama. If I were a superdelegate, that alone would be a very persuasive argument.
Well, the obvious on the vote thing is that very literal interpretation. I haven’t heard that from many people. The views that incorporate and weigh numerous factors seem much more common. I can certainly see a disconnect with the literal.
<
p>For the other, I’m not at all sure that poll has much meaning until the contest is one on one. Also, as I recall, when Obama was coming out ahead in such polls early on, Clinton’s camp downplayed their significance. I bet superdelegates will as well.
<
p>I know only one person who wants Clinton in and fighting until she has absolutely lost, not just nearly so. At a dinner party on Saturday, she would not discuss any Presidential politics. Instead, she waited until she was leaving to announce in a Parthian shot that she hoped and expected her to remain in to the bitter end. Another woman wanted her to explain why, but she’d have none of it.
Until then, the burden is on you to advance a convincing reason to harass a candidate out of the electoral process. We can afford two weeks to allow everyone to have a meaningful say.
Let the contest finish by the primary rules so all voters are heard and their votes are counted.
<
p>If all votes aren’t counted..the backlash, especially from women, will be enormous.
<
p>Remember how angry you were in 2000 when Gore got the popular vote and Bush was proclaimed the winner by stopping the vote count abruptly.
<
p>This may end very badly in any event.. but it doesn’t make any sense to compound the problem by forcing an end or proclaiming a winner.
<
p>The winner will be proclaimed under the rules in August.
this self-serving sexist bullshit.
<
p>
<
p>You don’t speak for women, you don’t represent large blocs of women, and you don’t know the minds of millions of female voters around this nation who support either one or both of the candidates for myriad reasons you are not privy to.
<
p>Women support Barack Obama. Younger women, in particular, support Barack Obama. Stop trying to speak for women as monolithic in their support for Hillary Clinton. They’re not.
You should become familiar with the principles of Psychology 101. You know.. “How to win friends and influence people”. Shouting down Clinton supporters does not contribute to Party unity, Rather it deepens the divide and tends to harden positions.
<
p>Your response was very revealing in that it didn’t address the main point of the post but engaged in the worst kind of hyperbole.
<
p>A more rational approach is to educate yourself on the gender issues played out in this campaign and stop denying that is doesn’t exist.
<
p> Here’s a start:
<
p> http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
<
p>
Pure and simple, a large number of people are still voting for Hillary Clinton. She is not only competitive in recent and upcoming states, but as seen enormous wins. This despite being outspent by her opponent and brushed off by both the media and the party establishment. The only people not writing her off are her legions of supporters that are coming out for her in droves.
<
p>So, why should she stay in the race? I’ll ask you this in return, why do the Obama folks fear voters so much? Are those pesky voters messing up your master plan? Do you really think that BO will be a stronger candidate if he wins by default or worse yet by giving voters the preverbial finger by saying their votes shouldn’t count unless he is the only one on the ballet?
Be careful on the outspent reference. That’s a mistake Clinton’s campaign makes. If she’s outspent, it’s because he has more cash, which is because more people have faith enough in his candidacy to donate. She was there. She lost that. She probably shouldn’t draw attention to it.
<
p>For your question, that seems like a straw man. Neither words nor actions indicate any fear of voters by the Obama campaign. I’m actually more surprised that he shows equanimity instead of annoyance.
<
p>He continues to extend his hand to Clinton voters and has long said she should continue the race as long as she wants.
If anyone has feared voters in this election it would be the HC campaign and their scoff at caucuses because she wasn’t able to organize for them as well as BO.
Even though there is a good case for argument against caucuses, them’s the rules, and her “popular vote” claims will never be based in reality or fact because of them. That metric is fundamentally flawed.
As for the only one on the ballet comment. Do you really think that the MI primary was fair enough to be counted as-is as HC wants? I’d love to hear your logic on that one. Or should there be a compromise?
<
p>I also wonder if you think HC is a stronger cadidate after “giving voters the proverbial finger” when she signed the pledge to not count the rule-breaking states, only to now use them as political pawns to salvage her losing campaign.
Both the comment above and the comment to which it responds refers to a candidate as being the “only one on the ballet”. I did not realize this was a dance:) I thought they would be on a BALLOT!