I haven’t written much about the ’08 election in the past few weeks. It seems quite obvious that Obama has the nomination locked up. Well, it’s obvious to everybody but the Clinton camp. While I’m an Obama supporter, I am not rejoicing in Hillary’s defeat. I have never been in the Hillary-Puppy-Killer camp. I am also a bit disturbed by the undercurrent of sexism that had a hand in her defeat.
I have mixed feelings about Hillary’s refusal to quit even though the writing is on the wall. On the one hand, I do admire tenacity. At track meets, I always root for the chubby kid who insists on finishing the race even though he’s lap behind everyone else. On the other hand, watching her continue to campaign smacks of insanity. It’s uncomfortable watching her desperate efforts to get the Florida delegates and insisting that she still has a chance. It’s like she’s in her own separate reality.
Apt. 11d 
I too root for the person who finishes the race even though they know they won’t win. But, it’s a bit troublesome when they think they will (and, say they aren’t four-years-old).
LikeLike
I don’t know what to say because I’m so obviously biased. I will say that from the perspective of the average person, Clinton and Obama are tied. I mean, I’m a smart person and politically savvy, and really, I just can’t see how it’s so obviously an Obama win. Yes, I know, delegate numbers and stuff I don’t quite understand. What’s happening is that there is a *process* that is accepted by insiders but doesn’t seem to match up with a democratic vote. Obama has been ordained the “obvious” winner, and yet state after state continues to give Clinton 10- to 35-point margins of victory. You will have to excuse the average voter for being unclear on the matter.
There’s something going on here, and I think the media is doing Americans a *huge* disservice by ignoring it or trivializing it as “those racists.”
Also, I was waiting at the pool bar when I was in Florida (ah, strawberry daiquiris by the pool) and Wolf Blitzer was announcing that CNN would call Kentucky in just a few minutes, and the bartender and I got talking. He was one furious guy. He said that if the Democratic Party doesn’t seat the FL delegates, he’s leaving the party. That’s it for him.
LikeLike
Clinton and Obama aren’t tied by the only relevant metric — delegates.
I actually agree that on an immeasurable soft metric (how many democrats prefer each) they may well be tied (though not according to the current national polls).
I think it’s foolish to suggest that Hillary drop out now. What people are asking is that she not encourage folks to abandon the democratic party for any reason.
As Laura says, I’m at a loss to imagine if Hillary (who is not the average voter looking at 35% wins — she understands the math) actually thinks she can win, or has some other goal in mind. What’s your scoop, Wendy, as a Clinton supporter?
Why do you think she is continuing to run?
LikeLike
I suspect there’s some sort of internal warfare going on within the Democratic Party, and her continuing strength in the primaries represent a power play. Also, Obama could totally implode. He’s really one major misstep away from tanking. I don’t think he’s really in a secure position.
LikeLike
“Why do you think she is continuing to run?”
I suspect that she probably thinks that this is her one big shot, and that if she doesn’t use the momentum she’s got now, she’ll never see the inside of the White House again.
LikeLike
Okay, now I think Hillary IS a puppy-killer, and have since the WH Travel Office scandal. If she’s the nominee, I vote for McCain. So bear that in mind, as I go on here.
There is an agreed process. And Obama and his people have played it like a violin. Hillary, and Mark Penn – total incompetence. This in itself has some useful information on how good a President she would likely be. The information we have from her total clusterfuck on health care also suggests incompetence.
Is the process a good one? Count every vote sounds swell, but how would you do it? We have a state-by-state polity. It certainly makes sense for the Dems to try to pay particular attention to the opinions of Dem voters in states in which the Dem slate has done well in the past. Why do you allow caucuses in some states and primaries in others? If you do, do you weight the results by the state’s electoral votes? Clearly unfair to Iowa voters if you simply weight it by the number of voters who came to the caucuses, since that’s going to be low in every caucus state. Anyhow there IS a process. All the players agreed to it. And now she is trying to wriggle out of it, because it hasn’t worked for her. Makes her look like a jerk, and if she gets away with it, a lot of Obama folks will rightly feel robbed.
LikeLike
Once again, Digby says what I’m thinking, only so much better. The money graf:
“Cable news, MSNBC particularly, has been a major contributor to all the sturm and drang of this campaign. One of the main sources of frustration among the Obama supporters has been the notion that it’s been obvious to everyone for months that the race is over, and yet Clinton refuses to quit. But that hasn’t been obvious to Clinton voters (who are highly unlikely to be MSNBC viewers at this point) since she is still winning primaries. There is a disconnect with the greater public on this that the cable networks have exacerbated, much to the chagrin of the Obama voters who are anxious to call the race and get on with it and the Clinton voters who are furious at the coverage of their standard bearer and are digging their heels.”
LikeLike
The Dems are in this mess because of they require proportional representation within each state.
LikeLike
Mess? I see lots of newly registered Democrats. I see a 50-state primary following on a 50-state strategy (which Clinton people derided back when it was new). I see a media environment dominated by two strong Democrats. I see a Democrat winning a Congressional seat in Southf*ckinghaven Mississippi. What’s not to like?
And besides, we’ve reached an effective compromise: Clinton is continuing to fight in the primary, while Obama has dropped out of the primary and is now campaigning in the general. (Not an original line, but I can’t find my source just now.)
LikeLike
Doug,
The media environment is always dominated by Democrats.
By “mess” I mean that the Dems have a primary/caucus process that is unlikely to produce a clear winner in a closely contested election. What they have now is basically the same method of picking a nominee that they used in 1964 (i.e. party elites, but now the room in non-smoking) with a cost that is tens of millions more.
LikeLike
“By “mess” I mean that the Dems have a primary/caucus process that is unlikely to produce a clear winner in a closely contested election. ”
But, this is an ideological choice on the parts of Democrats. We’ve always been about giving voice to the minority. “Winner takes it all, the looser standing small” is antithetical to many of the values we support.
Yes, this race shows the consequences of respecting the losers as well as the winners, but I’m not planning on giving up that principle any time soon.
bj
LikeLike
I’m aware of the ideological tendencies of the Democrats. But, I don’t think the current system is giving voice to any particular minority, unless you count super delegates as a minority (which is technically true, I guess). I also don’t see how the current system is respecting the losers in any particular way. From what I see, the losers are angry and unwilling to concede that they have lost because they haven’t really lost in the sense that nobody has a majority.
LikeLike
I was talking about the proportional representation system, which is what the Dems used for their primary, and the understanding that it’s going to create problems of its own, because it allows candidates who are wining 49% of the vote to remain in and potentially competitive.
I wasn’t paying any attention to the second part of it — the superdelegates. I’m not actually sure how I feel about them and the role they’re supposed to serve. I guess they’re supposed to be a counter-balance against the problems of proportional representation and respecting minority positions (i.e. keep the big picture in mind).
You’re right about the perspective that having too many different ways of “winning” makes people that they *really* won. Having unclear rules doesn’t seem like it benefits anyone (but, maybe that’s a democratic ideal, perhaps, said partially jokingly).
I think there should be some soul-searching about superdelegates, the problem being that I don’t see them voluntarily giving up their power, and it’s tough to see whose cause it would be (given that both Clinton & Obama supporters have depended on their support win).
LikeLike
The system is giving voice to a minority, in a way. Under winner takes all, Clinton would win, and Obama would be the “minority.” Under this system, Clinton is the minority, and she still has a voice. The problem is that despite a system that *ensures* a voice for the “minority,” repeatedly some high profile party members and Obama-supporting blogs have tried to repress the voice of the “minority.”
I really think that I will lose respect for Clinton if she drops out now. She has to keep fighting for our voice, the voice of her supporters, who want to be heard. She has to fight for the delegates in Florida and Michigan, who want to be seated, and the Democrats in those states, who want to be represented.
I don’t see why this is such a bad thing. Most of the “fighting” that is supposedly “harming” the Democratic party has been minor blowups over uses of language, which have been transformed into major racist incidents by the media. I mean, Laura, I could accuse you of using misogynist language by referring to Clinton as possibly “desperate,” evoking the title “Desperate Housewives” and playing into the stereotype of the “desperate” older woman. Men are never referred to as “desperate,” are they?
Again, I concur with Digby that a lot of Obama supporters who are calling for Clinton to withdraw are in a bit of a “bubble.” If it was SO CLEAR, then why wouldn’t VOTERS give up? Maybe because they don’t like the media to determine their reality, or they don’t like the system and this is the *only* way to protest it.
The situation right now deserves serious analysis, not mocking (I am not saying anyone here is doing that, but the national Obama-supporting discourse continues to veer in that direction–look at that offensive Danica Patrick meme that went around).
LikeLike
If it has shown anything, this campaign has shown Clinton’s personal incompetence. She lost it, when she had all the advantages she should have needed to win. Her campaign was a total clusterfuck of toadies and lickspittles maneuvering for her favor, and she tolerated this. This was as big a disaster as her health care plan, and she was the central figure. Running for President successfully is one of the major ways to demonstrate the skills needed to BE President. She has demonstrated why she should never be close to running anything which matters.
Her future in the Senate will be as grim and irrelevant as John Kerry’s was after his failed race. She should go off and be President of Wellesley.
LikeLike