So I'm wondering...

[flewellyn]

I've been thinking about the hoopla around the Democratic primary, and I've got a question.

It seems everyone and his dog is calling for Hillary Clinton to quit the race. Despite the fact that, as of today, Obama has a narrow lead of 128 delegates, and that Clinton is projected to win big in Pennsylvania, which has 158 delegates, and Indiana with 72, and the fact that the superdelegates have not yet made up their minds, somehow, Obama is "inevitably" the nominee, and Clinton should step aside. There's talk of this contest "damaging the party" and that Clinton is "being selfish" by continuing to run.

Why? Why is it so damaging to have two candidates who are both quite popular and quite formidable fight it out to decide who will run? Is it because it's actually a problem, or because the media want to make it one?

Why, if it's so "inevitable" that Obama will win, is everyone in his camp so desperate to convince (or bully) Clinton to quit? He should be able to just clinch it with no problem, if it's really inevitable. It sounds to me more like "Quit, because we're afraid you might beat our guy!" It sounds to me like Clinton's still got a strong chance.

Why is it that, of two evenly-matched, both quite popular candidates, it's somehow incumbent upon the female candidate to step aside? Never mind that she's the first woman in history who has run for president and had a credible chance of succeeding; apparently, when this makes the process slightly harder for the male candidates, it's once again "Back of the bus, ladies! Wait your turn!"

This is an historic race, in which the Democratic nominee will be either a black man or a woman. Under no circumstances should either one of them simply step aside, because if they do, it will be used as "proof" that black or female candidates just aren't viable. Clinton has the added burden of being the target of media bullying; if she backs out, it will look like she bowed to bullies, rather than making a calculated decision on her own.

So whoever you support, the party and the cause of progressive politics will only be served if neither candidate quits until it's decided at the convention.

Comments

[idemandjustice.livejournal.com]

I've leaned toward Hillary, but I'm so sick of hearing from both sides right now. Half my friends list keeps making posts about how horribly racist her campaign is, while the other half keeps making posts about how horribly sexist Obama's campaign is.

My understanding was that she could only win at this point if she got the vote of the Superdelegates. Was that incorrect? I admit to having gotten sick of paying attention to it and have almost stopped caring who the nominee is.

[markgritter.livejournal.com]

Clinton can certainly win it yet--- I agree that she shouldn't drop out--- but she has to win like 70% of the vote in all the remaining states to close the pledged delegate lead. It's pretty much mathematically impossible for her to come out ahead, before superdelegates. Slate.com has an online calculator where you can plug in %'s for the states yet to vote and see what the delegate count will be.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

It's pretty much mathematically impossible for her to come out ahead, before superdelegates.

Same with the popular vote and the number of states won. Every measure of democratic support favors Obama, strongly. And if you think superdelegates are just dandy for democracy purposes (as Clinton supporters seem to now, clinging to their last hope), well, they've been breaking about 4 to 1 for Obama.

I'm not asking Clinton to drop out, either (I'd personally like her to, but many of those insisting on it reek of sexism), but it's not exactly hard to see why Obama is seen as nigh on inevitable. It's because he's winning. By a lot.

And... it's important to remember that the primary race doesn't exactly normally go on until the convention. And that's not because it becomes mathematically impossible for the runner-up to take the lead. It's because even though they could theoretically still win, the runners-up realize that the odds are stacked against them and bow out. This is for a variety of reasons, but a significant one is that it's understood that a protracted primary battle could damage the nominee's chances in the general by giving him less time to campaign against the Republican and by making some of the runner-up's supporters hate their Democratic opponent more than the Republican. This is the same thing. While obviously pretty much any media meme about Clinton will have significant sexist elements, the hope for her to drop out is not inherently sexist.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Here's the problem: if she fights to the end, and they get to the convention, and the numbers just plain and simple favor Obama...he'll have won after a hard-fought campaign. As a Clinton supporter, I could not argue with that. And neither, I expect, would most other Clinton supporters. So if that happens, Obama can expect Clinton's supporters to support him; she fought hard, she lost fairly, and he won fair and square.

On the other hand, if she's pressured to drop out? That doesn't feel like "winning" on Obama's part, so much as "stealing". Clinton's supporters, I think, would not tolerate that.

So really, as far as party division goes, the only responsible thing to do to prevent it is for Clinton to stay in the race, and for Obama, if he wins, to win when all the votes are counted.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

I agree that the pressure for her to drop out makes it less fair. But Obama wouldn't be "stealing" anything if she dropped out because he hasn't pressured her to. He's actually defended her right to stay in the race. If you want to argue that the media or the party higher-ups forced her out of the race, fine, but don't place the blame on him. (And incidentally, if we're going to scrutinize word choice for sexism against Clinton, maybe we should consider the racial implications of using a loaded term like "stealing" in reference to a black man?)

I know most Clinton supporters will support Obama when he becomes the nominee, and I'll give them credit for that. The problem is that the longer the race goes on, and the more Clinton elevates McCain above Obama (though AFAIK she hasn't done this in a while, and hopefully this trend continues), the smaller that "most" proportion will get. That's not set in stone, but it should be a consideration, especially since poll numbers have backed it up so far.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

He's actually defended her right to stay in the race. If you want to argue that the media or the party higher-ups forced her out of the race, fine, but don't place the blame on him.

I'm not. But the problem is, if the DLC people pressure her to bow out (which some have been), it's quite possible that many Clinton supporters will quit the party in disgust.

(And incidentally, if we're going to scrutinize word choice for sexism against Clinton, maybe we should consider the racial implications of using a loaded term like "stealing" in reference to a black man?)

That's reaching just a bit.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

And it's not reaching to suggest that any desire for Clinton to withdraw from the race is indelibly tainted with sexism?

How much background do you have in antiracism?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

"Any desire"? That wasn't under discussion: what I'm talking about is the widespread meme of "Clinton should quit because ZOHMIG, it's hurting the party!" You're moving the goalposts here. I don't appreciate that.

Look, my point is that the media has been hounding Clinton so much that she cannot withdraw honorably. They have treated her with incredible sexism. And Obama, whether he wants to or not, has benefitted from that. I don't claim that Obama himself is necessarily engaging in it (very often), but to call it racist to say that, if Clinton's bullied into withdrawing, many Clinton supporters may well feel that she wasn't given a fair shake...that's hardly reasonable at all.

[eemfibble.livejournal.com]

I think she was responding to what you said in your initial post:

Why is it that, of two evenly-matched, both quite popular candidates, it's somehow incumbent upon the female candidate to step aside? Never mind that she's the first woman in history who has run for president and had a credible chance of succeeding; apparently, when this makes the process slightly harder for the male candidates, it's once again "Back of the bus, ladies! Wait your turn!"

Overall, I agree, the media has made it difficult for her to withdraw without it looking like she caved under the pressure. That's one of the things I dislike about parties, or at least what makes it worse when we only have two main parties. People are going to vote not for the candidate they like best but who they feel will beat the other party.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

The great irony, I think, is that Clinton's a better bet to beat McCain. Obama, I don't know how well he'd do under serious fire.

We do know Clinton can withstand heavy fire, though. She's losing at the moment, but by a narrow margin, and she's carried the big states most likely to go Blue in the general. She's done this with the media entirely against her, whereas they have (for the moment) treated Obama gently. If Obama wins the nomination, the media WILL turn on him, no question. And when they do, will he be able to hold up as well as Clinton has?

I honestly don't know.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

So if that happens, Obama can expect Clinton's supporters to support him; she fought hard, she lost fairly, and he won fair and square.

Ah, hahahaha. Hoo. Oh dear.

If only American politics worked that way. Instead of a substantial fraction of people not getting their way storming off in a huff.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Well, Clinton has said that if she loses, she expects her supporters to back Obama. And as long as Obama keeps the fight fair, I can't see most of them refusing to do so.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

On second thought, you're a Shaker; why don't you listen to Jeff Fecke? Dude knows what he's talking about. And he's decidedly not a jerk about Hillary.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with him, though. I think he has a large blindspot as far as Obama and Clinton go.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

What kind of blind spot? His predictions have been quite accurate.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, but see above.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

What has he said that contradicts that?

[mcpatti.livejournal.com]

I haven't read all the comments, but I'll throw in my less than two cents on the subject:

I am actually really excited about this race, and have absolutely no qualms with Hilary sticking it out until the bitter end - after all, isn't that her right?

While I am an Obama supporter, I find this race extremely exciting for Democrats in general, regardless of who they support. For the first time in a LONG time, there is not one but TWO formidable candidates.

Maybe I don't understand enough about politics to fully understand why it would be bad for Hilary to continue on. *shrug*

[moronqueen.livejournal.com]

Ii...don't particularly like either one of them, honestly. But they're better than McCain...my biggest problem with both their campains is the subtle concentration they both put on their gender or skin color. It would be better if they protrayed themselves as actual people and not try to be some shining knight for their social struggles.

Oddly enough, I would have preferred Ron Paul. I could at least agree with his economic views, but since he's so deviant from both parties, he never stood a chance. Yeah, yeah, he's anti-choice, but I'm not sure if that overrules his belief in independant personal choice in general. It's hard to tell, sometimes.

There are just way too many brain washed idiots running around out there.

I'll still vote for either Clinton or Obama, whichever one gets it. In my heart, I'd vote for Nader, but I'm desperate to get something other than a Republican in office...

[humanpacifier.livejournal.com]

I think the last sentence is the key.... Unfortunately, I don't see that the two-party system is going to change any time soon and a lot of views people hold will remain unrepresented. I've always wondered why it had to be a 2-candidate race. Why must one person and one person only be chosen to represent the party in the general election? This, in my humble opinion, inherently means that many people are voting for "Anybody but...(name here)" insted of voting for the candidate whom they believe is best qualified for the job.

The system is constructed to be a zero sum game of sorts. It comes across as a "with us or against us" mentality. And that doesn't even get into the power of lobbyists and the $$$$ involved in these races.

(stepping down off soapbox)

[moronqueen.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I would love to vote for a third party candidate without the country going to pot because of the lesser of the two powerful evils (almost typed Elvis) lost...

Really, it is the money and the lobbyists that cause the problems even in the primaries. Our society is no longer a democratic one, but a captitalistic one. So many people are so lost in their struggle to survive, and so dumbed down by everything from our school system to the trashy food we eat that they can't think past what the media tells us about the candidates. And who controls the media? The people with the most money.

That'd be why I've come to trust the BBC more than CNN or Faux News when it comes to our own national news. It's pathetic that we need to go underground just to get any kind of straight information.

Umm...you can have your soapbox back, now. ;)

[moronqueen.livejournal.com]

Umm...wow. Capitalistic one. That was a bad typo.

[humanpacifier.livejournal.com]

Captitalistic....you're being sexist!!!! LOL! :-)

[humanpacifier.livejournal.com]

It's interesting and timely that you mentioned trashy food. I have a 3 year old son who started pre-school this year. I met the parents of the other kids in the class once and honestly, I felt like crying when they all started talking about how much they love "Uncrustables" and "Lunchables" and other "food products" which are so full of salt and fat and sugar and preservatives that they can hardly be called food. They talked about all these fast food places their kids love and I truly felt sad for those children. Their parents are feeding them junk and the kids will never know any better. Now, I will be the first to admit I'm *not* a good cook. I need a recipe to make ice. My husband, thankfully, does know how to cook. Every morning, we take about 3-5 minutes to prepare our son's lunch. Some whole grain bread, light mayo, low fat meat and cheese. Yogurt and a piece of fruit on the side. (drinks are provided at his after school daycare) Sometimes he has leftovers (like rice and veggies with grilled chicken or similar). The point is, we spend very little time making his lunch but we make sure he eats a lunch that isn't pre-packaged junk.

Last year, my husband found out his blood pressure was high. He now has to cook just about everything from scratch because there's so much salt in prepared food. As for myself, I have to watch fat/cholesterol intake. Makes for a lot of challenges when trying to find something to eat.

Going out to eat gets to be impossible with overly huge portions and the SALT... (sorry, salt isn't a good friend of mine right now; please forgive)

But this was supposed to be about politics... I guess, like Elvis, third parties are seemingly dead in our system. The people with the most money have several key businesses in their back pockets: Oil companies, tobacco companies, major media sources, and a few other industries (like energy corporations or maybe large technology firms). But especially oil and tobacco. Many candidates will support the idea of developing alternative fuel sources but, like NCLB, funding tends to be scarce when it's time to actually *do* something.

To bring this back to the original topic, and to tie it to others, what controls the public more than anything else is fear. Fear that the Democratic party will lose if they do not unite behind a single candidate. This sets up Clinton to be the scapegoat if Obama loses the election. The harsh media critics will blame Obama losing on her diverting funds and attention from the general election. This makes me think of the Olympic judges determining the winners before the contest. Why is it so important to them to have a candidate selected so the convention is a mere formality? This, in my mind, causes the primaries to become a borderline farce. Going through the motions because the winner is already selected and funding, etc. goes to that person before anything has actually happened.

I could go on for a long time about the problem presented by non-affiliated voters being unable to vote in the primaries. They are literally barred from having any say in who the candidates are. In that case, why even have the primary elections? Can't everybody sort it out in a single election and the candidate with the most votes wins? That's how elections were done back in my school days. We often had 4-5 candidates for class president. Yes, this is a bigger scale but why must it be just two?

Curiouser and curiouser...

[stuntviolist.livejournal.com]

I thought that the calls for Hillary to drop out were coming from the fact that Mitt Romney ended his candidacy in order to allow McCain to start working on the general election. Of course I can be one of those namby pamby types that believes that evil people are rare.

I don't think she should drop out before the convention, but I also don't want her to be president.

Bush Clinton Bush Clinton just bothers me too much. It seems too much like one of those Latin American "democracies" where the party's in control would switch back and forth but the same small group of people were always in charge...