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]

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.

[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...

[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...