Sherry Chandler » Don’t forget history
Don’t forget history
Here’s commenter Athena at TalkLeft:
This is a historic campaign for women that needs to go all the way to Denver.
Hillary is now at the helm of the most successful female-driven Presidential race in history. She needs to understand how historic this run is, and why it should not be terminated lightly.
I have no doubt that the months from May to August will result in further political involvement by women across the country, with beneficial consequences for years ahead. And the consciousness-raising that is going on is accelerating the political development of women as a force in American politics.
This is just too historic to end because some people are tired of democracy.
And again here:
This is a historic campaign - the most successful woman candidate so far in American history.
Hillary should enter the convention as a nominee, have her name put into contention, and let the balloting happen.
As I’ve said before - August 26 is Women’s Equality Day in the U.S. - during the convention. It is historic to have Hillary as one of the 2 remaining candidates on that day.
The DNC designated August 27 for their balloting. Hillary has every right to see the entire process through.
Say what you will, back what candidate you will, you have to admit that the Democratic primary has ended in a tie. Barack Obama may win in a photo-finish, but whether or not Hillary Clinton quits after these two last primaries today or whether she goes to convention, her race has been as historic as Obama’s and, in my opinion, she has run with a good deal more grace.
Her run has been good for women. Some say that the meanness of this campaign will discourage young women from running for office. What I hope they see instead is a strong role model for prevailing against incredible odds, going over the heads of media and party, directly to the people.
Don’t take this post as a concession speech on my part, by the way. When Jesse Jackson took his race to the convention, he was 1200 delegates behind.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
18 Comments
1. Harry replies at 3rd June 2008, 9:26 am :
Umm.. really, no. I don’t have to admit that. As of this morning (using the BBC’s figures, which are probably close enough) Obama has a 7% lead in pledged delegates and a 15% lead in superdelegates, or about an 8% lead overall.
The fact that it has gone on this long without either candidate actually securing a majority shows that it’s a close contest, and it’s possible to come up with outrageous scenarios that could rescue it for Clinton — say, Obama found in bed with a gay French Islamist terrorist — but more likely, it will end up being about the same kind of lead as it is now: 7%, plus or minus a few points. Even a 5% lead in a two-party election is nowhere near being a tie.
Obama established enough of a lead a couple of months ago that, because the Democratic party uses proportional voting in its primaries, it would have needed a very dramatic swing indeed to stop him winning. Clinton has been doing better since and has clawed back the lead slightly, but she hasn’t been gaining on him anywhere near fast enough and as more and more votes come in, it has become less and less possible for her to overtake him. Which is why we’re now in OBAMA IN GAY LOVE ROMP WITH FRENCH TERRORIST territory.
I don’t really have a horse in this race: I’m not an American anyway and I’d be happy to see either of them win. But I really think the honest assessment is that Obama will win — has effectively already won — by a solid, respectable margin. If Clinton wants to stay in the race to the convention for symbolic purposes, well, fair enough. But if she wants to drag the fight out to the bitter end because she can’t bear to let go: it’s her right to do so, but she has to know that it could be a very bitter end indeed.
2. sherry replies at 3rd June 2008, 10:25 am :
Well, actually, Harry, nobody has to say anything so I was perhaps a bit over-enthusiastic in my language there. However, as I understand the DNC system, neither candidate has actually won the number of pledged delegates necessary to make 50% + 1 (2,118) and neither can actually win that number of delegates from the voters at this point. So, percentages to the contrary, Obama cannot win without party intervention [in the form of superdelegate support]. It is obvious at this point that he will get that, yes. But he hasn’t got it yet.
I’m not sure why you’re sounding such an ominous note.
It sounds almost like a threat. It also sounds like you think Hillary may be the stupid bitch so many have called her. But I don’t think she’s stupid. And I don’t think I said anything about “fighting to the bitter end.”
3. Koshembos replies at 3rd June 2008, 7:23 pm :
Gracefully, i.e. Hillary like, I can say that I ignore Harry. We had so much of these tones and content. God, it’s a world movement now. All Whole Food shoppers of the world unite!
Hillary had a magnificent run, altogether more admirable since she started with advice from a butch of incompetent advisers, which made her into a rigid elitist doll. (The old testament has a disparaging remark about a consultant, Akhitofel (SAmuel 17:23).)
I would go to the convention. Nothing like 2000 delegates spoiling for a fight. Let Obama have a taste of his own medicine.
4. sherry replies at 3rd June 2008, 7:46 pm :
Well, Koshembos, Harry has privileges. He and I agree more about literature than we do about politics. I think you’re right that Hillary got off to a bad start and otherwise we might have had a different end. So it goes I guess. But I think those who are ringing her death knell are wrong, whatever she chooses to do about the convention. Those people are not doing their candidate any favors.
5. Harry replies at 3rd June 2008, 8:27 pm :
“It sounds almost like a threat. It also sounds like you think Hillary may be the stupid bitch so many have called her.”
Hey, who am I to threaten anyone.
I’m not anti-Hillary; I would cheerfully vote for her. I think the position she’s in now is more due to bad luck with timing than anything more substantial: Obama had a honeymoon period just at the right moment.
No-one should concede a contest like this lightly; but even allowing for the fact that Obama was lucky, that it’s a close race, and that she’s had more momentum than him over the past few weeks, I still say she has lost.
My perception, as an outsider, is that as the race has gone on, the internal arguments within the Democratic party and among Democratic voters have become nastier. It seems plausible to assume that this would only become more true the longer it went on. A contested convention could potentially get very messy indeed. Especially since to win the nomination at this point she would presumably have to spend much of the next two months lobbying pledged delegates, trying to change their votes.
6. sherry replies at 3rd June 2008, 10:09 pm :
Me, Harry, I decided to chill and watch The Big Lebowski. I’ve had a hard day — violent storms this morning (took down the wall of the local minor-league baseball stadium), a dental emergency (not my own but one of my own), the last elections in a hard-fought primary, and a little tetchiness. So me and my family, we laughed and laughed. I love Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, and most of the time the Coen Brothers. It was even funny to see George Herbert Walker Bush mouthing off about “this will not stand.” Just as well laugh. Crying doesn’t help.
So much language has been thrown at Hillary and Hillary supporters that we’re all a little like The Dude’s friend Walter, a little short in the fuse.
Hillary will do what Hillary does. I’ve cast my vote. Now I’m a spectator.
But I stand by my post.
7. Jack replies at 4th June 2008, 2:15 am :
Close contests are the hardest to take. Why do UK fans hate…HATE…Duke? UK has more of everything than does Duke….including, I believe, Nobel winners (maybe), not to mention players in the NBA over the years, wins, titles, etc. We hate Duke because we lost the closest, toughest, best game in the history of basketball to Duke.
The idea of a contested convention is something I’m hoping Hillary will never consider, not because she hasn’t won the right to do what she wants, but because it would mean that McCain would win in 2008, that simple. And barring disaster (during which she could still claim the candidacy), a contested convention means a GOP president in 2008.
8. Jack replies at 4th June 2008, 3:08 am :
This has been, as has the campaign, a tough night for all around. I think, too, Sherry, that before Iowa, and even farther before that, Hillary was the presumptive nominee. In the media and in the party. To say that she went over the media and over the party is really understating what Obama has done, mostly on an organizational level. He was not even mentioned as a competitor to Clinton for the longest of times. The media had practically coronated Hillary well before the election started.
As far as “a good deal more grace,” we can compare candidate statements at another time, but I would say that’s truly a matter of perspective. This has been a bare-knuckle campaign. Grace has been in short order.
And as far as her going “directly to the people,” I would seriously question as to the nature of which angel of the people she appealed, especially after Iowa. The giant mistakes were in the campaign staff, not Obama’s nature nor in the media, because when in the world has anyone not been able to make hay from their persecution by the media?
9. sherry replies at 4th June 2008, 8:47 am :
Hey Jack. I don’t want to get into a he-said, she-said thing with you about the running of the campaigns. I’ve had my say about that at length and I’ll allow you yours.
It is true that Clinton started out the steam-roller favorite and lost that advantage. Difficult for me to separate her mistakes from the incredible opposition she faced, but she did make mistakes.
And I am certainly not going to say that Barack Obama cannot win the general election without the support of 18 million Clinton voters. He has shown himself a competent player and who knows what events will bring.
If healing the rift in the party is important to him, however, and to his supporters, then I would recommend two things:
1) that the supporters refrain from calling Clinton and Clinton voters racist, however subtly that may be couched
and
2) that the supporters not try to bludgeon Clinton or Clinton supporters with the club of a general election loss.
Both of those strategies tend to push people away.
As for what Clinton will do — and this speaks to Harry’s predictions of ugliness to come — I quote Big Tent Democrat:
For myself, I think she’ll close ranks. But the thing we like is that she’ll close ranks when she’s ready, not when God and everybody tells her she must.
10. Max replies at 4th June 2008, 10:39 am :
The McClinton Option.
I like Craig Crawfords’ scenario on CQPolitics.com. As I have previously stated, she seems to be the candidate to support working class people. I don’t see this as far fetched. Remember, Kerry made the offer to McCain for VP.
11. Jack replies at 4th June 2008, 2:11 pm :
I think she will, too. (close ranks) What I’m predicting is that *because*–and though it may sound like arse-kissing, I really do think this–she’s a much better person than she’s being given credit for, she will not only do that, she’ll bring along a constituency, and in doing so, she’ll be doing the best for all involved, because there’s a lot at stake for “her” people, as well as for “Obama’s” people, both of whom, at least when they’re not literally the same people, share a lot of common interests. Sorry if I sounded combative.
12. sherry replies at 4th June 2008, 8:03 pm :
Well, Max, as much as Clinton’s victory speech in South Dakota seems to have riled some of the finest minds in the main-stream media I do hope Clinton finds some way to leverage the party a little left. I don’t like reports I’ve read that Obama will spend no time wooing Clinton supporters but instead will court moderate Republicans.
Still, I don’t know why she’d want to be any man’s vice president. She has more power as the Senator from New York.
13. sherry replies at 4th June 2008, 8:11 pm :
Apology accepted, Jack. I really, really wish I felt more joyful about Obama’s victory. It is an historic achievement and one I should be celebrating with all my liberal heart. But I think the operative word here is “liberal.” I don’t see one when I look at Obama. Nor do I see a great leader. I hope to be proved wrong.
The Political Animal points out a place where Obama could show some leadership.
14. sherry replies at 6th June 2008, 11:16 am :
One last — maybe — observation, Harry and all, on what happened in this race and why I call it, if not a tie, a least a manner of stand-off, by Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics:
This analysis is one everybody on both sides ought to read and absorb.
Link from Suburban Guerrilla
Problem is, a fair number of Clinton supporters still think the refs were crooked.
15. Max replies at 6th June 2008, 11:32 am :
SOUR GRAPES! (From an uneducated working class).
Superdelages? What’s the purpose of them, to me it seems they failed thier purpose of existence. Bama was hot in the beginning, then Hillary was hot at the end … isn’t the Superdelates purpose to step in, and select the most electable person? (Guess i’m just not a politician).
16. Harry replies at 6th June 2008, 2:05 pm :
I think it’s dubious to make any argument based on a calculation of ‘popular vote’, or total votes cast, in a race where different states have different rules about eligibility, and indeed different voting processes. If I was in charge of the primaries, the whole nation would vote on the same day, with an instant-runoff voting system; which among its other advantages would allow you to make meaningful comparisons of total votes cast. But with the arcane and peculiar system that the parties use, popular vote isn’t an accurate enough measure of anything.
The most obvious point to make is that caucuses (cauci?) have systemically lower turnout than primaries, presumably because it’s less convenient to vote. So a candidate who does better in states with caucuses will tend to have fewer votes per delegate than one who does better in states with primaries. Presumably there is some difference as well between open and closed primaries, although it’s less obvious what it’s likely to be. There’s also the fact (although this year it didn’t actually make much difference) that in the early states, there are normally more candidates than in the later states, so again you’re not comparing like with like.
Now I think the caucus system is fundamentally rather undemocratic, since it discourages people from voting and removes the possibility of a secret ballot. And it’s entirely possible — indeed, psychologically it seems inevitable — that the social pressure of public voting tends to skew the result. But given that the rules are what they are, and that lots of states do have caucuses, it is unsound to make any argument based on total number of votes.
I’m not trying to argue anything very profound about the result of this race, btw: just making a point about the voting system.
17. sherry replies at 6th June 2008, 3:38 pm :
Max. there’s an article here in The Daily Yonder that describes an Obama rally in Bristol yesterday and speaks a little bit to his electability in Appalachian Virginia anyway.
I got the impression that the reporter was a bit dubious that this crowd of blue collar workers was in fact mostly blue collar workers.
And then there’s this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
18. sherry replies at 6th June 2008, 3:54 pm :
Harry, you’re right that it’s impossible to get an accurate comparative vote count and that’s why practically every source that lists one gets a different set of numbers. And I couldn’t agree more that we need a primary election just of the type you describe. But apparently until 1968, the parties didn’t even have this much of a public election. So I suppose we’ve had some sort of progress and maybe after this debacle we’ll have more.
Really people who are saying this has been a mean primary are just whining. And/or they have no sense of history.
I’ve seen analyses, which I’m too lazy to look up right now, that say Obama does better with lower turnout and has run a vote-suppressing campaign. Republicans usually do better with lower turnout and run a vote-suppressing campaign. So I’m wondering if both sides will try to suppress the vote this year.
Hey! My grapes are as sour as Max’s. I have to amuse myself someway.
Leave a comment