warinner ([info]warinner) wrote,
@ 2008-03-12 08:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Me first
Hoyden About Town pointed to an interesting commentary on the Clinton-Obama slugfest. Among other things it said:

Oh, and about that. For all the talk about mathematical impossibilities and whatnot, Clinton would not still be in it if there weren't an outside chance she could win it. Between superdelegates, Florida and Michigan, and primaries yet to be held, there remain perfectly legal -- albeit implausible and arguably unsavory -- scenarios in which she could get the nomination. And from the looks of things, she's going to exhaust every one of those legal options before she gives up, so you know... get used to it. You don't have to like it, but calling for her to play nice and bow out is pretty much wasting your breath.

Why Clinton’s Not (Necessarily) Crazy


For me, the Clintonian me-first attitude is exactly what pisses me off about the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary). Their ability to put their own political fortunes ahead of the party has cost the party dearly over the years and that has had huge consequences for the nation.

I don't mean The Party in some kind of Stalinist Communist Party sense. The Democrat Party as a body is not endowed with some kind of mystical wisdom but the White House, House and Senate do matter. One political figure can't control all three. Screwing over the party and losing the House and Senate will make Presidency ineffectual.

Let's review the downsides of a knock down, drag out fight for the nomination:

- McCain gets a free ride until August. He gets to consolidate his party support (aka pandering) outside the media spotlight.

- McCain gets a primer on how to run against the Democratic nominee.

- The fight will leave the nominee badly positioned for the general election.

- The fight becomes so embittered that the Clintonites or the Obamatics decide to sit out the general election.

On the other hand, McCain is gasping for media oxygen right now. And he has not been able to pick up on any big stumbles by Clinton or Obama, neither has made any (apparently).

Clinton's 'kitchen sink' negative campaign has made Obama a better candidate. Obama's fundraising prowess has sharpened Clinton's fundraising skills. Both are better candidates for the general election.

The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are small. It's is difficult to portray the contest as a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party. At least on domestic issues, both candidates seem much more in sync with the country than McCain. It will be the Republicans who will be doing the repositioning for the general election, not the Democrats.

The last possibility is the real danger. The only way McCain can win is if Democratic voters stay home.

Both Clinton and Obama have to think how to bow out gracefully. Since Obama has the better claim to the nomination - having the lead in the popular vote, pledged delegates and states won - the pressure is more on Clinton with some justification.



(Post a new comment)


[info]lauredhel
2008-03-12 10:42 am UTC (link)
A while ago, someone was talking about how the Dem superdelegates had some sort of ?unspoken ?unwritten agreement that they would vote in accordance with how the country had voted in the primaries. I wish I remembered where I'd heard it and who had said it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]warinner
2008-03-12 11:19 am UTC (link)
That's the Obama line; it would give him superdelegates that may not have been committed to him before.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]tigtog
2008-03-12 01:33 pm UTC (link)
So does he have precedent on his side here or not?

Having superdelegates bow to the will of the ordinary delegates as a matter of course would seem to negate the point of having them at all, to my view. Not that redundant systems which are a waste of time and money are unheard of in politics of course.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]warinner
2008-03-12 02:04 pm UTC (link)
The superdelegates are just the evolutionary appendix of the old state party conferences that used to nominate the candidates. Oh, and a way for the party hacks to get a ticket to the convention with all the parties, food and fun that entails.

I'd say that Obama does have precedent on his side here. If he has won more states, more pledged delegates and more votes, it will be tough to Hillary for Hillary to wrest the nomination away short of Obama having some kind of Eagleton moment.

ObTWIAVBP: Back in 1972 George McGovern first picked Thomas Eagleton as his VP candidate. Shortly afterward Eagleton was revealed to have been occasionally hospitalized for psychiatric problems and McGovern promptly dropped him from the ticket. McGovern went on to politically self-destruct in his own unique way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…