« National Review: Still Clueless After All These Years | Main | Great Choice, Senator McCain! »

May 10, 2008

Comments

And...

Malcolm doesn't know her history. Shirley Chisholm won the New Jersey primary 36 years ago.

Re disenfranchisement, Andres Martinez (who usually bugs me) had this valid point:

Then there is the core hypocrisy at the heart of the Clinton campaign, a hypocrisy she cannot reconcile. She says she is still in this because she wants every last Democrat in every last state -- including Michigan and Florida -- to have his or her say. Then, when that glorious democratic process ends on the sunny isle of Puerto Rico, she wants to have superdelegates overturn the will of the people.

And...

Malcolm doesn't know her history. Shirley Chisholm won the New Jersey primary 36 years ago.

WOC don't count, silly.

I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on the argument that a continuation of the race through the rest of the states is a good thing because it allows the eventual winner to set up decent ground organizations in those states. The idea is that those organizations will be battle-tested and trained for the general election.

And as we've all said, HRC has every right to keep running if she wants to keep hemorrhaging money all over the rest of the states.

But I'll be damned if I'll let someone's appeals to sexism trump the fact that not only is Hillary Clinton not going to win, barring revelation that Obama is a secret member of NAMBLA, but that she's using racist and even sexist appeals (hello, Carville) to try and get there.

Those dogwhistles have been blown so much that I'm deaf to them now, I guess.

david kilmer: I think that would be true if there were some agreement that certain tactics were just out of bounds. Otherwise, I think it's gone past the point where the costs outweigh the benefits.

It's amazing how many articles on this say something like: "this will be fine, so long as Hillary Clinton doesn't get too underhanded." At this point, I read these almost the way I read articles that say: "at some point, political reality will force Bush to withdraw from Iraq": they just make me think: clearly, someone has not been paying attention.

I'd be interested to know people's thoughts on the argument that a continuation of the race through the rest of the states is a good thing because it allows the eventual winner to set up decent ground organizations in those states. The idea is that those organizations will be battle-tested and trained for the general election.

I don't think you need the election to happen per se to setup a ground organization. Obama's campaign has been setting them up months beforehand with some success. So the only plausible benefit I could see would come from the actual primary/caucus, rather than preparing for it per se.

I don't see the actual event giving much benefit in and of itself. For starters, it sucks up resources. Some of those resources (like cash) can be easily replenished, but some of them (like volunteers' days of work or volunteers' emotional restedness) can't be. If you hold a primary/caucus, you're going to burn through a ton of those resources. When the general election comes along, will you be able to replenish them? Sure, you can pump more cash in. But can you make the volunteers less emotionally drained? Can you eliminate the discord and bad feelings brought about by two ground organizations competing in the same area?

It seems like the vast majority of a ground operation's work comes before election day; in that sense, election day doesn't battle test them at all. The primary/caucus results might give them better demographic data for targeting where the campaign will be strong or weak for the general, but I suspect that effect is only meaningful if the general and primary/caucus electorate are very similar demographically. I don't think that's often the case. In any event, you can get similar information from polling.

In some ways, I think the nomination campaign is screwing with our understanding of the general. Right now, some of the energy and enthusiasm and votes are coming from people who hate Clinton (or women in general) more than they like Democrats and from people who hate Obama (or African Americans in general) more than they like Democrats. How significant are those groups? I honestly don't know. But we can't eliminate their influence until we get past the nomination campaign.

The BEST president EVER? That speaks more to her delusion than anything else in that column.

Dear Friends

I want to tell you about the day I had on Monday. I stopped in nine
towns throughout North Carolina, starting the day at 7:30 a.m. in
Elizabeth City and ending with a rally in Raleigh. That's the most
stops I've ever done in a single day -- for any campaign. And I
couldn't be happier to work that hard for Hillary.


I talked to a lot of people that day, and one thing was crystal clear
-- people want Hillary to stay in this race until every last voter has
a say. That's why Hillary and I are working so hard. That's why we've
made a deep commitment to keep campaigning, keep fighting, and keep
winning.


We have had a lot of success in this campaign, and our come-from-
behind victory in Indiana is the latest example of how Hillary wins
when she has your support behind her. As long as you share her
commitment to winning, this race is going to continue.


Our next test is just five days away in West Virginia. Hillary needs
your help right now to keep winning.


Contribute now to help us show the strength of our campaign.


I know something about coming back to win after you've been counted
out. So does Hillary. Over the course of this campaign, the pundits
have tried to declare a premature end to the race dozens of times.


Well, last time I checked, it's still up to the voters. And there are
a lot of voters who haven't had their say yet.


It's up to us to make sure that the voters in West Virginia and the
other states yet to come are given a choice. I urge you to act now to
help Hillary keep fighting.


Show your support by making a contribution today.


I wish I could talk to every last person who has worked so hard for
Hillary to thank you for everything you've done for her. You mean so
much to both of us. She's still in this thing because of your hard
work and your indomitable spirit.


Sincerely,


Bill Clinton


SUPPORT FOR HILLARY CLINTON
WE WANT JUSTICE IN THE WORLD
WE WANT PEACE IN THE WORLD
WE WANT DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD
FOR AMERICA

Sharing a Vision of Peace, Justice, and Democracy for the World
WORLD DEMOCRACY MEDIA GROUP
NEW YORK
United for Peace and Justice
M WAHEED JADOON

In (professional) chess it is considered extremly bad style to fight to checkmate. A pro cedes once the end is seen as inevitable.
I think the same holds true for political campaigns (at least primaries)
And for the case of the unlikely demise of the obvious winner: Should Obama suddenly drop out for reasons not under his control, Hillary would be the candidate, even if she ceded now (except maybe, if she was the reason of her rival's exit). The only one who could object with some chance of success would be the (yet unnamed) VP candidate.

When Ellen Malcolm describes Hilary as "brilliant," I was puzzled. What brilliance has she demonstrated? Health Care in the Clinton administration? Nope. Running a competent campaign in New York (as the wife of President Clinton) against a clownish opponent? No. Her current campaign? Nothing brilliant about that. Quite the opposite. She appears to be running on the strength of her entitlement to do so as the wife of President Clinton, and a record in the Senate that is not bad, but certainly not brilliant (that she would not have been able to run for at all if she had not been the wife of the President).

Not a very feminist argument in her favor when you come down to it. I am sure that her "brilliance" would have enabled her to be a very tenacious and hardworking corporate or trial attorney. But a politician? Not without her husband.

"M WAHEED JADOON"

Because nothing is more persuasive than a drive-by cut-and-paste with picket fence formatting, and no coherent content.

But all-caps is all one needs to really make an irrefutable argument.

people say all caps
makes a very strong argument
but
in the end
the still quiet voice
of no caps

lines
ending
randomly

subverts
the paradigm

makes all things new

vote gravel 2008
or 2012
or whenever
sometime

At this point, either the logic and reason prevails or it doesn't. If Hillary and her supporters need to continue their lovefest with one another and they all are willing to spend the time and resources to do so, then fine. Countless words have been written on all the misspeaks, misremembers, crossed lines, subtext, dysfunction and delusions and those who are for her are for her. Period. They might even sway more people to their view.

There has proven to be more than enough of us who just aren't buying and we've moved on to the next phase. While this ongoing non-contest smolders and continues to give off the odour of something distasteful we're working on reaching out to the remaining people who still haven't tuned in to what is at stake in November. I'm putting my residual anger to good use and while I did take names during this campaign, I'm hoping that even those people who appealed to the lowest in us will end up as allies.

The only voters that I accept being divided from in this coming election are the ones who choose to vote hate and fear over work and renewal.

The continuation of this fool campaign is paralyzing our ground effort in Ohio. We need to know who the candidate is to massage hurt feelings on the losing side and get volunteers out on the winning side. Door-knocking and canvassing efforts don't spring full blown from the ether. And we're spinning our wheels until Hillary cuts it out.

I think it's time for someone to call on Vernon Jordan, core friend of the Clintons, and also a friend of Obama, to ask Hillary to step aside.

I spent some time over the last few days with feminist women of Ellen Malcolm's generation who have been Clinton supporters. They really are just learning that Clinton has lost. They'll be fine, support Obama in the fall, etc. -- but right now, they are just getting it. They didn't know until the media told them. They don't understand the core fact that winning was about collecting delegates and the Clinton campaign forgot that and dug itself into a hopeless hole by ignoring the caucus states.

They voted for her in their primaries and it made them feel wonderful. They've lived inside a different reality than we have for the last six months. They'll catch up.

I am a 59 year old white woman, and I do not understand why so many women my age are attracted to HRC's candidacy as a sign of feminism. To me it is very old-school, like various governors and senators who have died in office and been succeeded by their wives even quite long ago. I am sure Hillary is extremely bright, but truthfully she spent her life supporting Bill Clinton's career, which is not a feminist approach to life. She was perfectly entitled to make that choice in her own life, but why does it speak to other women? The only thing I can think of is that it speaks to other women that put their efforts into behind-the-scenes support of husbands or bosses, and feel a deep resentment about that choice. I can't figure it out otherwise.

"too close to call" = bad faith. That's all.

Seems to me like Malcolm, like many other women of her generation, is so emotionally invested in seeing a female president in her lifetime that she refuses to acknowledge the empirical reality that enough voters have made their choice to decide who the majority thinks the nominee should be, and it ain't Hillary.

Much as I dislike Hillary I do feel a smidgeon of sympathy for her having her historic candidacy upstaged by an even more historic one.

Janinsanfran is right: until the media stopped oversetimating her chances and announced her failure, many of her supporters really believed that she had a chance. HRC herself misled her supporters aabut this and still is, but less effectively now tha the media is getting real about the state of the race.

Most of the Hillary supporters that i know are women with a pretty strong sense of victimaizatin, mostly unearned, in my opinion, but real in their heads. Upper middle classs to weathly, married, healthy, with sucessful children, near retirement or at retirement from careers of their choice, and yet this feeling of being victims.

Victims by definition; "I am female, therefore I am a victim"

In fact thier understanding ov feminism seems to be not much more than an assertion of victimhood.

Since they insist on victim status for themselves, they also insist on it, in the face of all facts, for Hillary. ANd they have no sensitivity at all for the difficulties that a black man might have in antional politics or empathy for the feelings that African Americans might have about the candidacy of an Amfrican American.

Of course I'm thinking here of the small pool of neighbors and caucus-goers of my neck of the woods. The point is that I'm pretty sure most or all will vote for Obama but I don't think that they will ever get over feeling screwed. SInce gfeeling scewed is part of their identity as female.

Now tell me I'm a sexist for using a rape analogy! I didn't mean it that way but I'm not taking it back because I don't equate feiminism with getting into a big flapdoodle about word usage.

Much as I dislike Hillary I do feel a smidgeon of sympathy for her having her historic candidacy upstaged by an even more historic one.

Frankly, I feel a smidgeon of sympathy for us as a nation that her historic candidacy has been upstaged by an even more historic one. Seems a little unfair, like an embarrassment of riches that we must, in embarrassment, decline.

The arguments have been in bad faith for weeks now. We need to see who wins Pennsylvania! Pennsylvania is a swing state! Pennsylvanians are real Americans and it is impossible to pick the nominee without them! Never you mind that in previous elections the race has been over by the time PA votes!

wonkie, rape analogy aside, to argue 'feminism seems to be not much more than an assertion of victimhood' is sexist. Look, throughout most of the lifetime of a lot of Clinton's older supporters, it was completely justifiable to think that sexism was indeed keeping them from getting ahead. (I've had conversation with older female faculty that would just make your head spin because of how different the past was. Older dons refusing to talk to the new female hires; having to do doctoral research while not being permitted in the library because the undergraduate institution was not yet co-ed.) The Clinton campaign has been actively arguing for weeks that she has a shot; if her supporters believe that (and why wouldn't they?), it's plausible to believe that they would react negatively to her being told to quit. No need to postulate a rape complex to explain that!

Cala: I understood wonkie to be taking about feminism according to some people that she has met, not feminism in general.

Cala, the reason her supporters shouldn't have believed her, is that it was wishful thinking not based on the numbers. As to the victim mentality, I could tell you several more stories about sexist treatment and gobsmacking obstacles in the workplace myself, but I was competing in the workplace. HRC hasn't competed in the workplace for 30 years. This is why I don't understand her appeal as a symbol.

Seems to me like Malcolm, like many other women of her generation, is so emotionally invested in seeing a female president in her lifetime that she refuses to acknowledge the empirical reality that enough voters have made their choice to decide who the majority thinks the nominee should be, and it ain't Hillary.

Funny thing is, I get the feeling that if Edwards was in Obama's position, then they wouldn't feel as bitter. There wouldn't be the sense of "It's a woman's turn, dammit!"

We know that Obama, short of divine intervention, will win the nomination.

We know that HRC is willing to damage Obama in her vain quest to snatch away the prize.

We know that McCain is campaigning essentially unchallenged these crucial months.

We know that HRC seems increasingly Bush-like as she refuses to accept that yes, she made a bunch of bad decisions and blew it. She could've won it but she didn't (bad vote on Iraq, don't bother with caucus states, assume it is all over on Super Tuesday, let incompetetent subordinates burn through millions, etc.)

So is there any good to be had from this opera? Yes.

A lot of Hillary supporters LOVE her. They need to see every last vote counted before they can accept they have lost. They need to move from anger and denial to acceptance. This takes time. Obama needs those voters to win. This is why Obama is so careful to never say HRC should quit the race.

If HRC finally lets go the psychodrama will suddenly end, and there will be palpable relief across the land. Compared to HRC Obama is so cool that people will flock to him just to chill out. McCain, on the other hand, is a hothead who laughed when someone called HRC a bitch. Will HRC diehards really vote for McCain?

If HRC never lets go and the prize has to be pried from her twitching hands she will have long passsed into the ridiculous, giving space for all but the truly nutty to quietly make their peace with Obama.

In the general, Obama will be widely seen as someone who handled a very sensitive and emotional confrontation with restraint and intelligence. He refused to be goaded, he refused to play, he quietly persevered. This will look good against McCain, who voted against his Party's own candidate (Bush 2000) and was foolish enough to brag about it at a dinner party.

I know I am making lemonade out of lemons, but it seems like pretty decent lemonade.

it speaks to other women that put their efforts into behind-the-scenes support of husbands or bosses, and feel a deep resentment about that choice. (bemused)

Malcolm, like many other women of her generation, is so emotionally invested in seeing a female president in her lifetime (Xeynon)

I imagine this touches the heart of HRC’s appeal to her core of supporters. They, for all their willingness to pull with the team, have suffered quietly under the burden of playing a merely supporting role. So here they feel a profound connection with Hillary’s ambition to right the table at whose foot they’ve felt forced to sit.
With Hillary’s ascendancy, they have imagined a turning of the tables such that they themselves will no longer be forced into supporting roles, and will find themselves in a bright new world in which they will see in others’ eyes, at last, a recognition and respect commensurate with their contributions.
It’s not at all unlike what many of us have seen in Obama, who holds out the promise that the ‘rulers of the darkness of this world’ will be brought to heel and the common people who have felt pressed into irrelevance will be raised to their proper place in a democracy worthy of the name.

So I think jan pretty much nails it. It in fact may be revelatory of the depth of repressed desperation many more women than it’s comfortable to imagine have felt forced to endure.

Further, I imagine that this is central to Hillary’s dogged and desperate pursuit of the Presidency; it speaks of her sense of humiliation and her consequent understanding that she’s fighting not just for herself but for all women. I imagine as well Ellen Ladowsky’s analysis to which I’ve referred in other threads, that Hillary in her underlying reality has felt herself under constant sniper fire (and in her telling, denied the party she’d been promised; read Party), reveals an important truth.

felix culpa, I think you accurately describe the feeling of HRC supporters, but to "have suffered quietly under the burden of playing a merely supporting role" in HRC's case was a choice she made. Noone forced it on her. So why is she a symbol of victimization? I think, instead, that she is a symbol of regretted choices.

bemused: precise point taken.

It’s sad to recognize just how massive and widespread the feeling of disappointed disenfranchisement remains. It points to felt failures of feminism that remain to be addressed and wounds that remain to be healed.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but the infamous "Women's Voices. Women Vote" has struck again, in West Virginia.

And the WVWV president's response is, again, "We hope that this unfortunate coincidence in timing does not lead to any confusion or aggravation for either your state's voters or registrars."

bemused, I don't even know whether she is a symbol of regretted choices so much as she is a symbol that women ought not to be judged lacking for having made choices to support their husbands and family, and put them first. Now that Hillary is "all grown up" they resent it that some people are holding her affiliation with the former president against her -- when, after all, lots of politicians are where they are purely on the strength of family associations. For instance, I am from Pennsylvania, where Robert Casey Jr. surely would not be a senator were his father not governor once upon a time.

So in that light, they perceive an actual double standard in the sneering that "she's only the wife of the president" when it seems to work just fine as a qualification for the Kennedys, for example.

So it is a bit more complicated than just personal resentment, though that is a lot of it. So I have stopped the talk about how Clinton is "just the wife" of a former president, and have, instead, focused on what I perceive to be her true weaknesses: Iraq, Iran, catastrophic handling of health care, and non-strategic thinking very much in evidence during her campaign. I do think she would govern much as she campaigned, and that does not bode well.

Barbara; yet more precisely nailed. And I don’t have any trouble grasping it; at all.
But it’s a bit of a shock, and appalling, to recognize.

I do think, though, that you’re being much too kind to Hillary, though perhaps it’s best to confine your persuasion to simple statements of simple facts.
It seems to me the fundamental reason to oppose her and not just support Obama is her appearing to be lost in a bubble of unreality. (Once again, there’s that parallel with McCain that she so helpfully first pointed to— except that neither of them is suited to be CiC.)

My main sources for such suppositions, as before, here and her, “Neuroses, Psychoses, and Politics”.

And oh yeah, where would McCain be without Cindy and the wife he ditched?

Barbara writes: "bemused, I don't even know whether she is a symbol of regretted choices so much as she is a symbol that women ought not to be judged lacking for having made choices to support their husbands and family, and put them first."

Look, if a female surgeon shelves her career for 20 years, that long lack of practice *matters*. If she stepped into an operating room for the first time in 20 years, she'd be freaking *lost* in the vast change of technology.

It's one thing to hold it against her as a moral failing. That would be uncalled for. It's another thing to pretend there's no gap, and that she's something she is not.

In fact, it's like you are the one discrediting her decision to focus on family and husband, instead of her own career. You're dismissing it so much you're pretending it never happened.

Aw crap.

Barbara, never mind what I just wrote. My reading lobe wasn't engaged.

Cala, the reason her supporters shouldn't have believed her, is that it was wishful thinking not based on the numbers.

If one did not read carefully, one would assume based on media coverage that the Democratic primaries and caucuses worked like the general election, with bellwether states and swing states and the whole nine yards. If one read a little more carefully, one would read that it isn't over, because of these superdelegates and maybe FL and MI.

I submit that the number of people who have bothered to do the math, or have read things where people have done the math, is quite small. Bloggers & blog commenters are often better informed, but after every primary that Clinton wins, the media rush to shape a comeback narrative. I don't think I have to postulate much about victim complexes to think that some people might actually believe the papers.

Acropolis Review has a good summary of reasons why Barack Obama is the better choice for women this year. http://acropolisreview.com/

But Cala, the bloggers speak (almost, yes) with one voice that it’s not possible.

Anyway, it’s probably necessary for her to play out the drama. Considering Ladowsky’s postulate of a victim/hero duality in her imagining, the hero, like Roland, goes on fighting to the bitter end until engulfed by the forces of darkness.
Admirable and tragic, as befits heroic stature.

On more slippery ground, I can imagine a lot of those ‘working class white males’ were forced to vote as they did by spouses with a gleam in their eyes fueled by thoughts of being looked up to rather than the accustomed reverse.

Hillary is not stupid nor is she and her entire staff delirious.

Unlike her true believers Clinton has known since Obama went reeling off eleven straight primary wins that she wasn't going to win.

So why is acting like a fifth column within the Democratic Party? She praises McCain time and again while dismissing Obama as unqualified. Those of us who've been around for awhile (I'm old enough to vaguely remember JFK-Nixon) know that this just doesn't happen. A Democrat doesn't sing the praises of the Republican nominee to win points against the candidate that's going to win her party's presumptive nominee. Clinton's "obliterate" remark gave political cover for Bush when he makes a bombing run against Iran. Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews had a story recently that said all the Wright stuff, Ayers, etc., was Clinton's "oppo" research, loaded and ready to go in December. That is, these eruptions in the MSM were in Clinton's playbook before the first caucus. While Clinton supporters complain about how sexist the media has been, FOX, Limbaugh and the rest of the Right's propaganda machine have been actively working for Clinton to weaken Obama. Her campaigning has embraced the most Rovian tactics to injure the Democrats this fall.

Now look at the Clintons' record. Most of Bill's big accomplishments were done with a majority of Republicans and the DLC Dems. The trade deals, the media mergers, the gutting of welfare, the expansion of the drug wars against our own citizens.

Why does Clinton seem to be a fifth column? Because she is. She's not running for her true believers. She's running for her real constituency, the people where that 109 million came from.

It's not delusion. It's intentional. Believe what you see, not what she and her pitiful followers say.

[...] subverts the paradigm

makes all things new

IJWTS that this overall comment is one of the best responses I've ever stimulated.

When Edwards withdrew after failing to win any states on Super Tuesday, 21 states had not yet been heard from.

Edwards actually dropped out a week before Super Tuesday:

“We could have stayed in and been competitive in some of the Feb. 5 states, but the path to winning the nomination had expired,”

Only 4 states (plus Florida and Michigan) had voted at that point.

Edwards wanted the two leaders to have a clear shot at establishing who was preferred by the electorate (without any questions of Edwards "taking" votes from one or the other). Obama has now proven that he's the favorite.

Oh geez; why not.
When I go around after everybody’s gone home, searching for butts and the odd unemptied glass and the right hand column lights up with my nom, it’s a little embarrassing clumping around in the quiet.

Anyway, mention of Edwards’ graceful taste brought up thoughts as Veep.
But then I began to reflect a bit on the options; what a rich field of choices. Advantage Dems.

I’ll close out my night quoting from Gunnar Myrdal’s Nobel Prize Speech:
When politicians and experts become timid about giving due importance to moral commitments, realism is absent. (link)

What a rich day.
All hail.

But Cala, the bloggers speak (almost, yes) with one voice that it’s not possible.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that what remains of Clinton's base -- part of the white working class -- isn't reading blogs to assess her electability.

felix culpa, I was trying to give the view of people like my mother, a truly rabid Clinton supporter. The corrective is as follows:

1. Although there are many (in particular) "sons" of famous men running for office, more than a few of those have also been hit with accusations that they are running on nothing more than their family connections. Sometimes that sticks, sometimes it doesn't, but it certainly is not limited to Hillary Clinton.

2. Clinton's biography is particularly problematic partly because she herself has failed to elucidate how we are to take into account her service as first lady. I would say, in fact, that her campaign has been deliberatly ambiguous about this so that they can talk out of both sides of their mouth when necessary. So: "she has 35 years of public service" but "don't vote for her just because she is Bill Clinton's wife," but "do give her credit for various Clinton administration successes," but "don't hold against her various Clinton administration flops" (or what are perceived retrospectively to be flops, like NAFTA.

Still, focusing on the connections angle is probably counterproductive when there is enough of a record to make a judgment. I have noticed, however, that Clinton supporters seem to run away from that record (Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman, health care) even as they insist that they are voting for Clinton because of her accomplishments. It's exasperating.

She can say Hillary's got the right to campaign, but as far as I can tell, her organization has stopped putting money into Clinton's campaign. Where Emily's List matters to Clinton -- in their ability to fund mailings and telephone campaigns -- they seem to have given up. No independent primary expenditures have been reported for AFSCME/Emily's List/American Leadership Project in West Virginia or at all this week.

Put your money where your mouth is, and all of that.

Why is Hillary trying so hard to justify sticking around? The common wisdom amongst Obama supporters seems to be that the Clintons are a couple of jerks. I don't think it's that simple. Something could happen to Obama -- a revelation of scandal, whatever. If that happens long after Clinton drops out, and the Party needs a new nominee, it's much more likely to be Gore, Obama's Veep pick, Michelle Obama, etc than Hillary if she's already faded into the background. It's worth sticking around for her just for the long odds chance there -- just like it was worth it for Huck to stick around. And, she gets to nudge the party in the direction she chooses depending on which lines of dialog she chooses to employ in the remaining contests.

No independent primary expenditures have been reported for AFSCME/Emily's List/American Leadership Project in West Virginia or at all this week.

there's no need to - she's going to absolutely crush him in WV/KY anyway.

there's no need to - she's going to absolutely crush him in WV/KY anyway.

Anyone have any thoughts on whether the media is going to crown her the comeback kid tomorrow after she wins WV? Or will they point out that it doesn't matter in the end? God help us if it's "she's back in the running now!!!!!"

Ugh, I'm expecting that the media will indeed crown her. I don't have any good reason other than the assumption that many people within the media are profoundly ignorant and highly innumerate. I think they're going to look at the 30+ point spreads in WV and KY and completely lose all perspective. They'll make some comments about how nothing has really changed as an aside, but the thrust of the coverage will be the comeback kid meme.

Zach, if she just wants to be the stand-by candidate at this point, it might make sense to still be running, but it makes no sense at all to be bashing Obama.

Ugh and Turbulence, I fear tomorrow's storyline as well. The media would love to have yet another "unexpected" "turnaround" in this race. How many have they had so far? Six? Eight?

I don't think the media will crown Clinton the Comeback Kid after WV/KY. I think they got the message that she's done.

What they will do is "discuss" for days how this shows that Obama, who will be the Dem. nominee, can't win in November because white people don't like him.

Ugh: Anyone have any thoughts on whether the media is going to crown her the comeback kid tomorrow after she wins WV?

Absolutely. It makes for a more "compelling story" that way. But it'll be carefully phrased in the form of a question: "Is this the breath of life for the Clinton campaign? Turn in at 7 to find out!"

Cala: If one read a little more carefully, one would read that it isn't over, because of these superdelegates and maybe FL and MI.

I submit that the number of people who have bothered to do the math, or have read things where people have done the math, is quite small.

I'll counter-submit that that number includes pretty much every commenter in this thread. The issue isn't that Clinton can't possibly win the nomination, it's that the odds of her winning are staggeringly low and likely come with real cost. For example, if she somehow finagles the Michigan and Florida delegates into the race wholesale, without some kind of do-over, she's lost my support, period. I will not vote for someone who so cavalierly subverts the system, even if the system is byzantine and kind of dopey; that's for Republicans and their drones. Likewise, if she continues to campaign on McCain's behalf in order to further her own ends at the expense of the party's, she'll likely cost herself my vote. If that makes me radical, naive, or an ivory-tower idealist, so be it. I will not cross those lines.

OTOH, if she wins the primary through playing hardball against Obama without giving aid and comfort to the Republicans, even if it comes by seating the Florida and Michigan delegates via some kind of equitable compromise, I'll gladly support her in the general election. But this support is adamantly contingent on her playing by the rules.

And, for the record, I say all this believing that Clinton really has been a victim in this election. The sexism she's had to face has been unbelievable, and unbelievably ugly. That doesn't change my requirements of her, though, nor has the racism Obama's faced changed my requirement of him. May the better candidate prevail.

Dear FRIENDS,

Have you seen the general election polls lately? They consistently show that we'll beat John McCain in November. In a national head-to-head match and in the critical swing states, the numbers show I'm the best candidate to take back the White House for Democrats.

That is why it's critical that we stay in this race and keep fighting for every last vote. We can win the nomination if we extend our popular vote lead, and that means putting everything we have into the final races. With just a few days before the voters in Puerto Rico head to the polls, our campaign is working hard -- and your support is making the difference.

Every vote matters. I need you to help today and join our matching program. When you give today, a supporter will match your contribution and double its impact,

Contribute today to have twice the impact on the final primary races.

In the past 24 hours, thousands of you have given generously to our campaign, and I'm so delighted to see your incredible commitment.

With your help, we're going to keep driving forward to victory, and there's no better time to help than right now. By making a contribution today, you'll double your impact when your gift is matched.

Contribute today, and your gift will be matched.

Thank you for putting your heart and spirit into this campaign. I couldn't do it without you.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

FRIEND OF HILLARY CLINTON
M WAHEED JADOON
WORLD DEMOCRACY MEDIA GROUP
NEW YORK

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad