Should Obama Drop Out of the Race?
What happened to the Democratic Party?
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've volunteered in countless Democratic campaigns. I've managed campaigns for Democrats. I was a Democratic candidate for statewide office in California. For three years, I was Chair of the California Democratic Party. But I don't recognize the Democratic Party today.
The party I knew loved a good fight, loved debating the issues, recognized the value of a high-profile, hard-fought primary battle -- and believed in giving everyone a fair shot. Today, the Democratic Party's turned into a bunch of weak-willed weenies.
What's going on? The party is blessed with two of the best candidates ever to run for president. The party's making history with the first African-American and the first woman having a serious shot at the presidency. In every state, the Democratic primary is attracting record numbers of new voters and building a huge, new pool of Democrats that will benefit all Democratic candidates in November. And how do party leaders respond? By trying to shut down the primary. This is insane!
Bill Richardson endorses Barack Obama. Good for him. But he can't stop there. He calls on Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd endorse Obama. Good for them, too. But, same thing. Both feel somehow compelled to add that Clinton should quit. Why? There is no more rationale for Clinton to drop out of the race than there is for Obama to drop out of the race.
True, Clinton hasn't locked up the nomination yet. But neither has Obama. True, even if she wins every delegate in every remaining primary, Clinton can not reach the magic 2024 delegates necessary to secure the nomination. But neither can Obama. True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes.
Plus, and here's the most important point: It's not over yet. Until it is, we can't be sure of the outcome. And it would be a big mistake to end it prematurely. There's been many a boxing match where one fighter won 14 rounds, only to get knocked out in the 15th.
All these Obama supporters calling on Clinton to drop out aren't helping their candidate, either. They make Obama look like he's afraid of a fight. And they themselves look like a stereotypical bunch of men telling a woman she can't hack it in politics, so she might as well get back in the kitchen.
No, Hillary Clinton should not quit this race. And neither should Barack Obama. They're both great candidates. Either one of them will make a great president. So let the primaries continue and let the voters decide. If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll do handstands on the White House lawn. But only if he wins it, fair and square.
Get more thoughts and pre-order a copy of "Trainwreck: The End of the Conservative Revolution (And Not a Moment Too Soon)" at www.billpressshow.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is an excellent commentary on why Hillary should stay in this undemocratic fight with her bullying opponent. Obamyopics can't hope to receive much democratic good will with their unsavoury tactics. Are they such sorry political solipsists that their vision is damaged?
It is shameful the way Obama and his supporters conduc themselves on the political stage they hope to be protagonists. I doubt Obama has the talent to play even a supporting role in the new administration, whatever that will be. His poor judgment in choosing "uncle Jeremiah" as his "moral compass" and "mentor" --and thus clearly promoting racist and sexist divisions--continues into the political arena where it is dangerous indeed for him to insist that the world around Him stop operating in a democratic fashion and his much worthier opponent bow out to let His Hopeness rule unimpeded by ere democratic instincts. [His co-chair Jesse Jackson Jr's questioned in Iowa " the natural O.J. thing...for Obama is to knock down a white woman?" --before grandma was pushed under the bus of political expediency. ] It's an Obamyopic mantra to insist a stronger female opponent be knocked down so that He may walk unimpeded to His rightful place. Ye Zeus! What lack of decency and political Judgment!
Has he ever taken Boxing or Ethics 101 at Harvard U? Now's the time to stop lecturing,posturing, and invest in a cure for his politically severe OBAMYOPIA. He can start the healing by dropping out NOW! Amen.
Obama himself, publicly has asked for the calls to stop and said only Hillary decides how long she is in this race. Nice try with the tar and feather though. We all know who has been slinging the most mud because so much of it is on her hands that her favorably/unfavorable ratings are approaching bushes.
By all means she should stay in the race. It is was hers to lose. The whole thing was going to be wrapped up on Feb 5th remember? She was the inevitable candidate. She started the primary season with so many supers behind her she was a lock. I guess she never saw Obama coming. She just didn't have the judgment to be able to craft a campaign to beat him.
See that's the bottom line. If she would be such a good president, why has she been such a bad campaigner? How did she take an inevitable win and turn it into a limping off the field loss? I am sure there will be endless debate about that once it's over. But it isn't over, she still has more reputation to burn and Obama and his supporters like myself need to get out of the way and let her self-immolate.
Good grief this is a case of the pot calling thee kettle black.
The biggest bully on the block is Hillary and her supporters who tried extorting the DNC and Nancy Pelosi.
Undemocratic? I assume you're referring to Fl and MI. Where were all this people crying "disenfranchisement" when the punishment was meted out? Harold Ickes voted for it. Hillary signed a pledge. Hillary told NPR in New Hampshire that the vote in Michigan wouldn't count. None of them became the champion of the disenfranchised voter until Hillary realized she needed them. When she expected to sweep Super Tuesday and wrap things up it was ok with her.
And the idea that voters in upcoming primaries would be disenfranchised if she dropped out now is laughable. If she wrapped it up on Super Tuesday would she encourage Obama to stay in it so voters in future states weren't disenfranchised? Of course not!
What happened to the Democratic party is that the DLC assumed and the party ceased to represent the interests of ordinary people and started losing elections at a record level.
Anyone who reads Al From/Bruce Reed's obligatory post election 'analysis' on the editorial pages of the WSJ knows what happened to the Democratic party.
I have to agree with you Bill, though I am an Obama supporter and would love to see Hillary bow out, I see no reason why she should do that as long as she's willing to keep fighting.
I first noticed this back in 2000 on election night. The race was incredibly close and everything hinged on Florida which had first been called for Gore than for Bush than too close to call.
All the reporters covering it on TV (working for networks that had blown it by cheaping out on polling and then misinterpreting the data) were wringing their hands, apologizing to the public and acting as if they had been working several days without sleep.
I was amazed. These were political reporters reporting a political story. Why were they so upset and apoligetic? If this were the Superbowl and it went into overtime, would the sportscasters be apologizing or claiming it was the greatest game ever?
I'm watching John Adams on HBO and then the current elections and wondering, when did we all get so delicate. It's a fight and both fighters are still standing, so stop yelling at the ref to stop it.
EARTH TO BILL PRESS..... Hillary stopped debating the "issues" a long time ago,
Dear Seth:
Hillary should drop out because winning this election is more important than Hillary's ego. It's time to beat up on McCain, not on each other.
Who cares whether she is "willing" to keep fighting. Her "campaign" has degenirated into a sleazy exercise in self indulgence.
I see a clear reason for her to bow out. Math.
I agree--why should any hardworking candidate take the advice of these Monday morning pipsqueaks? (I am tired of all the other cliches.) Believe me, the Republicans will come up with smears against the Democratic nominee without any help. And all these supposed newbies that have supposedly tuned in on this race need to know--this is a though, tough business. It's not for wimps or quitters.
Some times even Monday morning pipsqueaks are right. As is the case right now. She can't win, it's very simple.
Bill Press used to have a brain. I don't know what happened to him. Are the Clinton's paying him a lot of money or did he simply lose his sense of perspective?
Pardon my typos (above). I am missing an eye--have looked everywhere.
I have read and re-read your comment and cannot see the typos...maybe I am missing both eyes??
This electoral vote thing is one of the most fascinating aspects of the primaries. It's so transparent on all the levels. The clearest is that people putting it out are saying that Democrats who voted for Clinton will Republican in November. Maybe, if the speculation is correct, they are even hoping that happens. At any rate, the "electoral vote" advocates are looking to influence the dimmest wits in the party.
More important, I think, is the message that Clinton does not value previous commitments, and will say anything. This is Bush on Kyoto and arms control. This is not what the United States needs more of, but it is surely what we will get with such an opportunistic president who has such a low opinion of the populace.
Bill, you make an incredibly poor argument.
If anyone thinks HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/
If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:
1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.
There are numerous precedents for wrapping up the nomination before all the states have voted. There's no precedent for the superdelegates to overturn the votes of the voters.
One good thing about the race going on is McCain gets almost no coverage while the press is all over the Democrats. The bad thing is Sen. Clinton is using the limelight to encourage the rage of her supporters. Read the comment of Sakel above. He's pretty typical of the rants Sen. Clinton is inspiring. She hypocritically keeps harping on Michigan and Florida and how much she cared about the citizens of these states' votes, but if she cared so much about these voters, why did she agree to the DNC's ruling in the first place? Equally damaging, however, is the way Sen. Clinton keeps twisting convention issues, and what delegates are meant to do, and what they should do. Again, in the most self-serving ways. And any rational debate causes shrieks of victimization. Sen Clinton is the victim of the press, the Obama campaign, Bill Richardson -- whoever. And this makes her victim mentality supporters shriek -- read the hundreds of their shrieking posts here. So it's not so much that Sen. Clinton should get out of the race because it's finished. If she wants to get deeper into debt and keep running, that is totally her priority. But the way she is playing on the sentiments of Democrats and willfully encouraging hysteria among her supporters is causing a rift in the party, and it is this behavior -- not any wish to prevent her winning (as if she could) -- that is causing party elders to believe the
The thing that amazes me about HRC is that her campaign is almost as good at moving goalposts as bush...of course bush's moving the goalposts concerning the Iraq war is much worse. While Hillary keeps changing what would define her victory, bush does the same exact thing...making it impossible for our brave young warriors to EVER attain victory. That correlation alone shows why Hillary would be the worst possible nominee for the Democratic party...it would be just like voting for a third bush term. Either way, McCain or Clinton would just mean more of th same.
"her campaign is almost as good at moving goalposts as bush"
EXCELLENT POINT.
Yes, Bill, Obama should bow out for the sake of the party after the last vote is cast and there is no winner. He can't win and neither can she without super-delegates and super-delegates aren't beholden to the pledge delegate winner or popular vote winner.
So, next time you, the reader, thinks Clinton should quit, ask yourself first, if Obama should too.
And you believe there would be no negative blow back if Hillary superceded the pledged delegate count, popular vote count and states won count by using 100+ more super delegates? Think this through, it would be a disaster for us.
Bill;
The Party still loves a good fight and loves debating the issues. The reason people are calling on Hillary to resign is that she's not doing that. She's running a Karl Rove style campaign based on fear, innuendo and lies. She's even been praising McCain over Barrack Obama, for god's sake.
It's pretty obvious she's decided if she doesn't win the Democratic nomination, then she'll take down the Party.
So Bill, it's not the duration of the campaign that has people calling for her to withdraw -- it's the sleazy Rovian scorched earth campaign she's running that's making people call for her withdrawal.
There's no room in this Party for that kind of candidate.
Ahead in the electoral count!! This is a delegate race...are you kidding me? Plus, there is a difference in fighting about issues and just plain fighting to be a nasty liar...like your girl Hillary. We keep telling you old asses that this is a new day, a new era. The politics are old aren't gonna fly today. So let the lying, hateful, dishones, unstable in the brain Hillary stay in. It's just going to humiliate her more.
We "old asses"? Read your post again and see who is being humiliated. You inspire me to fight harder so you kids can't take over.
Very well said, Star123!
-MS
You guys run out of good arguements on race and gender or something? If you are going to try dragging age into it now maybe you should identify how old that person is. Don't assume. Like it or not "us kids" are coming into our own. We are here in record numbers because the generations before us thought it would be cute to flush America down the toilet. Maybe you want that? We don't. Fight all you like, but it's too bad you didn't put that anger of being disrespected to better use not letting our country get so out of control.
Bill, come on now, can you really do HANDSTANDS? REALLY? I can't wait!
Bill, you said "True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote. But Clinton leads in electoral votes." 'leads in electoral votes" - It's a Primary, electoral votes count in the General, your arguement is non-existent.
And you said 'If Obama ends up the nominee, I'll do handstands on the White House lawn. But only if he wins it, fair and square." "fair and square - nominee - True, Obama leads in delegates, the number of states won, and popular vote" Well Bill, there you go, in your own words. The contest is for the party nomination, which is decided by delegates, which, it is true Barack has more, and that will not change, and he's ahead in states won and popular vote, which promises to continue. Sounds Square and Fair.
I hope you have good medical insurance, because if Hillary's 2nd choice for President, John McCain gets elected, your hand stands might be to dangerous to attempt, because an accident might not be covered with McSame.
Do you even twitch when you lie these days or it come completely natural? The nominee, by the same rule that dis-qualified FL and MI, states that you need 2024 delegates to win the nomination. All this talk about Hillary can't win and Obama leading this and that is total BS and you know it. Explain to me how Obama is going to get 2024 delegate WITHOUT FL and MI on 4/1/2008 and I will agree with you that Hillary should not continue to campaign.
You're mistaken. Neither candidate can reach 2024 with only pledged delegates, they both can with the super delegates without counting Michigan and Florida. The point everyone is making is that if Hillary supercedes the pledged delgates with super delegates, (she'll likely need 120 or more than Obama jsut to pull even) would be disastorous for the party on several levels. It would disenfranchise voters, before you say it, Michigan and Florida made their beds and all the candidates signed the same pledge. If Hillary needs to use super delegates to beat Obama it would split the party. I was an Edwards supporter who switched to Obama wonce he dropped out and Obama earned a pledged delegate count, a popular vote count and the states won count that can't be topped.
"It's a Primary, electoral votes count in the General, your arguement is non-existent."
You must be a product of our infamous public school system, so I'll try to explain it to you. His point is that the primary doesn't mean squat if you can't win the general. Obama wouldn't even be close if all the states voted, instead of holding caucauses. That's like practicing baseball for a football game for the national championship. This is one of the reasons the Dem's have so many issues winning general elections. You practice for the game you intend to win when it counts! So what do the Dem's do? Hold pep rallies (caucauses) for a very private decision in a booth where there is no outside influence.
And the logic behind Hillary's electoral count assumes Barack Obama can't take traditional Democratic states like New York and California. That's absurd. Of course the Democratic candidate will take those states. Obama has proven he can win the "insignificant" states as well. This is the last argument Hillary supporters have and it is laughably ridiculous. All the sudden Clinton supporters hate caucuses, and want Florida and Michigan delegates to count, only because they are losing. The electoral count is irrelevant. It may have some validity if Obama was beaten by double digits in all of the big states but that's not the case. The idea that establishment Democrats won't rally behind him is nonsense.
I am college educated, which is quite common among Obama supporters, Your world apparently is FLAT.
All this talk of electoral college wins is B.S. Nobody has ever talked about this before in a primary.
I agree that people shouldn't be asking Clinton to step aside, but only because it seems to get her supporters to dig down deeper for her and accuse people of gender bias, which is not a point here. After Wisconsin one of Hillary's female superdelegates said she step down and preserve the high road. Another female superdel from Berkeley admitted this was the end for Clinton ... Gender has nothing to do with it.
I definitely agree that his call via his surrogates and now super delegates is making it appear that he wishes to avoid a real fight.
The funniest story yet is how NC superdelegates will announce before their state has voted. Talk about not caring about the will of those people in NC!
Amazing year. We are rewarding someone who is afraid of voters and who disenfranchises voters. 50% of his population number comes from 1 state.
Who'd a thunk it?
Could someone please explain to me the relevance of electoral votes in the primaries? Seems like nonsense to me, if I understand correctly that claims of relevance assume that Democratic primaries in red states somehow are predictive of national election outcomes in those states. Sorry if this doesn't make sense -- no sleep last night.
Strywever, I think this is the last of the "if this, then that" games we have left to play. Goes like this: IF you add up all the electoral votes in the states Clinton won (i.e., big, blue states) and compared them to the electoral votes of the states Obama won (smaller states and states that go traditionally red no matter who wins the Democratic primary), Hillary would have the votes to win the general election.
The weakness in this argument, of course, is that blue states (rich in electoral votes) would likely STAY blue no matter which of the Democratic candidates got nominated, while some red states -- no matter how enthusiastic the Dem primary turnout -- will always go Republican (if for no other reason than the number of registered Republicans in those states who, if motivated, will swamp any Democratic bid.)
This also highlights the importance of keeping the independent voters engaged. We are beginning to see a number of them turn away from the Democratic squabble in disgust, and that will not serve us well in November.
Wrong. It's not about the blue states. It's about who will do better in the purple states. I think a case can be made either way, but at least get the argument straight.
Thank you for a great piece of level-headed assessment. If you look at the states Clinton won so far, most of them are the states a Democratic candidate has to win in order to win the White House. Obama has won lots of the states that McCain will win in November, even if he is in a coma. Despite huge support from black voters in the South, states such as Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia are safely in the Republican fold. Same is true for the Great Plains and mountain states.
If the democrats want to win the election, they need a candidate who does/did his/her homework, meaning who won the big blue states. Since Obama failed to win them in the primaries, how is he supposed to win them in the general election?
The Democratic party is blessed with two great candidates who both energize the basis and recruit new voters and supporters. People talk a lot about Obama bringing in new people, but what about all the new people Hillary is bringing in? Women, Latinos (who are notorious for staying at home), Asians, older people.
How democratic, how sportsman-like is it to stop the discussion when one fifth of all primaries is still to be determined. She still can close in on Obama in all respects and then the Superdelegates have to do their job and evaluate the two.
I would like the Clintonistas to do their homework and demonstrate how Obama will "lose"to McCain the "Big Blue" states won by Hillary.
Personally, If Hillary and the Clintonistas did not go negative, go personal, discount the small states, claim McCain is more "Presidential" than Obama, but rather attacked the Republicans, attacked Bush, and attacked McSame I would have no problem with Hillary staying in the campaign. The problem is the failure to distinguish between what's best for American and the Democratic Party and what's best for "my" campaign.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
