Should Hillary Bow Out?
The Democratic party has two strong contenders for the nomination, and big primaries remain, with millions of votes yet to be cast. It is nearly unprecedented for a major candidate to be asked to pull out in such a situation, but there's a media clamor for Hillary Clinton to do just that.
In 1976, Ronald Reagan battled President Gerald Ford all the way to the convention in a bitter, no-holds-barred fight. I do not recall a hue and cry for the Gipper to stand aside. Of course, Reagan had that cowboy tough guy image (if only from the movies) and nobody expects cowboys to turn in their spurs. I don't remember anybody calling Reagan a "fratricidal maniac" (as the New Republic recently called Hillary) because he didn't bow out.
And in 1980, Ted Kennedy took his campaign against President Jimmy Carter to the convention floor. As veteran political reporter Marty Nolan notes in the Boston Globe, the situation in June after the primaries resembled today's status quo. Carter had been victorious in 24 states, Kennedy in 10. Carter was ahead in delegates, and led in the popular vote, by 2.7 million. "The challenger was not deterred," Nolan writes. "On to the convention was the Kennedy campaign's motto."
Again, I don't remember a press outcry that Kennedy was destroying the party, as Nicholas Kristof suggests (in the New York Times) that Clinton is doing. The "Nader of 2008" he calls her.
I wonder what the narrative of the mainstream media would be if Obama's and Clinton's positions were exactly reversed? Would MSNBC be saying that Obama had won the states that really counted, the big states, while Hillary had only won in the wimpy caucus states? Would pundits be arguing that true democracy required a re-vote in California and Michigan? Would bloggers be insisting that the superdelegates would be right in going for Obama, even though Clinton led in states won and in the popular vote, because the supers had an obligation to offer the strongest candidate?
While some people cringe at the slings and arrows, the fact is that tough primary battles are as American as apple pie. The guys go at it with hammer and tong and then kiss and make up, even if the kiss decidedly lacks passion. It's not impossible that McCain will choose Romney as his veep, even thought the two of them like each other about as much as Jennifer Aniston likes Angelina Jolie. Reagan picked Bush pere even though pere had called his policies "voodoo economics."
Why is it, I wonder, that the lady is being asked to step aside when the gentlemen in a similar situation rarely were? Is it possible that in our collective subconscious, ladies aren't supposed to do what cowboys do, hang tough? Research finds that women in business who use an assertive style are disliked, even if they are seen as competent. We love to see the guys duke it out, but blanch when it's a woman. (When was the last time you head a man called shrill?)
The press resorts to hyperbole, big time, about Hillary's jabs at Barack. I've seen the words "kneecapping," "knife fight," "assault," etc. Does a female candidate doing what the boys have always done dredge up subliminal dread about female power? Does Hillary become Medusa, her snake hairdo beaming out lethal rays at men?
Meanwhile, both campaigns have been getting overheated lately. I didn't like it when Samantha Power called Hillary a "monster" and when Hillary's surrogates played the race card. I didn't much like Bill Clinton being called Joe McCarthy or Bill Richardson being called Judas.
Sure, I'd like to see both campaigns dial it down a notch, but I have no trouble with candidates tossing barbs. It's legitimate for Barack to question Hillary's foreign policy expertise after that 3 a.m. ad, because that's what she presents as her strength. It's OK for Hillary to question Barack's judgment in the "pastor" uproar, because he's called judgment his strength. This is politics after all, not tiddlywinks.
Will a tough battle damage both candidates? Yes, for a while. In 1968, the Democratic party tore itself apart with an ideological bloodletting over the Vietnam War. There's no such ideological dispute going on now. If the candidates finally come together to support the eventual nominee, so too will most of their devotees.
Has all the squabbling helped John McCain? Sure, for now. But national polls seven months away from the election mean nothing. Remember when Rudy Giuliani seemed a shoo-in for the Republican nomination and Hillary was "inevitable?"
Some pundits are writing that a tough primary fight harms a nominee. I'd argue that it's the nature of the candidate that counts. Yes, Gerald Ford lost after battling Reagan, but he was an unpopular president, especially after pardoning Richard Nixon. It wasn't Teddy Kennedy who made Jimmy Carter a one-termer, but Carter himself (and, of course, the Iranian hostage crisis). "Carter lost many of the advantages of the incumbency by the campaign that he ran," notes University of Alabama professor James Glen Stovall. "Carter went after Ronald Reagan with a Harry Truman fury. The trouble was, be wasn't Harry Truman."
In contrast, Ronald Reagan was not mortally wounded by Bush senior's catchy voodoo economics line.
So let the games continue. At the end of the primaries, we will have a clear picture of who has stumbled and who has not, who has the momentum and who does not, who is the most electable.
It's messy. It's loud. It's uncomfortable -- and it's democracy.
Boston University journalism professor Caryl Rivers is the author of "Selling Anxiety,: How the News Media Scare Women (University Press of New England.)
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
I disagree here. I think Hilary Clinton is destroying the party and the better she step down the better for the party, we need to take on John Mccain.
She has been lying about Obama's records like how she lies about everything in her life.
Hilary Rodham LIAR Clinton OR Hilary Rodham RAMBO Clinton.
Obama backers sure want Hillary to quit. It's democracy if anybody wants to run to the end. I admire her more that's she isn't a quiter. Democrats need more people like these, rather than a bunch of weaklings who can only talk air. This country needs a leader like this. Unfortunately, McCain is going to win. Obama's racially divisive politics will back fire in general election when most average voters not as liberal as the caucus goers.
I KNOW HOW TO UNITE THE PARTY!!!
Vote for the person who is ahead in delegates, states, and popular votes!
Vote Obama
[ For those who will say to rally around Hillary, voting for the runner up will only prolong this battle and give an edge to McCain. ]
Oh yeah, do you think that if Barack was losing in delegates and popular vote he would have offered Clinton the vice presidency? How well would that have gone over???
Well, I do think you are wrong that Obama would not be asked to step aside in the same way Hillary is now. I think you make really good points about a subconscious gender bias affecting the way we view Hillary hanging on. But I think this time is different because John McCain has already been the nominee and is getting ignored by the MSM, which is a bad thing since he is making a lot of mistakes.
I have no problem with HRC staying in the race, it is how she is doing it that I have a problem with. There is a difference for criticizing someone on the issues than insinuating nasty and false things about them. They lie to voters about Obama. In Texas, it is documented that Bill Clinton said that Obama didn't want everybody to have health care. He says these things in rural places, as the respected former president which holds a lot more weight than a regular spouse. I attended an Obama rally and he didn't once attack HRC and barely mentioned her. Up until a couple weeks ago, most Obama supporters said they'd vote for HRC but her supporters were already hardened against him. It started at the top on her end, and on the bottom from his end.
As a woman, I'm sympathetic to HRC, I think her life hasn't turned out the way she wanted it to. That is not enough to make me vote for her.
Al Gore gave in too soon and too easily to the hectoring of those who predicted that the world would end if he didn't just give in to the hue and cry of the media. John Kerry did the same four years later. It's a pleasure to see a Democrat who doesn't roll over.
Ms. Rivers is right. If Hillary was in Obama's position right now I am quite certain there would be no articles telling him to quit now and all these Obama people would not be yelling about how unfair it is to allow the superdelegates to go against the delegate count. There is just so much anti-Hillary sentiment in the media. Unfortunately for Hillary, she is never going to be the media's choice because it has already chosen Obama. As for all this anit-Hillary sentiment, remember, Obama is no angel. When Obama's camp sees an opening it goes for it, e.g., turning fairly innocuous comments into racism, comparing Bill Clinton's comments to McCarthyism, trying to highlight Hillary's disingenuousness (i.e., lying), etc. Obama people are upset because they haven't gotten to have their big party and celebrate the coming of the new age of enlightenment, the disappearance of racism, and world peace. Ms. Rivers is saying is that you need to be patient and let this thing play out.
Yes! Hillary should bow out now. She is doing more damage than good to the Democratic Party and to the American people. I believe she's doing it on purpose. She is a Republican in Democratic garb. Good riddance, Hill and Bill.
Hillary is not damaging anybody or anything. Don't be ridiculous. Neither is she a Republican, how ignorant. Let the process work out.
Or is Obama a paper tiger?
Is that what you are afraid of?
No, he's not a paper tiger as is evidenced by his strong poll numbers after the Wright smear.
I beg to disagree. She is a leader of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Committee). They are the right wing conservatives of the Democratic Party. Even Greenspan called Bill a Republican. Look at what Bill did during his administration. He repealed the Glass-Steagal Act when he signed the Graham - Leach - Biley Act - which we why we are in a sub-prime crisis now. That law was put in place after the Crash of '29 to REGULATE banks so they wouldn't do the creative lending act among other things. Then there was the deregulation of the utilities - that gave us Enron and MCI. Then, of course, there is NAFTA. There is more, but this is enough to convince me they (as she is sympatico with him) are Republicans in Dem clothing. Hillary even joined "The Family" a prayer group made up of Republicans and run by Douglas Coe, another right winger trying to push his agenda in Washington. Hence, she voted for pharmacists to practice their "religious freedom" and not dispense birth control or the morning after pill or policeman who can now refuse to protect abortion clinics. Democrat - not a chance. The DLC is not for we little guys - they are for big business.
But I guess it was OK for Barack to wax poetically for the good ole' Reagan days
No.
Pop Quiz Caryl:
What is the result of all of the races above you mention? (1968, 1976, 1980)
THE PARTY FIGHTING IT OUT ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION ***LOST***!
Gee, you seem to have conveniently glossed right over that fact. Oops. Care to try again?
Agreed. I was also going to post that.
And old, tired and dirty politics is exactly what Obama and people who support him are against. Caryl Rivers represents everything I hate about politics and the Democratic party. Please stop trying to push your antiquated political advice on the new breed of politically active Americans who want nothing to do with you.
And comparing Clinton lying about Bosnia, NAFTA, Ireland to Barack knowing someone who has views that are considered anti-American is ridiculous. Sorry, Barack can't control what comes out of other people's mouths but Hillary sure can control what comes from hers. Even McCain and Huckabee supported Obama in that.
Also, another difference was that Kennedy wasn't trying to literally steal the election from Obama by 'disenfranchising' voters who already voted (which Hillary is again a hypocrite for Michigan and Florida).
Also, why should we listen to someone who doesn't even know the difference between California and Florida?
"Would pundits be arguing that true democracy required a re-vote in California and Michigan?"
Hillary should have bowed out after March 5th WHERE SHE LOST TEXAS.
Yes, Caryl, she should bow out. In fact, she should've bowed out over a month ago, when it was still more-or-less possible for her to fool some people into believing she is a Democrat.
Baloney! If the situation were reversed, he would have been forced out by now. As even some Clinton staffers concede, she has virtually no mathematical possibility of finishing with more delegates no matter how long she stays in the race. Nobody would be saying he won the big states, so he should stay in, because it is the delegate count that determines the nominee. Again, he would have been laughed out of the race were the situation reversed.
I, for one, wouldn't care if Hillary stayed in the race through Puerto Rico IF I thought that she would run a positive, issues-based campaign, and if she would stop saying nicer things about McCain than about Obama. But we've already seen what she and Bill are up to, which is scorched earth politics, plain and simple. She should leave the race with dignity, and soon
Lastly, I know that women have had to deal with a lot of discrimination and a lot of nonsense. But please stop playing the victim. For every one person who votes against her, there are probably more voting for her. I know this from talking with my wife, her mom, my sister, etc. Women are understandably excited at the thought of finally breaking the ultimate glass ceiling. She's not losing because she's a woman; she's losing because Obama is an outstanding politician in his own right. He has run an all around better campaign. He had to. After all he's running against the Clintons.
Yeah, and a sad by-product of her campaign- Hillary's poor behavior during this race will only make it that much harder for the next woman to run for the office. And that's a shame, because there are quite a few in the party who would have been much better than Hillary.
Dunno if anyone has pointed this out to you yet...
"In 1976, Ronald Reagan battled President Gerald Ford all the way to the convention in a bitter, no-holds-barred fight. "
And both lost to Jimmy Carter.
"And in 1980, Ted Kennedy took his campaign against President Jimmy Carter to the convention floor."
And both lost to Raygun. Or do you want McCain to win?
Obama may be naïve or simply a fool but one thing is certain, his ego is far ahead of his common sense. If he thinks he can magically unite the country based on his rock star status, he is going to be sorely disappointed. So far he has failed to convince me that he sees the political sharks that are poised to eat him alive.
In the first place, congress will have its own agenda which, undoubtedly, will be different from his own. And no matter which party is in control, they will not let him get away with anything like the bungled excesses of the current administration. That experience is too painful, too costly and too recent.
He will also have to deal with young voter constituencies that are looking for instant gratification and black voters who are looking for revenge payoffs after decades of neglect. If he can’t satisfy either of them, they will flee in droves. He will have to deal with the boomer generation that wants retirees and those on social security to pay more while they, the boomers, get more tax relief. By pitting these two generations against one another, neither will win but Mr. Obama will be the ultimate loser.
But we may never get the opportunity to see this play out because I believe that he has been wounded by his own anti-Hillary rhetoric and that a large segment of her supporters will turn to McCain or will refrain from voting altogether.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
