Run, Hillary, Run. Ralph, Too.
The New York Times is now on autopilot, suffering from an astounding bit of groupthink. First, David Brooks, usually independent minded, echoes the chattering class sentiment about the terrible consequences of Hillary Clinton remaining in the race for president. Now Nick Kristof writes virtually the same thing. Maureen Dowd basically said that the Clintons are out to destroy the Democratic party by staying in the race. Please.
My spouse works for Clinton; that's well known. So take my opinion as you will but it seems crazy to me that Clinton should even consider dropping out at this point. Here's why:
1. What about Reagan, Hart and Kennedy? In my adulthood -- if a Bar Mitzvah counts as an entree to manhood -- there have been three all-the-way-to-the-convention races. In 1976, Ronald Reagan was further behind Gerald Ford at this point in the race but he remained in the hunt all the way until the convention. No one looks back on the Sainted Gipper as being "divisive" or helping the Democrats. Instead, his continuing to run is seen as a matter of principle. He not only held on to the convention but even took the audacious step of naming a moderate running mate, Richard Schweicker of Pennsylvania, in a Hail Mary attempt at winning over Ford delegates. Does David Brooks think Reagan was wrong? In 1984, Gary Hart stayed in the race until the convention and Ted Kennedy famously did so in 1980. Of course, Kennedy's churlish behavior at the convention -- he publicly dissed Jimmy Carter -- did help sink the party's chances in the fall but I don't see any of the Kennedy accolytes now saying Clinton should drop out. The Obamaites would like to see Clinton drop out so their man can win this thing with elected delegates. Forget it. He's going to have to get there with those icky superdelegates.
2. What's the Case for her Leaving? Mathematically, it is getting harder for her to win and it's hard to see how she's going to persuade superdelegates to abandon the first African-American nominee of a major party for her. I think Obama will be the nominee. But so what? As long as she has a plausible shot at the nomination and is within a couple of hundred delegates of Obama, so what if she keeps running? She has a shaky but still plausible argument come June: With Florida, where both she and Obama were on the ballot, she may have won the popular vote. She may have won all the big states save Obama's home of Illinois and North Carolina and she may, by that time, be ahead in the polls. That's not the best argument in the world but it's at least a reasonable one to present to superdelegates. By the way, Obamaites who are arguing that superdelegates should follow the lead of the people aren't making that argument to Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson, who have endorsed their man, while coming from states that Clinton won.
3. What's Wrong with a Divided Convention? The new conventional wisdom is that a Democratic fight will doom the party. Maybe. It's possible. But it's hardly guaranteed. The primary fights have made Obama a better candidate and have arguably toughened him up for the fall in a way that running against the very impressive Alan Keyes never did. A divided convention will have incomparable viewership and will end with a united party. God forbid, the delegates in Denver actually have something to do other than be props for a DNC infomercial. So what if there are a couple of ballots? It'll be real politics and it will, I bet, make the party stronger. Of course, if Clinton or Obama is truculent like Kennedy in '80 it will hurt the party but neither wants the rap for bringing th party down. Of course, if Obama does get enough delegates to be the nominee Clinton should, like Mike Huckabee before her, get out of the race or risk looking like an idiot. But until that time why should Obama be given a coronation?
For more click here.
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
The problem isn't with Clinton. And it's not with Barack. It's with their supporters. As people continually find ways to snipe at the other, the Rethugs not only get ammo, but they also save a buck since we're doing their dirty work for them. If people (both candidates and supporters) would stop trashing the other, let 'em both stay. If people (both candidates and supporters) would both focus on McCain & how they are different, let 'em both stay. But trashing the other isn't gonna help. At this point, if you're a Democrat, you either support Hillary or Barack. There is nothing either side can say to convince someone to switch allegiance, so stop trying. If we can focus on beating the rethugs instead of each other, we'll be able to take back the country and restore our standing in the world, no matter which one takes the nomination. If we remain focused on bitter in-fighting, guess what? We're gonna have at least another 4 years of a tragic war, a miserable economy, and civil rights being stolen in the name of security.
Stop the insanity! Pick a side, not a fight!
A couple of months ago, I agreed completely with you. After watching the Obama campaign resort to the dirtiest campaign of character assassination of my lifetime, I just can't do it. Any man or woman who would destroy the icons of the Democratic Party in order to win will not get my vote. Anyone who can make Bill and Hillary look like racists and come out smelling like a rose is a real operator. Sorry, I'll just sit this one out, and hope for a better candidate to oppose the reelection of John McCain. Obama's pastor guaranteed that Obama will never get a majority of votes in the USA. You just can't make "God damn America" go away.
"the dirtiest campaign of character assassination of my lifetime"
I remember the day Bill Clinton made the "Jesse Jackson" comments while I was watching MSNBC-- everyone in the studio reacted to it on the spot. There wasn't time for a memo from the Obama campaign. And they all knew what he meant. It didn't make him a racist-- but it continued a pattern of racially offensive remarks by the Clintons and their supporters.
I know you're not an undecided voter, but I can't let that quote pass. I wish I knew why you don't like Obama.
If you heard the entire tape of the Rev. you would not make that statement. What Hilary is doing now is nothing new of the Clintons. I like Bill and Hilary Clinton, but I don't like how she is selfishly trying to get to the White House. I agree that no one should ever destroy the icons of the Democratic Party in order to win, (except for the Clintons.) They are hungry for POWER. I wanted her to be President, but her actions, as well as Bill's appears desperate, I am changing my vote!
Name one "character assasination" of Clinton by the Obama campaign. You cannot name one that is not true.
He made a flyer that stated she backed NAFTA - that was true.
He made a flyer that stated her healthcare plan mandated coverage - that was true.
But, Hillary's campaign sent out flyers in New Hampshire and Iowa that lied about Obama's support for choice - it so angered one of her most ardent supporters and former chapter president of NARAL that she left Hillary's campaign. Obama has a 100% rating from both NARAL and NOW.
http://www
Typical of a Hillary campaign supporter - right out of the Rove playbook, accuse your opponent of what you are guilty of yourself. Obama has not smeared HIllary even once. Everything he has said about her is true.
How, exactly, did Obama "make" Bill and Hillary looks like racists? Now, I don't think they are, but I don't think Obama "made" them say some of the rather stupid things they've said recently.
And Hell, if I'm wrong, and he is that powerful, we should have him as President! That's pretty damn impressive.
"The problem isn't with Clinton. And it's not with Barack. It's with their supporters
Quite so. You have to wonder what kind of people these are when so many of them claim that they would rather vote for McCain if they can't get their favorite candidate. Is this their base? If so there are bigger problems with this proposition than one little opposing candidate from the supposed same party.
Mr. Cooper, you say "Mathematically, it is getting harder for her to win and it's hard to see how she's going to persuade superdelegates to abandon the first African-American nominee of a major party for her."
Isn't it in fact true that it is mathematically impossible for EITHER candidate to achieve the 2025 pledged delegates necessary for the nomination? Why wait until August to acknowledge the fact that superdelegates will be deciding the race? And isn't it also true that the issue is not abandoning the "first African-American nominee" but the abandoning the "frontrunning nominee"?
I voted for Senator Clinton because I thought she could beat the Republicans. I still think fondly and respectfully of President Clinton. But your case for prolonging the bitter competition between Obama and Clinton through August -- encouraging the kind of ill-will you can observe for yourself in the comments on almost any article here -- is outrageous. A divided party attempting to scotch-tape itself together in August cannot hope to beat John McCain in November.
You ask what is wrong with a divided convention?? What a foolish question. This could only come from a man who lives on polarizing this country and feeds off a non-existent horse race. Obama won the day he got 50 plus 1. That is the majority and the Clintons should get out. It is over. They are not helping this country or the Party. They will not return to power. They better believe it. No amount of threatening Pelosi will will work.
Ummmmm....
Her attacks against Obama are what's hurt the party and cause. Lots of other people are "running," and no one seems to care about them. A fighter pilot and a kamikaze are two different things.
I don't understand what all the hullaballoo is about. Why stop a race before it is over? It makes no sense. There is no winner yet. Obama has not crossed the finish line. If Hillary can scratch and claw and somehow beat the long odds to win the nomination, then she is the fighter we need. If Obama cannot weather the storm and maintain his delegate advantage to victory, then he is a flawed candidate who doesn't have the fortitude or political experience to beat the Republicans.
I like Obama a lot, but I don't know if he is ready. He hasn't proven to me that he is a "uniter". Many of his campaign supporters seem very divisive to me. If his great oratory cannot inspire even his supporters into greater civility, then I'm afraid his hype is a paper tiger. We shall see, he will need to do his part to unite the party, win or lose. He also needs the ability to navigate the process without allowing the opposition to outmanuever him, this is his opportunity to demonstrate his ability to handle processes.
Many would like to claim that the race is over, but it clearly isn't. All Obama has to do is win Pennsylvania to convince the superdelegates. If his nomination is inevitable, then it should be no real problem. If he cannot win Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Florida, then it would be suicide for the party to give him the nomination.
Let the process work.
It is over.
It has worked.
She's lost.
Then no worries.
The process stopped working when the candidates reached the point where neither of them could mathematically reach 2025 pledged delegates. If you can work the numbers out to show that one of them can win the pledged delegates necessary, I say let's stagger forward. If not, let's put it in the hands of the superdelegates in June -- demanding a fair and transparent means of giving us a nominee.
The process clearly did not stop working, it continues. In the end, it will deliver us a nominee, the best nominee. I have no problem with the superdelegates revealing their voting blocs in June. That is permitted under the process, but not required. It is the process which reveals the nominee, and the process cannot be short-shrifted.
Obama can't win without help...he'
what's w/ that affirmative action bullshit? who the hell are you to insult not only obama but every huffpost person of color who has worked their ass off to get where they are? with dems like you, why do we need republicans. your comments disgust me.
The Clinton campaign is flickering like a candle in the wind. But maybe there's something from Obama's past-- or pastor-- which will keep the flame alive. Is there any video of his high school basketball coach? Was the first issue of the journal he edited in law school titled "Harverd Law Revue"? Keep digging.
In the mean time, her campaign has gone from harrowing corkscrew landings in Bosnia to annoying canceled Delta Airlines flights-- they're having a hard time even getting off the ground.
The poem the 8 year old girl read began: "April is the cruelest month . . ."
(Clinton forgot there was a little girl waiting to greet her-- but remembered her age).
Perhaps it was another poem by T.S. Eliot:
Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?
Cooper conveniently ignores the 68 convention where McCarthy (anti-war) squared of with Humphrey (party insider). How'd that one work out?
You might further note that in each of the cases Mr. Cooper mention - Republicans in '76, Democrats in '80 and '84 - the party with the brokered convention lost the general election. What a path to success!
Excellent point! And this is why Republicans are foaming at the mouth.
"So take my opinion as you will but it seems crazy to me that Clinton should even consider dropping out at this point."
It's not implausible that her Bosnian lie (and its developing scrutiny) has made her unelectable in the general election. For the good of the party and more importantly for the good of the country it's time she stepped aside. I was not an Obama supporter (and I only support him in the breach) but she has by her actions sent me that way.
Sadly, I concur with you.
I was once for HIllary, but it is time for her to go.
I am now an OBAMA supporter. Time for a new day.......
You make a number of good points and I agree that the prolonged fight has toughed both candidates, especially Obama. It has also brought many of the negatives up that would have normally been saved for the general election. In some ways this is good as these scandals will simply induce a yawn from voters in November. On the other hand the nastiness of the campaign (on both sides) has succeeded in entrenching many voters even to the point of voting for McCain or not voting at all rather than the Democrat in November. Prolonging this could very likely make it worse.
I have yet to see anything nasty from the Obama camp. No, really. What is one nasty thing they have done?
The South Carolina talking points memo produced by Obama's communications director, outlining the so-called racist remarks made by the Clinton campaign ... I still want someone to explain to me why the phrase "fairy tale" is racist.
Sen Obama telling supporters that the Clinton campaign was attempting to hoodwink and bamboozle the voters. The Obama campaign spreading false information that the Clinton campaign also spoke to Canadians about NAFTA proposals.
It was the Obama camp that dug up the obscure article of the Ferraro interview, two weeks after it had been given, and shopped it around to various news outlets. Why?
Mrs Obama's early remark, well before the first primary, "How can you keep the White House in order if you can't keep your own house in order?"
And more...but not enough room here.
If you can't handle the heat in this round, how are you going to survive when you take on the world champs of low down mud slinging in the next round? Competition does not hurt. It helps to insure that the best candidate is left in the end and that that candidate is as strong as they can possibly be. Is there anything that Hillary Clinton can do to Obama that the Republicans can't (or won't) do? Or vice-versa?
I'm sure he can handle the heat but why would she want to apply it for the republicans? It only makes sense if she's "kitchen sink" or "scorched earth" which only makes sense for 2012. Obama needs to do one of two things. Come out and cut her off at the knees (wherein he can look necessarily ruthless) or, as much as possible, ignore her and run against McCain (and seem above the fray).
"I'm sure he can handle the heat but why would she want to apply it for the republicans?"
Because she wants the position just as much as he does and feels that she would be just as good or better than Obama. That's the whole point of having a campaign. You get to watch both candidates under pressure and see how they deal. Many people right now are watching Sen. Clintons performance over the last few weeks and they have decided that they do not care for her for various reasons. These are probably things that would not have come out and been so visible without a campaign. Unfortunately, it is impossible to avoid giving the appearance that it helps the Republicans. And it might, but not as much as some people think, I suspect. Every crappy, low down thing that these two might come up with about each other could and would be thought of by the Republicans. As I say, I just think that the winner will be that much stronger for the experience and MORE ready to deal with the Repugs having gone through this now. It might also be a good idea if it were pointed out to both sides that it might be a benefit to both of them if more of the fire from both of them were directed at McCain--it's going to benefit one of them in the future.
#1 Reagan (76), Kennedy (80) and Hart (84) all stayed in and their party lost the election!
#2 They've already had the campaign on the issues; she lost that. Then she tried a campaign on identity politics, she lost that. All that's left is the politics of personal destruction. Does anyone really believe that's going to go well for the Dem Party?
#3 Waiting until the Convention gives 5 more months to deepening investments in the outcome and leaves 2 months for any kind of healing. DISASTER!
So, um, your point?
Matt Dowd gets a call to make a post for HillBill Tag Team Match, WWE-style.
"SO?"
This is just the corporate media and mainstream media dreaming of this. It all equals to more money and more ratings for their "Idiotic" advice and phony and ill-fated pundits.
The party may not be doomed, but the election surely is. The Democratic party are rotating on their thumbs and DOING NOTHING to counter McInsane.
If Hillary was as respectful to the frontrunner as Huckabee was there wouldn't be a problem. But rather than being respectful, she is continuing to insist that McCain would make a better President than Obama. Don't you see the difference?
Matt, there is simply no point in allowing the people of PA, IN, NC, OR, etc. to have any say in who gets the nomination. As clear as it is that Clinton cannot win the nomination prior to the convention, it's equally clear that Obama cannot either. The only positive outcome would be that they vote overwhelmingly for Obama. The world could not survive the outcome if all of those ignorant hicks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. It would be an outrage!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
