Democratic Double Standard: If Obama Had Gone 0-10 in Primaries and Caucuses
If Obama Had Gone 0-10 in Primaries and Caucuses There Would Be Calls for Him To Leave The Race To Unite The Party; Where Are The Calls For Hillary to Leave The Race and Unite The Party?
In politics there are winners and losers. That is why we have elections. Senator Obama has convincingly won the last ten contests and just won the Democrats Abroad election.
Senator Clinton has lost by large margins in these last ten contests yet the Democratic Party leaders are not calling for her to leave the campaign trail and back the likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama in order to unify the party.
If the results had been the reverse and Obama had lost the ten elections by these very large percentages there would have been calls for him to suspend his campaign and back Hillary Clinton. Democratic Party leaders including former President Bill Clinton would have been leading the calls for Obama to support the frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton is getting a pass from Democratic leaders because she is named Clinton. There seems to be some belief that she will perform some magical event and win the nomination because Clintons (as this theory goes) never lose and never give up). She is losing and she is also not giving up.
With the proportional representation system the Democrats have in place, Senator Clinton will not score a knock-out punch in either Ohio or Texas.
Why is Senator Clinton getting the benefit of the doubt that would not have been offered to Senator Obama or even John Edwards? Why is a candidate who is 0-10 in their last elections still being considered as a front-runner?
Obama has the crowds, the momentum and is leading in delegates at the moment. Clinton is struggling but Democratic leaders somehow dismiss this lack of momentum, lack of money, lack of crowds as an aberration that will correct itself once the voters realize she may not be the nominee of the party.
Now the Clinton campaign is discussing why caucuses are really not that fair, as working people do not participate because they have to work late. This is just another form of rationalization by the Clinton campaign that makes no sense in the real world of politics. They are just trying to muddy the waters and downgrade some of Obama's successes in the caucus states.
Senator Clinton is not being the gracious loser either. She moves on to the next primary/caucus states without looking back. Several times she has not even offered a concession speech and applauded her opponent for winning, which is standard procedure in politics.
This does not really help her in the general election were she to be the eventual nominee--which she most likely will not.
Voters in states do not like to be forgotten only minutes after an election just because the candidate did not win and has flown to another state and is already giving her standard speech without even discussing her loss earlier in the day. It is rather surreal to say the least.
If the Clintons--and let's face it--it is the Clintons that are running for the Oval Office--try and change the rules on Michigan and Florida, then the Democrats face a chaotic and confusing convention that will only help Senator John McCain.
There is a double standard in the Democratic Party. The Clintons are getting a pass because of their last name. A former president deserves respect but he and his wife shouldn't be allowed to change the rules in the middle of the election and they shouldn't be allowed not to be labeled as losers, as Hillary Clinton has overwhelmingly lost this month of February from coast to coast.
If the Clintons support the Democratic Party over personal ambition they would see the handwriting on the wall---the election results---and graciously bow out and support Senator Obama thus uniting the party and moving toward success in the polls next November.
Don't look for this to happen. The Clintons will find ways to try and say losses are really not losses and other Orwellian phrases will be mentioned until they realize--if they ever do--that the party has a new hero and his name is not Clinton.
What should happen will not happen and the Democratic double standard will stay in place and the Clintons will continue to try and win the Democratic nomination by every means possible all the way up to the roll call in Denver this summer.
Let's hope some sane Democratic Party voices will be heard and the party will not tear itself apart in a year when all the odds favor their return to the White House.
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
Every vote should count...I reiterate.
What concerns me most are those ready and willing to end this competition before "we the people" have ALL had a chance to use our voice. Regardless of what many project the inevitable outcome to be, is it truly democratic to shut down the polls before everyone votes?
Isn't relevancy one of the reasons many states opted to move their primaries up on the calendar. In "our" democracy every vote should count (ie. popular vote vs. electoral college; popular vote vs. delegate vote).
With a popular vote spread of less than 5%, does it make sense to end this race prematurely? What kind of example does this provide to the next generation, those aspiring U.S. citizens and growing democracies around the world? How does this make our democracy legitimate?
Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
2/24/08
Popular vote
-
Obama - 10,300,410
Clinton - 9,375,213
---------------------------------
Total - 19,675,623
--
Difference of - 925,197 or 4.7%
U.S. citizens from 15 states have not yet had a chance to caste their ballots.
-
This is why I support a national primary day, so that ALL the candidates who can raise enough money for a national campaign will be there for EVERYONE to cast a vote. And instead of delegates, we should have a simple majority rules nominating process. Then, once we've all voted on national primary day (say May 15, or so) we can count all the votes, and know who the two nominees are, they can choose their veep, and then we can have a real campaign until November, when we have the presidential vote.
THEN, we need to have either all the states provide electors based on who won the national popular vote, OR have all the states provide their electors on a district by district count. In other words, my district is represented by a republican house memeber, and two democratic senators. Assuming that the votes went that way, my district would send one republican elector, and our share of two democratic electors.
Mr. Guttman,
Excellent post.
I'm afraid that the democrats have their own version of the Bush-follower in the Clinton-follower. I find most hard-core Clinton folks about as immune to logic, good-of-party, or good-of-country arguments as the consistent 30%. It is as if their candidate/president is infallible or inevitable. Frankly, the democrats are turning me off to a level I did not think possible. I have been considering myself as increasingly independent. Don't get me wrong, I LOATHE the republican candidates and will vote for Clinton if she was to get the nomination (she won't without EXTREME party shenanigans), but I find her increasingly distasteful, and I find President Clinton increasingly disgusting. If his job was to diminish his legacy - mission accomplished.
I voted for Obama and wish John Edwards (whom I would have voted for) would hurry up and endorse him. I think Obama should just choose him as his running mate now. I don't think they could be beat by Hillary in the primary nor by McCain in the general. If the democrats lose this election then they should cease to exist as a party. If you can't defeat eight years of the worst President and (for much of that time) the worst congress in American history, then you don't deserve to exist as a meaningful political entity.
More whining from the obama camp. Hillary has every right to stay in the race. (Note to MSM, the word race was just used, with no negative conotations. We all know how you like to sensationalize.)
The Clintons are well known for not quitting. They are fighters. It's doubtful, but Hillary could still win this thing.
The MSM has been much more critical of Hillary than obama. Make one comment with any reference to color or country, and the obamaites start whining racism.
You're right, she has every right to stay in the race. However, when in recent history has a candidate lost 10 in a row, and gone on to win the nomination? Just from that standpoint, I think that she should step down and allow Obama to focus on beating McCain. Course, that might be bad, now that I think about it, since it's DEFINITLY easier for her to beat off Hillary's attacks than it will be for the 427s supporting McCain....
If this scenario actually happened, obviously it would make sense for Senator Obama to withdraw. The reason Senator Clinton does not receive the same pressure is that she has experience and a proven record for winning. This is not bias, it is simple fact that veterans are extended this luxury and new comers are not. I do not think this article makes a relevant point.
She is only a "veteran" though because of years riding her husband's coattails! She has not earned this incumbent status. But that's fine... Sen. Obama understands fully that a knockout is what is in order to overcome the institutional bias in her favor.
She is not a veteran politician who has both won and lost. She is the wife of a veteran politician who has won and lost. I'm not knocking Senator Clinton, as I think that she's very intelligent, and good at her job, and would do a good job as president, but there have only been 43 men who've had experience at being president in this country, and all but 4 of them are DEAD! The only two people on the planet who are eligible to run who could use the experience line are Carter, and daddy bush.
....and Obama would've stayed in, especially with only a matter of about 100 delegates separating the two.
It's truly sad that this "inclusive" party would throw one of their own under the bus while hating her, kicking her and punching her only to find they have no clue what their choice is really all about.
We're people calling for Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich and Edwards to drop out? No, I don't think they were.
There is your double standard.
Why is disagreement with a Clinton always called hate by their partisans? Cannot someone disagree with their policies and methods on an intellectual level?
It seems to me that the Clintons and their backers see elections like radical Muslims see jihad. If you're not with us, then we must destroy you. No real effort is made to argue points of difference or to clarify policies. Instead, opponents and their supporters are called delusional or told they do not matter or denigrated as "latte liberals" or otherwise demeaned.
As to double standards, HRC and the media rightly called Obama on his lifting of lines because his candidacy is based on rhetoric. Why doesn't anyone call on her to explain exactly what she accomplished as First Lady of Arkansas or the US? She counts these periods in her experience and yet she's never given a detailed accounting as to what she, not Bill, accomplished.
That is a double standard.
However, when those candidates were still in the race, it was much closer than it is today, and allowing more choices at the beginning, when theoretically anybody has a chance is a good thing. However, by this point in time the majority of the people have spoken, and they have spoken very clearly. I would actually rather that she stayed in, but make a pledge, AND KEEP IT, to allow the will of the people to stand, and NOT try to court the superdelegates to overturn the people's will. By the same token, SHOULD she win the popular vote by enough in the remaining states to get a majority, then Obama should do the same thing!
More than past time for the super delegates to get off their asses, how she maintains a lead in the super delegates is a travesty. The candidate who was won the most votes, states and pledged delegates, is behind by like 60 supers. No wonder these people cant get anything done in congress. Grow a spine super delegates its time to get behind Obama.
Would all the pro-Obama columnists on this website say that Obama should drop out if the situation were reversed? Of course not. They'd be going on about how he had to fight against the 'evil' Clintons and how he was the hope of the future, etc.
Just keep alienating Clinton supporters like the whole HuffPost does and we will just stay home this Nov.
Nope, I'd be saying the same thing either way, since Kucinich and then Edwards have already dropped out. And for what it's worth, though I support Obama at this stage, I will vote for whoever has the D after their name this November!
if Hillary had dropped out after the 0-10, the officer in Texas would be alife today. I am truly saddened by that thought.
What the writer ignores as do most of the posts her is that the Clintons ARE the Democratic party.
The current or last President from your party is considered it's leader.
The Clintons are not just fighting to get power in the future, they are fighting to save the power they already have.
Hillary has to go to the Convention since neither will have enough delegates to win since the superdelegates won't vote until then.
But the reason it's a bad idea to drop out is more practical -- let's not think that she might actually get the nomination -- if the RNC doesn't know who the final nominee will be, they won't know who to target for there shit storm attack plan. They can't go after both since it would be a waste of their energy and they'd blow their wad too early. Keep them guessing.
The Dems don't need to give them 5 months of free time to attack and slime us.
Hillary -- continue the fight to the convention so we can get out the votes in every primary so they will come out again in November. If everyone thinks it's a done deal now, they won't come out and vote, which is bad for the party when it needs to be energized.
"If Obama Had Gone 0-10 in Primaries and Caucuses There Would Be Calls for Him To Leave The Race To Unite The Party; Where Are The Calls For Hillary to Leave The Race and Unite The Party?"
people are encouraging her to concede, right here at Huff Post. do some reading.
The question is directed to the media, and the democratic party at large.
Whatever. Hillary is doing no harm, so it won't matter.
Every time Obama campaigns in a state, he leaves behind him a shiny new political organization: his campaign indentifies, motivates, recruits and trains campaign volunteers: an entire election GOTV infrastructure built from scratch in a few weeks.
And when the general election happens, all of that organization will still be in place, primed and ready to make the difference.
Without the staggered timing of the primaries, this operation would be a lot harder to accomplish, and without Hillary, the primaries would end.
So Hillary, fill your boots!
YES!!!
Hillary has to go to the Convention since neither will have enough delegates to win since the superdelegates won't vote until then.
But the reason it's a bad idea to drop out is more practical -- let's not think that she might actually get the nomination -- if the RNC doesn't know who the final nominee will be, they won't know who to target for there shit storm attack plan. They can't go after both since it would be a waste of their energy and they'd blow their wad too early. Keep them guessing.
The Dems don't need to give them 5 months of free time to attack and slime us.
Hillary -- continue the fight to the convention so we can get out the votes in every primary so they will come out again in November. If everyone thinks it's a done deal now, they won't come out and vote, which is bad for the party when it needs to be energized.
Hillary is already levelling the right wing attacks against Obama
You're absolutely right. If Obama had lost this many contests in a row, was behind in delegates and the popular vote, the Democrats and the media would be screaming at him to drop out. Clinton has complained all throughout this campaign of a double standard. But let's face it. The double standard has very often cut in her favor. Does anyone thing she would be running for President (or be a Senator) if her name was Hillary Smith? Of course not. She's gotten this far in large part because of who's she married to. What a great role model she is for young girls. The message is clear. Put up with all the lying and cheating your husband does because in the end, you may become President.
That's not a fair description of her. She's done a lot of good in her life, and I respect her a lot, BUT you are correct, at least half the time the double standard has applied to her benefit.
If their position were reversed, would you suggest that Barack should drop out? I would not. Only 100 delegates separate them, there will be an end soon of Obama keeps winning (March 4) and if he does not, it will be a contest a bit longer. I will admit however that I have reached the point that I am not eager to vote for either candidate. I am so turned off, not by the Democratic candidates but by their intolerant and abusive supporters, that I may have a very hard time voting for either Barack or Hillary. The mindless bullying and the classless personal insults among the charged up "supporters" are too much. An election is not a forced march to a false unity or a war of good versus evil. I may sit this one out rather than be bullied or forced into one camp or the other. Frankly, my respect for both candidates aside,I do not want to associate with either competing tribe here.
Wait till you get a load of the McCain supporters. Like smelling salts, you'll snap to your senses in no time.
Competition sucks, doesn't it. I'm not surprised Obama and his people are complaining. Obama has never actually had to deal with real political competition. Alan Keyes? Get real. Sorry, guys, Obama is going to have to fight for it, just like everybody else. And don't expect the Republcians to step aside when you start whining about unfair they are being when we get around to the general election. To paraphrase Heiman Roth: This is the business you have chosen.
now they are scared of ralph nader. i thought obama was going to unify the universe. now they want hillary and nader out of the way. lol. insecurity
And when has Senator Clinton had top deal with real political competition? Her Senate seat was practically awarded to her because of her last name. And even though she is running on her husband's record, his campaigns do not count.
Your premise, Mr. Guttman, is true, and if the Democratic party guts itself by allowing the Clintons to manipulate and steal this primary election, they have only themselves to blame when the rest of the citizens of this country find that they are irrelevant to our political process.
You guys are insane... and just to start off how about rick lazio? At least Allan Keyes could put together a coherent argument or don't you remember Rudy got prostate cancer and had to drop out of her race?
Competition huh, how about she gives him some. She thought she would walk to the nomination and over spent of pizza and beer, she paid her "consultants" millions of dollars and has changed her message a million times. She is done. She even knows she is done. She can not catch him in pledged delegates, everyone who can add knows this. She isn't going to beat him by 30 pts in multiple primaries so what the heck? All she is doing is making Obama weak as he faces off against McCain.
This whole week with the McCain madness Obama couldn't attack, he couldn't spin, he couldn't do anything because Hillary is standing at his back with a knife. She lost. She thought it would be easy, it wasn't, she thought it was still the 90s, it's not. She lost he won, deal with it.
No, she will make him stronger as a candidate if she doesn't drop out and challenges him all the way to the Convention floor. Do you think it's going to be easy for him when he campaigns for the Presidency? Get real.
Besides, can you imagine all the free TV time the Dems will get when people will tune into the Convention to see a floor fight like the old days? I can and it will be great -- so much of the country will watch, much more than in the primaries. Don't you know anything about politics and marketing? Geesh!!!
zozo are you implying his political career has been a skip in the park here?
The democratic leadership has been a total disgrace.
obama's insecure supporters have been a disgrace
You are funny. Not real articulate, but funny.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
