The continuing Clinton-Obama nomination saga

Why Clinton’s Not (Necessarily) Crazy from Shakesville by Kate Harding: Kate sums up why Clinton isn’t giving up, why she won’t give up until the last legal avenues via the nomination convention are exhausted, and why this is not bad electoral strategy, no matter how much it annoys the progbloggers who’ve made it totally clear that they don’t support her anyway.

Categories: media, Politics

Tags: , , , , ,

13 replies

  1. Not all Obama supporters are Hillary haters
    This item at the Washington Post was a fresh breathe: Come Together? Yes, We Can
    Kevin Rennie’s last blog post..John McCain: a Teddy Roosevelt environmentalist

  2. Not all Obama supporters are Hillary haters

    Quite true, and vice versa as well. Both candidates are moderates, and most Dems are also moderates who will be willing to vote for either come November.
    Most progbloggers are not moderates though: they tend to want radical progressive change (which realistically neither of these pragmatic moderate candidates is going to provide) and many have become strongly emotionally invested in the (objectively fairly small) policy differences between the two, which is starting to make a lot of bloggers shrilly defensive on both sides as both candidates engage in less than noble (but nonetheless effective) tactics to win the nomination.
    This is where we find the various blogosphere hostilities don’t reflect what will happen on the ground: as Kate says, most voters don’t follow the ins and outs of daily politics the way that polbloggers do, so they don’t make their judgements based on the same nitpicking news stories that polbloggers do, they make their judgements largely on more broadbrush “colour” news stories instead. It’s not the bloggers’ votes that will decide either the nomination or the presidency in the end.

  3. The bits and pieces of racist and sexist language emanating from both campaigns have been pretty rank, to me. I was gobsmacked, however, by Clinton basically saying that McCain would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Obama.

  4. Oh yes, me too. I can understand the logic of the strategy, but it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.
    McCain: I absolutely hate it that he is currently getting a honeymoon period as the acknowledged GOP candidate while the Dems plod on through the rest of the primaries, and that all his loony outbursts will be deemed old news, too old to rake up, by the time that the run-up to November starts hotting up.
    He’s not a principled maverick: not now, and not really ever in the way that he’s been painted by the media. He’s just another bought and paid for GOP shill. McCain won’t even wholeheartedly condemn torture any more. Yet we won’t hear him called a flip-flopper any time soon.

  5. The suggestion that McCain was fit to be C-in-C and Obama wasn’t was repulsive on any number of levels, but particularly so when juxtaposed with her suggestion that she’d be favorably inclined toward putting Obama on her ticket as vice president.
    It’s March. It’s just about time to get this thing settled. For a trailing candidate to be sliming the front-runner for the nomination in this way, at this late date, is inexcusable. If she thinks she can pull it out, by all means, she should stay in the race. But she should do so mindful of the fact that there’s a general election to win, whether she’s on the ticket or not.
    Brooklynite’s last blog post..Private entries — a heads-up.

  6. It’s March. It’s just about time to get this thing settled.

    This is where our divergent political traditions confuse me. In a parliamentary democracy it’s not all that unusual for an Opposition Leader to be uncertain up until the writs for the election are issued, usually 6-8 weeks before polling. Of course, a sitting Prime Minister can also be spilled by their party at any time during their term of government, at least that’s constitutionally provided for.
    I do understand that the republican democracy of the USA works differently, but is it really that unheard of for the nomination to go down to the wire of the party convention? I understand that to prolong the campaigns that far costs huge sums of money, but apart from that what are the perceived electoral drawbacks?

  7. I don’t know what the generic problems are with a long-running primary season, but in this season the longer this runs on the more tarred each candidate will be by the others attacks.
    For instance, Clinton’s CinC threshold rhetoric is seen as being potentially very damaging for Obama in the general. It has basically ruled out any chance of Obama being her veep, and it also means that she won’t be able to spruik for Obama on the trail should he win the nomination. Nancy Peloisi said as much today [link].
    mick’s last blog post..Weakly Abstract: March 3 – March 7

  8. But surely Reagan and Bush Senior said arguably worse things about each other before they finally faced the country as Prez and VP candidates? So why is this suddenly so totally horrible just because it’s the Dems slagging each other this time?

  9. Generally speaking, the first few primaries and caucuses decide these things. The Republican contest was actually rather extended this year, by historical standards, and I literally can’t remember the last time either party took as long to pick a nominee as the Dems have this time.
    Compounding things this year is the front-loading of the process, and the long gap between the primaries and the nominating conventions this summer. The longer Clinton and Obama are slugging it out, the less time the winner will have to make the case against McCain. And that’s beyond the financial issues you mentioned, and the potential damage from the extended infighting.
    Brooklynite’s last blog post..Private entries — a heads-up.

  10. Historically, the four times the Dems have gone to their convention with a ‘split ticket’ (two possible candidates) they have lost the subsequent election. Sorry, I didn’t hear the rest of the radio program where they explained why.
    Mindy’s last blog post..OUTTA WORK ZMOBIE WRIST

  11. they tend to want radical progressive change
    Unfortunately to get elected, politicians need the support of the moderate middle and at least some conservative voters to get over the line.
    You’re not going to see a radical socialist agenda – the political system in the USA encourages only incremental change as well.

  12. Yep, the radical progressives are very much a minority. What most saddens me is how many progblogs are falling into line behind either the racist or sexist dogwhistles of their favoured candidates. DailyKos especially has been unreadable for me for months.

  13. I’m radical. The only mainstream candidate I would have gotten on a bus and traveled the country for was McCarthy (Eugene).
    That said, I’m supporting Hillary. Yet whenever I try and engage with people in comments on these blogs (including the Huffington Post) I am called a Hillbot and accused of “drinking the Kool-Aid” and my questions go unanswered. I have never gone on these sites and said any such things to Obama supporters.
    I definitely think she should stay in. Florida is still undecided, there is also the question of superdelegates. I just think the bashing from both sides means that everyone will be upset when the election comes.
    Lost Clown’s last blog post..Vancouver proposed brothel redux

%d bloggers like this: