Senator Patrick Leahy called last week for Hillary Clinton to bow out of the Democratic Presidential contest. Not only is that not likely to happen, it's likely counterproductive to call for it. Hillary Clinton will drop out of the race when she's ready, and the only people she's likely to take counsel from about that are Bill and Chelsea. Further, if there is any chance, however slight, of Hillary winning, then why should she withdraw now?
I'm an Obama supporter. But here, from that vantage point, are my takes on various contentious issues in the Democratic race to the White House:
1. Let all the voting continue, in every primary yet to be held. There will be more than enough time, after the last primary in June, for the candidates to reassess their positions before the convention in August.
2. Calls for a reduction in criticism of Obama and Clinton by Clinton and Obama are foolish. Although I by no means support some of the name-calling that has been going on (such as James Carville's attack on Bill Richardson as a "Judas"), spirited criticism and attacks strengthen each candidate - and will make each a better contender against John McCain in the Fall. As an Obama supporter, I've been impressed with the cool and dignity he has shown in response to attacks from the Clinton campaign. This bodes well in a contest with the short-fused McCain.
3. And while we're at it, let's have revotes in Michigan and Florida. Obama has nothing to fear from those. Even if he loses both of those states in fair revotes to Hillary Clinton, he'll almost certainly get almost as many delegates. And, when you're already ahead, as is Obama, this serves to bring you closer to the nomination.
The common ingredient in all of the above is the democratic process. Calling it off, excluding certain states, muting the debate in any way, is not the way to go for the Democratic Party - and for people who see Obama as the best candidate and the next President.
12 comments:
It's an interesting point of view however if the attacks stay personal I don't think it will strengthen them it will hurt them and the more I hear Hillary's campaign praising Mccain I feel like she's saying he's a better candidate. The other thing is the re-vote I don't think he's afraid and it's not fair to blame him because the states killed the legislation for a re-vote because they didn't think it's unfair (mostly for people who crossed over to the republican primaries thinking the democratic one won't count) I'm not sure how they can solve that.
but a lot of good thought here Paul :)
My reaction to your post:
1. I agree with the premise that the votes should continue and that Clinton should stay in. She won't win, and by almost every measure she can't win. The point is, Obama technically can't win either. The Democrats are engaged in party building in each of these hotly contested primary states as long as...
2. ...the personal attack stop. I disagree with the idea that the personal attacks have a toughening effect on the candidates. I think, as you rightly pointed out, that Obama has handled everything with class and dignity. That's how he operated and the personal attacks don't really seem to stick. What they seem to do, however, is turn off voters who had so eagerly anticipated supporting either candidate at the start of this thing. At this point, although I suspect that Dems will vote for the eventual nominee, there's damage to be done if even 2-3% of these people chose to either stay home or vote McCain. You have Bill Clinton out there talking about what a great guy John McCain is and how he's really a great moderate, while Clinton is helping to feed the Obama as unpatriotic beast. That's Party cannibalism and it isn't constructive. It's much easier to destroy than to build, and we're trying our best to build.
3. The Michigan and Florida issue is past its expiration date. It's over. There was a brief glimmer of hope, but that's finished. The state parties broke the rules and were punished. All the candidates signed a pledge that they would go along with this punishment, and only one of those candidates has reversed position (conveniently as her campaign has gone belly up). The challenge for the eventual nominee (probably Obama) is to heal the wounds by seating the delegates at the convention and making some sort of appeal to them to participate fully in the process. I think that will happen. Obama will never win Florida, so I don't think that matters. He will probably win Michigan with the economy in shambles, so I don't think that's such a big deal either. Plus, it's easy for him to argue his position on the Michigan ban, since he wasn't even on the ballot.
As I see it, Obama will win the nomination by garnering a wave of superdelegate support in mid-June, after all the voting has been completed and he has the lead. That's the insider whispering and it makes a lot of sense, frankly. Clinton keeps talking about the credentials committee, but that committee is going to be made up of reps from the 50 states based on who won each state. Since Obama was won 67% of all states so far, she can't win there either. I think the supers will gather and throw their support behind Obama by mid-summer and the general election campaign will start from there.
I'm all for continuing the process. It is what the primary season is all about. However, it gives me pause to consider what the Clintons are capable of, politically speaking. When they're on your side, it's what you love about them. When they're adversaries, it can be scary.
What frightens me is the prospect of a candidate who wins the nomination not by gaining a plurality of the votes, or majority of delegates, or even the greatest number of states, but through political arm-twisting and chicanery.
I will not vote for such a candidate. No matter who it is. But at this moment, with the Hillary herself saying that even the pledged delegates are in play, it is she to whom I'm referring. At this moment, with this kind of rhetoric, Hillary is as great a threat to democracy as the last eight years of this administration have been.
Our nation has survived eight years of George W. Bush. We will survive, if necessary, four years of John McCain. And we will have a Democratic Congress.
But I will not vote for someone who runs an "end-around" democracy. Never again.
Dr. Fallon,
You may be interested in my project Write-In Barack Obama. Give it a look.
Thanks for your posts, everyone.
A few responses:
1. I'm with you, Dr. Fallon, in not wanting to vote for any candidate who does "an end run" around the Democratic process.
But I prefer to wait and see if Hillary Clinton actually does that, rather than saying, as you did in your blog post, that you won't vote for her based on some statements she and her campaign are now making.
Also - would you really prefer McCain to Clinton, even if Clinton does get the nomination by arm-twisting? Are you really sure that we'll survive another Republican administration? Is it ok with you that likely thousands of Americans will die in Iraq if McCain is President - not to mention the likelihood that we could get involved in a war in Iran?
I voted for the first time in 1968. I was furious at Humphrey for his support of the Vietnam War, but I voted for him anyway. Many of friends did not. Nixon won by a narrow margin. I'm glad I haven't had to live with myself all these years for in any way helping Nixon to become President.
2. Mike - We disagree about the re-votes in MI and FL. The DNC has no right to deprive people of their right to vote, and have their votes counted. The punishment for these states far exceeds what they did wrong in moving up the primaries. There is no way this can be totally rectified, but I'd like to see the next best thing, which is holding primaries in these two states, again.
Otherwise, by the way, we run the risk of Democratic voters being so angry in these two states, that they stay home.
And, once again, we risk getting McCain in the White House.
Is that what you want? :)
Peter - let's look at little more carefully at the concept that "we will survive" four more Republican years.
If by we, you mean you and me, than I would agree.
If by we, you include military who will die in Iraq, then, how are they surviving?
If by we, you mean our American democracy, think of the damage that Nixon did to it - as when he tried to go after the NY Times and the Washington Post, and the Supreme Court rebuffed his attempt at censorship, in a rare display of good judgment. Had it not, what kind of a "democracy" would we live in today?
Are you sure our democracy will not undergo similar degradations under McCain? Does that qualify as surviving?
PS - I also can't help mentioning, do you think putting your intentions not to vote for Hillary Clinton in all caps, bold, italics, hot linked, and repeating it in a mantric way somehow adds to the logic of your argument? :)
Well, Paul, thanks again for your responses to my comments.
I think, though, that you may be misunderstanding me. I did not say that we would survive "four more Republican years." I said we'd survive four years of John McCain. And I don't mind at all looking closely, or "carefully," as you say, about that possibility.
We have a Democratic Congress right now. Everything I'm reading says that majority is likely to expand in both the House and the Senate. If John McCain threatens Constitutional government the way Bush did in his first six years, then it will not be without the complicity of a Democratic Congress -- which would kind of moot the whole argument that any given Democrat is inherently better than any Republican.
The second point that I think needs careful scrutiny is that voting for any given Democrat over McCain will save the lives of GIs over the next several years. I have seen nor read anything that makes me believe that Senator Clinton has any plan for the speedy withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I know she is trying to appeal to a wider electorate than she has in the past, but her rhetoric (and, in truth, her record) has not been significantly different than McCain's (although I'm sure we might quibble over the adverb).
No, I'm not sure that our democracy will not "undergo similar degradations under McCain" than it did under Nixon. But, for that matter, I'm frankly not sure it will not undergo similar degradations under Hillary Clinton, either. Certainly the tactics employed (or threatened) by her campaign so far don't fill me with confidence.
But your insistence on repeating the question (in a mantric way?) as though my answer is thoroughly unimaginable and virtually unconscionable motivates me to ask you: are you really suggesting that we will not, cannot survive four years of John McCain? Is this not just the tiniest overindulgence in hyperbole?
Once again, just to be perfectly clear, let me restate my absolute commitment to vote for whomever wins the Democratic nomination legitimately (that is, through some manifestation of the will of the Democratic voters and not through strong-arm tactics). That's absolute and unequivocal. I'll be proud once again to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee of Democratic voters. But if she -- or anyone -- gains a nomination that does not reflect the voters' will, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM.
PS - Yes, Paul, I think putting my intentions not to vote for Hillary Clinton in all caps, bold, italics, hot linked, and repeating it in a mantric way somehow adds to the logic of my argument. I also think that it puts blog readers in a trance and renders them susceptible to unreasonable arguments. Thanks for asking so I could explain that.
Let's try to get to the core of this, Peter.
You still haven't answered my question: you have no problem with the loss of life in Iraq that will result from John McCain - in contrast to either Obama or Clinton - in the White House?
Obviously, the past two years show just what a Republican President intent on continuing the war can do, with a Democratic Congress...
Hi again, Paul--
First, let me say that I trust we are speaking (writing, actually, but you know what I mean) with mutual respect. I know that passions flair with all things political -- perhaps we should be discussing religion instead?
Having said that, I was under the impression that I had gotten to the core of this, at least twice. Am I approaching the prospect of a McCain presidency with "no problem?" Of course not. Yeah, I have a lot of problems with John McCain, not the least of which was his total cave-in on resistance to the evangelical imperative. I'm not sure you're aware of what the endorsement of a candidacy by Bob Jones University means to an Irish Catholic. It's pretty insulting to think about.
It seems to me that it is you who is side-stepping a more important issue: is the principle of "the will of the people" subjunctive to political victory? Is beating McCain (something that is, by the way, by no means guaranteed if we lose the young and previously unmotivated voters who have flocked to the polls this year) the all-important goal? Is it more important than maintaining the integrity of Democratic processes?
I think we're in real trouble (not just as a party, but as a nation) if we countenance "victory at any price," especially if that price is an unnecessary sacrifice of democratic/Democratic principles that alienates a new generation of voters.
I wish I could give you the answer you want. I struggled a long time with this and I can assure you it is not a whim or, as some pundits characterize it, a "tantrum."
I simply will not vote for a nominee whose selection defies the will of the voters, whomever it turns out to be.
Well, first, I didn't say that I approved of "victory at any price" - in fact, I said I would not approve at all of Hillary (or anyone) getting a nomination by subverting the will of the voters.
But strongly disapproving of something does mean I would allow that disapproval to do anything to make it easier for McCain (or anyone intent on continuing this war) from becoming President - which is what not voting for Clinton in a McCain-Clinton election would do.
Because, again, McCain as President would result in a continued loss of life. And that's, I guess, where we'll have to let this stand.
I don't think your position was taken lightly, or is a tantrum - but I nonetheless strongly disagree with it.
I haven't checked in on this debate for awhile and it seems that it has evolved into a passionate dialog. I'll add my two cents to this.
On FL and MI: I think it's problematic that the votes in these states won't count and it may have repercussions in the general election. That's not good. It's ultimately not very democratic either. The issue has very little to do with any of those things. The DNC and the state parties are fighting it out over power brokering, but the candidates signed a pledge to abide by that decision. They sided with the DNC. A revote is ultimately more damaging than an apology or concession of some kind at the convention. To redo these contests the cost would be staggering. The resources needed to pull it off would prove to be a greater drag on the Party than the current situation.
The message we'd send to other states would also be highly destructive. It would drain all the power out of the DNC to allow state parties to ultimately decide the rules on their own. What's to stop Texas or California from moving their primaries to a date earlier than Iowa? Then, New York would move their primary to a week earlier than that. You'd get states forming voting blocks that would ultimately hurt the process by disenfranchising the power of local campaigning. You may as well make one "same day" national primary and be done with it. It may move in that direction anyway someday, unfortunately.
On McCain: As I see it, Hillary Clinton and her husband are closer to John McCain than they are to Obama. Their integral role in the Democratic Leadership Council helped to move the Party towards a neoliberal centrist position that is distinctly hawkish on foreign policy. The DLC never went so far as the neocon/neoliberal GOP, but the goalposts were moved to the Right under their control. They called themselves "New Democrats" by triangulating power with Reagan Democrats, corporate lobbies, and Republicans like Joe Lieberman (DINOs). Bill Clinton has been out stumping for his wife by, inexplicably, stumping for McCain.
The DLC is on its way out as Party power brokers. Hillary Clinton is one of its key leaders and this election further demonstrates the marginalization of their influence. Part of that process is the NetRoots movement, which has replaced corporate patronage and big donor influence peddling with millions of local, small donors. Howard Dean's presidential campaign started this movement and it has proved to be far more effective at electing local candidates in all 50 states, on a left-leaning platform, than the DLC's 51% strategy that targeted "swing states."
The Obama campaign is of this political DNA and is proving that there is a new politics in the making. If he were pushed out by a DLC-led campaign in the smoke-filled rooms of Denver, we would be handing over the most democratically constructed presidential campaign in modern history (and maybe ever) to the Clinton/McCain block.
I vote in Pennsylvania, so my vote carries some weight in a contested electoral territory. I don't want the Iraq Occupation to continue and I don't want the current neoliberal economic disaster to continue either. Vote McCain, you get both. Vote Clinton, you get one. (She did support NAFTA despite what she's saying now.) I don't know what I'd do if it were taken from Obama just yet. I have pledged to write-in Barack Obama, but honestly I can't say for sure what I'd do when pressed to send in my absentee ballot from Japan. Either way, I might just stay over there if Obama is robbed. I couldn't face my country and my Party if indeed it spit in the face of democracy again.
Post a Comment