Problems for Hillary in the Michigan "win"
The Michigan Democratic primary last night was unimportant for delegates to the convention, but it did show two very interesting results.
The first is that she clearly doesn't have a lot of support, even in the Democratic party. She only earned 55% of the vote in a virtually uncontested race. Uncommitted earned 40% of the vote. I know that turnout was light, but 55% in an uncontested race doesn't give me a lot of confidence that Hillary can win a contested race. Is she really as electable as some of her supporters say she is?
Second, according to exit polls, Hillary won less than 1/4 of the African-American vote. In South Carolina, where African-Americans make up about 50% of the Democratic electorate, Hillary has to split that vote with Obama or she'll lose in South Carolina.
Should Obama win Nevada on Saturday, where he has a lot of labor support and organization, and then South Carolina next week, he'll be on a roll going into Super Duper Tuesday.
I'm not banging on Hillary because I don't like her. I've never thought she would be the nominee. She has never gotten greater than 50% of a national poll even though she is so well known. I just think that should she fail to win in Nevada and South Carolina, maybe it is time for her to step aside and allow Obama (or Edwards) to claim the nomination. Then the Democrats will look like an organized and solid party, while the Republicans flail about choosing their nominee. Thus helping Democratic chances to win the White House in 2008.
Technorati Tags: 
Zero Probability Event
I'm guessing you are not holding your breath. Do you really think she will cast aside her ambition for the good of the Party? I'm thinking, no. (And, to be fair, few would).
The good of the party is important
timothy-
I don't think HRC will drop out before Nevada or South Carolina, but if she loses those, the good of the party is vital. Do I think she'll drop out? No. Do I think she should if she loses? ABSOLUTELY!
But that is the inherent problem with HRC, her lust for power is just too raw and obvious. I agree it is probably sexist because lust for power is encouraged in men, but is disparaged in women. However, that doesn't change one's visceral reaction to HRC and her hunger for the Oval Office.
I don't see why she'd drop out
before the real states with the most delegates. Super Tuesday is where it's at. Although I guess the counterargument is that we need a (D) nominee that is capable is winning the red states, so the red state primaries / caucuses should control. The rejoinder, in turn, is that intraparty contests aren't necessarily a reliable indicator of how that candidate will do v the (R) in the general.
Thanks for sending out the reminder email, by the by; it was one of those things where Firefox ate my bookmarks and I forgot to re-add this site. It's such a pleasure to read this site, with its noticeable absence of crazies. Ahhhhh.
Clintonian Blues
I think Obama has to win BOTH Nevada and South Carolina. Hillary still has so much establishment support and machinery that I'm starting to smell inevitability again. Nevada is going to be very difficult for Obama despite the union support. He's had to make up a lot of ground in a short time, and Clinton's really made a push there. I believe that he will win SC since over 50% of the primary voters are African-American and trending sharply his way. But if he loses Nevada, the Clinton campaign will be able to dismiss the SC results as an anomaly due to the heavy African-American presence.
It's been very depressing to watch the Clinton campaign. What a display of rampant dihonesty, narcissism and naked ambition. Bill Clinton's fairy tale rant wasn't racist, just an undignified, self-absorbed tantrum. The refusal of Hillary to admit what everyone knows about Bob Johnson's comments, the voter suppression effort in Nevada--I could go on.
President Clinton as a surrogate and a political figure again
I don't have Clintonian blues, but I do wonder about President Clinton as a political surrogate and figure again. It is new territory for any president since Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century. Americans like their former Presidents to be "statesmen" and not dirty their hands with the day-to-day mudslinging of politics.
Recently, President Clinton has gotten into heated exchanges with reporters over the press' coverage (or lack thereof) for Senator Obama.
I always figured the Democratic Party and the HRC campaign would have a Bill problem, but I thought it would be more with bimbos and not with verbal blunders. Exactly what is off limits when discussing the President? Is his track record open for questioning? Can the Obama and Edwards campaign attack him? Or would that be bad form? What if he attacks them directly (rather than indirectly via the media) would it be ok then?
I don't fault a man for campaigning for his wife, but being the former President certainly complicates things and makes a messy process even messier.
Best not to be a squeaky wheel
I don’t know whether Edwards or any other contender (except Obama) thinks it would be bad form to do so. I am guessing, though, that they are content to have the Eye of Mordor firmly fixed on Obama for now. No reason to attract its attention.
Does it sicken anyone else
Does it sicken anyone else that politics in free America that we're having a conversation about the good of the party? What happened to the good of the country?
It seems like I'm the only one who's sick of political parties- I've seen nothing good as a result of their existence. But I suppose that's a fight for another day.
When it comes down to this issue, we must have the good of the country in mind, make it clear, and show it in every speech and argument. It is the only way we can appeal to the "red" states..
I just don't trust the
I just don't trust the voting machines at all--Clinton seems to win in every state where the electronic voting machines are relied upon and lose in the states where they are not. The fact is Ron Paul's fight against the federal reserve is what people need to see. The Fed is NOT a US BANK it is a corporate bank run by European bankers. Do the research and you will see, don' t just scoff at it. It is all too real and very easy to see if you look.
Post new comment