Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm glad Clinton did not drop out before now

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 12:47 PM
Original message
I'm glad Clinton did not drop out before now
Edited on Thu May-08-08 12:52 PM by democrattotheend
A lot of my fellow Obama supporters are upset that Clinton has refused to drop out despite having almost no chance to capture the nomination, and some people don't understand why I am in no rush for her to drop out now. I'm as anxious to declare victory and go out and celebrate as anyone, but I recognize that if Obama's supporters get too aggressive and push her out, it will hurt him in the long run.

A week ago, I was wishing the supers had pushed Clinton out after Wisconsin, but now I am glad they didn't. If Obama had become the presumptive nominee after Wisconsin, he would have essentially skated to the nomination before anyone had time to pause and take a look at him. There were still a lot of states left to vote at that point, and Wright breaking in March could have created a scenario of buyer's remorse that weakened him for the fall.

If Wright had emerged after she dropped out, her supporters would have (rightly) been angry that she was pushed out before Obama had been fully "vetted" (though I disagree that this was even a legitimate issue to "vet" him on), and they would have felt that she was pushed aside prematurely before Obama ever had to face tough press scrutiny and before half the states got to vote. Before Wisconsin she did get much tougher scrutiny from the press and her opponents because she was the front-runner.

In February, she could credibly argue that he had not received as much scrutiny from the press, hadn't been tested under fire, and might not end up ahead at the end if Michigan and Florida were included. I'm glad she wasn't pushed aside before Obama faced tough scrutiny from the press, and before the later states had the chance to weigh in. I'm glad that he had to prove he could withstand negative attacks and bad press. I'm glad that he has had to face these challenges because it's made him a stronger candidate. While she may have taken a little bit of the glow off and some of her supporters may have hardened against him, it would have been a lot worse if she were pushed out prematurely and then Reverend Wright came out and made both her supporters and even people who voted for Obama wonder if the party had made a big mistake.

At this point, nobody can claim that he has not been vetted or tested. Nobody can claim that he got a free pass from the media and coasted to the nomination. Nobody can say that he is only ahead because of caucuses or because Michigan and Florida were "disenfranchised". He leads in every metric (except maybe land mass, which appears to be Terry McAuliffe's new formula) and Michigan and Florida would not change that. At the end of the primary season nobody will be able to claim that he does not have full legitimacy as the nominee, or that he skated to the nomination without withstanding scrutiny or overcoming adversity. He and his supporters will have earned the nomination fair and square and he'll be in a stronger position because of it.

By having to survive the past 2 months, Obama has essentially debunked her arguments about not being tested and vetted and able to withstand scrutiny. He has amassed a big enough delegate lead that Michigan and Florida don't matter, and a big enough popular vote lead that she is unlikely to take the lead in that either. The only argument she has left for the superdelegates is essentially a more subtle form of "I'm more electable because I'm white", and even if it's true, at this stage, to deny Obama the nomination based on the color of his skin, even if only because of fears about electability, would be a throwback to the days of Jim Crow, and the superdelegates are not going to be that stupid.

As I have gone to different states campaigning for Obama, I have witnessed more overt racism than I had ever experienced before, except for some unfortunate comments my great-grandfather made about the black staff at his nursing home not long before he died. At the beginning of the campaign season, I think I was a little naive in thinking that it would barely be a factor, because most racists had already become Republicans. After spending time on the campaign trail knocking on doors for Obama, I am under no illusion about the tough battle we face in getting him elected.

In order to do that, we need to have a united party with all hands on deck to help him, and that was only going to happen if his nomination was seen as fully legitimate. Clinton staying in the race until now helped to ensure his legitimacy, and whether she stays in through June 3 or drops out tomorrow, Obama is in a stronger position now than he would have been if she dropped out in February. As long as she keeps it positive, it's not going to hurt him much if Clinton stays in for another three weeks, and the superdelegates should not push her out unless she goes negative. If she chooses to drop out on her own that's one thing, but if superdelegates push her aside now it will only hurt Obama in the fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thoughts?
I thought I'd offend at least somebody with my post and get a response. Guess I need to be more offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think the long campaign has made Obama a stronger candidate &
Edited on Thu May-08-08 01:37 PM by Ichingcarpenter
debater. It also revealed the Dark Side of the Clintons that many voters didn't know.

But now we need to move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-08-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. unnn, I don't know....I can't see the net gain in HRC implementing the Southern Strategy light....
...against Obama for OUR PARTY.

Now if McSame runs to the left of HRC in regards to race that doesn't look good for the DNC either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC