|
Pointing fingers at Clinton for getting McCain elected or otherwise harming the party is nothing more than classic scapegoating. I think it is extremely interesting that supporters of Barak, the candidate running on a 'yes we can' message about how the system should be and not playing the corrupt games of that system, are arguing that Clinton should drop out in accordance with unspoken systemic political set-up. I hate to say it, but I agree with Ralph Nader on this one. Any candidate running only strengthens our democracy and that should be the goal of our party.
Now about this sentiment that things would be different if the two candidates were in opposite positions. I found myself nodding in agreement until I came to the shocking realization that people are actually claiming it would be different in that Barak would have been forced out! I'm sorry, but when I imagine these roles being changed I can't comprehend a more than a handful of talking heads on Fox calling for him to step down, especially with the numbers Clinton has. Let's not forget that the nomination process for the Democratic Party has traditionally gone on much longer than this and when the margins between the candidates were greater! Is the argument honestly then that because this campaign is so close we should end the process early?
In the end, the strongest argument for Clinton to drop out is that she can't win. First of all, that's patently untrue. Between super delegates, the pledged delegate push that Clinton is making, her expected major upcoming victories, and the possible eventual seating of some Michigan & Florida delegates she could easily win. Granted she would need more than just one of those things to do it, but it could happen. Second, and more importantly, I would even still consider the practicality of her withdraw based upon a serious unlikelihood of her pulling off the necessary delegate count if Barak could possibly muster the count himself absent her withdraw. Everyone is talking about the numeric impossibility of her victory, but conveniently forgetting the numeric impossibility of Barak winning because of the tightness of the race and the Michigan/Florida snafu. In the end, I feel that it is fundamentally undemocratic and unreasonable to expect someone in a close second to quit when her opponent cannot defeat her on his own through the established process.
NOTE: All I'm saying in stating that Barak can't win, is that neither candidate can hope to get the delegate count necessary to win because the race has turned out too close to overcome the result of the DNC's idiocy and lack of foresight. I can't honestly say who would be the winner if this primary had gone down as it was supposed to. Regardless, it didn't and now here we are. I just want to be clear so that no one is going to construe my words to imply a broader statement about Barak's electabililty.
__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751
|