
Barack Obama's backers may argue that Clinton is hurting the Democratic party. After all, Senator John McCain has already sealed the Republican nomination and has begun to air ads for the general election. He also has the ability to utilize this time to build himself up positively, without any attacks from Republicans and few from Democratic competitors. Notwithstanding, this is not smooth sailing for McCain. Although his early campaigning gives him somewhat of a head start, the Democrats are also reaping benefits from conducting a full 50-state (save Florida and Michigan) campaign; voters are hearing the messages of Obama and Clinton, which in turn is effectively activating Democrats across the country. The Democratic race is also dominating media coverage and public interest is high, so McCain must struggle to make competitive headlines. Both candidates have not been shy to criticize McCain, as they are attempting to prove they will fare well against him in the general election. Essentially, when the occasion arises, McCain must attack and defend himself from two contenders, the Democratic party, and interest groups.
Pressure is also being transferred to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), who is increasingly being called on to solve problems. Perhaps most publicly, chairman Howard Dean has been asked to solve the Florida and Michigan delegate problems. In response to the long primary, he has taken a more neutral stance, calling on superdelegates to make their decisions quickly in order to secure a nominee by July. The DNC's primary responsibility to get a Democrat in the White House is understandably difficult when a candidate has not been elected. It seems somewhat contradictory, though, to discourage the long primary season and system that the DNC created and approved. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are simply a rare case where two candidates test the entire primary from early start to late finish at the DNC convention in August; this has not happened since Gary Hart and Walter Mondale had an extraordinarily close election in 1984.
Democratic voters are understandably anxious and new polling data

In pressuring Clinton to quit, Obama supporters have suggested that the choice is hers alone. Leahy said, "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates [...] She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make.” By describing a climate where Clinton has a very slim chance of winning and suggesting that she make a sacrifice for the country, they subtly position her as an ambitious politician and hopeless candidate. Thus far, Barack Obama has won 13,568,526 votes, while Hillary Clinton has won 13,464,305 across the country. Obama's numbers are clearly higher but not by much. I find that these numbers make a strong case for Clinton with thirteen million Americans standing by her campaign. Indeed, Hillary has affirmed she will not withdraw, and has even used the criticism to her advantage. Thus, while elections do not always pan-out in a way that is advantageous to personal interests, affirmation of one candidate should not deny others' affirmation of their candidates. A recent blog post in the Daily Kos has rationed that Clinton should exit because states like Kentucky and West Virginia are too racist to pick the right candidate. Comments like these are more divisive and dangerous for Democrats than an extended primary season. In this heated contest especially, the election must chart its course and schemes to end the race early is not the solution.
1 comment:
Thank you for your insightful and thought provoking post. As I commented in class, it is irregular that this democratic race has gone on for so long, but, as you responded cleverly, that is how the process was devised to work. One of the great qualities of this post is your unbiased tone (regardless of who you would want to win), which creates a platform so the reader may, as voters, ultimately look at the facts presented and make his/her personal choice. Some of the notable and outstanding moments in this post were ones that forced me to think about my stance on this subject. Regardless of preference, would it benefit Democrats to have a single candidate at this point? Though I had never considered the threat that a two against one race could have in the long run, I feel the process should, as law dictates, ultimately decide. What I find interesting is how unabashedly some individuals, namely Sen. Patrick Leahy, will bully Clinton into a potential drop-out. Are they not all of the same party? Do they not all face a greater adversary in the Republican party?
Your links were diverse and thought provoking, while your facts were stragihtforward and enlightening. I am very glad that you have written this post concisesly and feel that anyone's time would be well spent reading it.
Great work!
Post a Comment