Hillary Clinton Drop Out: Who Would it Help?

Calls for Senator Hillary Clinton to drop her bid for the Democratic nomination have re-surfaced. Earlier in the primary season, Senator Barack Obama's consecutive victories prompted pundits to suggest Clinton should exit the race; however, wins in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas rejuvenated her momentum. The remaining contests for Democrats will be held in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon with the last primaries in South Dakota and Montana taking place on June 3rd. Few remaining elections coupled with Obama's lead in delegate counts have rousted the political elite to once again justify pushes for Hillary Clinton's departure. If Clinton opts to stay, the process will undoubtedly continue to the Democratic National Convention on August 25th, where superdelegates will give one nominee the final push into candidacy. The concern is that the extended calendar will hurt Democrats in the national election, giving Senator John McCain a great advantage on November 4th. It is true that every action has consequences in this campaign and a long primary for the Democrats obviously has implications for voters, candidates, the party, and of course the general election. At the same time, the extended primary season is not necessarily completely detrimental. Despite the negative repercussions stemming from the delayed nomination, Clinton is legitimately vying for the remaining delegates with some unexpectedly positive implications for Democrats.

The controversy began last week when Senator Patrick Leahy (pictured on the left) of Vermont, who has endorsed Obama, announced on public radio with conviction that Clinton's win was a near impossibility. Mathematically, at least, Leahy was incorrect. Obama leads Clinton in delegates 1,414 to 1,286, respectively, but this advantage is not sufficient to secure the nomination. 2,025 is the golden number, and another way of looking at the situation is that Obama still needs 611 delegates, and Clinton needs 749; the fight for delegates is far from over. In an earlier post, I explained the great voting power of 796 superdelegates. As of now, some are already committed, others are changing their minds, and more are not planning on deciding anytime soon. The prospect of conducting new elections may be diminishing, but the question of delegates from Florida and Michigan still remains up in the air, with prospects of appeals and even vote splits still on the table. From a quantitative perspective, neither candidate can legitimately push the other out.

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 suggests that supporters of both candidates will be extremely unsatisfied if their candidate is not elected, and as a result may vote for John McCain in the general election. I see the argument that if Hillary leaves, Barack will have more time to court her followers (one is pictured on the right). In spite of that, I find it more likely that her supporters would be willing to concede a loss if the entire process were allowed to manifest. The poll found that 41% of Obama voters would be upset if Clinton won the nomination, while conversely 51% would be upset if Obama won the nomination. The Democratic party could be noticeably hurt, if Clinton prematurely removes herself and subsequently, her supporters switch their party allegiance.

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.

Just Words: Did Barack Obama Plagiarize Governor Deval Patrick's Speech?

The fight for the Democratic nomination has reached its pinnacle of intensity and correspondingly, the mudslinging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (shown on the same stage to the left) has reached its height. When these attacks take place in a controlled forum such as a national televised debate, it’s easy for interested Americans to extract the arguments directly from the candidates in real time. At this stage relatively late in the primary season, however, mudslinging comes in the form of staggered headlines, as candidates make accusations in speeches, campaigns respond in press releases, and rebuttals are only are only directed at one crowd in one state. In these cases, we must be able to extract reliable information from second-hand sources in order to draw our own conclusions about these arguments and to separate fact from spin.

Today, Hillary Clinton likened a segment of Barack Obama’s speech delivered on Sunday in Wisconsin to one delivered in 2006 by Gov. Deval Patrick (shown with Barack Obama on the right) to a crowd in Massachusetts; a video has surfaced on Youtube with a side-by-side comparison of the speeches. The similarities between the two segments are unmistakable, and both sides agree that indeed Obama used Patrick's words and ideas; however, while the Hillary Clinton camp has cried plagiarism, Obama maintains that he simply borrowed the words with the Governor's consent. An attempt to make sense of the situation led me to the blogosphere, which has erupted with editorials on the subject. I have found two particularly persuasive posts, each with a unique perspective on the argument. Although the posts are in contention, I found valuable points on each which I have provided my own insight. The first post by Sylvia Welsh for The Huffington Post stresses the salience of this revelation and the implications on Barack Obama's character. The second post written by Sean Hackbarth on his blog The American Mind dismisses the plagiarism accusations with technical interpretations of the term. I have provided a link to my comments on both posts, and for your convenience I have also pasted them below.

Desperate Clinton Accuses Obama Of Plagiarism
Comment:

Thank you for your very informative and engaging post on the plagiarism battle currently ensuing between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is so important that we closely analyze accusations by candidates and your insight has built a powerful case against the use of ‘plagiarism’ in this context. I wholeheartedly agree that context is an vital component of this discussion and that plagiarism is a politically charged word that does not accurately characterize the use of Governor Deval Patrick’s words and ideas in Sen. Obama’s recent speech. Consent is a big player in plagiarism and Gov. Patrick has confirmed he did authorize the use of his words by his friend Sen. Obama. At the same time, I think ‘sharing’ is too weak of a word for what took place. At best, Obama was a very irresponsible sharer, not even hinting that part of his speech was borrowed, even from a consenting friend. I know that as a university student, if I had transcribed and used that segment of Obama’s speech in a paper, I would be very alarmed if I found later that these words were not his own.

Along this same line, ‘desperation’ fails to accurately characterize the accusations made public by the Clinton campaign. It is true that the stakes are very high and the climate is very hostile; Barack Obama has carried nine consecutive states thus far and Hillary Clinton desperately needs a win to build momentum in her campaign. Nevertheless, I think pointing out Sen. Obama’s use of Gov. Patrick’s words was not simply a petty, political attack. Personally, the ‘exposition’ of Barack Obama did not drastically alter my assessment of his character. I did, however, appreciate learning information—presumably discovered by a sophisticated opposition research team—-that I would have been unable to otherwise find; Gov. Patrick made his speech over one year ago in Massachusetts and Sen. Obama made his speech to a crowd in Wisconsin—-two places I have not been.

Overall though, in assessing this battle over words, your quote from Governor Patrick was the most consequential, “The point is more important than whose argument it is.” Despite my feelings that this event is worth at least some of the headlines it’s receiving, I do not believe that this should take away from the Senator Obama’s ability to invigorate and activate crowds with his speeches or be used as a cheap tool to chip away at his character.

Barack Obama And Why It Matters That He Plagiarized A Speech (At Least One That We Know Of)
Comment:

I want to thank you first on providing a valuable, distinctive perspective on Barack Obama’s recent trouble with plagiarism. I too believe that the media downplay of the incident is unfortunate and that Barack Obama’s misstep has some relevant implications in the campaign for the presidential nomination. I particularly liked that you isolated the event to focus on Barack Obama’s actions without getting your point diminished as being part of an empty, pro-Hillary Clinton and anti-Barack Obama mudslinging war.

You used children in your examples, but given the record numbers of young people participating in the campaign, I felt a discussion of college students in particular should be included. I have personally weighed the significance of Barack Obama’s uncredited ‘borrowing’ of Governor Deval Patrick’s speech. I know that if I had, say, transcribed part of Obama’s speech for use in a paper, I would have been shocked to learn that I had mistakenly credited the Senator with writing words that were only lent to him. As academic integrity is a major part of most university student's scholarly careers and we are taught from day one to always cite the words of others, I would be confused by the mixed message sent by Obama, who has hardly accepted responsibility for his failure to credit Gov. Patrick. After all, Obama could have easily -- especially since he had permission -- made a quick nod at Gov. Patrick without diminishing the value of his words.

I do however disagree with you about the potential of Barack Obama to be a role model in light of this event. While I agree that character is an important consideration of a candidate and this event opens up more questions about Barack Obama’s character, I don’t think it should tell the whole story. First, we know through history that our best presidents have not always upheld high moral standards and that excellent characters don’t guarantee excellent presidents. Furthermore, I don’t think Barack Obama’s failure to cite Gov. Patrick renders him indecent and unethical. Obama has written several inspiring, influential speeches which have energized people of all ages. He should be praised for these endeavors and as a response to concerned Americans like you, he should amend his actions in future speeches.