The Coming Demand for a Clinton Withdrawal

This morning the New York Times bellowed a headline on Obama's "Convincing Wins" yesterday. The Washington Post bannered the modifier, "Handily." The Chicago Tribune scribbled that he "Score[d] a Sweep" and the Politico, thinking ahead, remarked on Obama's "Landslides" -- which "Could Break Deadlock."

At the Virginia Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson dinner, Obama surveyed his decisive victory: "We won in Louisiana, we won in Nebraska, we won in Washington state"; to put it another way, as he did, "We won North, we won South, we won in between."

Obama's campaign did it with strategic forethought (it anticipated the criticality of post-Super Tuesday caucuses), a powerful coalition, almost unprecedented political momentum, plenty of funds and a ready organization -- all of which will be needed in November, and all of which the Clinton campaign lacks -- as well as graciousness, it would seem, considering that Mrs. Clinton failed to even congratulate Obama in her own J-J speech. As my dear old mama would say: Tacky, tacky, tacky.

But the Clinton camp had a powerful piece of logic at the ready to explain away, to dismiss, Obama's geographically rolling victories: It expected him to win, you see, so the landslides don't really count. That was the feverish word transmitted from Clinton staff to television networks last night, and crack logicians everywhere will be working on that one for some time.

Besides, the Clinton camp argued, Obama outspent its candidate. So there. Double-doesn't count.

If that's the sort of cerebral shiftiness we're to expect in the general, should it come to that, please just wake me when it's over.

As everyone knows by now, however, what it may come to instead is a battle for superdelegates -- and not any fussy democratic vote within the Democratic Party. Again, Obama's logic is the stronger: "If we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country ... it would be problematic" -- now there's a world-class understatement -- "for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."

Yet it would not be unthinkable, for Clinton has already thunk the thought, as she did again yesterday aloud, that "superdelegates ... should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president."

In other words, superdelegates -- party hacks and bosses -- should decide for you. After which, presumably, they'll change the Democratic Party's name to that of the Oligarchic.

There is, of course, a much better idea, one that averts all that hand-wringing angst stemming from democracy-denial and name-changing. Though it's far from unthinkable, it has nonetheless remained unspoken. But no longer: Should Hillary fail to rack up 68-percent victories in Ohio and Texas early next month, as Obama just did in Nebraska and Washington, she should gracefully withdraw from the race.

You will, I think, be hearing a lot more of that sentiment in the near future, and not only from self-interested Obama supporters. You will begin to hear it, rather, from the party's vast mainstream, which, already being happy with either candidate, will conclude, simply: Let's get on with it -- we can afford a party-splitting contest no longer; certainly not through spring and summer, and certainly not one decided by a superdelegate T.K.O.

The demanded justifications behind a Clinton withdrawal would be nearly overwhelming. In the general Obama will at any rate win the Democratic states of New York, California, etc., that Clinton has bragged about; Obama decisively outpaces Clinton in a head-to-head matchup with McCain; Obama does, in fact, do well among women, having beaten Clinton on that score 35 to 30 percent in Iowa, and 49 to 48 in Missouri; Obama has none of Clinton's scandal baggage to carry into the general; Obama has consistently proven himself a better fundraiser than Clinton; Obama can far more easily carry swing states than Clinton can; Obama would be more than competitive with McCain in the independent vote, unlike Clinton; Obama undeniably has the Big Mo; and above all, Obama did not support George W. Bush's idiotic war, while Clinton will be forced to defend her idiotic counter-decision every bloody minute on the general campaign trail, and which, undoubtedly, will cost her more than a few progressive votes.

Feel free to to add to this list, which could extend for miles. In fact, it extends all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Those arguments are coming, they're coming in droves, and they're coming around the corner. So pucker up, Mrs. Clinton -- and then you had best come up with better counterarguments than ones like, Well, his landslides don't count when they're expected.

Comments

[M.Dowell]

I feel that if after Maine, D.C.,VA, and MD, Obama wins all, that Clinton should withdraw, so that the Dem party can make mends and move forward with Sen. Obama. In Ohio and Texas, he will win those states, or close to her edge...so its like what's the big idea. In the event that this occurs, the Obama camp will need to educate her supporters about the Nov elections. She does not have the majority of votes as to date...so that should not be a problem. I feel that the people have spoke...even in NY and CA...

[Savoy]

The unresolved democratic primary is a tremendous opportunity if each candidate starts to run against McCain now and not each other. Act as if it the general election with two against one. One candidate will rise in the poles and be their best choice to win in November. McCain must spend his resources to fight two opponents and the dems will have a double punch against McCain when it comes to news coverage, advertising and money. It is advantageous for both candidates because the eventual nominee will not be wounded when the real general election starts.

This approach will also unite the rank and file democrats on the goal of beating McCain and make it easier to accept the outcome of the primary when it happens.

[Nora]

Obama has longer "coattails," too. McCain probably won't excite conservatives to come to the polls - but Hillary might. While they're there, they'll pull the lever for the Republican senate candidate, as well. We NEED a majority in the senate to change anything - especially Iraq. Hillary is more energizing to the other side.

[sam walnut]

Obama did not serve on the Board of Directors of Walmart, during some nasty labor fights.

Obama does not have to explain anything that happened at Mena airport.

Obama would be the first President in 20 years that did not attend Yale University.

[Hillary Fan]

I realize that you Obamatons are all fired up because that empty bag of wind with no substance won a few states that vote red in the general anyway, but don't you think we should wait for those little states like Texas, Ohio, PA, etc. to vote before we demand that Sen. Clinton step down?

What chutzpah you Obamatons have.

[ggranny21]

And just like Bush we can't mention his drug use or any negitives or the MSMand Press void it.

[TahoeProgressive]

The Republicans talk about Reagan. Obama reminds many voters (Me included!) of JFK and Bobby. We need a president who offers the chance of bringing the country together, which Obama does.

It's OK to have partisan fighting during an election. After the votes are counted, we should expect all candidates from all parties to come together and work in the best interests of this country.

If Hillary wins the nomination and general election, we will probably have the same attacks from the Republicans that we lived with in the first Clinton administration.

Her 'big state' strategy will probably give the House and Senate back to the Republicans and nothing will be accomplished for 4 or 8 years. We need better.

[ggranny21]

And what would your dear old mama say about Obama supporting Shuster's criminal remark? I suppose to your kind that isn't TACKY,TACKY,TACKY.I'm an old lady and if someone said that about my daughter I would take care of them one way or another.NO room in politics for that kind of talk.

[tish]

Obamanation! Don't shove your candidate down our throats. Let the rest of Democrats who have yet to vote have their say in the matter. The primaries in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have yet to take place--and then there is the problem of Michigan and Florida. Moreover, Clinton and BO are virtually tied with regards to delegates. In my view, the race is over only when all of the election process has played itself out. Neither candidate should accept anything less.

In any case, I'm completely turned off by BO's playing of the race card since NH and his continual threats about how his supporters won't vote for Clinton should she be the nominee! If I had once intended to support the Democratic nominee no matter who it was, I will NOT cast my vote for BO should he be the nominee.

Could I really live with another Republican president, you ask? Yes. McCain is seasoned and has experience (which BO does not!), is a war hero, has proven to work with Democrats, and will serve only a 4-year term.

[serena1313]

Inasmuch as I support Obama whole handily, I think that the voters ought to have their say. Right now with 11% of results in Maine: Obama is only 51% to Hillary's 48%.

However I do believe that Obama has a better chance of winning the general election. He appeals to people of every strip, colour, gender, race, et al.

Hillary, on the other hand, appeals to women mainly over 65.

Moreover Obama has a 16 point lead among Independents while Hillary has only a 5% lead among democrats. She cannot win without the independents, the African Americans and the younger crowd that is unlikely to turn-out to vote for her. Maybe they will, but I do not see that at this moment.

IF Hillary does win and that is a very big "IF", I will probably vote for her **only** because of the Supreme Court Justices.

Something like 6 of the Justices are over 70 years of age. There is a good chance at least two will resign. The SCOTUS is leaning so far right that it is simply too dangerous to chance -- 100-year-war-McCain appointing even one.

Results from Maine so far:

No hard numbers yet, but Obama wins Houlton by about 20 votes. <>

Obama wins Rockport, carrying 8 delegates to Hillary's 3.

Obama takes Fryeburg 67 to 17
Obama takes York 414 to 225
Clinton takes Rumford 52 to 37
Clinton takes Dixfield 16 to 14
Clinton takes Mexico 27 16
Clinton takes Byron 1 to 0
Obama takes Hanover 6 to 2
Obama takes Gardiner 129 47 with 2 uncommitted
Clinton takes Old Orchard Beach 134 to 128
Obama takes Hampden 179 to 70
Obama takes Wilton 87 to 30
Obama takes Cape Elizabeth 550 to 217
Obama takes Deer Island 6 to 1
Obama takes Winterport 7 to 4
Obama takes Machiasport 2 delegates to 1O
Obama takes Ellsworth 184 to 100
Obama takes Bristol 7 to 2
Obama takes Bangor (District 15) 16 to 8
Obama takes Presque Isle 63 to 60
Obama takes Stonington 48 to 24
Obama takes Scarborough 401 to 283
Obama takes Yarmouth (Results coming soon)
Obama takes Lubec 28 to 23
Obama takes Veazie 4 to 2
Obama takes Paris 33 to 27
Obama takes Damariscotta 102 to 36
Obama takes Newcastle 5 to 2 (Delegates)
Obama takes Alfred 40 to 25
Obama takes Gorham 267 to 189
Obama takes Old Town 15 to 10
Obama takes Hope 72 to 24
Obama takes Lee 11 to 9
Obama takes Camden, results coming soon
Obama takes Kennebunkport, results coming soon
Obama takes Kennebunk 24 to 11
Obama takes Steuben, results coming soon
Obama takes Standish 81 to 59
Obama takes Hollis 77 to 33
Obama takes Lyman 48 to 26
Obama takes Newfield 20 to 12
Obama takes Sidney 47 to 43
Obama picks up Fairfield!

And the town of Wells goes to Hillary.

Clinton: 151
Obama: 122
Kucinich: 4
Undecided: 4

Maine Delegate Results - 11% Reporting
Candidate Delegates Percentage
Barack Obama 175 ... 51%
Hillary Clinton 168 ... 48%

see results here:
http://www.turnmaineblue.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=B2EEBE2125D54FC149B93C770DDCBBBF?diaryId=779

[serena1313]

*** Tish

With all due respect Tish, Obama did not play the race card. He never wanted race to be an issue in this election in the fist place.

However after the Cintons brought it up, it offended (misunderstood or not) the Black community! I respect their perception. It was then that the media ran away with the story that really began fanning the flames, so to speak.

[neoconned]

Folks, bantering about which one should drop out of the race is chasing the wrong rabbit. All of the candidates remaining in the race are not the friend of the average American. They are instead bought and paid for through "campaign contributions" to keep us from exercising our power as the Constitution tells us we must.

As Ron Paul looks like he's dropping out (and I don't support him either), the only candidate who can even hint at making a claim toward representing any sector of the common populace if Mike Huckabee (SHUDDER!), but I doubt his campaign has long to go before he's shoved out of the way of the corporatist express. Then, we get to choose from the two corporate-vetted choices made for us by "our betters" in the boardrooms.

[Lj]

Hey HillaryFan:

Here is the great David Sirota column that is sweeping the nation, explaining why Obama seems like such an "empty shirt."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota.html
In a nutshell, he (Obama) is smart enough not to try to play the John Edwards' populist card... because look where it got John Edwards. I must confess, I have been disgusted with "politics" since at least 2000 The Democratic Party in America is too stupid and/or gutless to defend - publicly, proudly, forcefully - the ideals and meoments of 100 years of PROGRESSIVE PROGRESS in America, from President TR Roosevelt (he's the one on Mt. Rushmore) TRUST BUSTING at the turn of last century, to WOMEN's VOTE, to ENDING the GREAT DEPRESSION, to WINNING WWII (and funding billions for the futuristic "Manhatten Project" at a time when US troops were fighting and dying on shoestring supply lines in god-forsaken hell-holes like Burman, New Guinea, Gadalcanal, Italian mountains, etc), and Truman's "Marshall Program" to rebuild Europe was THE vital FOUNDATION for "Winning the Cold War" 4 decades later) to the GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS - interstate highways, bank account insurance (FDIC) to save American savings accounts from bank failures, to the GI BILL, to those ENTIRE INDUSTRIES which BIG GOVERNMENT WWII SPENDING CREATED. (Obviously the rocket, nuclear, and jet industries, but also the large electronic computers descended from the EINAC military computer, radar, etc.)
THE CLINTONS HAD THEIR CHANCE to DEFEND THIS 100 year legacy of liberal/lefty/progressive PROGRESS, but they both OPERATE AS CORPORATE LAWYERS. As PM points out, Hillary was SITTING ON THE BOARD of WalMart, AT A TIME IT WAS BUSTING UNIONS!
Sirota's and PM columns say it better than I, so I will leave it here.

[beamer]

neoconned get's my vote!!...

[Josephine Ortez]

Say, Mr. P.M. Carpenter, aren't you the same one who thought that Barack Obama would drop out after
Super Tuesday? I seem to remember a column about
that very idea 10 days ago.

[JBS]

I don't much care for either one of them - Clinton's too corporate for my taste and Obama wants "bi-partisan" compromise with the GOP ... in other words "relax and enjoy it."

But all the Clinton bashing I see in the media is unseemly, and I'd like to see some criticisim of Obama for his lack of graciousness in taking advantage of it and taking part in it.