Indiana Matters (But Shouldn't)
Here in Indiana, there is a lot of excitement over the Presidential primaries, because for the first time in a very long time, Indiana will play a role in deciding the Democratic nominee for President.
We vote on May 6th, along with my parents in North Carolina. Hank and Katherine, out in Montana, don't vote till June. To hear Senator Clinton tell it, Hank and Katherine will matter, too. I'm all for the Green family having a say in this election. But Indiana and North Carolina and Montana shouldn't matter.
The race was fair, and it is over. Senator Clinton will not win enough delegates to tie or overtake Senator Obama, no matter what happens in the states yet to vote. Clinton's campaign has emphasized how close the race has been (and it has been very close), but there comes a time at which the race--despite having been close--is over. We've been there since Texas and Ohio voted. I have supported Obama throughout this campaign, and if he were in Senator Clinton's position, I would be very disappointed. But I would still want him to bow out.
Many of my friends support Clinton (and a few work full-time for her campaign). I know how hard it is when a candidate you deeply believe in loses a close election. But if we examine the main arguments coming out of the Clinton campaign, none really holds up:
1. "The superdelegates might break for Clinton even though Obama will have a lead in pledged delegates." This is ridiculous, and everyone in the Democratic party knows it.
But if Obama were to become utterly unelectable for some reason between now and the convention, the superdelegates could STILL break for Clinton and give her the nomination, even if she suspended her campaign.
2. "The race is very close." True, but the few remaining contests cannot change the outcome. They might make it slightly closer (although I think not), but so what?
3. "The decision to keep running is a deeply personal decision." Oh, hooey. (The ostensibly neutral) Howard Dean had this to say today: "Nobody tells you when to get in, and nobody tells you when to get out. That's about the most personal decision you can make..."
Except it is not a personal decision. It's not about you. It's about the war in Iraq and climate change and the world economy. It's about issues bigger than Sen. Clinton, and bigger than the Democratic party, and bigger in fact than the United States.
Now, many people believe that Clinton is self-centered and disingenuous. Some will say she's continuing because she thinks the election is about her. I disagree. I believe, in fact, the opposite: She is continuing because she knows the race is about more than her, and because she believes she is better-equipped to lead the United States than her remaining opponents. She's staying because of those issues that are bigger than her, because it's not a personal decision.
I admire that, but from here on out, Senator Clinton's campaign will not bring us closer to the America she envisions.
And in my opinion, that's when you have to hang it up. But maybe I'm wrong. let me know in comments.
posted by John Green @ Monday, March 31, 2008
33 Comments
33 Comments:
I'm in Oregon and, quite frankly, tired of not counting. Why do New Hampshire and Iowa get all the love? I think they should mix it up a little and let other states vote first in the primary.
Sorry I didn't answer your question (I like Obama and think Hillary is a product of focus groups and opinion polls) but since our state does not matter, I am starting to get pretty cynical about all the candidates.
Afton, I share your frustration about the overall primary process. It shouldn't be so strung out; Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't dominate political discourse for the first several months of the campaign; etc.
But that is no reason to get cynical about the candidates, is it? (It's a reason to get cynical about the current nomination process and fight to change it, though.)
Oregon--and every state--will matter in the general election. -John
John, I do think you're right about it time to step away for Senator Clinton. I'm less positive than you are about her motivations or the motivation of her team for her staying in it.
I'm terrified, even though I've moved away from the U.S., that the Dem parties division will open the door for a bizarre Republican win in November. I'm also disappointed by the large percentage of Dems who say they will abstain from voting if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. We've lost our way.
I feel like many people don't feel that there's any harm in letting the race run clear up to the convention. This is one of those years when the Democrats should have everything in the bag, and yet somehow it's not very hard to imagine the Republicans cruising in for a victory with a candidate that even they don't really like.
I'm bothered by the fact that it has to be abundantly clear to the Clinton campaign that if she wins, it will be with super delegate votes only--and I think it's been made pretty clear that when you lose the popular vote but win anyways, that there is going to be a HUGE outcry. Does she really think she can win the presidency in the middle of such an outcry? Just about every dem I know of has gotten so involved in the primary race that they've sworn to cross party lines as retaliation if their nominee doesn't win--and the only way to avoid this is for one of them to quit now and support the other so their followers have a chance to patch up their bruised egos and then rally behind the nominee.
And obviously, at this point, I think we all know who should be the one to graciously step down. You know. The one who isn't winning.
as a massachusetts liberal, voting in this primary was exciting. it may stand alone as the single time my vote for president will count so long as our elective system remains unchanged. so while i understand wanting to (feel like you) have a say also, i deeply hope that you won't, & that past april 22 the democratic party will be moving forward with a certain candidate. it is a shaky hope, but it's all i've got, because as things stand i'm scared as all fuck that john mccain will be addressing our nation come january. i support hillary (& am glad to learn that you view her as a person with a genuine love for this nation), but i agree wholeheartedly that it is time for her to back down & support obama as the democratic candidate. what i'd love to see at this point is an obama/clinton ticket (initially my hope was for clinton/obama), & while many say that hillary will never accept the role of VP, i think that she is in this race to effect change, & if she feels she can do more good as VP than as a senator, she may embrace the role. happy voting.
Go McCain!
I'm just afraid that this close battle between Clinton and Obama will split the party and give McCain an extra edge in November. Though I voted for Obama, I'm a big fan of Clinton too and I'll happily support either one--but I do wish they'd stop the mudslinging and get on with it.
What do you think about a joint ticket?
No? Yes?
Jessica and Heidi: I am not opposed to Hillary as a VP candidate at all, although I share Jessica's worry that she wouldn't accept it. I think she should acknowledge that the race is over regardless, though.
Brian: I share your anxiety.
Jevonte: Why do you support McCain?
Hi John,
I've been lurking for quite some time, having found you through Maureen Johnson's blog. I enjoyed "Looking for Alaska", and Brotherhood 2.0.
Anyway, I completely agree that Clinton should step away at this point.
Although I am still undecided on whether to vote for Obama or McCain (I am a registered independent), I think it's clear that Clinton does not have the confidence of the populace.
What is depressing for me is that I don't feel that there is a candidate on either side that I can truly believe in. I see good and bad in both Obama and McCain and not a lot of "great" in either.
My thoughts, FWIW.
When I saw the post title, I expected everyone's favorite not-a-pornographer would be weighing in on your state's adventure in inanity.
Not that this wasn't a great piece, but I was kind of looking forward to your take on "prurient interest" and other pressing legislative topics.
Am I just SOL? :-)
well said John, well said!
I honestly couldn't agree more with this post. Can I ask this, what are your thoughts on the possibility of a double ticket, Obama-Clinton?
At this point Senator Clinton is my candidate, so I obviously don't agree that it's time for her to step down. I still believe in the issues that she seeks to tackle, particularly universal healthcare.
My younger brother is a chronic diabetic, and has been since he was 18 months old. He turned eighteen this year, and it's going to be difficult for him to get health insurance once he is no longer able to be on my parents’ policy. Thank goodness he’s going to college next year, though of course paying for that becomes a whole other issue…
Besides this though, I also still have a little bit of a problem with Senator Obama. I'm a Michigan Democrat, and it still bothers me that he pulled his name off of my ballot when there was no cause for him to do so. There was no ultimatum, no one forced his hand. He made the conscious decision to pull his name, after it was announced that my state didn't count towards picking the nominee, and in stark contrast Senator Clinton stuck by us. Her actions alone speak volumes, because they tell me that even when others would count me out she believes my voice has worth, and that's important to me in a candidate for President.
John (and all): My guess is Obama will ask J. Edwards to be his running mate. I think together they would be a great ticket.
We'll see.
I'm from Nevada and it was interesting to see be part of the caucus so early in the process, especially with the differences in the northern and southern parts of the state. I voted for Obama, and I am glad to see that he is winning the race. I agree that Clinton should pull out because it seems unlikely that she could win.
I don't think that she would be a VP to Obama I think Edwards is more likely. Which I agree with seaheidi, would make a great ticket.
I think it is high time Clinton bow out. She was in NWIN last Friday and, skimming over the newspaper article, I could not find one reason for me to support her instead of Obama. There is more to us than steel mills and our iffy regional economy--I'm glad she pointed it out, but so do the newspapers (including the Chicago Trib for goodness sake) every quarter. It may be a pipe dream, but until she says fixing up communities like Gary is somewhere on the To Do list (to my knowledge she has not), I can't find anything I want that Obama does not have.
It may be a trivial way to look at things, but it's how I see them now.
John, I met you in your home state of Alabama, and you recently moved to my home state of Indiana :) It's been a long time since the Hoosier state mattered in presidential politics.
I am also an Obama supporter and I agree with you that Clinton's chance to win the nomination has passed. While I don't think what's now happening is tearing the party asunder as some have suggested, I do think that it will soon be time for Senator Clinton to congratulate Obama and move on.
To Claudia: I don't see think that an Obama/Clinton ticket will ever happen. I've seen nothing to suggest that Clinton will ever be satisfied running as the VP. It may not be fair, but a lot of people simply don't like Hillary Clinton. Obama has everything to gain by picking someone who doesn't have such high negatives even before the general election has started.
To everyone that responded to me: Yes, I don't really see it happening either. I was just wondering what John thought about it. I'm rather fond of an Obama-Edwards ticket myself.
I think that Clinton should step down and I realize that she feels that she is the best decision for her country to make, but it's made it's decision. It's time to regroup and find a way to show solidarity with her fellow democrats, lest she wants to give an advantage to the Republican. They've already tarnished both their names and the Rupublicans haven't even tried to make them seem dodgy yet; let's minimize the damage to the party folks and take a step down.
As an Indiana resident, (and as someone who is, for the first time, old enough to vote in a national election), it's been interesting to see all of the rukus over Clinton and Obama. I mean, for the first time in my entire life a presidential candidate was campaigning less than thirty minutes away from where I was! (I'm in the Ft. Wayne area, by the way). We watched Clinton on the news, and my dad was able to point out a bunch of his friends and co-workers that were in the room with her.
The primary process needs some serious revision so that no state/small group of states have a monopoly on it. In my twenty years I don't know that Indiana EVER mattered much to a president, other than Bush Jr. being in some of Mitch Daniel's campaign commercials. Maybe Indiana *shouldn't* matter, but it's nice to not be ignored for once.
Kelly ~/`~
This comment has been removed by the author.
i think the only thing that disappoints me more is the fact that we are following a lame duck president with lame duck candidates. i find i am choosing between the lesser of two evils when it still equals evil.
i don't know if i have ever been more scared for this country than i am now. a group of men got together and had a revolution to prevent what we inevitably feed. we bicker about one lame duck or the other without asking ourselves what can we do to change the system we complain about so much.
doesn't answer any questions, but just poses an idea.
viva la revolucion! ;)
Sorry, had to delete and repost this to fix a spelling error. HAD TO.
I don't understand how people can think the superdelegates making their own decision to swing toward Hillary is an "outcry" or wrong.. that's what they are there for. The superdelegates would just have normal votes if they weren't special. Anyone who thinks differently should be questioning the system, not Hillary Clinton.
How can you say a superdelegate swing is an "outcry" when millions and millions of voters in Florida and Michigan won't be counted AT ALL.
It's not the people's fault when a republican-influenced senate pushes the date of the primary back, knowing it will invalidate the votes and therefore fragment the democratic party.
Hillary knows and she's fighting for what she believes in.
Obama should be fighting to get those votes back too, but he isn't because it won't help him. He's basically ignoring them. That concerns me a LOT. It says something about his character. "Shucks, oh well, nuttin' I can do.. I'll acknowledge your voice in November but only if you vote for me, okay?"
There will be millions of angry people in Florida and Michigan if he clinches the nomination. I can see all of the middle-road, moderate voters turning away from the democratic party, and possibly many Hillary supporters turning away from the democratic party because it disenfranchized two entire states that would have put Hillary out in front.
Either way, this election is a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion.
Great blog, John. And can't wait to read Paper Towns.
<3 Caitlin
Oh, and to comment on the Obama/Clinton ticket, I think Obama would be the one who wouldn't want to have anything to do with Hillary...
But think about it. Whoever wins the nomination, there will be angry people who wanted the other to win. What better way to make everyone happy and repair the damage done to the democratic party than putting them both on the ticket?
I actually read that Hillary did make a comment about running with Obama, and she has not ruled it out, although she does want to ride out this primary.
Although its unlikely, it would definitely do a lot to unite the party so potential democrats and liberal-minded independents don't get pissed their candidate isn't running and wander off into John-McCain-Land.
Or even worse.. Not-Voting-At-All-Land.
I am another Oregonian who's just finally excited to matter. So tired of the elections being called before our votes are even counted (though I'm not sure if I would give up mail-in ballots to help change that).
Candidates actually coming to Oregon! Excuse me while I bask a bit.
I definitely think that it would be best if the Dems group together under one banner, whichever banner that may be. The sooner we present a united front, the sooner people like my Conservative Independent, and on the fence, Dad think our candidate might have a chance.
The only think keeping presidential politics in the mainstream media right now is the race between Obama and Clinton. When is the last time McCain has gotten any significant press coverage?
And as far as Michigan and Florida's votes not counting - sorry, but it was pretty clear that that would be the deal when the decision was made to move up the process. At the time, no one could foresee how close the race would be, so it was no big deal if the delegates didn't count - now that it's close, there's a huge outcry - too late.
I supported Hillary Clinton up until December 2007. I was struck by her experience, competence, and tenacity. But then I read Obama's October 2002 speech against the war in Iraq. As somebody whose younger brother is in the military, and just returned safely from the Middle East, I care a great deal about how we treat our soldiers. War is sometimes necessary. But when we ask our military to risk their lives and everything that makes life important, it had better be worth it. I wasn't going to vote for Obama just because he spoke out against the war. But after I read his speech, I had to vote for him because of the WAY in which he objected to the war.
At political risk to himself, at a time when the government almost unanimously was herded toward the Iraq war, Obama saw the situation for what it was. Obama's speech was prescient-- in 2002, he predicted what would happen, and it did. The speech, and the fact that he gave it, showed clarity of mind, keen judgment, and strength of character. These qualities, I decided, were what I wanted most in a president.
I don't think Clinton lacks these qualities. But her insistence on staying in the race shows that she is willing to forgo them in her effort to win.
Last night I dreamed that I was playing poker with Clinton, Obama, and McCain. For some reason, Clinton wanted me to win, and she stacked the deck so that I would be dealt the best hand. I don't put much stock in dreams, but I wouldn't have had this particular one if I didn't believe that if Clinton wants something, she'll do whatever she can to get it.
But this is not always a good thing in a president. We don’t need a president who will exaggerate evidence of weapons of mass destruction, just so that he can authorize the war he wants. We don’t need a president who would damage her own party, and risk the future of this country, just so that she can pursue her very slim chance of victory. Sometimes, you need to know when to fold your cards.
"as a Michigan Democrat, and it still bothers me that he pulled his name off of my ballot when there was no cause for him to do so. There was no ultimatum, no one forced his hand. He made the conscious decision to pull his name, after it was announced that my state didn't count towards picking the nominee, and in stark contrast Senator Clinton stuck by us. "
Actually, all of them agreed to take their names off. Hillary SIGNED A PLEDGE that said Michigan and Florida wouldn't count. Both Obama and Edwards took their names off in Michigan because that's what ALL of them agreed to do (nobody did so in Florida, by the way, because under their state law it is illegal to remove the names from the ballot). Clinton supposedly forgot the due date for getting her name off, which is why it stayed on. It's ridiculous that people are now trying to paint this as Hillary "sticking by" Michigan. They ALL signed the pledge to not count Michigan, including Hillary. If she was really opposed to the pledge, she should've refused to sign at the time.
She was fine with supposedly "disenfranchising" Michigan and Florida before she realized she needed them. That's being an opportunistic hypocrite, not "sticking by" the people of the those states. In fact, counting those results means disenfranchising all the people that DIDN'T vote in those states because they were explicitly told these contests wouldn't count and/or their candidate wasn't even on the ballot.
"Clinton supposedly forgot the due date for getting her name off, which is why it stayed on. It's ridiculous that people are now trying to paint this as Hillary "sticking by" Michigan. They ALL signed the pledge to not count Michigan, including Hillary. If she was really opposed to the pledge, she should've refused to sign at the time."
I'm not sure where you heard this, but I'd love see your sources, because I haven't heard this.
I do know, however, that many of candidates at that time signed the 4 State pledge, which said that they would not campaign in states that moved up their primaries earlier than stipulated by the DNC. This pledge did not, however, impose the idea of removing names of candidates from the ballot. ALL of the candidates did not agree to remove their names, but I will yeild that ALL of the candidates did agree not to campaign in Michigan.
Of all the sources I turned to, this one perhaps says it best, http://www.polstate.com/?p=5314 .
"In Aug. 2007 all the major Democratic candidates signed a short 4-state pledge (text below) saying they would not participate in elections in any states that held their elections ahead of the DNC-imposed earliest date for voting, Feb, 5. While no candidates were required to remove their name, according to the pledge, many did. Nothing in the pledge said delegates would not count, but the DNC later made that decision."
I also consulted these pages, if anyone is interested.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/edwards-obama-sign-four-state-pledge/ , http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-exactly-did-democratic-candidates.html , http://www.bloggernews.net/110872
I can not agree more with everything you said John. There are many people out there that are saying how horrible Hillary would be. I don't that I just think that Obama is a better candidate.
Not only do I live in Indiana but this is the first time I can vote so you can see why I am really excited!
You are right in saying that Indiana shouldn't matter because Hillary should drop out because she is hurting the party. But is she hurting the party? I really don't think so what is hurting the party is everyone saying that she is harming the party. Also if you want a true democracy every state should have a chance to have their say. The only way Hillary can hurt the party is if the pundits and news networks say that she is otherwise is does not affect how people think. What does matter is if all anyone hears is how she's hurting the party.
Hey Umm kinda off subject but i just read looking for alaska and i would just like you to thank you for writing such a good book it has helped me
I am suddenly struck with remorse for counseling Brotherhood 2.0 NOT to make a presidential endorsement early in 2007.
if they had, clinton would probably be out by now.
Amen!
I was driving down College Ave. today, and there were people on all four corners where it crosses Broad Ripple Avenue holding up huge, very cool signs with pictures of Obama on them." People were honking like crazy. It was wonderful--and IN INDIANAPOLIS!
Who knew?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home