Unfortunate statement of the week

[nyquil_man]

Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered in June...

... in California...

Holy sh**t, I think she's onto something.

[nyquil_man]

im not one to get offended by statements of historical fact, unlike the typical obama supporter, who has no use for that kind of thing.  jesse jackson won the sc primary.  and unfortunately rfk was killed in june of 68.  wring your hands, doesnt make it any less true.

I'm not bothered so much by the "statements of historical fact" as I am by the fact that they 1. Do nothing to back up her claim and 2. Gloss over the whole truth.

Yes, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina. He also won Michigan in a competitive race, something neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton have demonstrated they're capable of doing.

But enough fun facts. On to the boring facts.

As others have noted on this thread, Bill Clinton had a wide delegate lead well before California and had been the frontrunner for at least two months prior to June.

The comparison to 1968 is hardly apt either; the primary system as we think of it today didn't even exist at the time; only 13 states voted - all between March and June. For all intents and purposes, they were pointless affairs; the eventual nominee (Humphrey) didn't run in a single primary and won almost entirely because of the backing of the party bosses who still ran the convention at the time.

RFK wasn't even the frontrunner in June; he was trailing Humphrey badly in the delegate count. That's why he said "Now it's on to Chicago and let's win there" in his CA victory speech; he was in for an uphill fight to win the nomination.

If there's a primary battle that resembles 2008 more than any other, it's probably the 1976 Republican nomination fight between Ford and Reagan. But in order to make that comparison, Senator Clinton would have to cast herself in the role of Ronald Reagan - hardly a good idea for a Democrat, as Senator Obama learned back in January.

[nyquil_man]

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

[nyquil_man]

No, that argument makes NO sense because she doesn't really have a significant chance at winning the nomination. It's funny how those who deign to give her "simple" advice come up with even more asinine suggestions. It makes one wonder how well most of her critics would do in her shoes. I'm guessing not very well.

I'm more than happy to excise that part of the post. It's the part I'm least enamored of.

Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.

However, if she has no significant chance of winning the nomination, then none of her arguments make sense. Why? Because they all rest on the notion that she can win the nomination.

Not quite. For one thing, there have been speculations that she's bargaining for VP slot or some other concession, though of course that can't be part of any public argument. But the main one I suppose would be that so she could say that she survived to the end of the primaries, "going the distance" in a Rocky-like fashion, so to speak, and came up short but was left standing. That's something some of her supporters would value, I think, due to the historic nature of her candidacy. My own bias would be toward the moving the party (and the country) toward examining the choices that confront us in the General Election sooner, but I can see how the argument could be made that she should go the distance even if she is doomed in the end.

I'm not talking about why she's truly staying in the race. Only she knows that for sure. I'm talking about her rhetorical justification for staying in the race. She's not likely to say "I haven't got a significant chance of winning the nomination but I'm staying in because of [insert reason here]." But saying "I'm doing it for my supporters who have fought for me" is not out of the realm of possibility and she has said things to effect on many occasions.

You mention the "historic nature of her candidacy." This is one of the reasons why I think her historical comparisons are so inapt. We're dealing with two groundbreaking candidacies. The most frontloaded primary season in American history has turned out to also be one of the longest in terms of picking a nominee. The nomination fight has spread into places that haven't seen a Democratic presidential candidate in years. This is a unique season, unlikely to be repeated soon, and the old rules don't necessarily apply.

[nyquil_man]

I was referring to the fact of her being the first viable female candidate, not 'historical' in the sense that the primary season is frontloaded.

The reason that this has been one of the longest terms in picking a nominee is because the schedule set out at the beginning of the contests has been the most extended in years. Clinton's not saying that 'previous candidates stayed in for X months and I'm going to stay in for X months'. What's important is not how many months the race goes on but whether one stays in through all the contests or not, given the relative strength of her position.

Really, changes have been occurring with primary custom since 1992, which is the last time the primary season for either party really extended for any length of significant time. If the 'old rules don't apply', the most significant changes as far as custom begin with 1992 and 1996. It has been since then that the custom and tradition of short primary seasons has, until this year, dominated. The lengthening of the primary calendar itself, which is different than the customs that govern expectations of its de facto length, has been gradually expanding as certain states move earlier and earlier, and this year was no more than a continuation of that expansion.

I'm not saying it's unique because of frontloading. I'm saying it's unique in spite of frontloading. Frontloading is designed to accelerate the nominating process so that the presumptive nominee can begin to focus on the general election, is it not? Well, it hasn't happened that way at all this time.

It's historic because states that are generally ignored by the Democrats in the primary (because the nominee is essentially decided) and in the general (because a Democrat is unlikely to win there) are getting attention from the candidates. The fact that the race has been fairly competitive has given the voters in those states an opportunity to make - to steal a phrase from a certain Arizona Republican - a choice, not an echo.

Anything that gives more voters an opportunity to participate in the democratic process is, to me, historic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I certainly hope you don't think I fathered the "we can win" meme myself. If so, I demand a blood test; the kid is not my son:

"That's why I'm going to keep making our case until we have a nominee, whoever she may be."
- Hillary Clinton, Louisville, KY, 20 May

Now, we may quibble over the intent of that line but, unless Senator Clinton has now taken to calling Senator Obama a female, I'm pretty sure she's telling her supporters "I'm staying in this race until I am the nominee."

Sure, it's a throwaway applause line. But it serves the same purpose as someone like Mondale saying "When I am President" when he's 20 points behind in the polls. It bucks up the troops and keeps them encouraged. You don't tell your supporters "We're going to come really close to winning" or "Well, I'm hoping to get some concessions out of this," even if everybody knows that's what you're aiming for. No, you say "We're going to surprise everybody and win this thing."

Is it mocked and doubted? Of course. But it's a pretense almost every campaign maintains, even to the point of smiling happily while conceding and pretending that you didn't mind losing to the dirty rotten SOB on the other side.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll grant you that I may be looking at her analogies too literally.