The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« The FBI improperly sought personal data | Main | MSNBC's Scarborough Nice to Hillary, Matthews (almost) Calls her a "B*tch" »

March 05, 2008



Good points generally, but your bias shows in some of the spin-infused distinctions you choose to make.

First, "the smaller states that he won don't usually make or break general elections.

Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota may not be huge, but they are not small, and they are indeed swing states that cumulatively could make or break an election. We all know Ohio is both huge and a swing state, but contrary to your implication, most of her big states don't swing elections.

Second, "Hillary said negative things about Obama during the campaign, and Obama (largely through surrogates and supporters) said negative things about Hillary . . .What probably won't be forgotten is Obama's (and some of his media allies') attempts to push or shame Hillary into conceding the race. . .

With the sniping going back and forth (the vast majority of it well in bounds, IMO), how does pressure from Obama supporters for Hillary to concede somehow transcend all of the other partisan stuff to some new, especially offensive level? It all seems of a piece with the primary. I would also note that Obama, AFAIK, has never called for Clinton to concede. In fact, who at the top level of the O campaign has said that Clinton ought to concede? This also seems like spin and maybe just plain inaccurate.


re the above post: paragraphs 2 and 4 were quotes from the OP. For some reason the italics are not showing up.

D. Cupples


How are you?

No, Obama's campaign did not overtly call for Hillary to concede. He didn't have to jump into the fray, because many of his supporters (I mean some media people) did it for him. Thus, he got the benefit without looking bad.

I don't recall George Bush directly telling Gore to "Move on": it was Bush's operatives working through some media outlets.

Obviously, I'm speaking as someone who likes Hillary (and a Floridian, too). Does liking Hillary for my own reasons automatically make me "biased"?

If you support Barack, are you automatically biased?

Lastly, I didn't say that trying to push Hillary out was more partisan than anything else. What I said is that a lot of Hillary supporters would feel disenfranchised and resentful if she were pushed out too early (i.e., before it looked like she really couldn't win).

My overall point is that I don't think either candidate has a good chance against McCain unless they're both on the same ticket. I could be wrong.

I also didn't mean to imply that Barack hadn't won significant states (he won Ill, CN, VA, MD...). I also didn't mean to imply that NY, CA, FL and TX are "swing" states.

But those states combined (our nation's four largest states) carry a lot of electoral-college votes, which are what will count in November.

What is IMO and AFAIK?


D. Cupples


Incidentally, Slate says that Obama's campaign is pushing for Clinton to withdraw.


My point, more or less, is that it becomes bias when the "facts" start changing. Simply having an opinion is not equal to being biased, as about 12% of the blogging community seems to recognize.

But media does not equal "Obama surrogate". The media is a free agent that likes to pull the wings off flies if the news cycle slows down a notch, just because it can. The Clinton supporters' backlash against Obama for the media's uneven treatment is one of the signature phenomenons of this primary. It's kind of understandable, but not entirely logical or fair. I am hopeful that now that the media decides it needs to make Obama squirm, we'll all get along better :)

But anyway, the media looks for someone to be marginally ahead, and then jumps on the other person to withdraw. It's what they do in every race. You have to admit that the urgency that creates may not be all bad, in what is an urgent primary. As far as Clinton supporters getting turned off, I think it's just up to them whether they get turned off. You have to discount 90% of the people who say "I was okay with opponent X before, but after (incident du jour) I will never vote for him/her, even against a warmongering Republican." the alternative is to try to cater to them, and that would only invite more trouble, IMO (in my opinion) and AFAIK (as far as I know).

FL is a swing state, and I think is THE swing state where Clinton has a big genreal-elecetion advantage over Obama. But the others are big blue states that either candidate will take easily.

I really like an Obama/Clinton ticket. We have to recognize that these people are both huge, there is no way around the disappointed/disenchanted fallout from either of them losing outright to the other. In the abstract, either one could justify making other VP choices. But in reality, there will be a big sucking sound from either of them losing. You go to november with the electorate you have, not the electorate you might wish for. Or so I hear.

D. Cupples

I don't see where I changed any facts. Given Obama's consistent arguments about having the PLEDGED delegate lead, it's not a stretch to think that he (via surrogates) really pushed the idea with media allies that Hillary should have dropped out even before March 4. You're right, though: I can't prove it.

Your last paragraph basically restates the whole point of my post: I THINK that a joint ticket will be necessary for either Dem candidate to win.

Incidentally, it's not just Clinton supporters who say that they won't vote for Obama if he wins. Obama supporters have been saying that for longer (though I've no idea of the numbers). It didn't help that Mrs. Obama refused to dodge the question on Good Morning America about whether she would support Clinton if she won.

That certainly could be interpreted (by Obama supporters) as a suggestion.

For many people, this is a very emotional campaign, meaning that logic and practicality are out the window for those people.

The comments to this entry are closed.