Spot the problems here:
l just spoke with a Democratic Party official,* who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it’s not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to “break his back,” the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
“Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.'” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?”
The Tonya Harding Option — the first time I’ve heard it put that way.**
It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn’t get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama will win the gold.
* When I first looked at this story this afternoon, it said that it was a “DNC official.” As in, the people overseeing the primary. Indeed, in the URL, you can see the DNC official reference. But at some point, it changed (though Jake Tapper didn’t correct the story, he just changed it without indicating the change. Bad practice there, Jake). Did Tapper get it wrong? Or did the DNC official ask that the reference be walked back so it looked like just some random party official rather than someone who is overseeing the very process under discussion?
But whether it’s a DNC official or a Party official [ETA: ** or an Obama official; apparently, Obama himself is the originator of the “Tonya Harding” formulation], there are many, many things wrong with this story.
There’s the “You guys are missing this!!!” angle. That’s a sure sign that someone’s pushing a new narrative for the campaign. And without attribution, it’s hard to tell who’s behind it. Is this someone from the Obama camp? Or someone from the DNC with their thumb on the scale? Whoever it is, they know that the press loves a narrative, and they’re more than willing to be spoon-fed.
Next, the idea that the only way that Clinton can win (and at least this person acknowledges that she can, in fact, win) is to destroy Obama and make him unelectable in the general election. Now, I’ve long suspected that Clinton would get blamed for a Dem loss in the fall, regardless of who the nominee is. Now, it’s apparent that the idea is getting “put out there,” going from Aravosis to Tweety to this DNC/Democratic Party official who plants the idea with Tapper. And as we know, once something is “out there,” then it’s fair game. It must be true!
There are several logical problems with this idea. First and foremost, if Obama’s inevitable, if he’s the clear winner, why should he worry about what Clinton will do to him? (This, incidentally, is the weirdest part of the way his campaign has been behaving lately, with all the going negative by announcing a massive character attack on Clinton at the same time they accuse her of taking the “low road” — he’s not acting like a front-runner. Front-runners don’t go negative, because they don’t have to. They’re front-runners!)
Second, this narrative does not credit the idea that she could win simply because she persuades more people to vote for her, either in the remaining states or during a floor fight.
Third, he could fuck up between now and the convention. He wouldn’t be the first candidate to start strong and finish weak; sometimes, your opponent doesn’t have to do anything while you shoot yourself in the foot.
Fourth, there are 10 more states to vote yet, and Obama could do well enough that he beats Clinton fair and square, and she could withdraw then.
However, the biggest problem with this whole idea is the misogyny. There are a couple of overarching themes here: Clinton is ambitious, power-mad, ready to destroy Obama and the party as well, and she just won’t get out of the way of the rising star. It’s a very easy narrative, one that’s readily spooned down by a misogynistic press, which hates women. Women who are ambitious, who fight for what they want, who don’t back down, are tarred as shrews, ballbusters, bitches. It’s no great secret that this has long been used to discredit Hillary Clinton.
Also: Tonya Harding? Seriously? For one thing, can you imagine the outcry if a party official said the same things about Obama, but called it the “O.J. Simpson Option?” But in the media, racism (or mere accusations of racism, however debunked or unfounded) draws howls of outrage, while misogyny just draws a good chuckle among the boys. (Not to mention, Nancy Kerrigan made a full recovery before the Olympics and lost because Baiul was just better.)
But here’s the part that’s puzzling me: Assuming that Tapper didn’t get it wrong in the first version, and this *was* a DNC official, what does that tell us?
It means the DNC has its thumb on the scale. And why would that be? To cover its own ass.
As much as I’ve been irritated by Obama *supporters* calling on Clinton to drop out, the Obama *campaign* has been pretty quiet about it after she won Texas and Ohio. They were beating the drums pretty hard for her to drop out if she lost those two, and that’s their job, but once she won them, they pretty much stopped. And she’s going into Pennsylvania with a pretty good lead, anywhere from 10-20 points, depending on the poll. So why are we getting a *DNC* official (or a *party* official) planting the idea that she should just drop out because otherwise she’ll destroy the party?
Michigan and Florida.
The DNC really screwed the pooch on that one. I’m not really interested in rehashing everything that went on, or who knew what when, or which candidates “agreed” to the stripping of delegates (because, for the umpteenth time, the *candidates* don’t have the power to agree or not agree; that’s all up to the DNC, which can also *change its own decision*). However, the DNC *did* decide to forgo the standard penalty for violating the timing rules — stripping half the delegates from any state that did so — and went nuclear.
When they made this decision, they had a candidate — Clinton — who seemed inevitable, so they probably figured it didn’t matter. And then there were the withdrawals from the Michigan ballot — again, when Clinton seemed to be the clear winner but before a single vote was cast — and then suddenly, the picture changed. Obama seemed invincible. So it was supposed to be over by Super Tuesday, except it wasn’t. And then Texas and Ohio were supposed to decide the matter, except where they didn’t.
And then there were the frantic negotiations for re-votes, which the DNC seemed to be dragging its feet on, deferring to the campaigns for some odd reason (they don’t have to). The DNC is not taking leadership on the issue, and the chances for a revote look dead because there isn’t enough time to do anything before the deadline in June.
And voters in Michigan and Florida, both important states to win in November, are PISSED.
So what’s the DNC to do? They don’t have a clear winner, since Obama hasn’t managed to finish Hillary off, and there’s no way he gets the magic number of pledged delegates by June 7 to avoid a floor fight. If there had been a clear winner, the party (or the clear winner, since the nominee can seat any prodigal delegates) could magnanimously welcome a properly chastened Michigan and Florida back in the fold, having taught them a lesson about trying to move up on the calendar.
But then there’s the Hillary Problem. They just can’t be all magnanimous if she insists on still being a competitor. So now they’re ratcheting up the pressure for her to just step aside and fix *their* problem for them (how novel! Making a mess and then asking a woman to come in and clean it up!). Here’s the problem with that: Hillary Clinton would be absolutely insane to bow to party pressure when she’s heading into a race in which she has a double-digit advantage, and Obama would be insane to pressure her to do so:
I also think it would be bad for Clinton to drop out when she holds an average lead of 16% in the upcoming, major primary of Pennsylvania. Momentum in the general election is often determined by momentum in the primary campaign, and as such it is essential that Obama is not seen as “backing in” to the nomination. For example, in 1984, Mondale lost eight of the last nine primaries, including California, providing him with serious negative momentum for the general election. Also, in our own primary campaign, we have regularly seen the candidate with momentum in Democratic primaries perform better against McCain in the general election. Over the summer, when she was rising in Democratic polls, Clinton performed best against Republicans in general election matchups. During February, when Obama was on a huge roll, he performed about 5% better than Clinton against McCain. Now that no one seems to have clear momentum in the nomination campaign, the two candidates perform about the same against McCain. Clinton needs to exit only after an Obama victory, and when there are no remaining possibilities of future big wins for Clinton.
Chris Bowers lays out several scenarios in which Obama could wrap up the nomination by the end of May, thus defeating Clinton fairly and legitimately rather than just steamrollering over her and being appointed by party officials trying to find someone to sacrifice for their own fuckups.
And it’s important to keep in mind that Clinton isn’t staying in this as a spoiler, or because she wants to destroy Obama or tear apart the party; she’s staying in because the voters keep voting for her and she keeps winning primaries, and thus, she still has a path to the nomination. As long as she still has a path to the nomination, any pressure on her to drop out to make room for Obama smacks of misogyny, of a male-dominated party establishment pushing the woman aside to make room for the man,*** and will anger women who’ve been asked to step aside for men all their lives. It also, as Liss explains, actually makes it harder for her to make an exit:
Re: Clinton dropping out, the irony is that the more misogynist attacks (as in the post below) are used against her, the harder it is going to be for her to drop out with dignity and without looking like she caved under the pressure of misogyny and to the will of its purveyors.
The people who want her to drop out would be wise to STFU instead of going after her full-throttle, because she is, of course, keenly aware of the weight she is carrying as the first viable female candidate, and if she appears to have given up without a fight, that’s got problems all its own.
Everyone who’s going on about how she wants to ZOMG DESTROY THE PARTY!!!11! don’t seem to understand that, while there may be “good reasons” for her to drop out, there are also “good reasons” for her to stay and fight until the bitter end, which are separate from winning the nomination.
During the whole Edwards-Donohue fiasco, when I eventually had to resign for personal security reasons, I got some of the nastiest emails I’ve ever gotten from progressives who told me I’d let down “the Left” by caving in to Donohue, O’Reilly, et. al.
And I was some dumbass nobody. Imagine the pressure Hillary is under to not appear to cave to misogynist attacks or look “weak” by quitting if she doesn’t have to.
And, btw, Obama would be under the exact same pressures if the situation were reversed; that’s the burden of “going first.” And, yes, I would defend his right to stay in to the bitter end, too — because I’ve felt that shit firsthand, and it is incredibly complicated and difficult to be in that position.
Not that this will do any good, but I’d like to remind people that this is a post about narrative and criticism and misogyny, not about which candidate sucks. Be it resolved that they both do, but the DNC and the media suck worse, and misogyny sucks worst of all, even when it’s directed at someone you don’t want to vote for. Mmkay?
Oh, and anyone mentions Bosnia, I’m deleting their comment. I don’t care, it’s irrelevant to the post, and it makes me have to think of Sinbad and his scary, scary shirts, and that’s bad.
** *If the situations were reversed, I’d say the same thing — if Obama were close behind Clinton with a not-probable but still-possible path to the nomination, projected wins ahead and a lot of voter support, I’d expect that pressure from the party to drop out would look like a white party establishment trying to get the black candidate to step down in favor of the white candidate.
UPDATE: I’ve already deleted a couple of comments from someone who’s never commented here before who pulled the “But what about this thing that Clinton did? Huh? Huh? That makes it all okay!” trick. That’s not on topic; the topic here is the DNC trying to push out Clinton and using sexist frames to do so. Once again, the topic is sexism by the DNC to cover its own ass, and since this is a feminist blog, it goes without saying that misogyny is never an acceptable means of belittling anyone, so trying to justify it via reference to something that person did is not acceptable. If we can apply that rule to Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, we can apply it to Hillary Clinton, can we not?
Just a warning: I’m going to be pretty ruthless about trolling, attempts at derail, ad homs and general off-topicness. And yes, I *will* delete your comment if you don’t abide these rules. This is not the government, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply here. Okay? Okay.