Why Hillary Should Stay In The Race (Even If She Loses Ohio and Texas)
February 28, 2008
It seems like every leftward leaning pundit, politician, columnist, and blogger is suggesting that maybe it is time for Senator Clinton to withdraw from the race, lest she hurt Barack Obama’s chances for the general election. As a staunch Obama supporter, I have grown increasingly angry with the Clinton campaign for attacking Barack Obama, dragging out the race and potentially damaging his chances against John McCain.
But then I saw this: during the month of February, Clinton and Obama broke every fundraising record in the book, bringing in 80 million dollars (30 for Clinton, 50 for Obama) and a record-setting number of donors.
Every state these two battle in, people get excited. Both Clinton and Obama are getting people who didn’t even vote in 2000 and 2004 to not only vote, but actually donate their hard-earned cash. I don’t think I would have caucused in Washington State if the race had already been over. I know none of my students would have, and neither would many of my friends. The people in my precint told me they estimated turnout was several times higher than in any election they had ever seen.
Yes, Clinton is attacking Obama. So what? Clearly, none of these attacks are hurting him. He shrugs them off in the debates so coolly, so effortlessly, it makes the attacks appear petty and dishonest. In the meantime, people in Ohio and Texas are getting excited by these two candidates. Do you think Ohio Republicans are feeling the same excitement and enthusiasm as their Democratic Party counterparts?
Every night we see Obama and Clinton in the news. John McCain? He’s there, but not as often. And as far as fundraising goes? Both Obama and Clinton are raising several times more money than John McCain, who it is appears will be planning to rely on public financing.
So Hillary, keep on going. Let the voters in Pennsylania get excited. Fight for every pledged delegate. It makes us all care just a little bit more about politics. Just don’t overturn the popular vote if you lose.
Weak argument Andy. She should withdraw so that $30 million isn’t being wasted on a losing campaign, we’re not all futzing around berating Hillary for running a nasty, pointless campaign, and Obama can start the tough business of preparing a general election campaign without distractions.
Daniel: Do you think that Barack Obama would have raised more than 50 million dollars this month of Hillary Clinton has withdrawn after February 5th, 12th, or 19th? Do you think that the total number of people who cast votes for Barack Obama next Tuesday would be higher if Hillary Clinton withdrew after Wisconsin? Do you think Barack Obama would be doing better in head-to-head polls against John McCain if Hillary Clinton withdrew. And do you think Barack Obama’s campaign is focusing more on Hillary Clinton than on John McCain. If you think that answer to any of those questions if “yes”, than absolutely she needs to drop out. However, I think the answer to all four of those, is, “unlikely.”
Daniel K: I read your post on how Hillary almost can’t win the delegates in must-win TX. Do you think Obama has started his VP short-list?
Lots of questions:
“Do you think that Barack Obama would have raised more than 50 million dollars this month of Hillary Clinton has withdrawn after February 5th, 12th, or 19th?”
Perhaps. Firstly, he will have to spend most of that money running against Clinton. If she had withdrawn, he would have been able to target the general election with all of his donations, and those already maxed out for the primary, would be able to dive in fully for the general election. Furthermore a lot of people who are still unsure which way this race might go would be able to make donations without the fear they’d be donating to a losing candidate. So it is very possible he’d bring in more, and more of that money would be able to go to defeating McCain.
“Do you think that the total number of people who cast votes for Barack Obama next Tuesday would be higher if Hillary Clinton withdrew after Wisconsin?”
I don’t think it would matter. What matters is the delegate count.
“Do you think Barack Obama would be doing better in head-to-head polls against John McCain if Hillary Clinton withdrew.”
Yes. Clinton supporters wouldn’t have anyone but Obama to back and the sooner she withdrew the sooner they’d be able to come to terms with that. Just like Edwards supporters have.
“And do you think Barack Obama’s campaign is focusing more on Hillary Clinton than on John McCain.”
Yes. He has to. That’s the reality right now.
“Do you think Obama has started his VP short-list?”
No idea, but I can’t imagine he hasn’t got a number of people in mind, and a candidate so close to the nomination would probably be considering every endorsement and high level contact, and every primary result in light of what qualities he’d need in a VP.
John McCain is becoming a figure of ridicule before our eyes. As gaffe prone as Romney. This whole thing is a joke. A man who is ‘tongue-tied’ and can’t think on the spot. I wonder who that remind me of???
I would be really in to a Bill Richardson VP. The man is exceptionally skilled in foriegn affairs, and has repeatedly talked about a “man on the Moon” type effort in regard to our energy problems. It has been shown that the space race was actually one of the most profitable R&D projects of all time, with the technolgies it created laying the foundations for American power and economic success to this day. As we begin to lose our sole superpower status, and eventually enter the shadow of China, an effort of this type would in my mind solve a vast number of the future ills that America and the would will face.
As for Hillary, I was very annoyed with her in the video Teresa posted of the speech in Rhode Island. She can run as long as she likes, but I am still worried that the Democrats will have a problem in November with a split party base. I really hope the summer months will placate the losers supporters, even if I am one of them.
( I really don’t want to vote for Hillary, but if Ithink she wins fair and square….sigh…I will.)
Ian - I don’t know if you watched any of the early Democratic debate, but Richardson was TERRIBLE in them. He was initially the top choice of myself and my father back in June and July, but he was just awful on his feet. He would make me nervous in a debate with any Republican VP other than Mike Huckabee. However, I definitely think RIchardson will end up being offered a spot somewhere in an Obama adminstration: he’s too intelligent, competent, and experienced to ignore.
My pick for VP, and I’ve been saying this for over a year and a half now, is Jim Webb, the former Secretary of the Navy under Ronal Reagan who changed parties after the Iraq invasion and won a seat in the Senate in 2006. His only drawback is that he will have only served in the Virginia Senate for 2 years.
Webb is a firebrand. I’ve heard the man speak. He’s damn sharp.
I wasn’t aware of his credentials though, ones that would make him a good VP pick. Guess I’ll have to pay more attention…
That Richardson didn’t do well in the debates only goes to show how poor debates are in determining the strength of a candidate. There is no doubt Richardson would capable of doing the job, despite the debate showing (which wasn’t all that bad).
The problem with choosing Richardson is I would think Obama would want to have a white male on the ticket before yet another minority. That said, I never really considered a guy with a name like “Richardson” as Hispanic, so I suspect most voters wouldn’t either.
Daniel: You can argue with the ability of debates to characterize a candidate all you want, but that’s the system we’re working with right now and anyone that Obama chooses to be on his ticket will have to perform well in that setting.
Also, I have the last name “Klein” and I’m most definitely Latina. Richardson is undoubtedly a member of my raza. We come in lots of different colors, ethnicities and lots and lots of different last names.
Daniel - I completely disagree. Your ability to debate represents your ability to defend your ideas. This may not be necessary as a Governor, but as a President, you represent America on the world stage. If you are blubbering and bumbling when asked to defend the policies your administration is taking, well, we’ve had that for seven years. Didn’t go well. Regardless of whether your love or hate Bush’s policies, you’ve gotta wish he talked about them without mixing up the words his speechwriters wrote for him.
SonnyL - As far as McCain goes, I have serious concerns about his health. Not only would he be the oldest President ever elected to a first term, but being tortured for 5 years in a POW camp cannot be good for a person’s life expectancy. It is really unfortunate that he did not win the party’s nomination 8 years ago, before he started kissing up to Bush, and before his age because a serious concern. I think the John McCain who ran in 2000, calling Jerry Fallwell an “agent of intolerance” would have made a decent President.
Andy: He still might make a decent president, but I’d be looking very closely at his Veep.
Also, Arjun did a great post about McCain’s true fiscal conservatism. Have a gander:
http://arjunweb.com/archives/2008/03/03/pork-earmarks-a-picture-that-speaks-volumes