Have to admit that today's Sunday show pundits made me mad. All along I've been a Hillary supporter out of loyalty to an idea to which I committed long before I heard the name Barack Obama. Even when the cool kids were caucusing for BO, and I was the solo applauder for Hillary at my neighborhood bar during the debate, I hung on as a Hillary supporter. I longed to move my support to the exciting candidate who would bring hope to the country. However, just like in third grade when my dorkey, pasty friend Brian was being ridiculed, I didn't walk away from him because I made a commitment to be his friend.
These past two months I listened to excited friends talk about BO and find myself wishing Hillary would walk out so I could joyfully join the side of hope. Today, though, when listening to the patronizing tone for Hillary to step out the race I became even more committed to hang in there for her. Would Paul Tsongas or John Kerry have been asked to withdraw from a race that has another three months left? The tone that it would be unladylike and too aggressive for her to stay in the race hit a sour note with me.
It's a political race. Three months is a lifetime. Anything can happen. This cohesive male bonding to kick Hillary out of the race is unacceptable. If she loses, fine. But, it's a contest and it's not over until it's over.
"Would Paul Tsongas or John Kerry have been asked to withdraw from a race that has another three months left?"
Probably, if one of those people didn't have a chance to win.
Posted by: Gunfighter | March 31, 2008 at 06:21 AM
GF, No one would ever have asked either one of them to withdraw from the race. Bisty, thanks for writing this. I was beginning to feel I was the only one who thinks Clinton should stay in.
Posted by: PunditMom | March 31, 2008 at 06:27 AM
I'd be really interested to review other elections and see if such a strong candidate (I mean honestly...it's neck-and-neck, isn't it? Our SD was basically 51 to 49 for Obama) was ever asked to step down.
I wondered more and more about this, especially as I found myself in an uncomfortable race against my own husband for the precinct delegate seat.
I conceded to him.
I did it for a lot of reasons, but one was this feeling of expectation---and that may be more an internal reflection than external because certainly NOBODY implied or said anything---that I do so. However, the relief when I did step aside was palpable.
I was okay with it (mostly), especially after I won an at-large alternate position. But it got me thinking.
Good points to ponder here!
Posted by: Julie Pippert | March 31, 2008 at 07:20 AM
I don't think the calls for Hillary to drop out are because she is a woman. After this many states, there are always calls for the second-tier candidates to drop out. Look at Mitt Romney, for example. He specifically said he was dropping out for the good of his party and the country.
She has *no chance* to win without overriding the will of the voters. So why is she continuing? It looks pretty selfish to me. And I wouldn't care, except that her campaign has been so relentlessly negative. If she wants to stay in, she should focus on her policy positions, not trying to dredge up dirt.
Posted by: Rachel | March 31, 2008 at 07:32 AM
NPR had a commentator discuss this topic. that it is assumed that a woman is to sacrifice for the good of the party/family/husband you name it. it is the role women are given in our society. it is unconcious but painfully obvious
Posted by: krishnajo | March 31, 2008 at 08:17 AM
This isn't a misogynistic request - it is a standard request to candidates who mathematically cannot win. She needs 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to tie, she can't catch up in states won, and her approval numbers are barely better than Bush in recent polls.
Most other candidates haven't been asked to step down because they do it on their own - Dean, Romney, Guliani, etc. Notable exceptions this year are Edwards and Huckabee.
Personally, if Clinton weren't running such a negative campaign, even to the point of endorsing McCain over Obama on multiple occasions, I wouldn't care if she stayed in until the convention. Instead she is effectively demonizing him among her supporters, leading more than 30% of them to say they would rather vote for McCain (not to mention the Obama supporters she and her campaign has ostracized in various insults of us).
Posted by: John J. | March 31, 2008 at 08:27 AM
Could we somehow turn the final commander-in-chief test (these last few primaries) into a contest to see who's better at taking McCain down? Because why should he get off scot-free now?
And I'm only 2% joking. If there's gonna be negativity, why not direct it at the *real* enemy?
Posted by: cynematic | March 31, 2008 at 09:03 AM
The last comment reflects my views best. I am closer to Senator Clinton's positions on every issue. I believe she has the strength and the intelligence and the experience to be an excelent president. But will negative actions now, hers or Obama's, make it easier for McCain to win in November? That's scary.
Posted by: Daisy | March 31, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Al Gore was asked to step aside to George Bush on the eve after the 2000 Election and he did. Had he stuck it out without even hinting at a loss, the last eight years would be quite different.
The idea that any Democrat would even think these words before all the votes are fairly counted is shortsighted in light of what happened Al Gore in the 2000 election.
Posted by: catherine | March 31, 2008 at 06:08 PM
Just be aware that your reaction is exactly what's intended here. There is no better place for Hillary to be than the underdog. Voters will set aside their reservations and defend her.
I have no objection to her staying if she and her surrogates would stick to the issues.
Posted by: Karoli | March 31, 2008 at 08:39 PM