Via Apostropher, at Unfogged, we have this funny post from TPM’s Reader Blogs:
I think one thing is clear this far into the Democratic primary race: Both Obama’s and Clinton’s supporters must now drop out of the race.
Hillary Clinton’s supporters have gotten incredibly annoying, with their chants of “Yes She Can,” and charges of cultism and their desperate yelps of schadenfreude every time Clinton looks like she might actually be “recapturing the lead” that she never had.
And Obama’s supporters, yes, you too are incredibly annoying, with your accusations of Clintonian Republicanism and your whiny little cries about how you’re going to take your ball and run home if your candidate doesn’t win the primary.
Supporters of both candidates, please listen closely. For the good of the Party — no, for the good of the Nation! — the time has come for you to leave this race.
No more late nights in front of MSNBC. No more blogging. No more reading TPM. No more arguing at the watercooler, or at the happy hour after work at TGIF’s.
Find a hobby — knitting is really getting popular these days!
Anything, anything but your insistent and continual droning on and on about how perfect your candidate is.
Remember — the future of this Republic is at stake.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
I spent a good chunk of yesterday arguing politics with Historiann. Then I spent much of last night arguing nearly the opposite positions with people at Unfogged. I’ve completely lost my mind. The above is right: I need to drop out of the race.
30 comments
March 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
Historiann
I just saw that at TPM–very funny! I agree that we all need to chill out and have a mojito or something. I’m going to have to go on blood pressure meds if we’re going to keep this up through the summer!
March 5, 2008 at 9:26 am
Hebisner
As a liberal blogger, I would like to protest the accusation that I do not prefer Hillary Clinton over Barak Obama because of some sort of sexist bias, if I interpreted Historiann correctly from that comment thread. I have high regard for Hillary Clinton, and would have gladly walked precincts for her, and will if she is the nominee. I just like Obama better for policy reasons on the war and her voting record in the Senate, where she has not shown the leadership I wish she would. For Democrats, the current race is an embarrasement of riches, these are two good candidates locked in a tight race. But can we hold our fire on the sexist claims please?
I will say that Hillary Clinton consistently provides the most complete and sensible answers on policy questions of any candidate I have ever seen on the campaign trail, including her husband. I would be proud to vote for her. Given the choice though, I prefer Obama. If that’s sexist, so be it. But it seems to me that in this context, sexist appears to being used as a placeholder for ” I don’t agree with you”.
March 5, 2008 at 9:32 am
Historiann
Whoa! Hold on Hebisner. I’ve never said that support for Obama is prima facie evidence of sexism. I think it’s perfectly reasonable and rational to support him–he’s a great guy with an appealing background in grassroots organizing, and he’s run the better campaign so far. I’ve just been deeply concerned about the troubling gendere language and expectations that people have unfairly laid on Clinton and her campaign. My blogging for Hillary has been about that, not motivated by assumptions that all Obama supporters are just anti-Hillary for sexist reasons.
March 5, 2008 at 9:39 am
Jonathan Rees
Ari:
Dropping out may be a little strong, but I do think everyone should take a step back and try not to personalize this race so much. The success or failure of your candidate is not a reflection of your own success or failure in life. While I would prefer it if Obama won, I am jaded enough to know that should he lose, life will go on.
On the other hand, if McCain wins in November…
March 5, 2008 at 9:45 am
ari
Jonathan, I’m trying to realize that you’re right. But it’s very hard right now. Honestly, the term political junkie exists for a reason. I know that my interest in politics is bad for me, in ways too numerous to mention, but I can’t kick the habit. That said, I don’t in any way equate a political candidate’s success or failures with my own. I’m perfectly capable of failing all by myself, thank you very much.
March 5, 2008 at 10:01 am
Nettle P.
I have a question: In the past, when there has been long/bitter primary campaign, did that party loose the general? I am thinking of the Democrats in 1968, and the Republicans in 1976. . .but I don’t know much about other years. It would help me gain some perspective!
March 5, 2008 at 10:05 am
Historiann
See Kevin Drum’s post last night about 1968, and about how close Humphrey came despite the messed-up primary and nomination fight:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013259.php
March 5, 2008 at 10:05 am
Drew Robertson
FWIW I dropped out yesterday morning. It’s nice. Back in April.
March 5, 2008 at 10:10 am
eric
Without disrespecting Ari’s wish to “drop out” (dude, the first step is to stop blogging about it), I must disagree with Hebisner and (to some extent) Jonathan Rees.
Inasmuch as there is now no way for Clinton to take the nomination without the Florida and Michigan delegations or using superdelegates to reverse Obama’s lead in the pledged delegate count, it will not be okay, it will not be an alternative set of riches. It will look to a lot of people like chicanery, and not without reason. I believe it will look enough like chicanery to cost Clinton support at the polls, especially if the McCain/maverick narrative holds up (as I’m sure it will), letting him take independents and moderates.
And as to the relation between such bitter primaries and the general, Nettle P., one of us wrote on that question recently.
The only possibility I can see for a Clinton nomination to avoid that taint is to re-run the Florida and Michigan contests somehow, and for her to win decisively there.
March 5, 2008 at 10:17 am
charlieford
1924 was a classic meltdown for the Democrats, too. I don’t think this race will be anything like 1968–the passions then were so intense–the feeling that the US had become a real, perhaps THE real, “focus of evil in the world”–combined with the sense on the other side that anti-war sentiment would lead us to abandon our world responsibilities, squander the deaths expended in Vietnam, and destroy the Democratic Party and the hopes for domestic liberal reform–drove everyone crazy. This isn’t like that at all. What we have is a reasonable, irenic Obama trying, as best he can, to run a civilized race, while Hillary gleefully drops from the ceiling flapping her leathery wings and shrieking like a Harridan while chomping into his ear as if he were Mike Tyson. That’s what we have here. Phone ringing at 3 AM, my big toe! Why doesn’t she just show slavering wolves circling an infant in a sand-box while an oblivious coked-up Obama dressed in African garb kneels towards Mecca chanting “Yes we can!” in Arabic?!
March 5, 2008 at 10:22 am
ari
Eric’s last is right. So here’s that scenario, brought to you by the demons scrabbling around in Ari’s head: Last night hurt a lot, because it made the superdelegates’ decision to do the right thing — supporting the candidate with the most pledged delegates — that much harder. It also, in some annoying ways, vindicated the Clinton firewall “strategy” and her argument that Obama can’t win the “important” states.
So, now we’re on to PA. Where, if Obama wins, the race really is over. But if Clinton wins PA, that adds more fuel to her fire, propping up her campaign narrative. And then we’re going to have lots of serious discussions about re-doing the Florida and Michigan primaries some time in the summer. Which primaries will become de facto winner-take-all contests. Meaning, whichever candidate wins them wins the whole thing. Why? Again, because the superdelegates will need an out, a way of avoiding making a very hard choice. And that will be their out.
Unless the two do-over primaries are a split — Michigan for Obama and Florida for Clinton — a very real possibility, in which case it all falls to the superdelegates. Who’ll just have to suck it up and choose. Because the alternative from there, a brokered convention, isn’t going to happen. Still, having the superdelegates come to the fore, I think, will badly damage both candidates. In that scenario, not only will there have been a bruising campaign, very likely an ugly spectacle, but also all of America will have been treated to months of process stories, ignoring the policy failings of Old Man McCain. But at least there’s not going to be a brokered convention. That’s something.
March 5, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ben Alpers
Kevin Drum managed to “analyze” ‘68 without even mentioning George Wallace? Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. Wallace was absolutely crucial for making ‘68 as close as it was.
March 5, 2008 at 11:07 am
John B.
charlie ford, that was hilarious. I would vote for you anyday and especially would want you to be my campaign stategist adn commercial image maker.
March 5, 2008 at 11:18 am
rootlesscosmo
Philip Klinkner agrees
http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2008/03/1968-comparisons.html
with Ben Alpers. (So do I.)
March 5, 2008 at 12:09 pm
jim
Atrios (pbuh) keeps reminding people “your candidate sucks”. The problem is that each candidate sucks in a different way, so supporters of each see the other candidate’s suckage as mortal and their candidates’s suckage as venial. So the beat goes on.
I don’t mind supporters repeating the same policy or character based arguments over and over again, though I find it somewhat tiring. But I do wish people would stop inventing rules, the flouting of which somehow tarnishes their unpreferred candidate’s candidacy.
March 5, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Ben Alpers
Obama and Clinton are extraordinarily similar on the issues, which tends to force the campaigns (and their supporters) to focus on other things.
March 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Jonathan Rees
Ari:
If you ever read the comments at Daily Kos you’ll know the kind of people I had in mind when I wrote the part about identifying your candidate with your own success or failure in life. For your sake, I hope you’re at least a little better than that.
I’m a reformed political junkie, myself (although not completely disengaged) and much happier for it.
March 5, 2008 at 1:42 pm
ollie
chill out? Never. I am warming up my cell phone for calls to Wyoming and Mississippi (phone banking; I live in Illinois)
:)
But I can look at the bright side: if O gets the nomination, I’ll be very, very busy this fall.
If it is HRC, I’ll have a heck of a lot more free time on my hands, as our local D’s didn’t even bother to field a Congressional candidate, and Durbin’s seat is about as safe as it gets.
March 5, 2008 at 2:56 pm
mjm
The thing junkies like me (and, other commenters here, apparently) need to remember is that many people don’t care about the nomination process. Many, many folks vote in November for whichever party’s nominee they always vote for. That’s not to say this season hasn’t been a great deal of fun, though. I had a little fun with it this afternoon, actually. Follow this link.
http://contemporaryinanity.typepad.com/contemporary_inanity/2008/03/pugilistic-poli.html
A year ago, I was on Clinton’s side, but Obama wooed me. (The Kool-Aid was particularly tasty.) If Clinton were to win, I’d vote for her in a second. The alternative is too distressing.
I’d feel a great deal better casting a vote for Obama, though.
March 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm
rdale
I guess I need to drop out too, because this kind of comment: “What we have is a reasonable, irenic Obama trying, as best he can, to run a civilized race, while Hillary gleefully drops from the ceiling flapping her leathery wings and shrieking like a Harridan while chomping into his ear as if he were Mike Tyson” is what makes me crazy about this. Who said that? Rush Limbaugh? Michael Savage? Ann Coulter? Do you hear yourselves when you say things like that? Why are people who I assume would vote Dem repeating, word for word, right-wing talking points, and not only right wingers but the worst kind of rabid right wingers? You are all smart people; don’t you get it? They are leading you by the nose. How is “irenic” (which I had to look up) Obama going to win the general by demonizing the most popular president we’ve had since FDR? Oh, all the moderates and independents and even the Repubs are going to vote for him! When sunshine shoots out of my butt they are, especially after the VRWC slimers get through with him; he’ll be lucky if he doesn’t get deported. The pundits are already salivating with man-love at the thought of how they can canonize St. John of the Camps.
And how “irenic” is it to fake the whole “Clintons as racist” thing (”Race Man by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
And did Hillary, in between chomping on poor irenic Golden Boy Obama’s ear, force him into that Somali garb? And who said that her campaign sent that photo to Drudge? Oh, it was Obama’s campaign who said that, wasn’t it? Of course those irenic idealists would never, never indulge in any dirty politics, they are too busy swooning and being, well, irenic. But, but she said that McCain had more experience! Let’s see, McCain, war hero, senator since Jeezus was on the cross, yadda yadda; Barack; made an anti-war speech in 2002, but where were his big anti-war speeches after he got into the Senate? How many times did he vote against the funding for the war? How many filibusters did he lead against the worst excesses of BushCo? If someone asked me, I’d say that McCain had more experience. She just can’t win with some people; she made one bad vote and everyone is determined that if she doesn’t grovel in front of Obama, they are going to take their balls and go home. Just like with Nader voters in 2000, and we all know what that got us.
Get real people: you are being played by the GOP and the corporate media like a big fat fish, and before you know it you’ll be in the frying pan labeled “FOUR MORE YEARS!”
March 5, 2008 at 3:41 pm
ari
rdale, I hear you about Charlie’s rhetoric, which, I think, was offered as much in jest as anything else (but I won’t speak for him). And I hear you about the bind that Clinton has found herself in with the press and many progressive voters. But you’re not really going to bring that absurd Wilentz column around here as evidence of anything meaningful, are you? Please don’t make me say what I want to say about that column. Because there’s no margin in it for me. Or really for anyone else who would read what I write. (Ari, restraining himself, stalks away from keyboard and kicks door. Ouch.)
March 5, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Vance Maverick
Ari, are you trying and failing to drop out again? Surely there’s something we could be learning about the Gadsden Purchase.
March 5, 2008 at 4:07 pm
silbey
You know, I kind of wish that we Democrats would stop pissing and moaning about how unfair the other candidate is behaving and focus on actually winning elections. That would be nice. That would be very nice.
March 5, 2008 at 4:10 pm
ari
Silbey wins the thread. And Vance, the first four times I read your comment (I’m that dim), I was sure that you were saying that surely there was something we could be learning from the Gadsden Purchase. I just kept contemplating what it might be, how I could apply the lessons of territorial expansion to my current situation. I’m afraid I didn’t come up with much.
March 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm
charlieford
“in jest”? “in jest”? Ha! As if I would jest about such grave matters. Certainly the language I use isn’t that of a jester! Is it? If you heard those leathery wings behind you and then felt the hot breath of the Harridan on your ear, surely you wouldn’t be laughing.
OK, can we get a moment of silence in honor of Obama’s poor little punctured–but still cute–ear?
I think I need to offer both ari and rdale scholarships for a couple weeks at the Firesign Theater Summer Institute for Hermeneutical Felicity. Yeah, that’s what I’ll do!
Btw, on this whole Obama-Hillary ticket thing? Can someone get Hillary to stop saying she’s willing to consider it, as long as she can be “on top”? That’s an image I don’t need in my mind.
March 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm
urbino
I’m finding last night’s results having a surprising effect on me. It seems I want Hillary to stay in. Because now I am starting to have some doubts about fielding a candidate who didn’t win a single big state (other than his home state). I’m beginning to have concerns that the same racial factor that appears to have been important in both TX and OH last night would have the same effect in the general. Obviously, no Dem is going to win TX, but OH? We’re going to need OH. Also, I want Hillary to stay in because I want to see how Obama deals with being attacked. So far, it’s been badly. Hillary is clearly going to continue the attack; it worked. What will Obama do?
OTOH, Eric is absolutely right. Barring shenanigans with the FL and MI delegates, plus some contra-democratic movement by the supers, Hillary can’t win. It’s mathematically impossible, on any reasonable assumptions about the rest of the race. And while I want to see Obama prove he can earn a hard-fought win, I’m not at all sure how I’ll feel if he doesn’t and Hillary gets the nomination.
I’m a reformed political junkie
I’m grasping for a joke that plays on the meaning of “reformed” in a religious context (e.g., Reformed Judaism), and what that would mean in a political context — e.g., something a reformed political junkie could do that an orthodox political junkie could not — but it’s not quite coming to me. Somebody help me out.
March 5, 2008 at 5:52 pm
rdale
Hey, regarding the Wilentz column, I only knows what I reads on the InterTubes; if it’s been debunked I sure haven’t seen it, or is that just “Obama would never do something like that!”? Two other points and then I’m out of this: I think the reason that Clinton is making a comeback is a backlash against the hateful, misogynist double standard that she’s been held to by the pundits and the Obama worshippers. This flame war is mainly intertribal, among the blogs. What about the vast majority of people in this country who don’t obsess over these things like those of us here obviously do? They see someone they don’t have any reason to hate getting kicked around with great glee by rich fat cat pundits and they don’t like it. And earlier, when this came up a while ago, someone said they thought Obama could stand up better to the VRWC slime machine. As someone French would say out of the side of their mouth, “pfft!” As if. If he thinks those mean old Clintons have been hard on him, just wait until Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Drudge and the papers are showing pictures 24/7 of him cutting off the head of his black crack baby while facing Mecca and wearing a bournoose. C’mon, you really don’t think that’s going to happen? Rupert Murdoch is going to go “awww, he’s so kewl!”? Swift boats anyone? If they can make a decorated war hero, who still has shrapnel in his body, into a sniveling loser who shot himself for a medal, they can make Mr. Yes We Can into an enemy of the state. And on the other hand, what are they going to dredge up about Hillary Clinton that hasn’t already been out there for years? Dig up Vince Foster? (Because she killed him, too, I saw it on DailyKos).
That’s it for me., adios.
March 5, 2008 at 6:27 pm
charlieford
That was boring.
March 5, 2008 at 6:34 pm
rootlesscosmo
I think I need to offer both ari and rdale scholarships for a couple weeks at the Firesign Theater Summer Institute for Hermeneutical Felicity. Yeah, that’s what I’ll do!
The old “can’t you take a joke” ploy, not improved in my judgment by academic archness. The answer, as always, is No, not that joke, not from you, not ever.
That was boring.
And that was gratuitously insulting.
March 5, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Vance Maverick
Hmm, my over-terse comment did call for more hermeneutic investment than I intended. Anyway, you don’t need to be fretting over the Democratic primary, or over Wilentz’s column. Do something more rewarding; and the Gadsden Purchase was only a pretend example. Even picking on Mark Smallfarmer seems to have been more salutary.