Why Clinton should not concede (yet)(w/poll)
Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:49:25 AM PDT
Hillary Clinton is doing all of us progressives a big favor by staying in the race. I realized this last night as I watched the second amazing debate I have seen. Josh Marshall commented this morning on something I noted too:
But one of my big questions about this debate was Hillary Clinton's lack of aggressiveness toward Barack Obama. I think it spoke very well of her on a number of levels -- personally, as a potential leader, etc. She made her case on her merits and policies.
But there is no mistaking the fact that by every metric and every visible trendline Barack Obama is in the process of winning the nomination. At least conventional political logic would dictate that she had no choice but to go after him just as she has been doing on the campaign trail.
But she didn't.
So why is she still showing up?
That debate and the one before it, and some of the ones before, were FREE educational seminars on what so many of us have wanted for the country for a long time, WHY we want them, and HOW we'll go about achieving these goals.
I remember writhing in agony watching the MORONIC debates of the 200 and 2004 election cycles. They were so stupid--the questions asked, the limited amount of time to formulate an answer, the lack of time given to other candidates to respond to a candidate's assertions. The soundbite really ruled (much like HRC's unfortunate Xerox (R) comment last night, which even as she was saying it she seemed to understand was a relic from the past).
I hated those debates with the candidates standing and needing to give fast answers, which does seem to increase aggressiveness, and glibness.
I never thought I'd congratulate CNN, but the questions of the last 2 debates have been substantive and serious, and the idea that there is only the constraint of a "reasonable" amount of time is brilliant--we can finally watch these people think and actually DEBATE each other.
I'm not saying HRC wouldn't still like to win--but do I think she's an idiot and doesn't see the writing on the wall? No. I do think her staying in and keeping TV coverage focused on the Democratic race will save our party millions of bucks in the general--because the USA is now so much more educated on what Dems really stand for and how they want to work.
The fact that the race keeps going, and almost 1 million people have now finally contributed to his campaign (and probably half a million to hers), has increased the investment of ordinary folks in this election.
I am really proud of the two of them--and though I originally thought his agreeing to more debates was a mistake, I know see that in any debates between them, the American people are the winners. I can't remember the last time in my lifetime that I've heard political discourse on such a high level be part of mainstream TV.
As a nation, we're a little addicted to drama. And if it takes a horserace to get people watching and listening to serious discourse about progressive goals and values, I think it's worth it. Thoughts?
Permalink | 49 comments