Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was talking on "The Verdict" with Dan Abrams tonight, taking to task all those who have said that Senator Hillary Clinton should have conceded the Democratic primary race in her speech on Tuesday, June3rd and endorsed the by-then-Presumptive Nominee, Senator Barack Obama. Her sometimes shrill comments revolved mostly around the idea that HRC should be allowed "time" to "catch her breath" before ending her campaign.
Really?
And why is that?
Hasn’t the Senator from New York said all along that "as soon as there’s a nominee, I will get behind whoever it may be"? And wasn’t there a nominee on Tuesday before she gave her speech? Hadn’t the results from South Dakota put Obama over the top in the delegate count needed? (The answer to all the above questions in this paragraph, by the way, is ‘yes.’)
Why would Hillary Clinton need "time to catch her breath? Rep. Tubbs Jones said repeatedly that HRC had just fought a long hard campaign, that she has spent the last 16 months working hard to gain the nomination, she had a lot of support and she absolutely shouldn’t be asked to or expected to simply concede without taking time to review her options.
What options? She lost. Her options as regards the 2008 the Democratic nomination for president was over. And didn’t Senator Obama just fight a long, hard campaign as well?
It stuck me as very odd that a woman of Tubbs Jones’ stature would suggest this. I really can’t understand her reasoning. When one loses an election, even a primary election, is one normally given time to ‘review options’ as regards that contest? Did Senator Obama need time to ‘review options’ before graciously congratulating Mrs. Clinton on that very South Dakota victory – or any of the other primary contests she won? Was John Kerry given time to ‘review’ before conceding to George Bush on election night in 2004? (And yes, Al Gore had a different story, but let’s not revisit that. HBO’s "Recount" already did that.) Has ANYONE who has lost an election been given ‘review time’ – or claimed it – before conceding and congratulating their opponent? Would that have applied to Senator Obama if he’d lost the primary fight? Putting aside my personal opinion that Senator Obama does not have an ungracious bone in his body, which would have made such calls unnecessary, wouldn’t it have been expected and demanded of him that he concede the day HRC went over the top in delegate counts?
So why should Hillary Clinton get this ‘breathing room’?
Surely it can’t be because she’s a woman, and some imagine a woman would take these things harder, could it? It couldn’t be because there’s a misguided perception that women are more emotional about such things – or that they’re less politically savvy than men – or they need to be coddled and protected from the harsh realities of political life. And Rep. Tubbs Jones wouldn’t be suggesting that – that a woman needs time to go and lick her wounds before she can suck it up and say, "Good fight, you won, congratulations" – would she?
Wouldn’t that be blatantly sexist?