Gee, I Wonder Why
Apr 7th, 2008 at 6:27 am by Susie
Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix:
The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled “The Hillary Deathwatch”), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:
• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.
• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.
• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the “inevitability” of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan’s failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.
• Also in 1976, three candidates — Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church — ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.
• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the “certain” nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.
In fact, until this year, it’s been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out — which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.
Yet in one of the tightest races in modern history — before the opponent has come close to clearly clinching the nomination, before a number of voters have been given the chance to have their voices heard, and when Clinton still has a chance, albeit a slim one, to win the prize, she is continually vilified for failing to see the light and bow out. What gives?
[...] Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history. That’s being driven by Clinton fatigue, but it’s also being driven by a concerted campaign that examines every action the Clintons take and somehow finds the basest, most self-serving motivation for its existence. Thus, in this case, when Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she’s constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party. Is there a fair amount of sexism in the way she’s being asked to get out of the way so a man can have the job? You be the judge.
Dr. Socks has some thoughts.
Clinton is absolutely getting a raw deal. But unfortunately there’s no sign that it will abate if she clinches the nomination, or even wins the general election in a landslide.
Both Clintons have been subjected to relentless villificiation since 1991. Sixteen years. That’s not something that can be overcome in a few months of campaigning; more like a generation of slapping down conservitards so hard that they go cross-eyed.
So while I think that Clinton would make a very good president, I’m not optimistic about her chances (both of election, and of being able to govern without constant ‘gotcha, gotcha’ crap)
Not that Obama will have clear sailing, either. Oh well.
Well, they did the same thing to Al Gore and John Kerry - and both of them won. (Depending on who’s counting the votes, of course.)
I guess you guys missed the republican primary this year? Huckabee and Paul were subject to more scorn and derision from the media than most others, including the constant drumbeat for Huckabee to drop out.
But by all means, the media isn’t fair to Clinton so our duty as progressives is to ensure that it treats Obama equally unfairly, right?
Just pointing out John, that it wasn’t other Republicans calling out for Huckabee and Paul to exit the race and the media questioning wasn’t much.
In Hillary’s case, it is Obama surrogates calling for Hillary to withdraw and the media role, like it has been throughout this nomination process to give the anti-Hillary voices a soap box.
There is a vast difference.
As for the media treating Obama unfairly, that will come in the general election should he make it there.
What the media make of elections, and what to make of what the media make of elections: A pair of moving targets.
Huckabee and Paul? And how about Edwards (remember Edwards? Edwards ran for President.)? This time around the Professional Journalists™ decided to treat one of them half-seriously and make the other two disappear.
(I’m guessing, but someone probably knows: Who had more air-time on the networks, the cable-fishwraps, and NPR — Ralph Nader or Ron Paul?)
Doesn’t change the fact of Clinton Rules. Of course it’s different.
The increasing calls for Senator C. to quit give me more hope than I’ve had in while that she may actually win this thing.
Ghandi had it exactly right.*
* for those like me who sometimes lack immediate recall:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-Mahatma Gandhi - (1869-1948)
Um, I can’t help but noticing that of those prior elections you listed, only Carter in ‘76 was the only one to come back to win by any significant margin after running a late-contested primary. Dukakis ‘88, Carter ‘80 and Ford ‘76 all lost fairly decisively (and yes, that means that Carter ‘76 won despite competition from Udall, Brown, and Church in large part because Reagan’s “quixotic” campaign against Ford was more successful — Reagan actually took votes away from Ford in the general election). Even JFK nearly lost to Nixon in ‘60.
In short, I don’t know what you’re trying to prove with this post but, well, it doesn’t seem to prove it.
As for Reagan’s run in 1976, his supporters were chanting “Four More Months! Four More Months!” as Ford got the nomination. Or so the story goes.
Of course Reagan’s supporters had substantive ideological differences with Ford, which makes the comparison to this year’s battle to the death between the Doppelgangers even odder.