Bill Richardson has withdrawn from the presidential race. The commentators seem to think most of his support will now go to Clinton. That may be, but I'm one Richardson supporter who will now go to Obama. (My mother also supported Richardson, and I expect she'll go to Edwards. The pundits will probably find this even odder, but we all have our unique combinations of reasons for preferring a candidate.)

My last post was originally intended to be about Obama, but I got sidetracked with all that delegate-counting stuff and never got there. As an accountant and rules geek, I'm fascinated by the arcana of convention voting, but it's not what I want Benzene to be about. If you're in that, CNN has a nifty delegate tally, which I find more user-friendly than DemConWatch's, though the latter is doing a better job keeping up with the superdelegates. For detailed discussion of Democratic Party procedures, I recommend MyDD, where they are happily debating what's really going to happen to the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Surely that story must be ready to hit the mainstream any day now, since the Michigan non-primary is next week.

This post won't make it to Obama either, particularly since I'm trying to cut my posts short and resist the urge to dump everything into one enormous mega-post.

In the post before last, I mentioned the dynasty issue, with regard to electing another Clinton. Since then, it has been pointed out to me that there are adults who are old enough to vote who have never even been alive without a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Ms Clinton wins and finishes her term, it will be 24 years of Bushes and Clintons. More than half my life. (And if you count the vice-presidency, that makes it 32 years.) I don't want to overemphasize this because the real argument against elected dynasties is a substantive one that it weakens our government, not just because the lack of variety freaks me out. But still, 24 years!

I'm trying to call her "Ms Clinton" now, having it heard it argued that to call her by her first name and him by his last is a sexist double-standard. I'm not sure I believe this, and even if it is sexist, it's not at all clear to me when Ms Clinton gains more or loses more from it. I think the main reason people are tempted to use her first name is to avoid confusing her with that other President Clinton. Same idea as calling President Bush "W" or "43".

Still, it's easy enough to avoid, so I'll try to remember.

I forgot to mention one of the favorite arguments advanced against Ms Clinton that I thoroughly disagree with. This is the idea that she should be rejected on the grounds that she is an extreme and "polarizing" figure and it would be too easy for the Republicans to demonize her in the general election.

That's nonsense, born of the same illogic that four years ago argued the John Kerry should be supported because he was the most "electable" of the Democrats. Ms Clinton is no more polarizing than any other Democrat; the only difference is that she has already been targeted. We've actually seen all the attacks against Ms Clinton. For Edwards or Obama you still have to imagine them, just as before March 2004 you had to imagine the attacks on Kerry. Political news coverage is desperately lacking in imagination. It can only see what is right in front of its face.

Indeed, sometimes it can't even see that. The vanguard of the slime brigade is already showing up in partisan conservative forums (including Fox News). John Edwards is a ambulance-chasing lawyer! Barack Obama turns his back on the flag! John Edwards is a limp-wristed girly-man! Barack Obama is a Muslim trying to take over Islamo-fascism! It will get worse.

The corollary, which I also reject, is the idea that any negative campaigning in the primary is bad for the Democrats because it will weaken the eventual candidate. According to this theory, attacks from fellow Democrats will give Republicans the ammunition they need against the Democrat in the general election campaign. Right. Because the Republicans can't find ammunition on their own. I'm supposed to believe that Ms Clinton's campaign is going to find and use some smear against Edwards or Obama that would have otherwise escaped the notice of the Republican opposition research teams?

Bonus Spin #1: Any time one Democrat needs to respond to a nasty negative attack by the other, he or she should say, "Actually, I'm glad they brought that up, because it's exactly the sort of baseless smear the Republicans will make in the general election. Here's why they're wrong..." and on with the substantive response. That lets you pretend to take the high road, as you answer the charge, and still get in a little jab that says, "See how nasty my opponent is? He/she's as bad as the Republicans."

Bonus Spin #2: This one is just for Obama and Edwards. Neither of them is on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic Party has said Michigan's delegates won't be counted. Ms Clinton is on the ballot, and of course she will win against Kucinich, Gravel and (her most serious rival) "uncommitted".

After she wins, all three campaigns will try to spin the media into making it sound like this is or isn't a Clinton victory. The Edwards and Obama campaigns will presumably try to argue that even though Clinton got lots of votes, it isn't as much as she should have gotten running unopposed. And so on with the usual game of spinning the "expectations".

I have another idea for them. Michigan's primary is an open one, so it's very likely that some Democrats will cross over to vote in the Republican primary instead, whereas few Republicans will cross over to vote for a Democrat. (The Republican Party has also limited Michigan's representation in their national convention, but hasn't eliminated it entirely.)

Since the primary is open, the results won't officially record anyone's party affiliation, but exit polls will undoubtedly ask, and there will be some figure purporting to show how many Democrats voted in the Republican primary. Whatever this figure is, the talking point for Ms Clinton's opponents should be,

"When faced with a ballot where Hillary Clinton is the nominee, most Democrats would rather vote for nobody or for a Republican."

That's bullshit, of course, in several ways, but it's exactly the sort of bullshit that the shallow news media would love to latch onto, and to explain why it really doesn't make sense requires about a sentence and a half more than a TV news attention span allows.

The line should be repeated like a mantra any time the Clinton campaign tries to get any boost from the Michigan results. It really doesn't even matter if the numbers don't add up. What is Clinton going to do? Say, "No, actually I got 62% of the Democratic vote, and uncommitted got only 34%, so even if you count all the Democrats who voted in the Republican primary, they still amount to only 42% of Democrats; that's not 'most'"? Then you just laugh and say, "Sorry, my bad. So what you're really saying is that only 42% of Democrats would rather vote for a Republican or no one than vote for you," and that just keeps the line alive that much longer.

4:27:06 AM  [permalink]  comment []