WWTSBQ 2.0 - A Neverending Series
Cross-posted from The Global Sociology Blog
My blog bookmark listing is getting thinner every day. That goes along with the shrinking respect I had for some bloggers in the past. Boy has this primary been a reality check. Here is someone who used to be one of my favorite bloggers, Hilzoy, subbing for Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly :
"This might or might not be true in the abstract. In the actual world, however, everything depends on how Hillary Clinton conducts herself. She can continue to make her case in a constructive and positive way, trying to show that she is the best candidate while doing her best to defuse the idea that the nomination was somehow stolen from her, and to reconcile her followers to the idea that she lost fair and square"
Well, from where I stand, actually listening to Hillary's speeches, she has consistently done that: making her case to the voters, discussing the issues, adopting a populist stance that is in synch with the core Democratic base. She is making a positive case for herself and for votes to be counted. At the same time, she has repeatedly stated that once the primary is over, the party will be united behind the nominee ("whoever she might be"... it was a funny line, but there is no sense of humor among the self-righteous, so-called progressive bloggers and the creative class... humor, along with irony and self-awareness, was thrown under the bus long ago. The only humor left is the neverending sexist jokes that can told about pantsuits and whatnot).
She is always the gracious one at the debates or in speech. And yes, she is campaigning, that means promoting her candidacy. It 's not her job to campaign for Obama or refrain from nudging him when the opportunity presents itself. And trust me, nudging him is all she's ever done. The man has been treated with kid gloves.
And by the way, losing fair and square means once ALL the votes have been counted and ALL the arguments (including those about electability and popular votes, etc) have been made and discussed out in the open. "Fair and square", by definition, involves fairness.
But apparently, we live in a different universe:
"Or she can try to undermine Obama's claim to be the legitimate nominee, if he wins. "Staying in the race" describes both options. But only one of them "will help unite the Democratic Party", and make "everyone (...) more likely to rally around the nominee." Hillary Clinton has not chosen that option."
Because, as you see, Obama has no agency here. The only way he can be undermined or promoted is NOT through his own actions but through Hillary's behavior. Who has been systematically alienating the core of the Democratic party demographics? Who has allowed rabid misogyny to be unleashed and is now out of control across the blogosphere? Who has made the wildest accusation of sinister motives about the Clintons (the latest absurd iteration of which is the RFK fauxtrage)? Who has been trashing the democratic brand and running away from the liberal label? Who's more than willing to discard the core Democratic base in an attempt to attract conservatives and evangelicals even if this means throwing women's rights and LGBT causes under the bus while doing so? Good grief.
And let's continue in that line of "It's all the Bitch's fault" argument
"I just heard someone on one of the talk shows say that it must be hard for Hillary Clinton to give up her dreams. I appreciate this fact, and I do not envy her. However, as I wrote a few days ago, Hillary Clinton is a responsible moral agent. She has the power to decide which of these two approaches she will pursue. Moreover, she has now had several months to get used to the idea that she lost. If she were an adult , she would deal with it. The fact that she seems instead to require our indulgence while she sorts through her emotional issues just gives me one more reason to be glad she lost: Presidents are often confronted with crises, at 3am and other times, and they do not always have the luxury of working through all the stages of grief before coming up with a response."
Emphasis mine. Oh my God, there is so much bullshit to go through here, it's unbelievable. Where does this come from? Some talk show? Because, God knows how much talk shows have been reliable sources of information and analysis in this primary.
And here comes the sexist part: Hillary is not a grown woman, she's a little girl who has to give up on her dream, but dammit, us adults have work to do and we can't attend to her emotional needs... I think we can soundly blame Bill for that! And what is this paragraph based on? Nothing. There is absolutely NO evidence to support any of this. Oh, and by the way, if the primary was over months ago, how come the Annointed One has not reach the proper number of pledged delegates yet? Why haven't the Democratic leaders stepped in and declared the primary over?
And when has Hillary EVER required our indulgence? What she has asked for? Our votes. Something Barack Obama has yet to do. And it's a bit rich to infantilize Hillary when the whole Obama campaign has been like a fratboy wet dream. Loaded with sexism and contempt for older voters and people who have to struggle to make a living. And where coolness and quasi-religious revivalism has been what passes for substance and policy. But who needs that when you have a "movement".
"In the actual world, the only way Clinton can win the nomination, absent some genuine catastrophe, is for the superdelegates to decide to give her the nomination. If that happened, would she be more electable? She might have an edge over Obama in Appalachia, but she would surely be at a serious disadvantage among African-American voters. This might not have been true had she won the primary on pledged delegates: in that case, Obama's supporters would probably be disappointed, but would manage to get over it."
I'll let Paul Lukasiak deal with that one if he wishes. He has done great statistical analysis showing that this is pure BS.
But for all the talk of the "real world", what is missing from this post is, well, the real world.
The real world where the media is in the tank for Obama and has not hesitated to carry the most prurient narratives, along with the so-called progressive blogosphere.
The real world where absurd accusations of racism were thrown around so idiotically that now, Republican and conservative groups will be able to put out actually racist materials, and when the Obama campaign whines about it, it will be seen as crying wolf yet again ("they were whining about it with Hillary too, already").
The real world where racist discourse is unacceptable (thank goodness) but vile sexism is used and reused in polite conversations (and not so polite, white bitch!), in the media, across the so-called progressive blogs without any concerns for the real consequences of such discourse.
The real world where the Democratic leadership either sees Obama as a gigantic ATM (victory in November be damned) or just got caught up in the hipness of the "movement", with a complete disconnect to what happened to the kind of candidates Obama represents (McGovern comes to mind, of course).
The real world where the DNC has its collective thumb solidly on the scale in favor of the Senator from Illinois.
The real world where Obama has no coattails because the Democrats for a Day he has brought along are interested in voting for HIM, but now in downticket races.
The real world where the half of these great turnouts has voted for Hillary.
The real world where Obama can no longer be seen as a legitimate candidate , all by his own doing because there has been no such thing as "fair and square."
But I guess, it's all Hillary's fault. Only she has agency. Obama sits on the mountain, basking on the lovefest, deigning to make a few noble pronouncement when it does not matter anymore (RFK again) and the wankfest has already taken place.
We need more than a blogosphere 2.0. We need Liberalism 2.0.