It's not crying unless there's snot.

[blueyedbaby]

As misogynistic as it is, as dumb as it is, as much of an inaccurate reading and waste of time as it is, I absolutely LOVE that Hillary getting a little choked up (note: her voice cracked; she was not crying) is turning out to be one of these iconic campaign moments, on par with (for better or worse) the Checkers speech and Howard Dean's 2004 "

Comments

[cos]

Neither Hillary nor Obama would drop out until it's decided, and when it's decided, pretty much everyone who's supporting any of the Democrats in the primaries is going to support the winner, regardless of how different or similar they are. However, if Obama were to drop out before it's decided, I very highly doubt most of his supporters would move to Clinton - I think a very large chunk of them would move to Edwards; if Clinton dropped out before it's decided, perhaps most of her supporters would go to Obama

[blueyedbaby]

I guess I agree with you that Obama's people wouldn't move to Hillary, but from every Hillary supporter I've spoken to, if she were to concede, all of them would be backing Obama within the hour. I just think it's especially tragic that after we all saw the mistakes of 2004 we're still facing the problem of such divisiveness among people who hold such similar beliefs (as, for example, you and I hold).

Also, can you explain the not-Hillary movement to me? I don't really understand it at all. I mean, I completely understand choosing to support another candidate, but the whole "anyone-but-____" ideology seems kind of strange to me, not to mention it got us into a bit of trouble 4 years ago.

[cos]

I don't think it's troublesome divisiveness, because there aren't a lot of people who would otherwise want to support a Democrat but who will not support Hillary if she is nominated. It's just that for a lot of people backing Obama, other Democrats are far preferable as their next choice, so if Obama weren't an option they'd switch to that someone else

[lifeofbai]

Glad to see you are officially on the Hillary bandwagon. There aren't enough folks our age who are. ;)
- Ray

[senadeth]

How is Clinton more progressive than Obama? Obama is rated higher on the environment by the League of Conservation Voters and he's consistently against the war. (Clinton's vote for the war - and Edwards', and Kerry's - were driven mainly by public opinion leading up to an election year. I was a big supporter of Kerry-Edwards but I think they all deserve blame for what happened.) I'll give you that Clinton's health care plan is more ambitious, but I'm swayed by Obama's argument that costs should be lowered before a mandate is imposed to buy coverage that not everyone can afford

[lifeofbai]

How is Hillary not "consistently against the war"? She voted against the surge and voted in favor of a spending bill that required Bush to create a timetable for withdrawal. How are these views not in line with the mainstream views of the Democratic party when she supports withdrawal of troops and does not support escalation of the war? True, she was not against the war from its inception, but she has a plan to get us out of Iraq now. Another issue she is given grief for is her vote to renew the PATRIOT Act, but she also voted for amendments that show her support of civil liberties: 1) voted "yes" on preserving habeas corpus for detainees, 2) voted "yes" on an amendment requiring the CIA to report on the treatment of detainees (so that torture would not be used), and 3) voted "yes" on a provision to eliminate warrantless wiretaping. Finally, Hillary is stronger on immigration and fiscal matters than Obama, IMO.

In response to your comment about health care, I direct you to Paul Krugman's November 30 column in the NYTRe: your second

[cos]

Hillary voted for the war to begin with. She did not really criticise it for a good long time. She still resists saying it was a mistake, or that she shouldn't have voted for it. She doesn't seem to want to say openly what a disaster it really is, and is hedging her comments to try to appeal to all sides and sound reasonable. Hillary on the war is kind of like a horoscope: Whoever you are, you can read it such that it appeals to you.

[lifeofbai]

Over 2/3 of the country supported the war at the time based on the premise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Congress was briefed on this matter and told there was definitive evidence on this. Almost every leader in the developed world (particularly those in the G8 nations) similarly believed that Iraq had WMDs. This doesn't excuse the fact that Congress voted to authorize the use of force or that practically no one read the National Intelligence Estimate, but it does not seem as though this was a completely arbitrary, unreasoned decision to make.

She cannot afford to disavow her past actions because then she will be pinned as a "flip-flopper," and this will be just more fodder for the Republican attack machine. All that matters is that she is speaking out against the war now, and her actions show she is clearly against escalating the war and favors an exit strategy. Isn't that what Democrats as a whole want? Well, judging from her actions, I would say she will make accomplishing this end goal a priority.

- Ray

[blueyedbaby]

I guess my main question in all of this is this: there are seven Republican candidates that remain in the running. When a nominee is finally decided, will the former Fred Thompson camp or former Duncan Hunter camp still feel animosity toward whoever gets the nomination, just because it wasn't their guy, or will they suck it up and rally around the winner so that they have a chance at beating the Democrats?

I think the latter, but maybe I'll be wrong. Ron Paul's people certainly seem like they would break away from the party's unity to mope and be stubborn and immature. But I think this is a very different dynamic on the whole than the Democratic party, who every time seem to sort of reluctantly come together and do what they have to in order to win.

[cos]

Republicans as a whole this year appear to be very dissatisfied with all of their candidates.

Democrats as a whole this year seem to be much happier with their field. Most Democrats seem to really like multiple candidates (for example, I like Obama, Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson - and yes I know the last two just recently dropped out).

Overall, signs point towards Republicans being unhappy with their nominee whoever it turns out to be, this time around.

This isn't an inherent character flaw in Democrats or Republicans, it's a matter of who the candidates are and how people legitimately feel about their qualities.

Don't forget, though, that most people are neither Democrats nor Republicans. (that's especially true for Ron Paul's people)

[senadeth]

The unity of either party will depend on two factors: how polarizing the other candidate is, and how much time their own nominee spent the primaries being nice to their running-mates (like McCain, Huckabee, or Obama) or burning bridges (like Romney). I don't think McCain's or Ron Paul's people will be lining up to back Romney after all the things he's said, but they might if they hate our nominee even more. I think Jonathan Alter states it well in this article when he describes "hatred for the Clintons" as "the only thing the fractious GOP base can agree on this year

interesting exit poll numbers

[cos]

This seems relevant:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MIDEM

It relates to this discussion because Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot in Michigan (and Michigan got stripped of its delegates, for moving its primary up too early), which left Edwards and Obama supporters to choose either Uncommitted or one of the other candidates.

Scroll down to "Vote if All Candidates Were on Ballot" on that exit poll.
Of those who wanted to vote for Obama, about 4/5 voted Uncommitted.
Of those who wanted to vote for Edwards, nearly 1/3 voted Clinton and less than 2/3 Uncommitted.
That's a pretty significant difference.

Michigan has an open primary. About 4/5 of the voters in the Democratic primary exit poll identified as Democrats, and Hillary got 60% of their votes. A little less than 1/5 identified as independent, and Hillary got only 37% of their votes, vs. 51% Uncommitted and 11% Kucinich.