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.

The two are very very different candidates IMO, though. Clinton is the candidate I've most strongly opposed since this race began (in the Democratic primaries) and will continue to oppose until it's decided (at which point, if it's her, obviously I think she's a lot better than any of the Republicans). Obama is one of the candidates I've liked and been considering supporting for a long time (initially I was undecided between Obama, Edwards, and Richardson, then I added Dodd to the list in late summer).

There's definitely a large "not Hillary!" constituency in the Democratic party (of which I am part) and she's helped by the fact that there are multiple candidates for that support to split among. If it were all consolidated on one candidate, that candidate would win the nomination. As long as it remains a multi-way race, Clinton remains the most likely (but far from certain) winner.

[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.

As for not-Hillary: Nominating her would be moving the Democratic party into the past in many important ways. She's very committedly a creature of the Democratic party of the 90s, an age where you dealt with big donors, large corporations, and message was defined by the TV networks and the big newspapers, where the prevailing philosophy among Democratic leaders was based on a mentality of having been in charge for a very long time and mediating conflicts among the different Democratic-leaning interest groups while making moves to appeal to new people to keep the coalition together. We're not in that world anymore. Small donors can be as important as big donors, the influence of media leaders is waning, Republicans in Federal Government are no longer reasonable partners to work with (you can still work with them, but by leading rather than by starting with compromise), netroots politics has a meaningful role in message development and dissemination, the Democratic party has decentralized some power, etc. Hillary is too committed to the old order and she will perpetuate it. She will take a huge opportunity to really change the country, and squander it on small things. Also, her people, the ones loyal to her and who she's loyal to, will be a major obstacle to the Dean reforms, and slow down the party's transformation into what it's becoming and should become. Nominating Hillary would be a powerful (though, to most voters, invisible) vote for the past, for ossification and triangulation and centralization.

Now, a 90's style Democratic leadership for this country is so much better than Republican leadership that I have no qualms about that choice. But I'm also working very hard within the Democratic party to make it better, and a Hillary nomination would be a huge setback, doing many years worth of damage.