But this morning, as Clinton made the network morning-show rounds to claim victory, CBS’s Harry Smith did not really ask about the race’s math. Robin Roberts at “Good Morning America” did, but Clinton buzzed past it with a royal bromide—“at the end of the day, we are going to be the nominee”—and Roberts did not follow up. NBC’s Meredith Vieira actually got Clinton to acknowledge the importance of superdelegates and how her campaign wants them to be viewed. (In short, the Clinton line was that superdelegates are meant to weigh late-breaking information and determine who will be the best nominee—an electability argument based on buyer’s remorse.)
Obama has strong arguments to counter Clinton’s. Many will, like Clinton’s, overlap and contradict. (Think of how a “Rules are Rules” argument would cut both ways for Obama—stunting Clinton’s quest to get Michigan and Florida through the door, while de-stigmatizing superdelegates. After all, they are called for in the party rules.) But Obama occupies the high ground—Clinton’s arguments must be so strong as to change the status quo, and overcome any queasiness about superdelegates pulling a convention flip-flop.
Any argument so important deserves careful and aggressive parsing by the press. This isn’t about red states or blue states, or dissecting exit polls. It’s about demanding some honesty in a complicated debate.
- 1
- 2





In 2004, Kate Kenski and Erika Falk, two researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania used secondary data from 2000 National Annenberg Election Survey to do a multivariate, cross-section analysis to find out predictors of presidential gender preference in the United States. Their finding? If health care was seen as the main issue by the people, a woman was seen as a better choice. But if national security was seen as the most important issue, a man was preferred, though only marginally. A brilliant example of statistical analysis, the study leaves no scope for error.
That seems to make me confident that if Hillary Clinton continues to lay stress on the health care issue (underlying the assumption perhaps is also the stereotype that women are better caretakers - remember Mom! I do), she would continue to win new territory. And now she has taken over the security issue too! It is almost like a role reversal.
Talking about the issue of fairness, it is perhaps the closest the US has come and would come to electing a woman president. Or perhaps, an African American. But then women form more than 50 percent of the population. And that gives her a better electability too.
Posted by Shreesh
on Thu 6 Mar 2008 at 11:36 PM
With a universal healthcare initiative that doesn't make healthcare universally available, rather makes it compulsory ... feels a lot more dictating than caretaking.
I'm not sure she has a convincing enough argument for electability either. She hasn't had much luck pulling in swing votes. She's a very polarizing figure, she stands for censorship to many young voters, others see her indebtedness to her campaign financiers as well as her husband's.
I also think that when the mud starts to fly in the general election, she won't stand up so well under fire on national security either. She wasn't able to keep track on her husband, how's she going to keep track on the world? Not a fair argument, but neither was trying to say Kerry didn't earn his purple hearts.
Posted by AhmNee
on Fri 7 Mar 2008 at 04:14 PM
Three "purple hearts" for Kerry.... In three lousy months of of committing war crimes during his "combat" career... No evidence that he was treated with anything other than a Band-Aid for any of his so-called "injuries"... Never spent a single damned night in the hospital...
On top of this three month cushy "combat" career, Kerry asked for and received a desk-jockey war-time assignment in Manhattan.
Chicken-sh*t
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 7 Mar 2008 at 10:10 PM