Wednesday, March 12, 2008

"If this costs the Dems the Presidency, then so be it": A Simple Query

In the Long Ago Before Time, Harrogate was a Clintonista. But though the shine has in many ways worn off his support for Obama, there are still some matters Harrogate has yet to grasp. One of them has to do with this:

Not so long ago, solon wrote of the way this Primary is being conducted, "if this costs the Dems the Presidency, then so be it."

And, in all fairness, it does seem that when you scan the televised and internet-published Rhetorics of this Primary, that there are a lot of Obama supporters declaring themselves to feel this way.

And so, a question Harrogate has about the man he is now supporting for President.

What is the likelihood that Obama himself feels this way? And if he does feel this way, why doesn't he come out and say it? Indeed Harrogate would like to know more about the attitudes held by his presidential endorsee.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

My guess, which is educated but still only a guess, is that Obama would say that it's more about leadership (of course, their buzzword is judgment), on the President's part, and agency, on the citizens' part, than it is about any party or partisanship. But I also think he'd say that it would be much better to have Clinton in the White House than McCain.

And I do think he's said both of those things, more or less, throughout the campaign. I don't think he's combined them in order to succinctly answer a question like yours. (I'm not sure that question has been publicly posed to him.) But he has said both individually.

harrogate said...

Yes, he has indeed said both of those things individually, nd it is one of Harrogate's favorite things about him. And we are 100% agreed that his central warrant has to do with judgment and a capacity for Leadership; also fine principles that have played into his wheelhouse from the beginning.

And of course, he is going to believe he is the best choice among all of them--if he didn't, then why would he run? And so does Hill believe this about herself; thus, the Primary Contest is heated, and this is how it should be.

But there does appear to be a disconnect building with this Heat, amongst the actual voters in this nation (let's discount the disingenuous Repubs who invade our own primaries for the purposes of this discussion). It seems that the further this gets pushed, the more a goodly number of our fellow Obama supporters seem to be feeling that this fight for control of the Democratic Party is more important than the General Election.

What do you think about that? And, what do you conjecture tghat Obama himself thinks about it?

solon said...

Any primary concerns the fight over the "heart and soul" of the party, whether it be Republican or Democrat. though, typically, there are more ideological and policy differences between the candidates. In current primaries, there were vastly more ideological and policy differences for the Republicans than the Democrats with maybe John Edwards being the exception.

However, I think you need to define "supporters." Not all of his supporters suggest this (based on last night's exit polls). But, I would argue that there is a movement within the Democratic Party to reject Clintonianism and the Clintons. The fight between the two is a fight between the Super Delegates and could only be expressed once the people spoke and supported Senator Obama. Senator Kennedy provides an example of this. But I may have more to say about this much later as this needs more research.

Back to this campaign: I believe that, to some extent, since there are few differences than this has become personal or tribal and this is why we have the gender and race comments. It seems that we have long past the impartial stage of the election.

As for Senator Obama, only he knows how he feels personally about this issue. Publicly, his campaign is about transcending the tribal whereas Senator Clinton relies on the tribal in her speeches. Unfortunately, we can only discern and judge based on the language expressed in some form. Hence, our limitations as critics.