My New Name For A Blog

What Jane Said About What Digby Said.

Maybe it's nothing more than the fact that it's been sunny and warm, with the daylight extending almost to 8:00 pm. Maybe it's the lilacs and woad in full bloom in my back yard (For the last few days, I swear that I've literally been able to hear the Earth thrumming: Beltane, Beltane, Beltane!) Maybe it's the win Hillary pulled off in Pennsylvania due, in large part, to those old women in boxy blazers. Or maybe there's more, but, in any case, I'm lately feeling quite hopeful about almost everything.

As Jane notes that Digby said:

To me, this primary is actually a good thing for the fall. All this hand wringing strikes me as typical Democratic nervous nellie-ism. A huge increase in Democratic voter registration, building of strong ground operations in most states, new technologies being beta tested, lots of media coverage and battle testing for the nominee are of benefit to the nominee in the fall. Meanwhile, the Democrats stay at center stage while McCain wanders around in obscurity, failing to raise money and leaving a trail of gaffes in his wake. As long as they don't know at whom to aim their fire the Republicans can't cement their narrative. In the end, I remain convinced that we are going into an election that is so fundamentally seismic that either of them can win it, even if more closely than we might want, due to the breakthrough nature of their campaigns. The primary continuing on is not going to change that.

I don't think people realize that the democratization the internet has brought to the system is also one of the main reasons why the campaign goes on. If you think superdelegates are undemocratic, back in the bad old days (of a couple of cycles ago) big party donors pulled the strings by pulling the money when they decided that someone had no chance to win. Today, both candidacies are where they are on the basis of avid small donor supporters contributing online and that's prolonged things past the point where it would have in the past. Thousands of Clinton supporters keep sending her money-- ten million since last night, apparently. So, if you don't like the fact that the campaign continues, blame the internet. It wouldn't have happened under the old paradigm.

Obama supporters could do themselves and the party a big favor if they'd quit crying about how that eeeeevvvvvvvvvviiiiiiillllllll woman needs to shut up "so we can speak with one (man's) voice!" and step down before she "destroys" the guy who is supposedly going to be able to stand up to the Republican slime machine. I didn't like it when Sandra Day and her Gang of Four shut down democracy in Florida and I don't like it when Obama's supporters try to do it in the Democratic primary. I am just saying. Have a little faith -- in your candidate and in the process.

As Digby explains:

the fact that Clinton is still winning big primaries and getting campaign contributions makes it ridiculous to expect her --- or any politician --- to quit (no matter what the NY Times editorial board says.) She has a legitimate constituency (nearly half the voters) in the party that wants her to see this through. As Somerby says in response to Maureen Dowd's typically daft (and equal opportunity insulting) column this morning:


This year’s campaign has shown what can happen when a party has two closely-matched candidates. There are potential downsides for the party, as anyone can see. But journos like Dowd think it’s their role to demand that the person they hate should just quit. Those million-plus Democrats [who voted for her yesterday] don’t exist in Dowd’s world. In Dowd’s world, Dowd wants Clinton to quit. And so, by the laws of childish dreams, “the Democrats” must want that too.


Since I don't think the Democratic Party will crumble from the stress of finishing up the primaries (or even a brokered convention for that matter) until Obama officially wraps up the number of delegates and superdelegates to go over the magic number, I think she has a right to continue.