It's Not About Plausible, but Possible
by
tomoser
05/03/2008, 2:01 AM #
Does Hillary have a plausible or 'superficially fair' (Merriam-Webster online) shot at the 2025 pre-convention? No! The article's author's analysis makes this clear. The article's author also makes clear that it is perhaps not plausible for Obama to achieve 2025 delegates by convention time either ... if Hillary does not "just quit".
The crux of the article seems to be the author's assertion that the general media is hyping that Hillary has a superficially fair shot at winning her contest...and in his opinion she does not have a plausible shot, so they should stop reporting that way.
That is like telling the sports announcers of the NCAA finals, that Kansas was down by 9 with two minutes to go, and that it was a dis-service to all the viewers to speak in terms of it being a three-3-point goal game, becuase down nine points with two minutes left is not a plausible opportunity to win. I won't bother to fully draw the analogy with the refusal of superbowl announcers to call the Super Bowl with two minutes to go either.
It is not about plausibility. It is about world class competitors fighting to the last ounce of strength for something to which their whole being is dedicated to achieve. They press on whether the surrounding observers would have the fortitude to press on or not - an uncertainty that likely colors their call for HIllary to quit.
In HIllary's situation, the media has what it thrives on... it is focused on making sense of a world class competitor, in the thick of a real game, with the clock running, with a world class prize at stake, and the general knowledge that her opponent can not win before the buzzer runs out and puts this contest into overtime (or a convention).
The last time a powerful, world class, competent, smart, experienced, groomed and credible political leader "just quit" in the high stakes arena of presidential politics, this country lost its compass and went to Iraq. Al Gore had a reasonable chance in 1999 and some misguided sense that it was right and honorable to just quit in a statistically indeterminant situation in which the White House hung in the balance. For whatevere reason, in the end, he quit and allowed another to take this country to where we are today.
The media must talk about the possibe routes to the convention, becuase Hillary is no Al Gore. She will not be quitting becuase other poeple may think it's the 'right thing to do'. And, as long as the situation holds that the only way her opponent can win is by her quitting, then she is obligated to fight and force the issues. She is not a Mitt Romney with piles of disposable cash being placed down like bets on 'real options' that are weighed for plausibility and expected return on dollars invested. She too has prepared her whole life, and is one of the most prepared condidates running.
Are we past the age of supporting people who strive for worthy goals with all one's strength, will and life's blood against any circumstances? Is the proper rallying cry of the media and the people to "fight on with all one's might only after one weighs the situation and determines there exists a superficially fair chance of a favorable outcome?"
Our country does no longer have the luxury of choosing leaders whose core values and motivations for running for office are rooted in plausibility alone. At this point, it would be a disservice to Obama to hand him the nomination becuase Hillary quit. His credibility and confidence would be compromised for the real race ahead. Give him the chance to win this thing outright. Give Hillary the due credit for her demonstrated perseverance, and if it is not reasonable to expect Obama to get 2025 by convention time - then the article's author may need to rethink the plausibility of the possible final outcoes of that convention.
