It seems to me that this is a straight-forward Political Question -- that is, there is no morally correct answer, but only one that suits the political exigencies of the people involved. There is no question that if Obama were behind and it was instead Virginia and Illinois’ votes that weren’t being counted, his supporters would complain about unfairness in the political process, while Clinton’s would argue that it was all perfectly aboveboard, and all of this would be justified.
It’s like all Political Questions in that sense -- Bush v. Gore (loathe as we Dems are to admit it) is another one. Is there any doubt that if J. Kennedy had swung the other way, the Republicans would have cried foul and we would have been rapidly justifying the decision? Hardly. That’s why it’s so frustrating to read the debate here on Slate and elsewhere -- it’s nearly impossible to discern the rational argument from the blazing partisanship. It’s like a science experiment where the results are molded to support the hypothesis without regard to any objective viewpoint.
Personally, I am an Obama supporter, ish. I’d say a “hundred dollar” supporter -- I like him, I was moved enough by his Rev Wright speech to donate $100 bucks, but I’m not breaking the bank. Still, and despite the general reservations that I share with many about Clinton, I find this whole primaries scenario extremely troubling. I certainly don’t consider Obama to blame -- he’s doing exactly what anyone would do. But that doesn’t make it less troubling.
Most troubling, to my mind, has been the consistent call for Clinton to declare defeat. These calls obviously make more sense as time goes by, but they’ve been going on for months now, with many primaries still at stake. The whole reason we are in this mess to begin with is that Michigan and Florida wanted to go early in the primary season because they were worried that the late primaries don’t really count. In refusing to allow them to do that, the DNC was essentially (if not explicitly) saying, “No no, you wait your turn, don’t worry, your votes will count, too.” But if anything, these calls for Clinton to quit merely justify the decisions by those states. If, in the closest primary we’ll probably ever see, the last ten to fifteen states simply don’t matter, then we’re basically admitting that they will *never* matter. Why shouldn’t states want to move up if, even in the midst of a near dead heat, we don’t want to count their votes?
This is also troubling because, as in the aforementioned Bush v. Gore scenario, the clarion call of Democrats was “what’s the rush?” The Republicans wanted that vote wrapped up for the sake of “closure,” because the country couldn’t function with all the “uncertainty,” while the Democrats kept arguing, hey, we have plenty of time, the important thing is to get it right. We've completely forgotten that mantra, all for the sake of a desired result. And of course, I’m hardly the first to point out that it’s troubling that Democrats who were so keen to have every vote counted then have backed away from that now.
I think it’s also really troubling that the DNC had no plans for this contingency. We mock the administration all the time for its lack of foresight, particularly with respect to Iraq. But in January the DNC essentially said, well, let’s not solve this problem now, let’s just hope it doesn’t blow up in our faces. Oops.
So, is Clinton making it difficult to move to the next stage of this thing by fighting on? Probably. (Though there is an argument that All Press for the Dems is Good Press.) But Obama supporters, and even we Obama-ish supporters, could make it easier by taking a deep breath, letting go of the fear that it will come unraveled, and just waiting until it’s done.
