Well, that’s what I ended up going with when I wrote my Guardian column last night. Clinton did really well, so there’s no reason for her to get out. But she didn’t win by the huge margin she needed to change the dynamic of the race. And on (and on) we go.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Anonymous
Hi Dan,Whay are you, and other media in certain quarters, so dismissive of her accomplishments? And why shouldn’t the campaign go on and on until there’s a delegate/super delegate winner? Hillary’s just running under the guidelines imposed by the party. She’s not doing anything improper, shady, immoral. She didn’t get Florida and Michigan reruns, so what is the problem with her staying in the race? She has every right to keep going and I hope (Obama speak), she does.Ann
Dan Kennedy
Ann: Where did I say she should drop out?
md
NYT shouts, at the top of the editorial page, stop tearing apart the Democratic party and giving leeway to McInsane: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?ref=todayspaper
Anonymous
Dan, no reason for Clinton to get out? How about this: the only way she can win the nomination is if the supers pull an all-out coup against the Democratic electorate and give it to her, resulting in a schism in the party and a new generation of completely disaffected voters.Barring that horrific McCain’s wet dream of an outcome, Obama has won the nomination, and more supers are endorsing him every day. Whatever he lost to Clinton last night, he’ll make up in NC and Indiana. Why is Pennsylvania, Clinton’s home state, the be all and end all? Because she says it is?Clinton should get out because she has clearly lost by any reasonable standard and her campaign is waging the same tactics against Obama that the Republicans will deploy in the general election, thus laying the groundwork for them. What need does McCain have for money when Clinton runs his ads for him? pg
Dan Kennedy
pg: God almighty, read my lips. I didn’t say she should get out. And I didn’t say there was no reason for her to get out. I am commenting on the campaign as it is, not as people might wish it to be.
Anonymous
Dan, in your post, “The nothing primary II,” you wrote:”Clinton did really well, so there’s no reason for her to get out.”What nuance did I miss that lip reading would provide?
Dan Kennedy
My mistake was in using the passive voice. I could have (should have) written, Clinton did really well, so no doubt she’ll stay in. Personally, I couldn’t care less whether she stays or goes. That’s not uninterest — it’s disinterest.
Anonymous
I get it. I’ll admit I was a little surprised at the assertion.One other thing while I’m going on: Has anyone pointed out that the reason the MSM is consistently downplaying the fact that Obama has won is becuase this epic Hillary vs. Barack bout is good for business?I know they mention it. But you’d think the utter futility of what Clinton is attempting to do would be something you’d want to clarify, say, before the jump or whatever.
Dan Kennedy
Anon 1:28: It’s certainly good for the cable nets. I’m pretty sure Chris Matthews even made a quip about that last night. It’s bad for other media. This doesn’t increase newspaper circulation or advertising one iota, and costs a fortune to cover.