Why the different standard?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

Honestly, if it was John Edwards and Barack Obama with the same numbers ... would everyone be insisting JE should drop out? I doubt it.


I saw this wyldwolf post buried in another thread; and believe it deserving of it's own thread.

A reminder
Posted by wyldwolf on Wed May-14-08 02:36 PM


In 1980 Ted Kennedy never dropped out. He went to the convention with 1,225 delegates. Carter had 1,981. 122 delegates were uncommitted. Kennedy had even less of a chance to secure the nomination than Clinton has today. Kennedy went so far as to try and get delegates to change their allegiance while the convention was happening! Yet his supporters then, and even many "progressives" today, respect Kennedy for the principle of his futile fight.


And when Carter secured the nomination, and Kennedy refused to stand with him and raise his hand in victory as is traditional, where were the howls of outrage then? Well, from the left there was stone cold silence. No cries of party division from the left. No idiotic proclamations that the "Kennedys (Clintons) don't give a damn about our party" from the left. Kennedy was treated as a hero.


If it's such a horrid thing now, when will Ted Kennedy apologize for the side show he put on in 1980 at Madison Square Garden when he was down by over 700 delegates?


Now, I do happen to agree that Hillary should pack it in and get behind Obama for the good of the party. But these childish over-the-top temper tantrums coming from the left and directed at Clinton for doing something she is perfectly allowed to do based on party rules adds no credibility to the bloggers that do them. They should also cease... for the good of the party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5966790&mesg_id=5967503


So ... with a delegate spread of somewhere around 165 ... why the different standard?




edit to add link

[Occam Bandage]

1. You're right. There is a double standard. If it were anyone but Clinton in second, they'd be done.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

6. Is that your opinion or can you prove that? n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Yes. We'd be insisting Edwards drop out.

He figured it out in February, though.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

8. LOL ... he wasn't even close! Apples and oranges. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Neither is she.

February 19th.

3 months of bullshit.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

18. Kennedy had a 700+ delegate deficit. Compared to that ...

she's breathing down his neck.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Kennedy was wrong, too.

[anonymous171]

26. And we lost that year.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

35. Not because of the primary battle.

Recession and Iranian Hostage Crisis sound familiar?

[anonymous171]

3. Didn't we lose in 1980?

[ecstatic]

4. maybe because so much is at stake?

:shrug: We're on the verge of a complete collapse.

[JoFerret]

21. It was at stake in 1980 too

Reagan. Remember Reagan.
And talk of a stolen election and dems effing up....

[rpannier]

5. It's the nature of politics

When our person does it... It's being brave, cool and principled.

When their person does it... It's being selfish, egotistical and stupid.

Kind of like what Franklin said about Revolutions...

Revolution is always legal in the first person, such as our Revolution. It's only in the third person, their revolution that it's illegal.

[JohnnyLib2]

80. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[BayouBengal07]

7. Whould everyone be insisting JE or BO drop out?

Yes. We're half-way through May. The election is in November. It's time to get behind one candidate. Especially if the numbers were the same. It would be equally mathematically impossible.

[FrenchieCat]

9. It's called "the Math".

Try it.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. the math

says neither candidate has enough delegates yet.

[Gore1FL]

46. But it also says who needs less than 1/3 of the delegates remaining

and it also shows that the only night this nomination phase Hillary gained more than her needed rate of net delegates/available delegates was May 13.

In the last 2 days, Hillary netted 12 pledged delegates Obama netted 8.5 Super Delegates. So even the math there tells the story.

If Edwards 19 delegates go to Obama after this endorsement that also makes the math a bit better for him.

Not including those 19, Obama needs about 30 pledged delegates to secure a majority of them. that adds 5 more "Pelosi Club" delegates. That part of the math points to Obama, because to get those thirty next Tuesday Clinton would have to win both KY and OR by over 71%.

I understand your loyalty to your candidate. I supported Edwards until he dropped out of the race. I recognized he wasn't going to get the nomination after NV and SC. I would have voted for him on Super Tuesday had he not dropped out. I still recognized he wasn't going to win.

The final blow to Clinton's nomination hopes realistically happened in WI.

[highplainsdem]

10. No. And they'd be in favor of a unity ticket.

[BlooInBloo]

11. "I do happen to agree that Hillary should pack it in" - HAHAHAA!!!

EDIT: Sentences need subjects.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

16. Yes, I included that because I wasn't trying to skew

anything by dishonestly omitting a part that I disagree with. That's the poster's opinion, but not the question I'm asking.

[WeDidIt]

12. Who won in 1980?

Contested primary in 1984 between HArt and Mondale, almost went to the convention.

Who won in 1984.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan took it to the convention against Ford.

Who won in 1976?

In 1972, there was a contentious primary on the Democratic side.

Who won in 1972?

In 1968, we had the most contentious Democratic convention in history.

Who won in 1968.

There's forty years of history with contentious conventions for you.

My final question is, who do you want to win in 2008?

[rpannier]

83. I agree with you on some of what you said, but...

1. We were gonna lose in 84. It had nothing to do with Hart carrying it to the convention. The way was cleared for Mondale by the establishment the way it was for Dole in 96.

2. We had quite a contentious little primary in 92. Jerry Brown took it all the way to the convention as well and we won.
You can credit/blame Pat Buchanan for that -- he did take his little racist road show to the republikkan convention.
But, he was not contending for the office at that point -- he was trying to get as much of his reichwing platform enshrined at the convention.

[rateyes]

13. Do you remember who won the 1980 General Election?

That's why.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Uh, you realize that Edwards already dropped out, right?

Just checking.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Hey, talk to Marcia Pappas about that.

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/01/hillary-clinton-volunteer-profile.html

It's her schtick.

[sakura]

70. Have you ever been gang raped?

My best friend was. Maybe you could show a little more sensitivity. Attacks within a contentious primary are not at all similar to a gang rape. Your response is over the top and completely offensive.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

73. I found it offensive too which is why I called the other

poster on it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. historically you are correct. And in 1972 there was a real nasty effort to stop Sen.McGovern

and they fought it all the way to the convention floor well after it was crystal clear that Sen McGovern was the nominee -- and then they tried to block his nomination with the dirtiest of tactics and under handed deals. This totally took away the ability to spend time on serious matters like selecting and vetting a VP candidate and adequately planning for an orderly convention and a general election campaign.

And for that matter in 1968 Sen. McCarthy fought all the way to the convention well after it was clear that Vice President Humphrey would be the nominee - and then Sen. McCarthy only endorsed Vice President Humphrey a few days before the general election in November.

And come to think of it, Sen. Hart fought all the way to the convention in 1984 well after it was clear that former Vice President Mondale would be the nominee.

But what these cases of 1968, 1972, 1980 and 1984 ALL have in common is that the Democratic nominee lost that year.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. the lesson is - if you want the Democrats to lose - then perhaps she should fight on to the end

just like the Democrats lost in 1968, 1972, 1980 and 1984.

[Benhurst]

47. Or the lesson could just as well be that when no unifying candidate emerges

from the primaries, the party is likely to go into the general election divided and is more likely to be defeated.

[eridani]

43. In 1980, the left was doing tit for tat

In retrospect, that strategy really sucked. Howeer, thanks for pointing out that the conservatives did it first.

[Gore1FL]

20. Probably Edwards would have dropped out by and unified behind the nominee

[Orangepeel]

22. Yeah. Clinton has faced sexism in her life and in this race, but calls to drop out aren't an example

Anybody whose last name wasn't Clinton would have been forced out long ago, like after the Potomac Primary.

She didn't drop out because she is nothing if not tenacious. But being an icon of the Democratic Party married to an icon of the Democratic Party kept her in the race long after anyone else, male for female, would have been completely abandoned by superdelegates in the interests of Party unity.

[AZBlue]

24. Two reasons: a two-term George W. Bush "presidency" & Clinton's ulterior motive.

This is a desperate situation - we must focus on winning in November and Clinton is now only a distraction.

Also, Kennedy hadn't run his campaign like Clinton has nor did he go to the convention so he could weaken his opponent and then run again in 4 years.

[juajen]

75. Oh, really! Please bookmark this thread.

BAM-BAM is a FLIM-FLAM.

[AZBlue]

82. "Bam-bam"?? How rude and childish of you!

Welcome to Ignore.

[last1standing]

25. First, your source is one of the worst for veracity you could possibly use.

Second, Kennedy's little tantrum kept the party from having time to heal before the general election which left us with trickle down economics and a religious takeover of our politics.

Is that what you want?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

31. Was there anything untrue he stated?

Reagan won because the economy was in the dumper, and the Iran hostage crisis. Carter was dead in the water.

[last1standing]

41. Yes, there was a lot he stated that was untrue.

The major point being that people didn't get pissed with Kennedy because of his tantrum. We did get pissed, a lot of us.

Second, he tries to use his lie to justify sabotaging the party again! That is not only stupid but deceitfully so.

Third, your point that the economy and Iran made Carter "dead in the water" is untrue. He was in an uphill battle but as bush* the lesser proved in 2004, it can be done.

[Captain Hilts]

28. On the Brady Bunch, Marcia Brady dropped out of the class prez. race against Greg...

Beats me why.
Clinton was ahead of McCain by a wider margin of victory than Obama last week.

She won the WV primary.

If Obama is so inevitable, why the fuss?

[Beacool]

30. Obama just lost several voters.

My cell phone wouldn't stop ringing since Edwards' endorsement. So far, 3 will either not vote or write-in her name, one will actually vote for McCain. Nice going folks!!!

Unity in the fall?

:rofl:

[last1standing]

66. You're happy to lose reproductive rights and see another 4000 kids die in Iraq?

That says everything about you and your twisted friends I need to know.

Laugh it up now because either way YOU LOSE! :rofl:

[Lex]

67. No loss from people with narrow ideals like that

in the first place.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. George Washington ran unapposed. Why the double standard???

Join us here is the present. We have a lot of shit to get done.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[SaveOurDemocracy]

68. okie dokie

[sniffa]

34. It's sexism

The Ol' Boys Club.

It sickens me. :puke:

[unlawflcombatnt]

36. Because Obama is terrified that Hillary might still win

And so is the media and all of Obama's worshipers.

[anonymous171]

42. I see you registered on hillaryclintonforum

[rodeodance]

49. why was it nec. for you to call that poster out. that poster is a DU member. mind your own life.

[juajen]

76. So fucking what? Where have you registered lately? NT

[libbygurl]

45. HOW MANY MEN WILL IT TAKE TO BEAT ONE WOMAN?

[TexasObserver]

37. Hillary follows no standards. It's all about her, and no rules apply.

She's a spoiled brat who has had life given her on a silver platter. Now she's being denied, and the spoiled brat is revealing itself in all her tantrum filled splendor.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

40. Do you believe you sound like a rational adult? n/t

[TexasObserver]

48. Do I care what you think?

No. Now run along, Hill fan. You lost.

[rodeodance]

51. what a childish post.

[TexasObserver]

57. whatever

your candidate is done

live with it

[SaveOurDemocracy]

56. What comes next?

"I'm rubber, you're glue..."? Get a grip.

[TexasObserver]

58. I'm rubber, you're glue

get your own grip

your candidate lost, and you can't handle it

[SaveOurDemocracy]

tsk tsk ... such a bitter whiner ... errrr ... winner?

[TexasObserver]

60. tsk tsk ... such a bitter loser

[rodeodance]

53. She is breaking no rules. Yet you feel free to demean her. just like a bully would.

........

She's a spoiled brat who has had life given her on a silver platter. Now she's being denied, and the spoiled brat is revealing itself in all her tantrum filled splendor.

[TexasObserver]

59. Hillary is a spoiled brat, and has been her entire life.

If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

61. Guess who sounds like the spoiled brat? n/t

[TexasObserver]

69. that would be YOU

Are you always so obsessive compulsive about nagging people who disagree with you?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

72. I'll put this in a language you'll understand...

[rodeodance]

78. Still being rude and name-calling--just like a bratty school-yard bully would do.

[busymom]

39. Because it's a man's world...

Just visit the thread about sexism in the main stream media....and...you'll also come to understand some of the deep bitterness and resentment many of her supporters harbor.

[KaptBunnyPants]

44. So Ted Kennedy led a convention fight against Carter, and we got Reagan.

How do you think this helps your cause?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

65. The convention fight was NOT the reason for the loss ...

1. RECESSION

2. HOSTAGE CRISIS

[DemGa]

50. Ted Kennedy screwing Carter pretty much sums up that crowd

This is the liberal left - they will destroy ANYTHING for their agenda, including of course, the Democratic Party.

This is just their latest run for power.

[Bjornsdotter]

52. K & R n/t

[zabet]

54. k and r

:hi:

[rodeodance]

55. Most Obama fans can't tolerate some competition. So they act like bullies.

[SoonerPride]

62. Competition is fine. Knowing when to say "uncle" is also part of the game.

Don't make Obama continue to punch your lights out. The game is over.

Go out gracefully before the refs have to stop the fight because he's about to make a fucking vegetable out of you.

It's called class. Something the Clinton's left on a shelf somewhere in a town called Hope.

[rodeodance]

77. You have trouble with reading comprehension related to the OP. Or just obtuse. take your pick.

[stillcool]

63. I guess you should ask the Democrats of 1980?

[Cameron27]

64. K&R

[JFN1]

71. It's not a double standard unless all of the conditions are the same

And conditions are nothing like they were in the 70's and 80's. Politics has moved literally worlds away from the environment which existed at that time.

[hfojvt]

74. there's a different standard from the left

because the left supports the candidates of the left, Kennedy and Obama. Naturally we want the leaders of the left to keep fighting and continue to hope they win, just as we want the leaders of the center/right to be defeated and hope they quit.

But it was a different time and we do not have full information. Maybe Kennedy had some reason, besides just losing, to be mad at Carter. Maybe we would have been the loudest calling for him to quit and unite.

[JohnnyLib2]

79. K & R

[Catchawave]

81. K&R

[crimsonblue]

84. Yeah... how'd that election turn out for the democratic party?

Or how did the election in 72 turnout for the party? Or how did the 68 election turn out for the party? There's a reason going to convention is bad-- it likely means we will lose. But the article did get one thing right, if the tables were switched nobody would be calling for him to drop out right now-- he would have been chased off a month ago at the first sign the math wasn't in his favor... And I do remember everyone telling Edwards to drop out after SC, when it became clear he couldn't win. Man, the freeper wing is out in full force today.