Cult of iconography

[cormac]

Senator Clinton sent emails out today, telling her supporters that she would withdraw from the campaign on Saturday and throw her support to Senator Obama. While I obviously don't have access to any of the emailed responses, the Clinton campaign put the email up on the website, which can be accessed here:

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/04/030945

The responses on the blog have been an interesting study in the transition from a cult of personality to a cult of iconography. Clinton's most vocal supporters have a very specific view of reality that casts Clinton as a hero, martyr and messiah who will lead us all to the promised land, Obama, the DNC and the media as the evil villains who muscled Clinton out of the limelight and stole the election, and McCain exclusively as a prop to demonstrate their refusal to support the villains in this melodrama.

When confronted with Clinton's statement, as well as previous statements declaring that it would be a grave mistake not to support the Democratic nominee, Clinton's followers have nonetheless kept to the narrative. Some have demanded that she keep running, either as a Democrat (by pushing through to the convention) or as an Independent (the more common suggestion) or write-in candidate. Most are dissatisfied with the notion of her as the VP candidate, saying it degrades her. And none of them can bring themselves to even begin to entertain the notion of supporting Obama.

For these people, nothing matters now but the mythos of the campaign. Clinton's words and actions will not change their minds, but only further their anger and despair.

Comments

[patgund.livejournal.com]

Couple things caught my attention:

The first is something I've noticed thoughout the campaign. Namely projection, I've seen a lot of Sen. Clinton's more die-hard "supporters" blame Sen. Obama for the exact same stuff Sen. Clinton's campaign pulled. And let's face it, if Sen. Clinton didn't have the last name she had, her campaign would have been over the minute she started talking about "Bosnian Sniper Fire". Her campaign pulled the race card, she lied repeatedly on the campaign trail - yet he's the sexist liar who only got to where he was because he is Black.

Second off, the claim that she won the popular vote. Yes she did....depending on what math you use. For example, according to Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

There are six ways to figure out popular vote. The first is popular vote for all non-caucus states:

Type - Obama, Clinton, Spread

Popular Vote Total - 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% - Obama +41,622 +0.1%

The second is popular vote, with estimated votes for caucus states:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* - 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% -Obama +151,844 +0.4%

The third is popular vote, plus Michigan's votes for Clinton (Obama was not on ballot)

Popular Vote (w/MI) - 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% - Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

The fourth is popular vote, plus Michigan's votes, plus caucus estimates:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* - 17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% - Clinton +176,465 +0.5%

The fifth is popular vote, plus Michigan, with MI's uncommitted votes going to Obama:

Popular Vote (w/MI
Uncommitted to Obama)** - 17,773,626 48.0% 17,822,145 48.1% - Clinton +48,519 +0.1%

The sixth and final is the same as the fifth, but with caucus state estimates:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* - 18,107,710 48.1% 18,046,007 47.9% - Obama +61,703 +0.2%

So, depending on which math you use, either Clinton or Obama won the popular vote. Clinton "supporters" tend to prefer the ones that give no Michigan votes at all to Obama because those are the two major ones he loses under.

The cynical side of me honestly thinks that Sen. Clinton has encouraged her "supporters" to think this way, as to poison the well for Sen. Obama in hopes he loses. That way the DLC gains control of the Democratic party again, and Sen. Clinton can play the "I told you so" ticket and position herself for a 2012 run. And Clintons campaign has lied about so much that, when given the choice between reality and the myths she's created, her followers would prefer the lies to admitting they were lied to.

[rameymj.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the world of politics. :) The closeness of race aggravates the situation. Most DEMs will be realist, and vote the party candidate in NOV knowing that splitting the DEM vote will elect a REP.


WvF

[just4bonk.livejournal.com]

I'd like to point out Nader in 2000 and 2004. Not making an argument one way or the other, just a useful point of reference.

[rameymj.livejournal.com]

That's not to say that enough will split off or not vote giving the victory to McCain, but the majority will vote the party.

IIRC, Obama was not going to ask her to be VP. IMHO, the best path for the party, he should offer it to her, and she should turn it down.

WvF

[mysryael.livejournal.com]

this so clearly dovetails with something I heard yesterday that I feel the need to share.

Let Obama offer the vice presidency to Clinton, just make sure that the first initial is B.

It would shut her supporters down and they would blink like crazy.

Me, I'm hoping he has the sense to pick someone that he can share some really hard days with, because the times they are a changing and not for the better.