Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Bimbo's Wager

Bimbo --an avid Hillary supporter -- has "bet" Betty --a tepid Obama supporter -- that Hillary will drop out of the race within the next week. What do you all think? Betty was under the impression that, following all the Reverend Wright hand-wringing, Obama's numbers had been stagnant at best, but Bimbo is picking up desperation vibes from HRC's camp once again.

Also, Betty asks, why do we call him "Obama" and her "Hillary"? This seems to be the default nomenclature in casual conversation. Are people confused and think "Obama" is his first name? Is it just more fun to say? Or are we back to the "Frida"/"Pollock" problem so often demonstrated in the movies?

8 comments:

Nancy D., Girl Detective said...

Right on about the Obama/Hillary thing. I have been very careful about referring to her as "Clinton" on this blog and elsewhere. Though it's an issue that irks me, I generally don't chastise others for the 'referring to the female candidate by her first name' thing as that is how her campaign bills her. Still, I do think it is very gendered and not good. Maybe her campaign thinks it makes her more relatable? Or wants to distinguish her from the other Clinton?

I'm not sure about her dropping out. It seems like she listens to a very small circle of advisers who want her to go on. Yet big wigs in the party are pushing her loud and clear to drop out--a la Richardson--and I worry about this protacted fight while McCain has free reign to campaign his heart out. It's one thing to wait for the Pennsylvania primary, but it's another thing if it carries all the way through to the convention. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everyone is so interested in Obama/Clinton that McCain won't get much attention until we get a nominee.

By the way, can I just mention that I called the Reverend Wright scandal months ago on this very blog?

Jasen said...

I would be shocked if Sen. Clinton dropped out. I don't think she has much of a chance to win, but she has invested too much to drop out now. She is in a good position to work her way onto the ticket as VP--as much as this is something that I had dreaded a while ago, I think it might be necessary to achieve some healing within the party and make sure that her supporters vote in the fall.
I'm with Betty though, no drop out.

Montserrat Nicolás said...

we tend to refer to people, why I don't know, by their last names...so, 'clinton' is already taken and 'barack' sounds way too foreign.

hillary is NOT getting out! ponder this: her main cash is for the general election. obama is spending drillions of $ in ads (is this a win-win situation for marson-bursteller or what?).

I got to the conclusion months ago, that this whole thing is just to raise more $ for the general election...both will be on the ticket (as long as obama stays clear from mr. horse trader alias big beard richardson).

also, hillary leaving before the elton john concert???

not likely.

so...betty is right.

peace and love-
m.
ps. anybody know about some kind of tribute to norman mailer in NYC april, 9th?????? anybody?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LadyElaineFairchild said...

I think it comes down to the sociology of semantics. I agree with the earlier post - that "clinton is already taken". Indeed, and beyond that, this battle has unfortunately come down to visceral reactions to gender and race, for a good part of the voting population and its increasingly self-reflective motivations. Pro or against, Obama Whasthisname is a polarizing vehicle for people who fear tangible racial diversity and those who use their support for diversity and change to position themselves among the intellectual, "progressive" elite. People these days seem to be campaigning for themselves more than the candidates. All of this poses a certain difficulty for those of us who are indignant about immediate and neccessary reform of the inane electoral process.

I don't think Billary will drop out. I think her supporters will continue to bully the Democratic party with cheaply veiled threats of funding withdrawal if key players like Pelosi continue to argue against the power of superdelegates. If Pelosi & friends can't stand up to the Bush administration when it counts, I don't expect them to fight the good fight on this one - since we're not even sure what the good fight is.

Nancy D., Girl Detective said...

Lady Elaine, can you clarify your comments? I think you're right about people "campaigning more for themselves"--a sampling of guest op-ed contributors easily supports that. Is that what you mean by the sociology of semantics? And how exactly is Obama a polarizing vehicle for the groups you identify? How do you see this polarization playing out?

Thanks.

Nancy D., Girl Detective said...

By the way, I don't find the "Clinton is already taken" explanation an adequate one. Why not Senator Clinton?

Betty & Bimbo said...

Oops I accidentally deleted a comment about Norman Mailer that I thought was mistakenly posted here but really was responding to Montse's question. Sorry!

I can't speak for Lady Elaine, but I think Obama is polarizing because clearly he's great and everything but his supporters get so over the top about him that it gets grating and often lacks substance. At least this is my experience. I WANT to love him but I just don't.

As for broadening the progressive wing of the Democratic party to include centrists, I don't really get what that means. It sounds like believing in progressive principles without wanting to sacrifice anything. But I haven't read the article Koko posted yet...will do that now.