Senator Clinton's "Double Standard"

Michelle Norris of NPR interviewed Senator Clinton this afternoon on All Things Considered. The interview started out with questions about the testimony of Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus about the "success" of the "Surge" in Iraq. Senator Clinton made several good points and made clear that as President, she would set policy and the military would have to follow it. Rightly so.

After that, the interview moved on to the race for the Democratic Nomination. Senator Clinton was asked what she was arguing to the superdelegates to try to convince them to support her. She was also asked about comments that she would try to sway "pledged delegates". While it is true that every delegate may vote for whomever he or she believes to be the best candidate, it is a stretch to think that she will be able to convert many of Obama's pledged delegates under the current scenario.

Then Ms. Norris asked Senator Clinton to react to a statement to the effect that many observers believe that the only way for Senator Clinton to win the nomination is if she is willing "to win ugly". Ms. Norris asked - what that means. Senator Clinton said she didn't know what it meant because there is no way for Senator Obama to win unless he also obtains a significant number of superdelegates. Then she went on to say that throughout the campaign there has been "something of a double standard".

Ms. Norris immediately asked Senator Clinton what she meant by a "double standard".

Senator Clinton responded that "it is pretty obvious to anybody who has followed it."

But Ms. Norris refused to let her off the hook and asked - just in case it is not clear - I don't want to assume... I just want to you to tell me what you think.

Then Senator Clinton tried to turn it around by asking, "why is the question directed at me?" She went on to present it as though winning ugly is just about being required to rely on superdelegates and pointed out that Senator Obama has to rely on them too.

But she never answered the "double standard" question.

She avoided it.

She can't say it because it makes her sound like a crybaby. What she is hinting at is that "it is a double standard because I am a woman". Obama would never have been in this position if he were a woman.

I think she would like to say - it is my turn. Obama needs to wait in line - patiently, like I waited for Bill...

But that is BS!

Here's why it is not a double standard - First, Obama has captured the imagination of the Democratic Party and she has not. Everybody is tiptoeing around this because they don't want to offend Hillary - not because she is a woman, but because she is the wife of Bill Clinton and has lots of powerful friends in high places.

Yes, many women want her to be the nominee because she may be the most viable woman nominee for the next couple of election cycles. To these people I repeat what Bill Clinton has said - "Chill Out!" It will happen. It won't be Hillary, but Hillary has blazed the trail that other women will follow.

Second, it is not a double standard because the original question is a legitimate question. For her to win, Hillary has to win ugly. Obama does not. Obama is ahead in every way that can be measured without torturing logic. Given the rules of the delegate math game - Hillary can't overtake him - in delegates, states or popular vote. The only way she can win is by convincing pledged delegates and superdelegates to ignore the above math and vote for her anyway. That would be ugly and it would turn off whole groups of people who are interested in this election because Obama has captured their imaginations.

Now that would be ugly...

Obama, on the other hand, will win without overturning either the delegates, the states or the popular vote. In fact, that is the reason most superdelegates will support him is because it is the right thing to do under the circumstances. They are waiting to make it official out of respect to Hillary - and to Bill.

There is no double standard.