tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5330649540084564012.post8918690067202009047..comments2010-06-15T20:15:35.469-07:00David Braybrookehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04874482146872731484noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5330649540084564012.post-33119865433056297182008-05-20T18:02:00.000-07:002008-05-20T18:02:00.000-07:00Given just that quote, I am not sure that is what was specifically being indicated. Nor am I sure that was really a contradiction (although it was a paradoxical remark). On the one hand, Emmanuel might have meant that Clinton cannot win, but Obama can lose the general election through the division produced by Clinton's remaining in the race. Perhaps we can draw a more fundamental point that the surface bureaucratic procedures of producing a nominee are only the explicit codification of more general trends of ideological sentiment and disposition. In that case, Obama's nomination might, given Clinton's persistence, be only superficial, without the underlying ideological and emotional backing that would be necessary for a "real" win. Hence, taking into account both the bureaucratic and socio-cultural facets of the primary process, "win/lose" becomes a false dichotomy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com