Ryan has put forth a very even-handed analysis of the remaining presidential candidates. I agree with almost everything he says. From Huckabee to McCain to Obama, he's dead on. However, I think he has not done justice to the shit that the Clinton Campaign is pulling right now. Let me caveat this post by saying I am extremely angry right now, so if the grammar and/or logic is lacking, I apologize.
First, this bullshit with Florida's and Michigan's delegate is completely disingenuous. The states' delegates were barred from voting at the convention because they broke party rules. The party determined this, and none of the candidates complained about it at the time. But now that Clinton is behind, and it looks like she might lose the election, she is suddenly pushing that those delegates, who overwhelmingly voted for her because OBAMA DID NOT CAMPAIGN THERE, AND WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT IN MICHIGAN, be counted. This is exactly the reason that people dislike her so much. She is a blatant opportunist, and will do whatever it takes to win, even if it is borderline cheating.
Second, this superdelegate nonsense is getting out of hand. Clinton stated recently that superdelegates should vote for whomever they want, regardless of whether that person won the popular vote. If Obama were to win the most pledged delegates and Clinton won the election with more superdelegates, we can never complain again about Gore losing in 2000. The people, not "party leaders," should elect our candidate. If more people vote for Obama, he should be our candidate. End of story.
Third, Clinton wants to debate every fricking week. I am going to paraphrase Obama here, who says "we've had 18 debates! 18!" She wants to do this because Obama has more money and debates are essentially free advertising. All of this maneuvering is exactly why Obama is gaining so much support. We are all tired of this political bullshit. That's not to say he won't be sucked into it if he becomes president, but at least he's not making an ass of himself now.
3 comments:
Yeah, I know several Obama supporters who have a visceral dislike of Hillary. I don't share it, so I don't have real insight into it, but I think you do a good job of articulating it: Obama seems to unite people, while Clinton seems to divide and conquer, in almost a Karl Rove-type way.
For Clinton, some of this reputation is deserved, some of it is not. For example, part of the reason she is "divisive" is because a huge swath of the country hates her for sexist reasons, or no good reason. She is widely portrayed on the right as some sort of radical feminist marxist, which couldn't be farther from the truth. (If it were actually the truth, I might support her).
She is criticized, correctly, for backing the seating of the MI and FL delegates. But then criticizing her over collecting superdelegates, who by definition can vote for whoever they please, strikes me as hypocritical. Both candidates have been recruiting superdelegates; she's just been more successful. The superdelegates were always supposed to be independent actors who voted independently of popular vote outcomes -- that's in the rules. I agree that it's undemocratic, and that the rules should be changed to automatically award the elected delegate winner the nomination, but this really should have been done before the contest began. Isn't it unfair to change the rules late in the game, after both candidates have already invested heavily in wooing superdelegates and devising campaign strategy assuming they would count?
The "debate over debates" gets played out in almost every campaign. You're right that Clinton is hiding her motives here, but there's gamesmanship on both sides: You could just as easily note that, honestly, the real reason why Barack turned down the debate was because front-runners generally don't benefit from debates and because Hillary generally outperforms him in debates. A 19th debate may sound excessive, but is it better that they each give their 19,000th speech or run their 1,900th TV spot instead? You could reasonably argue that a debate would be preferable, since you can't make unchallenged assertions, you can get questioned about recent news, etc.
I think Obama would be the superior nominee and the superior president, for a variety of reasons. But I'm trying not to feel hostile toward Hillary, who may well be the nominee, and will need Obama's supporters to win.
I think, though, that Obama will probably get the nomination, partly on the strength of his image as the cleaner, post-Clinton, post-Rove candidate. We liberals don't like bare-knuckled politics. I've heard Obama's campaign say that Clinton is "willing to do anything to win." The implication being that Obama isn't. Well, once he gets the nomination, he'd better find that willingness somewhere, because in the general election, the Republicans will be more than willing to unleash attacks that will be both more foul and more effective than anything Clinton has done.
I don't hate Hillary, but I hate her campaign. I'm sure that all the Democrats in "red" states like being told that they don't count. Maybe there aren't enough of then *this* November to put those states in the blue column, but talk like this doesn't help them build anything so that maybe in a few election cycles, the Republicans are going to have to worry about a few states that they can currently take for granted.
No one tell my grandmother who I voted for, or she will never speak to me again. That is all I have to say.
Post a Comment