Unless you've been living under a rock or hiding in a cave with Osama bin Laden, you know that Barack Obama won decisively in Wisconsin and Hawaii. , giving him a ten state winning streak. He has begun to eat into many of Hillary Clinton's core demographics, and labor unions, including the Teamsters Union and the Service Workers Union have been falling over themselves to endorse him. Hillary Clinton's campaign seems powerless to stop Obama from rocketing from a longshot second to disputed frontrunner status. Her ugly attempts at doing so, including the rumor that she will attempt to win the nomination by strong arming superdelegates into backing her, even if she loses the popular vote, and the American Leadership Project, a 527 committee, that has been recently formed in Ohio for the purpose of airing negative ads are quickly eroding her political capital. Her actions have degenerated into selfishness; for Hillary Clinton, it's no longer about America. It isn't even about the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton's campaign has become about nothing more than Hillary Clinton and her desire, even need, to become President.
The state of her campaign is a stark contrast to the way that it looked at the beginning of the primary season. Back then, she was almost singlehandedly keeping the tone of the primary campaign positive. She looked graceful on the stage at the debates, gently but firmly pushing everyone to party unity. The positive, upbeat Hillary Clinton was also popular; even people like me who didn't feel that she was electable in the general election and had serious problems with some of her behavior and policies admired her poise.
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
So what happened? How did the Hillary Clinton of those first few debates, who couldn't be needled by even the most subtle leading questions into saying a single bad word about her fellow Democrats, turn into an attack dog so vicious that she's alienating former allies and supporters? I think the first sign of what was to come happened after Obama's win in Iowa, with Hillary Clinton's now infamous New Hampshire tears. While some may argue that these tears were a genuine and uncontrollable expression of emotion, anyone who's had enough exposure to politics and politicians knows that the best of them do not lose control of themselves this way. Hillary Clinton is one of the best; make no mistake, the tears were calculated.
As Obama's poll numbers increased, Hillary Clinton went increasingly negative, and her campaign fell apart. Her campaign manager and deputy campaign manager both quit right around the time that she made the bizarre choice to focus on Texas and Ohio, all but skipping the "little states" in between. Such a boneheaded decision looks even more boneheaded because of how well it "worked" for Guliani less than a month ago. I know that memories are short during the primary season, but this is ridiculous. There were money troubles as well, the standard 'nosediving campaign' craziness. But there's more.
Ready From Day One?
Even though Hillary staked her entire campaign on Texas and Ohio, and spent almost all of her time stumping in those states, her campaign staff never bothered to look up Texas' byzantine primary system and targeted their campaign in all the wrong areas. And in Pennsylvania, they didn't get in all the names of their delegate candidates, even though Governor Rendell, a vocal Clinton supporter, extended the deadline by a day and a half due to bad weather. She was short ten or eleven delegate candidates, and if the deadline hadn't been extended, the figure would have been double.
How could a campaign run by such a seasoned politician, who started out as the "sure thing" and who was touted as being "ready from day one", blow up so spectacularly? The question itself contains the answer – Hillary Clinton believed all of the media "inevitability" hype and ran her campaign accordingly. She believed from the beginning that the White House is not only her destiny, but her right. She wasn't paying attention to the possibility that she might have a formidable challenger, and never saw Obama coming.
As primary after primary passed without anointing Hillary Clinton as the clear frontrunner, her campaign became increasingly disorganized. But the Super Tuesday primaries were where things really started to fall apart. Hillary Clinton believed the pundits who were certain that she would sweep the Super Tuesday states, and she believed that the dawn of February 6th would see her as the nominee. She was so certain that she probably had few or no plans to continue her campaign as anything more than a victory tour, and her campaign wasn't able to adapt to the sudden and unexpected situation when Obama remained a contender.
In the end, Hillary Clinton's campaign has resembled a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. Her very greatness led to the hubris that caused her downfall, while the young and virtuous contender has risen to take her place. The only thing that's missing is the final horrible moment of terror and pity before the curtain closes on the final act. Let's just hope that she won't gouge out her eyes on national television.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Don't Buy Into The Hype!
No long post for today (yesterday, whatever), because I was out buying expensive yarn -- err.. helping the economy all day. Don't worry, GW! I've got your back!
Now it's almost 3am, and I'm still giddy and high on yarn fumes. So I've been reading a bit to calm myself down and get some ideas for later. While clicking around, I stumbled on the following article in Daily Kos.
Normally, I'd rather not link to blogs, the same way that I would hesitate to link to editorials or blatantly partisan newspapers. I don't like to lean on people for facts when it's in their every interest to advance their own opinion. However, I really liked the way that this article broke down differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
She takes the tack that a lot of people have used in the past -- she looks at their senate records. But instead of looking at their voting records, which she acknowledges can be misleading in terms of what's really important to them, she looks at the bills that they sponsor and co-sponsor.
I urge you to take a look. The writing is clear, and the subject is interesting.
Don't buy into the hype!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go fondle some silk.
Now it's almost 3am, and I'm still giddy and high on yarn fumes. So I've been reading a bit to calm myself down and get some ideas for later. While clicking around, I stumbled on the following article in Daily Kos.
Normally, I'd rather not link to blogs, the same way that I would hesitate to link to editorials or blatantly partisan newspapers. I don't like to lean on people for facts when it's in their every interest to advance their own opinion. However, I really liked the way that this article broke down differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
She takes the tack that a lot of people have used in the past -- she looks at their senate records. But instead of looking at their voting records, which she acknowledges can be misleading in terms of what's really important to them, she looks at the bills that they sponsor and co-sponsor.
I urge you to take a look. The writing is clear, and the subject is interesting.
Don't buy into the hype!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go fondle some silk.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Just Words
Well, I don't have an explanation for what happened with the missed entries yesterday and the day before, except that things are not going well in blogland.. Monday was the day that Sam and I celebrated Valentine's Day, so of course I wasn't going to sit down for a couple of hours and hammer out a blog entry, but yesterday was another matter. I typed something up and, after letting it sit for a bit, went to edit it and put in some links. While doing so, I managed to crash OpenOffice AND corrupt the file with the blog entry in it, after which I had a small temper tantrum, folded laundry, and went to bed.
I hate rewriting things that I've written before and lost. It never goes well. I'm always convinced that what I wrote before was so much better than the repeat version, which frustrates me, which makes my writing worse, which frustrates me more, and so on. But I'll do my best, because I liked what I had to say last night.
The Power of Words
It's nice that current events (and kitty litter!) have moved in such a direction that each of my posts can build on the post before. I'm also excited that the topic that I get to build on is language, which is one of my favorite subjects.
I talked a couple days ago about how Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for being an excellent orator and thus for lacking in substance. I called bullshit on the meme that she invoked, that if the wrapping paper is pretty then there must be nothing in the package. I pointed out how dangerous the meme can be, and how the Democratic party's persistent belief in its veracity has harmed us in the past, and will continue to do so as long as we hold onto it. This was, I'll admit, as much of a defense of Barack Obama as it was a commentary on the power of myths, symbols, and memes, and how they manipulate us into irrational beliefs and actions that work against our self interest. But I also admit that such a defense is too abstract and geeky for the majority of the American public, and even those who would care to listen would probably vehemently deny that it was true; after all, we would quickly discard the symbols and memes that hurt us if we could easily see them for what they are.
Barack Obama Strikes Back
Around the time that I was writing my geeky and obscure defense of Barack Obama, he was defending himself in a more effective and compelling manner, in the form of a speech that stressed the power of words to shape ideas and events. I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, but I did find a video of the last ten minutes of it, which include the now infamous 'just words' passage. I'm presenting it here, and I encourage you all to take ten minutes to listen. Barack Obama is a powerful speaker who gives even this diehard pessimist a sliver of hope.
The trouble came when the Clinton camp claimed that Obama had plagiarized the key part of the speech from another speech given by a close friend of his, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. A few people have taken to calling the whole affair – and prepare for groaning and rolling of eyes – "wordgate".
The whining about Obama's remorseless stealing of words continues, despite the fact that only two words were stolen – "just words" – and despite the fact that they weren't actually stolen; Governor Patrick himself pointed out that he had encouraged Obama to borrow the words from his speech.
As a writer, I take charges of plagiarism seriously. It's not just A cardinal sin among writers, it's THE cardinal sin. If I thought that plagiarism was going on here, I'd be the first person to denounce Barack Obama until I was blue in the face and hoarse from shouting. But writers share ideas all the time, and if an idea or a set of words are used with the permission of a friend, that's called collaboration, which is something that I approve of.
The most hilarious example of this mountain out of a molehill idiocy was when Governor Patrick put in an appearance on Good Morning America, where he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Diane Sawyer is clearly a Clinton supporter, judging by her pointed and leading questions, and she must not have done a scrap of research before the interview, because it clearly did not turn out the way that she had expected. The expression on her face as Governor Patrick relentlessly praised Barack Obama despite her every effort to lead him into doing otherwise was priceless. Governor Patrick is a masterful politician who turned what was supposed to be a smear of Obama into an opportunity to praise him to the skies and argue articulately why everyone should vote for him.
Because the Daily Show is on break this week, and thus won't be broadcasting clips from the interview until the 25th, I present it to you here, for your amusement. God knows that we all need a laugh right now!
Especially check out the look on Sawyer's face when the camera cuts to her and she's trying so hard to smile. It's priceless.
I hate rewriting things that I've written before and lost. It never goes well. I'm always convinced that what I wrote before was so much better than the repeat version, which frustrates me, which makes my writing worse, which frustrates me more, and so on. But I'll do my best, because I liked what I had to say last night.
The Power of Words
It's nice that current events (and kitty litter!) have moved in such a direction that each of my posts can build on the post before. I'm also excited that the topic that I get to build on is language, which is one of my favorite subjects.
I talked a couple days ago about how Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for being an excellent orator and thus for lacking in substance. I called bullshit on the meme that she invoked, that if the wrapping paper is pretty then there must be nothing in the package. I pointed out how dangerous the meme can be, and how the Democratic party's persistent belief in its veracity has harmed us in the past, and will continue to do so as long as we hold onto it. This was, I'll admit, as much of a defense of Barack Obama as it was a commentary on the power of myths, symbols, and memes, and how they manipulate us into irrational beliefs and actions that work against our self interest. But I also admit that such a defense is too abstract and geeky for the majority of the American public, and even those who would care to listen would probably vehemently deny that it was true; after all, we would quickly discard the symbols and memes that hurt us if we could easily see them for what they are.
Barack Obama Strikes Back
Around the time that I was writing my geeky and obscure defense of Barack Obama, he was defending himself in a more effective and compelling manner, in the form of a speech that stressed the power of words to shape ideas and events. I couldn't find a transcript of his speech, but I did find a video of the last ten minutes of it, which include the now infamous 'just words' passage. I'm presenting it here, and I encourage you all to take ten minutes to listen. Barack Obama is a powerful speaker who gives even this diehard pessimist a sliver of hope.
The trouble came when the Clinton camp claimed that Obama had plagiarized the key part of the speech from another speech given by a close friend of his, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. A few people have taken to calling the whole affair – and prepare for groaning and rolling of eyes – "wordgate".
The whining about Obama's remorseless stealing of words continues, despite the fact that only two words were stolen – "just words" – and despite the fact that they weren't actually stolen; Governor Patrick himself pointed out that he had encouraged Obama to borrow the words from his speech.
As a writer, I take charges of plagiarism seriously. It's not just A cardinal sin among writers, it's THE cardinal sin. If I thought that plagiarism was going on here, I'd be the first person to denounce Barack Obama until I was blue in the face and hoarse from shouting. But writers share ideas all the time, and if an idea or a set of words are used with the permission of a friend, that's called collaboration, which is something that I approve of.
The most hilarious example of this mountain out of a molehill idiocy was when Governor Patrick put in an appearance on Good Morning America, where he was interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Diane Sawyer is clearly a Clinton supporter, judging by her pointed and leading questions, and she must not have done a scrap of research before the interview, because it clearly did not turn out the way that she had expected. The expression on her face as Governor Patrick relentlessly praised Barack Obama despite her every effort to lead him into doing otherwise was priceless. Governor Patrick is a masterful politician who turned what was supposed to be a smear of Obama into an opportunity to praise him to the skies and argue articulately why everyone should vote for him.
Because the Daily Show is on break this week, and thus won't be broadcasting clips from the interview until the 25th, I present it to you here, for your amusement. God knows that we all need a laugh right now!
Especially check out the look on Sawyer's face when the camera cuts to her and she's trying so hard to smile. It's priceless.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Politics and Symbolism
Ever since I got some exposure to Jung and Campbell in college, I have been what I have called a 'goobery Campbell fangirl'. ('Goobery' being a technical term.) I've read a lot of their writings, as well as the writings of others who touch on this field – I read the entire Golden Bough, and anyone who's taken a look at that monster knows that takes dedication. My reading has led me to become fascinated with the myths and symbols that permeate our society, spread unconsciously through the words we choose, the stories that we tell, the way that we see ourselves and choose to present ourselves. We don't realize it, but everything about the way that we see the world is controlled and guided by a symbolic language that stretches back hundreds, sometimes thousands of years.
Once I became aware of this symbolic language, I started to see it everywhere. I also realized the way that myth and symbolism could be used by someone who understood it to manipulate people; by wielding symbols in a precise manner, it would be possible, even easy, to control how the public sees the world. What's more, I started identifying who these people are, and how they are doing it.
Of course, the manipulation of symbols is everywhere; it's not as though I'm the first person to discover their power to control others. Advertisers are geniuses at it; if you know what to look for, you can watch commercials and break them down neatly into the symbols they use and the memes they count on to reinforce their message. Politicians are good at it, too.
Dangerous Symbolism
Symbols aren't necessarily a bad thing. They provide a filter through which we can make sense of an increasingly complex world that might otherwise overwhelm us. But the problem that they pose is that not all of them are helpful – some lead us to take unwise actions, to believe lies told to us by people who do not have our best interests in mind, to stereotype people, to hurt ourselves or those around us. Those symbols need to be exposed for what they are, because once we recognize them, their power over us becomes greatly diminished.
I'm going to talk about one of those dangerous symbols today.
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been manipulating symbolism in her standard attack mode against Barack Obama by claiming that while he is an incredible orator, he lacks substance. This plays on a meme that we have in our society that people have a certain number of "points" that they get to distribute – or have distributed for them – so that people who get to look good and have a strong, charismatic presence don't have enough "points" left over to also be intelligent or effective, whereas people who lack charisma have more "points" free to give them the qualities necessary to be hard-hitting politicians who Get Things Done.
Examples of this meme in action pervade in the stories that we tell. Bookworms are portrayed in books and film as socially awkward, plain, or even ugly. (The exception being the sexy librarian – but mankind has found a way to sexualize everything. If you doubt me, the internet will disabuse you of your charming innocence.) Models and strippers are generally considered to be stupid and/or uneducated. Would you be surprised to learn that a supermodel had a masters degree in economics?
For the most part, the democrats have swallowed this meme hook, line, and sinker, which is a shame, because it's dangerous for a political party that wants to get its candidates elected to positions of power in this country. Our belief in this falsehood is why we keep losing. We assume that the less charismatic, droning candidates are more substantive, and therefore the only responsible choice, and so we end up with "winners" like John Kerry. And then we wonder why they lose, when their ideas are so good, their positions so well thought out and substantial. What we refuse to see is that if their droning voices put Americans to sleep, no one gets to hear about their ten point plans to rebuild the country.
Hillary Clinton is trying to cast herself in the role of the kind of policy wonk that the party loves by claiming that Obama's charisma is an empty facade that obfuscates a lack of real ideas or strong policy. And because of the dangerous meme of points allocation, she's succeeding. I've heard a lot of people who clearly don't know what they're talking about parroting her words.
It isn't true. Here is the transcript of a speech that Obama gave recently at a GM assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. (I tried to find a link to a video of the entire speech, but no dice.) It opens up with the usual Obama-esque soaring rhetoric – Washington is corrupt, people are hurting, politicians are sold out, he comes on a golden wave of hope to bring change and prosperity and unity, blah blah blah. But then he gets into the second part of his speech and directly addresses hard economic realities one by one, and talks about the solutions that he proposes, and those that he has already proposed. Agree with him or don't on his policy, but he lays out in-depth ideas. It would be hard not to call what he has to say in that speech substance.
You want the truth that transcends the symbols that have chained our minds to strategies that don't work? Here it is: Once in a generation, someone comes along who can talk economic policy and make it sound riveting. Barack Obama is that man.
Once I became aware of this symbolic language, I started to see it everywhere. I also realized the way that myth and symbolism could be used by someone who understood it to manipulate people; by wielding symbols in a precise manner, it would be possible, even easy, to control how the public sees the world. What's more, I started identifying who these people are, and how they are doing it.
Of course, the manipulation of symbols is everywhere; it's not as though I'm the first person to discover their power to control others. Advertisers are geniuses at it; if you know what to look for, you can watch commercials and break them down neatly into the symbols they use and the memes they count on to reinforce their message. Politicians are good at it, too.
Dangerous Symbolism
Symbols aren't necessarily a bad thing. They provide a filter through which we can make sense of an increasingly complex world that might otherwise overwhelm us. But the problem that they pose is that not all of them are helpful – some lead us to take unwise actions, to believe lies told to us by people who do not have our best interests in mind, to stereotype people, to hurt ourselves or those around us. Those symbols need to be exposed for what they are, because once we recognize them, their power over us becomes greatly diminished.
I'm going to talk about one of those dangerous symbols today.
Recently, Hillary Clinton has been manipulating symbolism in her standard attack mode against Barack Obama by claiming that while he is an incredible orator, he lacks substance. This plays on a meme that we have in our society that people have a certain number of "points" that they get to distribute – or have distributed for them – so that people who get to look good and have a strong, charismatic presence don't have enough "points" left over to also be intelligent or effective, whereas people who lack charisma have more "points" free to give them the qualities necessary to be hard-hitting politicians who Get Things Done.
Examples of this meme in action pervade in the stories that we tell. Bookworms are portrayed in books and film as socially awkward, plain, or even ugly. (The exception being the sexy librarian – but mankind has found a way to sexualize everything. If you doubt me, the internet will disabuse you of your charming innocence.) Models and strippers are generally considered to be stupid and/or uneducated. Would you be surprised to learn that a supermodel had a masters degree in economics?
For the most part, the democrats have swallowed this meme hook, line, and sinker, which is a shame, because it's dangerous for a political party that wants to get its candidates elected to positions of power in this country. Our belief in this falsehood is why we keep losing. We assume that the less charismatic, droning candidates are more substantive, and therefore the only responsible choice, and so we end up with "winners" like John Kerry. And then we wonder why they lose, when their ideas are so good, their positions so well thought out and substantial. What we refuse to see is that if their droning voices put Americans to sleep, no one gets to hear about their ten point plans to rebuild the country.
Hillary Clinton is trying to cast herself in the role of the kind of policy wonk that the party loves by claiming that Obama's charisma is an empty facade that obfuscates a lack of real ideas or strong policy. And because of the dangerous meme of points allocation, she's succeeding. I've heard a lot of people who clearly don't know what they're talking about parroting her words.
It isn't true. Here is the transcript of a speech that Obama gave recently at a GM assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. (I tried to find a link to a video of the entire speech, but no dice.) It opens up with the usual Obama-esque soaring rhetoric – Washington is corrupt, people are hurting, politicians are sold out, he comes on a golden wave of hope to bring change and prosperity and unity, blah blah blah. But then he gets into the second part of his speech and directly addresses hard economic realities one by one, and talks about the solutions that he proposes, and those that he has already proposed. Agree with him or don't on his policy, but he lays out in-depth ideas. It would be hard not to call what he has to say in that speech substance.
You want the truth that transcends the symbols that have chained our minds to strategies that don't work? Here it is: Once in a generation, someone comes along who can talk economic policy and make it sound riveting. Barack Obama is that man.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Barack Obama Is Your New Bicycle
A combination of too little sleep, too much work, and a cold that I've been fending off but that I can't quite seem to beat have made me a little dizzy in the head today. I tried writing a couple of times, and what I saw when I came back to my "brilliance" looked more like the ravings of a lunatic teenager.
So rather than wax philosophical, I bring you a little bit of weekend political levity:
Barack Obama is your new bicycle.
(Click on the link when the page opens to see more things that Barak Obama does for you!)
I try and make myself look like a hard-hitting political pundit, but the truth is that I'm someone who will sit and smile from ear to ear while refreshing that page all over again. (Barack Obama smiled when someone mentioned my name! And he gave me a puppy!)
So rather than wax philosophical, I bring you a little bit of weekend political levity:
Barack Obama is your new bicycle.
(Click on the link when the page opens to see more things that Barak Obama does for you!)
I try and make myself look like a hard-hitting political pundit, but the truth is that I'm someone who will sit and smile from ear to ear while refreshing that page all over again. (Barack Obama smiled when someone mentioned my name! And he gave me a puppy!)
Friday, February 15, 2008
Democrats Contemplate How to Lose -- Again.
If any of you caught the blank entry I've had posted for most of this morning, sorry about that! I had to post an entry to get the code for the video at the bottom of the post (stupid YouTube!) and I couldn't figure out how to delete the entry.
Delegate Manipulation
I've heard a lot of talk recently about the possibility that the election results from Florida and Michigan may be used to help decide who becomes President. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one who campaigned in Florida – and you know she campaigned; her entire victory speech was a big old Florida pander – and she was the only one who was even on the ballot in Michigan. The party line is that it's unfair to deny these states their part in the electoral process, as though some other entity, a vengeful god acting against the will of the DNC, had capriciously imposed the punishment. They're also claiming that it would be unwise to alienate voters in two swing states, something they maybe should have thought of before they locked Florida and Michigan out. Hillary Clinton stayed silent on the issue all the way up to when she realized that she was in a close race with Obama and she was polling well in Florida and then – only then – did she start talking about fairness and inclusiveness.
Because Hillary Clinton took the most electoral votes from Florida and Michigan, the only reason to include those states in the total tally would be to tip the balance of votes in her favor. And you know, if the democratic party wants to shoot itself in the foot, changing the rules for the purpose of crowning their establishment candidate would be an excellent way to do it. I've already talked about how if Hillary is nominated when the popular vote has gone to Obama, a good portion of democrats are going to take their ball and go home. If she's nominated through rule-bending when the popular vote would have otherwise gone to Obama, that number gets even bigger.
The other option would be to hold new primaries and/or caucuses in both states, allowing both candidates a chance to campaign first. Despite the fact that this would still give Hillary a slight advantage (since most of the people who voted for her before in the unfair primaries will probably vote for her again) Obama's camp has agreed to this. Florida, however, is digging in its heels, saying that caucuses would be unfair to its elderly and its military, and primaries would be prohibitively expensive, and Michigan Senator Carl Levin said that it "would be neither practical, nor fair" to hold new caucuses in Michican.
I'm hopeful that this talk is just that – talk, totally unfounded on reality. If it were any group of people who had ever in their lives impressed me as being competent individuals, I wouldn't believe a word of it. But these are the democrats we're talking about here. All I can hope is that Obama manages to sew up a big enough lead to make such vote manipulation irrelevant.
Yes We Can
I was amused to discover that my remarks on the awesomeness of "Yes we can!" a couple of days ago were right on the money. Recently, I ran across a link to a video wherein a whole bunch of various artists, actors, and famous people sing 'Yes we can!', with occasional interruptions for a bit of oration from Obama. The overall video isn't actually very good, but even so, it's powerful, and it's powerful because of the repetitions of 'Yes we can!'. I thought I'd go ahead and link it here so you can get the idea.
Yes, I know that it's stupid to make political decisions based on what celebrities think, but most people do it anyway.
Delegate Manipulation
I've heard a lot of talk recently about the possibility that the election results from Florida and Michigan may be used to help decide who becomes President. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one who campaigned in Florida – and you know she campaigned; her entire victory speech was a big old Florida pander – and she was the only one who was even on the ballot in Michigan. The party line is that it's unfair to deny these states their part in the electoral process, as though some other entity, a vengeful god acting against the will of the DNC, had capriciously imposed the punishment. They're also claiming that it would be unwise to alienate voters in two swing states, something they maybe should have thought of before they locked Florida and Michigan out. Hillary Clinton stayed silent on the issue all the way up to when she realized that she was in a close race with Obama and she was polling well in Florida and then – only then – did she start talking about fairness and inclusiveness.
Because Hillary Clinton took the most electoral votes from Florida and Michigan, the only reason to include those states in the total tally would be to tip the balance of votes in her favor. And you know, if the democratic party wants to shoot itself in the foot, changing the rules for the purpose of crowning their establishment candidate would be an excellent way to do it. I've already talked about how if Hillary is nominated when the popular vote has gone to Obama, a good portion of democrats are going to take their ball and go home. If she's nominated through rule-bending when the popular vote would have otherwise gone to Obama, that number gets even bigger.
The other option would be to hold new primaries and/or caucuses in both states, allowing both candidates a chance to campaign first. Despite the fact that this would still give Hillary a slight advantage (since most of the people who voted for her before in the unfair primaries will probably vote for her again) Obama's camp has agreed to this. Florida, however, is digging in its heels, saying that caucuses would be unfair to its elderly and its military, and primaries would be prohibitively expensive, and Michigan Senator Carl Levin said that it "would be neither practical, nor fair" to hold new caucuses in Michican.
I'm hopeful that this talk is just that – talk, totally unfounded on reality. If it were any group of people who had ever in their lives impressed me as being competent individuals, I wouldn't believe a word of it. But these are the democrats we're talking about here. All I can hope is that Obama manages to sew up a big enough lead to make such vote manipulation irrelevant.
Yes We Can
I was amused to discover that my remarks on the awesomeness of "Yes we can!" a couple of days ago were right on the money. Recently, I ran across a link to a video wherein a whole bunch of various artists, actors, and famous people sing 'Yes we can!', with occasional interruptions for a bit of oration from Obama. The overall video isn't actually very good, but even so, it's powerful, and it's powerful because of the repetitions of 'Yes we can!'. I thought I'd go ahead and link it here so you can get the idea.
Yes, I know that it's stupid to make political decisions based on what celebrities think, but most people do it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
