I apologize for the number of political posts lately, but this is quite an usual election season and it is worth keeping the discussion going...
How did she do it? How did Billary change the story from ‘will she exit gracefully once she loses?’ to ‘Billary changes the tide and Obama now on defensive’? Was it the “3 a.m.” ad? Was it the unfortunate timing of the trial of Illinois lobbyist Tony Rezko? Was it the stupid (as in, stupid to put in writing) memo from Barack’s camp to the Canadians on NAFTA? Was it that Hispanics just will not vote for a black man? Was it the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy perpetrated by Talk Radio in favor of Billary, encouraging their listeners to vote for her in droves in order to keep her in the race so the Democratic candidates can continue to bloody each other as Juan McCain sits back and hosts Bar-B-Q’s at his Sedona ranch? Was it that the national media finally recovered from Obamamania and decided to scrutinize him a bit more closely right before Tuesday? Has Obamamania peaked; has The Dali Obama finally shown some weakness?
So many intriguing questions and issues to delve into. While Dali Obama still has a delegate lead (therefore allowing his camp to declare victory), the momentum has clearly shifted back to Billary (therefore allowing his/her camp to declare victory). If the media decides that Obamamania has in fact worn out its welcome, the psychological importance of last night on this election could be far reaching indeed. I think that my wife is indicative of the confusion in the Democratic ranks. A longtime Billary booster, she recently caught a bad case of the Obamas and cast her Texas primary vote in early voting for the Dali Obama. But then she felt guilty, and was swayed by the “Obama may just be all talk and no action” argument, and so she then caucused (verb) last night for Billary. She can do that in Texas, since its rather unique and idiotic Democrat system makes it “the only state where one can vote twice and not get arrested” (in the words of Bill Clinton). The Dems only have themselves to blame for the Billary/Obama stalemate. Because Jesse Jackson whined back in the 80’s, they changed their primaries over to this proportional BS vs. the winner-take-all philosophy of the Repubs. That is why McCain is chillin’ in Sedona while Billary and Obama are spending millions tearing each other apart.
Can you believe that Billary is now seriously pushing to count her Florida and Michigan delegates? That is so Clinton. She was the only dem on the Michigan ballot; the Dems agreed not to campaign in Florida, but Billary broke the agreement and did it anyway by sending Bill down to do her dirty work. Now she wants them all counted retroactively. In a recent interview, she blamed the Republican governor and Republican legislature of Florida for “once again” trying to disenfranchise Florida’s voters, when it was the Democratic National Committee that made the decision!
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't think Hillary wants to count the Florida and Michigan votes that were already cast. She wants to re-vote in those states so they can count them. It's obvious you can't count what happened earlier, but I agree in a race this tight it's ridiculous for 2 big states to lose their vote. I can't believe they were so stupid and stubborn to vote early without approval, but now they need to do it all again so it will count.
I can't believe your wife voted for both Clinton and Obama. That's hysterical. On the other hand, I might have done the same thing if I still lived in Texas. I've flipped between Obama and Clinton at least a half dozen times so far.
Well, she was pushing that initially. But you are right, it sounds like the talk now is to "redo" Michigan and Florida.
I think that is kind of crap, though. They broke the rules established by the party, so they should suffer the consequences. I remember the arrogance of the Florida officials at the time, talking about how important Florida is and why they should have a stronger voice in determining the candidates for the rest of the nation. They were warned, they defied the warnings, and now they are whining that they won't be counted. Don't break the rules, then. Why is Florida any more important than anyone else? There are very good, established reasons why the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primariy are first; don't mess with the system. If Florida gets away with what they tried to pull, then it inspires the domino effect of everyone else trying to get ahead as well. So what are we going to end up with? Primaries scheduled 4 years ahead of the general election before it is all said and done? One state after another trying to position themselves further and further ahead in line?Ridiculous. F**k Florida and f**k Michigan. They arrogantly called what they thought was the party's bluff and the party wasn't bluffing. I say the punishment stands. The disenfranchised voters of those two states should blame their own officials, not the Democratic Party.
Two thoughts:
I refuse to call this momentum: http://specialwayofbeingafraid.blogspot.com/2008/03/being-saved-by-bell-doesnt-equal.html
Also, the Michigan-Florida thing is crazy. If the vote again, I don't know that she's assured Michigan. A lot of people turned out on that initial day just to vote "Not Hillary" on their ballots. Could be interesting...
But I honestly have to pay less attention to all of this in the coming weeks. Hillary, and the thought of her potential victory, is making me literally nauseous. I do still think Obama will get it, though. The superdelegates will wake up and realize that lots and lots of Obama supporters won't support Hillary in November.
Oh, also, your wife's confusion is legitimate, but yes -- the system itself is asinine in a way that only Texas could pull off; thought-out and "big" and totally stupid.
Dez,
I disagree that the voters of Florida and Michigan should have to pay the consequences. This is too important to just tell the voters to blame their officials.
My understanding, though, is that Florida will have to pay for the re-vote themselves with no help from the national committee. That seems justified and I would think that's more than enough disincentive to others considering a similar move in the future.
The irony in the whole thing is that they felt they'd have a stronger voice by voting early since often the momentum is difficult to change once a front runner is established. That obviously wasn't the case this year so being first didn't really mean anything.
Also, if there are very good reasons why Iowa and New Hampshire are first, I'd be curious to hear what those reasons are. The only reason I've heard is tradition. I know you love tradition, but changing the order doesn't really bother me. Of course, I'm not so crazy about starting things so early. This is a crazy election and it doesn't bother me so much that it's such a long campaign, but I'd like to see it go back to the traditional timeframe again in future elections.
I am a republican and I voted for Hillary. Tee Hee.
Ah, democracy.
Post a Comment