The context- they asked why she is still in the race. She answered that historically it isn't over until all the votes are in and a candidate gets nominated. She used two examples her husband not getting the nod until june and RFK seemingly coasting to a nomination that didn't happen.
It is a very valid point in a political context. Depending on who is doing the counting, Clinton has the popular vote. If that alone has been the factor for Democrats to whine on about how the "election" has been stolen in 2000 &2004- imagine how whiney they would be if the top vote getter in the party is forced out by party functionaries before the convention?
She really didn't say anything wrong at all. It was a statement of political reality. She shouldn't just drop out because it is inconvenient to Howard Dean.
I absolutely loath Hillary Clinton to degrees that are hard to express. I have actively sought to not even see her on the TV or read about her during this campaign. I would like nothing better than for her and the Clinton machine to falter and disappear from national politics. To me anything that keeps her out of the White House is a blessing.
Except if she isn't being given a fair shake.
And in this case- she certainly isn't. She was asked a fair question and gave the only answer that makes logical sense. She is in it because it isn't over, and history has shown repeatedly that the candidates really are not finalized until June in contested nominations. It is unfortunate for the DNC that in an otherwise perfect storm for the Republicans, the Democrats still have a contested race between two nearly equal candidates. Obama needed a short primary season because he really has only won caucus states and states that have motivated majority young voters. He hasn't played well in the big states. He hasn't played well in older populations. Meaning he really is only where he is because he correctly judged that Super Tuesday would attract a lot of first time voters who wanted to cast a novelty vote for a black man. He knew that a strong showing- even if he didn't win- would place him on the same tier as Clinton and allow him to exploit the one weakness Clinton had- an almost skeletal caucus resource.
Obama had the caucus forces ready to go if he survived Super Tuesday. Clinton didn't. Obama strung together a string of minor caucus states into a seemingly unstoppable wave. Point is, Clinton kept winning the big states and capturing the core of the Democratic party. Obama got the college kids, first time young voters, intelligentsia, and blacks. Clinton captured everyone else- including those voters most likely to vote in the general election. In a very real sense Clinton is indeed the stronger candidate. She has more physical votes, she has more victories in primaries, and her only weakness was she really SNAFU'd the caucuses.
When it gets to the convention, and the closed door smoke starts flowing, a lot of DNC leaders are going to be faced with the fact that Obama is primarily the presumptive candidate based on poor Clinton campaign practices following Super Tuesday. And a lot of them are going to look at the polls amongst Democrats who voted for Clinton that show they will either not vote for Obama or vote for McCain in the general election.
It isn't much of a stretch at all for Clinton to really think she has a realistic chance at walking out of the convention with the nomination. So when some local newspaper editorial board asks the question "WTF are you still running?" and she answers "Because history has repeatedly shown the nomination isn't a done deal until its off the convention floor" it isn't an offensive insult or gaff.
It is the truth.
Ted Kennedy almost walked out of the 1980 convention with the nomination. He was clearly the more electable compared to Carter. But for some unknown reason, Kennedy suddenly agreed behind closed doors that for the sake of party unity, there wouldn't be a floor fight. Instead of giving his speech while still seeking the nomination, he announced he was throwing it all behind Carter.
He then gave the single best political speech I have ever heard. The people on the floor- including Carter's supporters- attempted to vote by acclaim to make Ted Kennedy the nominee of the Democratic Party. He came out on the podium with Carter and pushed Carter to the mike.
Incidentally, the speech Kennedy gave after he agreed to drop out was the same one he had been prepared to give as a candidate seeking the nomination. Had he not conceded for the sake of unity and per the DNC leaders who were desperate to get the general campaign initiated infomercial style during the convention coverage, Kennedy would have been the nominee and Reagan would have flamed out in November of 1980.
So, if Clinton telling some newspaper editors that she is in it until the nominee is determined for whatever reason- be it a landslide comeback slaughter as her Husband did in the last primaries or an assassin's bullet as happened to RFK- is a gaff, then politics has been defaulted to the least logical and educated value that can be imagined.
If the Kennedy's weren't offended by the statement of fact- its pretty sorry that the media and those below Obama himself in his campaign have been all too willing to script it as such.
As a Clinton despiser, I would be more than happy to jump on any valid criticism bandwagon aimed at her. But this is really wishful propaganda being spun against her.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Clinton's Gaff?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Campaign Rallies
Obama was at some campaign rally over the weekend. It was some outdoor location next to some river, and the camera shot of the event was a wide angle view from a great distance in the air.
The numbers of people there was pretty shocking. The CNN reporters said it was an estimated 78,000 people. The campaign is essentially over, and he has almost zero chance of not getting the nomination. Yet, he is drawing crowds of a size that has almost no precedent in United States Presidential Election Primaries. Kennedy drew some big crowds. McGovern drew some big crowds. FDR drew some in his second campaign. T. Roosevelt drew some as a Bull Moose. But in general no one drew such large crowds, so often, and so consistently as Obama- especially after the nomination was a foregone conclusion.
Heard Boortz briefly on the radio today talking about Obama. And one of the things he said was that many people are flocking to his campaign appearances as if he were a messianic figure. He could not find any previous equivalency between Obama and other candidates, and took a few calls from listeners to his radio show to see what Obama's supporters saw in him and why they kept attending these mass events.
One comment that kept coming up was that his supporters kept calling Obama the " next President" and that they were going to see him still because they just wanted to see him up close and be close to him before he tales office.
Boortz made the comment that this is pretty unusual for any candidate, postulating that maybe these people really are to some extent reacting to Obama as if he is a political messiah.
The only equivalent behavior of an electorate that I could come up with was a certain series of events held in one of the very first modern media rich political campaigns. Where routinely, people showed up in mass events often numbering over 50,000 people and sometimes closing in on 100,000 people. They too often stated that they just wanted to see the candidate up close and hear him in person before he became Chancellor.
Of course that was in 1932 under the auspices of the N.D.A.S.P.
Campaign Rallies
Obama was at some campaign rally over the weekend. It was some outdoor location next to some river, and the camera shot of the event was a wide angle view from a great distance in the air.
The numbers of people there was pretty shocking. The CNN reporters said it was an estimated 78,000 people. The campaign is essentially over, and he has almost zero chance of not getting the nomination. Yet, he is drawing crowds of a size that has almost no precedent in United States Presidential Election Primaries. Kennedy drew some big crowds. McGovern drew some big crowds. FDR drew some in his second campaign. T. Roosevelt drew some as a Bull Moose. But in general no one drew such large crowds, so often, and so consistently as Obama- especially after the nomination was a foregone conclusion.
Heard Boortz briefly on the radio today talking about Obama. And one of the things he said was that many people are flocking to his campaign appearances as if he were a messianic figure. He could not find any previous equivalency between Obama and other candidates, and took a few calls from listeners to his radio show to see what Obama's supporters saw in him and why they kept attending these mass events.
One comment that kept coming up was that his supporters kept calling Obama the "next President" and that they were going to see him still because they just wanted to see him up close and be close to him before he takes office.
Boortz made the comment that this is pretty unusual for any candidate, postulating that maybe these people really are to some extent reacting to Obama as if he is a political messiah.
The only equivalent behavior of an electorate that I could come up with was a certain series of events held in one of the very first modern media rich political campaigns. Where routinely, people showed up in mass events often numbering over 50,000 people and sometimes closing in on 100,000 people. They too often stated that they just wanted to see the candidate up close and hear him in person before he became Chancellor.
Of course that was in 1932 under the auspices of the N.S.D.A.P.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Obama's Diplomacy
Did you catch Obama's remarks yesterday? Paraphrasing, he pointed out that Iran became a problem because the Bush administration removed Sadam's government from Iraq that resulted in the removal of Iran's chief enemy. Further he blamed the current problem in Gaza on the Bush administration for pushing for and wanting elections in the Palestinian Authority, even though Israel warned that Fatah would likely lose and resultantly place Hammas in power.
Two issues to draw from this. Firstly, the issue of Iran's nuclear program and the support of groups like Hezballah and Hammas. According to the N.I.E. released a few months back, Iran's secret nuclear program was moving along ful steam towards weaponization until the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whereupon, Iran not only halted its program, but even informed the United Nations' I.A.E.A. that it had a nuclear program. Also the issue of Iran supporting Hezzballah and Hammas suddenly became an issue upon which their government reasonably assumed that further support of these groups could place them in military conflict with the United States. Iran unilaterally halted such support long enough for Hezballah to suffer its collapse that happened in Lebanon, and also forced Hammas to consider political solutions because its source of armaments dried up.
Secondly, the Bush administration's efforts to promote a democratic initiation to the Middle East countries as a policy goal became possible. Jordan held elections that were not rubber stamp events. Syria relinquished its occupation of Lebanon and for the first time in decades free and fair elections were held the resulted in a stable government. Egypt held its first reasonably free elections since before Nassar was in power. Iraq held elections for the first time since the end of the British Mandate. And even the Palestinian Authority held elections that were free and fair for the first time ever since the end of the British mandate.
If the United States policy was through the second half of the Twentieth century and has remained to be policy in this century that the United States will support the removal of dictatorships in violation of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, then why would Obama view such a continuation of this policy as being wrong? Further, since the declaration of President Wilson on the necessity and right to free and democratic elections in 1919, the United States has sought to promote democratic political systems that hold free and fair elections as a central need to peaceful government, why would Obama hold that the Bush administration's continuation of this now almost one hundred years old policy to be wrong?
Obma posits that he would speak to our enemies. Holding out the examples of Nixon going to China, Carter going to the P.L.O., and even Kennedy meeting with Kruschev as times when the President has met with enemies, he neatly depends on the historical ignorance of the American public as to the details of such events. Few remember for example that Nixon's visit was in reality an attempt to further enlarge the divide between Soviet and Chinese Communism as well as personally inform the Chinese leadership that Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao would be grounds for war if China invaded. Few people remember that Carter's meeting with Arrafat was then end game in a diplomacy that had crossed the time period of three preceding Presidents and also was at a time when the P.L.O. was seeing its power-base erode to the point that it was finally willing to seek a diplomatic and political resolution. That is a far and marked difference in why previous Presidents negotiated with enemies than is the case with Obama seeking to parley with nations and leaders who not only do not want to parley but also see no need to parley with any President of the United States.
The fact that Obama sees the political method of being elected to office and governmental control by Hamas as being something that should never have been allowed brings to light the plausible conclusion that for whatever reason Obama supports democracy only if it is without consequence.
Why should we vote for a political leader who would no longer openly confront the worst leaders in the world, who would meet with any leader no matter how detestable, and who would avoid democratic institutions if it meant possible negative ramifications to the United States?
Posts
