Clinton's Gaff?

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.

Leia Mais…

Hillary's Misspeak.

Strange at it may seem for me to be defending Hillary, I really do think she was simply a victim of campaigning. Call it diarrhea of the mouth, brain fade, or simple exhaustion- what she said compares to the other instances where politicians on the campaign trail say things that are simply untrue. I don't think it is or was intentional on her part. The part of me that holds Hillary to indeed be insanely smart and insanely calculating tells me that I should be taking her statement as an outright lie, intentionally told, to serve one of her machinations that would place her in the White House. But the rest of my thought processes tell me that there is absolutely no machination plausible that would account for her having ever mad this statement.

It's much like Obama's "bitter" comment that was followed by examples of provincialism that results from such bitterness. Do people buy guns because they are bitter over their economic situation? Do people go to religious services because they are bitter about the economy? The man is suffering from campaign fatigue. Plain and simple. Given a couple of weeks of sleep he probably would never have phrased his comments the way that he did.

McCain confusing Sunni & Shia sects at least twice falls into the same category as well. Taking into account his Senate committee assignments, it is very doubtful that were it not for continued campaigning, he would not have made such a slip up.

Reagan, Ford, Carter, and even Bill Clinton had their gaffs as well during campaigns. The difference is that technology has so caught up with campaigning methods that almost an entire candidate's run gets digitally recorded. What gets said in New Hampshire is worldwide news for 24 hours. There are no private moments.

And as an example today you have video of Clinton doing a Crown Royal shot & Obama serving cheeseburgers in a restaurant. In a very real sense, the camera lens combined with digital signal streaming feeds makes it entirely possible to catch every single hiccup made by a candidate. At some point, normal mortals will break.

All three remaining candidates have broken. It's that simple. Would Clinton have said what she said if she wasn't a political zombie right now? Would Obama be caught on camera serving cheeseburgers to white people in a style that practically screams "House Slave" ever have happened were it not for the ghoulish campaign?

Honestly, while such gaffs are entertaining grift, what do they actually indicate about the candidates? In a word-nothing. They are instead concentrating on explaining away the gaffs, while real issues such as their plans for domestic and international policy get ignored by the camera. It is very telling that even though all the candidates have given policy speeches, the only ones that even get more than a few minutes of live media play have been Obama & Romney speaking on their own religion. McCain's speech on solar energy policy was only covered because he was expected to get an endorsement from Guilianni at the same speech. CNN & Fox started covering it, but when it became apparent that McCain wasn't planning on handling the endorsement until after his policy speech, both networks broke away.

It is a function of salaciousness, that our media has devolved its coverage down to such important questions as "Boxers, Briefs, or Freeball?". The current crop of candidates I think tried to earnestly put policy plans of multiple issues on the table. But, despite that attempt, we have instead gotten coverage of the exceptional. Such as Oprah hosting a campaign rally for Obama. Hillary "crying" in New Hampshire. And a few hundred more trivialities that really were never important campaign events or even being news worthy.

Leia Mais…