If one is surprised by the results from Pennsylvania, then you are truly underestimating the power of the last 20 years of Clintons ruling the Democratic party. If you think that merely outspending Clinton on TV ads should have insured a victory, then your faith in the scrutiny of the American voter is quite naive. Do you know how insulting it is to suggest that lots of TV ads just 'buy voters'? Sounds like sheep being led to slaughter.
Please keep in mind that Hillary has had the goal of the White House for many years... easily since or before the whole Monica Lewinsky mess (why do you think she stood by Bill through it all as graciously and supportively as she did?? this was likely the payoff... that's the way the Clintons' or most serious politicians work). So don't you find it curious that these 'big' 'must-win' states are all her "FIREWALLS"? The Clintons were courting those states the ENTIRE time they were in office.. going there frequently, showing concern... they built a relationship with those people and the folks of Ohio and Pennsylvania are loyal. They aren't going to rethink years of friendship over a few TV and Radio spots!
Why do you think she chose to run for the Senate in NY? Another must win, big state and this way she could claim it as 'home' and help garner votes.
The fact that Obama is the front runner is the mindblower to people who REALLY understand how the power of the Democratic party works. Look at Hillary's endorsements in PA for example, or NY... do you think those were earned through merit or favors from the past?
How does a fresh, Junior Senator from Illinois with just 2 years on the National political scene compete with that?? Like I said, it says ALOT about the frustration of the electorate that he is - much less winning.
The question for Hillary is probably little more than symbolic now. The most she can accomplish is to destroy Obama's chances at the Presidency as she has no real basis to claim the nomination regardless of her posturing and spin. Seriously, consider for a moment what it would mean if the Democratic party chose it's nominee through autocratic methods? The entire primary system is based on choosing the nominee based on total pledged delegates won. It was never intended that the SuperDelegates would override the choice of the people. To do so would really mean that all these primaries, conventions and caucuses were meaningless and that the voters (not just Michigan and Florida) were disenfranchised.
Let's be frank, if you were a Democrat in an elected office and a Super Delegate, would you be willing to throw your support behind a nominee that was not democratically chosen? If so, you'd likely know you were playing with fire that would likely come back to burn you the next time you ran for re-election. At the same time, right now you would likely stay undeclared (which most are) because you'd know you are very likely to infuriate a significant percentage of your constituency if you declared before the dust settled on a clear 'presumptive' nominee. Again for the same reason, you can't afford to infuriate your base even a minority of it.
Of course, this is the log jam (along with missteps along the way like Michigan and Florida) that are giving Pelosi and Dean so many sleepless nights and incredulous stares into the camera.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am not a Democrat. I doubt that I will ever vote either party after this election. I registered Democrat to vote in the primary, because I do not want another 1 minute of Republican held Congress and rigid religious right forcing an end to liberty as per our Constitution.
I wrote the DNC about my feelings; Bill was impeached; he lied under oath to the grand jury; he was disbarred. If a rerun of Clinton is all they offer me, they are as corrupt as the Clintons are.
Any Super Delegate who has endorsed them has shown me they too are corrupt. The citizens puzzle me.
How can anyone vote for known corruption, lies and lack of integrity.
The Clintons should have bowed out gracefully when she ran out of money. That the DNC has sat silently by as she lies to defame Seantor Obama tells me a lot about what the Democrat party is about.
I will vote Obama in November, but I will never vote the Clintons. I probably should be campaigning for the Green Party. If the voters are dumb enough to support the Clintons' I feel there is no hope to get corruption out of DC.
So the whole process is a sham.
I understand your fury... I remember how disowned and depressed I was in November of 2004, but.... BUT... your approach may be the exact opposite of what we need to take this country back. Obama inspires us and guess what? This country has only been GREAT when it was inspired... think about the inspiring leaders.
I am not going to suggest any answers if there were a general election campaign without Obama - at this moment - with Obama winning in a landslide in NC - that doesn't seem to be likely to happen. So, focus on the positive. Focus on how excited you are (and we all are) to take this country BACK.
Post a Comment