I just wanted to post something about the primaries last night. I don't have any revolutionary insight, but I would like to post (for the world) the following:
1. I think Clinton's gains are the direct result of her negative campaign. I think that's unfortunate to say the very least. Her tactics are turning off the Dems who are paying attention. Appealing to the lowest common denominator (fear, prejudice) no doubt won the rural sections of last night's big states, but it cost her the big cities.
(For those of you who have lost track, Clinton's negative campaigning now consists of doctoring debate footage to make Obama appear blacker, blatantly lying about his actions (or lack thereof) on his Senate Subcommittee, the "red phone" ad, and various comments belittling Obama's gains throughout the primaries). And beyond all those, belittling Obama's message and charisma as "speeches instead of substance" and promising to make "hope a reality". Come up with your own inspiration, Hill. *seething as her supporters chanted "Yes We Will" last night*
2. The coverage of McCain is annoying. He hasn't won anything. He is the nominee by default.
3. I cannot believe Huckabee, a man who wants to "amend the Constitution to God's standards", received so much support. Is our education system so lacking that people forget the Constitution supports pluralism in this country? And the separation of church and state?
4. Also, my original fave, John Edwards, has yet to endorse either frontrunner. If he had, I think Obama would have done much better in Ohio. Think he's waiting for the spotlight at the convention?? Maybe the DNC will ask him to gracious speak and make his endorsement thus breaking a tie? Obama's grassroots effort and focus on the people of this country to change what's happened to this country is the most in line with Edward's populist message. To me, it's obvious.
Last night was also reminiscent of '04 (esp when Clinton herself reminded us that "Ohio knows how to pick a president") in that I was surprised and disappointed with the way people were voting. And those were all (or mostly) Democrats.
I will keep hoping for a better America, represented by Barack Obama as our President.
3 comments:
Well, in the interest of full disclosure, and as I've intimated to many of you before, HC holds a place in my heart. Her first race in NY was my first opportunity to vote, and she was my first real (and meaningful) vote ever cast. My Mom loves her too, so we've bonded a bit over HC. I voted for Obama in the IL primary, but it was a tough decision for me (not that my vote for HC would have mattered in IL, but I take this seriously).
THAT SAID, I understand your frustrations, Jenn. I really do. HC is certainly a politician, but you have to remember that BO (I laugh every single time I write those initials) is too. The euphoria he's created around his campaign is something we don't normally see, and this is the first time I remember almost everyone I know talking about a Presidential campaign. In fact, I was in an all-day meeting at work (hence my absence from The Blog today) and it came up in front of all these directors and higher ups! Everyone is interested in this campaign.
Now, you don't have to agree with HC's tactics, but it's obvious to me that her attacks are out of desperation. For better or worse, she WAS the presumptive nominee going into this campaign, and she's not happy that she's not anymore. She is a career politician. And, for the record, Obama is well on his way to being one, as well.
What I think all Dems need to do is breathe. She's only running because she feels she would make the best President. She's not running to ruin BO. And, this is still a free country, and anyone can run that wants to (anyone that is rich, anyway). I think we should all be HAPPY that there are two qualified (at least in my opinion) candidates that I would have no problem voting for. And, I've not found many Dems that wouldn't vote for HC if they had to -- you know, back about a year and a half ago when BO running wasn't even a sure thing?
AND I don't think it's fair to say that her negative campaigning is THE REASON why she won in Ohio and Texas. We've seen that her negative campaigning did NOT work in other States, so it seems like two examples aren't enough to come to that conclusion. Maybe she won because the people of Ohio and Texas liked her message more. Maybe all those rural people don't really feel that connected with BO. Who knows, but I don't think it's as simple as her negative ads.
You don't have to LIKE HC to admit that she's brilliant. She's also qualified, and she IS a Dem. That doesn't mean I think she SHOULD be the nominee or that I think she can WIN against McCain. I have my doubts, for sure, but we could do a lot worse as a party than HC. AND, Obama is still winning! So, before we have a party-imploding heart attack over HC, let's remember that nothing is over yet, and BO can still win. He just needs to find a way to connect with the people he's currently NOT connecting with.
Plus, there are more important things to worry about. Like Patrick Swayze having cancer!
NOT TO MENTION, if BO can't handle negative attacks from HC, imagine what'll happen when the Republican machine starts whacking away at him! At the very least this is great practice for him.
HAHAHAHAHA@"a party-imploding heart attack" *deep breath* I know, I know, I am just hooked on the positive message and optimism and idealism. What can I say? I know BO is a politician as well (and LAWYER, to boot). I had just hoped that the Dems wouldn't fight amongst themselves. Unlikely, I know.
Patrick Swayze has cancer??
Post a Comment