Obama's bid seems unstoppable, yet Mrs. Clinton continues on. Some say this weakens the party. My opinion, the opposite is true. Once a candidate is selected and he or she is up against the other side, the memory will remain of that candidate, whoever it is, persevering in spite of the odds and the effort. This will reflect well in the campaign against the former POW.
My humble and completely unqualified opinion anyway.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don
I'm too serious
Tell me, tell, me, if you think you know
Labels
- About Me (15)
- aminals (25)
- architecture (3)
- burningman (41)
- ceaseless self-examination (19)
- history (17)
- inchoate entrepreneurialism (2)
- kid stuff (24)
- long unedited essays (22)
- music (4)
- NaNoWriMo (29)
- nanowrimocrastination (3)
- oh my godless (2)
- OMG IM OCD (4)
- people are strange (2)
- people are stupid (11)
- people what matter (18)
- perpetual picture-taking (24)
- politics (67)
- random life events (59)
- random whining (14)
- reading (4)
- San Francisco (11)
- shameless sexism (1)
- short fiction (3)
- short unedited essays (10)
- society (14)
- sports (2)
- thinking too much (9)
- Thursday Thirteen (6)
- travel (53)
- wha-a-atever (25)
- wordless wednesday (6)
- work (34)
- writing (15)
- xmas (13)
9 comments:
Well, yeah, except if Clinton bows down now, she won't be the one to run against McCaine.
I don't have a problem with either candidate running until he or she can no longer mathematically win, including the number of super-delegates.
Otherwise--I don't know what the prevailing wisdom is--people will regard either winner as barely beating the close second? The impression that McCaine is running against only half the Democratic party? Not to mention the divisiveness within the party that, they say, will shunt votes to McCaine, more so in the case of Clinton losing than of Obama losing, according to the polls.
The people who say that they'll vote for McCain if Clinton loses the nomination are the same people who said they'd move to Canada if Bush won in 2004.
I want her to quit not because of possible damage to the party, as I don't care about parties. I've never registered with one and I never intend to. I want her to quit because I don't like her. I think she'd be crappy, albeit not as crappy as McSame.That's still a valid reason, I assume.
BTW, I just started a poll on this topic last night.
At any rate, I don't think I understand the business of a group of Clinton supporters voting for McCaine if Clinton doesn't get to run. If you try to deduce their criterion, it reduces down to the fact that she is white, and that doesn't really make sense. Perhaps a large fraction of Clinton supporters are Republicans whose sympathy for the women's movement is stronger than their political ties and without a woman candidate to vote for, their priority returns to being Republican? All that's left is, they would be all pissed off and want to punish Obama.
Possibly, but I think this is more of a cheap strong-arm tactic. They're shouting this to the heavens in the hope that the superdelegates (whose very existence is appallingly offensive to anyone who would like the will of the people to at least APPEAR important) and the Democrats in the states that haven't voted yet will start thinking that support for Obama will mean a mass defection to the other side. They want to folks that are still on the fence to be afraid that Clinton is the only one who can beat McCain.
Frankly, I don't see that being an issue. Either can beat McCain. I would have voted for him in 2000, but let's face it, he isn't the same guy, and he's promising a continuation of policies that the vast majority can now see don't work.
I agree with your idea that this is all meant to manipulate the superdelegates. I also tend to agree that it won't be an issue, really.
Not the same guy as in 2000? Maybe not, hard to know. McCain is definitely not a Bushie, but then, I don't really follow this crap. Watching the Dem fight from way over here, it looks to me like a good thing, all talk of defection and electability aside. They are proving their mettle and who knows. This country has a history of electing the damnedest people.
I will vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination. It's not a matter of contrariness or pouting or anger at the Democratic party (of which I am not a member). It's very simple. Of the three, none of whom is a great candidate for me, I view Clinton as the worst for the job.
Between the other two I remain undecided, as I tend to be until about the night before I vote. I put the swing in swing voter.
Of the three, none of whom is a great candidate for me, I view Clinton as the worst for the job.
Then you're not a Clinton supporter in the primary race?
I always check out the pamphleteers on my way to the voting location. I'm a sucker for a well-crafted pamphlet.
"This country has a history of electing the damnedest people."
The damndest? Or the most damned? :-)
Post a Comment