Oh Hillary…
(*Note: This post was originally written around a week ago and I just got around to finishing and posting it, sorry for the tardiness of the subject, but I felt it still needed to be posted.)
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
As if this election couldn’t be more meticulously monitored based on ethnicity, Hillary Clinton makes this winner of a statement. Of course, I’m more likely to attribute this to a case of “lack of head on tight”, however the fact remains, she related being hard-working to being white. I’m not sure what’s worse: the fact that Hillary, despite her best intentions, drew a strong parallel between which race is the most “hardworking”, or the fact that John McCain is touting the foreign policy card but continues to confuse Sunni and Shi’a. (For those who are not familiar, McCain stated that Al Qaeda was a Shi’a group.)
Will this hurt Hillary in the long run? Probably not. I think if anything sealed her fate, it was the extremely narrow margin with which she won in Indiana this week. If anything, it’ll just be another quote added to one of those nifty little tear-off calendars with a new stupid quote made by a politician each day.
All the same, she shouldn’t just expect to be able to shrug it off her statement by saying “these are the people you need to win”. Au contraire, if the news networks have proven anything in their obsession with race and exit polling, it’s that more than just one group counts, stupid. Both Latino and Black Americans are going to have a lot of impact on this election.
Of course, to add a more current note to this post, let’s have a looksie at what some of our favorite conservatives have had to say lately:
“That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He’s getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor.” – Mike Fuckabee, referring to a loud noise backstage as he presented at the NRA convention on Friday.
^^ Yes, because considering the history of political assassinations as far back as, you know, THE BEGINNING OF TIME, this was a REALLY great statement. Calling Mike Huckabee a “douche” doesn’t even begin to cover it… For the rest of my life, Mike Huckabee shall be referred to as receptalacum testis, you know, to exemplify the ornate and diverse language and ideas he has tried to impart.
“As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared, ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this may have been avoided’. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” – President Bush, in reference to the Democrat’s stance on the Iraq war.
Right… because being best friends with Saudi Arabia and allowing Prince Bandar in the White House on September 12th, 2001 after their country funded 9/11… that is so completely not appeasement. Folks, I’m beginning to think it’s time that every citizen of this fine nation should mail President Bush a dictionary. Maybe his speech writers, too.
John Edwards FOR THE WIN!
YES! OMG, YES! John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama! *Takes a solid 5 minute break to squee like a child on Christmas morning*
Over AIM 10 minutes ago:
ElysaMNFF: YES!
Laura: YES
Laura: JOHN EDWARDS IS THE MAN
ElysaMNFF: 4 SRS
ElysaMNFF: OMG
ElysaMNFF: PWN
Laura: I love how
Laura: all you had to say was
Laura: “YES!”
Laura: And I knew automatically what you were talking about.
This is huge news, and let me explain why:
i. First of all, Edwards’ endorsement– no matter to whom it went– was/is hugely significant. Edwards has a massive following of extremely loyal populist/working class voters. This has been evidenced by the fact that, despite that Edwards dropped out of the race ages ago, he continues to garner votes in the primaries. His following is so loyal that they vote for him even when he is no longer viable, or even on the ticket. Translation: Edwards holds the hearts of millions of important Democratic voters who have refused to vote for either Clinton or Obama up to this point. Now, that’s set to change. By endorsing Obama, Edwards is releasing his constituents to vote for Obama, is in fact encouraging them to support Obama, and with such an intensely devout following this is essentially guaranteeing that they will. And mark my words. They will.
ii. It is also about the type of voters they are. Edwards, like Clinton, runs on an extremely populist message. He focuses on poverty, healthcare, welfare, et al. Therefore, his target crowd are middle/working class, blue collar Americans– the same target audience as Hillary Clinton, and the one crowd that Obama has had enormous trouble winning over, which is essentially why he lost West Virginia last night by such a massive margin: 90% of West Virginia consists of the middle/lower working class. So Edwards’ endorsement is going to be huge in closing that gap for Obama. It’s going to bring those types of voters over into Obama’s camp, giving him much more support in practically the only real electorate weakness he had (past tense now!). This is terrible news for Hillary Clinton, for the obvious reasons, but also because Edwards’ voice has so much credibility among Clinton’s strongest supporters that by supporting Obama, Edwards will not only bring him more support, but will potentially divert support from Clinton by provoking blue collar voters to rethink their choice of candidate.
iii. Thirdly, this comes at the perfect time for Obama. He just suffered a crushing defeat in West Virginia last night, so Edwards’ timing is choice and strategic. Both the media’s and the nation’s attention is going to be diverted from Obama’s loss and refocused on Edwards’ endorsement. In a political system that (unfortunately, but nonetheless) relies heavily on momentum and media/mass perception, the timing truly could not have been better. The West Virginia defeat story will be old hat within a matter of 24 hours as this Edwards story dilutes the news cycle. It reinforces Obama’s stance as the front-runner, reinstates a little lost certainty in his ability to pick up working class support, and reaffirms his campaign as being the stronger, more credible and able campaign to face McCain in the November General Elections.
iv. Lastly, when an ex-candidate formally endorses another candidate, he/she is also formally releasing their delegates. Meaning, the 19 Superdelegates that Edwards had won in the early primaries are now free to support someone else. And who do you think they’ll support if the candidate they were formally supporting has endorsed Obama? One guess.
Not to mention, of course, that Clinton worked endlessly to garner Edwards’ endorsement, so his decision to support her rival is more than a little embarrassing. No matter how you slice it, it’s utterly fantastic news for the Obama camp, meaning it’s utterly fantastic news for me and Laura. Let it be known that Wednesday, May 14, is officially some manner of National Holiday.
I’m certain I’ll have more on this later (such as what this could mean for a possible Obama/Edwards ticket), but in my unhindered excitement the threads of coherent thought are slipping speedily away.
/Elysa
Are We a Democracy or Not?
Since Clinton’s rather embarrassing defeat in North Carolina and her near-defeat in the state of Indiana (a state in which she was poised to win by a margin of 8% or greater– HA), Hillary has lost some substantial Superdelegate support and has been on the receiving end of many calls to bow out of the Democratic race.
Now, let me make something abundantly clear: I do not like Hillary Clinton (as a politician/law-maker, that is). I find her polarizing, near-sighted, and utterly lacking in the ability to compromise during a time in American history when bipartisan cooperation is no longer an ideologue’s plea but a necessity. She’s part Populist (i.e., economically liberal) and I have some strong Libertarian leanings (i.e., economically conservative). Populists bother me immensely. They rally for freedom and civil liberties then endorse government control and regulation– over a fundamentally capitalist system, no less. Fail. So for me, personally, Clinton is faaaar from the ideal candidate. In many ways, I find her just as unappealing as John McCain.
But to those who are shouting for her to drop out: SHUT.UP.KTHX.
I mean, seriously. Let’s be objective, people. Let’s allow democracy to run its course. You don’t have to like her. Again, I certainly don’t. But she has huge masses of support behind her, millions upon millions of American citizens have voted for her, her campaign continues to raise money, and Obama cannot mathematically reach the necessary delegate count to be the official nominee either. Let the god damned woman run, would you? Is this not what the United States is about? Hard-fought elections and exceedingly tough political campaigns? If we can’t endure the strain of democracy at work, who the hell are we? If difficult campaign seasons aren’t worth your time and patience, perhaps you’re living in the wrong fucking country. Do your history homework. Just a thought.
And if appealing to one’s inner ideology isn’t enough, look at it from a strategic standpoint: Clinton is going to win the West Virginian and Kentucky primaries by large margins. 10% or more, possibly by as much as 18%-20% in West Virginia, because she does well in low-income, working class states (i.e., the Populist crowd). These primaries are mere days/weeks away. If Clinton dropped out of the race, what would that mean for the Obama campaign? THINK, people. Our brains can be miraculous little things. He would be losing by huge margins to a ghost candidate. One to two weeks isn’t enough time to close those wide margins and win in those states between now and then. So if she bowed out, the Obama campaign’s credibility would take a beating. “How can he lose to a candidate who has already ceded the election? If he can’t beat Clinton when she isn’t even running anymore, do we trust him to beat McCain and his entire Republican political machine in November?” I find this sort of logic ridiculous and not even deserving of the term “logic”, but unfortunately that is undeniably the inane path of thought that many– the media included– would follow should Hillary drop out now. Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that her bowing out could weaken the Democratic Party by making their supporters second-guess Obama’s validity and capability.
Do I personally buy this argument? Meh, partly, partly not. I believe that is indeed what huge portions of Democratic voters would wonder, but I have reservations as to how detrimental it would truly be. I don’t think it would deter them enough to keep them from voting for him in November. But it is a valid point that a lot of political scientists are arguing.
It’s been an exciting but obnoxious primary season, I agree, and I can’t wait for the real General Election campaigning to begin either. But guys, there’s roughly three weeks left. Three weeks’ worth of primaries, then the Democratic Convention in August. The end is near. So for the sake of all that is holy and in the name of both ideology and strategy, let’s shut our pie holes and let Clinton run her damned race.
/Elysa
Nothing More than Clubs
Let’s talk about the Michigan/Florida controversy.
2008 Election History 101: The Democratic Party set guidelines and rules for how the states are allowed to carry out their primaries. Some of the rules were small and simple, such as “the candidates’ names must be listed in alphabetical order on the ballot,” and others were far more significant and meaningful, such as “you may not hold your primary before the date ______.” The date was different for most states, but each state received a window of time in which they were allowed to hold theirs. Each Party does this– Republicans too– and not just this season, but every election season. These rules are set down by Party officials, and for good reason. And the reason that the Parties tell the states when they can and cannot hold their primaries is because political strategy demands that some states vote before others. For instance: California cannot go first. They cannot be the first or even among the first to hold their primary, because it is such a huge state with so many delegates, that if it went first, the winner of California’s primary would receive loads of media attention, lots of support from delegates, and tons of money, on the notion that “well, if they can win California they’re pretty well set to win the rest.” And this is not always the case, obviously, so an early win in California would give democratic voters a false sense of who their candidate will be, thereby surprising and disenfranchising them later in the election season if the front-runner ends up being someone else. And what happens when voters are disenfranchised? They stop voting. Which, of course = bad for the Party.
So there is a method to the madness. Each Party sets these rules in place for specific and politically meaningful reasons.
So what happened this season to fuck it all up? Well, Michigan and Florida expressed their desire to break these rules and hold their primaries much earlier than allowed. The DNC (Democratic National Committee) told them– “Look, if you go through with this, we’re not counting your votes. Your delegates won’t be counted. I don’t know how else to phrase it. You’ll be holding your primary for nothing.” Like jackasses, both states decided to call the DNC’s bluff, and went through with it anyway, holding their primaries months before schedule. This threw off the Democrats’ election season, forcing other states to re-schedule their primaries, costing the Democratic Party money and resources. So what did they (the DNC) do? Exactly as they warned: they didn’t count their votes.
And now Florida and Michigan are “outraged” like little toddlers who’ve had their gummy bears taken away for misbehaving. “My God, how dare you do what you said you’d do?!” And they’re calling out the DNC as being undemocratic, or better yet, anti-American, because they’re “disrespecting and disregarding the traditions of democracy which demand that all votes be counted.” Hillary Clinton is eating this up, because she would do well in both states, meaning that if the DNC folds under pressure and decided to count Florida’s and Michigan’s votes, and/or Florida and Michigan are permitted to hold another primary, it will do her campaign a lot of favors. It’s a Hail Mary for the candidate who just got her ass kicked in both North Carolina and Indiana last night (yes, Indiana too, because she only won by 2% and was supposed to win by huge margins, meaning her “I’m more electable than Obama in November” argument is null).
Here’s what I think, because did you really expect me not to tell you? 
SHUT THE FUCK UP. You broke the god damned rules. Get over it. It’s not like you weren’t warned multiple times. It’s not like anyone forced you to go outside your own Party’s guidelines and sabotage other states’ primary schedules. Secondly, it isn’t undemocratic not to count your votes, for two reasons. First of all, you made the choice not to have your votes counted by being pompous disobeying douche bags. I.e., it isn’t undemocratic not to count your vote when you asked for your vote not to be counted.
Secondly, these are the primaries, people. These are the elections to determine Parties’ nominees for the presidential election in November. No one is taking away your Constitutional right to vote in the General Election. No one is telling you that, come November, you won’t have a voice. These.are.primaries. And what are primaries? Primaries are Party-sponsored, Party-regulated, and Party-run elections to decide who best represents their Party. So when you flip the bird to your Party and decide not to accept the Party’s rules in the Party’s– not nation’s!– elections, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. And there is nothing undemocratic about it, because the Party system isn’t written into our Constitution, isn’t even a democratic ideal or principle, it is an informal invention and tradition. There are no laws or rights for Political Parties in the U.S. because they weren’t supposed to fucking exist in the first place. Therefore, Political Parties are legally and rightfully allowed to conduct themselves however they see fit. So this controversy over not counting two states’ primaries because they broke their own rules is no controversy at all. If Florida and Michigan don’t like it, they can leave the Party. No one’s stopping them.
Political Parties are like clubs. When the club’s president tells you that “X” is not acceptable behavior during club meetings, and you do “X” anyway, what the fuck do you expect? “ZOMG, u be tellin me not to do dis, den I be doin it n u gets upsetz?! Who culd of new?!” Or would you go about whining about principles of democracy? LULZ, shut up, it has nothing to do with that, you’re still going to get to help determine who will be the president… Just not who will be your party’s nominee. Why? Because you… fucked over your party. Logical deductions FOR THE WIN.
I think the only reason people feel as if they have any right to throw a hot little shitfit over this is because they bear the painful misconception that political parties are state-regulated/based in law, when they’re not. I mean, really, the Democratic and Republican parties don’t even have to hold primary elections at all. The Party officials could just meet around a table, flip a coin or play Pin the Tail on the Right Candidate, and choose that way, and it would be perfectly fucking okay. Just like if you joined a club at school, and they told you, “sure, you can join, but just so you know– we don’t eat cherries. If you eat cherries here, you’re out.” Fine! And if you have a problem with that, guess what amazing little option you have? LEAVE. When you choose to join an informal club such as a political party, you are choosing to respect and abide by the terms and conditions. This isn’t the fucking government. If the government refused to count your vote, or if the government told you that you aren’t allowed to eat cherries, that would be a HUGE fucking problem. Seriously. I would personally revolt. Yes, even over the cherries. Don’t mess with the maraschinos. But this isn’t the government! This is an informal group of crazies who rally around half-baked political ideals and spam your inboxes with petulant little bits of propaganda! That’s it! Nothing more!
And this is partly why I fucking despise Political Parties. Which is another post for another day, but yeah, I don’t do Parties. Hence half of the reason I registered as an Independent. Because I chose not to join. But you know what I didn’t do? I didn’t choose to join and then bitch about the terms involved in joining.
That’s Florida’s and Michigan’s job.
-Elysa
