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
Dear Generation X,
I have three important posts in the works, but as Hell Week is quickly approaching for we college students, they’re on hold for the moment. For now, a brief and totally off-the-cuff spiff:
The current group of 18-24 year olds are statistically the most uninvolved, disengaged generation of young people in American history. Bar none. And that’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. The issue I take with those I meet who exemplify this trend is that they seem to have deluded themselves into believing that the realm of politics and government is someone else’s responsibility, and that if they choose to be apathetic, it is their right.
To me, they might as well be saying, “the earth is flat,” because that is the staggering amount of ignorance it requires to maintain such an uninformed, pitiful attitude. In a republic such as the United States, politics and government are the duty of the people. If you are not plugged in, you are being irresponsible. We, as a nation, need to start considering our right to vote, petition, and rally as the sort of obligation that we consider when we speak of providing for our families and paying our bills. Because, folks, you can accumulate as much wealth as you damn well want. You can be a responsible mother/father and feed and clothe your children, you can send them to the very best university and provide for them the very best that life has to offer. But none of that– none of it– will mean a single fucking thing if you don’t invest yourself in the government and in the country that they will inherit. All of your efforts to be a responsible member of your family– whether that is a parent, sibling, or grandparent– will be for naught if you don’t also endeavor to be a responsible citizen.
Additionally, anyone who uses the term “right” in the context of having rights in the same sentence as “apathetic” is– and I say this without hesitation– an unfortunate moron. The entire concept of the values of human/civil rights is derived (in the modern sense) from the Enlightenment Movement… otherwise known as the “Age of Reason.” Consider that. You are claiming the right to be an apathetic mooch based off the hard work and sacrifices of those who gave you the very concept. Wow. Well, I tell you what. I’m in a Henry Clay, compromising sort of mood. So I won’t argue with you over the fact that you indeed have that right, so long as you don’t argue with me over the fact that you are indeed an idiot.
Lastly, the notion that your choice to be apathetic doesn’t affect anyone else only further illuminates the precise degree to which you are an idiot. It proves your utter lack of understanding for the very foundational basics of democracy and government, and while that earns both my pity and disgust, I am frankly too revolted by your regression into a Neanderthal to waste my time teaching you the ABCs of intellect. If you are so adamant on being a lazy farce, please feel free to move to one of the many countries that do not allow your participation in government, for it would surely suit your indolent sensibilities best.
For those of you who do not wish to be apathetic, who want to be civilly engaged, but just aren’t sure where to begin or how to start informing yourselves on the issues, I at least applaud your interest. It’s a good start. I would propose a number of recommendations, starting with taking a civics/government 101 course as soon as you can. Some high schools offer them, but if yours doesn’t, take one the very second you enter college. If you aren’t attending college, most states offer free civics courses through branches of local universities. For instance, two of my politics professors teach free classes at a lodge about 20 miles from my college. The resources are out there. It only takes a little bit of investigation, and with the birth of the internets, there truly is no excuse.
In the meantime, if any of you ever have any questions about U.S. government, democracy, or politics, I would be positively honored to assist you in your search for an answer. I will answer outright and/or provide a number of resources so that you can research yourself. Whichever you prefer, because I am not free of bias and I would hate to influence your thinking without your permission. Seriously. Independent thought is a gift only you can give yourself.
“The death of democracy will not be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” –Robert Maynard Hutchins
/Elysa.
4,000
Today it has been reported that another four US soldiers were killed last night (Sunday) in a roadside bomb, which brings the number of US casualties in Iraq to 4,000. These are 4,000 children who will never come home to their parents, and many of them had children of their own they won’t get to watch grow up. 4,000 people we will never see walking down the street, or even doing something as simple as making a trip to the grocery store. 4,000 people who made the ultimate sacrifice, and 4,000 families whose lives will never be the same again.
Let us not push these men and women to the backs of our minds, as war casualties often are. If the news outlets are tomorrow reporting on celebrity gossip – turn it off, and instead, take a moment to remember the brave people who have given their lives, and the brave people who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for now, I’d like to give the floor to some of you: What do you think about war casualties? Can they ever be worth it? I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Laura
The immigration debate
This is a topic that has been on my mind for quite some time, and I’ve been mulling it over quite a bit over the last few days. I’m sure most people are sick of hearing about this issue – it seems like all we hear is “Candidate X wants to give illegal immigrants amnesty!” or, as an episode of South Park aptly observed: “They took our jobs!!!” (For a clip from this hilarious and scarily accurate episode, click here.) Most of us are familiar with the obvious arguments on both sides, such as the famous “taking our jobs” vs. “working jobs we don’t want” discussion most people have, but there are other things aside from the argument that have been on my mind lately (though, I won’t promise not to make an argument here).So, moving onto one of the things that pisses me off the most: social stigma against Mexicans. First of all: since WHEN did “Mexican” become an insult? Living in the south, I can’t recount the amount of times I’ve heard someone use “Mexican” as some sort of slur, and it’s funny considering these people are so willing to convert a nationality into an insult, but the second someone uses “American” in the same way, they’re up in arms about people who hold prejudices and promote stereotypes. However, it should be noted that the terms are used differently – those who use “American” as a slur use it to generalize stupidity, whereas those who use “Mexican” as an insult use it to generalize filthiness, thievery, and exploitation of America. After all, there’s no such thing as a dirty American who steals from stores and exploits things like welfare.
Continuing along that train of thought, I’m wondering how many of those who are so willing to generalize others have access to a world map. Perhaps Miss South Carolina can help them out, but in the meantime, let’s have a little review about the Americas:
Mexico is not part of Latin America or South America – it is part of North America, which *gasp* makes Mexicans Americans! Now, some people find it incredibly easy to misconstrue this little tidbit of information – this doesn’t make them citizens of the United States of America (I emphasize this because people have become prone to thinking that America is only the states) but it does make them Americans – North Americans, to be precise – just like us.
Countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, Spain, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, etc. are not in Mexico. Sounds simple, no? Then why is it that people who speak Spanish, or even vaguely look like they come from south of the border get called Mexican? This often gets justified by people who don’t know any better that, “they all look the same”. Oh, okay, well I guess if that’s the case, then people can just start calling Americans “French” and vise versa if they feel like it – I mean, we look the same, right? Point blank: “Mexican” should not be an insult, and unless you’re geographically challenged, you’ll know that Puerto Ricans, for instance, aren’t Mexican (as if the 2,000 mile difference didn’t make if obvious enough).
Then we move onto the subject of immigrants abusing systems like welfare and social security. There is no denial that this does indeed happen. Where you have a system, you will have people who exploit it. However, seeing as there are a pretty good number of US citizens who abuse both of these systems, perhaps we should focus more on, you know, FIXING them. No, they will never be perfect – but it is a completely unfair standard to hold all immigrants to, by saying that because a few of them might not work for the life they want here, that they should all get out. If this kind of attitude holds true, I wonder when we’re going to start kicking our own citizens out for doing the same thing – the idea is simply laughable. In order to justify that an immigrant exploiting welfare is any more wrong than an American doing the same thing, we’d have to prove that being a citizen of the US gives us the right to do so!
Furthermore, what people neglect to mention about social security is that most people who are here illegally have fake SSN’s. This means they’re paying taxes that they don’t get back. You’d have to be a pretty big douche to say that people who are paying money into a system that benefits you (however flawed it may be) are taking away from you, or exploiting the social security system. Instead of bitching a blue streak about that, why don’t we take issue with the people who get larger benefits from the system than they ever paid into it during their working years?
From here, we move into the various laws that are being put in place to target immigrants. We have the SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification and Enforcement): essentially, under this, employers would have to use the electronic verification system on everyone. Is someone really trying to make me shit a brick? The e-verify system is riddled with error, and has a 10% false/positive rate. Aside from the obvious idea that the system can encourage discrimination amongst employers, can you imagine 10% of people living in the US being flagged in that system? Furthermore, if it’s got problems now, imagine what will happen when it becomes more widely used. Then of course, comes education: how the hell can states even think about getting rid of ESOL programs? Let’s just put this in perspective: 88% of Latinos under the age of 18 living in the US are citizens, with another 1% of them becoming citizens through naturalization. This leads us to another ridiculous idea: that we should get rid of a program that benefits citizens. Don’t get me wrong – if you’re going to live somewhere, you should speak the predominant language, whether it is an official or national one, of the country. If I were going to live in Germany, for instance, it would be ridiculous of me not to learn German. But how on earth is this going to happen if we take the necessary tools away?
So what should we do about immigrants? There is no doubt in my mind that we have to do something, but kicking every person who is here illegally out of this country isn’t the solution. It would be horrendous for our economy, for starters (unless US citizens decide to start picking up the jobs they currently don’t want to work), and it simply goes against the basic idea of our country being the land of dreams, corny as that may seem. It’s a rare person who can say with confidence that every last relative of theirs arrived here legally and without question. It’s also a rare person who can actually pass the citizenship tests immigrants have to take in order to become naturalized. Frankly, I’ve never heard of anyone who had time to spare waiting to be admitted anywhere when their family depended on it – perhaps so many people might not be here illegally if it didn’t take so damn long to complete the process.
I can’t give anyone a step-by-step process on how to deal with the so-called “illegal problem”, but I can say this: the racial slurs, the abusive police officers who take it upon themselves to harass immigrants, and the blame placed for our own failures is not helping. We call ourselves “the land of the free, and the home of the brave”, but sometimes I think we forget what this means. Perhaps if we didn’t view our freedom as an exclusive privilege, and owned up to the shortcomings our country does have rather than pawning them off on the most recent immigrant group, we might remember.
Laura
Some Catch-Up
We interrupt our normal programming to bring you all a game of catch-up here at Political Bitches. Unfortunately, do to outside forces (*cough*midterms*cough*) this hasn’t been as kept up to date as we would like it to be, so let’s have a little news medley, shall we?
1. NY Governor Spitzer is caught in a prostitution scandal. These are always the types of stories I hate getting out about politicians, and it’s for the exact reason everyone else loves them getting out: people have an odd fascination with knowing what their public officials are doing with their private lives. Here’s an idea for those people who only care that he had *gasp* sex out of wedlock: he’s put his wife and children into an absolutely TERRIBLE position, and not only does this make him a jackass, it makes him a hypocrite. Generally, it’s not a good idea to buy sex and then go after prostitutes, Governor. I don’t give a damn that he risked his own health and career – the real problem here is he has exposed his family and the young woman (‘Kristin’ as she is known) to a great deal of public scrutiny. So let’s actually try focusing on that issue, as opposed to just being shell-shocked by the act, kay?
2. Obama: “I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is first place.” I know a few people seem to feel this provides necessary reason to call Obama out for “arrogance”, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. No one is perfect in this race, but the Clinton camp just keeps on trying to use more and more tactics in order to bring about a benefit, when in reality, it’s just adding to the separation of the Democratic party. Sure, Obama is confident in his current lead, but at least when he was behind in delegates, he wasn’t offering lesser positions to Clinton.
3. Wright and Ferraro: Not helping. Guess what? This isn’t a color race. STFU. You’re only giving stupid people ridiculous things to say about these candidates because you can’t stop flapping your mouths for two seconds.
4. Sending Dick Cheney to the Middle East to lower oil prices. Riiiiight, let’s send Mr. Halliburton to convince OPEC to boost output. Furthermore, according to this merry band of shrubs, our tanking economy is to be blamed on the increase in oil prices! But never mind that war we spend millions of dollars on every day – no, that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with our economy or the high oil prices.
5. House supports revision the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. And of course, Bush isn’t happy about this, but what else would we expect? As a point of interest, this is the first time the House has held a secret meeting since 1983. Under these revisions, telecommunications companies can be sued for surveillance without warrant, which of course, would be getting rid of another ‘essential tool on terror’. Maybe one day we can wiretap and water board at the same time – double wammies, take that terrorists!!!!!
Laura
Controlled Drowning… what a great idea!
…or not. As I’m sure many of you have heard, President Bush vetoed an anti-waterboarding bill, which would prohibit the CIA from using widely disputed torture tactic in order to extract information from prisoners.
This is no shock… but it’s still WTF worthy. In his weekly broadcast, Bush said that, “The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror…So today I vetoed it.”
But hey, I mean, the only way we can keep violence at the merely ridiculous level is by sending over more troops, Iraqi people in Basra are protesting because of the lack of security, and terrorist groups are reforming in the region… But don’t worry! Strapping individuals down to a plank of wood and filling their lungs with water is working!
Even if you do think waterboarding is a proper tactic for extorting information from prisoners (though, it blows my mind that people recognize John McCain was tortured by his captives in Vietnam, yet have no moral or ethical concerns for the idea of resorting to such crude and primitive methods), it should be a great concern that less than 10% of Guantanamo detainees are affiliated with Al Queda.
Torture is a moral issue, folks. Because the Bush administration tries to avoid that fact by saying waterboarding is not a form of torture, it again shows their utter disregard for the sanctity of life they go on about (don’t get an abortion, but nearly drowning someone is okay?) and ultimately, their incompetence in the political arena, and anywhere else, really – I wouldn’t trust that bunch running a fast food restaurant.
Laura
3/4/08: Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island
As of the moment I type this post, here are the current reports on tonights primaries and caucus:
Ohio: Clinton/McCain projected winners.
Texas: Clinton/McCain projected winner.
Vermont: Obama/McCain projected winners.
Rhode Island: Clinton/McCain projected winners.
At this point, here’s the standing on delegates:
Clinton: 1,324
Obama: 1,411
McCain: 1,205
As an outspoken Obama supporter, I’m not extremely shocked at this turn of events, but I’m not happy with it either. I know the point of this blog isn’t to pout and whine that our favorite candidates don’t get the big win all the time, but hear me out: part of my problem with the way this has turned out actually has nothing to do with my admiration of Obama. Once again, the Republicans have shown the Democrats up by lining up behind one candidate early in the game – instead, liberals are still split fairly even down the middle, and it’s this kind of division that could seriously lose us this election.
I know the general word of mouth now is that no GOP is going to get into office because everyone has become so disenfranchised by the Republicans because of Bush. There is definitely truth to that statement, however, there was a lot of this same sentiment in 2004, and who has been in office the last four years? Oh right, the guy everyone hated on then too.
If I truly thought Clinton could snag an election against McCain, I also wouldn’t be half as bothered – but I truly don’t. The problem with the caucus and primary system is it allows for a lot of trickery on both sides of the aisle, and a significant amount of people can’t even take part in them. Closed primary state? Independents are about as important as minors. Open primary state? People can cross over party lines to vote in swarms for the “weaker candidate” in order to secure a win for their preferred one. And the caucus system? Since when does it make any sense to let so much ride on states like Iowa, which don’t even come close to representing a majority of the American people? This is not to say that people don’t get to vote for candidates they’re passionate about, but there is certainly room to call it a flawed system. There’s also just the fact that a lot of people only vote in the general election because it’s the only “important” one.
You can expect updates on this post as more news rolls in… Unfortunately for Obama supporters, it doesn’t look like it’s going to be good news.
UPDATE: As we all know, Clinton made a comeback last night, however, it’s very important to remember that this race is still up in the air. The big problem with that? It will go to the convention floor in August barring some miraculous happening in Pennsylvania. But why does this matter right now, you may ask? I’ve detected some confusion in the comments about delegates and why this matters because Obama is still “ahead” with 1,520 to Clinton’s 1,424. Besides the fact that this difference is considered neck-and-neck in Washington, there’s no guarantee that the super delegates they currently have won’t jump ship should there be no clear “winner” after all the primaries and caucuses are finished. This means they choose the nominee based on their own principals.
Laura
“Mommy! He told lies about me!”
Yet again, the Clinton camp is finding more reasons to make its front woman come across as an incredible disappointment to her base. I’ll admit – I’ve heavily rolled my eyes at the constant bickering over plagiarism both Clinton and Obama have maintained recently, but really, are a couple of fliers any reason to get so damn defensive?
For those who aren’t aware, the fliers in question criticize her health care plan and her involvement (or, lack thereof) with NAFTA since the start of her campaign. She attacked Obama for circulating fliers that stated her intent to mandate health care whether people can afford it or not. Of course, maybe she’s forgetting that she only opened herself to that attack by suggesting “going after wages” as one option to make her plan a possibility.
Now, I’m under no illusions here – politicians are not Gods, capable of righting all wrongs and rooting out every injustice – if Obama is our next president, he will make mistakes – as has and will every other president in the history of this nation. However, if Obama is fabricating, rather than pointing out, serious flaws in Clinton’s health care plan, why can’t she just be up front and give a simple, honest answer? Instead, she just throws her arms in the air and shouts to a crowd of onlookers about the cruel injustice that is *gasp* politics. You know, the arena she’s constantly reminded us of having worked in for the past 35 years. One would think that by now she could take this kind of happening with a grain of salt – unless of course, she’s feeling seriously threatened by Obama picking away at her numbers.
Sadly, though, part of her motivation behind lashing out like this could be simply because people are prone to believe what they read – because if it’s published in a magazine or online, or a politician puts it out, it must be true! For instance, when we post blogs here, do you think we just pull up CNN or FOX and summarize verbatim what their people are writing? We look at as many sources as we can so that we can take our own stance on these issues, rather than just lining up behind one agenda or the other. The world would benefit greatly if people were a little more curious and didn’t take what is mass produced as the gospel. Don’t agree with what we say here? That’s fine – go research it, find where you think we’re wrong – hell, tell us. Maybe if politicians didn’t have to spend half their time spinning information to make it sound appealing, we’d actually have some fucking progress. But then, the same might occur if they’d just stop appealing to the rumor machine by bickering about the useless “he said/she said” game. Not to sound overly dramatic, but sometimes I feel like I’m watching a really bad sitcom about a bunch of pre-pubescent whiny little sixth graders – and that goes for all of them.
Laura
