[once again, i'm thinking that i'm a much better commenter than blogger--i.e., reaction seems to come more easily to me than action. case in point: this comment i just made to yet one more hillary v. obama post--hell, maybe this blog should consist of nothing more than a collection of my comments on other peoples' blogs.]
democrats can (and well may) argue back and forth about this all the way up to the convention, but what they're apparently oblivious to is the very real possibility that, when it comes down to voting time, the vast pool of independents that will determine the outcome of this election will--especially given the indecision of the dems themselves--turn its collective back on either/or the black guy with the funny name/the bitch with all the baggage, and opt instead for the perceived safety of daddy war-hero.
it really amazes me--the democrats are fighting this little battle among themselves as if the electorate-at-large will inevitably see it as they do: namely, that no matter which candidate they ultimately pick, it's just a given that he/she is inherently superior to anything the other side has to offer.
and i'm here to tell them that that's not a given at all--and that if they really wanna win in november, the dems had better get united behind one candidate and start fighting the bigger fight (and if you don't believe me, go read what howard dean's been saying lately--he totally gets it).
understand: i'm speaking here not as a liberal but as an independent fiscal conservative who, regardless of how much it pains him, is totally backing whoever the dems finally settle upon (which, if nothing else, should tell you how much the prospect of a mccain presidency scares me--and damn well should scare you).
[and yeah, i promise the "why mccain should scare you at least as much as he does me" post will be coming soon]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well guttermorality...you do seem to react a lot...reactionary more like it.
The battle between Clinton and Obama has been going on in the Democratic party since at least 1968 (you do remember that race...you are old enough to). It it the battle between the liberal and pragmatic wings of the Democratic party. Howard Dean crashed and burned in 2004, otherwise he would have been that year's Obama. In 1992, a young governor from Arkansas named Clinton beat out Paul Tsongas. Generally, the rule is that the liberal wing gets thrashed.
This has not happened yet for a number of reasons. First, Obama is simply a much better candidate and campaigner than most of the others. Second, Clinton carries a lot of baggage. Finally, I really think that a number of Democrats are just so sure this is their year, they are voting with their hearts and refusing to be more pragmatic and vote for Clinton.
So, the fight goes on. Or as Teddy Kennedy said at the 1980 Democratic National Convention, "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die."
Oh, one final thing to the fiscally conservative independent you claim to be: Is this just another way of saying you are selfish and keep asking yourself "What's in it for me?" This seems to be a common view of politics. It is why we get tax cuts and increases in spending: people want things from government, they just never want to pay for them.
byzantine boy: i was forced to delete your comment--i used that word in my post to illustrate a point; you used it as a slur, and i don't wanna run that kind of blog--matter of fact, i'm gonna remove it from my post as well (and just to be even-handed, i'll use a slightly nicer word for hillary too).
keepyoureyeontheball: the reason obama's running so well has far less to do with his message (which is mostly air--i hear "hope" and "change" one more time i'm gonna puke) than with the fact that he's pretty, charismatic and spins a good line. let's face it: with his record and experience, if he looked (and sounded) like paul tsongas he'd still be an obscure state senator, and this would be a clinton/edwards race. [and truth be told, i'm far more impressed by michelle obama than i am by her husband--why the hell isn't she running for something?]
and as far as the "what's in it for me?" factor is concerned, that's the other reason he's doing so well--promising the moon and the stars to the have-nots at the expense of the haves is always a sure-fire way to win the hearts and minds of the rabble.
and please understand--i totally acknowledge that the distribution of wealth in this country has become severely outta whack, mainly due to the subversion of free-market capitalism (i.e., corporate welfare) at the high end of the wage scale--but i, frankly, have no faith in this current crop of democrats' ability to fix this inequity without raping the middle class in the process.
Post a Comment