Thursday, May 8, 2008

Self fulfilling prophecy....


What in the world is wrong with the Democratic talk show hosts, analysts and pundits?  

For all of  the talk and criticism towards the Clinton campaign, the cries for her to "gracefully bow out" and to relinquish her belief she is the best qualified candidate, because she is "damaging the Party" and that her vigorous defense of her candidacy "hurts Obama" and "provides a road map for McCain," the pundits miss the most obvious offense - their own.

While it has been clear Obama is the media's "Chosen One," I thought the cries mentioned above were sincere, even if ridiculous, to protect the Party.  I don't believe this anymore.  How could anyone believe the "good of the Party" is, or was, their motivation after watching and reading the shameless and scurrilous attacks directed at Clinton of late.  If protecting the Party is important, if uniting the Party is important, if allowing the Party to heal is important, which the pundits have submitted as paramount, how can they reconcile the political mayhem they are creating?  The answer is, they can't.

So, why the under handed tactics to dismantle a strong, persuasive candidate?  A candidate, while behind in the "metrics," is only narrowly behind and clearly close enough, winning the stalwart States the Democrats must win, to make a compelling case to the Super Delegates to cast their deciding votes for her.  Which, by the way, is playing by rules, the rules the DNC created for such a moment.  This would not be "stealing" the election from Obama.  It would be harsh, and a bitter pill to swallow, but legitimate.

Ah, that's it.  She has a legitimate case.  Her critics recognize this, but rather than allow the Party rules to play out and let the chips fall where they may, they protect their candidate, they attack Hillary to save Barack.  To prevent the stronger logical argument from prevailing they will paint her as stirring racial divides.   They will try to disfigure her, cast her as the villain, the Party pariah - "only a racist would support her."  It doesn't get any lower.

The Super Delegates will not have the stomach to choose Clinton - even though logic and reason dictate her the best choice for the general election.  They will fear the labels, they will fear the pundits, they will choose Obama, who will lead in every metric, and is a fine candidate.  The pundits will see their candidate nominated, and will rejoice in their victory, but at what cost?  At what cost... this sounds familiar.  

-CDT


2 comments:

Hans said...

Sorry, not trying to invade your blog, but more views/comments are better than none.

You did see the exit interviews from West Virginia did you not? My other comment was written even before I saw them this evening on The Daily Show. Nope, no racism, no hatred of "non-American blood," no associations by name only made by the voter's of West Virginia. All fabrications of the Obama loving news media. At least when they piled on Obama & Rev. Wright before, they had the common courtesy to point out the message, not the race, whereas all those willing to say why they supported HRC threw out all the stops and called a "spade" a "spade."

They must have been Obama or SNL "plants" to make it appear some HRC supporters were racists, right?

And by HRC's own standards instead of celebrating a "great" victory in WV, she should have been admonishing her followers using hate speech. Actually, what would be best for HRC would be to completely separate herself from those voters and their despicable actions and remove those votes from the tallies.

Ship sails both ways. That is if you are anyone but HRC.

ps White, 34 year old male, working class business owner and glad to have a degree or I'd be stupid enough to lap up HRC's lies & innuendos and be "a supporter" according to Terry McSpin-Alot.

Curtis D. Thomson said...

"Sorry, not trying to invade your blog, but more views/comments are better than none."

You are welcome – I’m pleased to have reader.

"You did see the exit interviews from West Virginia did you not? My other comment was written even before I saw them this evening on The Daily Show. Nope, no racism, no hatred of "non-American blood," no associations by name only made by the voter's of West Virginia. All fabrications of the Obama loving news media. At least when they piled on Obama & Rev. Wright before, they had the common courtesy to point out the message, not the race, whereas all those willing to say why they supported HRC threw out all the stops and called a "spade" a "spade."

Yes, I have seen the exit polls. The West Virginia primary was held after this post you are responding, too. There is no disputing the exit data. However, this exit data doesn’t prove or support the SNL skit.

The WV data reports an alarmingly large section of white West Virginians held race as an important/deciding factor in their voting. This is terrible. I have stated in other posts that color and gender biased voting is wrong. Racism is a disgusting human characteristic, which is why I posted about the SNL skit. I support Hillary, and I know many who do, and to be called out as a racist, because we align ourselves with Hillary is shameful.

"They must have been Obama or SNL "plants" to make it appear some HRC supporters were racists, right?"

Now, is this really the tone you want to take?

"And by HRC's own standards instead of celebrating a "great" victory in WV, she should have been admonishing her followers using hate speech. Actually, what would be best for HRC would be to completely separate herself from those voters and their despicable actions and remove those votes from the tallies."

Your formulation is flawed. The comments regarding Rev. Wright don’t translate to the situation in West Virginia. However, I get what you are pointing to and, yes, I think when Hillary was presented the information about the racist signs and speech in areas of West Virginia, she should have condemned it.

When Brian Williams asked her about the role of race in WV she answered that race and gender have been an issue, but she believes it is a small percentage of the voting pool. This is similar to Obama’s responses to his large percentages of black voters.

Nonetheless, I would have preferred to see Hillary answer the question directly – that she doesn’t condone voting on race and gender. Both candidates have denounced racism in the past, but Hillary should have put a stamp on it in West Virginia.

"Ship sails both ways. That is if you are anyone but HRC."

That’s right – and both Hillary and Barrack are on that same ship.

"ps White, 34 year old male, working class business owner and glad to have a degree or I'd be stupid enough to lap up HRC's lies & innuendos and be "a supporter" according to Terry McSpin-Alot."

Now that, Hans, is enlightening.

-CDT