In the aftermath of Indiana and North Carolina, I had seen plenty of spinning and talking points and more spinning and talking points coming primarily from the Clinton campaign. Watching much of CNN throughout the day, when I wasn't working on my proposed new "web-zine" web site, or turning for a bit of relief to re-runs of CSI: Miami on A&E; I was taking note of a few disturbing things:
Now this too needs to be acknowledged; as also acknowledged on CNN, Clinton wants there to be another "shoe to drop" on the Obama campaign and then she can make the argument of being "more electable." Sure thing. She hasn't won half the states that Obama did, she is well behind in popular vote and pledged delegates, super delegates have begun switching their votes to the presumptive winner. And she makes the truly bizarre argument that she is the "stronger" candidate. Why? Because she knows how to pander and manipulate? Because she isn't really prepared to be honest with the people she wants to vote for her? Especially on the cost of those government run programs she would institute at the start of her presidency. Or even if those programs would meet the voters needs. Her own offerings are as pie in the sky as any other offerings by politicians. She can't guarantee that even if elected, most of her proposals would even be enacted. Even Obama admits it would be tough to put his own proposals through, but he is honest enough to admit it. And actually encourages people to do more for themselves if they want a change for the better. It isn't an argument that the truly blue candidate, Senator Clinton wishes to make. She wants to make the same losing argument that cost the Dems heavily from the 1990s on, that the big government is there for you, and the rest of you taxpayers can foot the bill.
So to put it bluntly, Senator Clinton is the shoe that has dropped not only on the Obama campaign but also on the Democratic party. She is also the poison for that campaign and the party in November. But neither she nor CNN is honest enough to admit it. So can Senator Clinton "connect" beyond the "big states" and the "swing states" that she won only by playing to voters' fears of "the alien other" and getting the Rush Limbaugh effect? No. Because she has high negatives on the account of her husband. Had Senator Clinton dropped out of the race on Super Tuesday, when it had become apparent that Obama had won far more states, I highly doubt that Obama would have failed to "close the deal" in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But because Clinton wants so bad to be the presidential nominee, even now that there is no real chance of her becoming one; yes, Obama could fail to "close the deal" with that all-important voting bloc because Senator Clinton appealed to their worst instincts. They don't now just vote for a guy with a "D" attached to his name, "she" must also be white! Yeah, Candy Crowley admitted it, that West Virginia is a state built for Clinton. It is older, less educated, working class and predominately white. How about that. Race is a factor, even when the contributors on Lou Dobbs show were calling it "unfair" such as Ed Rollins did. "Unfair" and a reality. Can she connect? If the only way she could get a particular voting bloc to go her way was to start downing shots of whiskey. No. The dishonesty in the Clinton campaign has been egregious.
- As much as the commentators on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" didn't care for race to enter the picture, that the only reason Senator Obama wasn't "closing the deal" with the less educated and white blue-collar voters was based on race. But Candy Crowley admits that Senator Clinton is heavily favored to win in W. Virginia because of, you guessed it, race.
- However, where Senator Clinton lost heavily to Senator Obama here in Idaho, Idaho does not have a heavily minority population. It can be safely said that the Dems in Idaho are likely no more "elitist" than those who voted for Clinton. Obama thought that Idaho was an important state to visit. And afterwards, Clinton dismissed the caucuses she had not won here. Just as her husband recently (as found on Huckleberries on-line) deemed Democrats to be fewer than herds of elk found in the state.
- Unfortunately for Clinton however, what passes for "white, working class, less educated and most certainly blue collar" and therefore the more "conservative" among the various voting blocs, also refers to Senator Clinton as a "socialist." In fact, both Clintons as "socialist." The big government we don't need "socialism."
- And the plans that Senator Clinton offers are in fact "big government" solutions.
Now this too needs to be acknowledged; as also acknowledged on CNN, Clinton wants there to be another "shoe to drop" on the Obama campaign and then she can make the argument of being "more electable." Sure thing. She hasn't won half the states that Obama did, she is well behind in popular vote and pledged delegates, super delegates have begun switching their votes to the presumptive winner. And she makes the truly bizarre argument that she is the "stronger" candidate. Why? Because she knows how to pander and manipulate? Because she isn't really prepared to be honest with the people she wants to vote for her? Especially on the cost of those government run programs she would institute at the start of her presidency. Or even if those programs would meet the voters needs. Her own offerings are as pie in the sky as any other offerings by politicians. She can't guarantee that even if elected, most of her proposals would even be enacted. Even Obama admits it would be tough to put his own proposals through, but he is honest enough to admit it. And actually encourages people to do more for themselves if they want a change for the better. It isn't an argument that the truly blue candidate, Senator Clinton wishes to make. She wants to make the same losing argument that cost the Dems heavily from the 1990s on, that the big government is there for you, and the rest of you taxpayers can foot the bill.
So to put it bluntly, Senator Clinton is the shoe that has dropped not only on the Obama campaign but also on the Democratic party. She is also the poison for that campaign and the party in November. But neither she nor CNN is honest enough to admit it. So can Senator Clinton "connect" beyond the "big states" and the "swing states" that she won only by playing to voters' fears of "the alien other" and getting the Rush Limbaugh effect? No. Because she has high negatives on the account of her husband. Had Senator Clinton dropped out of the race on Super Tuesday, when it had become apparent that Obama had won far more states, I highly doubt that Obama would have failed to "close the deal" in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But because Clinton wants so bad to be the presidential nominee, even now that there is no real chance of her becoming one; yes, Obama could fail to "close the deal" with that all-important voting bloc because Senator Clinton appealed to their worst instincts. They don't now just vote for a guy with a "D" attached to his name, "she" must also be white! Yeah, Candy Crowley admitted it, that West Virginia is a state built for Clinton. It is older, less educated, working class and predominately white. How about that. Race is a factor, even when the contributors on Lou Dobbs show were calling it "unfair" such as Ed Rollins did. "Unfair" and a reality. Can she connect? If the only way she could get a particular voting bloc to go her way was to start downing shots of whiskey. No. The dishonesty in the Clinton campaign has been egregious.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment