Thursday, May 29, 2008

Whiners in Chief

Having the day off but having to go to a dental appointment and then onto the downtown Sherman Avenue and 5th Street Kootenai County Farmer's Market, I got in on some of CNN and did some planting out of the stuff I had to sell; and watched replays of former President Bill Clinton whining and attacking his fellow Democrats for a "cover up" concerning Senator Hillary Clinton's chances of getting into the White House. "She's winning the general election right now," he said. Uh huh, she lost more states than did her Democratic opponent, I do believe she lost a primary battle with Senator Obama in Idaho, and she is winning the general election right now? If you count the votes of rule breakers Michigan and Florida and dismiss the caucus states that Obama won, then you can claim that Senator Clinton is a victim of sexism and a cover up. But in those states that Senator Clinton did win, seems race was a factor and both he and she were prepared to play up the factors of race. Because Senator Obama stands in the way of an easy walk to the White House. But by the very fact that Senator Obama has weathered many a storm inclusive of Jeremiah Wright and come out of it fairly unscathed, and has gone on to win even more contests, there is no question that Obama is a credible presidential candidate in his own right. But that is no longer the argument that Senator Clinton can make not if her hubby stands in front of an audience and plays up the Senator as some kind of victim of the news media (she's asking for the job of President isn't she?) and the Dems who just don't want her to be president. O-kay. Only losers whine and attack like that. A following CNN poll in a hypothetical matchup between Obama v McCain, Obama leads with 2% against McCain. In a hypothetical matchup between Clinton and McCain, Clinton leads McCain by 2%. But the question of who is becoming the more popular candidate to the Democratic party, Obama now has a double digit lead over Clinton. I wonder why? To put it bluntly, I had considerable respect for both the Clintons, the key word—had. Since this race began, both Bill and Hillary have gone down the tubes in their capacity to be gracious and in his capacity to be a respected elder statesman. Apparently, being back in the White House is more important to them both than what they are currently doing to the Democratic party.

So it came as some hilarity for David Broder of Washington Post fame to look way back into the Carter administration and offer a series of cautions about what President Barack Obama would do well not to repeat concerning the Carter years. Nor is it what I would call a "timely" republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial. Given what CNN had only yesterday, 28 May 2008 concerning Obama and his popularity v Clinton and hers. Seems to me that President Obama would have far less fragmenting of the Dem party than Broder assumes. But, there have been plenty of punditry excitements and pressure on the idea that "to heal the party" (a la the Carter years) Clinton should be put on the ticket as VP. Given what I have seen during this primary season, neither Clinton, Bill or Hillary would ever stand for being in second place. They'd be more than happy to politically shove President Obama out of the picture as they took central stage and demanded the lime light. That would not just fracture the party but also the nation. My own caution for Senator Obama, don't please the Clintons, get your own running mate. (♥)