Now, could I have loved someone like the one I see in you
Yeah, I remember the good times baby now, and the bad times too
These last few weeks of holding on
The days are dull, the nights are long
Guess it's better to say
Goodbye to you
~Patty Smyth/Scandal
I'm done holding on to the idea that Hillary Clinton is someone I could vote for, that her election as president would represent positive change for women and that her campaign will do anything less that substantially weaken, if not destroy, the Democratic party. If this is what Clinton's campaign for president represents then she does not speak for me, she is not winning for me (remember she said her win in Ohio was for everyone who keeps trying, not just those who voted for her) and I want no part of her campaign.*
Neither candidate can make it to Denver with enough delegates to win the nomination outright. There is no realistic scenario under which Clinton can now overtake Obama in delegates or popular vote. The only way Clinton will get the nomination is if the super delegates over look the democratic will of the party and give in to the Clinton machine. That Democrats are faced with months of negative campaigning while John McCain trades off being tumbled in the media spin machine during that time he gets to work on unifying his party, prepare his campaign and fund raise. The more the nastiness goes on on the Democratic side the harder it will be to unify for the general.
All those young, enthusiastic, idealistic voters coming in because Obama has drawn them in and those Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama will be soured on the utterly un-democratic Democratic party. I'm tired of supporting such an utterly inept political party.
Additionally, Clinton has not only been attacking Obama but she has been giving McCain the ammunition and arguments he needs to defeat either Democratic candidate. When comparing her "lifetime of experience" vs. McCain's lifetime of experience as proof of readiness to handle national security, not only does McCain have more years which puts him ahead since she's set number of years as the bar (and he's got more in life and the Senate), but which do you think voters will give more weight to - 8 years as first lady or 5 years as a prisoner of war?
And that Ohio and Texas might indicate that Clinton's negative campaigning against another Democrat is working leaves me so cynical and lacking in faith in the electorate. I guess there are too many people who are willing to fall into the same traps that gave us George W. Bush for two terms. We get the leadership we deserve and if you vote for false, negative, fear mongering attacks then ...
The straw that has broken my back, however, is the Clinton campaign's hypocritical calls for Samantha Power to be fired.
Don't get me wrong, I understand completely why they made that call. This game is politics and of course they pounced. And given the campaign Obama has run, to me, there wasn't really much of a choice. But Samantha Power's unflattering, non-gendered personal characterization of Clinton is absolutely nothing compared to some of the things Clinton supporters have said and suggested about Obama (most of which the Clinton campaign has not apologized for, let alone forced supporters out of the fold for) and is absolutely nothing compared to what she will face if she is the Democratic nominee. For "monster" she had to bring down another smart, talented, admired woman? I thought Samantha Power is the type of woman Hillary Clinton is supposed to empower and show that anything is possible. Could Clinton not graciously accepted Power's apology?
I saw a pundit suggesting that Obama should have stood up to the Clinton bullying and declared it a non-issue. But he can't. He has to stay positive and above the fray even when Clinton advisers are idiotically bringing up Ken Starr and trying to slap that label on Obama.
The logic of many of the arguments I've heard today basically boil down to: Clinton can go negative because she never promised to be anything but a hard-fighting politician. Therefore, Clinton can attack and destroy a up-and-coming female star in the Democratic party in service of her own ambition. This is feminism? If so, I'm not a feminist and certainly not a Hillary Clinton feminist.
I'm torn between Baratunde and Liza Sabater's arguments:
Baratunde: "You think we’re in for hard times if we don’t support Hillary? You don’t know hard times."
Liza: "I have to admit I am not enamored of the Democratic Party and have fantasies of third parties. Yet this year, and especially this election, is not the time for those kinds of shenanigans.
It's time for the party loyalists to step up to the bat and put a stop to this train wreck."
Where do we disillusioned Democrats and feminists go?
*I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow. But after awakening to the "breaking news" about Samantha Power this morning, this is how I'm feeling in the moment.
A little light to end this depressing post:
Comments