Thursday, May 8, 2008

Hillary: Time to Pack Your Bags

Well, it looks like the beginning of the end for Senator Clinton now that Indiana voters gave Barack Obama a relatively strong show of support and North Carolina voters gave him an unqualified show of support. This translates into a virtually unwinnable contest for delegates for Clinton, and this blog is respectfully asking her to withdraw.

We realize that some people have been asking her to withdraw since January, but as Obama gains more and more committed delegates, some have even described him as the presumptive nominee.

So it's time, Senator Clinton. Time to be a team player, and put your resources and your support behind the Democratic challenger to a third Bush term, instead of pouring money down the drain that could be used to turn the undecideds away from the dark side. (Just kidding. I know at least two of my six regular readers are Republicans, and I totally respect that.)

I also think it's ridiculous that Rush Limbaugh thinks so highly of himself that he thinks it's a good idea to use his infamy to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in Indiana by urging Republicans to vote for Hillary. Operation Chaos, he calls it. Here's an interesting video clip where he wildly exaggerates his own influence and success, even though Obama performed significantly better in Indiana than predicted, and the Republicans who did vote in the Democratic primary were fairly evenly divided between Clinton and Obama. Whatever.

And if you keep watching the clip, you'll see a colorful exchange between a Republican strategist, Cheri Jacobus, and a Democratic strategist, Keith Boykin. If you're enjoying this combative and histrionic presidential election year as much as I am, it will raise your heart-rate.

Ironically, I got an email yesterday from Cheri Jacobus' office asking for my resume and writing samples. I wonder if it counts against me that this year, at least, I'm voting for a Dem.

10 comments:

corduroy said...

She clearly needs to clean out her fridge.

She was basically saying that the experience card is going to be played again and again in the general election and be a liability. What gives? Even Hillary (a fellow Democrat) is playing this card, right? Why wouldn't the Republicans?

Check this out:

George's Bottom Line

Isn't George close to the Clintons? (I mean, close enough that what he's saying here might be more than just a possibility? Am I missing something and this is old news?) Talk about good cop/bad cop.

corduroy said...

oops...try copying and pasting this line for the George story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4808341&page=1

Hpaul said...

Ms Peevie, I find this whole election quite amusing. The political party that calls themselves democratic is going to provide their party with a nominee in the most undemocratic way possible. Obama wins only if millions of voters are disenfranchised in MI and FL. Obama wins only if party thugs/hacks (otherwise known as super delegates) vote for him as nominee. And, Hillary on the other hand is fighting hard trying to win in a losing cause, yet, she is stomping for pulling out of Iraq, which is much more winnable. And based on Obama's arguments about Iraq, we definitely need to pull out of Chicago, the war against murderous thugs there is really unwinnable (on recent weekends more civilians were killed in Chicago than were killed in Baghdad). One last thing, it was liberal democrats (like those in the NY Times) that gave the Republican party McCain. How then can these same people complain when Rush Limbaugh asks Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primary (good for Repub goose, good for Dem gander)?

Hpaul said...

Ms Peevie, I find this whole election quite amusing. The political party that calls themselves democratic is going to provide their party with a nominee in the most undemocratic way possible. Obama wins only if millions of voters are disenfranchised in MI and FL. Obama wins only if party thugs/hacks (otherwise known as super delegates) vote for him as nominee. And, Hillary on the other hand is fighting hard trying to win in a losing cause, yet, she is stomping for pulling out of Iraq, which is much more winnable. And based on Obama's arguments about Iraq, we definitely need to pull out of Chicago, the war against murderous thugs there is really unwinnable (on recent weekends more civilians were killed in Chicago than were killed in Baghdad). One last thing, it was liberal democrats (like those in the NY Times) that gave the Republican party McCain. How then can these same people complain when Rush Limbaugh asks Republicans to vote for Hillary in the primary (good for Repub goose, good for Dem gander)?

Joe said...

I may have been calling on Hillary to get out of the race at the end of January - but it was meant to be precocious. My basic analysis - that Clinton would need to polarize the electorate to win, and that none of her fundamental strengths were going to get stronger, while Obama's would - has been borne out.

E. Peevie said...

Joe, Interesting use of the word precocious.

I think Hillary has been polarizing since day one. Actually, since before she even entered the race.

And I'm curious as to what fundamental strengths of Obama's you see as having gotten stronger. OK, that was horribly awkward syntax, but I think you know what I mean.

Boy George said...

Ms Peevie, you're right that Hillary has been polarizing since before the race. But of course that's just a byproduct of her existence. That is, there is apparently a segment of the population that hates her, however rational or irrational that hatred may be.

I used to love Clinton. But I have grown tired of the tactics used in her campaign. I don't doubt that she would be a much better prez than would be McCain, but I also don't doubt that Obama would be much, much, much better than would be Clinton.

joe said...

e.peevie -

The fundamental strengths of Obama, as I see it:

1. He's a new face in a time when people want change.

2. His use of language and political tools suggests both a pragmatist and a reasonable person; when he is among political gladiators who use words as weapons with a glaring disregard for truth, this is refreshing. (For example, while Hillary, Bush, and most politicians will not given any rhetorical ground to their opponents, Obama will. Whether Obama is reasonable or not, he gives the appearance of being so.)

3. Most important, Obama offers the compelling story of America that takes into account the Bush years. For Hillary, Bush would be a brief aberration between Clintons. For McCain, Bush would be a bumbling fool who got most things right even if he executed his plans poorly. For Obama, Bush is a president who, though perhaps meaning well, led our country in a fundamentally wrong direction, building upon the worst precedents set by his predecessors, including the Clintons.

E. Peevie said...

HPaul, Regarding MI and FL: Obama was the one who was following the rules. SHould he be punished for that?

Re: superdelegates--thugs? hacks? Huh? Sources? Need more information.

Re comparing the election to Iraq, and Iraq to Chicago: again, huh? No disrespect intended, cuz, but I don't get your point.

Boy George said...

Joe: In regard to "... Bush is a president who, though perhaps meaning well, ..."

Sorry, but I believe it is a mistake to give Bush even that much credit. His entire administration has been almost the worst thing to befall this country. He has utter contempt for the Constitution, not to mention the general populace that constitutes the nation.

In a word, the man is evil.

And I do not say that lightly; I mean it mainly in the sense that Scott Peck talks about in his book People of the Lie. Through his reckless invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the myriad events and policies related thereto, our country's standing in the world has been brought low, unrest in the Middle East has escalated dramatically, our civil liberties are being stripped away, and the nation's treasury has been pillaged.

McCain scares me, because he supports so many of the ruinous policies of Bush. Clinton would be better, but I'm still not totally convinced that she would be committed to getting our foreign policies on the right track.

Obama is just so unlike any presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime, and represents the kind of dramatic change we need to see in the White House.