Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary and people seem mad at her. How come she can't "get out of the way?" Off the playground?
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that we set up an electoral process, a method of doing things, and then get mad at Clinton for wanting to follow the rules? Shouldn't voters in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana get the same chance to have their voices heard as voters in Iowa or New Hampshire? If the primary process is so bad, why do we have it? And if we have it, why do we get angry at a candidate for using it? Why not simply change it for the next election and have all the primaries within, say, a four-week period? It seems hypocritical to have a process and then want to circumvent it when it becomes inconvenient. And it seems typical to me of how women so often get kicked for trying to follow the rules.
Clinton has been criticized by, among others, Maureen Dowd, for scratching Obama's reputation. But isn't she doing him a good service in preparing him for the the general election should he get the nomination? I'm sure what she's thrown at him is nothing compared to what he will get should he be the nominee.
One of the more bizarre columns I read complained that the white world was putting Obama in his place for daring to be too uppity. Hello universe. Who is putting him "in his place?" A woman. Hasn't this same woman been endlessly punished for daring to step out away from the edges of the playground and take a place in the center of it?
My money is still on Clinton getting the nomination, odd as that may seem. And I think she would be a good president. What do you think of all this?
I think she would do well as an establishment President. She's quite capable. But her values are very different than mine, as are those of Obama and McCain. And of course she has the right to continue her campaign through the primary season. The attempt by Michigan and Florida to beat the system may cost her the nomination, as she likely would have been the clear winner had they had real primaries that counted. That, of course, is not her fault.
The latest Friends Committee on National Legislation Washington Newsletter points out that Clinton, Obama and McCain are all for a larger military. I don't see how a peace person could vote for any of them in good conscience. Vote for Joe.
She clearly came in this campaign seeing herself as having a right to the nomination. But no one has a right to it. She is very ambitious and seems willing to do most anything to further her ambitions. This, of course, is quite typical of Presidential candidates. But the increasing negative view of her shown by the polls is justified by the tenor of her campaign, IMHO.
Her only chance of getting the nomination seems to be for Obama to really seriously stumble. Her basic claim for the nomination now is that she is more electable. The polls until now have not supported this contention. But if by early June, the tracking polls show a very different picture than they do now, one where Clinton does substantially better against McCain, than Obama, her strategy of convincing the super delegates to go for her in big numbers and give her the nomination might work. As it looks now, that's not very likely.
Post a Comment