2007 Verve Awards

2006 Verve Awards

Best Arts and Culture Blog 2005 Queer Day Awards

Best Gay Blog Nominee 2004 Weblog Awards

Best Arts and Culture Blog Nominee

Wednesday, March 26, 2008


The Audacity of Hopelessness

David Brooks from the New York Times asks the question that should be on everyone's lips: how much longer will this go on? Is the Clinton campaign stretching out this brutal, painful primary not to win the nomination (which is improbable at best, near-impossible in truth), but to ensure that Obama loses to McCain...so that she can run again, in an "I-told-you-so" campaign, in 2012? Can personal ambition be so great that you'd make the country suffer another four years?

Despite my support for Obama, this isn't merely Clinton-baiting. It's a fair question...behind in delegates, number of states won, and popular votes, Hillary's only remaining chance is to tear big, gaping holes in Obama's character in the hopes of subverting superdelegates. And even then, she in all probability can't pull it off...she'll just irrevocably damage the Democratic presidential candidate beyond repair, forcing a divide where we desperately need unity.

I know there are Hillary loyalists here who I respect very much for their passion and their commitment. But surely beating McCain and ending the Bush legacy is the most important thing, right? Is it worth continuing to pull the party apart? (I've just realized...that's a rhetorical question.)



Blogger The Slabber said...

Anyone who speaks up now in defense of Hillary and her tactics is essentially admitting to moral turpitude.

3/26/08, 8:11 AM  
Blogger FleshPresser said...

Honestly... HONESTLY... I'd like to hear just ONE legitimate, well thought out, well crafted, non-biased (or at least don't let it be all hanging out) argument as to how Clinton expects to win the Nomination from one of her supporters.

And don't use the sports analogy about quitting the game before the game is over - the game IS over. Outside of a MAJOR Convention turn-over by the Superdelegates, Clinton CANNOT win the Nomination.

Well, let me take that back.... she could... IF she won EVERYTHING by more than 2/3 between now and Denver... AND got some help from pledged delegates jumping ship and hopping over to Clinton... AND a few other minor miracles.

But if that's REALLY a legitimate argument, then why isn't Edwards still in the race? Or Richardson? Or even friggin' Biden for that matter? The race wasn't over when they dropped out... and they could have claimed to be potential winners if they turned around and won all of their remaining contests, as well.

But they didn't. They took the small dose of reality that was handed to them... took it with grace... and did what was best for the party.

Clinton needs to do that.

Barring any answer from anyone that holds any weight to it, I'm going to have to assume that this is solely ego-driven, and that her remaining in the race has NOTHING to do with the best interests of the Democratic party.

3/26/08, 1:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home