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

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

 

Sigh.

Rural Pennsylvanians, in all their gun-toting, church-loving wisdom, have ensured that the madness continues. Since it's a relative certainty that the Democrats are destroying any chance to win independents in November, I almost hope the superdelegates do commit collective seppuku and give the thing to Hillary. Screw the elected deleges, screw the popular vote, screw democracy. The plus: when it all falls apart and she loses in spades to McCain, at least she wouldn't be able to blame Obama. Whereas if he's the nominee, she's certain to blame him...even though she stuck the knife in and twisted until it was fatal.

6 Comments:

Blogger will g said...

Like he wouldn't blame HER if she lost the general?

4/23/08, 3:06 AM  
Blogger ModFab said...

I don't think he'd get the chance. There's so much love for Hillary The Underdog in the media at the moment, but as we all know they turn on her every other cycle. When she loses to McCain, they'll be ruthless.

4/23/08, 9:45 AM  
OpenID ccopeland1976 said...

Why is the result of the primary about everything but Obama? What do the results say about him?

It seems very convenient to blame rural Pennsylvanians (even though Clinton won the Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton, York, and the Philly suburbs), Hillary Clinton, the media, etc. for the results. Nevertheless, if he's all-but-assured to be the nominee, what does this result (as the one in Ohio) say? It says that - but for Wisconsin - Obama seems unable to win blue-collar working class Democrats. It is significant that these are the same Democrats who voted for Reagan twice and H.W. once. It's a legitimate concern.

Clinton is no perfect candidate, but it's quite apparent that Obama is nowhere close to perfect, either.

4/23/08, 11:01 AM  
Blogger ModFab said...

The results say little about Obama...they speak to the extent to which the Clinton and McCain campaigns have been able to define him to PA voters. (It may say something about the trumped-up reaction to his perceived elitism. The irony, of course, is the Clintons are astronomically wealthier and socially more-connected than the Obamas.)

What this result does NOT say is that Obama can't win blue-collar Democrats...a severe distortion which you perpetuate here. He's won them across the nation. True, he may not pick them up in economically-challenged, Great-Lakes-hugging states IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY...but will these people turn to McCain instead of choosing change in a national election? I think it's doubtful.

The question is independents, and I think Clinton is doing massive damage to the Democratic chances in 2008, up and down the ticket, by continuing her attack methodology.

Lastly, Copeland...no one said Obama was perfect. All I've ever said is that he's better for the nation, and better as a person. Perfection? We'd have to go far outside of the United States to find a politician who fits that bill.

4/23/08, 12:59 PM  
Blogger Aaron said...

ccopeland1976...I couldn't have said it better!

4/23/08, 7:30 PM  
Blogger Jill said...

It should also be noted that the under-45 set didn't show up at the polls in the numbers they should have. 58% of registered Democrats in PA are over 45, which means 42% are 45 or under. 31% of under 45's voted. That means over one in ten registered PA Democrats under 45 didn't even bother to vote.

Someone forgot to tell them that you can canvass, make phone calls, and show up at rallies all you want to -- if you don't get your own ass out and vote, it doesn't matter.

(For the record: I voted for Obama in the NJ primary.)

4/23/08, 9:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home