Thoughts about the Clinton Campaign
Jun. 6th, 2008 03:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jasonandrewIt is an exciting time to be a Democrat. It felt like our Presidential primary election was covered more than the last entire presidential election. When a winner was declared, the internetz and cable news exploded.
Here are some of my thoughts
I’ve seen a wide range of responses from Clinton supporters.
Some of them were reasonable and very much respectable: http://scottynola.livejournal.com/248042.html
Some of them were over the top. Some of them were down right nasty and vile.
Some of them were so far over the top that I had to wonder if we watched different elections.
I think certain events and actions in the campaign need to be clarified. I think the spin has gotten so far out of control that people can’t tell which way is up anymore.
I can’t imagine how it would feel to be a woman seeing another woman making a serious run for president for the first time in history. I can very much understand how that would cause women to identify with Clinton. Just as I imagine black people feel about Obama.
I’m neither black or a woman, but I can explain why I very much turned against Clinton.
Sexism/Racism:
I think Obama and Clinton ran very different campaigns. Obama concentrated the things he had in common with all Americans. Obama seemed to use his background as a way to say, I’m nothing special, I’m just like you.
Clinton focused on what made her special. She was the first woman seriously running for the White House. And she never let you forget it. I think the Clinton campaign was built in the beginning around identity politics. It might have worked if Obama hadn’t also been running.
Geraldine Ferraro had a slip that I think really highlighted the thought process of campaign.
Further, the Clinton campaign was quick to fall back to accusations of sexism. The Obama campaign tried to minimize any accusations, even when his campaign HQs were getting death threats, pictures of him in a turban surfaced in the press, or sly references to him being a Muslim were levied against him. He avoided attacking Clinton on the basis of her gender.
On the other hand, Clinton flat out said that she should be the nominee because “support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college” wouldn’t vote for Obama. That’s a direct quote.
And the final straw on this issue was the assassination reference. You can see it here:
Basically, she implied that you shouldn’t elect a black man because he’d get assassinated. Frankly, that’s hate speech. She doesn’t deserve to be in office.
This is something I’m sure that Obama and his family has been worrying about ever since Obama decided to run. It only takes one lone nut with a rifle.
Clinton is a brilliant woman. She’s very skilled. If she had only said it once, then I could forgive it as a slip. Everyone can have off the cuff moments that sound weird out of context.
She has been recorded saying it several different times. Her saying that encourages the hate group to get busy, as if to say, “Hey guys, get him now and I’ll be the nomination.”
Obama went the high road.
I think my hero Keith Olbermann said it best.
Superdelegates and Pissing off the Democratic Party
The Super-delegate system at a glance seems unfair. You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
In 1972, after McGovern lost the election in a landslide. McGovern went into the DNC convention wounded from several scandals and it was clear to everyone that Nixon was going to beat him, even though Nixon had a low approval rating. This system was designed to give the party elders a chance to change things at the last minute if a political bomb goes off.
The system became a quick way for established party members to increase their delegate count quicker or overcome pledged/elect delegates. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to put it into perspective. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections," said Pelosi, "it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."
Clinton and her financial backers sent a letter to Pelosi. Read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26456003
James Carville accused one of the Superdelegates as being like Judas for supporting Clinton. JUDAS? Are you kidding me?
What kind of behavior is this? Is this someone you want leading your party?
Michigan / Florida:
These states screwed up the primary process. And let’s be honest, this isn’t the first time Florida screwed up a national election.
The DNC and the candidates all agreed not to run there. Edwards and Obama kept to the agreement. Clinton cheated and did it anyway and then declared victory.
Would Florida have supported Clinton? Very likely.
Michigan would have been a different story. Edwards might have been able to rally there. His populist views were very popular there. Could have changed the entire process. Maybe Edwards would have beaten both of them.
Clinton agreed that the votes from the primary wouldn’t count because they broke the rules.
Once she started losing, Clinton suddenly started to care when she needed those delegates, even though she knew that the primaries there were undemocratic.
You don’t get to change the rules when they don’t suit you. The rules apply to everyone. This wasn’t a screw job on Clinton or anyone else. Both of these states knew the rules and screwed up. Clinton agreed to the pledge and then broke the rules. Edwards and Obama agreed to no put their names on the ballets and were screwed by Clinton when she did an end run.
These states could have had a new primary with all of the names on the ballot. The Republicans in these states blocked the vote.
Here are some of my thoughts
I’ve seen a wide range of responses from Clinton supporters.
Some of them were reasonable and very much respectable: http://scottynola.livejournal.com/248042.html
Some of them were over the top. Some of them were down right nasty and vile.
Some of them were so far over the top that I had to wonder if we watched different elections.
I think certain events and actions in the campaign need to be clarified. I think the spin has gotten so far out of control that people can’t tell which way is up anymore.
I can’t imagine how it would feel to be a woman seeing another woman making a serious run for president for the first time in history. I can very much understand how that would cause women to identify with Clinton. Just as I imagine black people feel about Obama.
I’m neither black or a woman, but I can explain why I very much turned against Clinton.
Sexism/Racism:
I think Obama and Clinton ran very different campaigns. Obama concentrated the things he had in common with all Americans. Obama seemed to use his background as a way to say, I’m nothing special, I’m just like you.
Clinton focused on what made her special. She was the first woman seriously running for the White House. And she never let you forget it. I think the Clinton campaign was built in the beginning around identity politics. It might have worked if Obama hadn’t also been running.
Geraldine Ferraro had a slip that I think really highlighted the thought process of campaign.
Further, the Clinton campaign was quick to fall back to accusations of sexism. The Obama campaign tried to minimize any accusations, even when his campaign HQs were getting death threats, pictures of him in a turban surfaced in the press, or sly references to him being a Muslim were levied against him. He avoided attacking Clinton on the basis of her gender.
On the other hand, Clinton flat out said that she should be the nominee because “support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college” wouldn’t vote for Obama. That’s a direct quote.
And the final straw on this issue was the assassination reference. You can see it here:
Basically, she implied that you shouldn’t elect a black man because he’d get assassinated. Frankly, that’s hate speech. She doesn’t deserve to be in office.
This is something I’m sure that Obama and his family has been worrying about ever since Obama decided to run. It only takes one lone nut with a rifle.
Clinton is a brilliant woman. She’s very skilled. If she had only said it once, then I could forgive it as a slip. Everyone can have off the cuff moments that sound weird out of context.
She has been recorded saying it several different times. Her saying that encourages the hate group to get busy, as if to say, “Hey guys, get him now and I’ll be the nomination.”
Obama went the high road.
I think my hero Keith Olbermann said it best.
Superdelegates and Pissing off the Democratic Party
The Super-delegate system at a glance seems unfair. You can read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
In 1972, after McGovern lost the election in a landslide. McGovern went into the DNC convention wounded from several scandals and it was clear to everyone that Nixon was going to beat him, even though Nixon had a low approval rating. This system was designed to give the party elders a chance to change things at the last minute if a political bomb goes off.
The system became a quick way for established party members to increase their delegate count quicker or overcome pledged/elect delegates. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to put it into perspective. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections," said Pelosi, "it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."
Clinton and her financial backers sent a letter to Pelosi. Read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26456003
James Carville accused one of the Superdelegates as being like Judas for supporting Clinton. JUDAS? Are you kidding me?
What kind of behavior is this? Is this someone you want leading your party?
Michigan / Florida:
These states screwed up the primary process. And let’s be honest, this isn’t the first time Florida screwed up a national election.
The DNC and the candidates all agreed not to run there. Edwards and Obama kept to the agreement. Clinton cheated and did it anyway and then declared victory.
Would Florida have supported Clinton? Very likely.
Michigan would have been a different story. Edwards might have been able to rally there. His populist views were very popular there. Could have changed the entire process. Maybe Edwards would have beaten both of them.
Clinton agreed that the votes from the primary wouldn’t count because they broke the rules.
Once she started losing, Clinton suddenly started to care when she needed those delegates, even though she knew that the primaries there were undemocratic.
You don’t get to change the rules when they don’t suit you. The rules apply to everyone. This wasn’t a screw job on Clinton or anyone else. Both of these states knew the rules and screwed up. Clinton agreed to the pledge and then broke the rules. Edwards and Obama agreed to no put their names on the ballets and were screwed by Clinton when she did an end run.
These states could have had a new primary with all of the names on the ballot. The Republicans in these states blocked the vote.