corbett ([info]corbett) wrote,
@ 2008-05-07 06:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:mobile

It's Time
I believe, as I have since the day she announced, that Hillary Clinton was the best we were going to get as the 44th president. But a confluence of events - from her husband's uncharacteristically bad moves to people buying into "hope" as some kind of policy initiative; from a media that sold its own story and hype on the notion of "inevitability" to a tragically flawed nominating process - all have made today the right time to hang it up.

I could not, and would not, ever say she was the perfect candidate. In fact, this latest idea - also proposed by the republicant John "100 year in Iraq" McCain - to suspend the gas tax is just plain idiotic. But, on the whole, no other candidate has put forward policy initiatives as detailed and in-depth as Clinton's. Does that make her wonkish? Absolutely. And that's what I love. Because that's governing; that's policy-making. Yes the gas tax thing is pandering; and that's political. But all-in-all, I could more easily live with a toss off pandering here and there if it means, at the end of the day, that we have a president that by-and-large knows what the hell is going on and how to make the system work.

That said, we are where we are. Senator Obama is going to be the nominee and if the American people can turn away from the story the media is going to want to tell in the general election (that is, that McCain is the "straight-talker" "maverick" who seems to always "come back from the dead") then Obama will be the next President.

As for Senator Clinton, I've had a few thoughts about what should be next... Unity ticket? No. I don't think that's going to work. Where she needs to be is in the Senate. As I said, she's a wonk and wonks make great lawmakers. In fact, I think she should push to replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Because if there is a single feckless pussy that's ever been leader, it's Harry Reid. Without a doubt, Senator Clinton is the person to take over and push for a true Democratic agenda in the Senate.

Lastly, I'll be volunteering for the Obama campaign come general election time even though he wasn't my candidate of choice. But that's politics. You have to suck it up and stick with the team that will do the most good. And that means attaching to Obama to ensure we control the White House and Congress and, with any luck at all, relegate the republicants to permanent minority.




(Post a new comment)

re: It's Time
(Anonymous)
2008-05-07 12:50 pm UTC (link)
This sentiment is what makes the Democratic Party great. While it is very difficult for Hillary supporters to concede defeat, they will rally around Barack and give him their time and energy to defeat McBush.

I admire you. Neither Hillary or Barack are perfect candidates. Accepting the inevitable and putting differences behind us will make us invincible in the fall.

(Reply to this)


[info]rcdl
2008-05-07 12:58 pm UTC (link)
I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A MAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!one!!!!

(Reply to this)

Another perspective
(Anonymous)
2008-05-07 05:52 pm UTC (link)
Running the risk of seeming ungracious (since my candidate is now ensconced as the presumptive nominee), it’s a shame Clinton supporters can't resist sour grapes even when conceding defeat. Much as Bill's impeachment debacle played out, none of what did Hillary in was her fault. It was a conspiracy involving the media, addled voters wearing rose-tinted glasses, and a Rube Goldberg nominating process.

Let's start with "people buying into hope." Here's a brief quiz: Who said this: "Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." Give up? Bill Clinton, during the 2004 campaign. Obama keeps coming back to the hope theme: Hillary runs ads of sleeping children who will be unsafe of she isn't elected.
Then there's the "media's notion of inevitability." First, she didn’t mind any it six months ago when everyone with a press card presumed she would win. As for lately, it's not the media's notion of inevitability: it's a mathematical notion of inevitability. Even before last night, she couldn't catch up if she matched her best previous performance in every remaining primary. Dropping out isn't defeatist; it's a simple matter of reading the handwriting on the wall.

As for the "tragically flawed nominating process," she had no objections to it until she realized she couldn't win within its rules. There's a good reason for that: Clinton supporters probably played as much of a role as anyone in writing those rules.

What did Hillary Clinton in was a poorly run campaign that assumed this was a coronation, not a campaign. She changed messages and personas as often as Dubya changed reasons for going to war in Iraq in the winter of 2003. It finally caught up to her when enough people decided she was a triangulating chameleon who would say whatever she thought was necessary to sway whoever was standing in front of her when she opened her mouth. In the northeast or a college town? Wonk time. Moving south? Drop those Gs and knock down a few boilermakers in the back of a pickup truck.

Hillary Clinton would have made a fine president, but she would have been more of the same of what got us into the current state of affairs. It's time for something different. Maybe it will be better; maybe not. It sure as hell can't get much worse.

--Dana

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…