I can’t imagine why I thought getting involved in this election during the primary season was a good idea. I should have stayed on the sidelines, as I’ve always done, and let the partisans sort it out.
Both platforms contain elements I like, and others that I don’t; I have nothing invested in the Democratic party, any more than I have in the Republicans.
Had I stayed aloof, I could have noticed from afar the depths to which Hillary has stooped over the last week and laughed. I would have been amused at the prospect of several more months in which one Democratic candidate will savage another, thus destroying his prospects in November… and the Dems chances altogether.
Because her own presidential prospects were always dismal, and the percentage of the electorate who would never vote for her under any circumstances is just as high today as it was two months ago when she was riding high.
She doesn’t care about that, obviously — nor do her supporters or party. So why should I?
Nonetheless, here I am, emotionally invested in today’s outcome. Since I voted early, I plan to spend part of my day at the polls, helping if I can… and tonight, my neighbors and I will be caucusing — all of us for the first time.
This is our only chance to affect the outcome; tomorrow, the primary wave will have passed on.
If Hillary comes out ahead in Texas, she’ll no doubt continue her destructive politics all the way to the convention. Her scorched earth tactics, even if Obama should end up the nominee, will damage him beyond hope for November.
Sigh…
I really don’t know what I was thinking when I decided to care. Foolish Polimom.
Leave a Reply Cancel Reply
Read Next
I can see a point coming soon where Iraqi and American interests will diverge, and so I have a hypothetical question: If the Iraqi government asked us to leave right now, do you think President Bush would agree to do …
Just the other day, Dear Husband (DH) was lamenting the paucity of specifics, in either policy or platform, from the presidential candidates thus far. Via the NY Times, here’s Hillary to his rescue: WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham …
Coming in right behind a great dialogue we had here last week, the Houston Chronicle has an article (originally in the NY Times) up this morning about the Democrats, and some of the candidates they’re running: In their push to …
Paul Krugman, arguing for the umpteenth time why Obama’s not a good idea, writes: Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator …
What scorched earth tactics? And on the negative stuff, “Since when did the GOP slander of the 90’s become the conventional wisdom of self-proclaimed Democrats in 2007? And, yes, I do mean slander.”
She’s competent, bright, thoughtful. If she were a man, she’d be a shoe-in.
So what’s your problem?
“Scorched earth?” Oh, please. You’ll see scorched earth when the general campaign is underway; it will look like the Clinton campaign threw Obama a tea party (no matter who the nominee is).
I don’t buy the idea that Hillary’s prospects are dismal compared to Obama’s. Yes, there are a lot of people who won’t ever vote for her. There are also a lot of people who are very eager to vote for her. And, there are a whole lot of people who will never, ever vote for a black Democrat whose middle name is Hussein. I don’t really buy any of the arguments on electability; both candidates have impressive strengths and serious challenges ahead of them.
And I don’t buy the idea that it’s horrible that if lots of people go out and vote for Hillary today, she’ll think that means that people might want her to be president and should continue her campaign.
I like Obama (a lot) and didn’t actually decide who I was going to vote for until last night. I do not, however, like some of the really vitriolic stuff about Clinton that I hear from Obama supporters, nor complaints that he actually has to campaign his way all the way to the nomination. As much as everyone’s pointing out that Clinton hasn’t won a primary in a while, the fact remains that Obama has also failed to score a decisive string of victories that would lock up the nomination. So this wicked witch Hillary taking the nomination away from nice Barack meme that’s out there is just ludicrous.
If this campaign can damage Obama beyond electability, then he shouldn’t have the nomination, because there’s no way he’d make it through the general election. If sniping from Clinton is all it takes to undo him, he’s the wrong guy.
(I don’t think that, by the way; I think he can win, and I think he can win after a rough primary season.)
John, I’ve heard nasty, vitriolic things from supporters of both candidates. Nobody gets to claim the higher ground there.
And you can’t seriously think a candidate — any candidate — can come under fire from both directions for the better part of a year and not be damaged.
“Nobody gets to claim the higher ground there.”
I agree, which is why I was taking issue with your initial comments, which read to me like just such a claim.
Has anyone ever gotten their party’s nomination without fierce criticism from their rivals? I’m sorry, but I stand by my belief that if Obama can’t come out of a race with Clinton able to compete in the general election, there’s no way he could ever win it, no matter how gentle the primaries might have been.
John,
I think perhaps we’re talking about different things here. I don’t like the tone I hear from some of the supporters of both candidates. OTOH, I do think Hillary’s campaign tactics are much uglier than Obama’s.
For me, the supporters and their candidates are separate entities.