To continue a discussion started by Harrogate and developed by MegsG-H, here is my response.
The focus of Harrogate's argument is that winning matters and ending the GOP reign is the most important issue in 2008. Yet, this is not the issue; this is not the debate.
The issue for 2008 is ethos. This debate is about the ethical characterization of the US political system. While there is little choice on the Republican side, there is real choice on the Democratic side.
As I have discussed before, there are numerous signs that a Clinton nomination for the Democrats would mean that the same tactics that were used before, would be used again. I would argue that a Clinton nomination would mean not only the continuation of the Clinton Administration, but the Bush Administration as well. The signs are there: employing rendition, dividing the base by putting factions against one another, attacking candidates based on race, relying on dishonesty,the dominance of interest groups, etc.
To forgive these because they might disrupt the "endgame" of a victory would miss the point of this election entirely. To focus on winning is to miss the forest for the trees.
Hillary Clinton may win the nomination against Obama or not. She may win a general election or not. However, if she were to win, political life would not change. A victory may allow for some to feel vindication; however, after a few months, it would feel like the alcoholic at the bar asking for one last drink, night after night.
1 comment:
I think that Clinton's tactics would be similar to Bush, but I do believe that her policies would differ. That's why I can vote for her with good conscience if the need arises. She doesn't move me the way Obama does. In fact, no candidate does or has. But I trust that she, like he, will go in a direction I can follow. I just don't know about the road itself.
Post a Comment