What the bloggers for The Rhetorical Situation are best at, best in the blogosphere, is affirming the Importance of Narrative. And, we are the Best at analyzing Narrative.
We are also really, really good-looking.
And so, here are Some Competing Narratives which All Superdelegates Will be Citing. Some Supers for Obama and Clinton will say:
1)Mine is the Best Candidate for President.
2)Mine has the best chance of beating McCain.
These are for the most part, intellectually honest Narratives. Here are some much more problematic ones.
3)I'm going the way people in my district/state went. But, if you feel this is the way you need to go, then you've got to be just as disgusted with Kerry and Kennedy as with any Clintonista who might buck the will of their constituency. It also calls into question, why do we even have superdelegates, if their only purpose is to parrot what others are doing? Why not just assign higher numbers of delegates to each state, to make it possible for candidates to hit their magic numbers solely through the voting process?
4)(Obama only) "Something is happening." Totally stupid. Or, "Do I really want to be the one who denied the first African American Presidential candidacy"? Also a ridiculous Warrant sucking at the tit of Identity Politics.
What are some other Narratives, or Evaluations of the Narratives Harrogate has mentioned?
10 comments:
Oh Wise Harrogate, supporter of Senator Clinton and, hence, possessor of the truth; teacher of pedagogical lessons; thank you for sharing with Obama supporters wisdom for we only see the shadows....
You missed the arguments that Senator Clinton is entitled to the White House because of her 35 years of service (as if everything she has done to get to the this point in her life gives her experience while it gives no one else experience) AND that she has HERSTORY on her side to be the first woman president....
Oh the games we will play....
Are there any Superdelegates, any at all, making the Entitlement Argument? Harrogate would like to see that one.
Perhaps a Super citing her experience, whether you agree with it or not, whether or not you think her claim to experience valid, might more accurately be placed in the category of, "I Believe She'd Be A Better President for such and such reason."
Witness the topic of the thread....
Or are ye just playing coy?
You did miss the Senator Richardson comment that they would support the leader of the pledge delegates.
This would work if there is a point in which one candidate could not catch another.
Of course, this would make more sense if none of the Super Delegates support their candidate early and waited to see the count. But, at that point, you would not have had the movement comment to attack on a regular basis.
The Movement comment, Harrogate was attacking in Spirit, before Lewis or any other Pundit ever said it.
Because that meme has been a cornerstone of his campaign from the beginning. You know this. One hopes.
And, Are there Supers making the Entitlement argument?
Surely you didn't just throw that out there, as a Straw Man smear on Supers who do not in fact exist.
I would rephrase it from entitlement to Clinton supporters who owe their careers to the Clintons or plan to support out of loyalty rather than conscience.
This there are many of though fewer with Lewis.
That is fair. Harrogate has no doubt that the Narrative you just named, has traction with some Supers.
Although, might it not be the case that those Supers also think Clinton would be the best Presidential choice? As per Kennedy and Kerry with Obama, the example #1 of Honest Super Narratives, in Harrogate's Post.
The last argument is that the Super Delegates should support the candidate who will grow the party throughout the nation.
This is always a concern for the party.
Light dawns. That last comment reveals much.
Nobody is reading this comment, buried as it is, but still.
What we have are Two Dominant Narratives to choose from. One maintains, the Dems are flawed but better than the GOP in every way, and worth fighting for.
The Other is, the Democratic Party as it stands needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. What happens in the interum will be only collateral damage. But, we promise, when it is over we will have something Really, Really Groovy.
Seriously? If you do not think that the party needs to find new ways to pick up seats and the Super Delegates ought to think about which candidate can do this is a valid argument please offer a counter-argument.
What party implosion or explosion has to do with my comment I would love to know...Especially as it has nothing to do with the comment I made.
Post a Comment