I'm sorry to say it, but the caucus for which you all suffered was well worth it, if only to read M's report including the line above. Certainly, we can agree that this is the new motto of the Situation, one that provides unity in a time of increasing division. (And, no, I don't want Hillary out, so don't call me MegsMatthews!)
Knowing full well that the higher-ups in our party read and react to our blog, I hereby call for two things:
1. Sexiness--I mean, order--in the Texas caucus the next time around.
2. A joint ticket for 2008. Either way. Seriously. I know that solon, among others--ahem, Harrogate--will have to hold their noses, as it were, to cast that vote. I know, at least, that paperweight is with me. Talk about sex appeal. It's a sure winner. And then Republicans can go where ever it is that Republicans go.
And that's today's word.
20 comments:
Um... because I can only grade so much at one time.
Please elaborate on how it is a clear winner? Maybe to pick up swing states, but only if Hillary is Pres for Ohio or Obama pres for Virginia, Colorado, NM, and Wisconsin. Further, this does not solve Florida and Michigan.
Also, um, they hate each other. Hillary is praising the experience of McCain over Senator Obama. Other than being intellectually dishonest (and disloyal to the party-- while Obama has appealed to Indies and Reps., he has not said McCain is better than Clinton). If I am leading in delegates, having her languish in the Senate after these comments seems appropriate. Maybe Obama offers her an appointment on the Supreme Court...maybe she would accept it but that would entail no run in 2012 and she would not make History or Herstory.
But, then, what will the elephant in the room do? Do you think Bill Clinton could handle being #3-- the first gentleman to the Vice-Pres, especially after the Jesse Jackson comment? Do you think Senator Obama would want this distraction just hanging around the White House and the Veep mansion?
For the sake of anonymity I edited the post to remove my name.
Let's not forget one thing: these individuals are politicians. We can was poetic about them all we want to (as you, Solon, are so often apt to due with Senator Obama). I for one find it incredibly hard to believe that if Senator Clinton wins the nomination (and it is not a foregone conclusion that he will win; it is still possible for her to win) and she asks Obama to be her running mate that he would turn it down. Why do I find this so hard to believe? Because accepting the job of VP puts him that much closer to the presidency. Assuming she is reelected, he would have served for 8 years, gotten the experience so many claim he is lacking, and put himself in the position of being the de facto next democratic nominee. He may well hate her, but he isn't stupid.
Furthermore, for the sake of party unity and national unity, I don't think either one will have much say in the matter if the other comes calling for a VP. I believe that Howard Dean will put a fair amount of pressure on both Clinton and Obama to ensure that the loser offers lots of support to the winner.
As to the question why would this be a damn hard to beat ticket? Last night I witnessed an eclectic group of people come out on a chilly Texas night to make their voices heard. Despite the passion felt about each candidate, I heard no animosity for the other candidate. What I did hear was a determination to see a Democrat in office and a willingness to vote for which ever Democrat gets the nomination. Putting both Clinton and Obama on a single ticket will, I believe, bring out all the people who have voted for them as individuals.
And who says the President and the VP have to like each other?
A few quick comments: If Senator Clinton were to win, and of course she still can win, a better choice for Senator Obama would be to run for Gov. of Illinois than become VP as he would gain more experience for another Presidential run, if he chose to run in 2012 or 2016.
In our age of hyper-media, an eight year run as VP would be a terrible way to run for President. This move has not been very successful for the VP as the VP usually only wins one term and then is out after four years.
I do no think that Senator Obama would accept a #3 position. It would not help him politically. It would be better to separate from the Clintons than to join them, especially since his entire primary campaign is predicated on the idea of the rejection of Clintonian politics (See his South Carolina speech).
Clinton's path to the nomination is very tricky because of the potential for division especially at the convention as well as Michigan and Florida. If she wins the nomination through a divisive campaign (I am not saying she will or that this will happen) that would preclude the candidates from accepting one another.
And you are correct, that the VP & Pres., do not have to like one another, but this relationship is beyond not likely one another to the point that there would be considerable tension undermining a Clinton or Obama administration. Neither president would need that distraction.
I do no think this is a JFK/ LBJ moment for the Democratic Party. I do not even think this is a Kerry/ Edwards moment.
I just wanted to let you all know that I hung around for the end of the caucus and was chosen as a delegate. It sort of came about because no one else wanted to do it. I'm not sure what all it will entail at this point. They gave me a packet but I haven't had time to read it. I am concerned about what to do with the kids and if my trips will be paid for. I'll let you know.
Sarah--
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO jealous...
Solon, I confess that Harrogate, Oxymoron, and I have conspired to toy with your emotions. Pangs of conscience have led us to end the charade. Alas, the Situation does not have the inside view of the process that was implied--I am not nor was I ever a delegate.
Part of the pedagogy here is to discern what voters in Florida and Michigan must have felt, on learning that they would not, in fact, get to have a say, because of sealed agreements made by removed forces.
As for the joint ticket stuff.
As time goes by, Harrogate is more attracted to this idea, Megs, as a formula for winning.
But Harrogate also agrees with conventional wisdom which states that, were Hill to win the nomination, there would be a mandate of sorts to offer Obama the Veep slot. But with Obama, no such pressure, implied or Actual, would exist on him to offer Hill the Veep.
On a related note, while there is obviously going to be some friction going on in a race this contested and this lengthy, it's probably way overboard to state that these candidates "hate" one another. Surely, this is a narrative made by the chattering classes, buit not stemming from the true human beings.
Thanks for coming clean, Sarah. I was excited for you!
"Part of the pedagogy here is to discern what voters in Florida and Michigan must have felt, on learning that they would not, in fact, get to have a say, because of sealed agreements made by removed forces." A little heavy-handed, no? Patronizing, perhaps? To try to "teach" a friend what something feels like, especially when you don't know firsthand.
I don't know anyone who thinks that it doesn't suck to be a Florida or Michigan voter. But no one was crying for them until the votes had been cast. It was their own state parties that threw them under the bus. Not Obama--and not Clinton. Aren't there states every primary that essentially don't count because their votes come too late in the season? If we're going to call this a teaching moment, let's at least be transparent.
(And, M, I'm so, so sorry that I used your name! It was a complete mistake. Thanks for editing. I'm glad you caught it so quickly.)
A thought on anonymity: whoever can figure out M's identity based on the disclosure of her full name will probably not have a problem figuring out who "M" is. I'm just sayin'...
Yes, heavy-handed Rhetoric, but not in Earnest. The Idea of teaching friends pedagogical lessons itself a humorous concept.
However. Fair indeed to say that the people in those states have been screwed over. Without an conditional qualifier, we all ought to be saying together, those states got screwed, the DNC, Clinton, and Obama all screwed up royally and without a good reason for doing it.
You write:
"I don't know anyone who thinks that it doesn't suck to be a Florida or Michigan voter. But no one was crying for them until the votes had been cast. It was their own state parties that threw them under the bus. Not Obama--and not Clinton."
But none of this is in fact true. Many, many, many were saying all along, what asinine morons the DNC and the Campaigns are proving themselves to be, enforcing this stoopid shit. Who cares about Iowa, we asked. Who cares New Hampshire. Who cares South Carolina. What? Because a state legislature decides to move a Primary up, you're okay with your candidate signing a Pledge to screw the citizens of that state over? Harrogate is not okay with this.
No. The blame for this falls not on the states in question, but on the candidates most of all. And on us, if we try to "ho-hum" it away.
And so, before any of us Dems start "sucking each other's dicks," as Harvey Keitel once gloriously put it. Before we get all Giddy here Talking about how wonderful this process is, how "exciting" these candidates are, let us Pause and remember:
They Fucked Up. It Corrupts the DNC and both Candidtaes and, Most Importantly, The Process. The Process that we're all supposed to be so freakin' happy about, all this freakin turnout.
And it is indeed reasonable to suppose that people in those states feel like you, or solon, or Harrogate would likely feel if some bullshit political machination to protect Three Dipshit States' sense of importance, cost us our voices.
Peace.
It must be said that I, Oxymoron, played only a passive role in the conspiracy against Solon. I merely laughed at the possibility of toying with our ardent fellow contributor, occasionally responding, "yes, that would be funny." Forgive me, Solon.
I'm certainly not sucking the system's dick and I...
wow. Just got totally distracted by typing "system's dick" and lost my train of thought.
Okay, I'm back.
...and I didn't know that Harrogate has been blogging about this issue since the documents were originally signed. (I admit to not reading the blog daily for periods of time this past year!) But I do think that it's a little late and a little unfair to just say, let's count 'em anyway, after the fact. A re-vote is one thing, if the states or the DNC are willing to fund it. (And they probably should be.) But let's not pretend that this is all about voter's rights. Maybe to you it is, Harrogate, and if so, then kudos to you. But I just can't believe that it is to the Clinton camp, who signed the waiver and only now, after having "won" both states, thinks that it should be taken back.
To be fair, Harrogate has been complaining about the "sacredness" of having the Iowa and N.H. primaries first all along--even if he didn't actually blog about it. I don't think that those states' delegates should count toward the nomination, because it would not be fair.
However, I agree that it was stupid for the candidates and the DNC to agree to "punish" Florida and Michigan in this way, because they're really just screwing themselves. And what's so freakin' special about Iowa and New Hampshire anyway? This fight over who gets to go first is very elementary school in nature.
And, while it is very convenient for Clinton to want those states to count as she lags behind, I do believe that Obama would be making the same argument if he were in her position. I'm sure that Obama supporters think that he is far nobler than Clinton and would *never* be so self-serving. Please. He is just as much of a politician as she is, and he is just as interested in winning the nomination and the presidency.
I just hope that both Clinton and Obama can avoid getting nasty with each other as this campaign continues--they must focus on getting a Democrat in the White House.
Supadiscomama makes a fair point, but I'd still prefer to keep my anonymity. And I know that you didn't do it on purpose, Megs.
I agree with Supa on all counts. (Except that Obama is so noble. I mean, I like him a lot, a bit more than I like Clinton, but he's a politician, not a saint. Maybe there are Obama people who think like that, but I don't know any... and I know a lot of Obama people.) It was a stupid situation to begin with and now getting out of it in the least messy way is a matter of discord and debate. Iraq, anyone? Maybe the next race can be run on the premise of changing these rules!
Megs--I'm glad that you don't agree with the noble part. It seems sometimes that die hard Obama supporters speak about him as though is is the Messiah or something--and that freaks me out a bit. Yes, he has an inspiring message, and, yes, he is a skilled speaker--but, as you said, he is a politician, not a saint. He is not my first choice, but I will gladly vote for him if he wins the nomination.
As for the rules, they definitely need changing. For example, the way the dems assign delegates is really confusing. I actually like the all or nothing approach of the republicans better--even though that has its problems too. And to echo what has already been said by M and myself, the causing process needs some serious attention.
Well, now we have a whopper of a thread. Good. We need those, air it out, the passions are high and the people on Pete's Couch are even higher.
But highest of all was the DNC for creating this mess.
And certainly, as Harrogate has disclaimed several times on this blog, Clinton's interest is of course self-serving at this point with respect to Michigan and Florida.
But, this needs to be said. At this point Hill can Very creidbly make the case that she would have won those states had things gone the way they needed to, and that she will win them again if there are do overs. Because they are big states, which she dominated rather handily, last night included.
But be that as it may. No matter who you're pulling for there is no excuse for what has been done here. Particularly Michigan voters got screwed. At least, in Fla, Obama and Edwards were on the ballot.
But Harrogate digresses.
As he will argue at more length in a thread soon to come, the only fair thing to do at this point is for the DNC to Pony Up the money for do overs. Do it the Same Exact Way that it was meant to be done before. No special rules, no weird rituals that need to attend the thing, just replicate the process.
The DNC has the money, of course. If it has to spend money "earmarked" for the Congressional Races, or for coffee and donuts at the convention, then so. be. it.
That's what would be fitting. It's the DNC that deserves to be "Punished" here, after all. Not the two states.
Two states by the way, that iot would behoove Dems not to alienate for the sake of rules and signatures. States which are Infinitely more central to the Democrats' hopes of winning in November than South Carolina, which they stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Or New Hampshire, which they likely will not get this go'round. Or (gasp!)Iowa.
That's what she said....
Clinton on a morning news program: "But of course we have to decide who is on the top?"
Truly, the essential question.
(And, yes, of course, my mad citing skills from freshman comp caused me to drop the "of the ticket" from the quote. Yay!)
Post a Comment