Feels like: 14°F
Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013
Hmm? Party unity? Sure.Posted Thursday, June 5, 2008, at 11:13 AM
So, after reading through story after story and as many other blogs I could get my hands on, I have decided to weigh in regarding the current status of the Democratic presidential campaign.
I waited a couple of days so I could choose my wording wisely.
An Associated Press story was issued a little after 11 a.m. Thursday after with the suggested headline, "Clinton ending candidacy, supporting Obama."
Let's disect this, shall we?
According to the story, Clinton apparently e-mailed supporters recently stating she would speak Saturday in Washington, D.C., about how to unify the party behind Obama.
What a difference a few hours make.
Just Tuesday evening, after a primary win in South Dakota, Clinton said no decision would be made. In fact, she reiterated the statement that she had earned more votes and was the better candidate.
Word is Clinton intends to "suspend" her campaign. What that means is she has no plan to let go of her pledged delegates, but will formally announce her support for the likely Democratic nominee.
Following the final primaries Tuesday, Obama had gained enough superdelegates and delegates to secure the nominee.
At this point, Clinton's only chance of securing the nominee would be if superdelegates moved from Obama's camp to hers.
Or is it?
According to the Clinton camp, she will "express" her support Saturday for Obama and thank supporters. In addition, she will "urge" Democrats to focus on the general election.
Why should anyone believe this?
There are a number of reasons why Clinton would still be in the campaign.
For one, she has insisted since she entered the campaign that she was "in it to win it."
In fact, when she announced she was running for president, in January 2007, Clinton was thought of -- by most in the media -- as the one to beat.
In fact, even before the Iowa caucus, Clinton was quoted as saying the nomination would be sealed by Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008.
But her campaign began to unravel. And there is no other to blame but her.
For example, and remember once again, she was the one to beat, but "the one to beat" changed position time and time again, finally coming to the finish line of the primary season a completely different candidate than when all of this started back in January. Remember the summer gas tax proposal that was suggested only days before the Indiana primary? How can anyone running for the position of President of the United States of America -- who wouldn't take office until January 2009 -- get something like this through the Senate while campaigning for said position? More importantly, why was this proposal not even discussed at all in the primaries that followed Indiana's on May 6? It has become obvious that it was brought up to gain more support.
Sure, Obama beat her in the Iowa caucus, which many perceived as an incredible upset, but Clinton came right back the following week with a victory in New Hampshire.
Most still believed she would wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday.
But that just didn't happen.
Now, only days after the primary season has come to a close, many across the nation are screaming that she has to be on the ticket as Obama's vice president.
Again, why should this happen?
Many have started placing pressure on the Obama camp that the only way for him to earn her voters' support would be to add her on the ticket.
I think that's a bad idea. Plain and simple.
Since he entered the campaign, Obama has campaigned for the idea of change.
Would bringing Clinton to the ticket by change? Would it really? Hardly.
If that did happen, we would hear -- during the next few months -- about how a return to the 1990s would be on the way.
Were the 1990s all that great? To some extent, yes.
But, some could argue that America became the laughing stock of the world after hearing about a president's indiscretions while in office.
Clinton's reaction to Tuesday's primary conclusion can only mean one thing.
She doesn't care that Obama won more primaries, more delegates and is now the likely nominee.
She doesn't care about party unity. At least, until many of her supporters in government have started flocking to the other side.
She doesn't care about any of this.
She cares about herself. Is she truly interested in party unity? Apparently not until many members of government continued to part ways and throw support at Obama.
Was she the victim of sexism during her campaign? At times, yes. It's disgusting to think that some idiot felt compelled to bring a sign to one of her rallies stating "Iron My Shirt." Moronic indeed.
However, sexism had nothing to do with her losing her presidential bid. Campaign faults did. People need to remember this. It is known that the Clinton camp believed the nomination would be wrapped up three months ago. But that didn't happen. Perhaps the camp wasn't prepared for the long haul. You can't always throw everything at your opponent in the first quarter and expect to coast to victory. Contests don't always work that way.
With that in mind, doesn't that mean the past few months' talk about how party unity would be no problem after the primary season came to a conclusion was a lie? Just like reminding supporters about the sniper fire she had to avoid while in Bosnia?
Yes, it's true, most citizens believe politicians lie on a regular basis. But the media has had more than a year to find lies coming from the Obama camp.
Maybe some slipped through and will be brought up again over the course of the next few months heading into the November election.
Maybe the major media markets have glossed over Obama's record and have fallen in love with the possibility of another "Camelot."
Regardless, none of that matters now.
What does matter is party unity, according to big wigs in the party.
Let's see if that does happen.
Honestly, I have a hard time believing it will. As I said earlier, some are pushing for her to get the vice presidential nod.
After more than a year's worth of campaigning against each other, and knowing it was believed by many, including Clinton herself, that she was the one to beat, would bringing her in the fold at that capacity be the best thing?
Absolutely not. Seems to me that if that were to happen, the two of them might butt heads more than people think.
Then again, it has been said that many of her supporters have no interest in voting for him at all. Many of Clinton's supporters have said they will either stay at home or vote for John McCain in November.
Talk about party unity.
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]