Monday, May 12, 2008

Lost Cause

The phrase “lost cause” carries with it more than a whiff of something noble. Or not. When I think of how often our Civil War is associated with those two words, my gorge rises. This particular “cause” had to do with slavery.

But that’s past history; the future of our country is being tainted by the inability of Hillary Clinton to accept the hard fact that her “entitlement” to White House occupancy is a lost cause. This inability – prompted by a combination of massive ego and a near-pathological denial of reality – is putting the outcome of this crucial election in jeopardy.

Barack Obama has proven himself – via popular votes, as well as his very being – worthy of occupying the Oval Office next January. That he will defeat the fumbling, dangerous John McCain, so inextricably linked with the Bush administration, is palpable.

But there’s the seemingly immovable barrier – this Clintonian tendency to distort truth, mangle facts and figures and exhibit a callous disregard of the havoc her behavior is causing the Democratic Party.

It is both infuriating and heartbreaking, and as of this writing, I’m not sure just which emotion is paramount within me as I type these words.



Larjmarj said...

I think she's staying in to try and milk the coffers as much as possible to try and pay off the massive debt that her campaign has racked up. Not only that she will smugly wave her impending victories in Kentucky and West Virginia around as if to say "you like me, you really like me". Odd how most of her base are amongst the most uneducated. No class, no class at all.

Anonymous said...

Even Jimmy Carter, a superdelegate who sure seems to be supporting Obama, agrees that Hillary has the right to keep in the race until the last vote is counted. What is so wrong with that? If you are unhappy with this, go after the superdelegates who have not yet committed. Until they do, and the primaries are all over, there is no reason why Hillary should back down. And as far as I am concerned, the closesness of this race should be telling the two candidates that they must join forces, that is a combined ticket, to beat out McCain. Sorry if that is distasteful to you, but that is clearly the message that the people are sending.

Blair said...

Normally you could say the Democratic Party is pro-Democracy. So Obama-Clinton should go all the way to the Convention to build momentum and motivate supporters. Why have a convention if the contest is already determined? Compare to McCain. A baseball team playing against no one leads to a weak team. The in-party competition will make Obama-Clinton even sharper, while McCain trains without a competitor and blunders by the day. Ah, but most people now call it the Democrat Party because they too, like the Republicans, dislike competition in Democratic contests as shown in the call for Clinton to forfeit before the 9th inning.

Anonymous said...

P.S. I think it is important for folks to remember that the popular vote has nothing to do with the selection of a presidential candidate (or the selection of a president for that matter - remember 2000?). All delegates may choose whoever they want, not just the superdelegates. Thus the race is not truly over until everyone votes at the convention.

Donna Lee said...

I'm not quite sure how Barak Obama has "proven himself" capable of occupying the oval office. He is a telegenic and charismatic individual but that does not make him good presidential material. I think Hillary has every right to fight as long as she wants to and the candidate will be decided at the convention.

railtrax said...

Opinions about Obama/Clinton and what's best for the Democratic Party are all over the map. Bonnie Erbe, in a column printed in The Augusta (GA) Chronicle, writes: "The monster lurking behind the curtain in the Democratic presidential race is racism. Up to now, Obama's supporters in the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party have tried to ignore its existence." She goes on to state how "raw racism and hostility" have been shown to his supporters but that the younger, more educated generation are largely behind his nomination while the "white, older, less educated and mostly rural voters" stand for Clinton. "Could the answer be the chimera of race consciousness, if not racism?" She looks at Census numbers of white vs black voters in past general elections which show "simple mathematical equation--in primary seasons only the extreme wings of each party turns up to vote. . .If a relatively small, say, 20 percent of white voters will not vote for any African-American candidate, how can that candidate carry the Democrats to victory? . . . My point is to show that it (race-based decision making) exists and that it will, however unfortunately, be a factor in the upcoming general election, as repugnant a thought as that may be to the vast majority of Americans."
One might also add that there are those, black and white, who would never vote for a woman for president and given the choice will stay home rather than make the choice.
A local letter writer points out, along a different vein, that "What must we make of Sen. Obama's 155 days of senatorial experience?"
What does the country--as an entirety--want? Youth and hope, added years and experience, black or white, male or female?
But definitely not more of what we've had for the past eight years!!!

sunt_lacrimae_rerum said...

I agree with you, Ms. Rich. The Dems need to fight hard so that McCain does not continue the Dubya Show. The sooner the Dems can focus on the general election, the better. Democratic in-fighting takes time, money, energy that is poorly spent.

The only way that HRC can redeem herself with me is if she immediately starts actively campaigning for the PARTY and not for herself. Some of her recent comments seem reckless and even potentially dangerous.