McCain/Clinton 2008?
Hillary Clinton is beginning to piss me off. She sounds as though she's sucking up to become John McCain's running mate. In equating her experience with McCain's and saying Obama has none, she's feeding McCain his lines for the coming presidential campaign should Obama beat her out for the nomination. It's as though she sees it as all Hillary or nothing for the Democrats. If she has any party loyalty, she's hiding it well.
While I favor Obama, I've considered Clinton an acceptable nominee if that is the will of the people. But it appears she is so tunnel-visioned on becoming President that she doesn't care about the will of the people or anything else.
Take Michigan and Florida. The DNC's warning to the states was clear: If you have your primaries early, the votes will not count and elected delegates will not be seated at the convention.
But Florida and Michigan had their primaries early and some people voted anyway. In Michigan, she was the only one on the ballot. Guess what. She won. But that didn't matter because she didn't need those states then. She does now.
And since she does need them, she now says the Party should accept the votes and the delegates. She first said that there should be do-overs, but nobody wants to pay for them. So now she wants to change the rules after the game is over and seat the delegates that were not campaigned for. I'll be surprised if she doesn't take the issue to court.
I'm getting tired of her claiming qualification to "answer the phone at 3:00 a.m." for no other reason than she used to live in the house where the phone is. If that's experience, I'll take Obama's judgment, thank you.
And then this from Keith Olberman on MSNBC. Remember that flap just before the Ohio and Texas primaries this week about someone on Obama's staff allegedly telling some Canadian officials not to worry about Obama going after NAFTA, that that was just campaign talk? That shook confidence in Obama as a straight shooter and caught him, for once, flat footed. Well, guess what? Clarification from the Canadians: It wasn't someone from Obama's people talking about Obama. It was somebody from Clinton's campaign reassuring them about Clinton's anti-NAFTA campaign position. And, according to Olberman, Clinton flatly denied it.
The only good that will come of the nastiness of this contest is, it should guarantee that neither Clinton nor Obama will invite the other to share the ticket. Those that think this would be a winning combination overlook an important consideration: There is a group that will not vote for a black and another group that will not vote for a woman. The two groups overlap to some degree, but the sum of the groups remains greater than either one alone. In this case, two negatives do not result in a positive in November, unless you are a Republican.
I've been arguing for a long time with an old and good friend who is almost irrational in his dislike of Hillary Clinton. I still think he's off base on the subject, but not as far off as I thought he was.
I just sent the Obama campaign another hundred dollars.
While I favor Obama, I've considered Clinton an acceptable nominee if that is the will of the people. But it appears she is so tunnel-visioned on becoming President that she doesn't care about the will of the people or anything else.
Take Michigan and Florida. The DNC's warning to the states was clear: If you have your primaries early, the votes will not count and elected delegates will not be seated at the convention.
But Florida and Michigan had their primaries early and some people voted anyway. In Michigan, she was the only one on the ballot. Guess what. She won. But that didn't matter because she didn't need those states then. She does now.
And since she does need them, she now says the Party should accept the votes and the delegates. She first said that there should be do-overs, but nobody wants to pay for them. So now she wants to change the rules after the game is over and seat the delegates that were not campaigned for. I'll be surprised if she doesn't take the issue to court.
I'm getting tired of her claiming qualification to "answer the phone at 3:00 a.m." for no other reason than she used to live in the house where the phone is. If that's experience, I'll take Obama's judgment, thank you.
And then this from Keith Olberman on MSNBC. Remember that flap just before the Ohio and Texas primaries this week about someone on Obama's staff allegedly telling some Canadian officials not to worry about Obama going after NAFTA, that that was just campaign talk? That shook confidence in Obama as a straight shooter and caught him, for once, flat footed. Well, guess what? Clarification from the Canadians: It wasn't someone from Obama's people talking about Obama. It was somebody from Clinton's campaign reassuring them about Clinton's anti-NAFTA campaign position. And, according to Olberman, Clinton flatly denied it.
The only good that will come of the nastiness of this contest is, it should guarantee that neither Clinton nor Obama will invite the other to share the ticket. Those that think this would be a winning combination overlook an important consideration: There is a group that will not vote for a black and another group that will not vote for a woman. The two groups overlap to some degree, but the sum of the groups remains greater than either one alone. In this case, two negatives do not result in a positive in November, unless you are a Republican.
I've been arguing for a long time with an old and good friend who is almost irrational in his dislike of Hillary Clinton. I still think he's off base on the subject, but not as far off as I thought he was.
I just sent the Obama campaign another hundred dollars.
posted by Eric Rush | 6:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home