| How NOT to successfully attack Hillary Clinton . . . |
[Jan. 20th, 2008|02:27 pm] |
"both Hillary's most vocal critics and the kind of attacks they throw at her tend to really, really, *really* annoy me, and I shall take pleasure in their dismay."
That was the good in political news yesterday. =)
The sadness was just how poorly Edwards fared. (and I just wrote a lengthy piece on that I'll save until later.) Yeah, I was/am leaning towards Hillary, but this still disturbs me.
**************************
Okay, I get why the mainstream media runs headlines like "Hillary wins Nevada, has big problems" (paraphrase of a CNN.com headline, can't remember the exact one) because they clearly hate her guts. They're not saying Obama has big problems because he lost the Latino vote by more than 2-1, or lost the women's vote again, or even that he just plain lost. Nope, Hillary won the Nevada caucases by quite a decent margin (the stupidity of still having caucases I'll leave to someone else), but lost one segment of the vote by a wide margin, so she's in trouble and Obama, who won that one segment, is kicking ass. Riiiiight.
What I don't get is places like Pandagon, where the line appeared, "It will be interesting to see how the Clinton camp spins this if Obama ends up with the win in the delegate count." As someone said in the comment thread to that one, "She'll *spin* it by saying she won the actual vote by six percentage points."
The anti-Hillary slant over there has been so extreme and downright right-wingish that it has me on the verge of ditching the feed.
Tho even things like the comment above, or the "let's get Hillary out of the race because the Republicans hate her" post from my onetime favorite blogger, pale in comparisom to some of the Obama supporters out there. And by some I mean hundreds. Just in case anyone reading this *is* an Obama supporter, and you wish to convince me I'm mistaken (which is possible; highly unlikely, but possible) in my thinking he's overall well to the right of Clinton, here are things NOT to bring up:
Travelgate. Gennifer Flowers. That Republicans investigated her.
I was having what I thought was a rational debate with an Obama supporter here: http://community.livejournal.com/progressives/132778.html?view=192938#t192938
and when he found out I was for Hillary rather than Edwards, all of those things suddenly came up, and I suddenly dismissed him as crazy, right along with the wackjobs who try to blame Hillary for Bill cheating, or still think Bill was running a cocaine ring from the Arkansas governor's mansion. (note: this is not a call for people to pile on; honestly, I think someone bringing up stuff like this as important pretty much makes them look worse than anything we answer with possibly could; the only reason I answered at all was in case someone was reading this who didn't remember back then and didn't know what he was talking about)
Outside of Republicans, it's always Obama supporters who bring stuff like this up, never people for Edwards or, well, *any* other democratic candidate. If any Obama fans are reading this, people, c'mon. This makes me think you are closet Republicans, and I don't think it's going to win over *any* undecideds. (that said, while this doesn't seem remotely as common,or even at all common, can I beg my fellow Hillary supporters, especially the high profile ones, to shut up about Obama's past drug use? As long as he's not voting for worse drug laws or campaigning on an anti-drug platform, then who the hell cares? This shouldn't be an issue, and it's contributing to national stupidity to make it one, except in the context of the stupidity of the war on drugs in general, which isn't how it's being raised.)
****************************
Speaking of stupidity, what is up with the whole caucus thing? Why does that still exist? Keep in mind, I'm saying that when the person who is more or less "my" candidate just won one.
Speaking of greater stupidity, and the democratic party leadership's seeming determination to fuck themselves over at every opportunity, why did the democratic powers that be decide to punish Michigan (and I think Florida?) by not counting their delegates, for having primaries before South Carolina? They are both racially diverse SWING STATES with huge numbers of delegates. South Carolina not only doesn't have that many delegates, but is a state WE HAVE NO REALISTIC CHANCE OF WINNING in the general election, unless the overall race is such a landslide that it doesn't really matter. Stupid power play on the part of both the state and national democratic parties here, but the national party has the ultimate responsibility to keep the bigger picture in mind. dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mojave_wolf's journal