An excellent essay, Bob, and it kind of spooks me a little, to tell you the truth. Both campaigns argue, both under the rules and under the rules as they think should be altered, for whatever works to their advantage. The Salon.com essay helped me to see where Judy is coming from in her accusations that Obama is claiming to be above the fray while engaging in it at the same level as Clinton, if only more skillfully.
And it does appear, if all the assertions in that essay are correct, that the rules in this election year just happen to favor Obama as the votes and the headlines and the campaign narratives all seem to have broken his way. But they also happen to favor him because he has been astute enough to realize how to make the play under those rules and circumstances and gain the advantage over his opponent. Clinton early on agreed to the essential nullity of the Florida and Michigan primary based on the DNC rules. Now that *that* particular decision seems not to have been particularly insightful in light of the way the rest of the campaign has played out, she wants the rules to be changed so as to regain the advantage. That's understandable but doesn't quite feel right to me. Of course, the argument advanced is that Obama maintaining the advantage and winning the Democratic nomination means nothing if he then goes on to lose the general election. Everyone is either calling for Clinton to bow out or criticising those who are calling for Clinton to bow out. I agree with Clinton (and Obama says this, too) that she should stay in the race until all the primary (and caucus) votes are in. I think so because the way the delegates are being counted now, each and every one is valuable. It hasn't happened that way for a long time and it's cool that so many people's votes count in a way that hasn't happened in earlier nomination campaigns. But what is the advice that Obama should take from this critique? What advice would you give? Should *he* step aside and concede the race to Clinton? Should he be *her* vice-president? Should he acknowledge that the rules and his ability to play them puts him at too great an advantage? That seems pretty absurd, doesn't it? It's obvious that I love the idea of an Obama presidency; and I recognize that it's not unlikely that I'll be disappointed by any number of snafus that his presidency, should that happen, will either endure or create. That's the nature of politics. I'm hoping that it will be longer before he is co-opted by the powers that be. And I'm mightily encouraged by his intelligence and his enthusiasm and his willingness to talk about the things that matter in a *way* that matters and that doesn't just sound like pandering. But I'm a incorrible idealist and like putting my ideals to the test in as many facets of my life as I can. It's desirable (or so I tell myself) to do the right thing and let the consequences come as they may; to see and assume humanity in the worst and beauty in the despicable; and funnily enough, to find it reflected right back at me time and time again. I may be 100% wrong about Obama. He may be a total conniving bastard, steeped and schooled in dirty Chicago-style political maneuvering, and just waiting for the exact right moment to rip Hilary's throat out and do it so deftly that not a drop of blood stains his hand. Or he may just be a smooth-talking politician, with ambition and hubris to spare who just happened to get lucky when all the political stars aligned for his ascendancy. Or he may just be what so many of us are looking for right now and he's caught the wave of hope and optimism that so many of us are generating. His candidacy does seem to me, at time, to be a thing of beauty and inspiration. Maybe it's like the Beatles song, Sexy Sadie, where they sing "How could you know that the world was waiting just for you?" Sometimes it's just the right time and someone rises up to embody something bigger than themselves. I don't know, but I sure hope so. Good essay and lots to think about. Thanks. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > I hope she > > stays in the Senate. > > > > Marek > > > ***** ** > > "If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates > overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have > displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party > apart. > > These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so > reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic > nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic > maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system > that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to > hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of > the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will > be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that > the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process > the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have > a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more > commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about > which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be > moot. > > more at link http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/ >
