While the self appointed leaders of the conservative movement continue their sulk over the McCain surge, not everything is all sweetness and light on the Democrats' side. As the Clinton machine puts Barack Obama squarely in their sights, that race continues to get ugly. So far, we have Clinton surrogates mentioned Obama's middle name, the New York chapter of NOW calling Senator Kennedy a traitor for endorsing Obama, Bill Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson in light of Obama's victory in South Carolina.
And if no one looks to have a lead after tomorrow, it may get uglier. About 20% of the Democratic delegates are "super delegates"– party leaders who are not elected in the primary/caucus process. Given the closeness of the race, it is possible that neither Obama nor Clinton will have a majority of the elected delegates. Added to that are the games being played over the Florida and Michigan delegations. Both those states had their delegates stripped because the scheduling of the primary violated Democratic Party rules. All the candidates promised not to contest the primaries, by Hillary Clinton found some loopholes and "won" the primaries. Her campaign is now pushing to seat the delegations. The link is a few days old and I cannot find the current status of the controversy.
My favorite regular commentator, Rodak, has even called for a boycott of the election if this continues.
Imagine what will happen if come convention time neither candidate has sown up the nomination. I am not saying we will get a repeat of 1968 (I doubt the mayor of Denver will be quite a ready to "preserve disorder" as Mayor Daley was). You may see a fight over the seating of Florida and Michigan and, of course, a fight over the super delegates. If this comes to pass, I plan to make popcorn and martinis.
Posts
11 comments:
If, as is quite possible, we wake up tomorrow, or soon thereafter, to find that the candidates are Clinton and McCain, what will it say about the American electoral process? Never mind the mudslinging; that is just bid'ness as usual--part of the fun.
What a McCain and Clinton contest will tell us is that, once again, the fix was in. Never mind all the demagoguing, radio-driven, Limbaughisms about the GOP establishment hating McCain; that's bullcrap. Who could be more "establishment" than John McCain? The neocons might hate him. If so, that's in his favor. And Hillary? Well, I guess the implications there are pretty obvious.
Tucker Carlson, the shrill, apple-cheeked pundit on MSNBC, nailed it last night on his show when he said words to the effect of "Change? This election is going to be about Change? I don't think so. This is America. The last thing the people want is Change."
Well, for once, Tucker's got it right. Er, I mean, "correct."
Americans want the same old same old, every time. Please, Lord, just let us be safe! Amen.
"My favorite regular commentator, Rodak, has even called for a boycott of the election if this continues."
(Well THAT certainly explains why Rob wants all of us RT'ers to come on over...) (*GRIN*) (Just busting your chops, Rob... see... I'm here!)
So what... pray for a military coup? The American People are overwhelmingly stupid and lazy - at least in a political sense, at least in terms of their statistical involvement in the political process. So what'a'ya wanna do about it - how do you propose to FIX the system?
That overview aside, while you, me, and Rob understand that a McCain candidacy would be anything but a candidacy of "change," the average idiot - via media brainwashing - considers McCain the "maverick" candidate! As to Clinton... for far too many of our fellow citizens "change" in her case would literally be skin deep - a woman's skin that is. (*SHRUG*)
Obama? His election WOULD be "change." How'd he'd govern is anyone's guess, but I'd hold out hope that he'd understand the power of the bully pulpit and be willing to challenge Congress - even with "his" own Party in charge - to work for at least some positive real change. (Imagine the sense of his own obligation to history he'd feel if elected...)
Anyway... just some random thoughts.
BILL
BTW, Anthony, you're deluding yourself if you actually BELIEVE pap such as...
"While the self appointed leaders of the conservative movement continue their sulk over the McCain surge..."
First of all... if that's a "subtle" slam at Rush Limbaugh... sorry, pal... he *is* a leader of the conservative movement and putting "leadership" status aside, the thing you need to get straight is that his thinking on the McCain candidacy (and countless other topics) is REFLECTIVE of millions of us who consider ourselves conservatives. (*SHRUG*)
Second... it's not about "sulking." It's about principles. It's about ideas and policies. I haven't insulted folks like you and Robert A. George who support McCain. (*SHRUG*) I believe you're misguided and wrong... but I don't discount your PRINCIPLED decision to support John McCain. By the same token I don't appreciate you belittling (even indirectly) *my* principled opposition to John McCain. Are we clear?
BILL
Atta, boy, Bill! Smother him with love!
Actually Bill, Rodak is my favorite regular commentor because he is my ONLY regular commentor. (Even the Paulistas don't post here that regularly anymore)
Ahhh -- political love is in the air!
As for the sulk comment, maybe harsh, but the meaning is that when conservatives lose we don't through a temper tantrum. I can see certain segments of the left going ape in Denver unless either Obama or Clinton seals the deal.
Hey Rob... (*GRIN*)
Anthony. Buddy. Pal. Fellow conservative! YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!
"...when conservatives lose we don't throw a temper tantrum..."
Why would you equate my principled opposition to McCain - or Rush's, or anyone else's - to throwing a temper tantrum???
I mean... again, to flip the coin... you don't see me accusing you and Robert A. George of acting irrationally or spitefully in BACKING McCain... do you?
There's a RATIONAL/LOGICAL/PRINCIPLED argument for deciding it's best for the long term interests of conservatism to see a REAL Democrat in the White House with Democrats likely keeping control of both Houses of Congress as opposed to a possible McCain win which many would see as a continuation of the Bush-led decline of the GOP and conservatism.
You went to law school, Anthony - I'm sincerely stunned that you seemingly just can't get this concept thru your head. (*SHRUG*) I mean... you're TRAINED to see "both sides." (*SHRUG*)
BILL
But Bill, that is not the point -- conservatives are not trashing the local Starbucks to protest McCain.
Anthony... (*SMILE*)... you've lost me. (*SHRUG*) That's ok, though; I'm satisfied I've made *my* point. If you're satisfied you've made yours... more power to you! (*GRIN*)
BILL
* BTW... I'm not really a Starbucks kinda guy. I'm more inclined to go to independent coffee houses or if I'm going to a chain... it'll be a gas station chain - Mobil/Exxon for my coffee "on the run." (*GRIN*)
BILL
Anthony--
What have I wrought? Am I still your favorite?
Cripes! When are you going to discuss LAW on your blog!?!?!
Oh, sorry, I thought this was Judge Posner's hangout (LOL)
Rodak -- always my favorite
Post a Comment