Letters to the Editor
-
The Obama/Clinton horse race -- in full metaphorical mode
I saw this on ABC.com's "The Page" and found it interesting...
http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/03/you-cant-make-this-up/
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP
Hillary Clinton enthusiastically picked a filly named Eight Belles to win the Kentucky Derby and compared herself to the horse. Eight Belles finished second. The winner was the favorite, Big Brown. Eight Belles collapsed immediately after crossing the finish line, and was euthanized shortly thereafter.
-
It will never be over
She could lose 100-0 ion both states today and go on. This is not about the vote, it has not been since she came out of TX with nothing and OH with only modest gains. This has been over for months.
If she was going to go, she would have gone already. But the vote does not matter anymore - since she cannot win it. Fox News sites like Salon support this notion by ignoring the math. This is not about the vote anymore.
This is about her being handed the election by Super Delegates - both uncomiited and a conversion of Obama's. They don't even care that this tactic renders November unwinnable...its all about vanity and ego.
And what is great is this...
1) 8% Clinton win in IN - no mention of Republicans voting for her to be patsy
2) Obama 7% win in NC - all talk of "she cut his lead in half", despite the fact that the same story in PA was reported as "a win is a win".
Again, Hillary loses 100-0 tomorrow and the story is "Barack stumbling, Hillary riding the momentum". Because that is the narrative.
Oh, and 100% of post-analysis is limited to Rev. Wright and the Gas Tax Holiday (McCain is a genius for throwing this monkey wrench into the works!).
-
Proud Texas Girl
Has also referred to Obama as "that boy" and accused Pelosi of not supporting the gas tax holiday because she wants to blow him.
Stay strong, ladies!
Ya gotta have pride.
-
Pretty Twisted
I certainly welcome any article which "suggests" that the nomination of Barak Obama may be premature. I've been suspicious since the New Hampshire primary that media spin has been propounding a foreordained story line in which Obama wins and in which Hillary must withdraw to save herself politically or the Democratic party electorally. I've often wondered how many people listen to the news and fail to understand the degree to which their own views are shaped by the biases of the media.
I was reading an article in Salon the other day which talked about Barak Obama's "numerical lock" on the nomination. Now, unless I've missed something, or I don't understand "numerical lock," one thing is certain about this race, and that is that there is no "numerical lock" yet. This race will not be decided by the voters, but by the superdelegates. There are not enough delegates to be won in the remaining contests (even if we could be sure which ones would go to Obama and which to Clinton) to represent such a forgone "numerical" conclusion.
So what does "numerical lock" mean? And what impact does language play on our perception? Can the constant repetition of a story line, the constant repetition of carefully coded, or incompetently careless language, turn people off of a particular candidate? I don't know, but if people are susceptible to political manipulation through language, unconscious though it may be, the media's parsing of the election of 2008 may stand out as a watershed event.
I'm reminded of Susan Sontag's examination of the media and its impact on the sick in the reporting of science and medicine. She wrote "Illness as Metaphor" while battling her own cancer in the sixties, and in 1987 came out with "AIDS and Its Metaphors," as an excoriation of media reporting of the "gay plague." In both instances, her conclusion was that people facing serious medical conditions were often so depressed by what they read about their medical conditions, or what their friends and family would say to them under the influence of the media, that they often failed to act aggressively to stabilize their conditions, or beat them.
It may seem odd to shift from politics and preference to medicine and treatment, but if language can adversely affect a patient's view of his own prognosis, I wonder how repetition of an unproven, and unproveable storyline can affect a person's voting preference.
The decision this year will not be made by the primary voters but by the superdelegates. My view is that the storyline this year is already written: Obama vs. McCain. This is the matchup the media has wanted all along, and I think that's the storyline they'll end up with. I'm not saying that the media can't be shamed into actually doing their job once in a while, but they're only starting to do their job now that the race has moved, in its most meaningful sense, out of the hands of the voters. The voters are now voting for the backing of the superdelegates. Pretty twisted, huh?
-
Eric
Yes, the benchmarks are likely not attainable by any single candidate. I believe this is because the FL and MI totals were kept in the benchmark 2025 (?) despite the fact that these delegates are not going to be seated.
This is because Dean thought that the race would be a runaway -presumably for Hillary - and he figured that the nominee would eventually seat the Mi and FL delegates. Oops. So, he is really painted into a corner.
So, you are correct that either will need a push. BUT there is a big difference from getting Obama or Hillary over the hump. In terms of degree and perception.
Obama will have more pledged delegates when all is said and done, unless Hillary wins every state by 69& - 31%...which is stunning. He'll be a tad short and some SD's make up the difference.
Hillary will likely be behind by at least 154 pledged delegates(assumes a 50% split of all remaining state votes, in itself a huge assumption). So, she'd need 72% of the undecided SD's to OVERCOME OBAMA'S PLEDGED DELEGATES.
That is the key, she'd be overcoming his pledged delegates, which people equate as the will of the people and such. This would be within the rules, some would even argue that it is the duty of the SD's. That is the REALITY.
The PERCEPTION would be that the election was stolen. The fact that one of your largest voting blocks in every swing state, a block you have never won without, feels they were disenfranchised makes this a poison pill.
In sum, your gamble to nominate the 'most electable' candidate leads to dynamics (urban blacks staying home) makes her 'unelectable'. A real catch-22.
And this assumes that her SD's will vote for her - Mayor Nutter in Philly can never vote for Clinton as doing so costs him his political career, as 80%+ of this city went for Obama. C'mon, no one has that much courage.
Plus, if the black vote feels disenfranchised and turns on the Democrats you lose every national election until 2020 at least.
Is this worth it? I actually think the MSM has been TOO accomodating of Hillary - they have gone above and beyond by characterizing this race as still in question. It was decided months ago.