Letters to the Editor
-
Whew.
I'm late to the party here, but I'd like to thank AKASmith (or was it lateagain?), for pointing out something that I hadn't really thought about.
No, Hillary isn't a racist, but her obsessive focus on electability is divisive (especially in this case), and bizarre. And it's true, I don't get how we've reached this point where continually talking about how electable you are can be viewed as:
1) Important.
2) Interesting.
3) A viable political strategy.
Politically speaking, talking about electability is dead air. "I'm more electabile!" So. And? Either you are or you aren't, but that's not really a message. It doesn't make me care about you, one way or another. It's like if I go with my friend to the video store:
"Hey, what movie should we rent tonight?"
"How about 'Titanic'?"
"Um."
"What. You don't want to see 'TITANIC'?"
"Well..."
"But it's the highest grossing movie of all time!"
"So? What's your point?"
"So? So out of all movies, it's the movie that the most people want to see. So, therefore, you should want to see it too!"
"Have you gone insane?"
...See the problem here? Why would Hillary talking about how electible she is make me care about her in the slightest?(Especially since, if she's so f#cking electible, then I don't really have to care at all, now do I? Other people will choose her as President, whether I give a crap or not.)
...And as the current campaign shows, talking about electibility all the time is a house of cards. It sort of worked when Hillary was ahead in the polls. But as soon as the race was tied, or Obama was ahead, it became useless as an argument. Talking about your own electibity only really works when you're winning.
And what good is a political argument that only works when you're winning? Seems kind of redundant, no?