Hillary Clinton had me. I was so certain she’d get the Democratic nomination that I smugly bet a good friend a necktie of his choice. (For the record, this friend likes Hermés ties…) However, I just cast my party primary vote for Barak Obama.
What happened with Clinton? Six months ago she seemed to be cruising down easy street in a cherried-out two-tone 1950’s Dodge Coronet. Now that same street has turned dark and foreboding, filled with the potholes of her own ego. The wheels of the Coronet are falling off, one by one.
It wasn’t so long ago that Clinton was raking in endorsements from celebrities like Elton John (I was so tempted to write “the Queen of England” here instead), Maya Angelou, and Barbara Streisand. Now, the defectors are as notable as the endorsers, and these defectors hold superdelegate authority. Joe Andrew of Indiana (a state Clinton won) announced on May 1 that he had switched his superdelegate vote to Obama after staunchly supporting Clinton. This move is interesting because it was Bill Clinton that had appointed Andrews to the head of the Democratic Convention in 1999. Other superdelegate defectors include Donald Payne of New Jersey, Jennifer McClellan of Virginia, and Harry Thomas Jr. of the District of Columbia.
So, why has all of this been happening? Negativity in her campaign hasn’t helped. Recent comments poisoning the debate with racial undertones has irritated and disappointed me. This should be about the power of ideas, not racial perceptions. She also seems prone to pandering, recently recounting an awkward story about drinking whiskey and shooting guns with her father in a effort to appeal to a more rural demographic. In the larger context, Clinton lost me because she lacks passion and personality. Granted, on a policy level she has more structurally mature ideas on how the country should be run than Obama. This being said, the office of the presidency has rarely been about policy, and more often about personality. Sad? Yes.
Just recently, Senator John Edwards (and his 24 delegate votes) endorsed Obama. In light of current events and trends, should this really come as much of a surprise to Democrats? Maybe. Didn’t the Clintons just watch the Superbowl at Edward’s South Carolina mansion? This could be the death-knell for Hillary. This should be the death-knell for Hillary. Take a hint, lady, your sweet ride just ran out of gas.
(Cartoon image by Mike Lane, Cagle Cartoons)
4 comments:
Congratulations on a superb blog - I will return to it often. So far as Mrs Clinton goes, she appears to have exhausted both her own funds and her party's patience. But given Mr Obama's difficulties with his pastor, his liberal voting record (worse than Kerry's in 2004, I am told), and his unfortunate remarks about rural voters, is it possible that she is geneuinely concerned about the man's viabilty, rather than simply hanging on, waiting like Mr Micawber for something to turn up? If Obama does come a cropper in November, Mrs C's supporters may well be the ones laughing into their beer and whisky chasers.
That might be just the funniest situation ever to see Democrats missing the opportunity of taking over after Bush. They have only imperfect candidates to offer. Clinton is experienced but arrogant and unlikable. Obama is inexperienced and does he really have any sense of direction, so what he seems to be very good speaker and motivator then, so what does it matter he has nice personality either. McCain fills in where both, Clinton and Obama are missing. It is enough for Obama to miss the support of white working class, and his charisma will appear to be useless.
http://rapspace.tv/files/klan_anythingbuthillary.jpg
Daniel is right, it is pretty funny. In theory, this ought to be a walkover for the Democrats. But if they can't stop insulting the voters, they will deserve to lose. Go McCain! :)
First off, thanks for your thoughtful feedback. However, I don't agree when you claim that McCain has better policy ideas than Obama or Clinton. On an ideas level, McCain really only differs from Bush on climate change issues. In essence, he is really only advancing ideas set forth by Bush. But I like the old man... He reminds me a bit of my gramps.
I do agree with you on Obama. I am very wary about his experience, especially in international affairs. However, the American presidency has less frequently been about strong policy platforms and more often about character and charisma. Where candidates lack in experience, they make up for it in strong cabinets and/or think tank consultation.
As Donald Ableson notes in his informative book, "Do Think Tanks Matter?", presidents have often relied on think tank expertise to guide them through areas where they have little or no experience. For example, The Heritage Foundation cut its teeth during the early Reagan years with the “Mandate For Leadership”. This document set the agenda for the Reagan presidency on several fronts, essentially giving him a national leadership plan of action to draw from. I'd expect Obama do do the same, perhaps from a centrist think tank like Tim Roemer's Center for National Policy.
-Colin
Post a Comment