Yes, I'm a political news junkie. You could probably tell that by the fact that almost all my blogs are political in nature. But there are some things I'm just sick of reading on the blogs, so I'm taking a moment to clear them up.First, to the Clinton supporters who like to say Obama is an idiot for saying there are 57 states ... pay attention, now ... he didn't say there were 57 states, he said there were 57 contests in the Democratic Primary campaign, and, wait for it ... there are! 50 states, +1 for DC (I bet most of you didn't know DC isn't a state), and +1 each for Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. That's 56. Now +1 because Texas, oddly, holds two binding contests instead of one, and you reach, guess what? 57. So get your facts straight. (It's easier to get the facts if you research them yourself than if you try to get them from HillaryClinton.com. Just some friendly advice.)
The next myth to quell .. that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. This one is actually almost true. If you count Florida and Michigan (and only a Communist would suggest Michigan should count as-is, so some of you need to break out your "Marx for President" tee shirts and bumper stickers), then Clinton leads Obama by a little more than 63,000 votes. But Clinton wants you to think she leads by over 173,000 votes!
How does she get there? By discounting the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, since those states don't report popular vote totals (but the folks at RealClear Politics came up with the numbers). So the lunacy of her argument is this: "We can't pretend Florida and Michigan didn't vote, but we can pretend Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine didn't vote." She wants us to forget that Michigan and Florida voted in violation of DNC rules. She wants us to forget that in Michigan, her opponent wasn't on the ballot, but 40% of Michigan voters voted "uncommitted" rather than support her. Somehow, the Clinton campaign actually believes those 237,762 voters should be tossed aside (much like the voters in the caucus states I mentioned) and ignored, while in the very same breath they claim to be champions of the disenfranchised voter! If we take those 237,000 votes away from Clinton (since they were voting "against" Clinton, not "for" any candidate), Obama is once again in the lead by more than 70,000 votes. (By the way, if you count only the votes in states that followed the rules that all candidates agreed to uphold, Obama is ahead by nearly 560,000 votes.)
But, of course, Clinton's people say that's not fair. This is the kind of double-talk they like: It's not fair to discount Florida and Michigan, every vote must count ...except the people who voted against me in Michigan! Every vote must count ... unless you live in a caucus state! Every vote must count ... except the small states ... except when the small states voted for me! (Like West Virginia and Kentucky).
How anyone as brilliant as Clinton supposedly is can make such ridiculous arguments with a straight face is absolutely beyond me. And I'm usually a sucker for inane arguments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Should Clinton drop out?
The question is not whether she should drop out. The question is (and has been since Super Tuesday) the destructive means by which she stays in, especially over the last month or so. We're talking about the Office of the Presidency of the United States (if she were to win) being defined (seemingly and unashamedly) by the "principles" espoused by Hillary Clinton. Many are discussing this as if it's, somehow, entertainment. It is not just Hillary attaining the Presidency, albeit a long shot, but it is "how she has DEFINED" who the President (her) should be that is the issue. And, sadly, many, at this stage, wants her definition of President in that Office. Her definiton is 180 degrees away from Government by, for, and of the people. We sound, and look, like Iraq before we invaded it!
Hey anonymous,
You make good points. I tend to be fairly pragmatic, and generally a "by the rules" kind of guy, which was the point of view I wrote my "should Hillary drop out" blog from. But you're right, her campaign thus far has given us a good indication of what her presidency would look like, and I'm not a fan. But I tell ya, before she said to Obama in the senate chamber a year and a half ago "You shouldn't be running, this is my nomination", I was all for her. I guess it's mostly that sense of entitlement that turned me off.
Post a Comment