Comments on: A Recycled Argument http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/a-recycled-argument Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:39:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Kyle E. Moore http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/a-recycled-argument/comment-page-1#comment-27430 Kyle E. Moore Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:19:22 +0000 http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/a-recycled-argument#comment-27430 Well, Josh Marshall has it pretty summed up in a post he wrote earlier today. Don't remember all of the specifics, but basically it boils down to, after all is said and done, it's still a race for delegates no matter how you try to slice it. We can get irritated at the fact that she's still trying to win, but it is what it is, and this is one of the things that she's going to do; change physics any way she can in order to at least create the illusion of winning. Remember, that illusion is the only thing that has stemmed a mass outbreak of voices calling for her to drop out, so in that vein, you can blame her, but it's totally understandable. It's just, at every single junction, Hillary handles things in the exact opposite way that she should, or at least, than she should if she wanted to appeal to voters like me. You know, I have been saying for a while now that if she had chosen just once to stand up and do something different than the mold, different from what her advisors keep telling her to do, something that really shows true leadership, she would be doing so much better now, but at best, the way her campaign has performed is simply ho-hum and not very inspiring at all. Well, Josh Marshall has it pretty summed up in a post he wrote earlier today. Don’t remember all of the specifics, but basically it boils down to, after all is said and done, it’s still a race for delegates no matter how you try to slice it.

We can get irritated at the fact that she’s still trying to win, but it is what it is, and this is one of the things that she’s going to do; change physics any way she can in order to at least create the illusion of winning.

Remember, that illusion is the only thing that has stemmed a mass outbreak of voices calling for her to drop out, so in that vein, you can blame her, but it’s totally understandable.

It’s just, at every single junction, Hillary handles things in the exact opposite way that she should, or at least, than she should if she wanted to appeal to voters like me. You know, I have been saying for a while now that if she had chosen just once to stand up and do something different than the mold, different from what her advisors keep telling her to do, something that really shows true leadership, she would be doing so much better now, but at best, the way her campaign has performed is simply ho-hum and not very inspiring at all.

]]> By: DrGail http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/a-recycled-argument/comment-page-1#comment-27427 DrGail Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:08:01 +0000 http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/03/a-recycled-argument#comment-27427 My sense of fair play (which doesn't come out often, I assure you; I'm the "runs with scissors type" mostly) says that "the rules are the rules", and Hillary's attempts to grasp at straws is embarrassing for her. What I find particularly frustrating about the repeated efforts from Team Clinton to find some way -- any way! -- that suggests she is in the lead is that I see this primary race as a proxy for one between "the old Democratic party" and "the new Democratic party". In Hillary's corner are the DLC and the party "elders", most of whom advocated that being "Republican Lite" is the way to win elections, and in Obama's corner is Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and the netroots and the bottom-up approach that has been fostered and nurtured for the past several years. The "new Democratic party" has a lot of victories under its belt: Ned Lamont winning the CT primary, Donna Edwards ousting Al Wynn, Jim Webb winning the Senate seat, and numerous others. Now the BIG one has come along, and it's just so frustrating to see Hillary continue to slug it out despite her extremely long odds of winning, when all indications (including the record numbers of registered Democrats as well as the wonderful candidates we've recruited even for pretty strongly red districts and states) are that the netroots and the "new Democratic party" have achieved primacy. Aargh! It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. My sense of fair play (which doesn’t come out often, I assure you; I’m the “runs with scissors type” mostly) says that “the rules are the rules”, and Hillary’s attempts to grasp at straws is embarrassing for her.

What I find particularly frustrating about the repeated efforts from Team Clinton to find some way — any way! — that suggests she is in the lead is that I see this primary race as a proxy for one between “the old Democratic party” and “the new Democratic party”. In Hillary’s corner are the DLC and the party “elders”, most of whom advocated that being “Republican Lite” is the way to win elections, and in Obama’s corner is Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy and the netroots and the bottom-up approach that has been fostered and nurtured for the past several years.

The “new Democratic party” has a lot of victories under its belt: Ned Lamont winning the CT primary, Donna Edwards ousting Al Wynn, Jim Webb winning the Senate seat, and numerous others. Now the BIG one has come along, and it’s just so frustrating to see Hillary continue to slug it out despite her extremely long odds of winning, when all indications (including the record numbers of registered Democrats as well as the wonderful candidates we’ve recruited even for pretty strongly red districts and states) are that the netroots and the “new Democratic party” have achieved primacy.

Aargh! It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

]]>