Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Primaries' Results: A Bad Night for the Party

After staying up until 3:30am and watching the primary results seep into Wolf Blitzer's distractingly multi-colored and gadget-obsessed "war room," (I actually started counting how many times Blitzer will say "the best political team on television" but I lost count in my sleepy early morning daze) I am exhausted and depressed by the results. I hoped Obama would take at least Ohio or Texas (I never really thought there was a chance for him to take Ohio, but Texas looked like a real possibility based on exit polling) wrap up his nomination and the Party could go on and coalesce around him (especially those annoying super delegates). However, I gotta give it to Hillary, she won, and more importantly, won by comfortable margins, especially in Ohio.

It still seems that there is very little mathematical possibility of her catching up to Obama in delegate numbers since he is bound to scoop up a hefty proportion of those (he still might win the delegate fight in Texas despite her winning the popular vote), but this result is really bad for the Party. And here is why, I think.

This showed that Clinton's negative hammering of Obama (and every viable candidate has to go through this of course), works. Her accusations were based on fear-mongering (the stupid and childish 'red telephone' ad) and were also breathtaking in their hypocrisy (her emphasis on Obama's ties to Rezko given her own involvement in Whitewater). But this campaign tactic obviously works and the Hillary-Obama fight is bound to get worse.

Hillary will work feverishly to convince the superdelegates to stop leaving her pack and going over to Obama since she can claim now that she won big states. She is also once again pulling out the Michigan/Florida card and hoping that the Democratic National Committee (which tilts in her favor) might actually count these delegates. So this is bound to go probably beyond Pennsylvania in April and into the summer. We know that the Clintons will use any weapon they have in their arsenal to win, and I am afraid that the fight for the nomination will eventually move beyond closed doors into the smoke-filled rooms (well I know no one smokes anymore) of the Democratic National Committee. Whichever way the superdelegates swing and no matter which way Dean decides to end this, it will be bruising for the other side.

A knockout punch from Obama last night would have been so much healthier, and oh, so much sweeter. But what do I know? I am just cranky that my candidate lost.

6 comments:

Cyril Crozier said...

Get ready to be dissapointed. The Obamanon might be coming to an end. If thats the case, progressives should boycott the top of the ticket and only vote in congressional and local elections. Really, do you see ANY significant difference worth supporting Hillary over McCain?

Fedja said...

I am very disappointed but Obama is far from done. He still leads in delegate count and it would take a miracle for Hillary to overtake this lead. And it all comes down to delegates. Also, Wymoing and Mississippi are coming up and Obama is bound to take both of those. So the best case scenario for Clinton would be that she wins Pennsylvania, and does some serious damage to Obama's image and then hope that superdelegates go to her side at the convention despite the popular vote. This would be theft, but I expect it.

However, I do see a difference between McCain and Hillary especially on healthcare and pulling our troops out of Iraq. But Obama offers so much more. And it is frustrating that some people cannot see it.

But remember this, Obama was expected to loose these states and again, he is STILL the front-runner. So, don't count him out just yet.

Anonymous said...

You see how media turns everything around within hours.
Two days ago Obama was wiping the floor with Hilary and had this huge momentum. He was untouchable. Today he is (and I'm quoting you Fedja): "Obama is far from done" and "don't count him out just yet".
You made him look like he is struggling. It's all subliminally inserted in our minds by media. It probably is not intentional but thats how media works.

You also said that this is bad for the party because it showed that attack tactics work. I agree, but the only reason these attacks work is because majority of voting public is gullible, uninformed and truly dumb. Remember that you're dealing with Jerry Springer crowd here. I think Bill Maher said that if you want to see average American , all you have to do is turn on Jerry Springer show.
That would also explain why Bush got elected. Twice! And why these kind of tactics work.

shley said...

It is indeed disappointing, but we're all used to disappointment, right? I think it's important to not let the momentum we feel (or dare i say, felt?) with obama not be wasted if it comes down to clinton trickery and deceit. what we want is change, no? we ought to let it remain clear that changing american political perceptions is the only way we're going to see a difference in what we expect (which is for clinton to thieve her way into the nomination) and what we want (which is for our opinions to matter and be recognized without jerry springer style media intervention).


if hillary gets the nod then she will lose to mccain, but instead of puttering along in discontent like we have for the past eight years, why not mobilize around the obamanon momentum that we so cherished a few weeks ago? pug suggested that we write op-eds, articles, blog entries, anything to express what our majority usually keeps to itself during times of non-election malaise. we need to do better than keeping our bumper stickers defiantly on our cars when the candidate loses- we need to be a united voice against the establishment.

here i go working myself into a revolutionary lather again....

Unknown said...

Speaking of disappointment -- in a yoga book I recently read: "We are made to live in disappointment." Along the lines of, you know, we need constant challenge and such. Hmm. I'm afraid this might not work in a country that's restructuring its science curriculum based on creationism. So if it, God forbid, comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, I'll go with McCain. Why? He's the better writer. Both his and Obama's first books (the titles are rather similar: "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" (Obama) and "Faith of My Fathers : A Family Memoir" (McCain)) earn high marks compared to Hillary's effort, which is tedious and doesn't give one a sense of her personality at all.

Fedja said...

Moody is right, we all get caught up in the moment. and the media is no different. I don't buy this theory that media is somehow pro-Hillary or pro-Obama or pro-whatever. Media is pro-whatever feels right at the moment and at this moment they are swayed by her wins. And I agree about the American voter although I do think that there is a substantial amount of new voters that Obama motivates and who could swing the election his way come November. I am not so sure that Hillary can do that. I will vote for her, but even I (a committed Democrat) have doubts. How will an independent or a Republican vote for her then?

And I love ashley's post. That is what Obama is about: a new perception of politics. And Hillary's stupid and overdone comment how this is just high rhetoric and dreams is so cynical and flies in the face of what her husband was able to do with his campaign (and aren't all campaigns about rhetoric?!) that should immediately disqualify her from the race. I mean how cynical and James Carvillian can you get??

And Alen, I think your comment about voting for McCain was supposed to be ironic, but I would never dream of voting for him. I can see the US going into three more wars under his watch just so that he can prove he is a strong commander in chief.