Dear Senators Clinton and Obama,
Please end this now. It's been fun, but it's only going to get more ugly, dumb and embarrassing from here on out. The last week has been bad enough, but Pennsylvania is seven weeks away. You can both do immeasurable damage to the party in that time. Time and money spent fighting each other is fundamentally wasted. It doesn't make us stronger, it just makes the divides between us all that much deeper.
It is now obvious that even Pennsylvania probably won't decide the issue if neither of you is willing to back down. We can't afford to wait until August to name the nominee. That simply doesn't work in 2008, not in a campaign that started two years ago. Anyone telling you this would make the Democratic party looking anything other than weak, divided and ridiculous is either incompetent or a dangerous flatterer. The historical precedent is completely irrelevant to perception.
No matter which of you finally carves out an unsatisfactory victory, backed by superdelegates and obscures procedural votes at the convention, half the party is left feeling disenfranchised. No matter who wins, it wastes the enthusiasm we've seen so far. It turns an entire generation of Democratic voters bitter and cynical. This is not just a single election on the line, but potentially the next three or four.
We need a joint ticket. One of you needs to suck it up and be VP. I really don't care which.
Make a hard decision and impress us all. Be leaders.
Cordially,
Fish
Please end this now. It's been fun, but it's only going to get more ugly, dumb and embarrassing from here on out. The last week has been bad enough, but Pennsylvania is seven weeks away. You can both do immeasurable damage to the party in that time. Time and money spent fighting each other is fundamentally wasted. It doesn't make us stronger, it just makes the divides between us all that much deeper.
It is now obvious that even Pennsylvania probably won't decide the issue if neither of you is willing to back down. We can't afford to wait until August to name the nominee. That simply doesn't work in 2008, not in a campaign that started two years ago. Anyone telling you this would make the Democratic party looking anything other than weak, divided and ridiculous is either incompetent or a dangerous flatterer. The historical precedent is completely irrelevant to perception.
No matter which of you finally carves out an unsatisfactory victory, backed by superdelegates and obscures procedural votes at the convention, half the party is left feeling disenfranchised. No matter who wins, it wastes the enthusiasm we've seen so far. It turns an entire generation of Democratic voters bitter and cynical. This is not just a single election on the line, but potentially the next three or four.
We need a joint ticket. One of you needs to suck it up and be VP. I really don't care which.
Make a hard decision and impress us all. Be leaders.
Cordially,
Fish
no subject
no subject
Clinton campaign--we're going to attack Obama
Obama campaign--we're fighting McCain, not Clinton
Guess which one makes more sense to me?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Zod, I can only hope. The shame is that the ascendancy of John "enemy of humankind" McCain isn't doing the same for the red staters.
I keep hoping for the future time when the government has an election and nobody shows up.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Aboot.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I only meant to suggest that people are more likely to vote for C/O plus a moderate than a C/O ticket.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
More to the point, McCain can now concentrate on the moderates, while C and O have to fight for the well-left-of-moderate, leaving the winner wide open to 'you extremist' campaigning.
no subject
Sure, minus the personalities, the politically logical thing would be for Clinton to bow out of the race now and to become Obama's VP running mate--don't see it happening given the personalities though. Last I time I heard them answer the question, Clinton categorical refused to consider Obama as a running mate, while Obama politely hedged.
Strategically, I don't think Clinton is electable in the general election. I also don't think having her as VP is going to make Obama more electable. I don't have a problem with Clinton continuing the primary races, she theoretically *could* overtake Obama, if unlikely, but she needs to clean-up her tactics or you are right, it will damage the general election prospects for whatever the final democratic ticket is. It would have been nice if yesterday's elections had finally cinched Obama's lead, and Clinton would have had an appropriate cue to bow out.
Obama is young, and doesn't have a lot of experience I don't really think that matters much myself. However, I think it matters to the political insiders in the Democratic party, who perhaps feel he hasn't paid his dues. It could also weaken him in the General Election. If the Dems were strategic about it all, they'd have maneuvered Obama to be paired with a more senior politician. But frankly, even if they'd arranged it ahead of time, I don't think Clinton would have been the right one. The Republicans want Clinton to get the nomination because they are confident they can beat her.
no subject
no subject
By real-world (rest of civilization) standards of democratic political spectrum, they are both moderates.
-B.
no subject
no subject
no subject
2) I wouldn't bet a nickel on their doing the right thing. They've worked too hard for all the marbles to stop now.
My preference for Veep? Hilary.
no subject
I have to agree though... this is *not* looking good. I know that I'm half-ready to sit this one out if there isn't an ending that agrees with the primary/caucus results.
no subject
(FWIW, Wade Davis, who comes from Vancouver, says 'aboat'.)
no subject
Until it comes time to actually vote on it...
no subject
no subject
no subject
Yeah. That's pretty much the part that terrifies me most.
no subject
Sorry to ramble, but I'm really interested by regional accents.
no subject
no subject
Until it comes time to actually vote on it...
...it's a ridiculously depressing and appalling state of affairs, when "well at least in theory he is against torture, even though he didn't actually *vote* against it, but he *says* he's against it" is the REDEEMING QUALITY of a candidate.
We're like the frogs in the boiling water, that it's come to this. That the thing that makes a candidate stand out as being preferable to the current leader is that he is MAYBE AGAINST TORTURE, SORT OF.
What. The. Fuck.
no subject
Yes, the primaries are too spread out. Heard today that a couple of states are considering re-doing their primaries. I'm not sure if that has ever been done before.