|
I'm a new poster here. I'm actually a registered Independant, not Democrat, so I've never had much reason to be here and I also didn't vote for Barak Obama in the primary. I will be voting for Obama in the General, however.
I've continually seen a bunch of things repeated by the media, as well as Clinton supporters, that seem Extremely intellectually dishonest to me. I feel somebody should clarify as soon as they are mentioned, but nobody ever does. I'm not somebody that calls into radio shows, or until today even posts on political boards, but these things seem like blantant and intentional misrepresentations that should be pointed out.
First - The Hillary Clinton supporters that repeated appear on these radio shows, or online, that say the reason that they will vote for John McCain is because the ruling in Michigan and Florida left them with only a half a vote, means that the Democratic Party is unfair.
Newsflash - The half vote scenario was called "The Republican Solution" for a reason. If that's legitimately your reason, you must be ignorant of the fact that you are switching your vote to a Party that also punished Florida by giving them half delegates.
Second - "Hillary Clinton has 18 million displaced supporters."
Voters are not all angry Hillary supporters. The majority of people that voted for Hillary will vote for Obama. The people that post online, call into talk shows and travel to protests, are extremists. They aren't representative of the majority of Hillary voters. Angry, rabod Hillary supporters that want to vote for McCain are closer to representing thousands of people than they are millions.
Third - This one is Sean Hannity's latest mantra. Obama "limped across the finish line" and would not have beaten Hillary if Wright and Pflegar situations happened before the election began.
This ones a little more complex, but a total misrepresentation of reality. I believe that Hillary very well might have won, if she had came on with the same strategy she used over the past couple months, from the beggining. She was a heavy favorite going into this thing.
But she made majorly stupid miscalculations early. They, somehow, forgot that the Democratic primary doesn't have all winner take all States and in their own strategy they calculated things like giving her all of California's delgates in their own projections. A really stupid error. For that reason, she blew off the caucuses, and Obama was able to capitalize.
If she ran the campaign the same way, the same thing would have happened, regardless of Wright & Pflegar. Even after those comments, Obama has won by big margins in very white states, like Oregon & Montana. Wright & Pflegar scare Regan Democrats, but those were swinging Clintons way anyway. They would have had no effect on the primary, had Hillary ran it the same way.
Furthermore, its REALLY not a fair characterization to call it limping in to the finish line. Obama made some decisions to put his efforts into different areas, over the last couple months, just like Hillary did with the caucus states. Only Obama's strategy worked, in getting him the nomination. I think, with hindsight, you might argue that he would have been better off campaigning more in places like West Virginia and Kentucky so as to appear stronger, he made decisions not to, as he knew exactly what his margin for error was in this thing.
On top of that, Obama had to fight off McCain attacks during this time. McCain was campaigning against Obama. Hillary was campaigning against Obama. Obama was campaigning against McCain.
How much of Hillary's late surge was also related to the fact that nobody was campaigning against her once it became clear that Obama was going to win this thing? We'll never know.
Republican mouthpieces like Sean Hannity should be more concerned that Obama leads McCain in the polls right now. Because in the heat of the Wright/Pflegar fiasco he's still seen as a better prospect than their guy.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(343 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
