Thursday, May 29, 2008
Democrats must compromise
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
It is truly time for Democratic voters to get really worried. Sen. Obama is running ahead with elected delegate count in the primaries, but Sen. Clinton is collecting palpable majorities in red states that indicate lack of trust in the upstart politician with no record, combined with some racism. to be a continuing factor, with concern that in November an Obama candidacy might push a crucial number of Democratic and disenchanted Republican voters into casting their ballots for the anti-Bush war hero McCain. It says here that racism is minimal – it would not have come into play if Colin Powell were a candidate.
Have the Democrats turned a sure 2008 Presidential victory into a potential defeat? Will Obama, the most probable Democratic presidential candidate, will have the means to prove international and domestic political savvy to turn enough skeptical minds? Will the people who are seeing him as a dynamic and charismatic orator at huge rallies of young and new voters be persuaded that he can real with the nuts and bolts of actual issues, the ones that he has bypassed in his inspirational messages?
Put this together with the fact that Hillary will not give up, claiming her Florida and Michigan votes and insisting that Obama deliberately muddied the waters by not registering in Michigan as a candidate. Then came her Kennedy remark on Friday May 23, blown up by ill-wishers beyond the credible. She was warned of this eventuality even by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who saw it as a botched reference which can be easily exploited y kooks wanting to undermine a candidacy. The Obama Campaign likewise interpreted it as a careless remark, to be treated as such, and emphasized the candidates’ friendship ("I know Hillary Clinton, and the last thing in the world she would want is to wish misfortune on anyone.") But the indignants had been stirred into action, and even such a levelheaded observer as Daniel Shorr of the NPR invoked the image of ill wishing.
What, then, did actually happen? Per Wall Street Journal, at a campaign stop Clinton gave an interview to the South Dakota Argus Leader editorial staff, which was by wire connected to the journalist swarm assembled in a nearby supermarket lobby. They had gathered, prompted by a rumor that she would resign. This was scotched early, and the journalists drifted away, only to be spurred again by a report of a New York Post bulletin already posted on the Drudge Report, with the Kennedy reference. Clinton’s staff was queried, and called the inference scurrilous. Clinton, emerging to make her campaign speech, apologized for the mishap.
What, then, was actually said? Well, Clinton, justifying her continued campaign, said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime in the middle of June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was shot in June [1969] in California. I don’t understand it." She had referenced the two events previously in interviews, specifically to Time magazine, explaining her continued campaigning in June, without eliciting comment. What was in the Post/Drudge story that coursed the excitement? The actual wording could not be checked, the Drudge Report archive as of this date is not directly accessible.
Among the ill-wishers, the Clintons’ ur-enemy Maureen Dowd added another dimension, noting Hillary’s reduced expectations, specifically a wish to be chosen for the vice-presidency, an unlikely desire to be fulfilled, given the campaign atmosphere, particularly Michelle Obama’s hatred for Hillary. Meanwhile, the Obama Campaign, aware of its thinness in policy-making savants, is looking to poach among Hillary’s star advisers who signed on her team when she was a shoe-in. New York Observer mentions such heavy-weights as Anthony Lake, Sandy Berger, Secretary Madeleine Albright and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. This would be wise, and would add experience and gravitas to the inspiration-heavy campaign, and most importantly, it might change the opinions of the voters who see the Obama vision as lacking experience –based practical solutions and thought. Interestingly, Obama’s own mild response to the Kennedy reference might be due to the fact that his own 1996 and 2004 campaigns received unexpected turns in his favor by sudden withdrawals of both Democratic and Republican opponents with personal problems.
Paul Krugman, in the Monday New York Times, summarizes the events well, identifying the Kennedy squabble as helpful only to the McCain campaign. He finds that current polls in Florida put McCain ahead of Obama, while Clinton sill comes out as the winner against the Republican. His advice appears to be a deal, for Clinton is to bow out gracefully, and for Obama, who will need the disgusted Hillary voters in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, to offer her the vice presidency. Not very unique, but entirely practical, and professional. Politicians have to learn to overcome personal prejudices, reduce expectations, ride out the storms without drowning and make compromises in the interests of common weal.
It is truly time for Democratic voters to get really worried. Sen. Obama is running ahead with elected delegate count in the primaries, but Sen. Clinton is collecting palpable majorities in red states that indicate lack of trust in the upstart politician with no record, combined with some racism. to be a continuing factor, with concern that in November an Obama candidacy might push a crucial number of Democratic and disenchanted Republican voters into casting their ballots for the anti-Bush war hero McCain. It says here that racism is minimal – it would not have come into play if Colin Powell were a candidate.
Have the Democrats turned a sure 2008 Presidential victory into a potential defeat? Will Obama, the most probable Democratic presidential candidate, will have the means to prove international and domestic political savvy to turn enough skeptical minds? Will the people who are seeing him as a dynamic and charismatic orator at huge rallies of young and new voters be persuaded that he can real with the nuts and bolts of actual issues, the ones that he has bypassed in his inspirational messages?
Put this together with the fact that Hillary will not give up, claiming her Florida and Michigan votes and insisting that Obama deliberately muddied the waters by not registering in Michigan as a candidate. Then came her Kennedy remark on Friday May 23, blown up by ill-wishers beyond the credible. She was warned of this eventuality even by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who saw it as a botched reference which can be easily exploited y kooks wanting to undermine a candidacy. The Obama Campaign likewise interpreted it as a careless remark, to be treated as such, and emphasized the candidates’ friendship ("I know Hillary Clinton, and the last thing in the world she would want is to wish misfortune on anyone.") But the indignants had been stirred into action, and even such a levelheaded observer as Daniel Shorr of the NPR invoked the image of ill wishing.
What, then, did actually happen? Per Wall Street Journal, at a campaign stop Clinton gave an interview to the South Dakota Argus Leader editorial staff, which was by wire connected to the journalist swarm assembled in a nearby supermarket lobby. They had gathered, prompted by a rumor that she would resign. This was scotched early, and the journalists drifted away, only to be spurred again by a report of a New York Post bulletin already posted on the Drudge Report, with the Kennedy reference. Clinton’s staff was queried, and called the inference scurrilous. Clinton, emerging to make her campaign speech, apologized for the mishap.
What, then, was actually said? Well, Clinton, justifying her continued campaign, said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime in the middle of June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was shot in June [1969] in California. I don’t understand it." She had referenced the two events previously in interviews, specifically to Time magazine, explaining her continued campaigning in June, without eliciting comment. What was in the Post/Drudge story that coursed the excitement? The actual wording could not be checked, the Drudge Report archive as of this date is not directly accessible.
Among the ill-wishers, the Clintons’ ur-enemy Maureen Dowd added another dimension, noting Hillary’s reduced expectations, specifically a wish to be chosen for the vice-presidency, an unlikely desire to be fulfilled, given the campaign atmosphere, particularly Michelle Obama’s hatred for Hillary. Meanwhile, the Obama Campaign, aware of its thinness in policy-making savants, is looking to poach among Hillary’s star advisers who signed on her team when she was a shoe-in. New York Observer mentions such heavy-weights as Anthony Lake, Sandy Berger, Secretary Madeleine Albright and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. This would be wise, and would add experience and gravitas to the inspiration-heavy campaign, and most importantly, it might change the opinions of the voters who see the Obama vision as lacking experience –based practical solutions and thought. Interestingly, Obama’s own mild response to the Kennedy reference might be due to the fact that his own 1996 and 2004 campaigns received unexpected turns in his favor by sudden withdrawals of both Democratic and Republican opponents with personal problems.
Paul Krugman, in the Monday New York Times, summarizes the events well, identifying the Kennedy squabble as helpful only to the McCain campaign. He finds that current polls in Florida put McCain ahead of Obama, while Clinton sill comes out as the winner against the Republican. His advice appears to be a deal, for Clinton is to bow out gracefully, and for Obama, who will need the disgusted Hillary voters in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, to offer her the vice presidency. Not very unique, but entirely practical, and professional. Politicians have to learn to overcome personal prejudices, reduce expectations, ride out the storms without drowning and make compromises in the interests of common weal.
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 3:24 PM 
