Monday, March 24, 2008

The Price We Pay When No One Votes For 7 Weeks

This just in on the mud-slinging wire: Obama supporter references Monica's Blue Dress in a tirade. Gordon Fischer, a former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, wrote on his blog. “Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping — instead he is hurting — his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

ZING.... yea he's gonna be fired.

As I watched the cable news channels this afternoon I started to notice something, all of the talk about the Democratic presidential race has become about things that have nothing to do with the actual race. It is as if we have zipped through the period of time when we look at the candidates based on the issues. First there was Rev. Wright, then there was Hillary's schedule as 1st lady, and now it appears all that’s left is for the surrogates of these two candidates to sling mud at each other.

There has been a little dust up between people of both campaigns over some comments President Bill Clinton made over the weekend to some military people. Here is a part of the report from the Huffington Post
MSNBC is reporting that on the campaign trail today in Charlotte, North Carolina, the former president said a general election matchup between his wife, Sen. Clinton, and Sen. John McCain would be between "two people who love this country" without "all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

Now Obama supporters in particular Tony McPeak, a retired Air Force general and current co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, were indignant with Clinton's comments and McPeak went on to say this
"It sounds more like McCarthy," McPeak said. "I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it."

Some fiery rhetoric to say the least. This is what happens in politics and its news cycle when there is a static lull in actual voting or real news. It continued yesterday and today after renowned Democratic strategist and Clinton supporter James Carville compared Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama to a Judas-like betrayal of the Clintons. Richardson was appointed the US ambassador to the U.N. by Bill Clinton and served as Clinton's Secretary of Energy.

Bill Richardson responded by saying this

I'm not going to get in the gutter like that - and you know that’s typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.”

This is like a back and forth volley at a tennis match, one player fires up a serve and the other returns it with just as much fervor.

One more thing that is on my mind today is a new tactic the Clinton campaign seems to be using, several journalists and Clinton people are now coming up with an argument that Senator Clinton has won more electoral votes than Senator Obama. That’s right, I said electoral votes; you know the things that only matter when you’re pulling the lever in November? Well it seems that the Clinton camp is proud to announce that they have received more electoral votes than Obama. This from the New York Times.
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

As of now Clinton would have 219 electoral votes to Obama's 202. This appears to be a poorly played attempt to sway the minds of undecided voters and undecided superdelegates. The problem with this tactic is that many people would argue that Obama would win many of the same states Clinton won including the hugely important California and New York which are the bluest of blue states. This also does not take into account that Clinton has won Texas, the reddest of red states. That analysis could go on forever, you could argue that Clinton would have trouble carrying states like John McCain's own Arizona and New Mexico and Tennessee, states that she has won primaries in.

This argument also ties into the debate of Florida and Michigan re-votes and such of the likeness. But that is a whole other post.

No comments: