So I'm wondering...

[flewellyn]

I've been thinking about the hoopla around the Democratic primary, and I've got a question.

It seems everyone and his dog is calling for Hillary Clinton to quit the race. Despite the fact that, as of today, Obama has a narrow lead of 128 delegates, and that Clinton is projected to win big in Pennsylvania, which has 158 delegates, and Indiana with 72, and the fact that the superdelegates have not yet made up their minds, somehow, Obama is "inevitably" the nominee, and Clinton should step aside. There's talk of this contest "damaging the party" and that Clinton is "being selfish" by continuing to run.

Why? Why is it so damaging to have two candidates who are both quite popular and quite formidable fight it out to decide who will run? Is it because it's actually a problem, or because the media want to make it one?

Why, if it's so "inevitable" that Obama will win, is everyone in his camp so desperate to convince (or bully) Clinton to quit? He should be able to just clinch it with no problem, if it's really inevitable. It sounds to me more like "Quit, because we're afraid you might beat our guy!" It sounds to me like Clinton's still got a strong chance.

Why is it that, of two evenly-matched, both quite popular candidates, it's somehow incumbent upon the female candidate to step aside? Never mind that she's the first woman in history who has run for president and had a credible chance of succeeding; apparently, when this makes the process slightly harder for the male candidates, it's once again "Back of the bus, ladies! Wait your turn!"

This is an historic race, in which the Democratic nominee will be either a black man or a woman. Under no circumstances should either one of them simply step aside, because if they do, it will be used as "proof" that black or female candidates just aren't viable. Clinton has the added burden of being the target of media bullying; if she backs out, it will look like she bowed to bullies, rather than making a calculated decision on her own.

So whoever you support, the party and the cause of progressive politics will only be served if neither candidate quits until it's decided at the convention.

Comments

[moronqueen.livejournal.com]

Ii...don't particularly like either one of them, honestly. But they're better than McCain...my biggest problem with both their campains is the subtle concentration they both put on their gender or skin color. It would be better if they protrayed themselves as actual people and not try to be some shining knight for their social struggles.

Oddly enough, I would have preferred Ron Paul. I could at least agree with his economic views, but since he's so deviant from both parties, he never stood a chance. Yeah, yeah, he's anti-choice, but I'm not sure if that overrules his belief in independant personal choice in general. It's hard to tell, sometimes.

There are just way too many brain washed idiots running around out there.

I'll still vote for either Clinton or Obama, whichever one gets it. In my heart, I'd vote for Nader, but I'm desperate to get something other than a Republican in office...

[humanpacifier.livejournal.com]

I think the last sentence is the key.... Unfortunately, I don't see that the two-party system is going to change any time soon and a lot of views people hold will remain unrepresented. I've always wondered why it had to be a 2-candidate race. Why must one person and one person only be chosen to represent the party in the general election? This, in my humble opinion, inherently means that many people are voting for "Anybody but...(name here)" insted of voting for the candidate whom they believe is best qualified for the job.

The system is constructed to be a zero sum game of sorts. It comes across as a "with us or against us" mentality. And that doesn't even get into the power of lobbyists and the $$$$ involved in these races.

(stepping down off soapbox)

[moronqueen.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I would love to vote for a third party candidate without the country going to pot because of the lesser of the two powerful evils (almost typed Elvis) lost...

Really, it is the money and the lobbyists that cause the problems even in the primaries. Our society is no longer a democratic one, but a captitalistic one. So many people are so lost in their struggle to survive, and so dumbed down by everything from our school system to the trashy food we eat that they can't think past what the media tells us about the candidates. And who controls the media? The people with the most money.

That'd be why I've come to trust the BBC more than CNN or Faux News when it comes to our own national news. It's pathetic that we need to go underground just to get any kind of straight information.

Umm...you can have your soapbox back, now. ;)

[moronqueen.livejournal.com]

Umm...wow. Capitalistic one. That was a bad typo.

[humanpacifier.livejournal.com]

Captitalistic....you're being sexist!!!! LOL! :-)

[humanpacifier.livejournal.com]

It's interesting and timely that you mentioned trashy food. I have a 3 year old son who started pre-school this year. I met the parents of the other kids in the class once and honestly, I felt like crying when they all started talking about how much they love "Uncrustables" and "Lunchables" and other "food products" which are so full of salt and fat and sugar and preservatives that they can hardly be called food. They talked about all these fast food places their kids love and I truly felt sad for those children. Their parents are feeding them junk and the kids will never know any better. Now, I will be the first to admit I'm *not* a good cook. I need a recipe to make ice. My husband, thankfully, does know how to cook. Every morning, we take about 3-5 minutes to prepare our son's lunch. Some whole grain bread, light mayo, low fat meat and cheese. Yogurt and a piece of fruit on the side. (drinks are provided at his after school daycare) Sometimes he has leftovers (like rice and veggies with grilled chicken or similar). The point is, we spend very little time making his lunch but we make sure he eats a lunch that isn't pre-packaged junk.

Last year, my husband found out his blood pressure was high. He now has to cook just about everything from scratch because there's so much salt in prepared food. As for myself, I have to watch fat/cholesterol intake. Makes for a lot of challenges when trying to find something to eat.

Going out to eat gets to be impossible with overly huge portions and the SALT... (sorry, salt isn't a good friend of mine right now; please forgive)

But this was supposed to be about politics... I guess, like Elvis, third parties are seemingly dead in our system. The people with the most money have several key businesses in their back pockets: Oil companies, tobacco companies, major media sources, and a few other industries (like energy corporations or maybe large technology firms). But especially oil and tobacco. Many candidates will support the idea of developing alternative fuel sources but, like NCLB, funding tends to be scarce when it's time to actually *do* something.

To bring this back to the original topic, and to tie it to others, what controls the public more than anything else is fear. Fear that the Democratic party will lose if they do not unite behind a single candidate. This sets up Clinton to be the scapegoat if Obama loses the election. The harsh media critics will blame Obama losing on her diverting funds and attention from the general election. This makes me think of the Olympic judges determining the winners before the contest. Why is it so important to them to have a candidate selected so the convention is a mere formality? This, in my mind, causes the primaries to become a borderline farce. Going through the motions because the winner is already selected and funding, etc. goes to that person before anything has actually happened.

I could go on for a long time about the problem presented by non-affiliated voters being unable to vote in the primaries. They are literally barred from having any say in who the candidates are. In that case, why even have the primary elections? Can't everybody sort it out in a single election and the candidate with the most votes wins? That's how elections were done back in my school days. We often had 4-5 candidates for class president. Yes, this is a bigger scale but why must it be just two?

Curiouser and curiouser...