A locus for eccentrics (hopefully)

Friday, February 01, 2008

Suck it Down, Neill

Happy Birthday. Now please tell me why Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party Establishment's choice to be the 2008 nominee? Seriously, what is it about her that gives them the feel of a sure thing? Why did they rally around her immediately, raising billions of dollars? It reminds me of how Bush was the Establishment GOP pick in 1999. Sure, there was name recognition and he was seen as a moderate executive of a large state who could cross party lines easily to get stuff done. But she has been such a polarizing figure for so long--what's more, if you really dissect her appearances and listen to what she's saying on the campaign trail and how she is saying it, she's a sub-par candidate, in my opinion. Doesn't fire people up, parses her answers, lacks charisma, ect. There are plenty of Dems (Obama aside) with name recognition who can use the experience card like she has. Why did they rally to HER? Was it Bill Clinton's influence within the party? The delusion that a female nominee would turn out millions of otherwise disinclinated voters? I just don't get it. Because she's an inferior candidate compared to Obama, and if my hunch is correct, she's going to have the nomination wrapped up by Tuesday night because no matter what happened in Iowa, New Hampshire or SC, the Establishment was always going to support her.
Someone, for the love of all that is Holy, tell me why. Because I really think that when she gets the nomination, McCain will wipe the floor with her. He will appeal to conservative Dems and populist Independents, and as much as the GOP base despises him, I have the hunch they hate her more. It just seems like a fucking lose-lose. Obama had at least the chance to tap into Independents or Disaffected Republicans and win them over. But now this. Ugh. I demand an explanation as to why she was Anointed.


Blogger steve said...

I also fear the outcome of a McCain-Hillary race. No explanations here.

5:05 PM

Anonymous Bobbi Kwall said...

The explanation may be in the fact that women vote in higher numbers than men, and have done so in every election since 1964. In 2000, 7.8 million more women voted than men. Add to that the fact that in 2000, women were 10% less likely to vote for W, and 12% more likely to vote for Gore. The trend continued in '04, with 51% of women voting for Kerry as opposed to 41% of male support for Woody McMassachusetts. Only 39% of women voted for W in '04, with 50% of men for W.
With women voting in larger numbers, and being more favorable to Democratic candidates by an average of around 10 percentage points, annointing Hil tilts the balance toward the left.
However, giving Hillary the nod is almost tempting hordes of Republican men to get up and vote in droves. McCain will handily finish her off. I don't like it either, but Dean and Emanuel had to have gone through that calculus at some point.

8:27 PM

Blogger neill said...

I don't think I agree that Clinton was the prevailing establishment candidate coming into the primaries. She certainly lead the way in name recognition and organization, but I'm not sure just how popular the DLC actually is within the party. They weren't powerful enough to get Wes Clark anywhere in 2004 (though, of course, they might have gone half-steam to set Hillary up for 2008).

Bobbi: if Kerry -- not someone who spent a lot of time on women's issues -- can get 61% of the female vote, where's the motivation to do anything more to lock up that support?

At any rate, Omar, you have me. Unfortunately, if it comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, I'll be voting McCain as well; by contrast, I've come very close to talking myself to blowing $200 on an Obama fundraising dinner here in the city.

7:50 PM

Blogger steve said...

I couldn't vote for McCain, way too conservative socially and a total pussy if he ever gets pressured by the party. The straight talk express, as long as they're issues that aren't huge on the republican agenda. No thanks.

I'm surprised to hear you say you'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton...

11:30 AM

Blogger neill said...

A couple of reasons:

First, and most importantly -- this isn't fucking Pakistan. Not a fan of inherited leadership.

Second, the Clintons' race-baiting campaign in South Carolina was disgusting. I'd expect as much from Karl Rove, but not from my own party.

Third, if McCain does win it'll likely be without the creationist vote, and God willing that will be enough to bury them for the next couple of elections.

2:30 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home