WHAT, EXACTLY, ABOUT "YOU LOST" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Rather than actually concede she'd lost the Democratic nomination for President, Hillary Clinton instead said she wanted to hear from Americans. So I went to her website. This is what I wrote:
It's time to quit. You fought hard but it's over. You ran a sleazy campaign. You wanted to change the rules in Florida and Michigan after you initially agreed to them. You preyed on voters' fear. You lost. Don't let your blind ego cost the Democrats the White House.
posted by Erik Himmelsbach at 11:01 AM
2 Comments:
Hardly blind ego.
She planned for years and became the first woman in history to have a shot at the presidency. For years, especially as the Bush Administration sank further and further, she was considered a shoe-in. The fact that, in a 50-50 race like the one with Obama, she chose to see it through to the end (like they always say... but she actually did) is hardly the death call of the Democratic Party that Fox News would have you believe.
What? Is it cold and calculated that she hung in as long as she could in the hopes that Obama would stumble or get caught up in a scandal? Sure. But it's hardly a threat to democracy. Just ask yourself... if you worked this hard and came this far, would you just walk away when it's this close? You'd be an idiot if you did. As big an idiot as most of the Republican field who folded their tents and went home, giving the nomination to McCain - considered dead in the water before everybody else left the race. Clinton was a little smarter than that and it didn't threaten the party one bit.
A sleazy campaign? Yeah... she did and said some things that disappointed a lot of us. She could of taken the high moral ground, but didn't. A lot of us - like myself, who never even planned to vote for her - we're disappointed. But sleazy? Hardly. You need to look up the definition... or watch some old Republican contests (or the next one with Obama). The Pubs ran (and will run) SLEAZY campaigns every time. Clinton's was merely questionable. Poor judgement, a few bad ideas and some cheap shots. In fact, look back a little and it wouldn't be hard to call hers one of the cleanest campaigns in recent history. No, NOT the cleanest, but way ahead of any race involving Republicans, for sure. So PLEASE don't be fooled by the inept media's relentless attempts to find or create something to write about. Her's was a decent campaign that COULD have been much better and even more historic. Because it was so close, it's probably why she lost.
And once the votes were counted, she got out and did the right thing.
What you're bitching about are mere minor details you've been told by the media, most of which would go unnoticed in a REAL sleazy race. Kind of like the way no one even notices when Bush lies again each and every day. Everyone is so used to it that it's routinely ignored now. Yet, when Obama changes his tune (which is his right) regarding public financing, it's poured over for days by the media too lazy to dig up any real news.
Did you know there was a suicide bomber in Oklahoma 3 years ago? 21 year old student blew himself up at a campus football game. Had Jihad materials, apparently. Did you hear it on the news? A SUICIDE BOMBER in the USA in 2005? Don't you find that curious? No conspiracy theory here... it just shows you how inept the media has become when they spend weeks and months on he said/she said, Clinton/Obama, MANUFACTURED issues that, in retrospect, was horseshit (how much of it can you even remember). Yet... the media has no time for a Suicide Bomber in the heartland during a war.
As much as I hate politicians, I hate the media even more. Because it's there job to inform us about what's REALLY happening. They've dropped the ball. Every since 9/11... and probably before.
Half the media these days are hacks, half of the other half are old and lazy. Politicians bank on this and get away with what they can. We all would do the same so you can't blame human nature for our cluelessness. We can only blame the media.
To conclude... ALWAYS look past the media. Read it, but read THROUGH it too.
And don't forget that in every issue except those involving the rights of rich white women, she has been a right-winger her whole career.
She wasn't going to let go until it was clear to EVERYBODY that America wasn't looking for a right-wing - or pseudo-balanced - candidate. They were looking for one who at least paid lip service to the direction they wanted to move America in.
So if I'm following the argument, you're saying that although she IS that sleazy, we shouldn't care because someone else is sleazier. And surprise, she lost because most people said, in essence, "we don't want sleazy - we're not so concerned with relative quantities. We're better off with an opposition sleaze that we can fight than a sleaze who claims to be on our size but instead fights for more sleaze."
PS the suicide bomber, unlike 9-11, didn't advance the corporate agenda. Why SHOULD they publish it? You seem as naive and ignorant about the nature of modern media as you criticize others for being about politicians. The politicians job is to represent us. We have some rights of criticism there. The media's job is to sell customers attention to advertisers. If their product sells, they're doing their job without having to listen to a bunch of do-gooders.
If you don't like the media's current role, then get to work on changing the laws that require them to perform this role (i.e. remove capitalism from the picture).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home