What the fuck is wrong with us?
Who will blink first in Obama-Clinton war of nerves?
This is the same goddamned party that went into a hissy fit, rightly, about their candidate winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral vote?
These two are ridiculous. They act like what really matters, here, is what happens to either of them and that whether Florida and Michigan voters get a say in this election counts for shit.
If Floridians don't want to take part, so be it. If Michigan doesn't think it can do it in time and isn't interested in trying, so be it.
But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton acting like what really matters is what happens to them and not what happens to the people they serve really is the most serious problem in politics.
I don't mean that in a populist, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore," "Who will take care of the people?", what's wrong with politics is that they don't listen to the will of the people kind of way. That critique is amorphous and bullshit.
I just mean, each citizen deserves a vote. If they don't want to exercise that freedom, so be it. But it's not up to Obama and Clinton to decide if and when these voters get enfranchised. It should be up to them.
This is the same party that went into hysterics when George Bush won the 2000 election without the popular vote.
Goes to show. Any rationalization for power will do. I can't trust any of this lot, goddamnit. At least not as long as they think that politics as usual - meaning power at all costs - is a winning formula.
Surely there is more to democracy than all of this.
If not, who really gives a shit?
2 comments:
I've solved this problem over at my blog, FYI.
You know, I could give a shit how they shake this out because I don't think it's gonna change the outcome.
Howard and the folks at the DNC goofed big on this one. You can't get in the business of handing out death penalties when everyone knows you won't bother flipping the switch.
Had they went softer, like the Repubs did with their rogue states, none of this would be happening. A delegate reduction for breaking party rules might have been MORE persuasive (no backlash) and certainly wouldn't have created this mess.
Whoops.
Obama might as well take the high road here, because there's no way Hillary is going to support the party ruling now that she sees it as an impediment to winning. Obama has the most room to be gracious and right, anyway.
John Brown of Kansas, Esquire
Dear courageous dumbass -
"I just mean, each citizen deserves a vote. If they don't want to exercise that freedom, so be it. But it's not up to Obama and Clinton to decide if and when these voters get enfranchised. It should be up to them.
This is the same party that went into hysterics when George Bush won the 2000 election without the popular vote.
Goes to show. Any rationalization for power will do. I can't trust any of this lot, goddamnit. At least not as long as they think that politics as usual - meaning power at all costs - is a winning formula.
Surely there is more to democracy than all of this."
First of all, read asshole.
You and I wholeheartedly agreee that the voters of Florida and Michigan should be enfranchised. In fact, that was the whole fucking point of the post, once you get your reading comprehension skills up to par.
The trick was the your favorite gal Clinton pulled a fast one and decided that independent of party rules, she would see if she could get her name on the ballot, while other candidates followed party rules and did not run in these elections - it does really give you an idea of who really gives a shit about the rules, doensn't it? - and that there is no standard by which those elections were free and fair, in that sense.
I, personally, would prefer if they had open revotes in those states or somehow get enfranchised WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE POST, ONCE YOU GET AROUND TO READING IT.
Your gal, Clinton, though, has no interest in having those votes and any votes counted, clearly, unless they go for Hillary Clinton - HENCE HER EFFORT TO OVERTURN A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY THAT HAS VOTED AGAINST HER.
You sure what you and Hillary care about is enfranchising voters?
Because if you do, you should be a little concerned about your candidates efforts to disenfranchise ALL AMERICAN VOTERS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.
Something tells me that that is not what Hillary's concern is. And I have a sneaking suspicion, from your tone, courageous one, that you don't either.
In which case, peddle bullshit elsewhere. I don't buy Hillary Clinton's and I certainly won't be buying yours.
But congratulations on the fair market value for your soul, dumbass. Because your thought processes don't seem to be doing it for you.
Post a Comment