Please let this Democratic primary be over soon. Please.
After watching some of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speeches in Maysville and Prestonsburg, Ky., on Monday, this campaign for the Democratic nomination has become very painful.
I don’t have a problem with her staying in the race until the last primary votes are in on June 3, despite numbers that say she cannot win, but I do have a problem with the way she has tried to change how a Democratic nominee should be selected.
In Maysville, she came up with at least three new ways. One was to count delegates the same way Republicans do, which, she said, is winner take all.
The last time I looked, she was a Democrat. Was she suggesting that the Republicans do it better?
Second, she told the crowd that the states she has won has more electoral votes. Therefore, I guess, she should be given the nomination based on that.
I have known of no presidential candidates who were selected by the number of electoral college votes garnered in primaries. The rules, for some reason, say those votes don’t count until after the actual fall elections.
Third, she said she has won the popular vote, if you count Florida, where she won handily, and Michigan, where her opponent Sen. Barack Obama wasn’t on the ballot.
Too bad all the Democratic contenders, including Clinton, agreed to sidestep both of those states prior to their primaries. Rules shouldn’t change with the wind.
In Prestonsburg, she came up with yet another angle. She said that even Karl Rove, the mastermind of Republican politics over the last seven disastrous years at least, thinks she would be a more formidable opponent for Sen. John McCain than Obama.
I’m not understanding why Democrats would care about who Karl Rove would pick to go up against his preferred candidate this fall. And I definitely don’t understand why a potential Democratic nominee would use Rove’s measures as her yardstick.
And finally, Clinton to a Washington Post reporter that her problems on the campaign trail and with voters early can be contributed in part to sexism. She said the media and others were condescending and lewd at times in reference to her as a woman.
I have no doubt that occurred. It goes on daily in the lives of many woman, no matter their stature. All women can point to times when they were asked to do more for less. Clinton of all people, being an attorney and a woman senator, knows about sexual discrimination as well as any woman could.
But she had a lead in the beginning, despite sexism, that no one thought could be overtaken. Something else must have happened.
“When people look at the arc of the campaign,” said presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, “it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her.” Goodwin said the problems with Clinton’s campaign was “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.”
When the reporter asked Clinton if this campaign has been racist as well, she said no.
Most people would recognize that to be untrue. Racism has been throughout this campaign, prompting Obama to receive Secret Service protection very early in this primary season.
Not once have I heard him say his campaign was hampered by his race.
This campaign season has become very painful, tinged with desperation.
Women who are ardent Clinton supports have said they will never vote for Obama in the fall if he wins the nomination.
Blacks who are ardent Obama supporters have said they will never vote for Clinton in the fall if she wins the nomination.
If nothing about this scenario changes, we need to be prepared to have another conservative Supreme Court Justice appointed and a very long stay in Iraq for our troops.
Clinton should stay in the campaign until June 3, but she needs to curtail the way she is reaching for straws.
I am a native Kentuckian, and I have worked at the Lexington Herald-Leader for nearly a quarter of a century. I've been a columnist for almost 20 of those years, dispensing my opinions about anything and everything. Born in Owensboro, Ky., I'm old enough to have lived through racial segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, protests against the Vietnam War, and the break-up of the Beatles. That means I am "old school," and my thoughts emanate from that perspective.
11 Comments
May 20, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I think what you fail to understand is the process by which the Democratic party selects their candidate. It is not simply delegates based upon the popular vote (like the Republican party). It is a combination of delegates chosen by vote and superdelegates, which have NO obligation to vote any specific way. If every superdelegate voted for Obama or voted for Hillary, there would be nothing wrong with either case. Superdelegates should cast their vote based upon a number of factors, not just who is the front runner. If a superdelegate is simply going to rubber stamp the popular vote of their state or jump on the bandwagon of the front runner, then it really defeats their purpose. If you disagree with this method, then perhaps you should work to change the party rules to something more “democratic” instead of being frustrated at the process.
May 21, 2008 at 3:03 am
You have always been racists in your opinons of anything of comment in all the years you have worked at this paper of trash.It is sad you can’t see clear.Obama should step away for the good of “my country”.Two years of worthless service is not worthy of president. Don’t be surprised if the Iranians kick his ass right out of their land.
May 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I voted for Hillary but come fall I will vote for the Democratic nominee. If African Americans hadn’t started bullying with the line that they’d rather vote for McCain than Hillary, then only a few Hillary supporters would have said the same but every time a Hillary supporter turned around, Hillary was being treated as if she wasn’t respectful, wasn’t a good Democrat because she wouldn’t lay down and die because Obama won something. Obama needs to win rather than whine. He can’t seem to close the deal. In the way he all but ignored this state, he acted like he didn’t even want to win here. I want Hillary because I don’t think Obama can win in the fall and I want a Democratic president. I also think he is all talk and no accomplishment. But should he be the nominee I will vote for him.
May 25, 2008 at 9:36 pm
White, working class Democrats who refuse to vote for Obama in decidedly large numbers. Could there be racism in the Democratic party? Possibly?
May 26, 2008 at 3:45 pm
First, I have to say that I think Merlene’s writings about this year’s presidential campaign have been some of her best work. That said, it saddens me when folks like Jasmine go on a tirade about race whenever Merlene writes an article. Everyone has a right to disagree with a columnist but do it in a reasoned way that promotes discussion of the issues. Jasmine’s incoherent raving is frightening because of its inherent hysteria.
May 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
And, Loren, thank you for your recent comment. It completely expresses my opinion about both Merlene’s work and the inappropriate responses that it occasionally elicits.
May 29, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Funny how when Hillary wins a majority of white votes it is because of race. But when Obama wins 90% of the black vote it is not. Also I find it funny that the Demoatic party that always talks about the Republicans disenfranchising voters is the same party that has setup a system where the peoples votes do not even necessarily have to be counted. If the people chose a candidate that the party does not want they simple ignore it a let the super delegates pick. Sounds like communism to me.
May 30, 2008 at 5:10 am
“When the reporter asked Clinton if this campaign has been racist as well, she said no. Most people would recognize that to be untrue. Racism has been throughout this campaign…. Blacks who are ardent Obama supporters have said they will never vote for Clinton in the fall if she wins the nomination.”
Well said, Merlene!
May 30, 2008 at 7:15 am
Doug, well said. The sign of a truly mature person is if he or she can see all sides of the story and make informed decisions. Your example of the black vote being racist illustrates this perfectly.
June 3, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You truly do not understand what racism is if you cannot tell the difference between: white people who have historically as a majority discriminated against black people voting against a black candidate versus black people who have historically been kept from power voting with pride for a qualified, competitive candidate.
Sure. Many white voters voted for Clinton because they reached a reasoned choice that she was the best candidate. Many, in Kentucky and West Virginia, did not make reasoned choices. They made choices based on uneducated reliance on talk radio falsehoods about Obama’s religion, or his what they think his preacher said. They did it in a context where Clinton tried to run up her vote totals with blatant appeals to the prejudice of less educated, “hard working, white Americans”.
Oregon, with similar ratios of rural white voters to urban voters but higher overall education levels and no history of lynchings, voted for Obama. I heard a co-worker explain his vote for Clinton as: “I am not prejudiced against black people. I have had many black folks work for me on my farm, but the only time I ever had to discipline my workers was over ‘the blacks.’” A friend in Monticello was told by her young, Kentucky college educated preacher that her vote for Obama would lead to “the blacks taking over if ‘they’ ever get in control.”
Hard not to see racism at work even if most folks–but not all–have learned no more than not to use the “N” word in unfamiliar company. I lived in Breathitt County where I lived on what was locally called “n—– hill” next to the African American cemetery in a county which had fewer than 10 African American residents, and where my black clients from “Slabtown” in neighboring Lee County wanted their appointments scheduled in mid-day so they could be out of the county before dark. Lexington sold slaves on “Cheapside” and “Quality” streets and still has segregated neighborhoods, churches, and schools. Tubby Smith was great as long as he won, but just another “n—–” to folks in the sports bars when he lost.
Merlene is right, and more restrained than she has reason to be!
June 7, 2008 at 3:06 am
Black people have been voting for white people for as long as they have had the franchise. They even vote for white candidates over black ones, depending on their platforms. There is no racism in that. However, many whites have historically said they would not vote for a black president and have demonstrated a reluctance to vote for a black candidate. There is no need to ask blacks the same question as they always have voted for white presidential candidates. At the beginning of the campaign, most black voters were for Hillary. They were systematically turned off by events and comments in the Clinton campaign. Having listened to Kentuckians on the Sue Wylie Show and having talked with people from rural areas about this issues, I can say that racism is more of a factor in Kentucky than I had previously realized.