<-The Clothes Make the Man |Main|Fascists Come in All Shapes and Sizes->

More Proof that Texans Are Idiots

March 5, 2008 12:50 AM

o, Hilary Clinton won the primaries in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Barack Obama won Vermont and is still ahead by about ninety delegates, according to CNN.

I did not see this coming and, frankly, it angers me. Not only have I never been as excited about a candidate as I am about Mr. Obama, but it's been my feeling in the past several weeks that many others feel the same way. And it's not just people who comment here, either. I've heard many commentators on TV compare Mr. Obama to JFK. And he definitely had the momentum--he had won eleven straight contests.

On the other hand, Ms. Clinton appeared--to me, at least--to be increasingly desperate, which lead to her being even more unappealing than usual. She went negative, attacking Mr. Obama's record more aggressively than she had before. And she also turned up the fear mongering, airing a ridiculous ad reminding us that our children will die if we don't elect her. She kept harping on and on about how she'll be ready on "Day One," which is some of the most infuriating rhetoric I've heard in a long time. I'd like to list more things, but I can't even remember them. But she's done several things in the past few weeks that have left me even more convinced than before that she's nothing more than a petty, power-hungry politician.

But the voters in Ohio and Texas seem to think she'd be a good president. Either that, or way more people do what Rush Limbaugh says than should be allowed. Although it looks like more Republicans than normal crossed over, it's not clear how much of an effect that had. And I don't even know if it's possible to do that in Ohio.

Still, the result is the same: the Democratic nomination is still in the air, and that pretty much sucks. While John McCain gets the benefit of the entire Republican machine and gets to take shots at Obama and Clinton--who are admittedly very similar as far as policy is concerned--the Democrats get to waste time and money fighting amongst themselves rather than getting anything done.

Gee, why does that sound so familiar?



10 Comments


Santi said:

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed last night too. However, I'm not too concerned about this thing going on a little longer; even though I'm glad John McCain won the Republication nomination since I (somewhat) respect him and think he deserved it, there's just no way I see him winning in November. So, he can have these few extra months to trash Clinton and Obama if he wants, I project that a Democrat will win decisively in November regardless.

March 5, 2008 11:20 AM



Santi said:

Just to add to my comment above, I base my projection not only on the fact that Bush is so unpopular, and the fact that John McCain is as inspirational as a peach, but mainly on the fact that the turnout in the Democratic primaries thus far has been about double that as in the Republican primaries. Even though I strongly believe that Obama would carry that level of turnout into the general election more so Clinton (I know at least two people who will not vote for Hillary in November if she wins the nomination), the turnout for her I imagine would still be in record numbers.

March 5, 2008 11:29 AM



Publius said:

As a republican, I hope that the Democrats are dumb enough to run Billary. The smart play is Obama, which makes me think that she'll get the nod.

March 5, 2008 4:21 PM



Some guy said:

I don't agree with you (and most people who have voiced opinions on this subject). Although I am an Obama supporter, I think that vigorous debate over the democratic nominee is only a good thing for the party. And, on the contrary, while John McCain sits on the sidelines without any major media coverage, the democrats will be front and center in the media all the way up to the convention.

March 5, 2008 10:21 PM



Some guy said:

John Kerry locked up the nomination relatively early, and that didn't do him much good.

March 5, 2008 10:22 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Santi,
I tend to agree that both Senator Obama and Ms. Clinton are more electable than Senator McCain. It seems pretty clear to me, however, that Senator Obama is clearly more electable than Senator Clinton. This story makes me think that we're on the right track here.

Publius,
I've been saying this for a while now: Senator Clinton might be exactly what the Democrats win, but there's no fucking way she'd win in the general election. It would be stupid for the Democrats to nominate her. It infuriates me that no one else seems to realize that.

Some Guy,
First off, I edited your comments to reflect what I think you originally intended to do. If I got something wrong, please let me know.

Anyway, I hadn't thought about the points you brought up, and I think they're valid, but I also think that a drawn-out nomination process would hurt more than help.

A longer nomination process means that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to spend more money fighting each other over relatively small things instead of fighting an opponent--John McCain--with which they have significant idealogical differences. Meanwhile, Senator McCain gets to attack not only both hopefuls individually, but the entire Democratic platform, too. Senator McCain is defending one front; Senators Obama and Clinton are each defending two. I've played enough RISK in my life to know how that turns out: you can't hold Asia, even with seven fucking guys a turn.

And while it's true that an extended nomination process means more coverage for the Democrats, I don't buy into the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. All that's going to happen is that Senators Obama and Clinton are going to attack each other in every possible way, the end result being that they're each going to come out of this thing looking pretty bad. And while the person who talks the most and best trash could win the nomination, none of the stuff that comes out is going to get forgotten--the nominee will be tainted, and that taint will have originated inside his or her own party.

As for John Kerry, I think he had much bigger problems than clinching the nomination early. That whole thing where he's a dead horse didn't help him, for example.

March 5, 2008 11:52 PM



Expat said:

As an Independant voter, I regularly tune out all the newscoverage for presidential elections up until the election year, and I'm happier for it. Ads by candidates don't normally start coming out until about now, so I've been blissfully unaware of what each candidate has been saying.

That said, I think Hillary's ad is pretty tame, considering that her whole platform is that she has more experience. I believe Hillary is just so broadly disliked that she's damned whatever she says or does.

As for Texas, well, as a son of a Texan, I don't trust Texans very much.

March 6, 2008 8:34 AM



morenonesense said:

There is no way that Clinton is beating out McCain. For one reason or another, so many people HATE Clinton that they'll vote for whoever aside from her. It actually resonates similar to what Bush faced in the last election (as far as some people would vote for anybody aside from Bush), but the problem was people chose not to vote for Kerry b/c he was a weak candidate, so they just didn't vote. The republican 'nation' is much more focused than the opposition to Bush was in '04, and will vote in droves against Clinton; not so against Obama.

March 6, 2008 11:59 AM



Vice said:

Also, I'm not sure the JFK comparison is a good thing for Obama. Honestly, JFK wasn't the greatest president. We romanticize everything about the guy because he was young, good-looking, and eloquent, and he was assassinated 3/4 of the way through his first term. Young, good-looking, eloquent, relatively inexperienced senator... the similarities are certainly there. Unfortunately, JFK was all talk, at least for the first half of his term. Simply put, he didn't do much. Not until his whole "New Frontier" plan did he really have much of a direction as president, other than anti-Commie (and let's not forget, he brought us to the brink of a nuclear war, pretty much for the sake of posturing). Until the New Frontier, JFK was pretty much the prototypical rich white guy from a prominent family with entitlement issues. Then, halfway through, he picked up a conscience, and started trying to do some good.

Not that I'm anti-JFK, and not that I think Obama is all talk. It's just that the comparison bothers me, because I think that their similarities are not necessarily that flattering for Obama -- it's mostly just image. An inspiring image won't create real change, as Hillary tends to point out every 15 seconds.

But I do think he's more than that, that he's got even more potential than JFK. I think that Obama could do a lot of good, because he really seems to believe in helping people. I'd say a more apt comparison might be RFK (circa 1968), though it's hard to say for sure since Bobby got gunned down before he got the chance to be president.

March 6, 2008 8:55 PM



Sengir Vampire said:

I tend to support Obama over Clinton (disclosure: I voted for Ron Paul in the WI primary), but mostly only for his optimism and willingness to negotiate with our enemies. But why do you all think it's so obvious that Clinton has no chance against McCain, but Obama would certainly beat him? It seems to me, admittedly a largely uninformed voter, that he's going to have a big problem convincing the nation that he isn't just another war-hungry, paranoid, fear-mongering Republican and that either Clinton or Obama would beat him.

I also don't really think that it matters what JFK actually did or didn't do as President. I think it only matters that people perceive him as a representation of a better tomorrow. I'm sure Obama is stoked with the comparison. There's no way McCain will argue something like "JFK wasn't actually a good President." The romanticism surrounding JFK is too great.

March 6, 2008 11:56 PM



Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.