|
Hillary Clinton: no eye will be left un-gouged!
Jules CrittendenIt's a party apparently having a hard time figuring out what it is about, which is how the sideshow ended up being the main event. That would be the battle of gender vs. race. More of the usual "Clinton out now!" this morning. We'll get to that in a minute. First, NYT sums up why, politically, it makes sense for her to stay and touches on that sexism thing everyone has been overlooking in their rush to condemn pervasive American racism or anti-Obamism or whatever it is. Rebuffing associates who have suggested that she end her candidacy, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it clear to her camp in recent days that she will stay in the race until June because she believes she can still be the nominee and, barring that, so she can depart with some final goals accomplished. . . . It's an eye-gouging thing. But the irony is, it is not Clinton's actions but Obama's own that create the opportunity. At the rate Obama keeps nicking himself, having to explain away absurd and offensive utterances and associations, there is no reason to think he might not yet critically gaffe himself, spill enough blood into the water that superdelegates start scrambling away in a panic. NYT fails to make the very legitimate point that the Washington Post's Richard Cohen made yesterday … The Clintons know Americans ultimately will have more respect for a tenacious, diehard loser than a quitter. About the sexism, I suspect we'll finally see a serious mainstream examination of that once Obama’s clinched it and the buyer's regret sets in. Politico’s Roger Simon misses all of the above points in a vapid Obama fawn entitled "What is Clinton's Argument Now?" that ends bizarrely with the inconclusive conclusion that "The Democrats will battle on because it is just so gosh-darned exciting!" Actually, the Democrats will battle on because they have mistaken the politics of personal ambition and vanity clothed in race and gender issues for matters of substance and have turned it into a race to see which will trump the other. Which is bizarre not least because race and gender concerns in 2008 are far from the most pressing issues of the day. There's a heck of a soul-searching due, and a lot of people will be (are being) smeared before its done. . . . This one's interesting. Jonathan Chait at LA Times, "Not Supporting Clinton isn't an Attack on Feminism." How about "Not Supporting Obama Doesn't Mean You're a Racist." Dickerson at Slate, "Lady, You're in My Way. Can Obama Do Anything to Get Clinton Out of the Race?" has this great line: How long can a body exist in a state approximating motionlessness without actually stopping? But otherwise is astonishingly uninformative and fails to engage on its own line of questioning with the natural followup. What is the effect of the gross impotence Obama is experiencing/demonstrating? Is America going to want to be entirely ruled by a party with such a marked record of indecision and ineffectiveness, and a candidate who can't close the deal? What happens in the spring is usually forgotten by fall, but if the Democrats have not exactly chosen a candidate yet, it may be because they can't decide whether they fear one more than they want to spare the feelings of the other. Well, that's their problem. I'm with Politico: It's gosh-darned exciting! More from Jules here. Posted by: Mike 2008-05-22 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=239685 |