Tag Archives: Election

At long last…

On Tuesday, the voters of Pennsylvania will find relief from the relentless advertising press by the Obama and Clinton campaigns. The rest of the U.S. will see a change of venue for the media coverage, but no reduction in the continuous hammering of the minutiae of the campaigns.

Will Senator Clinton bow out gracefully if she fails to take Pennsylvania handily? Doubtful. Senator Clinton is on mission. This mission seemingly fueled by her husband, the mastermind, it seems.

When will this primary end?

3 Comments

Filed under 2008 Election, Media, News, Politics

Rules are rules, unless…

The debate increases daily over whether to count and include the votes from Florida and Michigan and whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton should cede the nomination for Democrat presidential candidate to Senator Barack Obama.

Voting: Should the primary votes cast in Florida and Michigan, after being excluded by the Democrat party, be included with the totals at the convention? Absolutely not. Before the primary season started, Florida, Michigan, candidates and voters understood the ground rules: Florida and Michigan changed primary dates without the approval of the party therefore those states are punished. PERIOD.

If the voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised, the voters should confront not the Democrat party, but the foolish decision-makers that moved the primary. Should Clinton and Obama have any say in the inclusion of these votes at the Convention? NO. The party made a decision and now the party must live with that decision.

But for some reason, now that the nomination process is close and voters actually like both candidates (or dislike equally-not sure which) members of the Democrat party want to change the rules mid-stream. If the party does count the votes of Michigan and Florida in any way, shape or form, the Party will lose credibility (if it has any). The Primary election is not some childhood game of checkers when the rules change to suit the circumstances and the players. The rules were created to dictate the process and control the circumstances, not the other way around.

Campaign continues: Senator Clinton continues to rally the troops in an effort to gain the nomination. Based on my understanding of the rules of the process, Clinton has no obligation to stop fighting until such time as the Party announces the nomination at the convention. The United States is a republic. We are free. Clinton believes that she can win the nomination, that she can sway delegates and that is her right.

If the Party decides after the 2008 election to change that rule, as well, making it impossible for a candidate in a close nomination race to continue her campaign when the delegate count remains close or the primary campaign lasts “too long,” the Party would do a disservice to its members and voters. We are entitled to a choice.

For too long, this country has settled on the lowest common denominator as a candidate for each party without considerations for actual change (not the mythical change propounded by donkey and elephant candidates). If either Party shies away from scrutiny of its candidate and the Party’s platform, beliefs and positions, then perhaps the voters should speak for themselves. Perhaps the Parties need change ultimately not the voters or the government. Consider whether either of these groups serve this country with any sort of respect or dignity or do the parties serve their immediate constituency?

Rules are established to control the chaos. Maybe the people making the rules should be Changed.

3 Comments

Filed under 2008 Election, Politics

Sophistry

The Clintons, former President William Jefferson Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, lack the necessary appreciation for veracity that many might seek in a presidential candidate and her spouse. The media, sycophants no more, point out blatant mischaracterizations by Senator Clinton of her personal experiences and the repetition of an inaccurate colloquial tale of medical insurance woe. Today, Politico.com reports that former President Clinton defended Senator Clinton attributing “end-of-the-day fatigue” as the cause of her Bosnia “mistake.” (Politoco.com, April 11, 2008, Bill Clinton defends wife’s Bosnia remarks”). A CBS producer, cited in the Politico.com story, points out that the St. Patrick’s Day speech former President Clinton referred to occurred “midmorning.”

Should voters hold Senator Clinton responsible for the speaking “mistakes” of former President Clinton? No. In fact, the voting public has a very short memory for Clinton speaking mistakes. The Clintons, collectively, will say whatever is necessary to illustrate the point at hand and move to the next. The Clintons find it easier in our society to ask for forgiveness than to tell the boring, non-illustrative truth.

The Clintons represent the negative of oration and public speaking. Dictionary.com lists several definitions for sophist.

American Heritage DictionaryCite This Source

soph·ist
(sŏf’ĭst)
n.

    1. One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.
    2. A scholar or thinker.
  1. Sophist Any of a group of professional fifth-century B.C. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.

[Middle English sophiste, from Latin sophista, from Greek sophistēs, from sophizesthai, to become wise, from sophos, clever.]

Does manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic, sound familiar?

If Senator Clinton states that she entered a Bosnian airport under attack and later people on the trip contradict her, then according to Senator Clinton, she “misspoke” and “made a mistake.” Should Senator Clinton have empathy for all the Bosnians who existed in Hell on Earth under the wretched rule of their cruel and inhumane dictator? Yes, absolutely. Should Senator Clinton adopt Bosnia’s Hell on Earth as her own personal experience for the purpose of exploiting the Bosnian existence to impress voters with an example of her life under fire? Absolutely, NOT.

Does the time of day and fatigue excuse a speaker from wholly misrepresenting her life experiences with examples of traumatic life stories? No.

Former President Clinton believes that voters will buy whatever snake oil he’s selling. When the media, who keep track of every stop on each presidential candidate’s itinerary, hear such speeches from anyone, including the former President, they take note and now point to the conflicts. Former President Clinton floated his explanation for the mistake to determine how the justification would be received, to see if anyone noticed.

We did notice.

Here’s some advice, the truth will set you free. Lies will provide more negative coverage. Mischaracterizations of easily verifiable facts will provide more negative coverage.

Senator Clinton, you choose.

5 Comments

Filed under 2008 Election, Politics