|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
May 30, 2008 - 4:29pm.
Ben Boychuk is quoted elsewhere as having said in defense of Senator Clinton's decision to keep competing: "She's (Hillary's) won battleground states that the very liberal Obama would have trouble winning in November." That is patently disingenuous and misleading. She won a majority of the votes cast in the Democratic primaries in those states, certainly. But just as certainly that is not the same as winning those states in November. This specious argument that because she won the Democratic vote in certain states she is going to do better than Obama in the general election is being repeated over and over again. Without getting into an argument over which of the Democratic candidates is more liberal (as if that were a kiss of electoral death) I will point out to you that the election in November will boil down to whether McCain can convince voters across the spectrum that he has divorced himself from the abysmally failed Dubya years, something he is going to have a darned difficult time doing and that he truly has a better direction in which to guide our country. A friend of mine who was a sports analyst told me once that in baseball there are three types of games in a team's season. There's the 40 percent that they are gonna lose no matter what they do, and there's the 40 percent that they are gonna win no matter what they do. The success of the season boils down to how well they do in the 20 percent of the games that are real contests. That's pretty much what we have going here. Each candidate in the general election is going to have states that are his or hers no matter what, and the real contest is in that minority of states where either candidate has a realistic chance. This election is not liberal vs. conservative, it's a question of whether we want to stop doing things the way we have in the last eight years. The degree of liberality between Sens. Obama and Clinton is, at best, of minimal importance when considered in relation to the real questions: Are we going to take a different direction or not? Whose vision of the future of our country is most acceptable to the voters? Ted
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Technorati Tags:
RichardKanePA A second
Submitted by RichardKanePA on May 30, 2008 - 6:00pm.RichardKanePA
A second question being asked is how many Democratic Senators and Representatives will win. If Obama is the nominee there is no way according to your 40% rule that there won't be a Democratic Congress.
But the administration or defense contractors or foreign interest lobbies may have something up their sleeves. So we don't know who will be President.
The convention chooses the Vice President nominally, not Obama. Possibly, Clinton could vow only to say bad things about McCain not Obama, then continue to campaain for the convention to nominate her not the person Obama chooses while she swiftboats McCain, with Obama getting none of the fall out.
That way the Republican Party might shrink into a third party.
I wish a progressive party would take my suggestion and spend all their time swift boating McCain, and on Obama just say "Why buy a slice of bread with your vote, when you can buy a whole loaf instead". And if the polls show Obama overwhelming McCain. Instead we can have a Green or Nader Party and a Democratic Party, instead of a Democratic and Republican party.
,
Richard -- you put that
Submitted by pollchecker on May 30, 2008 - 6:21pm.Richard -- you put that really well. Thanks. You made my day. (big smile)
First off, it wasn't a
Submitted by Ted Remington on May 30, 2008 - 7:22pm.First off, it wasn't a "rule." It was an observation about sports by a man who had spent his lifetime studying, particularly baseball and basketball. He is dead now, sadly before his time, but John Riegel was well-respected, particularly in Denver, and wrote an annual briefing book for one of the major league drafts (I think it was basketball.)
You said:
"The convention chooses the Vice President nominally, not Obama."
That's just plain eyewash. The presidential nominee has always decided whom to pick as his or her running mate. I know someone will come up with an exception, but. . . .
What I think you have to worry about is Clinton's bolting the party and taking a good chunk of the more centrist Democrats out of the party, guaranteeing a win for McCain, of course, but setting herself up for '12.
If the SS party splits, and I don;t think it will because they are too disciplined or at least appear to be at present, it will be along religious ideological lines, and the splinter group will disappear sooner rather than later because the general American voter abhors the idea of a theocratically oriented party.
Ted