Forever Fretting Over The Repugs - How Sad

In an otherwise highly sensible column in the February 11th-18th issue of The New Yorker, columnist Hendrik Hertzberg gives us the following analysis of the Democratic presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (links to The New Yorker site are really flaky, by the way)…

For some Democrats, a final straw has been the Clinton campaign’s sudden interest in changing the rules. In Nevada, where the state’s Democratic Party had provided special caucus sites for casino workers, Clinton allies tried to get them shut down after a union representing many of those workers endorsed Obama. The Democratic National Committee warned the Party’s affiliates in Michigan and Florida that if they moved their primaries ahead of Tsunami Tuesday (2/5) they would lose their convention delegates. They did so anyway, and now Clinton – whose name was the only one on the Michigan ballot and who carried Florida, where no one campaigned – is demanding that the two states’ delegates be accredited. Those delegates, added to the bulk of the unelected “Superdelegates,” could conceivably put Clinton over the top if Obama arrives at the Convention with a slight edge in delegates chosen by voters – a scenario that would bear an ugly resemblance to Florida, the popular vote, and the Supreme Court, circa 2000.

Sure, the Clintons have always played rough politically, but within the rules as far as I could tell, notwithstanding some of the recent missteps blown way out of proportion by Frank Rich, among others, here. And yes, Hillary’s acquisition of Michigan and Florida’s superdelegates in a primary where no one else ran would be a tawdry move, but again, a legal one as far as I can determine.

But to compare such a move to the Florida voting fiasco in November 2000?

How did the Clintons purge the Florida voting rolls in their favor as the Repugs did under Katherine Harris? (here). How did the Clintons pull a maneuver like staging a riot as the Repugs did in Miami-Dade to stop the hand recount requested by the Gore campaign? (here). How have the Clintons sought redress in the courts from like-minded partisans to achieve their goal of winning the Democratic nomination? (here).

To compare anything the Clintons have done in this campaign to the events that allowed Dubya and his minions to seize the executive branch is truly a joke.

Also (more tied to the post title here, I'll admit)…

Nothing would energize the dispirited, disoriented Republicans like running against Hillary Clinton. And a late-entry challenge from (NYC) Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions would be far less likely if Obama became the Democratic nominee.

I wish I could communicate how truly fed up I am with the notion that Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be the Democratic nominee because the Repugs and their acolytes would be energized somehow and less offended by the nomination of Barack Obama. Despite the odious presence of Mark Penn as well as some deep-pocketed campaign contributors, she is easily the most qualified individual of all of the candidates on either side to serve as president; if our corporate media had any sense of fairness at all, they would match her work in the White House and the U.S. Senate against everyone else and realize how formidable it truly is.

Is she the candidate of the status quo? Yeah, in a lot of ways, but the “status quo” of the Clinton presidency in the ‘90s was pretty good for yours truly and his family. Sure, there was triangulation, equivocation, and overall some stuff that didn’t make me happy (NAFTA, the supposed welfare “reform,” repealing Glass-Steagall), but at least we had balanced budgets, job growth, and responsible adult leadership, as opposed to our jobs disappearing, our economy collapsing, and war without end in Iraq as the only certainty (to say nothing of 9/11, which happened under Bush’s watch of course).

And David Sirota posts here about the reality of a potential presidential run by Michael Bloomberg; my attitude towards the notion of an automatic Bloomberg candidacy as a response to Hillary winning the Dem nomination is to sit back and have a good laugh.

Besides, as formidable as Obama is on the issues that matter to yours truly (Iraq, the economy, education, the environment, etc.), Hillary Clinton is all of that and more (as I glance at the Issues pages of either candidates’ web sites, though, I should note that I’d like to see a category called “Protecting The Constitution”; Clinton has a link called “Strengthening Our Democracy” tied to cleaning up the voting mess in this country, but as important as that is, that’s something wholly other).

And Hertzberg concludes with the following…

Hillary Clinton would make a competent, knowledgeable, and responsible President. Barack Obama just might make a transformative one.

I’d love to believe that, but notwithstanding the comparative free ride enjoyed by Obama in his campaign’s press coverage lately (which will end, I can assure you, regardless of what he does), I should just remind everyone of what Mike Papantonio said last night about what happens when Democrats attempt conciliation with the Repugs.

The Dems lose, that’s what happens. And subsequently, our corporate media will continue to portray them as weak and divided.

As a political party, the Repugs are flailing away in the water trying to stay afloat in the hope that their “fear and smear” machine will save them in November. Given that, you don’t toss them a life preserver. Do what they would do and toss them an anvil instead.

With John Edwards now sadly absent from the race, I should note that that’s something Hillary Clinton understands also. And even though he is formidable and highly qualified in his own right, as Hertzberg notes, I’ll take that over Barack Obama and his “transformative conciliation” any day of the week.