It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | Why Should Hillary Clinton Drop Out? The Question is You. |
I swear, American pundits are such wimps. Columnist after columnist after columnist has written with varying degrees of subtlety on the subject of getting Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic presidential race. The notion is that unless Hillary Clinton gives up and lets Barack Obama have the presidential nomination, the Democratic party will be split asunder, the eventual nominee will be tarnished, upset Clinton supporters will leave the party in droves, and John McCain will waltz to the White House. These writers just can’t handle deliberative democracy.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t control whether members of the Democratic party trash each other, trash candidates, or leave the party altogether. Members of the Democratic party do. If you are a member of the Democratic party, that means you. You, and all the little “yous” who aggregate into a “we,” are in control of what happens, no matter what Hillary Clinton does.
IF Hillary Clinton drops out of the presidential race, members of the Democratic party can either bicker about it or not. They can desert the Democratic party or not.
IF Hillary Clinton does not drop out of the presidential race, members of the Democratic party can either bicker about it or not. They can desert the Democratic party or not.
Hillary Clinton is a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and she’s doing what candidates do, which is to run for office. She has to decide the manner in which her campaign should be conducted, and she will have to face the positive or negative consequences of that.
You are a citizen. You can control how you respond to events.
What are you going to do?
Contact Us
I’m tired of all the little comment bots all over the blogosphere claiming that one candidate is being negative. They’re both negative.
Do you lend any credence to the argument that Obama can only win primaries in red states but would lose the general election once he had to compete with a Republican on the same ballot? The argument is that the electoral college results look a lot different than the popular vote.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/27/2008 @ 10:25 pm
I don’t lend any credence to that, given that it’s quite clearly not true. Obama has won states that voted blue in 2000 and 2004.
Comment by Patricia — 3/28/2008 @ 6:42 am
there are good clear electoral vote maps up. electoral-vote.com is a great source.
That said, I have seen little or no sign of Obama being negative, and the things you’ve pointed to claiming they were him being negative didn’t read that way to me.
Comment by Vynce — 3/28/2008 @ 11:06 am
If someone doesn’t think calling a candidate a “monster” is negative, they probably have some other kind of problem that I am not qualified to diagnose.
Comment by Iroquois — 3/28/2008 @ 11:27 am
The Genius of Al Gore
http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html
Comment by Anonymous — 3/29/2008 @ 4:06 pm
Hillary should stay in! What are all the Obama
supporters really afraid of?? If he can not handle Hillary, then how can he handle McCAIN?
Comment by Michele — 3/30/2008 @ 11:26 am
Michele, don’t you think that Obama has handled Hillary Clinton quite well already?
Comment by J. Clifford — 3/30/2008 @ 12:10 pm