jump to navigation

More Than The Presidency April 11, 2008

Posted by Jeff in Election '08.
Tags: , , ,

My first post on this blog was about the difference between Clinton and Obama. It’s fairly clear that there isn’t much when you’re talking about policies, but their styles are polar opposites. Here are three more reasons Obama’s better than Clinton. Send this post to any superdelegates you know.

Clinton can’t get other Democrats elected.
This is a big one. A Democrat in the White House doesn’t matter much when congress is still controlled by fundies and neocons. Both of the Clintons have shown that they are unwilling and unable to help other Democrats in their campaigns. In 1994, Bill Clinton dropped the ball in several important Senate and House races, helping get Gingrich the Speakership. In 2000, they avoided Al Gore like the plague. At the time, people assumed that it was because they thought Bill’s presence would be toxic to Gore’s campaign and only remind people of the little blue dress, but it’s since been revealed that he was spending so much time on his wife’s Senate run that he didn’t have time or money to devote to the Democratic presidential candidate. Considering Bill’s popularity among Jews and the elderly, who could have swung Florida the other way, the Clintons share at least some of the blame for Bush’s eight-year reign. Obama, on the other hand, has already helped steal Denny Hastert’s seat away from the Republicans.

Clinton won’t create a new Democratic base.
Look at two candidates’ bases: Obama has young people, moderates, and people who have never been involved in politics before; Clinton has old white people and blue-dogs. Clinton’s base is steadily disappearing as half die and the other half becomes neo-con chickenhawks. Obama, on the other hand, has the ability to reinvigorate the party and bring new ideas and people into the fold.

Clinton will kill the new DNC
It’s no secret that Clinton hates Howard Dean. In 2006 she and Bill set up a “shadow DNC” to take over the DNC’s functions if Democrats lost. Needless to say, they didn’t, but the shadow DNC is reportedly still functioning, and several sources have suggested that if Hilary is elected that the shadow DNC will effectively run the party, and the DNC will become obsolete. Why is this bad? Because the current DNC is revitalizing the party, and the shadow DNC, staffed with old hands like the disastrous Terry McAuliffe and Clinton partisans like Harold Ickes, is trying to return to the strategy that lost us the presidency.

The strategy promoted by these idiots has been rightly called the “insult forty states strategy.” Basically, we ignore strongholds like California and New York (which might not be strongholds any more if Dems don’t keep organizing there) and the red states (where we got most of the new seats that flipped the Senate in ’06) in favor of around ten swing states. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been focusing on worming their way into Dem strongholds, and ultra-blue states like California and New York have had to endure years of Republican leadership. Howard Dean’s shift to a fifty states strategy has already helped us win in districts everyone had thought impossible: Virginia and Missouri, to name just two. Hell, we even stole Illinois’s 14th, previously occupied by Jabba the Hutt’s second cousin once removed, Dennis Hastert. (Okay, that was a cheap shot.)



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: