Cancer
Her supporters have reason to celebrate today and only resulting in dragging this election into the next millennium! For those of us who wanted an end to this highly charged race, we have to shake the hands of our opponents, maintain a stiff upper lip and shepherd on!
But we have to ask the question this morning," At what price victory?"
The New York Times in an editorial this morning said:
"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."
Yes, there is no question that some of the tough questions will come from Karl Rove Republicans in the Fall. But we can't use that as an excuse to bring up every ugly, nasty and thoughtless side issue you can think of in order to distract from the real issues. One of the most valuable lessons I learned from Dr. Martin Luther King was you don't have to become your opponents in order to win. A real victory is when you resist the temptation to put on the coat of oppression and rise to a greater level. We don't have to become Karl Rove and adopt his ugly tactics to win an election and if we do so, we lose our soul and our reason to exist as a party.
The New York Times continued in their editorial:
"On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs.
COMMENTS (2)
RATE THIS STORY
Nude photos of the MTV reality star surfaced on the...
...and I don’t even know what to say, in the best possible way. When the movie...
Comments
Re: Presidential Election: The Price Of Clinton's Victory
By Brandon, April 24, 2008 at 12:53"Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work."
It doesn't work?!
I thought this was, according to recoiling Obama supporters, a very negative campaign and she won by a significant 10-point plus majority?
I don't mind you being wrong but have the decency to remain consistent.
Moreover, if you're going to pretend to profess on the topic of American politics at least know that Karl Rove isn't running the Republican campaign anymore.
If Dems want to use the "negativity" of highly successful attack-ads as an excuse for the MAJORITY of people voting against them then they should look at the system, not those best able to work within it. Democracy is an engine by which the will of the people is adduced via election. The electoral process preceding it is about open and frank politics. POLITICS. Not poetry, prose, speech-making and/or goofy looking hand-gestures. Politics includes everything within the rules of the electoral system. This means mud-slinging. It means optimizing public image. It means fund-raising. It means attack ads. It means winning the hearts and minds of people by building up yourself and knocking down your opponent.
As Socrates says in Plato's Republic, democracy gives you a leader best able to convince others of his ability, not the best leader.
It's democracy you're complaining about. Of course, we have come to expect that from the far left...
Re: Presidential Election: The Price Of Clinton's Victory
By Melkor, April 23, 2008 at 16:02Congratulations Hillary!!! Despite being named the frontrunner 2 years ago (typically the kiss of death), challenged at every turn by the right AND left, written off at least 3 times in the last 6 months by the so called unbiased media who want nothing to do with another Clinton administration, called ‘negative’ because she plays everyone else’s game better than them, called ‘opportunist’ because she had her daughter campaigning with her (although all the men do this with impunity) Mrs Clinton still has a leg to stand on. This woman has more balls than any man running, she is smarter than anyone else running, and yet she gets attacked over and over and over for doing what she should – play politics. And frankly, for all those ‘tired’ of negative campaigns – grow up. This idea that everyone must and should play nice all the time is not helping anyone in our society - this must stop and this woman is the one to do it.
And for anyone out there who thinks elections are about issues and not attacks I invite you to entertain this thought – is it not possible to have two seemingly opposing views operating epistemologically in your brain at the same time? Are negative attacks and discussing issues mutually exclusive? Why?
And considering that there is no discernable difference in either candidate on anything remotely substantive, these policy debates would be terribly boring no (lets discuss user fees versus tax revenues as sources for Medicare – good times)?
Be careful what you wish for.