PLEASE HELP ME, I'M FALLING
Okay, I confess. I continue to peek at Daily KOS. And each time I do, I ask myself if I'm just sado-masochistic. This latest just knocked me off my metaphorical feet:
First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.
She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.
"Uncertainty" around Michigan and Florida, two states Hillary won fairly and decisively, and which we will need to win in the general election. Yes, there's plenty of uncertainty, but it can't be laid at Hillary's doorstep. She kept her pledge not to campaign in Florida (Obama didn't, buying cable ads in Florida). Credit Howard Dean and the DNC for the "uncertainty."
Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.
Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.
Hillary looks pretty darn cheerful and calm to me, not loony at all. If she's in pursuit of power, it's in order to make real change for ordinary Americans, part of her lifelong dedication to improving the lives of children and families. Where was Obama when his poor constituents were having their heat turned off by his good pal Tony Rezko? Is it not at least possible for Markos to concede that Hillary might have motives more pure than his amateurish attempts to psychoanalyze her might suggest?
If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case.
It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.
Oooh, again. Hillary must be shaking in her boots. "Dealt with appropriately?" That sounds like something a prison warden or high school principal would spout. And it's ridiculous to accuse Hillary of "fomenting civil war" by staying in the race. Let all the whiny little KOSsacks consider, she MIGHT just be acting as a patriot, convinced that Obama is not ready to be the leader of the free world and/or that if he is the nominee, Democrats will have to suffer another four years of Bush policy under John McCain. But KOS would never ascribe such motives to a Clinton. For heaven's sake, they're associated with the despised DLC! Never mind that Obama's entire campaign is based on exactly the "unity" schtick that the DLC has been pushing for ages.
To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.
That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.
"Earned" his enmity? Enmity: a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism. Now I don't know any Hillary supporters who have ENMITY for Obama. We'd like more time to see what he's made of, yes, and some of us have decided that we're not ready to take a chance on him. But hatred? Hell, no! Hillary has wrecked Markos' pretty little party in which he and his buddies get to pick the candidate for the rest of us Democrats, and he pure-en-teen (as they used to say in the rural South) hates her for it. I'd like to see Kos explain why he thinks he has the right after a few short years in the Democratic Party (a converted Republican, you know) to try to destroy one of our most stalwart and effective leaders. His arrogance and conceit know no bounds.
And another oh please. KeithO's "neutrality" has been questionable for quite some time now and in recent weeks his favoritism has been so thinly veiled as to make him appear nakedly in the tank for BO. Pelosi, too, has greatly disappointed me. What, exactly, does Barack Obama bring to the table to stir up such fervent discipleship? Unity? Unity with whom, exactly? Hope? Hope for what? I never seem to hear that explored. Change? Change from what, to what? Please, someone explain to me why so many of our Democratic leaders have embraced a man they know little about, who speaks against "politics as usual" while practicing Chicago machine tactics, who has spent almost half his life under the tutelage of a hate-filled, divisive character like Jeremiah Wright. Barack has got some 'splaining to do before I'm ready to support him, but I don't even DISLIKE him, much less hate him!
You know, I used to say, often in my younger years, that if I'd been born black, I'd have been an angry activist. I never ascribed to violence or hate, but I understood anger on the part of black Americans and sympathized with it. I was also an angry young Vietnam War protester. But as we mature we learn to move forward, to seek solutions, not retaliation for past grievances; and especially as Christians we learn to forgive, seek reconciliation, and try to correct the mistakes we've made. Jeremiah Wright hasn't learned to do that, and apparently, neither has Markos.
It's the "Obama Rules" in action again. And it's not just Obama who practices them.