Tuesday, May 06, 2008

It is not over until it's over, people

OK, seriously, I was happy to let us all agree to disagree and just keep on keepin' on but one friend too many on the bandwagon has pushed me over the edge. The friend that broke the blogger's silence, if you will.

Let me state this carefully. I'll go real slow-like so you can all understand: Hillary should not drop out.

Now, this has nothing to do with my or anyone's preference for one candidate or the other. This has to do with two simple facts:

1. If you want your candidate selected earlier, have your nominating convention earlier (not in August).

2. HOW in the hell can you punish/attempt to prohibit states having their primaries earlier, and then get mad that the candidate isn't selected earlier? Let me get this straight: you don't want states to vote sooner, but you want the results sooner? Go ahead, tell me one part of that that makes sense. Go on, I'm waiting.


All right then. That's all I've got.

But what I don't got: sympathy for this whole we-need-a-candidate now -so-we-can-unite-against-McCain theory. First of all, who says I'm even going to unite with you? But way to assume there. Secondly, where the bloody wounds were you in 2004, when we (and be "we" I mean "all sane people") really needed to unite against someone(specifically, a demon)? You were off hemming and hawing about John Kerry and still accepting that the war in Iraq was necessary and that Michael Moore was "exaggerating." UGH.

And besides, when you say "unite against McCain sooner" what I hear is "start the endless barrage of attack ads sooner" and quite frankly maybe I'd just as soon wait.

So chill the f out, people. If you're just at a total loss and looking for something to do while you wait to see who the Democratic nominee will be, here are a few suggestions:

  • Plant some flowers
  • Spend time visiting someone at a nursing home
  • Babysit for a couple you know who haven't had a night out
  • Write to your Congressperson about Iraq, McCain, or whatever else is bugging you
  • Make a sandwich with fresh vegetables in it
  • Sing a happy song
  • Walk (instead of driving)
  • Read a novel
  • Volunteer somewhere. Anywhere.
That's just for starters. And all of those things will contribute something positive to the world, unlike all your whining about why a candidate doesn't drop out.


jnap said...

Okay, I know we can and probably should wait until the convention before a candidate is chosen for the Democratic Party, to run against McCain.

I think, early in the political race, I said just that, when I was urged (by someone who shall be pointed referred to) to get behind and support a candidate.... I understand the difference between supporting a candidate vs. expecting that candidate to be the party's nominee...

You are right, it is not over until it is over, and that is the whole point of the process. Candidates (mine or yours) DO NOT have to drop out to unite the party and be sure we wind against the Republicans... REALLY... But let them whine: Because, if the show was on the other foot, who else would be whining?

Kim Diaz said...

This is the best goddam thing to happen to the Democratic party in decades - in my entire voting life! It seems as though we have been sleepwalking through most presidential elections, wrapping it all up before we give the process a shot. This is nothing but GREAT for the Dems - heck for the whole electoral process! We are ALIVE!

linda said...

I see what you're trying to say about me, J, and you're wrong on two counts: one is I don't whine -- I cut like a knife. And two, I never ever EVER suggested one candidate should "drop out for the good of the party." That is the farthest thing from something I'd say. I HATE the two-party system. And I never even suggested that George W. Bush should "drop out of the race" -- I just thought any of you that voted for him were out of your bloody minds!

OK, so that's past reality. Now onto hypotheticals: if you are additionally suggesting that I'd say Obama should drop out if he had one hundred fewer delegates, when neither has the required amount, then you are wrong again. For someone who likes to take her time about selecting a candidate, you seem to be pretty quick to decide what *I* would do!

I repeat: being baffled by someone who is "undecided" is not the same thing as implying the decision should be taken away from them.

Kim - damn right! Huzzah!

jnap said...

In the same spirit, I am sorry, but you do whine... You may not mean to, but if it sounds like whining to me, it is, as far as I am concerned....

Of course, you have not said someone should drop out for the good of the party, but your implication early on that we should pick a candidate and support that one candidate could be construed as just that (yes, really, because one sided allegiance could imply you think the other candidate should not be in the running)...But, yes, of course, you did not imply that one candidate or another should be chosen.

I no more think Obama should drop out than Hillary should: I think they should slug it out down to the wire, so to speak, going into the convention... I really think that is where the decision should be made (and not necessarily by super delegates.)

I think Kim is right: this is one of the best things that has happened to the political process for quite some time.

Is it so hard to understand why people are undecided? Really, there are many of us who are swaying in the wind, maybe going back and forth because of the very good characteristics of both candidates, different but important. These are revealed as the process continues, perhaps to all of our benefits... We learn more and more as time goes on. For some, it may mean a change in whom we support; for others,it means we are even more sure of whom we support. (I have supported a candidate, and so far, have not wanted to change my allegiance, but I do understand that happens.)

Really, though, there are many reasons people are baffled... In large part because their brains are being taxed in ways they have not been taxed in many, many years...

I am glad of the contest: I think it is this kind of thing that helps to stimulate interest and excitement in the political process....

linda said...

We really need to separate these issues.

Issue 1 - why are people undecided in the face of abject evil, to the point that I can't even see a "choice" = 2004 Bush vs. Anyone

Issue 2 - interesting to me that people are often undecided in political campaigns. i, who am indecisive about so many things in life, find it terribly easy to say whether i like a candidate or not. this is interesting philosophically, distinct from issue 1, and further distinct from...

Issue 3: ...which is should Hillary (or Obama) drop out of the race for the good of the party? (Answer: no)

Issue 3A: "Construing" liking one candidate far more than another and wanting my preferred candidate to win at all costs as being equal to saying one should drop out seems akin to "construing" liking one team far more than another and wanting it to win a baseball game at all costs as being equal to saying the game should not even be played because the other team should just drop out. Who would say that? It's bizarre.

Issue 4 - your unilateral definition of whining. what's up with that?