Sunday, March 2, 2008

Beyond the Title


The Georgetown Voice is one of my favorite student-produced news sources. In fact, alongside RealClearPolitics, CNN, ThePolitico.com, and a number of other websites and newspapers, The Voice has a special place in my election news and opinion lineup.

There happened to be an editorial entitled "Clinton Shouldn't Fake Comeback" in this past Thursday's online edition, and it caught my attention.

Quoting the editorial:

Her actions, far from showing compassion for the disenfranchised, betray Clinton to be calculated and contemptuous of the DNC’s agreed-upon procedure.

Clinton’s divisive tactics are the last thing Democrats need in the 2008 election. Instead of in-fighting and backroom deals, they should be striving to live up to their messages of hope and unity.


At first read I completely agreed! The Democratic Party has been unable to translate popular support into electing a Democrat to the White House the past two elections, and the Democratic nomination being decided by superdelegates overriding pledged delegates would be horrible for the party.

But then I hit the spot where I usually drop off in these arguments—when Hillary is said to be the "delegate-grubber" and selfish politician while Barack Obama is, according to the Voice's editors, "striving to live up to message of hope and unity."

I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks this way anymore. If Barack Obama was losing the nomination and wanted to get the delegates from Florida and Michigan (assuming he won those two states), I feel the media would sympathize with his intentions to enfranchise voters and unite the country, not break the US down into states counted by a political party and states ignored by a political party.

I know Hillary Clinton wants Florida and Michigan to be seated at the convention because she won those two states, not because she's fighting for voter enfranchisement, but would Senator Obama be as highly criticized as Ms. Clinton if he was in need of those two states' delegates?

Clinton is desperate now, but can 'Hope' ever be desperate too?

No comments: