Friday, February 15, 2008

Which states matter?

Something that still bugs me about Hillary Clinton's machine is their insistence that Barack Obama has only won in states with relatively smaller populations or where there are caucuses. The races that really matter are the "big" states -- New York, Massachusetts, California (which she has won) as well the big prizes yet to be won: Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

That's a rather smug attitude to have. It is right out of Karl Rove's playbook of dividing the country into "red" and "blue" states. In this case, it's navy blue for Obama and robin's egg blue for Clinton. The notion is, even if most of the map is coloured in favour of Obama, it doesn't matter as long as she has the "states that matter."

Every state matters, Sen. Clinton. Every one. If you win the delegate race in the popular vote fair and square, then fine; you're the nominee. But if you treat people in Missouri, Virginia and Connecticut with that kind of an attitude on the way there, then it says a lot about wanting to be a unifier; especially when your husband was extremely divisive although one of the better Presidents from a technical standpoint. It also says, however, that you will tolerate the continued shenanigans he got away with, if he manages to return to the White House as First Gentleman. And that if there's a flood in one state or shooting in one state or a part thereof, you'll respond; but not if it's in another.

Get a grip. Treat all people in your party with respect, not based on what state they're from.

(And for God's sake, have Bill chemically castrated.)

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

1 comment:

lance said...

So then you're in favour of an equal senate then? Good choice.