Wednesday, May 21

Seen Around the Web

What is Clinton's argument now? The Politico
Last week, Clinton won West Virginia by an incredible 41 percentage points — a quadruple landslide! — and since then Barack Obama has picked up 22 superdelegates and Clinton has picked up four. And when you are in a place where your victories don’t matter, then you are in a very bad place.

Missing: One Concession Speech, Times of London
“We have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in America,” he said. And yet, there was still something missing. A concession speech by his opponent.

Clinton's Claim, The New York Sun
Her claim rests on arguments vociferously and passionately put forward by Democrats when Vice President Gore lost the general election to George W. Bush by a whisker in 2000. The lesson of Gore 2000, Mrs. Clinton suggests, is that in a true democracy it is winning a majority of the popular vote that should be paramount. Any other way of gauging public opinion, such as the disproportionate system of allocating electoral college votes that doomed Mr. Gore in 2000, must come second to the simple Jeffersonian notion that the person who wins the most votes should be the victor. She has a point.


The Gang's All Here! said...

I find it interesting that she never complained (that I can find in her voting history, etc.) about the electoral college vs. popular vote BEFORE Gore's loss. And I have to assume that by then, she already had her sights set on her own campaign. In the meantime, she's not done anything in her years of public service since then to reform or speak out about the system till now, when it even more directly affects her campaign. On a few levels, it does feel like sour grapes to me. For the record, I've always had a bit of a problem with the idea of the electoral college vs. popular vote, since I studied it in jr. high. But I'm not running for anything . . .

Jessi said...

I could be wrong in my understanding, but I think it's interesting that she's referring to a "true democracy", when, in fact we, the U.S. of A. are not a democracy but rather a republic.

I read a little bit on a democracy vs. republic...which it seems the reason for setting a system up this way is the protection of the people, and to have everyone best represented. So, it's sort of just too bad if it doesn't work in the best interest of the politician, I guess. And I agree with the comment above in that, if one is TRULY concerned about the way the system operates, they should take the opportunity to pursue getting changed. If your motives are pure and you have a good argument for doing so (and not just 'sour grapes' or for personal gain) then I'm sure the reform process would do well. (Then again, politicians calling for change in a political process in a time that it would benefit them seems a bit shady...)

Shauna said...

Not that I am opposed to her dragging this entire process out as long as it will go; but, I don't understand her motivation. She knows that we have never elected someone based on popular vote, but on delegates/electoral college; certainly she can't think that America would change their voting practice (that's been that way for decades) just for her? I absolutely agree with Jessi that this seems shady.

In my opinion, I think it's a case of "If I'm not going to win, I am going to sink everyone with me."


blogger templates | Make Money Online