Advertisement

Clinton defines why Democrats lose

April 19, 2008|By JONATHAN R. BURRS

It seems as if conversation, friendly debate and even controversial debate regarding this year's Democratic presidential primaries waits around every corner. The Democratic primary race between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has generated more interest, regardless of whether the person is Democrat, Republican, Green, or Independent, than any other primary race in the last two or more decades.

It is almost surreal, the high level and diverse inquisitiveness into this year's presidential campaign. Even in the workplace, where it is normally taboo to discuss politics, people feel compelled to discuss their political opinions about the race for the White House.

Last year, I wrote a controversial piece explaining why I thought the liberal right, more commonly referred to as the Democrats, were losers, explaining that my opinion about Democratic leaders was that they are no more than whiny, weak leaders. This stirred the pot of controversy and prompted at least one Herald-Mail reader to write a letter to the editor arguing how the Republicans were not exactly winners either. Three lessons learned from that experience: 1. Straight talk politics, regardless of the source, be it Tim Russert or Jonathan Burrs, will almost always offend someone, somewhere. 2. Political facts do not necessarily supersede political perspectives. 3. There is a fine line between being a criminal con artist and a bamboozling politician.

Advertisement

I am almost certain that there is someone out there in need of the definition of a "bamboozling politician." A politician who refers to a lie as a mistake, for example, claiming they came under sniper fire in a foreign country when the other eye witnesses say they did not and there is video surveillance proving they, in fact, did not - bamboozling politician. Another example is a politician who defends a vote, which supported use of the military in an armed conflict on foreign soil against an alleged enemy without a declaration of war from Congress and without that enemy posing an imminent threat of danger to the U.S. - bamboozling politician.

With each passing day, Hillary Clinton gives more people a reason to back either Barack Obama or John McCain. Recent voter surveys indicate Clinton's support has reached a personal campaign low of 37 percent, which most political analysts attribute to mudslinging tactics against campaign Obama as well as the somewhat unpersuasive ideological direction she would lead the nation in as the next president.

Still, Clinton trudges on, seeking to secure her party's nomination with as much chance of being successful securing the party nomination and winning the general election, as the Bush doctrine's policy in the Middle East has of garnering widespread support throughout the Islamic world.

Indeed, if Obama were in Clinton's position, trailing in both popular and pledge delegate votes, more pressure would be being applied for him to drop out of the race and at least show superficial party unification going into the Democratic national convention.

Nonetheless, the Democrats continue to divide and self-destruct, while the true opposition - the Republicans - come together united, supporting the candidacy of a vulnerable political journeyman with questionable foreign policy judgment! Way to go Democrats! Party of winners, huh? I am not convinced.

In my opinion, the antics of club Clinton are symptoms of an organization lacking a logical campaign strategy. Without a viable strategy and only theoretical views for the direction of the country, the campaign strategy ends up being "define the opposition in a negative light before the opposition can independently define itself in a positive light."

Well club Clinton, I've got news for you; after witnessing President Bush successfully apply smear strategies against McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, leading the country into economic peril, open-ended wars in two countries, military strife at home and abroad, dividing a nation more so than unifying it, squandering surpluses creating the largest budget deficit in U.S. history, and nearly doubling the national debt all within an eight-year period, most Americans tend now to reject such dubious behaviors.

Nonetheless, Clinton seems bent on causing Sen. Obama to lose, given the undeniable truth that she simply cannot win. What a team player. Or is that tiam player? Silly me, team does not have an "I" in it. Maybe one of those "winners" in the Democrat party could inform Hillary of this fact!

Jonathan R. Burrs is a Hagerstown resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

The Herald-Mail Articles
|
|
|