The cover of the newest issue of TIME magazine says it all:
This definitely has some weight, as TIME is one of the (if not THE) most respected news magazines in the world. Inside, there are several articles pertaining to Obama's candidacy, as well as one titled "The Mistakes She Made," all of which stand to crown Obama as the Democratic Party nominee.This issue comes amidst new reports that Obama has virtually erased Clinton's superdelegate lead - what was once a gap of 106 superdelegates is now a barely visible divide of 4. There is also speculation as to the possibility of Obama helping Clinton pay off her campaign debts - a traditional sign of good-will between warring candidates.
To sum up my take on all this in one word: YESSSSSSSSSS!
;)
Sprinkles.
14 comments:
by beginning of the end do you mean end of the democratic nominee race or end of the world?
because #2 is much more appropriate.
uhm, if we survived Bush, i think we'll do fine with Obama... though it is kinda sad that even Vassar students can't see who the best candidate is, being that we're supposed to be among the brightest of our generation.
9:12, I assume you mean you think Hillary would be the best.
I respect your opinion, but I feel that the way you phrased it is derogatory at the very least.
Who knows who would be the best president?? No one. I'll give you an example: Bush. At one point had approval ratings of 80%. Now under 30%. Only with time can anyone tell who would be the best pick out of the three candidates.
I think it's time for Democrats to put aside the bullshit and get ready to kick ass in November, regardless of who the nominee is.
I here there's a big party in January in Washington, and I'd like it to be held in my candidate's honor.
Hear**, even.
Stupid finals.
Although I'd prefer Obama over Hillary, I really think this was kind of tactless on Time's part. The candidacy, though most likely going to Obama, was not fully decided, and this magazine will surely sway the voters. If they had printed that Hillary was going to win, the same thing would happen in Hillary's favor.
I agree with 11:47. It's also hypocritical of Time because earlier in the race the editor had published an article denouncing the media's tendency to endorse specific candidates despite the fact that the media should aim to report as objectively as possible. While I'm well aware this is only an ideal by which many news sources fail to abide, I feel that if Time's going to saddle itself on the moral high-horse, it should make sure its own actions are consistent. And while this issue isn't necessarily an official endorsement, the effect is virtually the same as you explained 11:47.
Honestly, it has been [almost] a statistical improbability that Hilary would win for a long time now, and the fact that Time is reporting this now is in my opinion a very reserved decision. Is it really so bad that Hilary loses? Jeez.
In no way is this "very reserved" of Time. "Very reserved" would be waiting until Obama reaches the required amount of delegates. "Very reserved" would be waiting until the DNC satisfactorily resolves the issue of Florida and Michigan. "Very reserved" would be waiting until August.
9:50, what makes you think that Florida and Michigan hasn't been resolved?
The DNC warned those two states that if they moved up their primaries, they'd lose representation at the convention. They did so, knowing fully that they would lose their delegates, and got punished.
I understand the position of those disenfranchised by it, but really, they only have their elected officials to blame.
Because throwing out millions of votes in a DEMOCRATIC process for the DEMOCRATIC party is unacceptable.
I'm well aware of the circumstances that surround the decision. And while I agree that the citizens of Florida and Michigan have only their respective state representatives to blame, I don't think it's all right to penalize the entire state and undermine the democratic aspect of this process.
So what do you think would be a just punishment then?
I do think that it's extreme, but they were given fair warning and flat-out ignored the rules.
The circumstances would be different if they were told "Don't do that" without promise of what the consequences would be, and then out of the blue they lost their delegates. That would be uncalled for.
If they do get their delegates back, it would amount to this: A kid is told by his mother: "Get your hands out of the cookie jar, or no ice cream for you later." The kid doesn't take his hands out of the cookie jar, and continues eating cookies. The mother lets him finish eating his cookies, but then at dessert doesn't give in to his demands to have ice cream. The kid whines and begs and pleads so much that she eventually gives in.
The seating of Florida and Michigan delegates would undermine the power of the DNC, and would encourage other states to move their primaries up as well. It would set an ugly precedent for the democratic process.
That's a poor analogy because it doesn't take into account the citizens' lack of agency. Again, as you said, the fault rests on the elected officials, not the people themselves. Therefore, your analogy should sound something like this.
"Get your hand out of the cookie jar, or no ice cream for ANYONE in the family later."
The mother should be punishing the kid who kept eating the cookies, not the entire family.
And simply impeaching these officials would establish enough of a precedent so that other states won't repeat this problem in the future.
There should be a colon at the end of the first paragraph, not a period. Sorry.
Post a Comment