I'm reading The New York Times' interesting report on how the Clinton and Obama campaigns are engaged in competing efforts to define what it means to be "winning" the Democratic nomination fight.
From what the Times reports, you'd think the only important things are (a) who has more individual delegates or popular votes or states of various sizes and quantities now and (b) who can potentially win which states in the fall.
In other words, each camp says win means "I've collected a bunch of the parts of the puzzle - and will collect another bunch against McCain - and my bunch of parts is or will be better than your bunch of parts."
My problem with this is it has NOTHING to do with how voters are voting. Voters are voting for what kind of future they think they will get if their candidate wins.
In other words, voters are voting based on expected results. They equate winning with a particular future. That is their definition, and I highly recommend that both the commentators and the candidates recognize that this is so and act accordingly.
And to those commentators - and maybe even reporters too - who have said for quite a while that there's basically no difference between the Clinton and Obama policy proposals, I suggest you take a hard look at the events of the last few weeks. Because you will see - in the monumentally different approaches of the Clinton and Obama campaigns - what voters like me have been aware of for some time. A Clinton administration will be all about fighting the "bad people" in America who need to be defeated; while an Obama administration will be dedicated to finding common ground and pulling America back from being the politically divided country it has become.
And if you don't think there's a difference between continuing the politics of personal destruction the Clinton's learned so well from their Republican adversaries and the politics of generosity and reconciliation that Barack Obama has practiced since he first became a State Senator in Illinois, then I invite you to read the classic book from the Harvard Negotiation Project which was published back in 1981. It's called Getting To Yes. And it's about producing real results when the starting point is that people don't agree with each other (and possibly don't even like each other).
I believe Barack Obama has either studied the groundbreaking work in that book or uses its principles naturally.
So, to all those asking "Who is winning?", I say "The question should really be 'What will the win look like?', because I believe that's how voters are making up their minds.
It's not about a collection of parts. It's about what kind of world one collection of parts - when functioning as a synergistic whole - will give us versus the other.
To me, it's literally about the continuation of war versus the promise of peace.
Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant
In the Partisan Wars, he wants "peace without victory" and believes that only reconciliation and forgiveness can prevent further 'war.'
Hillary wants to win the war and destroy the Republicans and make sure they never rise again, because she believes that they're inherently evil. Think the Treaty of Paris, which only made the Germans angrier, and caused WWII.
It seems clear that Obama has won the pledged delegate race, likely by more than 100. Clinton's only chance is to convince a supermajority of superdelegates that her wins should count more. And since the superdelegates are not limited in how they can vote, there are no natural bounds as to how she can make that argument.
It appears that she has decided that the only way she can get the superdelegates is to make Obama such damaged goods, that the superdelegates, despite despising her tactics, have no choice but to come to her out of desperation. That is the pattern with the praise of McCain, the 3 am call, and the Ferraro nonsense. It doesn't seem likely to work. But she is probably right that she has no other chance.
I'm reminded of the film "Platoon", in this race, a film by Oliver Stone about an idealistic young soldier played by Charlie Sheen, who thinks war will be more like the movies than what it turns out to be once he gets to the steamy jungles of Viet Nam. That's the undecided Democratic voter in all this, the college kid who's barely able to find the initiative to get out of bed, let alone vote. And like Sheen they are naive enough to think, whether or not its true, that they can make a difference.
Sheen is influenced by two veteran soldiers, Elias, a good soldier, virtuous, inspiring, honest, someone who hates having to kill and only does so as the job requires. He's a born leader for he shows no personal agenda save for the survival of his platoon. That's Barack Obama.
The second soldier Barnes, is a grizzled veteran in the field, the by product of years of experience, hardened, ruthless. He'll kill kids if it means advancing his cause, or will turn a blind eye to those under him who do so. Hillary is like Barnes in this respect. Not that she'll kill kids, although authorizing the Iraq initiative allowed for such an unfortunate eventuality, but through her silence, and consistent votes for further funding shows a stubborness, and refusal to even considering she was wrong.
Both men Elias and Barnes are on the same side, in the same platoon, supposedly fighting for the same things. But when Barnes is threatened by the popularity of Elias, and gets called on his dirty tactics, what does he do. He kills Elias.
That's what Hillary did in making that statement endorsing John McCain over Barack. She sold out the platoon, for personal gain. She's all about the win, all about self aggrandizement, and has lost all focus why the Democrats are fighting this fight. And what are the new voters, the Charlie Sheen grunts in the field to take away from her savagery towards a fellow soldier?
Well, not to ruin the movie, once Barnes has dispatched the heart of the platoon, in Elias, he subsequently turns on Charlie Sheen. And attempts to kill him.
Hillary has lost sight of what exactly the Democrats are supposed to be fighting for. She's melded personal agenda with that of the people in this nation, the one's she weeps for, but doesn't realize, much like Barnes just how self serving it is to destroy a fellow platoon member.
She doesn't deserve the nomination for this offense alone. She is a traitor to the Democratic Party for making the McCain endorsement, in essence dooming the party if she doesn't win. The voter disenfranchisement she will cause at the convention if the superdelegates swing the election her way will be irreparable. And not only that hypocritical. You can't say you want to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, under the auspices of giving them their right to vote, while nullifying Obama's majority vote in Denver.
She is Barnes, make no mistake, and Geraldine and Earl Ofari Hutchison are her henchmen, who only worry about their fearless leader's personal victory. They don't care about platoon, if they did the would see the McCain endorsement for what it was, an act worthy of Benedict Arnold.
One word will sink Hillary, if repeated over and over...
Traitor.
I heard Hillary talking about taking government away from special interests - that was really funny since they OWN her. Endorsing McCain, ridiculing hope for change, spinning "wife of" as experience, playing the fear card - all despicable.
Some staunch democrats may want to continue to defend the Clintons - again - but they do so at the peril of the future of the party, and our country.
I am an independent, here because of disgust for republican abuses, but I don't want democratic abuses as promised by a Clinton return.
She knew that it would have a negative effect on the party, since he is clearly in the lead to be the nominee and could be that nominee. Her comment, in context and word-for-word, imply that McCain is more qualified to be presient that Obama. Can't take that shit back.
I heard her tell how she and McCain bring all this experience to the table and Barack Obama brings a speech he made.
That borders on ridicule, and dismissiveness, and suggests McCain would make a better president than Barack.
I suggest you listen to your candidate Hillary " Loose Change" Clinton, and not try to spin her words to mean something less innocuous than what they were.
You should LISTEN to each WORD, and then get back and tell this board she didn't say Barack Obama had a speech he made six years ago.
Or would that be too difficult to admit for you.
Spin, spin spin...