The Home of Steven Barnes
Author, Teacher, Screenwriter


Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Does Hillary's Florida Win Matter?

Honestly, I don't know. I've heard comments back and forth, on either side of the issue, and frankly, I am too ignorant to sort through them. So that's our question for the day. Comments?

14 comments:

Mike said...

I think probably not, no more than Michigan. She got no delegates from either "victory", and it wasn't exactly a secret that she was running unopposed in both states. So it looks good, but it doesn't mean anything.

Frank said...

Yes I think it does. Unlike Michigan, all of the contestants were on the ballot and she won the popular vote by a good margin.

Sure, there were no delegates awarded but it does show that she has a lot of strength in the race.

And her win may influence Super Tuesday voters next week.

I am still completely mystified though as to what her appeal is.

On another, but related subject, I find this too amusing for words

The head of the New York Chapter of NOW tore Ted Kennedy a new one when she wrote

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”


I also find it quite appalling.

Mike Ralls said...

"No" in the sense that Florida should not give any voting delegates, but "Maybe" because she's trying to spin it so that it makes her campaign seem stronger.

Also "maybe" because in the event of a close vote she will try to get Michigan and Florida's delegates to be able to vote anyway.

Frank said...

Mike Ralls

she's trying to spin it so that it makes her campaign seem stronger.

See, I don't think it makes it seem stronger, it's an indication that it is strong, that's why it's important.

What has to be more worrisome for the Obama campaign is that he soundly took the Black vote: almost 80% in every age catergory, but she took the white vote: not as commandingly, but she didn't need to, there are more white voters.

This primary mattered.

Steve Perry said...

You can bet the farm that both Michigan and Florida's democratic delegates will be seated at the convention. The question is, which candidate will control the convention, and thus which delegates will make the trip. Whatever the committee says about punishing the states for moving their primaries up? It won't hol, come the day.

I saw a black woman interviewed on the news this week from South Carolina, and I think she expressed the essence of how the two frontrunners for the D's are cast:

"My heart says 'Obama,'' she said, "but my brain says 'Hillary.'"

Obama is bright, funny, charismatic and he is offering an upbeat, if sometimes fuzzy, message. A reporter for the New Yorker, after attending a rally for Obama said that what exactly he said didn't stick, but the feeling of hope and possibility did, for days afterward.

Gotta wonder about the message of change when he starts getting endorsements from the long-time pols.
Ted Kennedy has been around longer than fire, so how does that translate into the candidate of change ... ?

Clinton is a political wonk, and her message is more about being CEO and getting things done than of being a focus for aspirations. But she is also smart and anybody who doesn't respect smart and tough women isn't playing with a full deck.

Frankly, knowing how to wield the sword of power is an advantage in my mind -- Jimmy Carter was smart and wanted change, too. Look what it got him.

Either Hill or Rocky can do the job. It doesn't take all that much, as evidenced by the current occupant. (That man told me the sun was coming up in the morning, I'd hurry out to buy flashlight batteries and a warmer coat. He less credibility than a scorpion trying to convince a frog to ferry him across the river.

I have heard that Obama is seriously considering a woman for VP on his ticket, and that would go a long way to easing the consciences of woman voters who wanted Hill but went with Rocky.

And you can book it that if Hill gets the nod, she will pick somebody who will collect most of Obama's votes.

You don't get to this level in the game without some chops, or the ability to surround yourself with people who have them.

Good to see a horse race, though, and not a runaway.

Anonymous said...

Right now no.

During the general election, yes.

The fact that Clinton was there to thank them, (for nothing), will likely be remembered during the general election if she is the nominee.

Sen. Obama had better hope the amusing release from his staff ( it's a tie for delegates, "0 to 0") is forgotten. Florida voters may not care for that kind of humor.

It's ironic that a political party that was wailing and tearfully beating it's chest because a few votes may not have been counted in Florida, is now willing to disinfranchise every single democratic voter in the state just eight years later.

I guess the party got over it, I wonder if Florida has?

John M.

Kukulkan said...

Of course it matters. Although this primary is not the best example, voters are sheep -- "I'll vote for candidate X because X won the primary in New Hampshire." My evidence for this offensive statement? Whenever one of the candidates has a won a state, that candidate's national polling numbers significantly increased. Clearly some people are going to believe that Senator Clinton won the Florida primary. And clearly some of the people who believe she won the Florida primary will be more likely to vote for her because of the sheep effect. You can also bet that Sen. Clinton will frequently refer to the fact that she won Florida (and may comment that she won without spending any money in FL). Finally, the exit polls showing that Sen. Obama won 80% of the Black vote in FL same as in SC is going to cost him White votes.

What's interesting to me is how the MSM is handling the situation. They clearly know that if they state Sen. Clinton won Florida that it will boost her campaign. In my opinion, some of the MSM has been somewhat tepid in the reporting that she won FL. I am not saying that the MSM is doing anything evil here, I think it's more likely subconscious.

Frank said...

voters are sheep

Not a big fan of Democracy?

Anonymous said...

I guess I have greater optimism
than many people; in general
and commenting here:
I don't really believe getting lots of votes from black people
will cause white people to think they shouldn't vote for Obama

too bad the candidates can't just talk about meaningful things
I'd like to see them talk about
how they'd select cabinet members
even cast out a few names of possible ones

suzanne

Mark Jones said...

She's going to try like hell to MAKE it matter. After suckering the other candidates into leaving her alone with the silver, she'll do her best to pocket it and walk out. The only question is whether she can get away with it. If brazenness is all it requires, then--yeah, she will.

As for the NOW statement--is it just me or does that smack of sexism? They utterly discount the possibility that Kennedy might actually believe Obama is the better candidate. No, Hillary has a vagina, therefore she's entitled to his support no matter what? Is that what they're saying?

Kukulkan said...

"Not a big fan of Democracy?" - Frank

The founders were profoundly suspicious of democracy. Hence the electoral college. Hence the reason senators were elected by state legislatures in the original Constitution. So, yeah, I'm not a big fan of democracy -- as I am using the term here.

I am a big fan of republics. I am a big fan of informed voters.

Pure democracy leads to rule by the mob. Hmm, Bill Gates has a lot of money. Let's enact a law giving every citizen an equal share of his wealth. Do you think such actions are unlikely? Review your Greek history. Hmm, Socrates is teaching our sons to ask difficult questions. Let's convict him of heresy and corrupting the youth. Mob rule terrifies me.

If there were some way -- that could not be abused -- to ensure that only informed voters cast votes, I likely would support it. Unfortunately, anything intended to directly measure that "education" is inherently susceptible to abuse (who decides what questions to ask, who conducts the test). This leaves indirect methods like literacy, military service, property ownership, etc. However, these methods are inherently biased (literacy discriminates against the blind, non-English speakers; military service discriminates against the frail of body; property ownership discriminates against the poor).

I voted for candidate X because everyone else voted for candidate X is a good example of democracy -- putting the will of the mob above your own will. Pure democracy is not my cup of tea. You pegged me at hello.

Anonymous said...

Depends on whether she manages to talk the Democratic Party into changing the rules -- retroactively -- to "enfranchise" Florida and Michigan by recertifying their delegates.

After everybody but her kept their promise to not campaign there.


--Erich Schwarz

Frank said...

Kukulkan said

The founders were profoundly suspicious of democracy. Hence the electoral college. Hence the reason senators were elected by state legislatures in the original Constitution. So, yeah, I'm not a big fan of democracy -- as I am using the term here.

I am sorry for my imprecise language: I am not used to people who make this distinction

But you are absolutely correct. In fact, the Constitution doesn't even require people to elect the President: State legislatures do. In fact this is precisely what led to the Florida debacle in 2000 and why the Florida Supreme Court was so wrong.

As a result, I cede the point, with new respect for your opinion.

Marty S said...

I hope it matters. This is a strange year.I, my wife, my son and daughter-inlaw all republicans are pulling for Hillary because we all think she will do a better job of leading the country than all the other candidates will vote for her over any of the republican candidates. This is even though we disagree with her on the social issues and don't like her personally. Based upon this small sample she would win the general election easily, but apparently she is too moderate for many in the democratic party.