Two polar arguments

Reading Robert Herold of (The Inland Northwest) “Inlander;” he isn’t what you would call very supportive of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he has an excellent reason. He rightly fears that Senator Clinton, in demanding the nomination, would tear up the Democratic party and assure defeat for the Dems by November.

On the other hand, David Broder makes a rather similar argument and you get the impression from reading his Washington Post editorial, that he expects Senator Barack Obama to “concede” to Senator Clinton as she wrests the nomination from him through the super delegate process. An act of graciousness, I might add, that Mr. Broder expects Senator Obama to exhibit, when he is well ahead of Senator Clinton in delegate count. An act of graciousness that Senator Clinton herself has not chosen to exhibit. In both editorials, you see Senator Clinton’s “winning” strategy. But in only one, that of Mr. Herold’s, do you find a more honest assessment.

My take is, David Broder really doesn’t want to discuss Senator Clinton’s winning ugly strategy. He just wants to discuss her “winning” period. For a fellow who once chided President Bill Clinton for a lack of honesty when it came to the Monica Lewinsky story; Broder himself isn’t prepared to take an honest look at Clinton’s “strategy for success.

Herold: Racism was a factor that cost Obama votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Herold: The GOP engaging in cross over votes to try to gain the nomination for Clinton because she makes a better target for the GOP come November. The reason: Bill Clinton.
Broder: The above to be completely ignored.
Herold: The voters in Pennsylvania preferred white woman Clinton over African-American Obama. …Which would certainly argue as Herold did that Senator Clinton’s “big state strategy” would be a delusional act by November. The same people who’d vote for her now; would prefer Senator McCain to her by November.
Broder: Again, let us ignore any of that and focus on what Obama should do in the face of a Clinton nomination. Not that such a nomination is a foregone conclusion.

Conclusion: I highly doubt that Senator Clinton much concerns herself if she destroys her own party. She wants what she thinks she is “entitled to” as a former first lady and now Senator.


2 Responses to “Two polar arguments”

  1. dabinl10 Says:

    nice post.
    may i quote some of the sentences for my own blog?

  2. free car wallpapers Says:

    I love it, baby! Yeah!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: