My Head Hurts - updated June 2, 2008

New Total Delegates Needed to Secure Nomination - 2118

Watching the coverage on MSNBC of the DNC's meeting in Washington, D.C. is giving me a major headache. Why must we give in to the Clinton camp and count every vote all the while ignoring the caucuses? What are the caucuses, chopped liver? It seems so disingenuous to scream about "counting every vote" while ignoring all the voices that were registered in the only way that residents of those states who hold caucuses rather than primaries have to register their political voices. I don't understand how the states of Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, and Wyoming can be so easily discounted by a campaign camp that claims to care so much about hearing every voter. How can Clinton claim to have more popular votes when by every machination of every analysis except her own she does NOT have more votes, she has fewer elected delegates, fewer super delegates, and fewer states? Her argument that she can win states that Democrats must win in order to win in November doesn't make any sense in that most of the states that she won, are states that Obama can also win, for example, California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida. We may lose West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, but it is likely that Democrats wouldn't carry those states anyway. Obama has strength in western states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Oy vey, I've gotta go take some extra-strength Excederin, my head hurts!

I'm back after taking a short break to sweep my floors, I forgot to mention in the earlier part of this post, how in the world can anybody say it's fair for Clinton to count Michigan as it was exercised without Barack Obama's name even on the ballot? Clinton herself stated back in October of 2007, regarding the Michigan primary: "It's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything." Now she is screaming to "County every vote." Well, what about the uncommitted votes? At least 40% of the votes recorded in Michigan were cast "uncommitted," against a sole name that was on the ballot, (although I thought Kucinich was also on the ballot in Michigan - just to be accurate), so how in the world can she claim a victory in this primary? It just boggles my mind!!!

Here are a few pithy thoughts from long-time feminist and Obama supporter, Susan Blesener:

"For the life of me, I cannot figure out how 'feminism' moves ahead so long as we constantly have to be worried about 'hurting' Clinton supporters' 'feelings.' As I recall, Obama's so-called misogynist 'likable enough' comment followed Hillary's assertion that it 'hurt her feelings' that people didn't think she was likable. Spare me the victim again."

"Clinton opened herself up to potential sexism when she used the moniker 'Hillary' as her campaign slogan. I have always been dismayed that commentators and such refer to both Clinton and Obama by their first names--a classic means of ranking individuals--like children. (I cannot think of a time I have heard McCain referred to as 'John.') However, in Clinton's case, she INVITED the sexist reference and set the tone. And then she used it to foment her victim argument."

"I was pleased that Donna Brazile and another woman talked about the people who DIDN'T vote because they reasonably believed it wouldn't count."
Susan Blesener, May 31, 2008.