for the good of the party, just go away
by Shane Nicholson
Published: June 7, 2008
For the good of the party. The rallying cry of most fringe political groups; the call of any respected totalitarian regime, right? But how about that of a party struggling to find its identity in a two-party system? Doesn’t seem to fill the bill.
But that simple ideal, that call to arms, is where Democratic voters and prominent party members alike have failed to see eye-to-eye lately. Go with the clear winner, one who, with a message of change and the promise of a better future, could unite a country that’s been politically fractured. Or continue to throw support behind a candidate who, when the chips were down and the path looked rough, resorted to tactics usually reserved for those more closely affiliated with a certain former aide to the Bush White House.
I can’t blame Hillary for trying to take it to the death. She fought the good fight for a long time and has been an exemplary representative of not only her own constituents but the party as a whole. I can’t imagine what it feels like to come so close to something that important and know that it’s just out of reach.
But what I can blame her for is slagging off the candidate who looked certain to clinch the nomination weeks ago. I can blame her for trying to wrangle the system in her favor by forcing the DNC to revisit decisions made and punishments handed down before the primary season had even begun. I can blame her for aligning herself with the GOP on critical issues, weakening the very base we’ve worked hard to build amidst the hateful fury and anger of a Republican-controlled government over the past decade and a half. And now she has the gall to ask us for forgiveness and anoint her the chosen one, only this time she can settle with being number two, to follow Obama’s powerful and elegant charge to the poll position of the post-Bill Democratic Party.
Well, I’m not buying it. Her antics down the stretch were disgraceful, her rhetoric shocking at times. She told us she would fight to the end no matter what the consequences and now that it’s clear there’s simply no fight to be had, we’re supposed to forget the ugly and bitter nature she displayed as the race wound down.
Obama’s campaign has been one focused on a message of unity, one based on the promise of change. But Hillary showed us that, at least for a time, neither of those ideals truly mattered to her. For the good of the party? For her it was everything but, so why will it be any different now?
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
June 13th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Hillary’s future in the Democratic party is over. Yes, she may get re-elected and piddle around in New York but, thank heaven, her national career is dead.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I am still surprised that people didn’t see this coming. Hillary has always been the cojones behind the Clinton machine and no-way was she backing down from anyone. Whether the party split or just had a heated momentary seperation means nothing to someone who only cares about herself.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Im glad hillary stuck to it till the end. Competition brings out the best for the people.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
But if competition is to be praised for bringing out the best, why do the Democratic candidates and others from the left consistently let govt. get in the way of competition?
July 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
so that monopolies dont shift the supply curve left, decreasing the quantity and increasing the price. In a perfect competition, companies produce unti marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Price = MR = MC. What happens in a monopoly? They have their price way higher than the point where MC=MR. This results in the least form of competition, hurting the american people.