With 97% of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won the Nevada caucuses with 51% of the vote. Barack Obama is at 46% and John Edwards is a distant third at 4%.
This presents a quandry for Edwards supporters, and for John Edwards himself. Assuming that if Edwards weren't in the race and every Edwards supporter caucused instead for Obama, the vote difference between Clinton and Obama (which currently stands at 478) would instead be 128 and Clinton would still win, but the race would be much closer. And of course it's moot because by Nevada's arcane allocation standards, Obama won the delegate count 13 to 12.
I firmly believe that Edwards' dismal performance today is less a function of rejection of message than it is a perception, fed by the media, that there are only two candidates that matter. Once that happens, there is a human tendency to want to "get with a winner" -- and the media have been telling us for months now that John Edwards is not a winner.
As I've written before, Bill Maher asked Edwards jokingly back in February whether it was "unfair baggage" that he was the white guy in the race. It was a joke at the time, but there's something to it. At a time when the Republicans are running a bunch of pasty white men who traffic in nothing but fear and loathing, there IS something "some old, same old" about a white man from the south -- for all that not even a year ago, another southern white man -- former Virginia governor Mark Warner -- was being touted by the Democratic party as the Great White Hope.
I haven't been under any illusions for a long time that John Edwards would ultimately be able to fight the more compelling media story of the woman and the African-American man. I've supported his candidacy, even knowing his voting record, because I believe it's entirely possible that one votes differently when one is representing a conservative Southern state than one does when realizing that there has to be a significant change in the way our government works and who it serves. I still believe that John Edwards is the candidate who is mostly likely to fight for things like universal health care and keeping jobs in this country.
I still believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is at heart what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican and that she will do the bidding of her corporate donors. Of the two "front-running" candidates, I think that Barack Obama is the best positioned to represent something different, but I also think he's all too aware of the transformational quality of his own candidacy, and so I expect him to tread carefully so as not to rock the boat -- even if doing so means that the orders to steer the S.S. United States directly towards the iceberg that are being given by the Republicans stand.
So I'm torn as a result of the Nevada result. I believe that the primaries are the time when you have the luxury of voting your conscience. But what do you do when voting your conscience may mean that the candidate you can least support might win the nomination? How is there democracy when the media are allowed to decide which candidates are "for real" and anoint others as having no chance after only two small states have voted? How is there democracy when all that Americans who aren't steeped in politics the way I and most blog readers are know is what the candidates' favorite Bible story is or how faith informs their life or whether they think the Giants or Packers will win tomorrow -- because that's all that's asked of them in debates?
But what does it say that I even feel I need to write this post when John Edwards has picked up 5% nationally in the last week while Barack Obama has dropped 3% and Hillary Clinton 7 percentage points?
Have Americans really received enough easily-accessible information to make informed choices about their candidates?
What does it say about our democracy when robocalls are being made that are designed to make voters identify a candidate with Islamic terrorists?
The Obama campaign has provided NBC News with a recording of robocall that a Nevadan received. The call, first reported by the Politico, repeats the Illinois senator’s middle name, Hussein and attacks his relations with “Washington lobbyists” and “special interest groups.” It makes no mention of Clinton or Edwards.
It's unclear how many Nevadans heard it. The Politico mentions just one who did.
Here's the a full transcript of the roughly 30-second call is below: “Hi, I'm calling with some information about Barack Hussein Obama that you don't know. Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn't take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups, but the record is clear. He does. In fact, Barack Hussein Obama has taken millions of dollars from federal lobbying firms, Wall Street fat cats, big oil and pharmaceutical companies. It's all there on the record, the facts are clear. We just can't take a chance on Barrack Hussein Obama.”
It's unclear who's behiind the robocalling, but you can bet it's neither the Edwards nor the Obama campaign. But what does it say when we hear reports that the Clinton campaign engaged in the kind of thuggish vote suppression tactics in Nevada today that we usually associate with Republicans? What does it say when the art of persuasion that is so important in the caucus structure deteriorates into bullying and intimidation?
With Hillary Clinton representing an increasingly odious prospect every day, and Barack Obama not having convinced me yet that his "reach across the aisle", conciliatory message is going to result in anything other than a bloody stump, what's a Super Duper Double-Dog Tuesday Edwards voter to do?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire