In my humble opinion, the writer we know here as Gatemouth, loves to be the irascible joker at times, as a way of refusing to face up squarely to opposing arguments or columnists. His Houdini-like intellectual tricks are all meant to derive some perverse pleasure from his mental masturbation exercises; he is also a provocateur par excellence. He engages on his terms only, and he tries to use verbal inebriation as a cop out when he is cornered. He is also a recalcitrant school-boy type, who loves to escape from reality with verbose exposes that sometimes border on the absurd. He rarely ever apologizes; but that is Gatey, and that’s why we still read him, I guess. Most of us like him a little bit, and tolerate him a lot more, exactly because of who he is: pain in the ass and all.
He also has this tendency to play intellectual cheap-tricks, seemingly oblivious to the fact that tricks are for kids. Pulling abstract metaphors (which can hardly be reified) out of his academic cap is meant for impression only, not for edification of any sort; but he needs to get serious about being a worthwhile columnist on any meaningful political blog; and I say this with goodwill. Blog-writers like Mole, Michael Bouldin, Larry Littlefield, Natapol, and others as serious, will eventually (if not already) command more respect than Gatemouth, every day of the week. Gatemouth’s keen intellect could (and should) be put to better use.
Despite his charm, wit, warped sense of humor, and at times a penchant for brilliant historical analysis of things that are political in nature (especially in New York City’s politics), he often comes over as an intellectual court-jester; much to my dismay. And he can be as petty as any fickle soul you may encounter; with a propensity to be mean also. If you let him, he will piss you off for no real reason sometimes; but he enjoys all this. I don’t think he plays with a full deck, but what do I know: I am no shrink. He could better serve Room Eight-New York Politics, the Daily Gotham, and/or any other website(s) that showcase(s) his writings, by getting serious about his columns (commentary) on real issues. He is talented; so I offer him an opportunity here. Let me preface all this by stating clearly, that I have no evidence whatsoever (nor suspicions), that the Clintons had developed (or even considered) any plans that aimed at causing any bodily harm to Barack Obama. In fact I am inclined to believe that the worst case scenario involved exaggerated speculating in moments of “piss-off-ness” after losing some primary or caucus, half-assed semi-playful wishful thinking, and/or angry/derisive/caustic what ifs, during down time. Despite their many human flaws and failings, they seem much too intelligent to even consider something as bizarre as some kind of physical attack on BO.
When I e-mailed my last column to Gatemouth, he responded by suggesting that Hillary Rodham-Clinton didn’t mean what I gleaned from her remarks. He even wrote a bizarre column which seemed to imply his position. Once and for all, I want him to clear it all up; fully. I want him to amplify his position for all of us to see and hopefully understand. Hopefully he would also use simple English and not evoke his Chaucerian roots.
I believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton had been calculating for sometime now, that “something cataclysmal” could happen to Barack Obama and/or his candidacy, and that if such a thing happened she will benefit. That’s why her minions went up on the talk shows stressing that we should all: “wait”. And that we should be in no hurry to call the obvious: that she couldn’t surmount Obama’s delegate lead (I called this way back in February/go see my columns). This was the main justification for her staying in the race this long. This is exactly what she articulated, by her “remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June” remarks. One of the political calculations had to do with the possibility of Obama being assassinated. And that if such an event took place, she will then become the Dems nominee. As such she chose to stay in the contest, despite the overwhelming evidence that she could not obtain more pledged delegates than he, at the end of the long nominating process, on the third day of June, 2008.
She didn’t give a damn about those of us who as democrats, felt that she was damaging our nominee. Many aired their concerns for her “deflowering” of Barack. She seized on the “Rev. Jeremiah Wright” issue; she also jumped on Obama’s “bitter” comments. She was especially brutal when she said that both senator McCain and herself, had the requisite experience to be president, but Obama only had a speech (anti-war). Then she even went further by saying that he can’t win the vote of hardworking white people. Then both she and her husband Bill said that he couldn’t win the general election. Is it surprising that in recent polls, Obama’s negatives are now up at an all time high?
She didn’t give a shit when many explained that what she was attempting to do was divisive. How could you ask the super-delegates, to tell the winner of the pre-convention process, that he wasn’t going to be the party’s nominee? Could you not see the potential damage to the party? And what about race relations? And what about the new young voters (most of whom are white)? And what about the rules of the party that were ignored by the Texas and Michigan chapters?
After each contest, her chances kept fading. Where it was a matter of wining sixty per cent of the remaining pledged delegates in March (in order to at least be on par with Obama’s delegate count at the end), that later became seventy percent; then eighty, then ninety; and by the time she faced the editorial board of the South Dakota newspaper (last week when she made her now infamous remarks): she couldn’t surpass him even if she won all the pledged delegates left.
Look; if you are in a boxing contest deemed for 10 rounds, and you drop (lose) every round up to the end of the eight: then you are far behind on points. Fact is, it will be then mathematically impossible for you to win the fight on points, no matter how well you perform in the last two rounds. You see points are awarded in a range from ten to seven per round; no more, no less. So if the television announcer comes to you, and asks why you haven’t let your corner throw in the towel (to signal your concession/discontinuation), your answer would be simple: many boxers (even ex-champions) have been known to get knocked out in the last round of many a contest. You see a knock out will be the only viable path left to your victory. And of course the person whose knock out you will obviously be referring to, will be: your opponent. He or she alone, stands between you and victory. This was the exact position Hillary Clinton was placed in last week; and the person whose assassination she was implying would be beneficial to her candidacy (and eventual nomination/victory), was Barack Obama.
Let’s not kid ourselves folks; let’s not be stuck on stupid: Hilary’s “assassination” response was as honest an answer as we could possibly ever get from her and/or Bill. In my estimation, this was something that they must have been considering (even playfully or in a jocular way) at some point(s) in the immediate past. And a coldly calculating and pragmatic mind would even ask: why not?
The ease with which she responded to the question, showed some pre-thought on her part. In the past, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have displayed an unquenchable thirst for power. They have both exhibited a psychotic lust for prestige and control. They have shown a deep disdain towards losing anything political. So is her reply to the question, really a surprise to many of us? Remember, she has brought up Bobby Kennedy’s assassination at least once before during this race. She has also mentioned John F. Kennedy’s presidency more than once.
When Hillary was asked last week, why she insists on staying in this race, avenues for plausible responses were closing down. After all, she knew that she couldn’t surpass Obama’s pledged-delegate total and lead. Further, the steady stream of super-delegates coming out for Obama since last February, had eviscerated her 100 plus super delegate lead -one she had held for more than a year. These undeniable facts were decimating her super delegate lead argument. Plus, the lead in “vote totals” argument, that she and Bill were desperately peddling, had big holes in terms of reason and logic. For one, Michigan and Florida didn’t count, under the pre-arranged and pre-agreed (and she did agree) rules of the party. Also she had lost the vote-count in Texas (and the state delegate-count too), given he won the night caucus, and in so doing: more delegates than she. Wasn’t Texas supposedly her “last stand”? Didn’t Bill Clinton say in his own words, that “if she doesn’t win Texas, she cannot be the nominee”? But then, is he credible anymore?
Look, you don’t win the nomination because you have a higher vote total after all the contests; you win because you have more pledged delegates than your opponent(s); and this usually comes about by winning more primary and caucus states. Obama has done this; he has won almost twice as many contests. It is time for the Billary Clintons to show some respect for the history and integrity of the presidential nominee-selection process. It is time for them to display some political dignity, honesty, decorum and honor.
Beyond all this, the argument that she was winning the recent polls -showing that she would be better against John McCain in the November general elections- was as laughable, as the polls themselves last November. Those polls showed her winning every primary and caucus, in every state polled. Maybe these polls were done by the same pollsters; the ones presently showing her defeating McCain in all the swing states right now. What is mind-boggling to me is the number of supposedly intelligent people, falling for these “polls in May” arguments, that are being peddled by the Hill-Billy Clintons. Yet, some people fall for another silly argument: that if Michigan and Florida is punished for breaking the rules -and thereby not fully seated- democrats (voters) will stay away from the general election (reverse-punishment/lol). Some of Billary’s minions even suggest that many will vote for John McCain (as if the republicans didn’t punish these states also/lol). I swear some people are stuck on stupid.
Polls taken in May are as meaningless to the November elections, as winning big states (but losing the pledged delegate count) is to becoming the eventual Dem nominee. If these polls count, then we could as well scrap the primaries and caucuses; just take a poll in May every four years: that will determine the party’s nominee. Think of all the money we will save. Think of all the problems we will avoid. Such a simple and brilliant idea: and to think we owe it all the Clinton’s desperation. No need for voters; no need for elections; no need for democracy I guess.
And how many presidential candidates were leading in the polls in May or June, and still lost in November? I guess none/lol. Look, polls don’t win elections; you win election by securing the most voters on the day of the contest. Tell that to Mike Dukakis. Tell that to Hillary Clinton, and then explain why she is on the way to losing more than 33 contests.
After all, amongst the other absurdities in “Clintonian-think”, are small states, caucuses, early primary victories, big states that Obama won, Obama’s voters/supporters, black people/voters; all these things don’t count, they don’t matter. What matters are Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,Kentucky and hard-working middle-class white voters. What matters at the end of the process: Hillary Clinton must be the nominee; even if Obama is dead (even by assassination).
Given the question she was faced with, Hillary Rodham Clinton had to articulate reasoning beneficial to her decision to stay in the race -despite and/ or beyond the obvious. These reasons had to be beneficial to her candidacy and its potential for becoming the party’s nominee, even at this late hour. So bringing up the assassination had to mean something towards her benefit; and whose assassination would be beneficial to her campaign: only Obama’s.
Barack Obama was the last candidate standing in the way of Hillary Clinton’s (entitled) victory. And like the boxer I alluded to earlier: this time, the path to victory was over his dead body (not just by a knockout). Referencing the assassination would be meaningless unless there was something (or someone) that put it into context; that something or someone was (again) Barack Obama. Perverse as it was, it was a plausible explanation.
Look, if Hillary can publicly articulate that assassination is in the calculation -relative to staying in the race- then she can definitely wish it as a reality (albeit jokingly). Why not? Just like the boxer I alluded to earlier; Obama in this case, is the only impediment to her presidential desire. If she can articulate that the possibility of an assassination (and who else’s could she have meant), is enough grounds to justify her staying in the race, then what else could be in her delusional mind? Maybe to her, the Gods (or forces) are eventually going to guarantee a win.
There was no other reason to bring up this assassination; none. Especially as it relates to how this question was framed. She had many other options for making her point: that some nominations go all the way to the convention. For example, she could have cited Ford v. Reagan in 1976; or Carter v. Kennedy in 1980; but she didn’t. That’s why eighty-six percent of all those who responded to a New York Daily News online survey (over one hundred thousand people I am told), said that her remarks were totally inappropriate. After all, given the history of political assassination in this country (Garfield, Lincoln, King, two Kennedys, Malcolm and others), and given the various attempts at political assassination (Wallace, Reagan, Ford and others); you would think that a presidential aspirant would have banished this word from her vocabulary long before the New Hampshire primary.
I find her remarks to be offensive, depraved, deplorable and inexcusable. These thoughts are best kept to oneself; in some deep dark vault way down where the “bad” angel of your soul resides. Given the fears for Obama’s safety all through this campaign, Hillary Clinton made possibly the most insensitive remark ever made by a presidential candidate in US history. Those who are now trying to defend her remarks with revisionist history, are suggesting that she actually meant to contextualize the length of this year’s primary season to the one in 1968; they must know by now, that back in 1968, the primary season started in March; this year, we started first week in January. And as to her 1992 reference, Bill Clinton had effectively locked up the nomination in March, and had many of his supporters (including elected officials and media types) calling for an end to the contest with Jerry Brown. All this was done in hopes of party unity. How ironic?
Maybe Gatemouth – my fellow columnist and hopefully my Denver travel companion- could shed some light on all this; maybe he can illuminate and/or elucidate the reasoning that exonerates HRC; until then I stand by what I write here. And I think HRC should get out now and spare us democrats anymore embarrassment. Someone recently said, that to the democratic party, she has now become a drunk; staggering on an underground New York subway platform, waving a gun with shaky fingers, while angrily seeking a target. Can someone please make a citizen’s arrest?
Stay tuned-in folks.