Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Really, Hillary?

In St.Paul last night, Senator Barack Obama announced that he would be the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. Only 31 delegates were at stake in yesterday's final primaries, and Obama entered the race merely 4 nods shy of the official nomination. His victory makes him the first Black man to represent a major political party in a U.S. election, a fight that took beating one of the most powerful political families in the country. Meanwhile his opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton (of said powerful family), was announced by her campaign manager before speaking in front of a crowd at Baruch College as: "the next president of the United States of America!" What's wrong with the above scenario?

While jokes of her delusion and frustration with her defiance surface on a confused morning after, Clinton has still refused to concede and place her support behind her former opponent. Her argument, other than the fact that she is more qualified, (dodging sniper fire looks outstanding on a resume), is that she won the popular vote. If that is ignored, she claims, then democracy is being ignored. Clinton has gotten more popular votes than anyone in primary history, and while it is commendable for a woman to claim that title, there is a major flaw in her argument. The flaw, as most of you know, is Michigan. She is only leading in the popular vote, because of Michigan's inclusion, an unfair advantage since Obama was not even on the ballot. Hillary knows that, and still pushes forward, dilluting and disarraying one of the most important moments in Black history in America to date, because of a hauty stubbornness that has nothing to do with the "democracy" that she claims to defend.

She asked him to denounce Louis Farakkhan and he did. She asked that he be more clear about his proposed policies, and he was. She asked that he denounce Reverend Wright and he did, and recently even left the church. She asked that Michigan and Florida be included, and they were. Although only half of the delegates will be seated, he would've still come out victorious if all delegates were seated. In consideration of these things, one can't help but to think that her refusal to concede (and in hindsight, the entire campaign) have all been in wide-eyed lust of power.

Because the republican primary ended in February, the GOP already have a herculean advantage over democrats. They know who's voting for who, they know candidate campaign strategies, they know candidate weaknesses, they know which regional clusters to approach for deflecting votes, and still she hangs on with sharp and unappeasable fingernails, digging the flesh out of everything that unity and humility stand for; risking eight more years of a decreasing dollar, an unstable economy, a desultory war, and much of the unfortunate same.

-Wayetu Moore


No comments: