2.13.2008

more political blathering

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

"We didn’t put any resources in small states."

-- Clinton Finance Chair Hassan Nemazee, quoted by the New York Observer, on why Clinton might lose the Democratic nomination.


See, this is the kind of stuff that makes me angry about our political system. That the person with the best strategy wins. I don't know how we change any of it either, but something needs to happen.

5 comments:

tina f. said...

Why is it bad that the person with the best strategy wins?

That seems the whole point to me. How some runs their campaign - their strategy - is indicative of how they will run the country. If you agree with their goals, then you don't want someone who is bad at that kind of strategy (persuasion, tactics) to end up running the country.

It sucks that often those with goals different than mine (Rove, Penn) have the best strategy. But in the end your strategy doesn't matter if you don't convince people to vote for you one way or another.

d said...

ok. i mean, i can definitely see your point there, i guess what i'm saying is that shouldn't it be based more on platform, ideas and even ideals rather than who had the correct foresight to put the right people in the right place. because that's just a guessing game anyway, right?

shouldn't hillary or barack or john be able to win based on what they stand for and what they promise to do, rather than one of their minions saying, 'oh. make sure we really cover the ground in, say, colorado, because that will ensure our victory.'?

Rebel said...

Oh man! I just had the most depressing discussion/debate about this today. As much as I want to be hopeful about the future of our country (I've heard so many wonderful stories from people who got to caucus - it's amazing), he brought up a lot of examples of how rural America is just not ready for a candidate who's not Male White & Christian. I sooooo want to believe better of my fellow Americans. Time will tell.

Michael5000 said...

One obvious way to cut back on that kind of strategizing would be to amend the Constitution and make the Presidency a straight popular-vote contest. That would take away the disproportionate power of the low-population (rural, Conservative) states as well. Tough to get it by 3/4 of the states, though.

d said...

rebel: i agree wholeheartedly. i hope it's not true, but i fear that it is.

m5k: that's exactly what i'm saying. it would make it all so much more fair. opposition says that a popular-vote system would cut out the rural poor who don't have access to the internet or would be too time consuming and/or expensive to be efficient, but i say that's just quibbling and if we really wanted it, we could make it work.