No Nonsense
Winning election at all cost
Win at all cost?
THE November 2008 US presidential election is still eight months down the line, and yet people around the world are attuned to the primary election process in which two candidates are heading for a showdown in the Democratic party's August convention in Denver, with the prospect of unelected super-delegates deciding the eventual nominee a process that the party is trying to circumvent. This year's presidential race is intriguingly exceptional because of its historic nature an articulate 46 year old, charismatic Harvard-educated black senator and a high-powered Yale-educated female senator and former first lady, both contending for the Democratic Party's nomination -- both gender and race wise, a first ever in US history. Amid the day-to-day dubious innuendos, self-embellishing misstatements, and, of course, reciprocal diatribes by the candidates and their surrogates that keep streaming on the TV screen, the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain a Vietnam war hero seems somewhat forgotten and unexciting. While the persona of the two candidates are as contrasting as their difference in gender and race, media attention at home and around the world is equally animated because of the issues at stake -- the economy, the plummeting dollar, global inflation, rising food and energy prices, the Iraq war, and green house gas -- that have both national and global implications. Make no mistake, this election is profoundly viewed as an opportunity for change -- one that may transform America's image from the current "preemptive" warmonger to a presumptive peace maker -- to a kinder and gentler presidency. Columnists and commentators argue that Obama, because of his amiable disposition, is more fitted for bringing about the desired changes than Clinton, who is perceived as divisive, conflicting and, of course, over-ambitious. Sen. Pat Leahy's (and others') recent call to Sen. Clinton to quit her presidential bid has made her even more resolute to steer her campaign in full force. To avoid any potential backlash from such calls, Sen. Obama graciously, and rightly so, conceded that Sen. Clinton had the right to stay in the race for as long as she desired. But there is an arithmetic reality at which a candidate's chances of winning become so low that to pursue the unattainable appears narcissistic, and Clinton seems to have reached that state. Her persistence for the nomination is merely weakening the party's position, and the presidential bid of the eventual nominee. There's hardly anybody who can persuasively argue that Clinton can overtake Obama in either pledged delegates or popular votes. However, her surrogates' stretched spin is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable (USA Today)." They argue that, since neither can wrap up the nomination with 2025 pledged delegates, the eventual nomination should be decided by the super-delegates -- and Clinton is hoping that the super-delegates will hand over the nomination to her as an entitlement -- a daydream scenario unless the party risks all-out riots on American streets reminiscent of what happened in the 1968 convention in Chicago. Many commentators are convinced that Obama's nomination is all but certain. If a lead is insurmountable, then by definition, how can it be small? The rules that make it insuperable for Clinton to catch up -- proportionate allocation of elected delegates that award small net sums to the winner -- are exactly why Obama's lead is insurmountable. If the race continues until the party's August convention, then it may not really matter who wins the nomination -- Obama or Clinton. They have already inflicted mortal wounds on each other, the dirt they've thrown at each other has handed John McCain the ammunition to degrade his opponent with that same dirt. The Republican dirt machines are already oiled and tuned up, and ready to run nonstop to marginalise the Democratic nominee. After her campaign began sinking, I saw the most vicious demeanour on the part of the Clintons. She has revealed herself as a "win-at-all-cost" candidate. Her innuendos and inaccurate statements about Obama are comparable to "below the belt" punches in boxing. Her mud-slinging and refusal to tame her tirades reminds me of the acrimonious BNP-AL politics. What about her husband, and former president Bill Clinton? He seems to be always looking for an opportunity to throw "racially coated" words and phrases. Wanting to win elections at all costs is a common trait of most politicians across all nations. However, in advanced democracies, the efforts are often limited to contentious rhetoric and running and rerunning TV advertisements of rivals' weaknesses and negatives. The Clinton campaign is doing that, but with such nastiness that it seems as if she isn't running against a fellow Democrat but against an equally nasty Republican rival -- which makes it utterly demeaning. Like many of my friends, I cannot accept the possibility of seeing the Clintons back in the White House again because, once honourable people, they have now turned to be not so honourable after all. Their drive to win the election at all cost reminds me of politicians back home in Bangladesh, although the comparison is grossly unfair in any scale of measure. For example, the drive to win elections at all costs by BNP in the postponed election brought the country to the brink of a possible civil war, which was averted by the promulgation of the 1/11 state of emergency. The Clintons have a life-long record of working against discrimination based on race, gender, skin colour, religion, and so on. Now one of the products of that "diversity uplifting mission" has challenged their self-perceived entitlement -- one that would tarnish the legacy of the Clinton presidency -- for sure.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments