orichalcum

In 2000, my father-in-law said something that I thought was very smart. He pointed out that perhaps the most important duty of a President was to hire lots of other people to help run the government, and that, therefore, we should judge candidates significantly based on who they chose to help run their campaign and, especially, who their V-P nominee was.

Now, I've been an Obama supporter for about 1.5 years, so I'm biased and admit that. But I'm starting to lose more and more of my respect for Clinton, not because I think she's personally incompetent or malicious - quite the opposite - but because her staff seems alternately clueless and corrupt. They ran through $140 million dollars before February 5th because they didn't envision the campaign lasting any longer, and deliberately lied to the candidate about their lack of funds until things were so desperate that she needed to loan the campaign her personal funds. She doesn't have a full slate of delegates in PA (largely irrelevant for practical purposes, but indicates lack of preparation.) Apparently, they just realized that the Texas system makes it difficult for either candidate to win an overwhelming victory - something the Obama campaign has been briefing precinct captains on for a month.

It's a little startling that there are only two campaigns left- Obama and Paul's- who haven't gone bankrupt and needed to get personal loans at some point in this campaign. Given that the economy is going to be a central issue in the next administration, I like taking that into account.


But today was really the final straw. The Clinton campaign has leaked its plan to start going after pledged delegates to get them to change their votes. Not superdelegates, who have the perfect right to change their minds 80 times between now and the convention. The delegates who we ordinary folks voted for. It is, indeed, technically accurate that pledged delegates are not required, even on the first ballot, to vote for the candidate who their district chose. But it makes a mockery of the entire primary system if they do not honor that commitment to we the people. It's anti-democratic, and the sort of tactics I can't believe we might see in the Democratic party. Why not just waterboard them until they agree to vote for Clinton?
EDIT: The Clinton campaign (as well as the Obama campaign) are now denying any such move, so it may have been a false rumor, although a very odd one if so, and the reporter has been reasonably reliable in the past. Still, it's fair to point out the denial; this may simply be a lot of hot air.

I no longer trust Senator Clinton to be a just and competent President - although I will still vote for her over McCain if necessary. This makes me sad.