Insults, Campaigns, and "Words"

After Barack Obama's 9th straight primary victory in Wisconsin, but before his 10th in Hawaii, Tom Buffenbarger, the president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers had this to say about the Senator's supporters, me included, while introducing Hillary Clinton: “Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.” Insults like this one, aimed at me, those who wear Birkenstocks and the evil ones that drive hybrids, Piss Me Off and are driving me away! As is comparing supporters of Barack, like myself, to cultists. He is not the savior. He is not divine. His policy plans are not flawless. He IS, however, the first politician to inspire me. He IS the first living politician, whose "words" have brought me to tears. The inspiration and newly found pride I feel is real, and should not be ridiculed or insulted, especially by members of the same "blue team". Now I've made no bones about being an Obama supporter, even before he decided to run for President. Looking back, I've done so without much bile aimed at his opponent, except maybe her judgment on the "Iraq vote". And I have aimed none at her supporters. Why has Hillary Clinton and her supporters gone so negative? As she reinvents her campaign and gives speeches about how unimportant speeches are, I wonder if she is grasping at straws. Her campaign's, flimsy at best, plagiary charges against Obama's quoting past leaders and documents with the words "Just Words!" interspersed between them seems to say Yes. Can I legally type "yes"? Someone must have typed that before. But I digress...

Short of super delegates going against the popular Democratic Primary vote, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, if she comes back and becomes the nominee. Her campaign, however, is making that harder and harder for me to do. I'm not saying that she can't make distinctions between herself and Barack. I have no problem with the former first lady comparing her 7 years in the US Senate to his 3. Debating whether or not to talk to Our enemies is fine with me. Discussing the minute differences between their policy plans on health care or the environment and playing up her positives is what her campaign should, and used to, be about. I would love to see a debate about campaigning hard in every State in the Union versus campaigning in just the big states. Since Super Tuesday all we've heard from her campaign are Obama's negatives. But they're not sticking. Maybe it's because they are relatively small. Maybe it's because they have been accepted by his supporters, because their belief that he is the best candidate to change the way things work in Our Nation's capitol simply outweighs them. After all, does the more time you've spent in Washington without any change being felt, make you more or less likely to change things "on day one"? Maybe it's just that people are "sick and tired" of the "slash and burn" "politics of personal destruction" that the 19%-in-chief and rover were so effective at using against Us.

So as I try not to get too "fired up" about the "change" I "can believe in", I have to wonder at what point the Democratic establishment will say "Enough!" and work "with both sides of the aisle" to bring this "horse race" to a close. The new voters on the scene, inspired by Senator Barack Obama's "words", may "turn out" to be more important to the Party than the individual leaders/royalty within it.