"Could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum stairs and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'?"

Sen Clinton;

While your critical exegesis of movie-magic has been put forward with great aplomb, I feel your lesson to the political community of this nation was – perhaps – not quite nuanced enough. Though, naturally, I am thoroughly impressed with your acute cultural perspicacity, I am just a thoroughly anxious with respect to your comprehension of your campaign. Indeed, though you have mandated many things over the course of your political career – not always with superlative results – it appears now that you have concluded everything may justifiably fall under your mandate.

For instance, by introducing the jejune cinematic formula of champion reborn, you implicitly assert that the present political narrative is singular: there is one ending appropriate to this campaign (or any election, I would assume), and it is your ending. In full context, your cinematic heuristic proceeds as follows:

Sen. Obama says he's getting tired of the campaign. His supporters say they want it to end.

Could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum stairs and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'? That's not the way it works.

Let me tell you something. When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit.

Neglecting in my response – for the moment – any conversation with your rather ludicrous assertion that Sen Obama has cried fatigue at your expense, I will instead simply present you with an exercise in metaphoric correlation that is – perhaps – slightly more subtle than your own:

Which presents the question: what of the epilogue?

Best.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content

"Sen. Obama speaks passionately on the trail about empowering American people."

Sen Clinton;

Recently, Sen Obama served an indictment to US political discourse concerning race: no longer, he implored eloquently, should racial issues be treated as divergence and distraction at the expense of legitimate political dialogue.

Artfully and appropriately, you've handled this discursive turn with delicacy:

I did not have a chance to see or to read yet Sen. Obama's speech. But I'm very glad that he gave it. It's an important topic. Issues of race and gender in America have been complicated throughout our history, and they are complicated in this primary campaign.

There have been detours and pitfalls along the way. But we should remember that this is an historic moment for the Democratic Party, and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the Presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate.

Despite your momentary ignorance as to the actual content of Sen Obama's much-ballyhooed speech, the celebratory deferral you displayed is worthy of approbation. Nonetheless, the topic to which you deferred is no less surreptitiously divergent than the uproar regarding Rev Jeremiah Wright's jeremiads; indeed, I was disappointed to learn that now you've promulgated a position even more transparent in its attempt to distract the legitimate conversation of these campaigns:

Sen. Obama speaks passionately on the trail about empowering American people. Today, I am urging him to match those words with actions to make sure people of Michigan and Florida have a voice and a vote in this election.

This is a crucial test [for Sen Obama] -- does he mean what he says or not?

Pardon my bluntness: how, in any fashion, is this any kind of "test" for Sen Obama — much less a "crucial test"? More importantly: do you mean what you say or not? If, in this case, you do indeed mean what you say, the contorted corollary of that meaning exposes a considerable fissure in your campaign logic.

First, the competitive methodology you display in this question underscores the complaint, lodged by Gov Richardson in Portland, with respect to the Democratic campaign's recent tonal vector:

I believe the campaign has gotten too negative. I want it to be positive. I think that’s what’s been very good about Senator Obama’s campaign — it’s a positive campaign about hope and opportunity.

And, indeed, you have appropriated what is already a negative situation – for both the Democratic Party and the nation generally – involving the mostly-guiltless voters of Michigan and Florida – and from this negativity have crafted an even-more-inimical situation; this detrimental discourse is directed, once again, at both your own political party and your patris.

Moreover: secondly, and more significantly, you – the self-proclaimed candidate of concrete proposals and kitchen-table concerns – have constructed a massive and unambiguous rhetorical straw-man, which has been deployed in your attempt to augur better outcomes in the final ten primary-season contests. Certainly, it fails to move the operative structure of political discourse "beyond [any of the] static paradigm[s]" which are currently well-entrenched.

My greatest concern, however, is not that your methodology lacks a progressive element; while it is a legitimate cause for disquiet, much more troubling is the acutely negative consequence of your methodological errata. In your endeavor to felicitously navigate the discursive waters of the current campaign, you have promulgated an intensely fallacious indictment of Sen Obama: namely, that he desires to disenfranchise some segment of this nation's voting population – or, at least, that he doesn't desire to enfranchise them "enough."

Most important, you err in attaching any culpability to Sen Obama: not only has he merely followed the delineated rules of your party – to which each of you subscribed before contesting the nomination – but, furthermore, he (like you) has absolutely no legitimate authority or material agency to effect any resolution, whatever its final form might be. You have charged him with a task for which – it is patently obvious – neither of you is equipped, because neither you nor Sen Obama administers the nominative infrastructure mandated by Democratic Party, nor are either of you instilled with any powers of formal oversight. Neither of you elected to accelerate the Michigan and Florida primaries; neither of you selected the corresponding punitive measures placed upon those states; likewise, neither of you are actively or passively invested in watching voters be want of representative votes.

However, it now appears your campaign is actively invested in a matter of candidate-specific convenience: seeing the unsanctioned and inequitable results of 15 January (Michigan) and 29 January (Florida) contribute to your personal vision of the delegate mathematics, while knowing fully that any proposal to organize a secondary (and sanctioned) vote is nothing but an empty challenge – the bait for a subsequent switch. If Sen Obama takes this 'bait', the best result for which he can reasonably hope is better results than those of the invalid primaries; if you are successful with the correlative 'switch', then you would enjoin Sen Obama to advocate a "resolution" which cedes a decided but undeserved strategic advantage to you. From each perspective, the logical fissures and practical flaws are manifold.

In essence: you have purposed a discursive system in which "success" is defined as "impossible" for Sen Obama.

Nevertheless, as you illegitimately impugn Sen Obama's credibility, the truly criminal corollary resides in the untested status of Sen McCain's discursive integrity. Indeed – though he is a mutual opponent of both you and Sen Obama; and though his credibility is less-than-tenable on myriad material issues – at present Sen McCain's viability as a candidate is taken mostly on his personal authority. Yet, as the twin campaigns of the Democratic Party languish at their own hands, the ostensible invulnerability Sen McCain enjoys is the directly resultant condition of your campaign's decision to propagate divisions, distractions, and vacuous discriminations amongst your own [potential] constituents. As you undermine the solidarity of your sympathetic citizens, as you compromise the integrity of their discursive community, you likewise subvert the entire community's ability to defend itself against external and oppositional forces – such as Sen McCain and the opposing party.

Considering the fundamental premises of the opposition's campaign, one might expect such in-credible commentary generated by Sen McCain to elicit a measure of meaningful castigation or criticism from either or both of the two Democratic contenders:

Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate."

Without Sen Lieberman's surreptitious correction amongst the Jordanese, Sen McCain's acute circumstantial erroneousness might have continued unmitigated, being not the first instance that Sen McCain has professed this critical inaccuracy. What is clear, however, is the fact that Sen Lieberman's emendation provides more salient criticism than anything you have proffered regarding the topic: by actively correcting Sen McCain, Sen Lieberman at the very least exposed Sen McCain's state of misinformation. Nevertheless, you have elected not to parlay the auspices of Sen McCain's ostensible ignorance into the promotion of your own well-informed judgment; furthermore – despite the potential propitiousness to both Democratic candidates – you have strategically eschewed any statements which might appear to promote Sen Obama's well-informed judgment.

All of which underscores Gov Richardson's adroit recognition of the larger, contextual campaign that pervades this conversation: the greater presidential and political discourse, which both surrounds and transcends the individual nominative campaigns of the two candidates who still remain amongst the Democratic Party's field of contestants, being determinative of more than political fates of individuals:


The recurrent thematic thrust: to be progressive, division and divisiveness is not desideratum — particularly not at the intra-national stratum of political discourse, which houses the campaign conversations of all three Senators aspirant to the US Presidency.

In fact, it is probable that joining Sen McCain in the discursive space of Chinese political operation would be much more advantageous to the cause of the Democratic Party than unsubstantiated and inflammatory assessments of Sen Obama's "credibility" — especially when Sen Obama has been nothing short of credible with respect to Michigan and Florida. Instead, this smoke-and-mirror strategy of intimating potential litigious action furnishes a clarion exemplar of Gov Richardson's suggested distaste of your current campaign vector; more than distaste, it may breed internal dissent and diffidence, and the artificial divisions you conjure at the very least provide additional fodder for certain divisive segments of the journalistic medium.

And, indeed, both Democratic candidates should be vigilant in their repudiation of infantile yellow journalists (such as Ms Malkin) whose views have polluted the discursive medium of networked news: this journalistic interface has become so necessary (for better or worse) to the discursive political system of the United States, and is therefore fecund soil for the seeds of nefarious discursive manipulations. Clearly – considering the recent history of distortion directed towards Democratic campaigns from without – it is imperative that there exists a unified discursive integrity to buttress the Democratic Party from within.

But, despite less-than-subtle imputations otherwise, your discursive actions and campaigns operations have not reflected a unifying spirit of earnest debate, of receptivity to novel ideas and individuals, of amenability to genuine progress; on this point, Gov Richardson submitted a succinct and considerate exegesis:

I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race. Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.

Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him. He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.

Such progressive and constructive rhetorical contributions stand in stark contradistinction to the pejorative verbiage being broadcast, presently, by certain surrogate components of your campaign. For instance, James Carville categorized Gov Richardson's "betrayal" of your candidacy as such:

Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.

Using the analogy supplied by Mr Carville – in conjunction with your own words – as my heuristic, it would appear your campaign purposes a discursive paradigm in which any phenomenon beneficial to Sen Obama is a phenomenon tinged with "betrayal". If Sen Obama does not crusade to apportion the delegates of Michigan and Florida according to the inequitable and invalid January results, he has "betrayed" the voters in those states; if one of your potential supporters instead elects to endorse Sen Obama's candidacy, that too is an act of "betrayal." It almost appears that, in your mind, any personally-unhelpful or politically-inconvenient condition is held to be a fundamental violation of the natural order of things — as if any given problem for you is not your problem, but a "betrayal" visited upon you by existence itself.

For such a logical abyss, it is quite difficult to find remedy or redress; but, amongst the words of the great feminist-poet Gertrude Stein you might discover some other logic to rectify your campaign's current perspective:

A CARAFE, THAT IS A BLIND GLASS

A kind in glass and a cousin, a spectacle and nothing strange a single hurt color and an arrangement in a system to pointing. All this and not ordinary, not unordered in not resembling. The difference is spreading.

Ponder, perhaps, Ms Stein's poetic proposal.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content

"The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania."

Sen Clinton;

Artful metonymy aside, I believe there are sincere flaws in the argument of your campaign-spokesman, Phil Singer, which I am compelled to bring to your attention; the following, his full disputation:

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania. So if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

Perhaps I have been misguided, but I had been impressed with the notion that the nominative rules of the Democratic Party were delineated in such a way to provide every state a fair say in the nomination? Does your official campaign-position diverge on this issue?

I ask because – while the campaign commentary of Rep Geraldine Ferraro could easily be seen as symbolically re-directing an entire racial community towards the back of your priority bus – the contention of Mr Singer could just easily be viewed as a preferential directive to an entire community of US States, conducting countless less-convenient or less-congenial states rearward.

To your credit, Rep Ferraro has officially retracted herself from the infrastructure of your campaign; nonetheless, she has been equally unwilling to retract any dimension of her inflammatory analysis of voter motivation. Presumably, you saw the vast fissures in an antiquated post-colonial logic which predicates African-American achievement on notions of racial guilt.

However, for the sake of both your credentials and your campaign, you might caution the former Vice-Presidential candidate concerning the volatility encoded in her attempts (and those of anti-Obama conservatives) to portray her victimization throughout this row. Indeed – whether it be the attribution of success to racial demographics, or the disputation of political viability on account of racial profile – to my mind it seems dangerous to allow this sort of discursive discord to fester in any form or for any function; not only is it an unsound political principle, it is a practically untenable political argument.

For instance, the rationalization submitted by Rep Ferraro to demonstrate this persecution is ramshackle and diaphanous:

SAWYER: In your words, let me just ask. The popular vote, 13,033,386 for Senator Obama. 11 senators who know him and know Senator Clinton are supporting him. Do you think they're doing it because they're just caught up in a concept?

FERRARO: No. Because what you've done is you've gone in and you parsed something out of context again. I just think -- I find that offensive. I was talking about historic candidacy. You know, the numbers are there. Why would you call -- wait. Hold on a minute. Why would you call South Carolina so far ahead of time if people are not reflecting about how the black vote was going to come out? Why would they call Mississippi ahead of time?

SAWYER: That was polling.

[...]

SAWYER: Sorry you said this?

FERRARO: Absolutely not, absolutely not. And to be quite frank, it seems to me that the campaign -- and David Axlerod knows me. He should have called me up and said what do you mean by this? And I would have given the full context. I have only said nice things. When I give a paid speech, I don't pick out one campaign over another. I talk about them both. I give one a little bit of an edge, but I'm also fair to John McCain. I'm not speaking for either the Democratic party or candidate. I think, I have to tell you, my concern has been over how I've been treated as well. And I'm hurt, absolutely hurt, by how they have taken this thing and spun it to imply that in any way, in any way I'm racist. And to use it to attack Hillary, because they can't speak about the issues, I find this just appalling.

Foremost, I find her feigned appall disingenuous, if not intentionally divisive; certainly, there is societal precedence for excoriating the rhetoric of white-exploitation, which in a historical or contemporary discursive context does seem "patently absurd." But, Rep Ferraro's self-interested and analytically-distorted "concern" for her treatment also has precedent; in fact, it is a well-traveled paradigm exercised by one of the most ignorant and injurious mouth-pieces in the "news" media, Rush Limbaugh, who said the following about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb:

I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Upon promptly being fired by ESPN (and parent-corporation, Disney Inc), Mr Limbaugh provided an "apology" whose echoes pervade the consternation of Rep Ferraro:

All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something. If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community. [...] the sports media, being liberals just like liberal media is elsewhere, have a desire that black quarterbacks excel and do very well so that their claims that blacks are being denied opportunity can be validated.

Despite Mr Limbaugh's energetic support of your campaign in the states of Ohio and Texas, I hardly think the radio-pundit has the personality or perspective to propel your campaign or to promote within US discourse any kind of positive, progressive political policy. And yet – despite the hedging of Rep Ferraro's factually inaccurate statement that she only proffered these opinions "at a paid speech"; despite Rep Ferraro's personal résumé and persistent reiteration of her pejorative "intellectual" attitude; despite Rep Ferraro's pandering and pathetic invocation media-perpetrated victimization, predicated on some inexorable racial compunction; despite the ouroboros diversion of Rep Ferraro's appeal to "the issues" – despite myriad phenomena, you watch the self-described "purely historical" Vice-Presidential candidate force your campaign to condescend – to capitulate to a discourse fettered to superficial categories and discriminatory distortions.

But, to be quite frank, Rep Ferraro's ploy of rhetorical misdirection – her rubber-glue strategy of placing culpability for this row in the hands and mouths of Sen Obama and his campaign – is so grossly imbecilic it reads as pure farce:

And to be quite frank, it seems to me that the campaign -- and David Axlerod knows me. He should have called me up and said what do you mean by this? And I would have given the full context. I have only said nice things.

I can only presume that your campaign did not feel it prudent to "call up" Sen Obama's campaign to ascertain the context of Professor Goolsbee's actual non-comment vis-à-vis NAFTA because this was a policy issue; nor did Sen Obama's campaign even provide you with ample time to respond to Ms Power's "monster" comment for context, so swift was their punitive action. Now, however, I'm to understand that your unofficial perspective is that – in some fashion – the conditions of this speech in proxy are fundamentally disparate: in this case, your surrogate orator deserved the unequivocal 'benefit of the doubt', Rep Ferraro deserved to be sought for context before a word was said edgewise.

Because of your campaign's excellent recent record of racial discussion? Since that pretext rings hollow, am I not compelled to assume that, even if you disagree with the premise, you somehow condone its propagation — that you do not feel such a blanket dismissal of intelligent voter-motivation is divisive or deleterious to political progress?

Meanwhile, Sen Obama's campaign – other than their censure of Rep Ferraro's campaign "analysis" – has stayed distinctly "on-message" in recent days. In fact, controverting Rep Ferraro's infantile indictment of their campaign operation is Mr Plouffe's discursive exploration of – perhaps – the most significant nominative "issue" at present:

Although we don't think this is the barometer on which the race will be decided, we have a big popular vote lead. Our popular vote lead is up around a million. Which is obviously a significant edge and one they would have a very tough time reversing.

They are trying to hold the popular vote out there because they can't overtake the delegate lead. They are trying to create a diversion there... But our lead is bigger than most counts have it. [In Pennsylvania, however, Sen Clinton is] the prohibitive favorite, they will campaign there very hard. We will try to win but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania.

Indeed, Sen Obama's campaign has exhibited an acute sensitivity with respect to such unilateral prescriptions and normative pronouncements: these statements and sentiments are unwise and unwelcome, and Sen Obama has been wise in his unwillingness to deign into their discursive stratum. The approach of his campaign, instead, has been more systemic, organic, holistic; they have disarticulated conventional political rhetoric of estate and obedience, without forfeiture of progressive and particular rhetorical articulation:

The Clinton Campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania - a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be.

Despite its eponymous address, Sen Obama's campaign properly indicates that Pennsylvania is but "one of 10 remaining contests," and but one of fifty states. And, as the perspectives and persuasions disseminated by you campaign become more and more singular, more and more sinuous, more and more slanderous, so too do the questions about your motivations and your methods grow louder and louder:




Mr Olbermann feels that "you are campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat, and you were the Republican."

I fear that – barring rapid and robust measures to reform the discursive and operational platforms of your campaign – your candidacy may engender more instead of less political dissatisfaction, more instead of less social discord. Certainly, this should be dissonant with the designs of any Democratic candidate.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content

"When you wink and nod at offensive statements you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes"

Sen Clinton;

Based on the events of the recent past, at what other conclusion can I arrive, than that you completely agree with Mr Axlerod's comments vis-à-vis the incendiary words of former Vice-Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro? The events aforementioned, in fact, are precisely these:



Through your exegesis it would appear that rejective and denunciatory language is a critical component of your ethical heuristic: without it, you believe, pejorative and unconscionable discourse in the United States (and, presumably, elsewhere) cannot be combated; this inaction, in turn, permits oppressive prejudice and ignorance not only to persist, but to flourish in full despotism. On these grounds, you claim, your draconian semantic indictment of Sen Obama was not only defensible, but desideratum to the defense of common human decency. And, indeed, you direct us to demonstration of this strategy's success: your own campaign for US Senate in the State of New York.

I ask you now: why controvert the wisdom garnered from this vital experience? Why jeopardize the judgment you've displayed with respect to this lesson and its wisdom?

This seems to be exactly what you have done in merely "distancing" yourself from the campaign commentary of Rep Ferraro, whose subsequent analysis Sen Obama characterized as "patently absurd":

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Besides her distinct misapprehension of grammatical mood in the English language, Rep Ferraro is perhaps most "patently absurd" in opining on the condition of the campaign if Sen Obama were a white male or female – social categories with which Sen Obama does not identify, and campaign conditions which are thus impossible.

However, the distinct misfortune of her commentary with respect to your campaign is not simply its maladroit surface, but the more fundamental social perspective it quite strongly implies. Indeed, it fosters inane harangues such as these, re-buttressing political notions of personal categorization and demographic allegiance; it is not merely negative but, moreover, anti-positive rhetoric. And – from a strategic perspective – even a tacit acceptance of views such as those promulgate by Rep Ferraro risks alienating large numbers of voters, having defined them along such caustic and categorical lines.

Nevertheless, I must say, your response to Rep Ferraro's obloquy was underwhelming:

It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues.

Certainly not the twin-engine of rejection and denunciation you required of Sen Obama. Unmitigated and uncastigated, Rep Ferraro would have us believe that discursive society is punishing her – and perhaps, by extension, your entire campaign – on account of her racial profile; in short, she believes there is undue societal pressure on "whites" because they are not "black":

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

How is it? I think Sen Obama said it best: "patently absurd." Indeed, while racism may operate "in two different directions," I hardly think this bilateral nature is the phenomenon impelling the Obama campaign to repudiate her commentary. No one involved with Sen Obama's campaign is "attacking" Rep Ferraro on account of her race (coincidentally, Mr Axelrod is also white); rather, I believe she has been indicted because her commentary failed to "address reality and the problems" facing the world. Instead, she groused and griped and grumbled, and attributed the whole of Sen Obama's success to his racial composition – hardly a constructive consideration of "reality and [global] problems."

But, if you condone in any fashion the statements and suppositions of Rep Ferraro, you implicitly invalidate the popular "votes and voices" of myriad states, which – at other moments – you have so thunderously declared as sacrosanct. Are the "votes and voices" of some states more sanctified than those of other states; or, is it merely an unfortunate matter of convenience?

Apparently, Speaker Pelosi feels that this isn't the only instance of your having selected the path of most immediate convenience, saying this about the much-ballyhooed "dream ticket":

I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-Chief than Obama.

Perhaps you'll find Speaker Pelosi's insight at least somewhat salient; for my part, I think there is perspicacity present in her appreciation of the difference between short-term and long-term efficacy.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content

"And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida."

Sen Clinton;

I awake this morning to read your commentary on the "crumpled sled" that has become of 366 pledged-delegates and super-delegates in the Democratic Primary:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. [...] And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

But, my eyes meeting these words, I grow concerned – perhaps even more acutely as a displaced Floridian – that you may have ambiguous or ephemeral notions as to the existential state of not having "any choice whatsoever." Not foremost is the clear choice of the corpus subrogatus, those elected and selected legislators and party-officials who impelled the Sunshine State towards primary-season ineffectuality; even more salient, however, is the choice you purpose to remove from the present nomination process.

By attempting to remove all doubt pertaining to the legitimacy of the 29 January results, you yourself promulgate a dubious design: to disenfranchise all those voters who knew on 29 January that their vote had been enervated to the point of inconsequence; to re-silence countless "voices," which were buttressed by well-informed minds and hence abstained from voting – being well-aware of their abject voicelessness on that waning January day. How can you, in good conscience, call a novel caucus a "disservice" to voters, yet petition to have Florida's delegates seated as currently apportioned?

I say, perforce, that this position seems less than tenable, not in the least because it is self-contradictory. It could also be seen as ethically suspect, or at least competitively unfair, that you transgressed your compact with the Democratic National Committee and – prior to the 29 January primary – promised to "make sure Florida delegates are not left out on the street" if you were the eventual nominee of the party. Would you deny that this is easily construed as a furtive but forceful method of indirect campaigning? Does this not represent, perhaps, a contortion of the spirit of your agreement with Sen Obama (and Sen Edwards) to abstain from campaigning in the twenty-seventh state?

Unfortunately, this appears a consistent (and not aberrant) incidence, and indeed it is coincidentally reflected in your refusal to remove your name from the Michigan ballot – in contrast to your primary opponents in that state, whose absence was manifest in the 40% of Michigan Democrats who voted "Uncommitted" even after bothering to show up at the polling-station on 15 January. Compared to Florida, you've been more relenting in your approach to the "disenfranchised" wolverines, but there seems to be consensus within the state that the contest was intractably unfair and predictive metrics reinforce this notion.

Nevertheless, judging from your obstinacy with respect to the Floridian delegates, I fear a critical element has been obscured from (or abandoned by) you: namely, the circumstantial fact that Florida's nominative process was equally marred and muddled by its foreknown absence of relevance. This is even borne out mathematically: Michigan and Florida are the only states heretofore in which Democratic voter-turnout has not exceptionally eclipsed its Republican compliment. In other words: the results in both penalized states are inexorably flawed. And yet, you have pledged to have the Floridian delegates seated at the convention, and demanded they be seated according their current apportionment.

While I appreciate your resolve, I should think you must appreciate the character and context of its effects. For instance: while Democratic voters and party-members "agree that new voting is needed to determine convention delegates for Florida and Michigan," the debate over its function and financing is often rudderless and redundant. But the most egregious of all proposals has been that of your supporter, James Carville, whose "novel solution" involves challenging the Obama campaign to raise matching funds for the purpose of a substitute (and, perhaps, more "legitimate") round of election; in this provocation it is evident that – by advancing the strategic pressure of this financial gauntlet – Carville intends to coerce Sen Obama into paying a price: a fee for having abided by the mandated mechanics of his party's election process.

I agree that the Democratic National Committee erred in the extent of its sanction, allowing the issue of party coherence and control to push their punitive measures to draconian depths (considering the highly bureaucratic circumstances of the transgression); surprisingly, the Republican resolution to the same issue seems much more reasonable. But it is nonetheless desideratum to the idea (and implementation) of political fairness that you consider the significant risk that exists in any attempt to legitimize the circumvention of competitive rules, rules that were defined anterior to the current discursive character of this primary.

If nothing else, you might read these concerns – at the very least – as thoughts to consider going forward. Plus: it looks like it wouldn't be the worst thing to solicit Sen Obama's endorsement.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content

"If you put two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."

Senator Clinton;

Is your husband serious?

It hardly seems the appropriate context in which to prognosticate and proffer such solutions; yet, the notion that you might concede to carrying Sen Obama as your undercard has been ubiquitously promulgated by your campaign. And, in the swooning days subsequent to the primaries of 4 March, the force and frequency of speculations has surged.

Alas, I now fear that there begins to emerge a faintly discernible understructure: the appearance, of concerted strategic program being implemented by your campaign. The outline: to force this collaborative issue continuously into the media conversation, hoping to engender in potential Obama voters the notion that a vote for Clinton is a vote for both candidates.

And – while the message of collaboration is not only noble, but a significant buttress of Sen Obama's campaign – it was upon hearing these words regarding a "dream ticket" that the message began to take on the tenor of machination:

By veiling this assertion of supremacy or broadcast of your blue-chip status in the Buckeye State in the palliative fabric of conjoined candidacy, how can I see your intent as anything other than conflicting? Simultaneously, you (a) extend to Sen Obama the superficial olive-branch of a mutual enterprise against Sen McCain and (b) contend to everyone else that only you and Sen McCain are viably qualified for the Presidential Office:

Obviously, by elevating the "experience" of yourself and Sen McCain, and likewise discounting that of Sen Obama as simply "one speech he made in 2002," you purpose to consolidate your support amongst undecided voters with an eye towards the international security of the US. But, couching this self-advocacy in the advertised consideration of a sharing of position on the November ballot, you impel me towards a question: Is your actual hope to de-energize some component of his support, softening the resolve of some of the less-committed potential Obama voters by distracting them with this idea of a joint ticket?

From my perspective, this is an unfortunate instance of your campaign attempting to manipulate the perceptions of voters through distortion and distraction, as opposed to focusing on the "specifics" you so often invoke – but, recently, so rarely elaborate. And, while you note the "voters of Ohio" in your self-justification of Democratic supremacy, concerns remains – in my mind – for those other states which may not conform perfectly to the eighteenth state. Moreover, it is perfidy to suggest that the states you've won are states only you can win come November; in fact, you might find that the option of voting for Sen Obama as President puts a panoply of "problem" states in play for the Democratic party, even the selfsame Ohio on which your claim rests.

I guess – even if you'd prefer to eschew the current delegate-mathematics, or to haggle over potential delegate-mathematics – I'd only like for you to consider the overall discursive context in which your political operation is localized. Is it at all possible that, at some point, your competitive strategies may not only undermine the position of your current opponent, but subvert your own position with respect to the final opponent in November? Just as Sen Obama's words matter, so too do yours; indeed, whatever past "experience" pervades your résumé, the essential element to this process of candidate selection is the electoral experience of the voter.

Perhaps, then, it would be best for you to refrain from offering the position of Vice-President to Sen Obama — at least until you no longer feel the need to compare him to George W Bush or exalt the credentials of Sen McCain whilst disparaging his as inconsequential or immaterial.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content