Late bulletin: The Green Mouse is reporting that former city council powerbroker (powerbooter?) Larry "King Larry" Kochert has informed Baron Hill's staff that the congressman's endorsement of Barack Obama has cost Hill the support of Kochert, and furthermore, the retired grimace will seek to bring his powerful political legions to bear against Hill. Wise move on Hill's part after all, wouldn't you say?
As we count the hours until the merciful conclusion of yet another Derby season, next week's primary draws ever closer, and to my mind, the most surprising thing that happened this week on the Indiana political front was 9th district congressman (and Democratic superdelegate) Baron Hill's endorsement of Barack Obama for president.
While I'm content to see our representative take a stand, it strikes me as somehow odd that the perpetually cuatious Hill didn't wait out the process, and I'm also afraid that the endorsement might hurt him in his fall re-election campaign against Mike "Hot Wheels" Sodrel.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I'm voting for John Bottorff in the Democratic primary anyway. The sooner we can replace the dysfunctional Hill/Sodrel duo the better. Add Evan Bayh to the replacement short list as well.
And I wish the Derby season lasted two more weeks.
I think it is highly commendable that Baron Hill took a principled step which some will see as controversial. I support Barack Obama so Hill's endorsement jibes with my view. I would not, however, have reacted negatively toward him had he endorsed Mrs. Clinton. That is his prerogative. Senator Bayh's support of Mrs. Clinton did not alter my opinion of him.
Hill's decision could signal his sense that Sodrel is not going to be particularly strong this time around. Or, it could be a sign that Hill is going to put principle above expediency. In either case, it bodes well for residents of the Ninth Dstrict.
One Hillary supporter said Hill's endorsement pushed his primary vote over to Gretchen Clearwater, a more vociferous if less high-profile supporter of Obama.
It seems contradictory to yearn for politicians to take a stand and then punish them for taking a stand simply because it disagrees with your own view. Obviously, there are times when such a rebuke is deserved on policy grounds, but not on the basis of stating a preference.
I just want Sodrel to lose.
And I still hate Derby!
I agree with John. It is refreshing to see a principled endorsement.
I am supporting Clearwater in the primary but I will give Hill credit, although I dont agree with his choice at least he made one before the primary, that took some guts.
I'd concur with John. I'm actually still undecided between Obama and Clinton for 1001 reasons. My biggest reason is that I want to vote for a person who will win in November.
I think it will be difficult for any Republican challenger this time. Bad foreign policy, two wars, and a recession during a Republican Administration and a Republican Congress up until a year and a half ago makes it difficult to run on cutting taxes as the fix for everything.
Principled? Let's look at the landscape.
Baron Hill looks at the electorate and pretty much knows he has the Clinton vote in the bag. These traditional voters (and read into the word "traditional" whatever you want) are his natural base. Furthermore, Hill would probably never want to be seen on the same stage as Clinton in a general election campaign against Sodrel.
What Hill needed to do is make a gesture that can capture the disaffected Democrats who aren't quite satisfied with him (or Clinton) and have gravitated toward Obama.
Although I'm surprised Hill didn't wait to see how his constituents voted (I predict Hillary wins the Ninth by a small margin), this was a shrewd, if not commendable move by the Congressman.
I don't see it as principled, but calculating. If Hillary gets the nomination, we'll never see her again because a) Hill won't invite her into the district and b) her campaign will remember his jump to Obama and won't be concerned with helping him out.
Everybody wins. Hill seduces a camp that is less than thrilled with him, but loses little from the Clinton supporters. That ought to win him reelection.
I am troubled by his remarks on the politics of personal destruction. On that score, no one in political memory has been put at the sharp end of that stick than Hillary Clinton. And based on the past few Hill-Sodrel battles, Baron Hill ought not be casting stones.
Hill's message to Obama voters is loud and clear. In exchange, he loses my support in the primary, even if my response is, relatively speaking, a mouse fart.
Clearwater? Bottorff?
And I still hate Derby.
I meant to say no one has been on the receiving end of the politics of personal destruction than Hillary. For Hill to use that as his "principled" reason is not only disingenuous, but an attack on Clinton - in fact, it is practicing the politics of personal destruction.
It seems, as you say, John G., contradictory to "declare" someone divisive. The right-wing noise machine has been parroting that theme for almost two decades. "She's divisive, she's divisive." That doesn't make it so. But an awful lot of otherwise intelligent people start with that baseline, not realizing that the idea was planted in their heads by experts.
In our system of secret balloting, a vote for Hill in the primary just boosts his numbers and tells him "I approve." So, disapproving of Hill's calculus, I'll join your Hillary supporter and express my disapproval. It's the only principled thing to do.
Yes we can.
...except that Hill's inner circle wanted him to endorse Hillary because they thought it would help him in the primary.
Obama is right - this is silly season in politics. Agreed with Bluegill that "Yes we can."
meant to say - they thought endorsing Hillary would help in the general.
I just wish I could've been there when Baron turned to the room and asked, "Who the hell is Larry Kochert?"
All4word:
I said nothing about Mrs. Clinton being divisive. To the extent she is, I think it is a reflection of the style of politics she and the Clinton machine (no negative implication intended) employ. Triangulation does, in fact, result in an atomization of views; that is its purpose.
The more complicit culprits in this devolution of political discourse are the media, primarily the 24-hour cable yack fests. Did the Clinton's see the emergence of this phenomenon and seek to exploit it? Does this fairly saddle them with the appelation of dirty fighters? I don't necessarily think so. But Obama, to his credit, has at least conceived of another path toward choosing a president. That doesn't make him free of artifice and cant, but I believe there is some kernel of a genuine desire to elevate the level of discourse.
I believe that any decent politician has that gyroscope of personal principles on which they could rely to better serve their constituents. Too often, the public is distracted by shiny objects peddled by a campaign and bought by the media. That we become entranced by those objects is our fault. The bastardized media,however, robs the nation of the chance to make informed decisions. We have allowed triviality to reign supreme. Can the proposal to take a vacation from gas taxes be seen as anything other than pandering? Has the media fairly represented the threat of global warming and forged questions to find the candidates views on that issue? Why do we sit here eating Cheetos while our government spends about fifty cents out of every dollar on defense and defense-related expenditures? Why do we not join the rest of the civilized world and provide universal health coverage?
Study after study shows that the American people support liberal views over conservative and yet the conservative candidate often triumphs. Those victories are often the result of the successful use of wedge issues and sowing the seeds of fear.
I am not accusing Mrs.Clinton of gutter politics. I just think she represents an era that has passed. That is not a knock about her age. It is more a result of being part of the cast of characters that brought us to where we are and have thus lost the opportunity to shape the future.
When I suggested that I wouldn't vote for Hill in the general last time, I was derided for not understanding that he didn't really support what he said he did.
Now I'm told decisions are being made based on his claims of support.
Does he tell the truth during the primaries and lie during the general or vice versa?
I'm confused.
John G., I was only using your word "contradictory." I can guess what word first came to your mind.
But that's all. I was just using your word, not responding to your comment per se.
Post a Comment