Public Comment

I am just astonished at the media for treating this democratic race as still somewhat viable for Hillary Clinton. Short of some devastatingly egregious blunder on the part of Obama’s campaign, there is virtually no chance for Hillary to win this nomination based on pledged delegates. The statistics are completely against her; she would have to win close to 70 percent of all remaining primaries to gain on Barack Obama’s pledged delegates. But despite all these unignorable facts, the media has many people duped into thinking that this campaign is a nail biter. Who are they fooling—or rather—who are these fools who believe this charade?  

The idea that the super delegates will somehow overturn the will of the voters and go against the pledged delegates by Clinton’s democratic cohorts is not only arrogant but downright undemocratic and delusional. If there was any scenario which could be construed as grave for Obama’s campaign which would have helped Hillary Clinton, it was the one which plagued his campaign few weeks ago regarding his ex-pastor: thanks mostly to Fox network’s repeated playback of the most sensational clips ad nauseum. 

The Democratic Party has some vim and vigor for the first time in a long while in this presidential election; but all that seems to be waning away under the dark shadow of campaign negativism. If Hillary Clinton were a true stateswoman, she would simply bow out in dignity and let the party prevail. This would allow the nominee to focus their campaign and resources on the already nominated Republican candidate. But instead her campaign keeps redefining the idea of a win and the predetermined rules of the campaign to drag out this nomination race into infamy. 

Who are the overseers of the rules of the campaign and the Democratic Party? The sniping and attacking have reached the nadir of same party politics, but the worst attacks have come from her campaign and her surrogates, the sort of attacks you expect from the other party. The atmosphere and the tone of the campaign is so demoralizing, that one begins to wonder if there is any acrimony left for the general election. 

When all the candidates signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan or Florida at the behest of the DNC, it should be honored by all parties. She didn’t take her name off the ballot in Michigan like everyone else and coincidentally showed up in Florida for a fundraiser on the eve of the primary. But now that Hillary Clinton is behind in delegates and behind in popular votes, suddenly she has become a strong advocate for franchising the voters from those two states, and says she never made any such agreements? But it is more than just about signing an agreement; it speaks volume about the candidate’s integrity. When a candidate is willing to lavish experience accolades on the opposition party’s candidate to undermine one of her own party’s candidate then it is quite evident we are dealing with a person who is a political cannibal. 

I am reminded of college parties where a churlish invitee would usurp all his, less than perfect, Don Juanian graces to court someone, and then would linger unwelcomed until the end of the party without the prospect of meeting anyone, and all the choice alcohol would be consumed down to the dregs, leaving the host wishing he/she hadn’t invited him. 

Rizwan A. Rahmani is an Oakland resident.