Editor-in-Chic: Nia Langley
At the beginning of this election season, former Governor Martin
O'Malley voiced many complaints about how many debates the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) should have, saying that there should be more debates to give
the American people an opportunity to really understand who is running for
president and where they stand on the issues. At first, like many people, I saw
his cries as someone whining because he would not have a seat at the big kids'
table; but now looking back, I see that he may have some merit to voice his
concerns. In a very lop-sided Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is primed to run away with the
nomination without having any serious problems before the general election. The
question is: should she be allowed to claim that prize undeterred?
No matter what happens, we are all smart enough to know that Hillary
Clinton will win the nomination; and I have no problems with that, especially
since Biden has decided that he would not run for office. The problem I have is Mrs. Clinton running
away with the nomination. In a country that champions the power of the people’s
right to choose their leaders, I believe it is important that the people have
as many opportunities as possible to hear
what the candidates have to say on the issues. Debates provide the perfect
platform for the voters to do just that.
This election season has seven Democratic primary debates. To most, that
may seem like a lot, but when looking back to 2008 when there were twenty-six,
the current number really pales in comparison. Even though the Republican
debates have proved to be less substantive, they still have 11 this season.
Former Governor O’Malley is currently in
last place with 88 days left until the Iowa caucus, and many have written him
off, me included; yet for the DNC to considerably limit the number of
opportunities for the other candidates only adds fuel to the rumors that the
Clintons have total control of the DNC. Why would they want to have control? If
you remember correctly, around this same time eight years ago, Madam Clinton
was in a similar position — she was leading in all the national polls and was
the proverbial favorite to become the nominee. By debate 19, then Senator Obama
was surging, and after debate 21, he was leading, and we all know what happened
after that. The only way history does
not repeat itself is if you limit the amount of free exposure the public has to
the unknown candidates.
Well played Clintons, well played. Now in no way, shape, or form does
this mean that this is what happened, but it does make sense. If there is one
thing I hate, it is sounding like a conspiracy theorist, so let me be clear —
there is no conspiracy here because if what I say is true, the Clinton Campaign
has done nothing wrong. They are supposed to be in coordination with the DNC,
and they did just that. The DNC, on the other hand, should have never given so
much power to one campaign. In an election cycle where the White House can
legitimately be purchased, now, more than ever, the people should be the ones
deciding who their next president should be, not special interest groups and
definitely not national committees. Mr. O’Malley, though you will not be the
next President of these United States, your cries have not fallen on deaf ears.
You came up short because you went against the DNC, but in this case it was the
(D N Clinton).
~Consigliere
No comments:
Post a Comment