In little league sports, there is a merciful rule that states if one team is blowing out their opponents, like 20 to 0 in the sixth inning, then the game is called.
That is the situation we find ourselves in, if current New Hampshire, South Carolina and national polls are to be believed. Obama is poised to utterly destroy both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards tomorrow and in a few weeks in South Carolina. National polling reveals a movement to his campaign that will result in a clean sweep on Super Duper Tuesday.
Couple that with a Clinton campaign that is in disarray and resorting to pretty pathetic attacks on Obama and Edwards, and then add the many diaries and comments from non-Clinton supporters (and more than a few Hillary Haters), and we have ourselves a situation that begs for the application of the Blowout Rule.
Indeed, for someone who likes and admires Hillary Clinton, I want to beg the community to lay off.
In fact, many Kossacks here need to get a grip on themselves. I echo the sentiments in SallyCat's diary. Do we all really need to behave like the most fervent Hillary haters on the right? Do we really need to call her a bitch?
Have some dignity.
But what I want to do more than that is to tell the Clinton campaign to stop it. Stop with rather Bushian threats about a possible terrorist attack. Stop with the campaign incompetence over polling. Stop the attacks on Obama and Edwards over who can better be the agent of change. I cringe everytime I hear the latest, for I see more evidence of a campaign willing to say anything and everything to stay relevant.
You can't change the very nature of your campaign, Mrs. Clinton. Your best argument you have is that you are experienced in the ways of Washington and can enact the reforms and policies we all want. The Des Moines Register said it best in their endorsement of you:
The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.
That is your campaign's argument. Yes, it does not play well in a massive change election, which this is turning out to be. But that is the breaks. Elections, and more specifically, the dominant themes to an election, unfold many times differently than what your campaign has planned for, and sometimes you just cannot do an extreme makeover of a campaign in mid-stream. Your experience is why I initially decided to support you, Mrs. Clinton. The way your campaign has reacted to seeing the campaign unfold differently than you planned is one of the reasons why I have decided to withdraw my support.
The other reason is that I have decided to take a chance on Obama. And I will quote Booman on why:
If Obama can elicit the kind of record turnout he produced in Iowa, in November, we'll have huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The Dems will probably have a filibuster proof Senate. In that political atmosphere, which is so different than our current atmosphere, the entire universe of what is possible shifts. It's this potential upside to Obama's campaign that dwarfs some of the distinctions between his policy positions and the positions of Edwards.
...and Clinton's policy positions, for that matter. I agree with Booman that I think Obama will energize a massive turnout. And if that happens, then we get the most desirable outcome: A Democratic President with massive Democratic majorities.
That is a very attractive prospect for a party man like me, who is mostly concerned with securing absolute control of the government for progressive Democrats so that all of the policies we rant and rave about actually see the light of becoming law.
So I will take the chance on Obama. Rather than being pragmatic, I will be inspired. I will be hopeful.
This is a change from four years ago, when I wrote a diary that was similar in that I was changing my support from one candidate to another, but altogether different, as you will in the quote below:
Furthermore, if [Dean] goes on and on and on he increases the chances that his arch rival Kerry will get the nomination. Kerry needs a muddled field to win. A one on one race increases the chances that Kerry loses.
Dean was hoping to be that one that opposed Kerry, but because of his low name recognition, he had to raise a lot of money early, which he did and hence why he was the frontrunner. Then, because of the condensed primary schedule, he had to win Iowa and New Hampshire so as to get the media momentum and hype. He failed to do that. Kerry, who did win those contests has or had that momentum. Only a candidate that did well last night can now stop Kerry. That candidate is not Dean. That candidate is John Edwards. Edwards' speech last night was magnificent. Extraordinary. Edwards now has the message and the momentum to be the one candidate that can challenge Kerry. But he will not be able to win with Dean and Clark still in the race. Edwards, in order to beat Kerry, needs to take him on one on one, not him with two hangers on vs. Kerry.
As you can see, when I gave up on Dean in 2004, I was still looking to stop Kerry from garnering the nomination, so I embraced Edwards, no doubt to the shock of many who only know me being hostile to Edwards in recent times. This time, while I am giving up on Hillary, I am not looking to stop Barack Obama.
I am looking to vote for him.
And perhaps we all should focus on that rather than hitting Hillary when she is down. For what is inspirational and hopeful about calling her a bitch?