|
Just trying to provoke a little thought here.
I have heard plenty of people on this blog actually try to make the argument that Michael Bennet is the second coming of our nations President. This idea, beyond being completely ridiculous, is also incredibly false. Are there similarities? Absolutely. But when doing some more research I began to see how similar Michael is to someone else rather high up in our government and party. Hillary Rodham Clinton. This got me to thinking; I wonder if there are any similarities between the 2008 Presidential Primary, and the Colorado Senate Primary of 2010?
I found many. Or maybe I'm just crazy?
You tell me.
Before the Primary in 2008/2010 began (and to make things simpler, we will be using 2008/2010 because that is the election year, I am fully aware the primaries started before those dates) both Clinton and Bennet were considered by many to be a "lock," for the Party's nomination. Bennet/Clinton were both in the positions they were in due to connections within the party and government. Now that is not to say that Hillary was in the Senate due to connections (though I don't think it's crazy to say it helped) but a relatively new Senator running for the Presidency would have been considered odd if it had not been Hillary. And we all know how bizarre Michael's appointment was, but his position with Mayor Hickenlooper's office and how close the Governor and Mayor are, makes it not too far-fetched to say this may have had something to do with it.
Now I want to make something clear, I like Hillary Clinton, I in fact like Michael Bennet. Hillary was in my eye, the first Health Reform Superhero in the nineties. I don't agree with some of their tactics and the way that they go about things, but they are FAR better choices than any of the Republicans I have seen run nationally or in Colorado for years.
After talking to many different people in the party, they were upset that Clinton/Bennet had such a lead in the polls and it wasn't looking like anyone else was going to get a chance. There were plenty of people who were quite upset, thinking that it had been expected for so long that Clinton/Bennet would get the nomination that they were frustrated, and many times even used the phrase "anointed" when speaking about either candidate. (In Colorado's case, many people still do.) Anger rose from the position many Dems felt they were in, trapped with a candidate they didn't particularly like. But then, out came this other candidate. He was smart, sharp, funny, charismatic, good looking, and it was very difficult to find people who spoke ill of him.
Many Democrats were thrilled at the prospect of having another viable option, someone else they could turn their "Hope" towards. Obama/Romanoff gave many long time activists renewed energy and excitement. Here was a man that stuck to his convictions, stood up for the little guy, took risks and had an excellent record of bridging the divide of bipartisanship. Here was the guy we had been waiting for.
Sadly though, the Bennet/Clinton camps had a certain arrogance when it came to their primaries, where one (Clinton) considered her popularity and name to be so great that no one could match it, another thought his money would do the job and give people confidence in his campaign. But those theories quickly got thrown out of the window when the other candidates started pulling off rather impressive primary wins. Both Clinton/Bennet campaigns spoke later about how those primaries didn't really matter, that "Bloggers aren't real people," (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/25/michael-bennet-doesnt-confuse-the-blogosphere-with-real-people-and-real-voters/) and how "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... (Not direct quotes, clearly)
Now of course while all of this is going on there are the issues, those pesky things that some people tend to forget about over the course of an election. Both Romanoff and Obama were initial underdogs who gained many peoples respect and admiration for committing to not taking PAC money for their campaign. Both campaigns were attacked by people saying, "But you can't win without PAC money!" At the time, I agreed with those people, but, seeing as how Barack Obama is now the POTUS, I was clearly wrong.
All four candidates wanted to reform the banking industry but it was a tad difficult for many people to believe Hillary when she had taken millions of dollars from banks over the course of her campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, Hillary accepted millions from major banking companies. Of her 6 top donors, 4 of them were banks, their combined totals alone reaching, 1,457,711 dollars. And like I said, that's just the top 6, that doesn't even go into the rest of it. Please correct me if I am wrong, http://www.opensecrets.org/pre... Michael Bennett, as member of the banking committee, had taken over 600,000 dollars in campaign contributions from the banking industry alone by the end of 2009. http://www.sott.net/articles/s...
(Frankly, IMHO, I think as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, you should not be able to accept contributions from them by law, but if not by law, at least by your own morals.)
Then we come to labor. As a child of Union Members, Labor has always been incredibly important to me and it definitely has the power to sway my vote on a candidate if they are not pro-labor. All four candidates have run very openly on being pro-labor, but Clinton/Bennet don't exactly have pro-labor track records. As first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Wal-Mart, one of the most evil corporations on the planet. A January 31, 2008 article from ABC News states, "An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions." Michael, as superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, almost single handedly destroyed the Teachers Union and refused to take a strong stand on the Employee Free Choice Act. It is not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are, and Obama/Romanoff have always voted and acted on their values of fighting for the working class.
As the campaign wore on, minor similarities were noteworthy as well.
When it came to fundraising, Clinton/Bennet thought they just had it. In fact, they both had a popular US President helping them raise campaign dough. Granted, Hillary was married to that popular former President, but still.
Both of them used sympathy cards to try and gain votes when they were getting their tuckus's handed to them at caucus. Michael used his adorable little girls (They were great in that commercial by the way) and Hillary cried.
The Clinton/Bennet campaigns both leaned heavily on the "I've already been in/near this job, so clearly, I must have more experience," strategy. Luckily for us "Obamaniacs," 2008 was a year where people were looking for someone who wasn't "experienced." If judging by all of the "Throw the Bums Out!" bumper stickers I see on my morning commute, 2010 is looking like that kind of year as well. Incumbency is a liability in this election year. Which is sad, and going to make our fights for the good legislators (Perlmutter, Polis, Markey etc.) even harder, but I believe we are up for the fight.
Both Romanoff and Obama travelled the state/country, gathering supporters through their thought provoking speeches, natural charisma and open honesty about the issues at hand. Some people even wanted to change their primary votes to Romanoff/Obama due to the excitement level of their new candidates supporters. I remember one Onion video that came out after the election in 2008, making fun of the "Obama Zombies." Just for laughs, here is the link to the video. http://www.theonion.com/video/...
To make something else clear, neither Obama nor Romanoff supporters are mindless, brainwashed, losers in my eyes. (In fact, I was the annoying Obama supporter that my conservative family members didn't want to invite over because I wouldn't STFU.) So before you start going off, just take the video for what it is, FUNNY.
When endorsements came out, the political world was shocked when both Clinton and Bennet did not receive the endorsements of many of the people who had worked with them in the past. Governor Richardson endorsed Obama over Hillary. And I have yet to meet a teacher or worker in DPS who speaks highly of Bennet. Perhaps they are out there, but I don't know them.
Colin Powell even endorsed Barack Obama, and many Republicans have spoken to me and others about how they adore Andrew and all the work he has done for the state. They have all committed to voting for him against any Republican who ends up on the ballot. They can't say the same for Michael, because they don't know him. Well, unless they worked at Anschutz.
When the Primary was finally over, and Hillary did the very classy thing and helped New York deliver the votes to Barack Obama, America still had an election to look towards. We need to remember that. Colorado still has an election coming in November and it should be much more important to the party that our seat remains a "D" then allowing it to become anything else.
We don't want to see Norton/Palin win now do we?
|
