--- michael perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> shag wrote:
> > At 10:04 PM 4/28/2008, Jenny Brown wrote:
> >> Charles wrote:
> >>> Because she was suddenly and desperately behind,
> Clinton launched a
> >>> real filthy campaign, a fact that the media has
> been misreporting as if
> >>> both sides were negative campaigning. Unuh. One
> side has been "negative"
> >>> campaigning to beat the band. Not only that,
> Clinton basically has been
> >>> double teaming O with the rightwinger McCain !
> It's disgusting. Her
> >>> tactic has been to try to make O unelectable ,
> with a special emphasis
> >>> of trying to bring out racism in white voters,
> so that the
> >>> super-delegates would overturn O's lead in
> elected delegates.
> >> I never was a Clinton fan but her campaign has
> become unbelievably
> >> disgusting.
> >
> > ditto.
[WS:] I agree, but this seems to be working. That tells more about the nature of the Amerikan politics and voters than the "moral character" of Mrs. Clinton.
Politicians do only what sells them to the greatest number of voters, and this is especially true of presidential politics.
Mrs. Clinton would not be using disguisting tricks if they did not work. It is the voters and the political process that is to blame.
I have to admit that I am increasingly more inclined toward the Aristotelian view on democracy - as a perverted form of polity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_%28Aristotle%29.
It is basically a silly popularity contest that tends to appeal to irrational emotions like fear and hatred, and reduce every issue to the lowest common denominator. This brings the worst competitive instincts in people. In that context, the old Marxist (and Aristotelian) concept of "vanguard party" looks better than ever.
Wojtek