Bollocks to the rules! Senator Hillary Clinton, who trails Senator Barack Obama in total delegates,
number of states won, and the popular vote, now wants to change the rules to cheat a path to the Democratic Party nomination.
Photo by John Han
By Jill Chapin
March 10, 2008
I’d like to enlist the aid of Senator Hillary Clinton’s supporters in clarifying something that teachers might discuss in their classrooms. Can you help them explain to their students how such topics as following the rules and fair play relate to the ongoing Democratic primary?
There are lessons to be learned here, but I’m not sure they are good ones.
I am having difficulty imagining how children might perceive Clinton’s run for the presidency from their schoolyard point of view. If it’s true that everything we need to know was learned in kindergarten, and if it’s also true that it takes a village to raise a child, then to what level of hypocrisy is our village stooping regarding those lifelong lessons being taught to our five year-olds?
As of now, by any gauge one chooses, simple math shows Senator Barack Obama to be ahead not only in delegates (which is the gold standard for primary results) but also in popular votes and number of states won.
Senator Barack Obama
Photo by Luke Thomas
Primary rules state that total delegates amassed across the country will determine the nominee. Nowhere is there an asterisk amending that rule for the outcome to be based on where those delegates were won. So what rationale would be put forth to explain to young children that Senator Clinton now feels that she should be declared the winner simply because she won the most big states?
If that big-state argument is so compelling, then why wasn’t it already incorporated into the rules?
Kids are notorious for calling foul if a classmate breaks a rule when playing hopscotch, Simon says, or red rover. They each know, understand and accept those rules, and will pounce on a cheater like white cells on bacteria. So help teachers explain why it’s okay for Senator Clinton to decry the sudden unfairness to Michigan and Florida voters when they knew last year that moving up their primary date would invalidate their election results.
And not only did the states know, understand and accept the rules, so too did all of the candidates. No one objected throughout the entire primary season except Senator Clinton when she came to realize those two states might be her only chance at securing the nomination. Try to explain her logic to kids, and try to have an answer ready if one fair-minded munchkin should ask in kidspeak if she would be caring so much about disenfranchisement if she were enjoying a comfortable lead.
But of even greater critical interest to youngsters for which your answer would be much appreciated, is how fair is it to call unfair a rule that was understood and agreed to last year. Keep in mind that we spend a lifetime trying to instill the concept of consequences for our decisions.
Kids also know a sore loser when they see one. So how would Clinton supporters handle the topic of grace in defeat when kids sense her sour grapes attitude as she cavalierly dismisses Senator Obama’s numerous small state victories, caucus wins, and black state blowouts. Because Senator Clinton has brushed aside all of these triumphs as inconsequential compared to her big state victories, she is essentially trying to rewrite the rules to make her the winner.
If a softball team tried to declare themselves the winner because they got the most hits instead of the most runs, do you think anyone would agree to such nonsense?
We’ve all heard that the world is watching this process unfold. People everywhere are as intrigued by this contest as we are. But our children will be assimilating something out of it as well. How we conduct this process and how we ultimately select the candidate will not be lost on future voters who are still learning to play fair in the school yard.
The Hunger Site
March 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I’m a teacher, so I appreciate your comparison of Hillary’s behavior to the realities of school. I might add another one – Bullying. Bullies are people who distort the truth, loudly project a way for the onlookers to consider the victim, and punch, kick and LIE their way around their behavior. Up until Columbine, no one really considered the effect of bullying – and Columbine was most assuredly NOT the way for “victims” to act – because the “victims” became vengeful, atrocious murderers.
So schools are finally addressing bullying. But it happens elsewhere – in colleges, in the workplace… And in politics (a la Hillary). Make no bones about it – she is using all the same tactics a bully would use to make her points – and as one can see, a lot of people either don’t recognize bullying when it happens (because it is so brazen, and between adults) or they purely enjoy the bloody sport of “cock-fighting politics”.
Hillary, via the collective nature of her innuendoes and attacks, is showing the kids of today that – regardless of what they are learning in school about respect, courage ad infinitum, it doesn’t really count with adults.
Obama, on the other hand … is demonstrating that character and courage are not merely words to learn during a monthly assembly but mind-sets that define the moral compass one has deep inside. When all is said and done, rest assured, Obama’s legacy will be studied in the classrooms of tomorrow – Hillary will be, at best, a foot-note.
March 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Regarding children: I’m not surprised that their respect for the rules of fair play is stronger than Hillary’s.
Unlike Hillary, my six-year old nephew doesn’t have to confer with generals to find out that torture is bad. And he knows that killing children is bad — but Hillary voted against a measure prohibiting the dropping of cluster bombs in civilian areas, pretty little chunks that can remain unexploded for years until a curious child tries to play with them.
My six-year old nephew may not know anything about breaking DNC rules or about violating international sanctions against torture or against cluster bombs, but he does know the difference between right and wrong.