When I went to Wellesley College, math was part of the core curriculum and there was an honor code, which amazingly, everyone (or nearly everyone) adhered to. But I guess what happens (or happened) at Wellesley, stays at Wellesley. At least in the case of fellow Wellesley alumna and political science major Hillary Rodham Clinton (Class of 1969).
As far as I know, there wasn't an exception to the rules that said "except if you are running for office." We all knew what the rules were, up front, and we all agreed to the rules. Breaking the rules had consequences, not just for the rulebreaker but for everyone. Ah. That notion seems so quaint now, doesn't it?
So here's my beef with Senator Clinton: Like the rest of the Democratic field, she agreed not to campaign in either Florida or Michigan after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their 366 (total, combined) convention delegates for holding primaries too early in the process, which was a violation of party rules. However, despite publicly agreeing to honor the rules, she remained a presence in Florida and remained on the ballot in both states, although her current opponent, Senator Barack Obama, honored the DNC's rules in both states and even had his name removed from the ballot in Michigan.
On top of that, she has the gall to repeatedly declaim that the voters of Florida and Michigan have been unfairly disenfranchised and their votes should count -- even though both states' legislatures knew full well the penalty of moving up their primaries, as did the voters (though they didn't get a say in the process), as did the candidates, who agreed not to campaign in those states; and as previously noted, Barack Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
Do you think Senator Clinton would be so noble had she been ahead in the delegate count and/or the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries been reversed and Senator Obama had "won" those nonbinding noncontests in Florida and Michigan? I think not.
I know I am probably in the minority here, but would it not have been far nobler for Senator Clinton, in keeping with her Wellesley training, and the bylaws of her party, to have declaimed that rules are rules and are meant to be followed, and that the candidates were honor bound to follow them, even if they did not like the result?
I fully understand all about wanting to win, and that to many folks winning means winning at all costs, rules be damned. But I (perhaps naively, or foolishly) believe winning only has real value if you win fair and square. Whatever happened to, It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game? (Okay. You can stop laughing now. Really. Get up off the floor. You're embarrassing your co-workers.)
This past weekend my almost 10-year-old daughter competed in a tae kwon do competition. Although she is a black belt, she is not the best student, in terms of athletic ability, at her tae kwon do school, and she knows it. Yet she has more heart and drive and smiles more than many other students there. Still, that doesn't win you medals. Yet she waited patiently (over three hours) for her turn and despite being at a slight disadvantage, size, rank and age-wise, competed honorably -- no low punches or illegal kicks.
During and after the tournament I heard tales from other parents about kids (they said from other schools) who fought a bit dirty, hitting and punching too hard, even hurting other children -- yet who won their competitions.
I know that the children who did not win gold medals (or even silver) must have been disappointed. Yet the amazing thing was, at the end of the day, my daughter (who competed against an older, more experienced student , whom she lost to) and her fellow students, all of whom played by the rules, were still happy to have competed and felt really good about themselves, even though they may not have gold or even silver or bronze.
As a parent, I am enormously proud -- of all of them. And as a parent, I am enormously ashamed of and disappointed in Senator Clinton. Yes, I know politics can be as rough and tough and bruising as tae kwon do -- more so, especially when people look the other way, or worse, applaud, when a candidate throws a questionable or dirty punch. But I wish Senator Clinton would recall her Wellesley roots, and the fact that willingly or not she is a role model (like all parents are supposed to be), and uphold the honor code she once adhered to (and check her math), even if it means losing.
To me, someone who can lose gracefully is a real winner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I am 100% with you - and I mean it! Not crossing my fingers behind my back or anything like that.
This is yet another of the "done by Super Tuesday" chickens coming home to roost, not to mention another opportunity for Clinton to once more cross the fine line between politics and crap. But hey, look! A black guy not wearing a flag pin! Whew, that was close.
Please congratulate Abby for me on competing honorably. Out of curiosity, how much refereeing is there in tae kwon do? In fencing, for example, there are penalties for brutality, poor sportsmanship etc. and I have seen someone ejected from a competition for throwing her mask in anger/frustration (in the general though unintended direction/vicinity of the ref, no less).
It's too bad that some competitors take advantage of the situation and others might learn the wrong lesson as a result. Clearly that will not be a problem for Abby, though. Well done.
Three cheers for that column!
Well said. My kid's softball team gets a South Carolina-sized trouncing just about every Saturday, but you don't hear her whining to the refs about how practice hits should count.
I think the point is well-taken on Michigan, but not on Florida. Neither of them campaigned, both put on adds along the border and both were on the ballot. Also, Obama deep-sixed a redo in accordance with the rules in both those states. They would have been fully legal but not to his advantage. She was willing to do that, but in Michigan at least his people combined with the Republicans to stop it.
The political consequences of not seating delegates from Florida and Michigan in the closest primary in two generations is not going to help the party.
Also, it is pretty odd for the party of "count every vote" and "the electoral vote be damned" of 2000 to be upset at this issue now.
That being said, I think I want Obama to be the nominee so will join you in your strict constructionist tendencies.
Congratulations on the Tae Kwan Do.
Post a Comment