Archives
8:46:00 AM EST
Feeling Mischievous
Hearing Herbie Hancock
If Obama Was a Woman, Part II
I have received some responses from Obama supporters to my initial blog post “IF Obama Was a Woman,” (see below) and would like to respond. I have a few comments to make with regards to recent developments in the campaign as well.
**One responder charged that I judged Obama unfairly regarding his statements on his willingness to invade Pakistan if the intelligence was “actionable.” The criticism alleged that I took Obama’s comments too seriously because they were made in reference to a “hypothetical.” Well, the way I see it, statements made by both candidates in an effort to present to voters what they might do, would do, will do, could do IF (“if” being the hypothetically operative word here) they become President are ALL “hypotheticals.” And should all be taken "seriously." Campaigns are built upon proposed promises, plans and objectives for the future. And the future of course, is by its very nature hypothetical. If all hypotheticals must be eliminated from the discussion, from the deliberation and the assessment of character, then what do we have left? Oh, that’s right…the PAST i.e. what the candidates HAVE done, HAVE accomplished, HAVE already proven. If that be the case, I’m sticking with Hillary.
**I have been hearing for quite some time now the rhetorical argument that Obama is “The Unifier” and that Clinton “polarizes.” Thank goodness they have not resorted to calling her “The Polarizer.” She might just have to start wearing Ray-Bans at every appearance and then those who spend their time commenting on her hair and clothes would have new material for their trivial, chauvinistic concerns. I would pose several questions to those who would accuse Clinton of polarizing and who, at the same time, continue to advance these polarized characterizations (anyone see the irony here?). To begin, I have no idea what this means. Just what groups does Senator Clinton “polarize?” Blacks and Whites? Republicans and Democrats? Men and Women? The poor and the wealthy? NY Yankees fans and Boston Red Sox fans? At least with regard to this last, Massachusetts AND New York unite behind Hillary. That’s some resounding chord of unity if you ask me. Would someone actually attempt to look me in the eye and seriously suggest that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the division that exists between these sets of groups? Unfortunately, those divisions and separations have been around for a long time, long before Hillary Clinton was ever born, some of them for many centuries.
** One argument for Obama that has emerged and surged in the days immediately following Super Tuesday insists that Obama is the best Democratic choice for the November election because he is able to carry Clinton voters, while Clinton will not be able to carry Obama supporters. I have several things to say about this.
1) The argument has now focused on who is the party’s best candidate for the November election, NOT the Presidency. This is comparable to sending in the Corporal to win the battle when only the General can win the war. I know. Please pardon the militaristic nature of the analogy. I’d be open to other suggestions. Perhaps, "sending in the rookie to end the inning even though he can’t deliver the game?”
2) Senator Obama himself has been exploiting this ploy in speeches made recently. He actually articulated the idea that he is the party’s best candidate for the election because he will carry Clinton supporters while the opposite is unlikely. Unbelievable. Does he not realize that by merely suggesting this strategy, he is sending a message to his supporters tojoin him in this line of argumentation? Does he not recognize that by utilizing this as a method of political strategizing he is encouraging his supporters to voice their resistance to electing Clinton if she becomes the party’s nominee? WHAT could possibly be more divisive than that? Essentially what he is doing is dividing the party from within, jeopardizing the potential for future party unity, particularly in November. Unifier, indeed. I know it would be just too naïve of me to suggest that Obama might instead encourage his supporters to give up their childish, petulant, “if I can’t win, I won’t play” mentality and support the party’s nomination for President no matter whom that happens to be. No, I don’t expect this. But, neither did I expect him to promote this “polarizing” idea by actually appealing to it.
I have met many Obama people who have told me that they’d be more than willing to vote for Clinton in November, so he misjudges (or misrepresents) his own supporters anyway. Does he really think that his voter base would abandon the party by voting for the Republican candidate instead of Hillary Clinton? Or does he think that they would relinquish the right to exercise their vote altogether and risk a Republican victory merely by their absence at the polls? In either case it would be unconscionable and not only does Obama misjudge them, he insults them. If it is an accurate presentation of the majority position then shame on them for what they might risk (but I have more faith in them apparently than he does). So, voting for Clinton's opponent or simply not showing up seem to be the only options available according to Obama. But no, wait. He might advise Obama-Democrats to simply show up at the polls in November and cast a vote of “present,” in protest of the choices...
Also, by way of post script to the original journal entry on the campaign, I would like to add that appeals to Obama's capacity to "inspire," and to provide "vision and hope," imply that Senator Clinton does not do these. Rest assured. As I speak and listen to her supporters; nothing could be further from the truth. Her inspiration, leadership, grace under fire, intelligence, diligence and tireless work represent indeed, a new hope for us all.
Written by mdiv94 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
Steve,
Just another case in point:
a woman does not carry mace, a taser, or a gun in her purse because it makes her feel secure, she carries it because she is afraid of being victimized; she is afraid of potential violence being acted upon her. Her weapon is her "national security" and she has to know that she will have the confidence to use it against her attacker if and when the situation should arise. Otherwise, the weapon is useless. -
Steve,
National Security has a purpose. That purpose is to protect America and Americans from harm. Harm intended and/or harm inflicted causes fear, so anyone who addresses National Security is going to elicit concern from their audience. So please explain to me how one would address National Security without reminding his/her audience that they are or potentially could be the targets of violence. -
judilein03 said:
As for your comment about Clinton's "3a.m. phone call" and Rovian tactics, you suggest that only republicans will respond to that approach. I doubt it. To believe that democrats are not concerned with national security would be a mistake. Furthermore, such tactics will not keep democrats from voting, nor will it persuade them to vote Republican. Chicken Little tactics aside, Clinton does not represent the religious conservative, corporate government, big brother, class divisionist institution which the Republicans revere.
Here’s the thing that troubles me about this ad, which you echoed: Why is it perceived that the Republicans automatically own the national security issue? That’s certainly what the Rove-led Bush administration has been selling since September 11, and it seems that most of the country has fallen for it hard. Any mention of national security, and everybody just shrugs and says “Yep, the Republicans have the Democrats on that one.” I even hear it all the time on NPR, which is one of the last bastions of journalism that is (mostly) unaffected by the right-wing media bias. The Republicans have used fear to convince the American people that they are the only ones who can protect us, but it is just fear-mongering and right-wing image branding. Don’t forget that September 11th happened on a Republican’s watch.
I never said that Democrats aren’t concerned with national security. My point is that national security is not the same as fear. The Clinton ad is a fear ad, just like the Republican ads. I would like to see a Democrat take back the national security issue from the Republicans. -
judilein03 said:
"He may have said that he is more likely to win against McCain, but that is very different than saying that his supporters will not vote for Clinton."
He "may have said"? What does that imply? That you came up with that out of your very own noggin so it bears consideration as a plausible fact? If you don't know what he did or did not say then your argument is a moot point.
Let’s please leave my noggin out of this.
Actually, my statement that you so faithfully quote above was in response to statements in the original blog post that claimed that Obama was being divisive because of his assessment of the nature of his appeal to independents and conservatives and the potential effect on the general election.
Specifically, the original post claimed that Obama had threatening that his supporters would not support Clinton in the general election if she were the nominee. I’m calling BS on this one, because I don’t think it happened. By all means, go ahead and require me to provide sources for my statements, but don’t you think you should start with the original blog post?
3/10/08 7:53 AM
Geesh. I couldn't MAKE this stuff up.