The White Lie.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

We know how it works. Some talking potato-head picks it up and parrots it and soon the whole pet store is squawking the same song. The meme. The meme. All candidates fall victim to it and make use of it (or try to), but some meme's are harder to explain than others. Among them: "Hillary Clinton should quit before Tuesday." I'm an Obama supporter, and that never sounded fair--but it's a credit to the meme that it self-perpetuated until recently, before Obama supporters again began to trumpet it, to reinvigorate it in new form: she ought to get out Tuesday night. Yes, as an O supporter I'd love to see that, but that's not really the point. we've still got plenty of time, months, to unify as a party, so while I'll never vote for H, I won't begrudge her exhausting reasonable avenues.

Here's another head-scratcher of a meme, though, one so effective we've forgotten it's a meme: "Obama is style over substance."

This meme has become the accepted short-hand definition of differences between Obama and Clinton, and any Clinton fans wishing they'd had a better campaign machine to represent them ought look no further than this meme to feel better about the strategy coming out of Clinton campaign HQ. The media has squawked it repeatedly; we see it around the blogosphere; your neighbor will tell you the difference between the candidates is that O is about rhetoric, H is about experience.

But why do the media and mainstream America accept this initial characterization and work off it to evaluate the candidates? Why is the candidate with equal or better academic credentials--Columbia vs. Wellesley (undergraduate),Harvard vs. Yale (law schoold)--the one who's all style, no substance? Why is a candidate who sponsored or introduced numerous bills in the Senate all style? Why is the candidate who's made ethics reform a specialty all style? Why is a candidate with only three years less experience in the senate all style? Why is the candidate who's brought in the most effective strategic administrators for his campaign to organize and execute one of the biggest upsets in American politics also the candidate who's only about style? Why is the candidate who spoke out against the war when doing so was incredibly unpopular just a speechmaker?

To be sure, part of the problem is Obama's: he sure does have style, and his opponent has much less. But he's also made decisions that indicate he's a man of substance, and his record of Civil Rights advocacy and legislative history also indicate he's a man of substance. Twenty debates, toe-to-toe with Clinton, on all policy points. And regardless if you thought he won none of them or all of them, it was clear he's substantive. I'm voting for him for reasons of policy, approach, and record, which, I believe is why most educated democrats pull the lever for him.

But still, there's the meme...style, just style...why?

Why does mainstream America critique Michael Jordan for his jump shot but not his ties to oppressive Nike labor practices? Why does mainstream America love Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Eddie Murphy, and Danny Glover, and not love or not even know about Julian Bond or Skip Gates? Why isn't Dikembe Mutombo's humanitarian work nearly as important as his shot-blocking ability?

Obviously,we're better at accepting and enjoying the style of African American men over the substance of African American men. This means that some get a pass on matters of substance and that many get overlooked on matters of substance. There are infinite permutations of this to do any justice to this OP's oversimplification of the issue, and there are numerous critiques to make based on gender about how Hillary Clinton is portrayed and viewed.

But just remember there's a reason that "style only" lie/meme has stuck to Obama despite all facts, and it's not just because he has it and his opponent doesn't. And that reason isn't all that pretty, but we don't have to perpetuate it here anymore than the "schoolmarm"/"shrill" crap that Hillary has to put up with.




ed. for word omission