|
As expected, of course. I find this, of course, a sign of a need for the echo-chamber being espoused by our Clinton-supporting brethren. There's just one problem that I find with that.
I have a feeling that if KO came out against Obama, Clinton supporters would somehow be bereft of outrage, choosing instead to be resolutely and conspicuously silent. So maybe we should save the lumber for something more useful than an echo chamber?
It raises the question as to what is it about KO having an opinion and expressing it, in his words, and in his way, that infuriates them so? And why the raspberries?
Seems to me that everyone is making a choice here. I've made mine. KO's made his. Now, granted, I don't have the reach that KO does to millions of viewers, but I think his choice and his points are well made.
The past 8 years of electoral politics have been abysmal. We've seen lines crossed that we'd never thought we'd see crossed. Swift Boatings, so much a part of the campaign that saw Kerry succumb, are so... so... so... fucking accepted... and not only that, but so fucking easily accepted... as a legitimate method of campaigning that we actually kept the NAME for a convenient shorthand.
As far as either Clinton's or Obama's positions are concerned, neither are particularly progressive, but then again, I doubt we'd see a progressive candidate until this country starts swinging back that ol' pendulum from the incessantly rightward swing of the past 8 years.
The difference between them is one of character and comportment. Clinton has employed tactics that are so Rove-inspired that if you take still shots of her speeches and look in the background you half expect Karl to be ducking, balding pate and all, behind someone in the far back. You take the whole "Who do you want answering the phone at 3AM?" ad. This is hatchet-job tactics all the way. "Let's just forget about the issues and put out an ad that scares easily led people." And her negativity... oh, my god, her negativity. In this campaign, the only time I've ever heard her talk about what qualifies HER for the highest office in the land rather than how completely horrifying a choice her opponents would be is in the initial campaign when she was supposedly a fait accomplit.
This campaign isn't really about a comparison of issues, because anyone with any sense knows that there is no training program for President. There's no Presidency for Dummies book at the local Barnes and Nobles. It isn't what the talking heads say in their "analyses", nor is it the spin they thrust upon the whole electoral process. No matter who is President, they almost invariably must moderate their views, accept a few deals, and capitulate to the politics of the matter, all of which will be taken by the faithful as a dark and sinister betrayal. This campaign is predicated on the one thing that can reasonably guide the decision making of the person who is elected to that office and finally sits down at the Oval Office desk.
Attitude.
Hillary Clinton has the wrong attitude and that's why she is losing. She doesn't get the fact that people don't want business as usual politics. And she has paid. She's failed to grasp that the old memes don't work after 8 years of their foolishness, and those memes are doubly infuriating when compared against HER OWN EXPERIENCE being the target of them. And she has paid. She doesn't grasp that what the American people want aren't tired battles between people calling themselves 'conservative' and people calling themselves 'liberal', but rather a real return to a forward-thinking governmental framework in which to effectively govern their own lives. And she has paid. She has spoken, not with the voice of the people as equals, but rather with a very parental tone and the message that was received was that, again, for 4 more years, we will have to suffer the foolish brashness of a smug authoritarian rather than a true leader of people. And she has paid.
Even with the "success" of her attack ads, she cannot close the gap. The math doesn't support her, but more importantly, those who have suffered the most from these past eight years, whether that suffering be economic, social, or even philosophical, do not support her. They see in her the potential for the same pitiful attitude that has occupied our highest offices for FAR TOO LONG. And whether that potential is realized or is merely part of an election tactic, quickly dropped off at the door of the White House on her first day, is immaterial to quite a non-trivial group of people. We just don't want to take that chance.
Is she the sort to deny the will of the people? Is she the sort who will not back off of her positions if the people of this country speak up to the contrary? Is she the sort who, once in that office, will not be beholden to the people whose votes put her there? Some of us look into her track record, the speeches, both in content and tone, and see shadows of just that sort of irritating combination of abject stupidity and irritant obstinacy masquerading as forthrightness that we've all come to know and loathe all too well.
There is nothing in Obama's attitude that makes me doubt his commitment, not to the office, but to the people.
There is nothing in Obama's attitude that tells me that large swaths of this country's people are going to be ignored because they don't make enough money to matter to your average career politician.
There is nothing in Obama's attitude that makes me believe that once he gets into the Oval Office that he's going to be wringing his hands in glee as he does his best impression of Snidely Whiplash, all whilst red-lining every item on his Campaign Promise To-Do List.
There is nothing in Obama's attitude that tells me that what he may not know about being President he won't pick up easily.
There is nothing in Obama's attitude that smacks of some kind of effete elitism (and I'm not sure it would matter if there was some, because I'm quite honestly sick of the faux 'average Joe' schtick that we've been subsidizing these last 8 years).
Yet, this is PRECISELY what Clinton and her supporters have TRIED and ostensibly FAILED to bang through my noggin once I made my decision to support Obama. What does this mean?
Well, put simply, it means either that they are perceiving her differently than me, which is fine... or it means they mean to smear Mr. Obama hoping someone will be stupid enough not to believe what they see with their own eyes and can piece together with their own mind, which isn't. We are supposed to be on roughly the same side after all, it would be very disturbing indeed to know that we'll eat our own to get what we want.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
