|
||
Politics By Ordeal
What is this foolishness? Obama is pure and not a politician and Hillary is "tainted"?
Does anyone get to be a presidential candidate in our country without being a politician?
Does anyone run for political office -- a humiliating and exhilarating marathon -- without wanting power more than sleep?
Come on. Get real. You and I could never endure the punishment of debates, of columnists who don't fact-check, of swift-boaters, of dumb pundits and corrupt colleagues, without the lust for power being the overriding emotion in your life.
I do a book tour of six cities and come down with the flu -- and I'm pretty strong and healthy. I can hardly imagine what candidates go through. Yes, they fly on private jets. Yes, they don't take their shoes off at the airport, but they don't sleep either. I'm amazed they can even croak a coherent sentence.
I once did a lecture tour of Australia and New Zealand with bronchitis and laryngitis. I caught it in Hong Kong, I think, and it lingered for three weeks. My voice barely functioned. But I spoke anyway. And I signed hundreds of books after every appearance. Once I got home, I took to my bed for two weeks. The jet lag was awful and the bronchitis turned into a resistant infection. No antibiotic worked. I was silenced for six weeks and my vocal chords still have their off days.
How do these candidates do it? I still can't understand. They must be bionic. By the end of a book tour, I'm so sick of answering questions about myself that I start to interview the journalists about what they like to do in their spare time -- skiing, sailing, snowboarding, golf? The intensity of being interviewed by hostile reporters is absolutely exhausting. No wonder people misspeak. It's amazing they don't throttle the press. And the public. By the time they get in office they must hate the public. Why do we put them through this torture? Shouldn't they be thinking about governance, coming up with new ideas for the commonweal rather than being flogged by the press?
This is no way to audition for "the most powerful job on earth." I doubt that the ordeal helps anyone -- neither the candidates nor the public.
And is it really the most powerful job on earth? The way our country is going -- with our deficit, our plunging dollar, our $100 oil, we are becoming a banana republic, ruled by corporations that deceive us and buy our politicians.
Where is this pure politician? In your dreams, folks, in your dreams.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
No one said Obama was pure. But who are we joking here? The Clintons (and it is a combo deal) are FAR from pure. You can put in your own definition for "not pure".
So, vote for Obama then - he's trying to get rid of that type of politics that's ruled by oil and hence, the rich.....
Obama has been annointed. If he doesnt win i will be very surprised.
I am glad we have a respite from the tantrums your last couple of pieces turned out to be. Such screeds speak only to a particular section of your choir and alienate everyone else. Your political essays risk being marginalized as (take your pick) an ideological parallel to the communist rhetoric of yesteryear or of the Coulter 'polemic' of today.
What was the point of this article? We're pretty cynical already as an electorate. Most of us know that every politician is flawed, but there are necessarily shades of grey. I'm sure Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi fails to meet your ideal as well...oh, he had a penis? Never mind.
Keep believing, beautiful. And thanks for the reminder to let the heavy lifting be done by others. What you've described surely has to be the hardest part.
In Love All Ways
Oh BS.... just trash talk!!!
A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR MCCAIN, and you'll get just exactly what you deserve!!!
As I see it, the biggest looser in this campaign season are not any of the candidates, but rather the old-time feminists like Erika Jong, Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan – who have widely exposed their political obtuseness in many weak articles and unsound, insubstantial arguments. Pitting gender against race, or claiming that “women endure rape, therefore vote for Hillary” or resentfully complaining that Obama is not “pure” – they proved themselves shallow and earned the political irrelevance that they will inevitably fall into from now on.
They major problem was not having followed the major historical changes that have happened, insisting, instead, in a narrow and old ideological world-view. They resent the turning of page on history – but history does not pay attention to resentments. They have proved to be incapable to understand our current times.
Obama’s virtue, after all, is exactly the fact that his political platform recognizes and welcomes this turn of the page, the new conditions that provide for new opportunities. It is probably true that this virtue is not has earned him his electoral success, which may well be due for some sort of naïve cult of personality, who knows. But that just doesn’t matter. The masses are and always have been oblivious to what really matters (only someone with a naïve faith on the myths of democracy would expect anything different).
As a foreigner living in the US and someone who has not believed in and expected anything from politics in many years – I have come to see Obama’s possible election as the best event in electoral politics in ages. Not because he is pure or anything like that – but rather because he strikes me as the right person to seize the opportunities of the moment.
The cold war is gone, Europe is unifying, technology and communications have reach unprecedented greatness and the chances to foment world unity and peace these days are bigger than they have ever been before. In these context, both Obama’s personal background and his political narrative (in particular his emphasis on diplomacy) makes him uniquely able to advance the development of world unity. He will not create the conditions, but he seems able to take advantage of them.
Hillary, on the other hand, represents the typical American arrogance that has characterized US governments since ever. This is blatantly evident on her career and that of her husband. On global politics, she will not have morale, appeal or authority to achieve anything in the direction of integration. The fact that she is a woman does not change this at all.
Erica Jong and other veteran feminists seem to not understand that. They are too absorbed in their lifelong narratives to perceive what’s going on and to realize that their particular demands and issues are not as relevant as other bigger dynamics in the world. Their past contributions for social change should be honored, but they should not restrict the the opportunities of achievement in the present.
Well Diegod:
I don't know where your "homeland" is - but do know it most certainly cannot be Europe, because support for Hillary in Europe and Canada, for that matter, far exceeds that of Obama.
Another point I'd like to make is: Hillary and Bill Clinton have NEVER been labeled 'arrogant' (be it American arrogance or just plain arrogance) by any European or anyone from the global community to date: As a matter of fact their popularity throughout the world played a major role in getting America back on its financial feet. And to this day: they are BOTH still very much respected and admired throughout the world, both with the populations and in the diplomatic community.
As for Mr. Obama, no one knows who he is or especially what he's about in the international community.
So you're claim that he'd be uniquely advance the development of world unity, is a very far fetched claim indeed. If you are referring to the color of his skin being as asset - which is what I'm reading between the lines - I think that is a very shallow and arrogant point of view. That is saying that the rest of the world is not bright or savvy enough to consider his credentials and qualifications - BEFORE making a decision about him.
So to demean Hillary Clinton the way you do, especially given you are a visitor to the US, is in itself a sign of absolute arrogance and ignorance.
As for your "morale..." comment re: Hillary: I must assume you come from a VERY CLOSED Eastern most probably Fundamental Islamic country - to make that ridiculous claim. Because the REST OF THE World is still stunned over the huge brohaha that went on in the US about their sex life. In Europe and Canada something like that would not even make the papers... let alone anyone discussing the morality of it. So I have to conclude you are not who you claim to be and you message is another piece of anti Hillary nonsense from the Obama cult.
Didi47:
You're right: I'm not from Europe or Canada. But you're wrong: I'm not from a Muslim Country.
I was born and raised in Brazil and I have also lived for 2 years in Italy.
I was speaking from a international perspective and point of view, but you're a interpreting my words from strictly American perspective. No, I'm not referring about the color of his skin (Americans are pretty obsessed with that kind of stuff - in Brasil, we wouldn't refer to a presidential candidate by his race like here). And no, I'm not referring to the sexual history of the Clintons (who cares).
What I mean by Obama's background is his Kenyan and Muslim family ties; his time living in Indonesia. And, yes, the fact that he is not a white man from Texas or Arkansas - not because he is black, but because his personal universe was not shaped by a strictly typical white-American experience, as opposed to every single previous American President. For that, Barack will be better positioned to have good insights regarding International issues than Hillary. And the International Community will admire this fact, and regard it as a sign of renewed openess from the widely-perceived as self-absorbed American society.
And by the Clinton's arrogance I mean not only the obvious on her gestures and acts (which is widly regarded by arrogant by the American society as well). I also mean her support for the Iraq War, for NAFTA, her refuse to negotiate with Cuba, Iran and North Korea. I also mean Bill Clinton's strong promotion of neo-liberal policies around the world, his bombing of practically the entire supplied of medicine of Sudan, causing the deaths of an estimated hundreds of thousands of people, without ever risking a single American life and the domestic political controversies that would come with it (that, I regard as more a coward and horrendous war crime than Bush's Iraq War). I also mean their implementation of Plan Colombia, which displaced and put in jail thousands of impovireshid indigenous people.
Is it really that hard to see the difference in this aspect between the 2 candidates?
Could not have said it better myself!
I support Obama, but I have never said or thought that he is pure. What I have said and thought is that Hillary, with all her experience, has infinitely _more_ baggage (not the least of which is her husband) and they will lose in a general election.
forgive my typos and grammatical errors. Typed too fast and didn't proof it for errors. But am sure you get the drift.
Erica, I have no idea if you are a "pure writer" or not, but don't sound so hopeless. You are lacking in Obama. ;)
Does anyone get to be a presidential candidate in our country without being a politician?
Sure they do, but the motivation behind that must be examined. Does a candidate who is willing to throw other Democratic voters under her power bus because she thinks their states are irrelevant, seek power for herself as a Clinton , along with her husband, who is obviously itching for a third term. She wants power for powers sake--she wants to be the first woman president, not for the sake of the country, which she is willing to have it's young be killed in a senseless, shameful war which she voted for. She was for the war, there is no doubt about it, and now she is against the war and all the while she is playing a game with the people, you know the common man and woman who are the backbone of this country. Some if not all who have voted for Obama, are just the little people, whose votes are dismissed by the power monger, Hillary. Is that the action of a person who is interested in improving this country?
On the other hand, there is the quest for power by Obama. Except he does not lose his cool and spout off crazily over some damn meme that has been around for weeks already. He also is interested in the people of this country and he KNOWS HOW TO UNITE THE COUNTRY, not divide it . This is what power apparently means to him
What power means to the Clintons is that Bill gets to be president again, albeit beind the scenes, but nevertheless will be out there as a president as he travels around.
Hillary's campaign has pursued the path to power, no matter what she has to say or do, no matter what Bill or Chelsea has to say or do, to get to the land of their dreams, in the White House once more.
If they could put aside their compulsion to seek power for their own agrandizement, they certainly could have had the common sense to see that such a dynastic succession from Bush to Clinton, over and over, IS NOT HEALTHY for a country.
Why don't I feel united? Just wondering.
kitty3363:
I think most Americans are starting to feel even more Un Unified than ever! This makes the bush days look good.
The venom coming from the Obama posters is horrible. And they call that unity??
It is not so much a politician's purity or lack thereof that's important. It's the media.
It was obvious six months before the 2000 election that the media were going to put Bush into office. They did it with adjectives. Gore had used a figure of speech to describe his role in helping to finance the internet, and the media called him a liar nonstop, with every sly word for dishonesty. And every article on the two would have positive adjectives for Bush and negative ones for Gore.
The media had only 3 months to defeat Hillary, and they’ve had to be more ham handed. They replaced the adjectives for shallow insults, delivered nonstop for months. While Obama is compared to MLK and JFK and Gandhi, everything Hillary does is diabolical. No reason. That’s just the way it is.
It’s amazing how many democrats let the media do their thinking for them. That was shown when so many in the blogosphere immediately began making the same types of empty smears. The media could have stopped the attacks altogether, but of course they didn’t. Without someone to hold the strings, the puppets might go back to thinking rationally, or even asking inconvenient questions about their hero.
Actions really do speak louder than words. I don't feel secure with a politician with only words. The Europeans, after the german experience, don't like religiosity and don't like self indulgence. That is what they don't like about Americans, in general. Well, now it is also because of the Iraq War but I bet they would say the war grew out of these two things - too much religion and self indulgence in politics.
They make fun of their politicians - and give them power without allegience and certainly without religious fervor. I think they will soon see Obama as much too religious and self indulgent and therefore will be able to change nothing. They will see him as more dangerous than Bush. Obama will be more dangerous because he is not only a false prophet, but unpatriotic and a woosee!
Oh Erica, you should read the comments Obama's Claymates wrote in reaction to a HuffPo piece about Saturday Night Live's spoof on Obama.
His acolytes are acting just like the neocons did toward Bush before he fell from grace.
Considering the inspiration and Messiah-like grace their candidate has bestowed upon them, they turn as viscious as rattlers if anyone dare uses Obama's name or likeness in vain.
Get this--when Tina Fey made a passing reference to endorsing Hillary on SNL, one of his devotees said NBC and Fey would be losing their fanbase over it.
I wish the makers of Guitar Hero would come up with a new, improved version so these clueless Gen X,Y and Z nitwits would get off of politics and get back to being slackers.
Your comparison of Obama's supporters to bushie's supporters in 2000 and 2004 is spot on. When I question his qualifications, I am accused of attacking him! (that feels very familiar) I have been trying to get his supporters to explain to me in what ways he has shown leadership (since the 2006 democratic takeover) against bushie and his criminal cohorts (you know - supporting impeachment or censure, supporting the filibuster of FISA - restoring habeas corpus - things like that). No one has been honest enough to say that he has shown no leadership on these issues. They really don't like it when I point out that as a Constitutional scholar, he should be in the best position to judge bushie's behavior as impeachable or not. Since he has not called for impeachment, I guess he doesn't think it has risen to that level - or he choose the politically expedient path (which supports Ms. Jong's thesis).
Did you write this piece to console yourself? :)
Politicians by definition find compromises to push things through, make things happen. Of course, Obama isn't pure. We know that. (Take for example his populist attacks against free trade.) The supposed Pure Obama is a straw man created by Clinton backers. I'm sure he had compromised many a times to reach the current height. (Tip: read his books.) The Times even ran a feature story on this last year.
That's why his message of hope -- of building a large enough coalition of people united for change -- hits the mark. We all know, or claim to know, the problems that are ailing our body politic, and seem to aspire for common ends; yet, we've failed to achieve them. (Health care reform, peaceful world, increased aid to end poverty, etc.) While Ms. Clinton peddles the same old failed strategies, and the same old failed tactics, supposedly to complete the job she was tasked to do more than a decade ago, Obama offers a fresh approach.
The point to note: unlike Clinton, Obama recognizes his own shortcomings. A reason why he emphasizes "we" instead of "I". Big -- real BIG -- difference here.
And if their campaigns are indicative of their leadership and management skills, he is certainly a far superior candidate compared to Ms. Clinton, whose experience I fear is of the wrong kind; the kind that's more talk than action. She comes across to me as a Bush-lite -- supremely confident and arrogant, and surrounded by loyal (i.e. submissive sycophants) 'advisers'.
Well ... she's already on a self-destruction mode.
tamiliam:
Please tell me what it the fresh approach you're talking about that the Obama faithful claim is so beautific? (sp)
A) You say he has a message of hope: - Well so has and does every other politician on the face of the earth. Nothing new there.
B) Building a large coalition of people united for change. - Well so has and does every other politician on the face of the earth, including dictators like Stalin, Hitler etc... and no dictators like, Brian Mulrooney, Pierre E. Trudeau and all others. Nothing new there.
C) Obama offers a fresh approach to problems of this earth, for health care, peaceful world, end to poverty.. - Well so has and does every other politician on the face of this earth. - Nothing new there. (see examples in para. above)
So Obama's fresh approach remains a mystery to me. I keep hearing about it.. and even with using the word WE - which you say is a BIG thing.. By the way it's NOT a BIG or new thing... It's political speech 101... to use it. Phony as hell - but works all the time; After all - he can't take you to the Oval Office with him, nor will you be able to reach him, once he's there, trust me on that one:
So... ALL HIS TALK ... is pretty... but it's nothing new ... and still leaves a mystery as to what the hell he is talking about.. other than the same old, same old.. pretty words. (ahead of time forgive typos; have to get back to work)
There are no perfect people and politicians are people, who by the nature of their profession are in the vanguard of the corruptive process.
Part of Obama's appeal is attributable to his
swift rise to prominence within the Democratic party seemingly without having been corrupted in doing so.
He has acknowledged his relatively few fallings from grace and his career long work to better the plight of the disadvantaged in our society has earned the trust of a growing majority of Democratic voters.
The extraordinary organizational skill and discipline demonstrated by his campaign provides further reason to trust his leadership.
And, his prescient warning to the nation about the consequences of invading/occupying Iraq contributes to what his detractors call Obamamania.
opines:
You forgot to include one crucial asset:
The complete and total bias of Main Stream Media against Hillary - and non stop pro Obama publicity blitz - had a hell of a lot more impact than his extra ordinary organizational skills.
Making him the media darling and Hillary evil incarnate - and instigating and brainwashing the public with a non stop manufactured Pop Star -love in fest for Obama- sure didn't hurt him any.
It's going to hurt the public - but what the hell. Looks like the public buys anything that's mass marketed on TV, without question.
Erica, I think you're right on just about everything in this post.
I am unaware, however, of anyone affiliated with or even loosely connected to the Obama campaign suggesting that he is "pure".
"Pure" vs tainted is a bogus premise by an apparently frustrated feminist who is not really up to date with current politics.
Book tours and some once-racy fiction don't translate to real analysis of the utter disgust generated by Clinton fatigue.
If the boundary of your fake argument is all about who's pure and non-political, perhaps you might interview college kids, senior citizens, activists who have seen the Clintons for what they are.
The Clintons are being rejected; there's too much baggage. Senator Clinton's campaign is a mess; her husband (you know the guy she's tolerated for these many years through his extra-curricular activity) has given feminism a black eye.
Give up on these trivialities and understand the insight and feeling that characterize those who are thoroughly sick and tired of Billary.
Very well said. Why are feminists lining up for Hillary Clinton? If she weren't Bill's wife she would just be another shyster lawyer.
Saying Clinton has the political experience that Obama apparently lacks is like saying Nancy Sinatra made a singing career for herself strictly on her own talent and perserverence.
WOW, for the insights of a well known (or once well known) writer this is pretty thin, pathetic stuff. Its tough work running for president...you have to have a big ego to do it. In this modern era of mass media you better be able to take the scrutiny and know how to roll with the punches. Just because your husband or father was president doesn't mean you automatically get it passed on to you, as an inheritance...at least lets hope not. Obama out classed the Clinton's on every level. Fortunately, it looks like you can't rig the process, not totally...yet. This is good for America and if Clinton and Obama lose sleep and get some colds along the line, its the price they pay for seeking the most powerful, influential job in the world. I want to see how they manage and hold up under this harsh light. I don't want to hear more whining.
You are kidding right?
The whole thrust of the Obama campaign is change you can "BELIEVE" in cause (seen that sign?), you know- you can't believe in anyone else.
So- if I can believe in him, but no one else- that makes him honest- and oh- pure.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
