This is a false dichotomy and a racially and sexually offensive set of metaphors. Obama is inspiring AND a hard worker. He gives more than good speeches. If he didn't work hard, he would not be in this position and he would not have survived this campaign. How do we think he went from a single parent household in Hawaii to Harvard and from there to the Senate and from there to one of the most successful and innovative presidential campaigns in recent history? He had to work hard to achieve this much at such a young age. We know that Hillary does not inspire us, as much as we wish she would. (Although, I think she has a great deal of wit and occasional charm) But we don't know that Obama won't work hard. We only know that Hillary says he doesn't. Not exactly the most reliable reference.
Why Am I So Afraid
Why am I so afraid that the Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot?
The Dems are far from perfect--in any time--but here we are in what has to be a Democratic year and it looks again like we are self-destructing.
We have two great candidates--one a hard working, never give up eager beaver, and one an inspiring, heart-leapingly brilliant stallion. Both have their merits. Both care for what Democrats are best at caring for--working people, children's and women's rights, financial realism.
Both acknowledge the health care crisis, the environmental depredations of the GOP, the huge lurking menace of a war that costs 12 billion dollars a day and gives us nothing--unless we are war profiteers or blow-yourself-up fundamentalists. Both are poised to take back the country from the plutocrats and their endless tax cuts for each other.
And yet we have had great candidates before--think Al Gore--and lost to the low-level conniving, smearing and swift boating of the GOP (Grandiose Old Plutocrats).
The GOP stands for nothing today but looting the national treasury for the rich. George Dubya Bush once addressed them as the "haves and have mores"--clearly he is one of them--but maybe he will have less now that the Carlyle Group is running out of money. Maybe he'll have a little rachmones for the have-less and have-nots, though I doubt it.
If anyone in Washington read history, they'd understand that any empire that spends more in war than on its people eventually goes down in flames. The Persians, Greeks and Romans proved it--see Herodotus--and the British, French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans proved it all over again in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But does anyone care?
Apparently not. It's a rule of history that when an empire gorges on guns and forgets butter, that empire winds up on the scrap heap of history.
Dubya could have learned this at Yale had he not been drunk or stoned all the time and figuring out ways to avoid going to 'Nam.
But he doesn't know and doesn't care. He thinks, "The surge is working." Dick Cheney and Condi Rice tell him so. And now McCain echoes them. And our idiot corporate press--which has no time to read or think or dig for information (too busy getting pix of Kristen-Alexandra's tattoos) doesn't give a shit either. Leave that to the book-writers. That's safe enough since Americans don't read--especially not big thick books about history.
Meanwhile our two clever candidates have been sucked into the rigors of campaigning. They're tired. Dog-tired. The stallion makes heart-stopping speeches. And the beaver just beavers along. remembering how she won over upstate New York when everyone called that impossible. And called her a carpetbagger. And the stallion is drunk on his own rhetoric. Why not? It's great rhetoric.
We need beavers and we need stallions. Beavers get the work done. Stallions inspire us. And they both have limitations. Stallions have fragile legs (think Barbaro). And beavers are nothing without their teeth.
It's not a matter of choosing between inspiration and hard work. We need both. We need to be inspired and then we need those who will never give up till they execute the inspiration.
Any fool knows that. The Democratic Party ought to know it too. And the sooner they bring the beaver and the stallion together, the better off we'll all be. There is no choice here. There ought to be no ego, no genderizing and no racializing.
Americans are neither black nor white. We are all as mixed as Brazilians. We are a honey-colored race--with Africans, Europeans, Asians and Native Americans intermingled in our DNA. That's the glory of America. If Dick Cheney is genetically related to Barack Obama, what more do we need to know? DNA only goes so far politically.
So let's stop talking about race and gender and let the beaver and the stallion both serve our country--in their own inimitable ways.
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
Let me point out that in a political campaign, each candidate must try to draw distinctions between them and their opponent. Just because Hillary says she is a hard worker, does not mean that she is saying Obama is not. If Obama says he has hope, it doesn't mean that Hillary has none. Every candidate thinks that he or she is the best choice. If they did not we wouldn't vote for them. Imagine the candidate who says, "I hope you vote for me. I may not be the best choice but I will try really hard. But my opponents may be just as good as me."
Given your analysis, by extension, you must think that George W. Bush is quite extraordinary. He went to Yale. He ran a winning gubernatorial campaign. He was able to run two successful presidential campaigns. He even owned a baseball team. Does that make him as good as Obama?
Sorry, brainwave, but it's patently obvious that the Obamasiah is an empty suit. Of course, HRC is an empty pantsuit, so you guys take your pick. Ugh.
"beavers are nothing without their teeth."
I think my biggest issue here is that Erica based her flaws on her metaphors rather than on the people herself. It's like saying George Bush is like Dopey Dwarf because he acts dopey, therefore, he is cute, because Dopey dwarf is cute. Just because a metaphor might be applicable in one respect does not mean that other aspects of the comparative object are applicable. Saying that Barack Obama is like a stallion because he charges onward may be an applicable metaphor, but to conclude that because he is like a stallion, and because stallion often have fragile legs, thus he must have fragile legs is terrible logic. If the point was to say that Obama runs so hard that he might pull up lame, then perhaps that should have been indicated, but as it was written, it just looks like a logical leap that falls flat.
Hey Erica -
Please Erica, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel! You go girl.
All empires eventually go down in flames, whether they "gorge" on guns or butter.
With 'democrats' like Lieberman and Wasserman who need Republicans?
Yes, it would be great if there were a shining Democrat out there who could be best the Repugs and keep the Democratic Party in tact. Don't think that is going to happen. The front runner doesn't want to give Clinton any kind of a break in re delegates. That is the essence of the problem. He (Obama) knows that he hasn't won the big states but he stubbornly insists on going on without any consideration of his opponent. You have to be relatively friendly for the Democratic Party to see that this has to be a choice for Democrats. Obama doesn't. He won many caucuses and primaries with crossovers and he isn't going to talk about being a Democrat. There stands the problem. Party versus personality.
The beaver is desingenuous, that's the problem. She will never best the Repugs. They would tear her to pieces on the general. She was for NAFTA, before she was against it. She was for the war, before she was against it. Now, she was "under sniper's fire", before she misspoked. And she has not even released her taxes, and other documents. No wonder Limbaugh, and Pat Buchanan are fighting so hard for her nomination. Just think of the political ads with her, and now her husband, praising McSame.
This is an extremely goofy yet fear-ridden post, Erica. A hard combination, but you somehow managed to do it. While you are allowed to be as goofy and nonsensical as you wanna, stop with the pandering to fear. We've had enough of the simplistic 'choices'...
I FEEL YOUR PAIN, ERICA.
So you could not find less demeaning images - beaver and stallion? How disgustingly sexualized this commentary is, and how much it degrades both men of color and women. Yuck.
Seriously.
To have both Obama and Clinton on the Democratic ticket in 2008 would be a mistake, A ticket headed by Obama will have a problem with bigots who wouldn't vote for an African American under any circumstances; a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton will have a problem with sexists who wouldn't vote for a woman under any circumstances, as well as the hate Hillary crowd. Put the two together and there are two groups who won't vote for the ticket instead of one.
I get it. Our ideal candidate would be a Brazilian trans-sexual with strong legs and big teeth. Right?
Sorry but this beaver is using her teeth to break her own dam. She will be swept away by the current. No white stallion will be there to save her. Good luck to the people of New York but I do not want Hillary as a roll model for my grand daughter.
"[R]oll" model? She's not running for the office of the "pastry," She's running for the office of the Presidency. You're commenting on HuffPost--I think you must have been looking for Pilsbury.com.
brilliant!!!!!
Amen to that!
I'm with you my fellow dove! Good point. Unfortunately, I believe the beaver will gnaw at anything, say anything to get herself elected. But when push comes to shove, she's a hawk bought and paid for by lobbyists, big corps and political favors.
Sorry, sexy, but only one of them is going to be allowed to grab for the brass ring and there is no way "the stallion" is going to make nice with "the beaver" with her bite marks all over his ass and she is loosing her teeth with lawyerly lies and stupid helpmates.
Hillary represents the corporations that have contributed to her campaign. It will be more of the same, but with a pant suit on. Her goal is power.
Erica, You are afraid because that's what that's what Bill and Hillary Clinton want you to feel. That's what John McCain wants you to feel. You are afraid because that's what "the politics of fear" wants you to feel. Fear is the basis of all neo-conservative / neo-liberal politics.
In an article entitled "The Obama Doctrine" the conditions that lead towards and away from this "mind-set" are outlined. In regards to foreign policy, they said:
"The Obama foreign-policy team describe... 'the politics of fear,' a phrase most advisers used unprompted in our conversations. 'For a long time we've not seen much creative thinking from Dems on national security, because, out of fear, we want to be a little different from the Republicans but not too different, out of fear of being labeled weak or indecisive,' another top adviser says. Identifying that fear as the accelerant of the Iraq War mind-set is the first step to a new and innovative foreign policy. John Kerry was not able to argue for fundamental change in foreign policy because he was consumed by that very political fear. Obama's admonition to Democrats is much like Pope John Paul II's to the Gdansk shipyard strikers -- first, be not afraid."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_doctrine
Obama-Webb '08
If the presidency requires both hard work and inspiration, Obama's got the goods. Hello? He's won the most delegates, the most votes (even if you include those disqualified states of Fla and Mich), and the most states. He's won more votes than any other candidate from any party! He's leading by every single metric there is. If that's not hard work, I don't know what is. Time to let the harder-working and more successful candidate get the nomination already, in my opinion. Clinton has been a hard-working Senator for New York, and in 2000, she campaigned hard there and won. You simply cannot say the same thing about her 2008 presidential bid (well, you can say it, but you'd be wrong). There's nothing wrong with admitting you've given it a good run and came in a close second. There's nothing shabby about being a Senator, and she can continue to serve the country and her state "in her own inimitable way," and if that position is no longer suitable to her, then she has other career options, of course.
I've also had enough Dem-bashing and I'm very disappointed to see it again here. "The Dems" aren't a monolithic group who share one brain, and I'm glad they didn't pre-ordain a candidate to be forced upon the rank and file. Unlike Republicans, Dems have different opinions and they discuss them openly, and they pledge allegiance to the U.S., not to the party's most powerful. That's a good thing. I'm glad the Dems can show this country what it's like to let democracy actually do its thing in an election, and what it's like to debate what's most important to the nation instead of competing for the titleof biggest loudmouth bully. In a lot of ways, the Dem primary in 2008 is the most interesting and truly democratic election we've seen in this country in a long time, more so than lots of presidential elections.
So if you're sooooooo afraid, and as YOU said, we have two great candidates, and it seems like you want to stop the bickering for the ggod of the party, why can't YOU support the LEADING candidate?
Because there is noooooooo leading candidate. There is just media spin which is spinning on behalf of Obama. There would be no problem is this was not a tie and bound to be a tie to the end. It's not the winner with the most ____ (fill in with delegates, superdelegates, popular vote, number of states, big states) that wins -- the winner is whoever has the requisite number of delegates. If Michigan and Florida are cut out of this as the only road to victory for a candidate, then the Republicans will take those states in the general election because the Democratic party will have alienated their own electorate.
Erica is right. The Democrats need to come together and recognize the voters want both of these candidates. If Obama really wants to bring "everyone" together, he had better find a way to bring Hillary to the table. If Hillary really wants to effect change she needs to change enough herself to partner with Obama. Time to come together for the nation, for the world. If not, then why should the Republicans and Independents believe the Democrats at all?
Why is it always the black person who "had better" do something?
Um, winning more delegates, more Independents and Republicans, and more votes isn't enough. He clearly needs to... oh, wait.
Thanks, Erica! Nice to hear some balance somewhere! God knows, we won't find it on the evening news. Nor are we likely to find news, either... I, too, am afraid. Afraid that America is fast becoming the most willfully ignorant country on the planet. Afraid that we are destined to follow in the footsteps of the Roman Empire. And afraid that as we crash and burn at warp speed (because it won't take 4 or 5 centuries in the Information Era), the world will pay us back for the disdain with which we have treated other nations and cultures.
So, I'll take the beaver, thanks. Because beavers have teeth and persistence.
I'm afraid that 'beaver' is a really unfortunate metaphor in this instance, especially the 'teeth' part. Oy...
Erica... we seem doomed to repeat history and not learn from mistakes. Frankly, this must be why many become drawn to the wisdom of the spiritual greats who have disciplined their minds and spirits to bring light in the midst of the darkest of times.
My solace comes from the ancient Vedanta teachings (Gita, Upanishads) I am currently reading a collection from Christian writers with genuine spiritual experience who wrote letters during the years encompassing the Great Depression and Hitler's rise to power in Europe. The 1948 collection, "Letters of the Scattered Brotherhood" speak to us with inspiration and light that helps dispel fear and encourages us to find our strength. We'll need it.
I could not agree more. I wonder though, which of them will be able to put ego in check and take the VP spot? If the country were not in the boondoggle that it is in now I would go hands down for Obama. My only doubt is will he have what it takes to face our enimies should anything happen? I admit that I am more hawk than dove and I do believe in diplomacy which Obama will excel at. My question, or hesitation is will he be willing to go and kick some ass if needed, or will he talk us to defeat?
If we could get them both on the ticket, which is the only way we are going to beat Mccain, there combined strengths have the potential to make this country great again.
Who takes the top spot? Will we have the history making first woman president, or black president?
(Ego)
Just to rant for a moment, I am more then tired of the race card. I am well aware that prejudice is alive and well in America, but does it help or hurt to continue to have polls broke down the wat they are?
To answer your last question, I would undoubtedly say hurt.
Erica is drunk on the Hillary Kool-Aid. Comparing Hillary to an "eager beaver" is laughable. Beavers aren't carnivorous, back stabbing, selfish creatures. Hillary's only goal is the White House and, if she can't have it, no one can. Hillary knows that this election is over and she will not be the nominee but she cannot afford to have a Democrat in the White House. She will not be able to run again until 2016. Her only mission at this point is to make Obama unelectable, so that she can run again in 2012. Between now and then, she will have ample time to destroy McCain and make the "it should have been me" argument.
Rhetoric ?
Time to Shine Light on Government Spending
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
By Amanda Kathryn Hydro and Jason Mercier
Everyone has heard of Rep. Don Young"s (R-Alaska) infamous bridge to nowhere" the congressional earmark that secured $231 million to build a bridge to an island inhabited by roughly 50 people.
But the bridge to nowhere isn"t the only egregious waste of taxpayer money. Citizens Against Government Waste found Congress allocated $2.4 billion to 24 pork projects this year alone.
Taxpayers usually have no way of finding out where their money actually goes or how it is truly spent. Government reform groups are trying to change that by pushing efforts at the federal, state and local level that would shine the light on government spending.
Enter Sen. Barack Obama, Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinch and Mr. John Cox. These presidential candidates have all embraced the concept of "Google government" by signing the Oath of Presidential Transparency" which is sponsored by a non-partisan coalition led by the Reason Foundation.
By signing the oath they are promising, should they win the presidency in 2008, that they will issue an executive order during their first month in office instructing the entire executive branch to put into practice the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, a Google-like search tool that will allow taxpayers to hop online and see exactly how their tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks.
Making the government more accountable to taxpayers, and more transparent, is a non-partisan issue, which is why a diverse, wide array of three dozen organizations from across the nation has joined the effort.
"Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view," notes Sen. Obama.
Rep. Paul explains, "When government spends the people"s money, it must be done with utmost possible transparency."
Since these comments reflect such a basic principle of accountability, one is left wondering what Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have against providing taxpayers with details on how well their money is spent.
Along with demanding fiscal transparency from the federal government, taxpayers have the expectation that state and local governments will also embrace new technologies to make details about spending decisions and performance readily available at a click of the mouse.
This is why the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation"s largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, recently adopted model legislation to implement state versions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. ALEC also adopted a model bill to require that the public have at least 72 hours to review tax and spending bills before they are voted on.
Several states have already moved forward with some form of transparency reforms, including Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, Hawaii, South Carolina, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
We all know government is plagued by
Posted March 22, 2008 | 08:59 AM (EST)