This morning on MSNBC, Clinton surrogate Senator Bill Nelson, as part of a continued effort to hype Clinton's anachronistic FL "victory", highlighted her superior performance across all demographics---with one notable caveat. Nelson concedes Obama decisively won "THE BLACK VOTE" in FL that, looking ahead to Super Tuesday, only gives him marginal and inadequate "POCKETS OF SUPPORT."
This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton continues to rely on her establishment sycophants (including Bill Clinton, with his Jesse Jackson assertions after South Carolina, etc.) to pursue a Southern Strategy: a desperate, futile and shameless attempt to racially polarize the electorate and relegate Obama to the status of a candidate who is for, by, and of African Americans alone. This racial triangulation will continue to backfire because it outrages African American, white, Latino and Asian Democrats alike. Please make people aware of Senator Nelson's comments!!
Swinging on the Democratic Vine and Getting Dizzy
Senator Ted Kennedy, the great Democratic leader just endorsed Barack Obama. Caroline Kennedy, a fine woman, and the daughter of history, endorsed him. They must know something I don't know. Congressman Charles Rangel, a wise old African American pol whom I respect enormously, endorsed Hillary Clinton, and fuzzy headed John Kerry is for Obama (chalk that up as against Obama, one for Clinton) powerful labor organizations who know the needs of their members endorsed Hillary, leading feminists whom I respect endorsed her, and most important, my very smart wife and brilliant sons are for Hillary, believing without a doubt that Hillary will make the best president and bring us back from the brink. Others disagree vehemently. Oprah is for Obama, Oprah who brought us Dr. Phil, the stalker of Britney Spears, so that one goes to Hillary, doesn't it? Roseanne is for Hillary, so that one may go to Obama. And Rosie is for...let's not go there, or we might have to hear who Donald Trump is for, and frankly Scarlett I don't give a damn. Do they all know something I don't know? I like John Edwards more than either of the above leading candidates but nobody is endorsing him. Does nobody know something I don't know?
Here's what I do know. We have two -- no, let's say three -- terrific candidates, and I have problems with all of them. I'm prepared to admit that the problems may be mine; that there is something essential that is missing in my character and my judgment. I am not by nature a fan. I haven't been the fan of any movie-star since Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn, he of the magic feet, she of the miraculous eyes and smile, no fan of a baseball player since Jackie Robinson roused a boyhood cheer in me; no pop singer since Roy "Pretty Lady" Orbison left me dazed with admiration for his voice, music and lyrics. This is a somewhat impoverished history of fandom. And my political heroes tend to live in the past, going back to FDR -- too young to vote for him but I was a pre-teen Roosevelt rooter (sounds a bit like I Was A Teen-Age Werewolf, doesn't it?) -- leaving aside my failure to warm to Truman who loved his atom bomb far too much for my taste, Stevenson, a bit snobby and much too regal, and young Kennedy who moved from one Bay of Pigs blunder to another, propelled into history by a terrible tragedy and a beautiful wife, now a figure of mythology, rather than reality. So I concede that I am not a good candidate for candidate loving. But Doctor, help me, I want to fall in love. And I've got to do it by Super Tuesday. Please!
Here's what stands in my way. Foolish little things like thinking that Barack Obama might make a better folk song performer/composer than president. He inspires by his presence, he's pure music, we want to stand up and cheer, but he leaves me awfully confused by his lyrics, which may not matter in a folksong -- as we get carried away by the music -- but matters a great deal in life and government. Don't get me wrong, I love folksingers: Josh White, Burl Ives, Pete Seeger, Judy Collins, Joan Baez, I got all the records -- just sing me a rousing folksong, something of social significance and I am yours forever. But in a candidate for president I want substance more than song, and the more I listen to Obama the more I want him to go cut a record if he can't be more substantial. There appears to be a caution there that I find unsettling. And yet there is something about him that demands respect, something that suggests all kinds of wonderful possibilities. Speak to me Barack, tell me what's on your mind, forget your heart, I know more about that heart than I need or want to know, tell me what you will actually do as president, the nuts and bolts of leading a Bush-battered country into a decent future, not some nonsense like reaching out to the unreachable Bush-loving Republicans to make us all whole again as a people. Forget that impossible dream. I care more about the recession and getting out of the horror movie that is Iraq with that surge that must go on forever. Nor do I give a damn about some fruitless political reconciliation with the Republican Neanderthals in this country. And the Obama fans who write blogs often seem to be saying, "Love this guy or leave the country, you idiot!" Not a good message from those who regard their candidate as the spokesman for brotherly love. As far as Hillary goes, I am deeply offended by Bill's smarmy comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson (for which she doesn't get a free pass from me) a sneaky kind of racism that says nothing about Obama and a great deal about Bill's failure to show the proper respect for a brilliant, ambitious, idealistic, well-spoken candidate, a respect that candidate deserves. Bill is Hillary's surrogate, and I don't like their playing good cop/bad cop with politics. Doesn't work with me. And if truth be told -- and it rarely is -- I'm not sure I want to hear Hillary's policy wonk voice droning on for the next few years...and yes, I wouldn't like it any better in a male candidate. Still, she knows so damned much about government, maybe not thirty five years worth of knowledge, but this woman knows her stuff, and she can strut it with the best of them. But he's no slouch in the knowledge department, so that might just be a draw.
Swinging back to Obama, I feel there is something oh so superior, and not the good kind of superior about Obama as I am put off by his cold and snapping manner which lurks just behind his warm and engaging smile. And yet his personal history shows that he is a superior person; that he has enormous intelligence and great appeal to the young -- a natural leader -- nothing to scorn in that. Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for any of the above over the egregious, "Say anything to win and hug any damned theocrat for the nomination" John McCain, or the robotic "I'll bring us out of the recession by firing all Americans" CEO Mitt Romney, but those guys are not my problem. Hillary and Barack are my problem, one of them will be my candidate, and I keep swinging back and forth between them like an aging Tarzan on a jungle vine, desperately hoping to make up my mind by Tuesday, clear the tree-tops, and make a safe, smart landing, without landing bruised and battered on the ground below. Just when I think I've done it, I find that I'm swinging towards the other side again. I tell you, it might have been fun when I started, but it no longer is. I'll let you know where I land, if, and when I ever do, but right now, I'm just getting dizzy.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
It all comes down to Nevada's culinary union: proof positive the people haven't a clue where their interest lies. And now that John Edwards has had to drop out because the voters couldn't be bothered with the reality of middle-America's place in an ultra-conservative society, it probably won't matter who the nominee is. Neither Clinton nor Obama will attack the hair-brained notion that the Constitution of these United States gives the free-market dominion over everything else in the country. Clinton will govern well but, in the end, offer very little to the majority of Americans. Obama will compromise well and, in the end, offer very little to the majority of Americans. As for me, I'm not at all bothered by having to decide who to support: I don't support either. I'll probably do as I did in 2004 and vote for the Democratic nominee; but I guarantee you it won't be with the eagerness with which I would have marked the ballot for John Edwards.
Now is the time when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama ought to get together and decide who is going to be President and who is going to be Vice President...and for good measure, throw in John Edwards as Secretary of State. And go into Super Tuesday with a Democratic party united behind one candidate and all on the same page....gee, just like the Republicans. Because you can bet that soon the Republicans will work it out and then it's going to be Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hilary SCANDAL Clinton from now until the election, with the news media following in lockstep. If Obama and Clinton are such "uniters" and problem solvers, let them unite to solve the problem of making sure that we take our country back for a long, long time...at least the next 16 to 24 years. Let's combine the good and de-emphasize the bad, so that we're not faced once again with the spectacle of people who have spend a year tearing each other to shred smiling and holding hands at the convention...NOBODY believes that. If we're going to unite the country in all it's diversity, let's see how well we can unite the Democratic party for the good of all. That might solve some of the confusion.
Sherman, do me a favor and don't vote. If you can't see Hillary for what she is and you married a woman and had a child that aren't smart enough to see her for what she is than do not cast your ballot. I'm sick and tired of those who are scared to take a risk on what America could be screwing it up for the rest of us.
Yeap, my wife and I where in the same boat as you when our caucus rolled around, and I will tell you that I didn't make my decision until I had to. The fan boy treatment of Obama really turns me off. While we waited for the caucus to start we were subjected to a amplified microphone and high school football type chants against the Clinton caucus supporters. Not very dignified, and a real turn off. But yes, I know what you mean about Hillary's "drone". And if someone would actually cover Edwards, well, he might actually connect with more voters. I like what he has to say, when you can find video of him or transcripts. If you actually read what the candidates say, instead of watching them, you get very different meanings, Obama's comes across as good, but well, not special, Clinton is smart, and Edwards actually is something special.
Anyone who wants to know who Barack Obama is and what his specific plans are can do two things. First go to his web page and look under issues. Search the site and you can learn a tremendous amount. Second, read his books: The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father. Both are excellent and were written by the candidate himself (which is usually not the case when politicians publish a book.)
After reading The Audacity of Hope, actually his second book, I knew I wanted this man to be my president.
Just voted here in Florida. I also think we have 3 great candidates. Finally voted for Obama. Why? Because I didn't want the Bush/Clinton dynasty to continue. The Bushes are criminals but the Clinton family feeds off of them. It is time to stop that. I love Hillary but please let her show her greatness in the Senate. Only 100 people in the entire nation has that previlege. I also could not forget that Hillary voted to authorize the war and has voted to authorize a war on Iran.
I don't want to give Obama any power other than maybe a cabinet position or diplomatic position. He has already shown me that he is willing to just ride the wave. The wave is all of us so influenced by the sound of his voice - a voice of authority - that we will not criticize him enough to even know his character. It reminds me of how the germans behaved - supporting a leader they believed could WIN and the power given him helped determine a whole series of unintended consequences. We are to blame. We are giving Obama too much power now and the primaries are not even over. We need to think about the best person for the job, not all these media concerns about who can win. The times could easily propel Obama onto the world stage, untested, with too much power.
Oh boy do I understand you, sir. Although I am much younger (turned 18 today so it's the first time I can vote!), and although I CAN say that I can definitely be the "fan" type (mostly with music, though)... I'm in the exact same dilemma as you are, and I pretty much have the exact same opinions as you do on the candidates. On one hand Obama seems so fresh and cool- if anyone can bring this country together again and make us proud, it's him. But he can just as easily be a lame duck type and not do much of anything substantial except make nice speeches and smile nice. His fans turn me off as well... is he a rock star or a presidential candidate for God's sake? And why do they insist on treating Hillary sop horribly? Sheesh, talk about immature. Then Hillary... she will probably be a great president, I almost have no doubt about that, but will she bring us together? Will she bring in some much-needed freshness that Barack surely can? I don't know, and I have an itch that the answer might be a flat out "no." So I'm just waiting for a light bulb to turn on in my head and think "Oh! NOW I know who I'll vote for!" Unfortunately that hasn't happened yet... of course I would vote for either one in a heart beat in the general election, but now is the tough part. Maybe I need to do even more research about them... analyze their videos with a magnifying glass or something, ha. But cheers to your honesty and lack of "fan"-dom because God knows I've had enough of that in the HuffPo comments...
First, go here and look at Obama"s very unimpressive voting record:
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
He votes for big business and the war. We don"t need that.
Second, the only thing we need to do with Republicans in the coming years is to VOTE THEM ALL OUT!!! Then, President John Edwards can issue a signing statement that declares a permanent moratorium on the filibuster by any Republican congressman.
Hillary's in Florida today. This says it all for me, she will do or say anything necessary to get the nomination. I saw her stand during Bush's speech last night with all the republicans when Bush spoke about Al Quaida on the run.
I don't trust her and I certainly don't trust Bill's influence on her White House. Her "35" years of experience are far too convoluted for me or for a US that wants to have a transparent functioning government.
What you dismiss as folk star fan following is the most vital and important aspect of Obama.
He is mobilizing people because he knows that he will not be able to get health care for example through without intense public support.
Obama is a community organizer and what is so thrilling and incredible about what's happening now, if you can drop the attitude and look at it clearly, is that he is starting to organize the entire country.
He is also laying the groundwork already in his campaign for the next step in integration in the United States- his campaign is breaking done barriers and it is growing and growing.
The longer one clings to identity politics the harder it is to see- he is single handedly trying to turn this country into a community again.
And please don't dismiss that as a just a vague dream.
WHY OBAMA - PART 2
The second, and actually most important criterion is theory of governance.
To simplify, if you believe that the challenges that we face require a rolling "governing majority" of approximately 60% of the electorate willing to support key initiatives (or at least not virulently oppose them), then Obama is probably your man.
If you don't agree with the need for this majority, then any of the candidates are valid choices for you.
If you agree with the need for this governing majority and you believe that Hillary or Edwards can build and maintain it, I don't have space in 300 or 3000 words to convince you otherwise.
It is possible that even Obama cannot do this. He would need luck and good timing, but he is the only one who has demonstrated this ability already.
In his campaign.
He has done what Hillary and John would have loved to do, and in many ways tried to do, which was to bring together a broad coalition of experienced players and completely new entrants and gotten them to PERFORM, doing many things effectively that they have never done before.
And they LIKE it.
This does not happen with atmospherics alone, and NO ONE else in our politics since John Kennedy has been able to do it.
Lyndon Johnson's 1964 "landslide" (the real one, not the Texas squeaker on which his famous nickname was ironically based) was a legacy of Kennedy as much as of Johnson.
To vastly oversimplify, we need a MOVEMENT (actually a variety of them) to change this country in the ways it needs to be changed.
You want to know what Barack will do?
He's already doing it.
Right now.
Watch.
WHY OBAMA - PART 1: [This will require two posts.]
Sherman, sometimes you infuriate me, but I believe your quandary is sincere, and I will give you my best brief answer, using the two major criteria that have applied myself.
The first and most important criterion is integrity. Does the person seem to "hang together", especially ethically. Are they consistent about things that seem to matter... like honesty.
The most important test of this is whether we feel "cognitive dissonance." about the person.
I believe that Obama holds up very well here.
Hillary does not.
His worst dissonance was his too quick dismissal of the Rezko relationship during the tusslin' debate. He should have elaborated. He's done it since, in a way that in no way contradicts all of the investigative reports I've read.
Her worst dissonance was a first and second order dissonance.
First order means she seems dishonest.
Second order means that she demonstrably lied.
She has done both more than a few times, including her completely egregious representation of the substance and the - obvious - spirit of Obama's comments about Reagan.
By far her worst transgression, though, was during the "sit-down" debate, when Tim Russert questioned about her view of the comments that Bob Johnson made about what Barack "was doin'."
Did you watch her tell Tim Russert that she accepted Bob Johnson's explanation that he was only referring to Obama's "community organizing"?
She then - ten seconds later - acknowledged to Russert - IN THE SAME EXCHANGE - that Johnson was out of line.
Russert didn't call her on it, but she said it herself, live, and she was in the first instance clearly LYING.
Do you think that she felt Johnson's inappropriate comments referred to "community organizing"?
Do you?
If you do, then I can't be helpful to you on the issue of integrity.
If you don't, this may be enough for you to base your decision.
But - as Ron Popeil (of RONCO fame) would say - there's more.
[SEE WHY OBAMA - PART 2]
The empty accusation that Obama only speaks in dreamy rhetoric and has no actual positions on the issues, let alone a clear vision, is getting thrown around more and more each day. His positions on most of the issues have been highlighted for the last year and are mostly freely and easily reachable in many, many speeches and votes. Do the critics making this accusation expect him to touch on every one of his positions in his stump speeches?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an unconditional Obamasupporter, but this accusation just bothers me because of its obvious purpose and falsehood. It's simply a fact that every candidate has to find a niche to be able to reach out to the greatest possible number of likely voters. Obama's niche is change, Hillary's is experience and Edward's is populism. All candidates have clear positions and experience backing their perspective up. Obama's rhetoric, while not appealing to me, does not bother me in the least bit.
Loading comments…
Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects...
Posted January 29, 2008 | 10:33 AM (EST)