The big news (besides that Bush endorsed McCain) today seems that Clinton broke Obama’s winning streak. By this I might be more impressed had she won any decisively, as the media seems to be saying, but she did not; the only place she won by more than 10% was Rhode Island, and what’s 10% of Rhode Island? Like, 3 people, or something? Seriously, it’s smaller than Delaware, isn’t it? Texas was a squeaker of a primary, 51% to 48%.
The problem, though, is that McCain clinched his nom while the Dems are now still petty-bickering about who voted how when. Obama says he’s the man to beat McCain, but he’s got to get there first.
Personally, I think Obama should invite Edwards onto his ticket now, solidifying his stance. Because if Edwards were still in the race, he’d have diverted votes away from Clinton, I think, and Obama would have won all the primaries yesterday.
There are so many interesting ways this could all go, though. Clinton could lose the democratic nomination, but what if McCain invited her to be his vice president? I could see McCain doing something like that. On the off chance Clinton wins the Dem nom, though, I’m betting she’d go with Bill Richardson for her VP. But in which case, I’d love to see Obama and Edwards run an independent ticket.
They probably mightn’t get enough electoral votes to actually win election, but I’d bet they’d completely fuck up the system hard enough that nobody would know what was happening.
No, but seriously, I really do think the division between Obama and Clinton is doing more harm than good. Not for the Democratic party, mind, because I think the Democratic party does enough harm to itself without having to seek external blame, but because the fact that the two leading candidates for nomination are a black man and a woman is being overshadowed by the woman’s constantly attacking said black man. Clinton is doing more to set feminism back several decades than Howard Stern ever managed.
And the truth of the matter is, I’ve never minded McCain. I wish he’d beaten Bush’s underhanded tactics and won in 2000, because there are few men I could see leading our country through 9/11 better than I think McCain would have.
But I do wonder who he’ll run with.
March 6, 2008 at 9:56 am
I dunno. It’s odd. For me, there always comes a point in presidential politicking where I start losing interest. I think I’ve gotten there with this one. Which is unfortunate because I am a political junkie to some degree–and if I’m losing interest, I’m sure others are too. Why? Because it’s politics as usual right now…exactly what I don’t want. Beyond that, though, I don’t think this really is a contest of issues. It’s a contest of personalities and who can return honor to the White House. As issues go, the Dems are nearly identical. For me, it’s a question of character. It’s a question of respect. Hillary is probably the most derided political figure today. Her effectiveness at implementing her big ideas will surely be slowed by her enemies. Barack really is the only one who has a shot at repairing the divide in our country–and our reputation worldwide. John McCain, despite his political beliefs, would a sugar pill–a palatable Republican who wouldn’t cause acid reflux. His politics are wrong, but he’s the right face–the traditional face–a modern-day Ronald Reagan. In any case, it’s a step off from the Evil Emperor.
This was the first election where I really had hope that things would change. Unfortunately, I think Hillary’s success this past Tuesday was a huge turning point in this election simply because she turned things around by being a backbiting, slimy politician. Barack, until now, has taken the high road. Now, I’m sure his advisors are urging him to play dirty. I sorta think he has to in order to win. For all our cries for change, we’re still rewarding same old, same old. The dignity balloon has popped. If he does play dirty, though, he will probably lose those exact voters who hate such thing–the independents–and will then have to deal with being less viable against McCain.
All in all, the Dems are screwing each other over. Hillary’s doing John McCain’s heavy lifting. If the Republicans win, I’ll blame Hillary Clinton. It’s unfortunate that voters decided to reward her attacks. But I also think part of it stemmed from the media’s proclaimation that Barack was going to seal the deal. A big portion of her electorate were last minute voters.
I dunno–maybe my disinterest is stemming from a deep disappointment in the American people. The system has been broken for years. Why hasn’t there been reform? It’s nice that we finally have viable candidates–new types of candidates. But why did it take so long? I predict another old, rich, white man will eventually make it. When will another person of color/woman run after this–given this? Beyond that, why did it take our country’s near-demise to get anyone to stand up? And, even now, the people of our country are squatting more than standing tall and proud. It makes me a little sad, more angry–and so I tune out and work on what I can do. Surely, that will be more effective than any political movement.
March 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm
There are several parts of the following sentence that I would appreciate some clarification on, so that I do not begin to think of you as a jackass. I am a faithful reader, after all, and I paid full price for your book so long ago, so obviously I am a fan.
“… the fact that the two leading candidates for nomination are a black man and a woman is being overshadowed by the woman’s constantly attacking said black man. Clinton is doing more to set feminism back several decades than Howard Stern ever managed.”
I. In regards to “the woman’s constantly attacking said black man”, what exactly should Clinton be doing? Obama’s campaign has a number glaring weak spots; why shouldn’t she go after him? It has gotten to the point that Obama needs to start fighting back, and the argument that he’s being attacked SOLELY because he is black or SOLELY because his opponent is a woman is utter bullshit. He is running for the highest office in the country. This is American politics, Mr. Entrekin; candidates can talk about change all they want but the game itself is constant. I agree with you that the Democratic party does enough harm to itself without the follies of its candidates, but to attack Clinton for pointing out the chinks in her opponet’s shiny, pretty armor is to play into the double standard that an agressive woman is simply a bitch who needs a good fuckin’, while a man who does the same is a straight shooter who knows his game. I’d like to think you’re above that.
II. Further to my last point, would you be so kind as to explain how Clinton is setting feminism back? Should she keep her mouth shut and go back to her silly female preoccupations? I would greatly appreciate it you would elaborate on that.
For the sake of context, and not that it should matter, but I am a man. I am a member of the Democratic party, and I not only voted for Obama, I voulnteer for his campaign in the Los Angeles area. I hope to the mighty Chthulu that I am not the only person like myself who is sick to death of people pulling the female card, as it were, when they talk shit about Clinton. I’ve learned, many times over, that it’s the mark of someone who doesn’t know their argument and just likes to spout off on what everyone else is talking about. Someone who hasn’t an original idea in their head, as it were.
March 6, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I know UhHuh’s comment was directed to Will, but I wanted to talk about a few things he brought up…because it’s something that has bothered me for a while now.
I agree with Will’s comment about Clinton, for the most part. I don’t think Clinton is attacking Obama just because he’s black. I think she attacked him because she was desperate. But, let’s face it, part of the difference between Obama and Clinton is he’s black and she’s white. She might couch some of her comments with labels like “experienced” versus “inexperienced”, but some of her allusions are definitely rooted in racial differences–though I don’t think she’s necessarily intending to do that. I think it’s part of the subtle racism that exists in our country.
I do think that Clinton has been often unfairly attacked because she’s a woman. I think it’s more socially acceptable to say belittling things about women than it is to make comments about someone’s race. I also think the reason she’s being attacked so often because of her gender is because she has made it a central issue in her campaign. She’s used the attacks on her due to gender several times. We saw it in her supposed breakdown. All her emotional outbursts feel disingenuous to me. She’s been attacked for many, many things…especially during her husband’s presidency. I don’t remember her breaking down then…even when he was involved in scandal. She kept it hidden. Perhaps, she did have those emotions then.
I respect what Clinton has done for our country. It’s quite a feat to run for president–and be viable–as a woman. But I don’t like her dirty politicking. I have no doubt that she really wants to work hard for our country. I have no doubt that she has been through a lot. But she sets all women back by playing into the stereotypes and being like those who attack her. She tries to have it both ways. I almost feel like she wants to be attacked just to get the attention.
All of this plays into the whiny little girl who needs and deserves our pity. Every time she cries foul, she comes across as a victim. If she really wanted to do something about the sexism she’s facing, she’d open it up as a conversation. She has an opportunity now, as a woman, to really bring inequality to light. Yet, I don’t see her talking much about wage inequality, education gaps, etc. She could partner with Obama to talk about inequality across the board, and she could make this about HUMAN rights.
I think Obama is having a better time of it because he hasn’t made his race a central issue. His rhetoric does allude to his race–i.e., change. But he talks about himself as a man first and then a black man. He’s had to deal with racism, but we don’t hear him talking about it too often. Make no mistake, a lot of his difficulties came about because certain people were not happy about the media’s kingmaking. And, certainly, some of that kingmaking was manufactured to tear him down.
I don’t think that Obama can bring up the issue of racism right now. We are at a saturation point. This is a delicate social experiment that will determine the course of history for people of color in this country. The risk is far too great. The conversation with women is far less risky.
March 6, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Dear Uh huh:
Said black man is sticking to the issues, as said woman should do, rather than crying every time someone says an unkind word about her before she turns around and says unkind words about everyone else.
By the way:
“to attack Clinton for pointing out the chinks in her opponet’s shiny, pretty armor is to play into the double standard that an agressive woman is simply a bitch who needs a good fuckin’, while a man who does the same is a straight shooter who knows his game. I’d like to think you’re above that.”
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Obama both addresses and advances issues. His is a campaign predicated on the notion that he is, simply, the best candidate for the job. Clinton’s seems predicated on the notion that everyone else is worse than she is. I might think she were aggressive if she’d stop crying all the time.
I’d like to think she’s above that.
March 6, 2008 at 5:39 pm
By the way, I never said that Obama was being attacked solely because he was black, nor solely because his opponent is a woman. I’d just like to note that.
I’d also like to note that this is probably as good a time as any to mention that I welcome and encourage open exchange, but I do expect civility, nearly as much as I dislike anonymity. As well as serving as author and proprietor of this blog, so too will I act as moderator, with reservation of all acts that role entails.
In other words: be nice. We’re all friends here.
And finally: thanks for buying my book, and following me over here! That’s pretty cool. Having done so, you should know I’m not a “jackass,” though.