Clinton | Multiple Enthusiasms

Tag: Clinton

March 21, 2008

Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama as his candidate of choice.

I’m surprised by two things:

a) A Democrat has done something right, and made a good choice, and

b) I totally thought Richardson would swing around the other way, to the point that I had figured not only that he would endorse Clinton but also that, should she get the nomination (which is appearing increasingly unlikely by the day), she would choose Richardson as her VP running mate.

Which, of course, brings up the next point, and the pretty much major question at this point:

Hey, John Edwards, WTF are you waiting for?

Obama and Edwards could win the White House with deliberate certainty, and I firmly believe not just that they are the perfect complements to each other, but also the perfect balances. They’re alike in the right ways and different in important ones.

March 19, 2008

Yesterday, Barack Obama made a speech that’s getting quite a lot of attention. If I’d been home in South Jersey, I probably would have recruited some friends to try to catch it; he spoke in Philadelphia, apparently just across the street from the Constitution Center. Thanks to Alma for emailing me the link to its transcript, and now I’ve found it on Youtube. It’s long, but I think it’s well worth watching:

It’s a brilliant speech by a powerful orator. I don’t think I’ve seen such an excellent speaker so long as I’ve seen any political candidates ever. It rivals “Ask not what your country can do for you.” It rivals “I have a dream.”

It is about unity over division.

And it reminded me of my personal favorite candidate, John Edwards.

Obama spoke on race; Edwards built his platform around class, which is just as divisive as race (and is often so intricately tied, one to the other). Division? Yes, there is white and black, Latino and Asian. But there is also 300,000 versus 150 million (top income earners versus everyone else). There is also the Hummer-driving, Starbucks-drinking, valet-parking population of Hollywood and its handful of burbs versus the Coleman stove-burning, seedy motel-showering population of so-called Tent City not even an hour away in Ontario (and probably walking distance from Ontario’s Outlet Malls).

Here’s a speech Edwards gave at the Service Employees International Union (you’ll note, at time of linking, its front page features a banner with Barack Obama):

And a spot he did about his beliefs and hopes to bring America together:

Reading about Tent City gives me a bad feeling; that it’s happening to those people. That it could happen at all. That they are giving out armbands now.

Back in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, a similar situation occurred across the nation.

This is not now a crisis; it’s been headed this way for a while, and it’s only getting worse.

And I think the two subjects of this post, Obama and Edwards, can get us through this, but I think they need to commit. I think it’s about time Edwards quit waiting around to see who might earn the nomination and endorsed Obama before it’s too damned late to do so, and I think, at the same time, it’s time for Obama to shake Edwards’ hand and offer him the VP spot on the ticket. It’s time for the primaries to be Obama & Edwards v. Clinton.

Obama & Edwards: Yes we can

March 14, 2008

At the beginning of each semester teaching writing so far, I’ve faced two obstacles. The first is unlearning 5-paragraph essay format, which most high schoolers learn as rote as any Gospel.

The other is elevated diction. Somewhere along the way, most students have discovered that their high school teachers are impressed by their use of the vocabulary contained in the SAT, no matter how inappropriate a word choice. My instruction is simplicity: I tell my student I am a writer and have read widely enough that they’ll never impress me with their words, only their ideas.

I recently caught this video, with Keith Olbermann’s comments on the Geraldine Ferraro racist-remarks fiasco:

Apparently, someone needs to tell Keith to scale it down a bit.

“In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media–”

I mean, seriously.

Now I admit, I’ve liked Olbermann. His comments on the end of habeus corpus were terrific.

And maybe it’s because he’s a commentator that he goes beyond journalism and into judgment (“disaster”?).

But seriously, this buttoned-up guy with his mile-wide pinstripes is the same dude who gave SportsCenter the “en fuego” catchphrase, is he not?

When Jon Stewart was on Crossfire, he mentioned the theater of political comentary. Olbermann seems to prove pretty well that theater is not restricted to Tucker Carlson’s bow tie.

After the Nader debacle, I changed my startpage from MSNBC to CNN. It’s not much better. Are there any good news venues any more? Right now I’m set on the New York Times, but even that doesn’t feel like exactly what I’m looking for.

Also: isn’t Clinton’s lack of response precisely what she attacked Obama for, when he didn’t outright reject Farakhan’s endorsement?

And finally: Geraldine Ferraro? Seriously? I respected her, once upon a time. But I don’t respect racists.

March 6, 2008

Yesterday, I posted about the viability of a McCain/Clinton ticket versus an Obama/Edwards ticket. Which shows you just about how I feel about their ideologies; Clinton, to me, does not feel like change–she feels like more of the same-old, same-old that has tirelessly run this country into the ground.

But to be serious about it:

What I’m tired of is Clinton’s attacking people, because it seems to me more a sign of weakness than her crying gimmick (which is what I believe her tears are). I don’t know any of her issues, nor her platforms, because it seems like she spends all her time talking about what terrible shape this country is in, how much she cares about it, and how everyone else would suck at fixing it. What the hell does her hypothetical phone call at 3 in the morning have to do with any valid current issue?

Nothing. Because it’s silly. It’s an appeal to the pathos of the red phone in the Oval office (does that even exist any more?).

She calls Obama inexperienced. I don’t know, maybe my math is off, but it looks for every intent and purpose like she only has four more years experience as a senator (Obama ran and won in 2004; Clinton ran and won in 2000). I don’t think that’s a great deal of time. Sure, she had some experience as a First Lady, but last time I checked, First Lady is not an elected office. That she spearheaded a failed reform to healthcare in 1994 doesn’t impress me, though her child insurance work does.

Really, while First Lady, she only ever had the power her husband (who stepped out on her numerous times [and I note that because doesn’t seem a particularly strong or assertive thing for a woman to do]) gave her. While senator, her record speaks for itself: vote yes for authorizing invasion of Iraq, vote yes for the PATRIOT Act, etc.

But in enumerating, I’m very nearly engaging in the very thing I’m speaking against, while avoiding what I mean to speak to, which is that Obama, to me, signifies change. Obama, to me, signifies that something important in this country can turn toward hope, and peace. Obama has worked with Republicans to effect change: this, to me, signifies that he’s willing to work far and wide across party lines (he’s even sponsored one particular bill with McCain). Obama, to me, signifies that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore, and we’re going to do something about it, dammit, to really make a difference.

Obama, to me, is part of the change I want to see in the world.

Obama & Edwards: Yes We Can

March 5, 2008

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.

Anarchy rules!

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.

February 27, 2008

Truthfully, I’m rather surprised I don’t have much to say about the Obama/Clinton debate last night (I almost reversed those names, than backspaced over it. That’s probably telling. Though of what, I am unsure). I didn’t watch it (my headache prevented much in the way of coherence on my end), but I read most of it, and it seems like Hillary took an offensive strategy, spending most of the evening trying to create doubt in Obama.

Obama’s is, arguably, the position to be in, though that’s not to say that it’s easier. As someone who’s been in a rather enviable position and who has been repeatedly and personally attacked by people jockeying for that position, or better, I admire Obama’s reticence and restraint. It’s something I know I have to learn; I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept some of the slings and arrows that come with outrageous fortune, or sometimes to remain quiet. It’s not merely that success can breed contempt, but also that success is so very often so rarely something one believes one deserves.

Because, of course, success is not external. Success really comes from within, and has no direct correlation to anything either material or acquired; the most successful people in terms of business and wealth can also be the least successful in terms of life.

The more I learn of Obama, the more I feel I like him as a person, which is completely strange considering I’ve never seen the man. The more I see him speak, the more I see that smile, the more certain I become that I want to vote for him. The more I think he’d be good not just for our country but also for the world.

I think Edwards has a similar quality, to some degree, but without the same characteristic ease with which Obama carries it off. Edwards seemed to have to try, which is, I think, why he performed poorly; he was often fighting to gain ground, and sometimes it’s better to just be happy with the ground you’ve got and allow it to grow. Obama seems very happy with the plot of land he’s got, and I think people are realizing, more and more, just how large that plot is, because the deeper one goes, the more lush it appears. And I think I’ve extended that metaphor about as far as it can go, so I’ll leave it.

I think, last night, it became obvious that neither candidate would select the other as VP; the longer this process extends, the more I become certain that an Obama/Clinton ticket is simply completely out of the question.

But Obama/Edwards?

Yes we can.

Multiple Enthusiasms

Infinite jest. Excellent fancy. Flashes of merriment.

Tag: Clinton