Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
nepats
Published Letters: 65
Bill Clinton was correct about his 'fairy tale' comment: he clearly makes the comment in a larger point about his views of Obama's position and votes on Iraq. But Hillary's manipulative Swift Boast-esque comments are fair game and she deserves the criticism of all Americans for them. First of all, Obama never compared himself to Dr. King or JFK. He cited two examples of popular American figures who believed that hope itself is action - King for civil rights and JFK for a trip to the moon. And that we should never underestimate the power and value of hope. Never did Obama compare himself to either of these guys. This point is entirely absent from this discussion (that's you, Joan Walsh. We're waiting). Second, it was in fact Hillary who injected race into the discussion by dumbly commenting that LBJ, the president, closed the deal for the dreamy and ineffective MLK. Wow. And wow again. Too many points to make here (e.g. as though King had a snowball's chance in Dante's Inferno to any elected office at that time. He was a little pre-occupied trying to gain access to buses and water fountains. The White House would have to wait). Finally, by dissing Obama and MLK and all black people, Clinton actually makes their point: it does take a president to drive actual legislation and that is why Obama is running to become president. The difference today is that he can. Yes, he can.
But it ain't gonna be easy. John Judis can wrestle w/ polling data all he wants, but have him chew on this for a few: http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/voter-brain.htm
Quick quote if you don't follow the link:
The findings they announced Tuesday suggest polls overestimate support for Barack Obama and underestimate support for Hillary Clinton. They asked voters whom they planned to vote for, and 42 percent said Obama, versus 34 percent who chose Clinton. Then the volunteers took a version of the Implicit Association Test, which requires rapid responses to words or images on a computer screen...Clinton came out ahead with 48 percent to Obama’s 25 percent.
Wow. Two completely superfluous "news" articles about Obama on the same day: Dudes and Black Dudes! What gives?
Note to Gary: as a longtime Obama supporter (not a newbie), Obama's race was certainly not a factor in my support, but his race does inform his story and provides him - and the rest of us - a welcome opportunity to enjoy an American tale that does not involve prep schools, great wealth, longstanding Washington connections, and every other advantage bestowed to the privileged. His tough beginnings are the center of his concepts of hope, and I believe that many of his supporters who have also relied on hope to achieve against the odds very readily identify with him.
What many of his detractors don't realize (maybe because they've never had to rely on it) is that hope is action. He has worked against improbable odds to rise up through a system that has never before rewarded someone with quite the same tale with nothing more than a good mind, a lot of motivation and focus, and a surfeit of hope.
More power to him.
Claddagh - calm down. I was thinking of the Bushies and the realm of white male privilege in that general statement. My statement made no reference to Clinton. And I know you're not suggesting Obama had an easy road to hoe in his long slog toward where he is today - in spite of your needless and unconstructive "fairy tale" comment.
btw - thanks for the NY Review of Books link. Great article.
At this point, it's useless to try to argue with Clinton supporters about the consistent and obvious ethical lapses of the their candidate and her campaign. Facts mean nothing to them.
What's interesting, though, is how out-in-the-open their attempts to disenfranchise voters actually are. First, the immediate disparagement of caucuses and caucusers following Iowa. Then the lawsuit in Nevada. Then the trivializing of South Carolina as tantamount to a 'black win' and nothing more. Then the marginalizing of red states that 'Democrats won't win anyway in the general election.' And now a lawsuit against the process in Texas. And throughout the entire process the relentless insistence on characterizing the growing legion of Obama voters (fellow Democrats) as cultists and Kool-aid drinkers.
The trash and burn style is puzzling. If Clinton does get the nomination, you wonder just how much back-pedaling her campaign is going to have to do to win back all of these groups. I mean this stuff is just buttah for Republicans because it reinforces in the naked light of day the extant and pervasive idea that the Clintons care only about their own power. Their trail of bodies in this campaign astonishes.
Hey, Texas undecideds, this is your future on Hillary Clinton. Just say no.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
