Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
The more I look at the patterns of discourse surrounding this question as to what it means that Clinton has won some states in such a huge manner, the more I believe that it is a sign of collective neurosis. I mean: you have people who genuinely respect and believe in Clinton who simply can't accept that there are pockets of the country that share their sentiments. No, rather than simply relax in the knowledge that Clinton deserves a lot of support, they are compelled to ironically now begin interpreting Clinton's success to be a function of something very bad and worrying. So now they shift their attention to how troubling it is that Obama doesn't just decimate Clinton all the time. Sure, he has won more states by those huge margins, but how on EARTH could Clinton be winning like that
I am taking great interest in the types of convesatons people are trying to have. Obviously, this being Joan's joint, she is fun to watch as well. She respects Clinton but needs Clinton's victories to mean something significantly less than that Clinton inspires some people. (wait, i'm not that stupid; all of this is being said within the firm understanding that both Obama and Clinton recieve votes for all sorts of other reasons that nobody can control).
Joan, and others, have this odd logic that goes:
if Obama was a better candidate Clinton would not have had those victories, but Clinton's victories prove what a strong candidate she is!
There is enough truth in that kind of thinking to make it possible to spend the entire general election teasing it out and worrying that it might not get sorted...oh, brother...
I'll be sponsoring the posts that basically give Clinton credit for most of her votes and give Obama credit for most of his and that are happily focused on policy related to the next president. But here in Joan's joint (which I obviously enjoy visiting) I don't expect that to be the primary kind of analysis. There is just too much to figure out about the confusing personalities and motives of the various supporters (and don't we NEED to figure it all out if we wish to win the general)!!!!!
If teen oral-sex is not substituting for full-on sex, how can anybody still assume that Clinton is earning votes based on merit? No, wait. If teens are having both full-on sex and oral-sex, does that help us understand why Obama is so bad at making Clinton voters want to vote for him? There are still loads (not intended) and loads (intended) of people who wish to vote for Clinton and teens are not stopping at simple oral-stimulation.
Does everybody see what I'm getting at? Obama has not reached out in a way that proves he can destory Clinton in a primary, while simultaneously, teens are not only having oral-sex but are going even further by having full-on sex! In the midst of all this sex, why hasn't Obama convinced more Clinton voters that they have voted incorrectly? What does it mean that Clinton still gets big votes while teens are going beyond the blow-job?
I'm worried. Here is the thing: I don't know what to do about the teen sex or Obama's inability to prove that people should not be voting for Hillary. How are we going to prove that Hillary's victories prove that she did not earn them herself? And what about the sex?
** the teen sex data was drawn from a Salon headline that I will now go read
When Obama loses I just hope it looks a lot like this garunteed loss he is pulling of in the primary. It used to scare me to hear so many smart people flatly "know" that he could not win this thing. I think you were one of those people who knew he might win the primary but couldn't possibly win the general.
The problem is that even if our predictions turn out to be right, we don't know if our reasoning was. Look, if Obama ends up beating McCain I garuntee that you, The Notorious W.E.S., will have a reason that makes sense for yourself. That is, ultimately, what is so comforting about all this certainty. For as certain as you are now that he will lose, it's not like you will be very surprised if he wins, right? You'll be telling your friends and family exactly why you think he won. Why does it feel so much more intelligent acknowleding it's not all that predetermined?!!!
Yes, you have clearly pointed to the awful things that some Obama supporters do and say that you are disgusted by. Hopefully, I've made clear that i agree with you on this. But you haven't even tried to say why you think awful Obama supporters are distinct from awful Clinton or McCain supporters. It is almost as if you are making a completely unfounded generalization about Obama supporters and not willing to back it up.
That said, Joan, I don't want to minimize (at all) how awful some of his supporters really are. They suck, bad! But my grandpa had a number of bad (awful) experiences with black people in Chicago and he never stopped telling us about the nature of black people. He never understood why I asked for evidence that his generalization was founded in reality. He always just kept pointing to his legitimately awful experiences (he was beaten and mugged).
Anyway, you do happen to rock, Joan, and just know that I don't disagree with the nature of what you've experienced...only with the generalization you draw from it and how you use that to found other assumptions.
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
