Letters to the Editor

• Spinning, Winning: Honesty?

  [Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  To Hillary supporters who watched Hillary on the hot seat (and thought the manner and content of the questions betrayed bias against her, if not outright sexism), seeing Obama get indignant about questions he considered trivial/partisan might not produce sympathy.

  Many Hillary supporters, even those who don't as a general rule support SwiftBoat tactics, surely do feel that there are legitimate questions about who Obama is a person. From this perspective, it might make sense to say "If you can't stand the heat..."

  From the perspective of an Obama supporter, it looks like this: Here is the candidate who objected to being "always" asked the first question, who complained about being ganged up on, being lobbed softballs by her husband's former advisor (who masterfully commandeered the national stage and went on a proganda offensive) and saying that Obama has no legitimate reason to even object to tabloid-type questions, and that his objection itself (this stupid, idealistic idea of dicussing issues) betrays his lack of leadership potential.

  If you like b-ball: Hillary is Bruce Bowen--a cagey vet who knows enough to take sly, cheap shots and then step back and let the opponent get penalized for retaliating.

  She'll throw the kitchen sink at Obama and then accuse him being racist, sexist, and classist when he attempts to set the record straight. (Not that he's merely clarifying; he's usually "counter-punching," or making points of his own. And here, again, interpretations will vary.)

  Hillary didn't even say: "Yes, I am opposed to the Politics of Personal Destruction, and I understand that blue-collar voters want to know about jobs and health care more than flag pins, Freedom Fries, etc., HOWEVER in this case I think there are very legitimate questions to be answered."

  It would've been b.s., but at least it would've been a nod toward the notion that principled politics is something to aspire to. Instead we get the Hillary Who Mocks Hope; a candidate who embraces the sensationalist slime, seeks to validate it, and paints objections to it as sexist, partisan, and/or overly idealistic. (Yes, we're in Rove/Scarborough country.)

  *Aren't you a little tired of being lied to? The amount of disinformation, contradictory notions, and utterly ludicrous personal attacks oozing out of Camp Hillary are too glaring to ignore.*

  The only choice of supporters is: the ends justify the means. It's a tough, dishonest world, and sometimes the good candidate must "compete hard"/"bend the rules" etc., in service of a greater good.

  And sure, we all know what a strange bubble running a campaign must be; how it can produce "tunnel vision"; how many "good" candidates (call it human nature) have come too much under the sway of advisors and later regretted losing sight of the issues/ideals that were supposed to be central to their platforms.

  Even if we're this forgiving with Hillary, what makes us think she'll remember us and her ideals once she's in office?

  Simple demographics say Obama must play the role of uniter; he can't ride the black vote by itself into office. He is seeking to form a broad coalition of people dissatisfied not just with the Iraq war, but with the mentality that got us there, with the rampant graft and corruption endemic in the Bush Administration, with the intentional and insidious dumbing down of American education and political discourse, and with the politics of "divide and conquer" that keep so many in the working/middle class voting for plutocrats.

  Simple demographics say Hillary must play the role of Triangulator.

  You can make the lawyerly argument that as a candidate she's obligated to put forward whatever case most benefits her, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES:

  1) Hillary's negatives: she's hurting herself as much as Obama, which can only translate into hurting the party and the party's chances against McCain (though he will face an uphill battle, we hope, trying to be Bush III).

  2) Human relations: intentionally ginning up tensions between women and men, black and white people, rural and urban people has adverse and lasting effects. I don't call this "social progress."

  3) The Democratic party is a big tent, but its platform is firmly rooted in the ideas of tolerance, dialogue, social and economic justice, etc. Divide and conquer doesn't fit. (maybe this is 2 restated)

  4) Swiftboating isn't just "tough politics"; it's cynnical, deliberate lying/distorting designed to appeal to people's basest drives: fear, anger, inferiority/superiority complex, schedenfraude... when it works, it precludes rational thought, tapping right into the limbic brain.

  It doesn't lend itself to an informed populace, rational debate about and understanding of complex issues.

  As we see more and more of it, we get conditioned, and start to think it's "normal," or acceptable. It isn't, Joan.

  And this isn't just an "elitist" liberal getting overly cerbral and persnickity.

  Bush sold the war with lies, fear of impending attack, ugly personal attacks on dissenters, the faux-populism of "supporting" the troops (while he actually screwed them over ad nauseum), extreme xenophobic nationalism (esp against Muslims/Arabs), and the aid of Establishment Media.

  Hillary contributes to this legacy at a time when we really should be re-examing the way we do self-governance.

  In fact, given her war-vote, her hawkishness and praise of McCain, and her embrace of neocon strategies, I'm more than a little skeptical.

  But maybe this is just do the shade of the particular glasses I'm looking through.

  ____________________

  Can you even see how an Independent, say, with a healthy amount of skepticism about both candidates, might see things like this:

  a) here's a candidate who's really trying to talk about reality, to have grown-up conversations about complex and important issues.

  b) here's a candidate talking about flag pins, praising McCain, assuming a hawkish stance, insulting Democrats who don't support her, and generally flailing around and seeming to think that this is about her rather then fixing our country.

  Permalink Sunday, April 20, 2008 01:34 PM