Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
As Bob Somerby has pointed out, the whole premise of this article is flawed. From 1994 (or so) until 2004 (or so) Colin Powell was considered a legitimate contender for the president, and many believed he would win if he ran. Isn't he black? Or do we just prefer to forget about him?
First of all, its a myth to say that no one is based on Clinton based on ideals. For some she is better ideally suited to fight the G.O.P Machine (whatever that is). For some, they have made an idealistic choice to rule out Obama because of his Reagan remarks, or because they think he's a political lightweight.
Pragmatism can lie on both sides of the street in this debate.
Further you uphold the Democratic Party values as "ideals" to vote for. Some of those Obama supporters are not members of the party, so how are you going to convince them to vote for ideals they don't have--for a candidate (Clinton) who many of them--particularly after the way Clinton has been conducting her campaign--do not like. Many (increasing numbers of) Americans vote for a person and not a party in elections. Thus the results of elections are so hard to predict.
Finally, your point about Republicans in the white house. Some American people are going to see George W. Bush as the problem, not the Republican party as a whole. Because you are a party loyalists, this may be difficult for you to understand, but like I say, many Americans (even Americans I know and love) think of personality first and party second. George W. Bush is not running in 2008. I know some people who "hate" him and yet are going to consider the next Republican candidate as an individual, not necessarily as a Republican, and therefore another Bush.
Party Democrats need to consider the way people make decisions in these elections as they choose their candidate. Party politics don't matter for a lot of people--as we've seen in the past three elections since Nader entered the fray. Many people actively think the Democratic Party is weak for not standing up to Bush (consider the current Congress and the front-runners). Whatever values it used to hold seem pretty watered down in its main contenders.
These are just things I think a lot of voters, pragmatic voters, are going to be considering. You can't throw it all at the door of so-called "idealism."
It is absolutely unrealistic for Obama - or anyone else for that matter - to think that race would not, or ever, be a factor in the presidential campaign this year.
Face it, we see Mr. Obama doesn't look like white folks and we see that Mrs. Clinton wears lipstick. We also see that lump in Mr. McCain's cheek no matter how many "good side" camera shots they take. And we see that John Edwards really has a nice head of hair and his wife is probably a few pounds overweight too. And Mitt Romney is so polished that we don't want to touch him because we might leave smudged fingerprints on his veneer.
What I don't get is Obama wanting to keep acting like "it" - the issue of race - doesn't exist in this campaign. Somebody remind Michele Obama that the voters in Illinois, downstate and elsewhere, already elected a black female U.S. Senator, Carol Mosely Braun, before they elected Obama. He wasn't breaking any new ground.
Michele Obama begs the issue when she replies, "We've been through this before." Maybe so, but the country has not EVER been through "this" before with both a female and half black man running neck and neck for President of the United States. So please humor us Ms. Harvard Law Thang as you brush "this" off like annoying little pieces of lint on your designer jacket.
That's the problem with these limousine elitists candidates. They try so hard to make us believe that they are "just like us," when the reality is, no they are not. That's the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign: The charade of trying to be at once both different and the same.
I's the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss: The fact that if Obama starts talking about race, his campaign is over. He knows it and we know it. But, if he really is about change, if he really does have a case for bringing the country together, and if he really thinks he is the right catalyst for that change, then WHY NOT BEGIN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW AND START TALKING ABOUT IT? Doesn't honest leadership demand more than a simple "we've already been through this before?"
Funny how the Democratic candidate with the most years in elective office-- three more than Hillary, five more than Edwards-- is the one candidate who's "inexperienced."
Actually, Dennis Kucinich is the Democratic candidate with the most years in elective office. As for Obama, Edwards and Clinton, it's true Obama's held elective office longer than Edwards and Obama, but my State Rep has held elective office than all three of them. And I can't remember a time when someone was elected President based on his State Senate career.
The former employee of Sidley & Austin (one of the top law firms in the world), and the constitutional law instructor at the University of Chicago Law School somehow "needs a bit more seasoning." The candidate who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, has two bestselling books, and a Grammy for spoken word recording "lacks experience." The candidate who worked for nearly four years as a community organizer with unemployed steel workers and public housing residents, the candidate who lived overseas as a youngster-- right, "inexperienced."
Obviously he's accomplished, and if these experiences are important to you, fine. But when evaluating who should be President, not everyone will give the same weight to these experiences as you. And if you want to cite Obama's youthful experiences as a reason to vote for him, don't be surprised if other people cite less flattering youthful experiences.
The guy who won a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois by the largest margin ever
His leading opponent for the Democratic nomination had to drop out due to claims about wife beating; his initial Republican opponent had to drop out because he wanted to, or actual did, take his his wife to sex clubs (and, even worse, foreign sex clubs. What is he, un-american?); his actual opponent was Alan Keyes.
and the one who delivered the most famous keynote speech at a Democratic convention since William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech "should come back in a few years."
Tell me about Bryan administration again?
Not experienced enough... hmmm.... isn't that what they always say when folks show up for the interview and they find out one of them is a Negro?
It's effectively what they said -- by that I guess I mean the conventional wisdom -- about Edwards in 2000 when Al Gore was considering him for VP (not that Gore's actual choice was any good).
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
