I have received some responses from Obama supporters to my initial blog post “IF Obama Was a Woman,” (see below) and would like to respond. I have a few comments to make with regards to recent developments in the campaign as well.
**One responder charged that I judged Obama unfairly regarding his statements on his willingness to invade Pakistan if the intelligence was “actionable.” The criticism alleged that I took Obama’s comments too seriously because they were made in reference to a “hypothetical.” Well, the way I see it, statements made by both candidates in an effort to present to voters what they might do, would do, will do, could do IF (“if” being the hypothetically operative word here) they become President are ALL “hypotheticals.” And should all be taken "seriously." Campaigns are built upon proposed promises, plans and objectives for the future. And the future of course, is by its very nature hypothetical. If all hypotheticals must be eliminated from the discussion, from the deliberation and the assessment of character, then what do we have left? Oh, that’s right…the PAST i.e. what the candidates HAVE done, HAVE accomplished, HAVE already proven. If that be the case, I’m sticking with Hillary.
**I have been hearing for quite some time now the rhetorical argument that Obama is “The Unifier” and that Clinton “polarizes.” Thank goodness they have not resorted to calling her “The Polarizer.” She might just have to start wearing Ray-Bans at every appearance and then those who spend their time commenting on her hair and clothes would have new material for their trivial, chauvinistic concerns. I would pose several questions to those who would accuse Clinton of polarizing and who, at the same time, continue to advance these polarized characterizations (anyone see the irony here?). To begin, I have no idea what this means. Just what groups does Senator Clinton “polarize?” Blacks and Whites? Republicans and Democrats? Men and Women? The poor and the wealthy? NY Yankees fans and Boston Red Sox fans? At least with regard to this last, Massachusetts AND New York unite behind Hillary. That’s some resounding chord of unity if you ask me. Would someone actually attempt to look me in the eye and seriously suggest that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the division that exists between these sets of groups? Unfortunately, those divisions and separations have been around for a long time, long before Hillary Clinton was ever born, some of them for many centuries.
** One argument for Obama that has emerged and surged in the days immediately following Super Tuesday insists that Obama is the best Democratic choice for the November election because he is able to carry Clinton voters, while Clinton will not be able to carry Obama supporters. I have several things to say about this.
1) The argument has now focused on who is the party’s best candidate for the November election, NOT the Presidency. This is comparable to sending in the Corporal to win the battle when only the General can win the war. I know. Please pardon the militaristic nature of the analogy. I’d be open to other suggestions. Perhaps, "sending in the rookie to end the inning even though he can’t deliver the game?”
2) Senator Obama himself has been exploiting this ploy in speeches made recently. He actually articulated the idea that he is the party’s best candidate for the election because he will carry Clinton supporters while the opposite is unlikely. Unbelievable. Does he not realize that by merely suggesting this strategy, he is sending a message to his supporters tojoin him in this line of argumentation? Does he not recognize that by utilizing this as a method of political strategizing he is encouraging his supporters to voice their resistance to electing Clinton if she becomes the party’s nominee? WHAT could possibly be more divisive than that? Essentially what he is doing is dividing the party from within, jeopardizing the potential for future party unity, particularly in November. Unifier, indeed. I know it would be just too naïve of me to suggest that Obama might instead encourage his supporters to give up their childish, petulant, “if I can’t win, I won’t play” mentality and support the party’s nomination for President no matter whom that happens to be. No, I don’t expect this. But, neither did I expect him to promote this “polarizing” idea by actually appealing to it.
I have met many Obama people who have told me that they’d be more than willing to vote for Clinton in November, so he misjudges (or misrepresents) his own supporters anyway. Does he really think that his voter base would abandon the party by voting for the Republican candidate instead of Hillary Clinton? Or does he think that they would relinquish the right to exercise their vote altogether and risk a Republican victory merely by their absence at the polls? In either case it would be unconscionable and not only does Obama misjudge them, he insults them. If it is an accurate presentation of the majority position then shame on them for what they might risk (but I have more faith in them apparently than he does). So, voting for Clinton's opponent or simply not showing up seem to be the only options available according to Obama. But no, wait. He might advise Obama-Democrats to simply show up at the polls in November and cast a vote of “present,” in protest of the choices...
Also, by way of post script to the original journal entry on the campaign, I would like to add that appeals to Obama's capacity to "inspire," and to provide "vision and hope," imply that Senator Clinton does not do these. Rest assured. As I speak and listen to her supporters; nothing could be further from the truth. Her inspiration, leadership, grace under fire, intelligence, diligence and tireless work represent indeed, a new hope for us all.
13 comments:
Only a couple comments on the divisiveness of the candidates:
Hillary Clinton explaining Obama's weekend victories: "These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."
Now, can you honestly imagine Obama making the same statement if Hillary had won referring to female voters? What if Obama had said that Hillary won a state just because there were a bunch of female voters? This implies that Hillary does not have faith in black voters making independent voting decisions regardless of gender, race, etc. `
So I do not fault Obama implying that some people(even though I do not agree with them--I will be 100% behind Hillary if she gets the nomination) may not be behind Hillary after this, yes, pattern of derogatory racial statements that have come out of her campaign and that continue to do so. These words sting.
Oh Evanl18. Senator Clinton was not repeating anything that the analysts nor the statistics haven't shown all along. The majority "African-American" vote is a demographic that has been calculated statistically. You might as well charge that all exit pollsters, all journalists, all political statisticians, all political pundits, all Network news agencies and all those who calculate election demographics according to racial categories are racist. That she acknowledges the statistical evidence is not "racist." It is simply a recognition of the statistical data; of the facts. It is not devisive to point to realities that already exist and can be statistically supported. It IS devisive to appeal to imagined electorial conflicts and present them as factual. As far as I know there have been NO studies done on whether or not Obama-Democrats will not vote for Clinton or not show up on election day should she be the Democratic Presidential candidate. AS he constructs the imagined division, he creates it. She however, simply pointed to a fact supported by the data.
"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."
Evan, she (Hillary) was merely pointing out a FACT. A fact is not racist. It just is. You're either chasing windmills or trying to distract from the real issues. I hope it's windmills, because that's excusable.
Is Clinton a “polarizer”? I agree with you here. People are polarized about her, but that is not the same thing as saying that she tries to polarize.
Newt Gingrich, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove – these are polarizers in that they actively use wedge issues to divide the country for their own political advantage. Cases in point: the Contract with America, the endless Whitewater investigations, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the politicization of the war on terror beginning in 2002 (remember the Max Cleland / Bin Laden ad?) Americans were called terrorists if they opposed the Patriot Act or the Iraq invasion. These are the people who have been and continue to try to polarize the American people for their own political gain.
A quick note about Gingrich: Several years ago (late 2005?), during federal budget negotiations in Congress, a bipartisan majority approved of a budget, but the Republican leadership was against it, so they killed it in committee. I heard Gingrich on the radio (he wasn’t in Congress by then, he was just a commentator) say that this was an example of good governance, because you had to (paraphrase) “unite the majority party before you could unite the government” or something like that. This is the ultimate example of the extreme partisanship and polarizing nature of the current Republican party – party before country.
Clinton, like her husband, is much more centrist than the right-wing is willing to admit. But, the long legacy of hatred and attacks against the Clintons have become self-sustaining, and the animosity towards the Clintons has become the prima facie case against them.
To be sure, the Clintons are not perfect, and they do deserve some of the criticism they receive. But without a doubt they receive far more criticism than their actions deserve. They have not tried to polarize the same way the right has, but you can’t deny that, f
Sorry, my last post got cut off. This 2000 character limit is serious!
Here is the last of my intended comment:
They have not tried to polarize the same way the right has, but you can’t deny that, fair or unfair, many people are extremely polarized about them.
Did Obama really say that his supporters would not vote for Clinton in November? I’m honestly asking, because I missed it. He may have said that he is more likely to win against McCain, but that is very different than saying that his supporters will not vote for Clinton.
With regard to who would do better in November (Clinton or Obama), I’ve heard several theories. Of course, there are those who would never vote for a woman or a black under any circumstance. Both attitudes are ignorant, but there you have it.
The fact is, Obama does appeal more to independents and conservatives than Clinton. Is that what you meant? Because that is not the same as saying that Obama supporters will not support Clinton. It is a stretch to call independents and conservatives who are thinking about voting for Obama his “base” or his “supporters.”
It’s been well documented that Obama has some appeal to independents and conservatives. I frequently listen to talk radio (the NPR variety), and I have been amazed by the number of self-identified conservatives and independents who have called in to say that they could never vote for Clinton, don’t like McCain, and are seriously thinking about voting for Obama.
Previous commentators (including the post’s author) seemed to take great joy in pointing out that a particular claim by Clinton was “FACT.” If Obama observes that some independents and conservatives have indicated that 1) they would not vote for Clinton, and 2) they would consider voting for Obama, isn’t Obama also just stating a “FACT”?
This post implies that Obama is intentionally being divisive, and that some of his strategies may hurt the Democrats in the fall general election. A couple of comments:
Clinton vs. McCain: Clinton’s main case against Obama is that she has more experience. If she wins the nomination, then how will this argument work against McCain, who has more experience than her?
Also, what about the recent Clinton campaign ad about the “3 AM Phone Call”? Wasn’t that divisive? Clinton pretty much implied that Obama does not have what it takes to be the commander in chief. This is a technique right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. What if Obama does win the Democratic nomination? Wouldn’t the Republicans attack Obama along the same lines, with ammunition provided by Clinton?
And if Clinton is the nominee in November, do you really think that she will beat McCain or any Republican with this type of Jack-Bauer-Republican-war-on-terror fetish? Not that I think that McCain is more qualified than Clinton in this regard, but the target audience for this type of Rovian tactic would favor a Republican. In fact, with this ad, Clinton may have done more to help McCain in November than herself this spring.
And then later she implied that she would consider sharing the ticket with Obama? Presumably she intends for him to be the candidate for VP. One of the qualifications for VP is that the candidate must be able to assume the role of president and commander in chief in the event that the president is incapacitated. The selection of a suitable running mate, regardless of political motives, is one of the first tests of a presidential candidate. Is Clinton now suggesting that she would select as a running mate someone that she does not think is qualified to be the commander in chief?
And yet she did, presumably because she is still sl
So we meet again...
Steve,
"He may have said that he is more likely to win against McCain, but that is very different than saying that his supporters will not vote for Clinton."
He "may have said"? What does that imply? That you came up with that out of your very own noggin so it bears consideration as a plausible fact? If you don't know what he did or did not say then your argument is a moot point.
"Of course, there are those who would never vote for a woman or a black under any circumstance."
Aaaah, thank you for supporting my argument in the original "If Obama Was a Woman" post!
"Clinton vs. McCain: Clinton’s main case against Obama is that she has more experience. If she wins the nomination, then how will this argument work against McCain, who has more experience than her?"
She will still have a level of experience which will enable her to go toe-to-toe against McCain, unlike Obama who has nothing to bring to the plate. If our choices are Clinton or Obama, then certainly we need a person like Hillary to represent us rather than Obama. Putting Obama against McCain will be like shooting fish in a barrel and is, in fact, what the republicans are hoping for. (You see, Obama is such a powerful orator that he is inspiring hope even in the Repuplicans realm!)
As for your comment about Clinton's "3a.m. phone call" and Rovian tactics, you suggest that only republicans will respond to that approach. I doubt it. To believe that democrats are not concerned with national security would be a mistake. Furthermore, such tactics will not keep democrats from voting, nor will it persuade them to vote Republican. Chicken Little tactics aside, Clinton does not represent the religious conservative, corporate government, big brother, class divisionist institution which the Republicans revere.
judilein03 said:
"He may have said that he is more likely to win against McCain, but that is very different than saying that his supporters will not vote for Clinton."
He "may have said"? What does that imply? That you came up with that out of your very own noggin so it bears consideration as a plausible fact? If you don't know what he did or did not say then your argument is a moot point.
Let’s please leave my noggin out of this.
Actually, my statement that you so faithfully quote above was in response to statements in the original blog post that claimed that Obama was being divisive because of his assessment of the nature of his appeal to independents and conservatives and the potential effect on the general election.
Specifically, the original post claimed that Obama had threatening that his supporters would not support Clinton in the general election if she were the nominee. I’m calling BS on this one, because I don’t think it happened. By all means, go ahead and require me to provide sources for my statements, but don’t you think you should start with the original blog post?
judilein03 said:
As for your comment about Clinton's "3a.m. phone call" and Rovian tactics, you suggest that only republicans will respond to that approach. I doubt it. To believe that democrats are not concerned with national security would be a mistake. Furthermore, such tactics will not keep democrats from voting, nor will it persuade them to vote Republican. Chicken Little tactics aside, Clinton does not represent the religious conservative, corporate government, big brother, class divisionist institution which the Republicans revere.
Here’s the thing that troubles me about this ad, which you echoed: Why is it perceived that the Republicans automatically own the national security issue? That’s certainly what the Rove-led Bush administration has been selling since September 11, and it seems that most of the country has fallen for it hard. Any mention of national security, and everybody just shrugs and says “Yep, the Republicans have the Democrats on that one.” I even hear it all the time on NPR, which is one of the last bastions of journalism that is (mostly) unaffected by the right-wing media bias. The Republicans have used fear to convince the American people that they are the only ones who can protect us, but it is just fear-mongering and right-wing image branding. Don’t forget that September 11th happened on a Republican’s watch.
I never said that Democrats aren’t concerned with national security. My point is that national security is not the same as fear. The Clinton ad is a fear ad, just like the Republican ads. I would like to see a Democrat take back the national security issue from the Republicans.
Steve,
National Security has a purpose. That purpose is to protect America and Americans from harm. Harm intended and/or harm inflicted causes fear, so anyone who addresses National Security is going to elicit concern from their audience. So please explain to me how one would address National Security without reminding his/her audience that they are or potentially could be the targets of violence.
Steve,
Just another case in point:
a woman does not carry mace, a taser, or a gun in her purse because it makes her feel secure, she carries it because she is afraid of being victimized; she is afraid of potential violence being acted upon her. Her weapon is her "national security" and she has to know that she will have the confidence to use it against her attacker if and when the situation should arise. Otherwise, the weapon is useless.
Two things: 1. Comments in the original blog post were generated by a video clip, which was aired by CBS News the morning of the original blog post date. In the clip I SAW Obama SAY in a speech that he would carry Clinton supporters in November but that the reverse seemed unlikely. I don't record everything I watch on television and so cannot provide my blog with the uploaded video to "prove" my source. Not every source of information appears in print. 2. As for the Republican "turn" to the Democratic primaries to benefit the Republican candidate in November, this too was an analysis presented by a political analyst on television and was supported by interviews in exit polls and by the fact that the phenomenon of Republicans voting in Democratic primaries did not emerge until after John McCain was assured of the Republican nomination. Republicans were NOT voting for Obama (or Clinton) prior to this.
Geesh. I couldn't MAKE this stuff up.
Post a Comment