Old time feminist are having a hard time with Obama. I really don't believe they are racist, but I think they view politics and conflicts through a prism of sexism. It distorts everything for them.
Her argument is wrong for a number of reasons:
1) Every candidate is who they are in part due to what they are
2) You could fairly say Hillary is where she is due in a large part to her marriage (which in part is due to being a woman).
3) Her statement gives Obama no credit for who he is. Apparently he has done nothing for the past few months but people are voting for him anyways.
4) Hillary's failure to win the nomination at this point is apparently not due to anything she has done or how she has managed her campaign.
I have more reasons to disagree with her, but you get the point. It is sad.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
True Conservative Values
As one who has been getting tired of the news obsession with the Spitzer story, I've been trying to figure out why this is such a big deal.
So my list:
1) It effects New York and the media thinks that anything that effects New York must be of interest to everyone.
2) We do love to see the mighty fall.
3) Spitzer's history of prosecuting prostitution makes this a Greek tragedy. That just adds to the delight of #2
4) Spitzer's enemies are going to scream for his head since he is vulnerable. Outraged talking heads give the 24 hour news shows something to air.
5) This plays into our preconceived notions for Democrats vs. Republicans. Republicans are just better with money. None of the Republican recent sexcapes have involved $5,000 call girls. Vitter hired prostitutes, but at a lower number. And Larry Craig just trolled the bathrooms looking for a free hookup. How can we trust Democrats with our hard earned tax dollars if they are so willing to overspend for illicit sex?
In other words, Republicans know how to get for more bang for the buck.
So my list:
1) It effects New York and the media thinks that anything that effects New York must be of interest to everyone.
2) We do love to see the mighty fall.
3) Spitzer's history of prosecuting prostitution makes this a Greek tragedy. That just adds to the delight of #2
4) Spitzer's enemies are going to scream for his head since he is vulnerable. Outraged talking heads give the 24 hour news shows something to air.
5) This plays into our preconceived notions for Democrats vs. Republicans. Republicans are just better with money. None of the Republican recent sexcapes have involved $5,000 call girls. Vitter hired prostitutes, but at a lower number. And Larry Craig just trolled the bathrooms looking for a free hookup. How can we trust Democrats with our hard earned tax dollars if they are so willing to overspend for illicit sex?
In other words, Republicans know how to get for more bang for the buck.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Obama as a blank slate
What Obama just ran into yesterday was the reaction to being a "blank slate".
People have been defining Obama as what they want. He admits that people put their hopes and dreams onto him since they just assumed he believed what they believed. He hadn't defined himself clearly enough. That worked to build his campaign.
So still being a relative unknown to many voters, this go around Clinton was able to start to define him negatively.
Clinton was able to get into voters heads that Obama may not be what they hoped.
If you start having doubts about an unknown, it is hard to vote for him.
Was it dirty? Might it hurt the Democratic Party this November? Yes to both questions, but it saved Clinton's campaign.
Obama can comeback from this easily enough. He has to start defining himself to voters and he will have to answer the charges. So that means he will have to find forums that allow him to explain his relationship to Rezko and the house/land deal. He will need to keep renouncing and denouncing Farrakhan. He will need to show his knowledge of foreign affairs. He will have to keep stressing judgement versus experience.
It will be interesting to see if Clinton stays negative or decides to change direction for a while at least. I think she would be foolish to not go negative again if she needs to.
And only be doing a better job of defining himself can Obama blunt that attack.
People have been defining Obama as what they want. He admits that people put their hopes and dreams onto him since they just assumed he believed what they believed. He hadn't defined himself clearly enough. That worked to build his campaign.
So still being a relative unknown to many voters, this go around Clinton was able to start to define him negatively.
Clinton was able to get into voters heads that Obama may not be what they hoped.
If you start having doubts about an unknown, it is hard to vote for him.
Was it dirty? Might it hurt the Democratic Party this November? Yes to both questions, but it saved Clinton's campaign.
Obama can comeback from this easily enough. He has to start defining himself to voters and he will have to answer the charges. So that means he will have to find forums that allow him to explain his relationship to Rezko and the house/land deal. He will need to keep renouncing and denouncing Farrakhan. He will need to show his knowledge of foreign affairs. He will have to keep stressing judgement versus experience.
It will be interesting to see if Clinton stays negative or decides to change direction for a while at least. I think she would be foolish to not go negative again if she needs to.
And only be doing a better job of defining himself can Obama blunt that attack.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Sympathy for Republicans
After numerous conversations with a variety of Republicans, I've reached the conclusion that there are a lot of miserable GOP'ers out there and I feel bad for them.
These people do not seem to share the sunny optimism of the Gipper or the can-do enthusiasm of the recently deceased Bill Buckley.
These people are just wimps.
They are scared of immigrants in general, and Mexicans in particular, Muslims, evolution, liberals, China, environmentalists, taxes (but not deficits), gays, socialists, blacks, Asians and intelligent discourse.
No wonder they always seem so angry. That's a lot of fear to put up with on a daily basis.
These people do not seem to share the sunny optimism of the Gipper or the can-do enthusiasm of the recently deceased Bill Buckley.
These people are just wimps.
They are scared of immigrants in general, and Mexicans in particular, Muslims, evolution, liberals, China, environmentalists, taxes (but not deficits), gays, socialists, blacks, Asians and intelligent discourse.
No wonder they always seem so angry. That's a lot of fear to put up with on a daily basis.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Little Boy Bush
I did listen to the President's press conference this morning.
When I hear the President talking, I can't help but get this mental picture of a 7 year old boy just getting off the school bus and eagerly telling me what he just learned in school. The 7 yr old wants show you how smart he is by explaining his new info to you. You have to be careful how you ask any question since he will only know what he was just taught, and you don't want to bust his bubble of excitement.
Another way to describe it would be "a mile wide, but an inch deep" but I think "a mile" is overestimating it.
I do think that no matter which major candidate running actually wins this November, we will be getting a leader who will actually understand the issues at hand. That's going to be a big upgrade.
When I hear the President talking, I can't help but get this mental picture of a 7 year old boy just getting off the school bus and eagerly telling me what he just learned in school. The 7 yr old wants show you how smart he is by explaining his new info to you. You have to be careful how you ask any question since he will only know what he was just taught, and you don't want to bust his bubble of excitement.
Another way to describe it would be "a mile wide, but an inch deep" but I think "a mile" is overestimating it.
I do think that no matter which major candidate running actually wins this November, we will be getting a leader who will actually understand the issues at hand. That's going to be a big upgrade.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
McCain's Adult Problem
Lots has been written about McCain's problems with the "base" of the GOP. These problems are over issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and so forth, but I think people are missing another big problem.
McCain wants to campaign like an adult. This means that he can disagree with his rivals without insulting them, without demeaning them, without questioning their intentions, their patriotism, their loyalty. He wants to have a rational national debate.
For too many on the right, this is almost as bad as saying you're pro-choice.
We saw this conflict come out into the open yesterday in Cincinnati. Bill Cunningham is just one of dozens of loud mouth, right wing talk show hosts who have a large audience that love their shtick of insults and rants. Cunningham has been on the local air waves for years and is also nationally syndicated on Sunday nights, taking the spot vacated by Matt Drudge.
His 10 minutes of brain dead ravings is normal for him. McCain's campaign could not have picked him without knowing this about him.
Now McCain has been trying to reach out to the right wing talk show audience, but has only had marginal success. The NYT attack on him was a big help in getting this audience to support him since the NYT is one of the talk show hosts' favorite targets.
But yesterday revealed the gulf between the adult approach of McCain's and the childish partisanship of the talk show hosts.
Cunningham goes for a no-substance insult fest and McCain feels obligated to apologize. Cunningham then goes on the air to attack McCain.
McCain is going to have a tough time appealing to the right wing talk show audience if he continues to take an adult approach.
They react more like the rabid fans of a college team. No more thinking about what they stand for, they just react emotionally to their rival. McCain is trying to have North Carolina fans recognize the worth of Duke fans, get Ohio State fans to appreciate the athletes of Michigan, Auburn fans to salute the worthiness of Alabama. It is tough sledding.
Hate and fear are hard to compete with.
McCain wants to campaign like an adult. This means that he can disagree with his rivals without insulting them, without demeaning them, without questioning their intentions, their patriotism, their loyalty. He wants to have a rational national debate.
For too many on the right, this is almost as bad as saying you're pro-choice.
We saw this conflict come out into the open yesterday in Cincinnati. Bill Cunningham is just one of dozens of loud mouth, right wing talk show hosts who have a large audience that love their shtick of insults and rants. Cunningham has been on the local air waves for years and is also nationally syndicated on Sunday nights, taking the spot vacated by Matt Drudge.
His 10 minutes of brain dead ravings is normal for him. McCain's campaign could not have picked him without knowing this about him.
Now McCain has been trying to reach out to the right wing talk show audience, but has only had marginal success. The NYT attack on him was a big help in getting this audience to support him since the NYT is one of the talk show hosts' favorite targets.
But yesterday revealed the gulf between the adult approach of McCain's and the childish partisanship of the talk show hosts.
Cunningham goes for a no-substance insult fest and McCain feels obligated to apologize. Cunningham then goes on the air to attack McCain.
McCain is going to have a tough time appealing to the right wing talk show audience if he continues to take an adult approach.
They react more like the rabid fans of a college team. No more thinking about what they stand for, they just react emotionally to their rival. McCain is trying to have North Carolina fans recognize the worth of Duke fans, get Ohio State fans to appreciate the athletes of Michigan, Auburn fans to salute the worthiness of Alabama. It is tough sledding.
Hate and fear are hard to compete with.
Friday, February 22, 2008
She must know better
I can't figure out how Clinton could attack Obama for plagiarism and then take a riff from Edwards.
I would think if you examined the words of any politician, you'll be able to find passages from their speeches that are very similar to someone else's. That's a given.
And Obama borrowed from a friend who happens to be one of his campaign's co-chairs, so it just is not a big deal. They're friends. They have each borrowed phrases and phrasing from each other, so who cares.
The attack on Obama did not resonant with the voters at all, so Clinton should have just dropped it. But she went after him again during the debate.
That would have been viewed as just a waste of time, but then she ends the debate with her big emotional close that gets the audience going and the pundits praising, but she took it from Edwards. What do they say about people in glass houses?
I don't think her lifting a line from Edwards is a big deal at all, and I don't think anyone else would have cared either, except she made it a big deal.
I would think if you examined the words of any politician, you'll be able to find passages from their speeches that are very similar to someone else's. That's a given.
And Obama borrowed from a friend who happens to be one of his campaign's co-chairs, so it just is not a big deal. They're friends. They have each borrowed phrases and phrasing from each other, so who cares.
The attack on Obama did not resonant with the voters at all, so Clinton should have just dropped it. But she went after him again during the debate.
That would have been viewed as just a waste of time, but then she ends the debate with her big emotional close that gets the audience going and the pundits praising, but she took it from Edwards. What do they say about people in glass houses?
I don't think her lifting a line from Edwards is a big deal at all, and I don't think anyone else would have cared either, except she made it a big deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)