Posted by Damozel | Obama, considered strictly as a current presidential candidate destined to succeed George W. Bush, doesn't impress or move me when I'm not actually listening to him speak (I concede he's great at the rhetoric). I don't believe he can---or will---create 'Change' that is any more of a capital-C change than would be created by Clinton or McCain. He's running for president, not God or American Idol, though some of his supporters---many of whom seem to have a singularly unclear idea of where a president's constitutional powers begin and end or what the job in practice involves---don't seem overly concerned about this.
They want a Brave New World; I want a relentlessly pragmatic and grounded Commander-in-Chief to do the grubby business of cleaning up after Bush. I'm not going to run after the Pied Piper, however beguiling his music, even if it's the price of getting rid of the rats. I've had all the inexperienced but 'charismatic'/popular presidents I need in this lifetime and I don't feel I can put my trust or my country in the hands of a stranger.
Listening to people I have respected like Bill Maher sing hymns to him while (mildly in Bill's case) while denigrating Hillary Clinton just depresses me. Well, it also impairs my respect for those people, of course, but that's a different issue.
So I'm really and repeatedly grateful for Taylor Marsh, whose name is currently a hissing and a byword among people she calls 'Obamabots' and I call his fanbase. She's been relentlessly bashed by so-called 'progressives' in the party for pointing out that the clothes have no emperor (to borrow Paul Slansky's summary of the Reagan era):
The progressive rot at the core of this primary season revealed through the collective shrug John Edwards received, whose ideas were the most populist and progressive of all. He got little or no support. The first viable female candidate was vilified and rejected, especially by men across the progressive network, finally revealing the covert sexism running through the Democratic party, that was also exposed in the traditional media and cable networks as well. If Obama goes on to win the nomination it will tell the story, which isn't just about Hillary Clinton. All Democratic candidates, every one of them more qualified and with better ideas, pushed aside for Elmer Gantry with a website. (Taylor Marsh)
Here's what Larry C. Johnson, another fearless Hillary supporter, says about her. I am quoting it because (1) I respect Johnson; and (2) it's what I've always heard about her, prior to this primary season's bash-fest.
Johnson:
As I have said before, I once was a member of the Republican hate-Hillary camp. I succumbed to the media brain washing. Then I met her. But not just a meet and greet. This was a sit down in her office, with two other folks, and I briefed her on a range of national security issues. The woman I met that morning was the most impressive person I have ever briefed.
She was the opposite of everything I had been told by the media. She was warm, witty, charming, and scary smart. I left that first briefing having to rethink all of my previous biases towards Hillary. This is one of the reasons I think she is hands down the best person to govern this nation in the face of the awful challenges ahead. (No Quarter)
At Taylor Marsh's blog, beleaguered Clinton supporters who commented on her article had a lot to say about Obama's campaign and why it has proved so divisive.
As many concede, it's not completely his fault; part of it is due to the fact that so much of his support comes from the internet generation, with its short attention span, adolescent propensity to treat every opinion contrary to their own as a personal attack, and nasty habit of spewing invective at their 'attackers' from behind their protective psuedonyms.
One of TM's commenters, William, remarked on the current longing of the public for the next panacea, when anyone with a shred of common sense knows that there ain't one: no right answers for the aftermath of the Bush Administration:
I think it is mostly a result of an American public which has grown far too self-indulgent, with short attention spans caused by too much TV and videos; always hungry for something new, something different, something exciting. Of course it's not that simple, but this theme is undeniable....They now seem to think that Obama is more exciting than Hillary Clinton, whom I saw one blogger on a major site describe as "stale." Now there's a profound piece of political analysis.
As has been said by others, Obama is really just another version of GW Bush. Oh, he's smarter by far; and he is better on the issues; but he is still mostly a tabula rasa, someone on whom people are projecting their own yearnings and hopes. He'll never fulfill them. He'll never rebuild America "brick by brick" or restore the "broken souls" his wife likes to talk about. And he can't transcend partisanship and still make all the changes he promises. Those two things are inimical, but they just become part of the wish fantasy of the Obama supporters, like the pill which restores your hair while it settles your digestion. Hillary couldn't promise that, because it makes no sense; and neither could any other credible candidate. But it's not about credibility with Obama, it's about; you know, that little purple pill which is going to make everything all better really fast, if only you close your eyes and take it. (William)
Molly is as agog as I am that the people that she thought were all about the issues are all about the longing for a magic wand----the notion that all we have to do is hold our breath, click our heels together, and say, "I want a better world."
Somehow the left, the side that is supposed to be about nuance, has gotten itself into a collective frenzy about Hillary Clinton, where her vote to authorize the use of force makes her pro-war. It didn't, and doesn't. She is more of a hawk than I, it's true, but one has to be able to look at the issues and understand what was actually going on, and it saddens me that much of the party seems to have lost its mind on this one. It's a complete inability, or unwillingness, to be smart.
It's similar to gripes I hear from gay people, when they complain about how Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, conveniently forgetting that if he hadn't signed such a law, given the climate at the time, it's quite likely that we'd have a federal marriage amendment in the U.S. Constitution. And that, say many of them, is why they won't vote for Hillary Clinton, never mind the fact that she was not the president at the time. We should know better.
Historical amnesia, lack of nuance and understanding, a tendency to see everything in black and white...I have to say, it's a little scary. Because we're already here, and we don't need more of the same. (Molly)
Anne, disappointed by the 'collective shrug' over John Edwards, feels that we've got, not the presidential candidates we deserve, but the ones the media wanted us to have:
Edwards announced in New Orleans, and it seemed like he was fighting for all the people who were slowly disappearing – the poor, the middle class, kids who wanted to go to college, people whose jobs were evaporating, people who did all the right things and kept falling farther behind. His push for universal health care, and the way he structured his plan made such sense to me. He was willing to draw a line and work like a dog to bring the powers that be over to our side of it, instead of re-drawing it every time he ran into resistance. The icing on the cake was a razor-sharp wife who I knew would have her own progressive causes.
Alas, the media had another idea – the steel-cage death match it wanted was Clinton-Obama: the woman about whom no one was wishy-washy, and the black man with the silver tongue. It would be a contest for the ages, proof that America had evolved out of its ugly past. It would prove that discrimination was dead and equality for all had finally triumphed. Maybe on the Hallmark channel, that story would sell, but I wasn’t buying it. You can’t hold Clinton up as proof of our enlightenment and then condone rampant and overt sexism among the media power elite – but that was an irony completely lost on them.
As it became more clear that Edwards was not going to be given the chance to be viable, I knew I would have to choose between Clinton and Obama. After I got over my anger that I was having to make that choice, I found I was angry that neither candidate seemed like the right one for me, but I knew I was going to be voting “D” in November, so I worked on figuring it all out.
Never in a million years did I expect to feel more and more like Clinton was not only the better candidate, but I found that in defending her against the rising tide of Hillary-hate, I was convincing myself I could actually support her on her own terms, and not just because I was against Obama.
Obama evokes a visceral reaction in me, one I have tried, over and over, to get beyond. Surely, I could at least come to like him a little – couldn’t I? Well, apparently not. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the more people see of Obama, the more they like him, but I find it is just the opposite for me. The more I see, the more I hear, the more I read – the less reason I have to be confident that he could be “as good” as Clinton. I remind myself that this is more than just a popularity contest – that the entire administration is at stake, along with a couple of SC justices, but still – my mind is not eased, my stomach does not settle down, I don’t have that “we’ll be just fine” feeling I have longed for for 8 years,
I am incredibly angry that the media is still pulling the strings. They excuse and defend Obama to make sure he can maintain his status; they could not be more anxious for Clinton to just go away already. The film clips that run in the background and the narrative that accompanies the nightly homage to Obama could easily be taken from one of those Sunday night religious shows; Clinton is made to look tired, the tone of the narrative is one of pity mixed with derision. We’re being sold a product; it’s worse than American Idol – it’s election by infomercial.
Sorry to go on so long, but your post really hit a nerve and opened the floodgates. (Anne)
What will be left when the smoke has cleared and those of us who aren't looking for a candidate to love are stuck with a candidate we not only don't believe in but don't believe is even qualified for the job?
We'll just have to wait and see.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Clinton Gets Standing Ovation at Debate, Gets Booed over Plagiarism Remark
Has Obama Been Sufficiently Vetted to Survive the GOP Machine?
Obama a Plagiarist? No, He Just Lacks Originality (Updated)
Media-Created Intrigue: Obama's "Secret" Meeting with Edwards Follows Clinton's
How the Right Plans to Undermine Obama
Media Fashions Bill Clinton's Words into Cork Screw
Note from a Disenfranchised Floridian to the Rule-Obsessed DNC
Comments