Well, it seems to be coming down to this: will the Democratic party continue its long and distinguished history of choosing a fundamentally unelectable candidate by nominating Hillary Clinton, or will they actually go with a centrist who has momentum and can pick up independent voters and voters who don't usually come out for elections (by nominating Obama)?
The more I listen to Clinton, the more her voice grates on me. It just _sounds_ insincere. I heard her on NPR talking about how she's sat down with people and had delicious local microbrews with them, and I wanted to gag. She's simultaneously a political panderer and yet, at the same time, reviled by much of the country. It's like she has the worst of both worlds: she says what she thinks people want to hear, and they still hate her. Bleh. I can think of no better way to rally conservatives than to nominate her. And it depresses the hell out of me to think she might just get it.
As for Obama, I admit preferring him not because of any of his policies (in fact, I think Clinton's health care plan, which includes mandated coverage, is a better idea, though admittedly harder to sell) but simply because he's "new guard." I feel strongly that anyone who voted for the war resolution ought not to keep their job, and they sure as hell don't get to be promoted. Pragmatically, I think Obama's right that McCain will be able to nail Clinton on this point. She voted for the war. Period. As much as she tries to wriggle out of it, she voted for the fucking war. She rubber-stamped Bush. She went with the political winds, and that's not a quality people gravitate to in a potential President.
Yes, I know, "it's the economy, stupid." But on some level, it does come down to personality. Hillary really is unlikable, and she will continue to be unlikable no matter how much crying she does or how much she spins herself.
And speaking of the crying, it will backfire. It will gain her a certain portion of the female vote who will sympathize with her, but there's no way the American machismo will allow itself to vote for a girl who cries during press conferences. And frankly, I don't think that's necessarily something to condemn it for. Yes, machismo goes too far when it engages in "bring it on!" testosterone-laden cowboy diplomacy, but I'm sorry, stoicism is something you want in a leader. People don't follow leaders who visibly break down. We don't want leaders who are human. We'll vote for Sarah Connor, not Bridget Jones, for fuck's sake.
Is this really the kind of candidate you want to have? When you can have this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with pretty much everything you said in the first 3+ paragraphs. In fact, I voted for Obama this morning.
But I have to say it drives me crazy when people harp on the Clinton crying episode, saying that we can't have our leaders cry. If you want to say that you think the crying was a cynical political move, fine. That's a valid interpretation. But when people get all worked up over the crying, saying that it's a sign of weakness and our strong leaders never cry, they're fooling themselves.
It's not that she cried, it's that she's a _woman_ and she cried. Mitt Romney cried twice (twice!) in the _same week_ as the Clinton crying episode, and I didn't hear it in the news once. In fact, I only found out about it when I started looking at news stories to see if male politicians had been documented as crying in this campaign. Our dear macho George W actually cries regularly, and it never makes news. Yet when Clinton "tears up" it dominates the news cycle for a week.
I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but can we all please get over the woman crying episode and move on?
Post a Comment