Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Do You Really Want a Democratic President? Obamasize!

He's picked up the endorsements of over 100 notable feminists, CA 1st Lady Maria Shriver, Ted Kennedy, and many more - people you'd have thought would have backed Hillary. He has managed to keep the race tight against a powerful Clinton campaign machine, including its wafting aroma of spousal incumbancy success, and that sense of "inevitability" as well as that sense of Hillary being a "victim" whose woes we should somehow share, and assuage with the Presidency.

But Barack Obama's biggest selling point is his electability in the general election. Hillary is just too divisive a character, victim or not, capable or not, regardless...

Trey Ellis said it best:

I gave money three years ago to his senatorial campaign and personally have
never really considered voting for anyone else. I haven't yet advocated for
others to vote with me because despite the rancor from zealots in both camps,
Obama and Hillary are both centrists Democrats reading from the exact same
hymnal. I don't know any married couples who disagree on less. All this talk of
an historic battle for the future direction of the Democratic party is just the
same kind of hogwash HBO uses to hype prizefights.

What has become
clear, however, from the religious-like fervor of Obama believers and the
venomous hatred from Hillary haters, is that she has been so wounded by this
campaign that she will be too weak to lead us to victory in November.
Hyper-capable as she is, she's a hard woman to love. At least on her own.
Obama's breathtaking rise has at least already won him the VP nod but the
strength of his current surge will, I believe, eventually win him the

Fairly or unfairly Obama has been christened the new Kennedy while
Hillary has been tarred the old Nixon. I just don't see how she recovers from

Obama has unquestionably tapped into something profound and lacking in
this country. Let us gather around him now and get ready for the real push, the
real hard work, of wrestling power away from a handful of ultra-conservative
plutocrats who, for going on eight years now, have turned this nation into one
that we hardly even recognize.
Let's take it back with Obama.


Anonymous said...

Obama is a compromise candidate who arises from the "anyone but Bush" mentality that proves Americans will follow anyone off of a cliff if that is where everyone is going.

The sheepherder mentality is alive and well in America, and the Obama campaign proves its power.

Where electability used to be about competence, proficiency, and character, it is now about popularity. The electoral college was invented as a safety net to prevent the flaws of just such a popular vote. In 2008 it could be tested for the first time, in a long time.

The public still knows nothing about Obama except that he can think on his feet, and gives a good speech on the stump about social justice. But what black doesn't? Any black person can match him in that respect since they live, and breathe the philosophy.

There is much more to government than the military, and much more to the military than the soldiers.

2008 is the year that America succumbed to popular politics, doomed foresight in a nation failing in honor, in dignity, in loyalty, and in trust.

Only competetency and proficiency and character can cure the problems. Yet they are in short supply and never mentioned in this campaign, the almighty vote getter being the "vision" of the future as measured by prominent insider endorsements.

After change has been favored over experience in the Hillary-Obama contest, the media correctly identifies that between Obama and McCain, the test is change vs experience. How quaint and how odd that such a double standard exists as long as it excludes the woman who may represent experience.

Musical chairs can only be the analogy of what has occurred by February 13, 2008 with yet another many months to go in the election to argue over change vs experience.

The annointed candidate vs the military hero, yet little discussion of proficiency, character or competence.

By these standards of inquiry, anyone in America could be elected President as long as they have media consent and insider endorsement. No wonder we have revisionist history and a vital industry of journalists seeking to put a happy face upon unhappy times, and inadequate people trying to live up to the expectations of the American public. It's ostriche week at the American zoo.

Omyma said...

To Anonymous,
I wish you had a name - your comment is very astute and thought-provoking, something rare these days especially in election politics. But do I read in this that you see Hillary as the more competent candidate? My first read on her was exactly that (also considering the unlikelihood of other candidates being elected), but it seems she's too divisive in effect on the general electorate, and to my mind, any republican prez would be a disaster.