When really smart women say really stupid things..
I don't like Senator Barack Obama, I am having a very hard time finding my way clear to vote for him. He is by turns arrogant and naive and someone really needs to start editing his speeches, they have moved from the tolerably overwritten to the insufferable. Having said that, I would rather he be made Emperor for Life than have any harm come to him. Being a somewhat superstitious woman, I have not even been able to think "that" word in the same sentence with Senator Obama and then today the woman I support for President had to go and all but say it.
Thanks to some astute guidance from the comments of Elise (see comments below) I have come to think that my original post may have been a little harsh in its treatment of Senator Clinton; however, since HRC is stuck with the comments she made, I don't think it would be fair of me to change anything that I said so I'm leaving the post as it was originally written just as I do with all posts.
I will take Senator Clinton at her word - that Senator Edward Kennedy has been much on her mind of late given his devastating diagnosis this week - but still I was stunned upon hearing her comments. I do believe that this issue - I still can't bring myself to write the word in a post referring to Senator Obama - is discussed by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns behind closed doors, just as I would imagine that both campaigns discuss amongst themselves the facts that some white people vote for Hillary because they are racists and some black people vote for Barack because they are racist. When Senator Clinton brought to the fore the fact of racism, I wondered why people were so astounded that she would discuss it; after all Senator Obama has called for a national discussion on race and race can't be discussed if racism can't be discussed. Still, I vehemently oppose the public suggestion that violence might once again rob this country of its right to choose its President and the Obama family of something much, much more important - and in no way should that abhorrent thought be the basis for someone's vote.
My original post topic for today was the possiblity of HRC as Senator Obama's VP. For me, Hillary Clinton on the bottom half of the ticket is a waste of her talent, an end to her career and in no way increases the chance that I would vote Democratic. The only way it works to her advantage is if the Democrats lose in November and even then, she probably would not stand a chance in 2012. Obama-ites have already taken hold of the fundraising arm of the party and as he wraps up the nomination, they will grab the reins of all the other party functions. Despite whatever Mrs. Obama says, I truly doubt that if Senator Obama gets anywhere close to winning the general he would rule out another run in 2012. Should the Democrats take the presidency - and I think that is not at all a sure thing - Hillary would be too old to run in eight years (not too old for my taste but too old for the chauvinists and ageists who make up a large number of this country's voters). So, give up what could be a long and historic Senate career for a chance to be President Obama's errand woman? While it might give the Obamas a chuckle, I don't see it playing in the Clinton household and it does nothing to groom an heir to follow a President Obama. No, it's now or never for Hil which I hope to God was not the reason for her comment today.
I won't get a chance to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 general election. Prior to today I would have counseled her not to accept the vice presidential spot, now I don't think there is much chance it will be offered.
The lib heads at MSNBC will be all over this tonight and this weekend, once more goosing their ratings by venting their self-righteous outrage rather than the important issues, decisive, nation changing issues our country faces. An election that should have been a celebration of everything the Democrats have championed over the last decades has become the saddest of any in which I have voted, I see no leaders, no leadership. I didn't think I could feel less involved in this election than I did when it became apparent to me that Senator Clinton could not win the nomination but I was wrong. To quote - as best I can remember, the book was stolen from me a long, long time ago - Jeff Newfield at the end of RFK A Memoir: "The stone was at the bottom of the hill and we were alone."
You should reconsider supporting Sen. Obama. It looks like you were supporting Sen. Clinton on the basis of gender, . . . I may be wrong, but that is how your blog reads. I encourage you to find out more about Sen. Obama and his positions on issues that affect every American. Peace.
Reply to this
Thank you for your comments, Doc Jerome.
I am certainly looking closely at Senator Obama as my candidate. My support for Senator Clinton was based mainly on her universal health care proposal and what I perceive to be her strength as a leader in foreign policy and then, admittedly, her gender.
Reply to this
Since you are a local (I'm in Altadena), I will take care to express things with some care. I admire rebels, I admire smart people and I think Hillary is both. My longest running issue with her candidacy, though, is I don't sense a vision that matches her ambition. I just haven't felt or sensed anything she wants me to do besides vote for her so SHE can do something about healthcare. I just feel that the Presidency is MORE than hiring someone, as I would hire a day laborer to paint my house or clean the shed. There is something more, I think.
Take W. Sure she's smarter than him, but he had a mission (although he was wholly incapable of succeeding with his meager gifts) of protecting America from another 9/11.
Since I am no woman and a mere 44, the struggles embodied in her success are purely theoretical and singularly devoid of any emotional impact to me. This is no ones fault of course but it means there is no resonance from her drum for me and apparently I am not alone.
In contrast, Barack has a vision for a greater America that is as inspiring or as naive as one will allow. He asks us to work for this change which is so empowering and builds ownership in the goal of a greater America. I can't recall any politician with that skill and apparently there have not been many.
Such is why her comments today are just so awful. They were so clinical and cold and just so insensitive that I cannot imagine a heart that is healthy could let them air.
Such is how I see things -
Truly,
Reg
Reply to this
R, thank you for taking the time to present your case and for your civility.
Admittedly HRC is not as inspirational in presenting her case as Senator Obama - and I do realize that the nation needs to be inspired; however, I find Senator Clinton to be more clear eyed in how to get the country from point ! to point B which I think is also necessary.
One of the problems I have with the Obama campaign is that so many of the people who speak and write of his transforming them then speak and write in very untransformed ways. I'm much more open to listening to Obama supporters such as you who present their case in a manner that seems consistent with the vision they saw they see in Senator Obama.
Reply to this
My prayers go out to both Senators, Clinton, Obama, and Kennedy tonight.
I am a young African American male and I would still vote for Mrs. Clinton enough she were able to legitimately gain the nomination.
I know watching your candidate going through this must be heartbreaking. Even my mother has longed for a female president and saw that same promise in Hillary. But understand that those that do support Mr. Obama are not driven my hate or anger, but for hope and peace.
And I'm sure that if Mr. Obama did win the presidency Senator Clinton will play an extremely important role in shaping the future of this great nation.
Its probably not the outcome she had envisioned, but life sure is a funny thing.
God Bless
ps: Lovely post
Reply to this
JJ, what a generous post. To be honest, I'm not sure I could say the same had Senator Obama made a similar comment in regard to Senator Clinton - although let me clarify that I in no way think HRC was stating a wish that anything should happen to BO but saying that one is staying in the race in case something should happen to him doesn't seem to be good form either.
I have waited my whole life to vote for a qualified woman to be President but I also understand that I can't imagine what it must be like - for the first time ever - to see a person of my color on the brink of being the nominee of the Democratic Party; that for me is why this primary season has become so sad, we have the choice between not only two historic candidates but two highly qualified candidates and yet the race has become not a celebration but a mud fight amongst many of the supporters of those candidates and then this from I woman for whom I have so much respect.
The two people whose views I prize most highly are Obama supporters so I am keeping that option open, at the moment I'm just a little tired of political parties no matter who the nominee is.
Reply to this
Actually, her reasoning for bringing assassination into the picture is a complete lie. She claims it is because the Kennedys have been on her mind, but she's been making the comments about RFK's assassination since March.
So yes, she really is as pathetic as she appears to be.
Reply to this
I do realize that comments similar to this have been made previously but not as egregiously as this and certainly not during a week in which the Kennedy family has already had distressing news. I would not characterize Senator Clinton as pathetic; disappointing in this instance would I believe be a more apt choice of word for how I feel.
Appreciate your taking the time to express your thoughts.
Reply to this
I certainly agree this was a terribly stupid thing for Senator Clinton to say. However, in context, it seems clear she was using the date of RFK's assassination as a time stamp, saying that he was still campaigning even into June. I know it's possible to read her comments more darkly but I simply refuse to do so.
Here's a link to a transcript of the relevant comments. Yes, this is a very pro-Clinton site, but it has the best combination of fuller transcript of the relevant portion of the ArgusLeader interview (many sites stop after the RFK line) as well as a transcript of Senator Clinton's apology and of the ArgusLeader statement on this matter. It also has video of the relevant portion of Senator Clinton's ArgusLeader interview and of her apology.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27765
Reply to this
Elise, thank you for the link and for your comments. I believe we agree on the context of Senator Clinton's remarks. I understand that she was talking about the fact that a lot of unforseen things can happen between now and the convention. I, myself, have been hoping for a statement from Senator Obama that would illustrate my perception that he is not yet experienced enought to lead the nation. However, one of my major problems with the Obama campaign has been the way in which it speaks of being transformed and then many of its supporters speak in some of the most reprehensible ways; as the leader of her campaign - the one person who can really speak for Hillary Clinton - I think she should have chosen her words much more carefully.
Reply to this
I think our reading of Senator Clinton's remarks is different. I do not think she was talking about the fact that a lot of unforeseen things can happen between now and the convention. Not at all. I think she was saying:
I do not know why people keep saying I should drop out for the good of the party. Previous primary contests have run into June. The one in 1992 did and the one in 1968 did and I don't know why people don't remember that about 1968 because surely everyone remembers that RFK was still running when he was assassinated and surely everyone remembers that happened in June.
Or as a commenter in a Time blog put it:
"Sen. Clinton could have made the point that several past nominations have not been wrapped up this early in the year without specifically mentioning RFK's assassination. One way those of us old enough to remember such things can remember what year or what time of year something occurred is by placing them in context with major historic events."
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html#comment-490118
However, I certainly agree with you that she should have chosen her words much more carefully.
O/T, I'd like to say I just found your Website today (unfortunately I cannot remember how I got here so I can't give credit to whatever site sent me to you) and I've very much enjoyed reading through your posts. You have expressed very clearly some of the reservations I have about Senator Obama and I particularly appreciate your posts about feeling somewhat unwelcome in the Democratic party due to your age - I've felt the same.
At this point, I'm not sure if you've inspired me to start my own blog or made me decide I don't have to since you are doing such a good job at expressing many of my concerns - and far more civilly than I probably would.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Reply to this
Elise, thank you for your comments and I am going to respond to the last one first. Your kind words about my blog are appreciated but I encourage you to blog as well for several reasons. First, your comments have helped me to put my thoughts about HRC's remarks into a better context, sometimes we all need help in looking at things from a different angle and we need all the civil thoughts out there - from every perspective - that we can get. Second, I know that my blog has helped me to see how my thoughts and feelings have developed over the course of the spring. Third, I've met some nice people - Republicans and Obama supporters as well as people who support Senator Clinton like you and I do. A little blog such as this one is inexpensive to set up and easy to use; if you should start a blog, please let me know so that I can visit it.
Now for your comments about Senator Clinton. I do see your point that her comments may have been a way to form a timeline for previous primary seasons. I agree totally that the older I get the more I remember things by what happened during a particular time. I'm just disappointed that she was not more aware of how this particular moment of remembering might appear. I know that in my own little blog I have sometimes written things and then gone back and reread and thought that something might be perceived in a way other than the way I meant it so I change it. Having written that, I am aware that Senator Clinton doesn't have the luxury of rereading or rethinking every comment she makes, that she makes hundreds of comments a day that are examined by professionals just looking for a way to trip her up in a way that not a word I ever say will ever be examined and that she must be bone tired. So, as a strong supporter perhaps I should have cut her a little more slack, especially since so many people are going out of their way to read the worst possible meaning into what she said.
Reply to this
Ah, but I don't support Hillary Clinton. I've never been able to stand either of the Clintons and can bring forth friends, relatives, co-workers, and probably strangers off the street to attest to that. Nonetheless, I found it heartbreaking and appalling that so many people were willing to ascribe truly evil intent to a major mainstream political figure on such flimsy evidence (to my mind, no evidence at all).
And part of the heartbreak of this whole incident is the fact that many, many people would find my defense of Senator Clinton inexplicable given that I don't support her. The benefit of the doubt is clearly out of fashion.
If you will indulge me with one more link, I ran across this earlier today:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=203F9A7D-3048-5C12-00F893045DC51923
and I find it the most thoughtful discussion of this episode I've read.
Obviously I have a lot to say so perhaps I will get a blog. If I do, I'll let you know. And I look forward to continuing to read yours.
Reply to this
Elise, I absolutely love the fact that you are far from a Hillary supporter and yet you took the time to point out that many people - including me - had overreacted to her comments. This I believe points to another reason you might want to consider a blog - there are so many people writing (and of course as long as they don't advocate violence or commit slander all have a right to write) who see things only through a very narrow prism of winning as opposed to making fair decisions.
Reply to this
Intelectual murder...
As is!!!!
Ready to kill at 1st. Day!!!!
Reply to this
I publish all comments deleting only links back to a website that I find objectionable or those that advocate violence. However, I would like to state that I find this reader's comment to be an obvious misreading of Senator Clinton's unfortunate remarks.
Reply to this
I think many Obama supporters don't like Clinton because she can't win the nomination and would rather build resentment towards him than drop out. On the other hand, Clinton supporters don't like Obama because he is taking away her last opportunity to be president. However, I think most Obama supporters would be very enthusiastic Clinton supporters if Obama were not in the race. We (Obama supporters) see, in our minds, a more qualified candidate. That's all.
But then, what about Obama's 90% black support? Doesn't that make you resent him? I mean, black people just support him because he is black, right? Actually, this isn't true. I know you find this hard to believe, but it isn't true. If Colin Powell got 90% of black votes as a Republican, it would be mostly because Powell is black. But Obama is very different. Any black person who can garner up so much white support in this country has to be infinitely exceptional. Black people see this in his debates, in the way he carries himself, in the way he found Jesus, in the way he got up of his butt to do work as a community organizer when most (black) people just sit around and complain about how things are so bad. We're very, very proud of him and amazed that he could accomplish so much in so little time. It's difficult for a black person to see how inspiring he is and not vote for him. If the best candidate is really a black person, don't hate black people for voting for him.
Nothing personal against Hillary-- she would do well with black people against any other black candidate if she tried. If she weren't doing all the race baiting like the Republicans, she'd probably have 25 percent of black votes now. Indeed, I was VERY PLEASED when she won the senate seat in 2000, despite her pretending to be a NY resident, and a year ago I expected to be voting for her in the election. She might have easily beaten Obama if she hadn't been so wooden and monotonic up until recently. But now I want the kind of candidate who would say no to a symbolic gas tax holiday and other nonsense.
Reply to this
N, thank you for your comments which I think in many cases are right on point. Even as an HRC supporter I know that her not leaving the race must seem curious to Obama supporters, I think it must stem from just an inability to give up, to see giving up as somehow lacking in strength. Personally I know that there is no way she can win mathematically and no way that the super delegates would override what they see as going over the will of the people and "awarding" the nomination to her. The super delegates should, in my view, be abolished. The candidate should be the person for whom the people in the states voted, which in this case would have taken HRC out of the running rather than giving her some idea that she will prove to be the more electable candidate.
As for the 90% vote by black Americans for Senator Obama: I do not think the large percentage is entirely based on race just as I do not think that the large numbers of women who vote for Senator Clinton are entirely based on gender, nor do I think that all poor, high school educated white people vote for HRC based on racism - although admittedly some votes in all of these cases are based on race, gender and, unfortunately, racism. As a woman who is extremely proud of Senator Clinton I understand how people of color are proud of Senator Obama - he is certainly an accomplished man and it is incredible and far, far too long in coming that a person of color should be the near presumptive nominee of a major party. I would, however, disagree with your statement concerning General Powell whom I also find to be an accomplished man who - in my opinion - has the experience that at this point in his career Senator Obama is lacking. I would add that he also has more experience in many areas than does Senator Clinton. General Powell may not have worked as an organizer in black communities but he is did work his way up through the ranks of the Army which - I am sure - required dealing with and overcoming racism just as it does within many cities in our country. He also is a man of deep faith.
Hillary made many mistakes in this campaign, she also is not as compelling a speaker as Senator Obama. Still, I am very sorry that I will not get to vote for her in the general election. I am trying very hard to find a way to vote for Senator Obama.
Congratulations to your candidate, Senator Obama, for a well run campaign.
Reply to this
I don’t think she was advocating anything sinister. HOWEVER, the very mention of the word assasination was inappropriate and wasn’t needed to support her claim that primaries can go into June.
I have watched Obama carefully choose his words every time he speaks. He understands the subtle nuances of language. He addresses difficult topics with careful consideration. He isn’t afraid to refute an argument intelligently.
I have watched Hillary commit one gaffe after another. I don’t know if her words are said out of fatigue or are carefully chosen to manipulate the voters. However, I have two comments:
1. Which one of the above would you want negotiating with foreign heads of state?
2. Which one do you want making decisions in times of crisis when stress and fatigue are bound to be present?
Reply to this
Tamara, thanks for your comments. I agree that HRC was not advocating anything sinister but that the use of the word assasination was inappropriate.
Senator Obama does indeed choose his words carefully; at times I believe he chooses his words almost too carefully, leaving ambiguity rather than a true image of how he feels - that, of course, is true of most politicians. He has also had his share of gaffes and is known to be a little cross and unfocused when tired; again, if I were keeping the schedules both of the Senators are keeping I would probably be far more than a little cross and unfocused.
In answer to your two questions:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Hillary Clinton
I believe your candidate will be the nominee, congratulations.
Reply to this
I know this is pretty much a dead issue politically but I found a writeup on this whole matter that I liked a lot and I thought I'd pass it along. It's called "Special report: The evil of banality!". It's by The Daily Howler and runs for four days. Here's the link for the first day (you have to scroll down):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052708.shtml
Reply to this