How can a speech be resilient? That's what Chris Matthews just said. Was it that despite mangling the truth, words still managed to come out of Clinton's mouth? Or is "resilient" just the only acceptable word now to describe anything Clinton does that is destructive and irrational.
Howard Fineman mentioned that Hillary's camp is demanding that Obama not offer the VP spot to another woman. I had my doubts for a while, but I have now come to realize that -- far from being a movement defined by obtaining power to fight for equal rights and equal status -- feminism really is just Hillary Clinton's one-woman cult of personality. My only question, then, is why not choose someone with a better personality?
Tom Brokaw mentioned that Obama's speech moved from "Yes We Can" to "Here's How." He says that that's what we've been waiting for all this time.
Actually, Tom. No. We haven't been waiting, because we've actually been listening to Barack Obama. While I feel good about Obama's chances for winning in November, something tells me that even by January 20 2009, we'll still be hearing from the Russerts and Brokaws of the world: "Gee, he sure can talk about hope, but Obama is still a cipher in terms of the policies he plans to enact..."
Can we drop the Klinton Krazies and still win in November? Yes we can!
My assumption is that the Appalachian voters who voted for Clinton did not actually and would not actually vote Democratic in most of the last election cycles. They do not belong, then, to the vote total of reality-challenged Clinton supporters who plan to defect in November. No, these are more likely to be of the sort who, as the Clintons themselves pointed out: "Don't need a president, they need a feeling."
By a crude estimate, then, my sense is that these voters will have the most effect on Obama's margin in Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. While Arizona is probably safely in McCain's hands already, the only states where defections may make a difference are New Jersey and Florida. With the political climate as it is, though -- and, by the way, Thank G_d for Bob Barr! -- it seems fair to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in the Mountain West and Virginia such that an unfavorable turn in the two pivotal "angry states" would be offset. I am, in fact, predicting here and now, a Reagan-esque landslide in the Fall.
But even if some tell-tale combination of racists and the Klinton Krazies (these are distinct constituencies, right Geraldine Ferraro?) does signal an Obama defeat in the November, I believe that it is far more important to rebuild the soul of the Democratic Party around the assumption that we can assemble a majority progressive coalition and re-mold the political rhetoric of foreign policy and national security to the Democrats' advantage, than to cater to the demagogues and power brokers within the party who would insist on turning virulent Bush-hatred and the bitter memory of the Clinton impeachment into the only coherent and sound form of Democratic discourse for the foreseeable future.
Finally, is it okay to refer to Clinton's now defunct campaign for the nomination as the Ronaldo candidacy? It seems that many women thought they were voting for the first woman to ever run for president. Oddly enough though, the Clinton campaign conveyed the message that a woman would only be fit for the job if she knew how to act like a man, thus increasing the degree of difficulty for any future women politician seeking the office. If anyone has run a sexist campaign, then, it has been the Clintons. It is they and their surrogates who have persistently challenged Obama's masculinity and, thus, fitness for the job, and suggested to her voters that... um... at least anatomically speaking... Clinton is a man. (And a Latino one, at that.)
No comments:
Post a Comment