I don't know if all this buzz about Bill Clinton's anger and Hillary's machinations is coming from the Clintons, who have a reputation for wanting to be in the spotlight, or if it's coming from the media because they want to stir up controversy before the convention to increase ratings come August 25th.
If the media can get enough voters worried and/or curious about whether or not Hillary's PUMAs will cause an upoar demanding she be nominated, or whether Bill will whole or only half-heartedly endorse Obama, they can get more people to tune in.
It's a terrible thing not to be able to trust the media who have become nothing more than corporate shills.
On the other hand, it's not beyond the pale that the Clintons could be wanting more attention. Attention is the air they breathe.
The Clintons at one time were the future of the Democratic Party, the more centrist Democrats, straight out of the Democratic Leadership Counsel. The enthusiasm for the new baby boomer generation he represented propelled Bill Clinton into the White House, rejecting the older WW II generation of Bush Sr. and then Dole. But that was a generation ago.
Now, the Democratic Party primary voters have decided it is time for another new generation, a post boomer generation. They could have gone for identity politics, and many wanted to. Almost half of the primary voters thought it was time to put a woman in the White House. But the desire for generational change won out (though just barely) and it is time to move on.
This desire for change and the move to a new generation propelled Kennedy as well as Clinton into the presidency, and it is likely to do the same this year (although Obama's race is a wild card in our still-too-racist society.)
The best thing the Clintons could do from this day forward, if they want to see a Democrat in the White House, is stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the Party. As much as Democrats admire the Clintons and are grateful for the good they did in the nineties, it seems the Party wants to move forward to a new generation, and as the elder statesman and stateswoman of the Party, it is their job to help facilitate that with their support and mentoring.
This is the way of life, the way of the world. Older generations mentor younger ones and prepare them for the roles they must take on. The Party has decided Barack is ready enough, and the Clintons can help tremendously by supporting that decision and being there to assist him when needed.
If, instead, they want to make this race about them, especially if they want it to be an "I told you so" moment in November, as Obama loses to a weak and floundering opponent, they will not be forgiven. Should Obama lose and Democrats believe the Clintons didn't work hard enough to help him win, Hillary's potential 2012 candidacy will be and should be dead.
But I say, let's wait and see. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I do believe they are patriots and I don't think they will sabotage Obama's candidacy. However, if all this speculation gets more people to watch the Democratic Convention, and both Hillary and Bill work their magic to unify the Party and get enthusiastically behind Obama, then more people wills see the Party and the candidate at their best, which could translate into millions of votes.
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential election. Show all posts
Friday, August 8, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Different arguments, different strategies, different times
In the democratic presidential primary, there are not just two candidates running for the nomination. There are two completely different arguments about how the winner should be decided.
I have been looking over some blogs this morning and it is apparent that those on Obama's side view the path to victory totally different than those favoring the Clinton campaign.
The Obama campaign has been working to pile up delegates according to the rules set down by the DNC. They are not just looking for state wins, they are looking for as many delegates as they can get within states, even states they lose (all of the states divide up their delegates according to weighted votes). They are not doing this (as far as I know) by cheating or demanding more than they have legitimately won, but by following the rules of the party. Because of the way the DNC rewards certain congressional districts within states, because of loyal democratic voting or other reasons, a candidate can actually win a state and lose the delegate count and vice versa. This may seem to the causal observer to be an unfair way to run a primary, but it is what the DNC laid down and what all the candidates knew going in. Obama is using the rules to his advantage.
Obama has also been trying to wrap up the contest by winning the most delegates, whether they come from caucus states or primary states. He does not see the delegates from caucus states as any less countable than delegates from primary states, nor it should be added does the DNC. Nor does he see the delegates from small states, or so-called red states, being any less important, as it is the overall delegate count that determines the winner.
Obama also wants to adhere to the rules laid down by the DNC regarding Florida and Michigan. The DNC, with the agreement of both campaigns, punished Florida and Michigan, as they said they would, because they moved their primary date up. Over the past couple of years, states have been moving their primaries up to an earlier date to have more of a say in who the nominee would be. My own state of California went from a June primary to a February primary for example.
My understanding is that the DNC was troubled by this development and we all saw Iowa and New Hampshire, who have traditionally been first, keep having to move their primaries up to stay in the first positions. The whole moving primary thing was getting ridiculous, so the DNC decided where the first four contests would be and asked all states to comply. When Florida and Michigan defied them, the DNC said they would not seat their delegates. This isn't because they didn't value the voters of Florida and Michigan, but because they were trying to put a halt to this "me first" contest in all the states and avoid fiascos in upcoming election years.
When the DNC made this decision, all the candidates were on board. All of the candidates (except Clinton and Dodd) took their names off of the ballot in Michigan, but Florida didn't allow that, so all the names remained. Furthermore, the candidates agreed not to campaign in these states. Obama has agreed to abide by the DNC's decision, although he says he would like to find a compromise by which the delegations could be seated.
Finally there are the superdelegates, those party officials who can also cast one delegate vote and possibly determine the winner of the nomination regardless of who wins the most pledged delegates. Obama has been trying to woo superdelegates as much as Clinton, and he is very aware that the superdelegates could vote for any candidate, including the one with the least pledged delegates. So far, he has not said anything publicly about wanting the superdelegates to abide by the will of the people, although some members of the party have said that.
In summary, then, Obama is moving forward trying to win as many delegates, pledged and super, as possible in order to secure the nomination. He is adhering to the rules, even though some believe those rules are unfair. So far, that strategy has served him well, so it is not difficult to stick to it. Obama is consistent. His message is trustworthy.
Hillary Clinton, who is currently behind in total delegate count, and most especially in the pledged delegates (those won in primaries and caucuses) has a very different strategy which operates on two fronts. One is to discount Obama's victories. The other is to emphasize "fairness." In neither of these fronts is she concerned about adhering to DNC rules.
Hillary and her surrogates have been discounting Obama's victories since he began winning them. In fact, this has become so obvious that some of the bloggers are writing parodies of her surrogates' attempts to downplay Obama's wins. So far, we have heard from Hillary's campaign that small state delegates aren't as important as big state delegates, red state delegates aren't as valuable as blue state delegates, and caucus delegates aren't as democratic as primary delegates. In other words, the delegates Hillary has won should count more than the delegates Obama has won. Of course, since the party rules are that a delegate is a delegate is a delegate, this is all spin and will make no difference in the final count.
What could make a difference in the final count is what what happens with the Michigan and Florida votes, and what the superdelegates ultimately do. Here again, Hillary has a different strategy.
While Hillary originally accepted the DNC rules regarding Michigan and Florida, she now talks about the "unfairness" of not seating the delegations. Since she "won" both contests, even though she was running against "uncommitted" in Michigan, and even though Obama had no chance to introduce himself to the voters in Florida, she now wants to change the rules in mid-game. There is a certain appeal to her argument, especially when she claims it is unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida not to count their votes, but she is not looking at all at the fact that it was unfair to Obama not to be on the ballot in Michigan, and not to be able to campaign in Florida, where had he campaigned he undoubtedly would have done better. Her argument also makes sense in terms of giving her an advantage. Since she won both contests, however unfairly, she wants those delegates and the only way to get them is to convince enough people her "fairness" argument is valid and the DNC rules should be overturned.
As to the superdelegates, Hillary is counting on them overturning and thus dishonoring the popular and pledged delegate votes (which is an ironic twist considering her cry that the votes in Florida and Michigan should be honored). She hopes that by winning Pennsylvania and many of the remaining states, she will prove she has momentum and will be a better candidate than Obama. The only problem with this is that there is nothing in the rules about momentum. Yes, if the Obama campaign implodes, for which the Clinton campaign is praying, the superdelegates can be a safeguard to vote for a better candidate, but this would be extraordinary and could tear the party apart.
The superdelegates would only overrule the will of the people who have given Obama more votes, and put Hillary in as the nominee, if they really believed Obama was radioactive. Right now, in opinion polls, Hillary has higher negatives than Obama or McCain, and is seen as the least likely to unify the country. So all she may have going for her is momentum, Michigan, and Florida and they are all long shots. In addition, Hillary's mind-changing with respect to the DNC rules makes her look untrustworthy and inconsistent, as does her dishonest story about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.
A presidential election campaign is really two things: a deadly serious business in which candidates' character, demeanor, leadership, and position on issues is evaluated, and a strategic game in which one side tries to outmaneuver the other with a variety of tactics and tricks.
Ronald Reagan was the last candidate who won on the first set of criteria. His character, personality, leadership style and conservative views (during a very conservative time) won the day. Since then, while Democratic candidates have generally had better positions on issues, candidates have either prevailed because of personality issues or through the use of tactics and (mostly dirty) tricks.
Bush I won because of dirty tricks against Dukakis while Bill Clinton won because of a combination of personality and Perot, who stole enough votes from Bush I to allow Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote. Bush II won as we all know because of the dirty campaing and electoral tricks of Karl Rove.
This election, however, may be different. These are different times. The problems the country faces are enormous, and the man who became president because of dirty tricks has not only failed to solve them, he has created more of them. This time, a reliance on strategy alone may not work. The people are treating the presidential election of 2008 as deadly serious business and are in no mood, I believe, for another Rovian election season.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not very different when it comes to issues, however, so Hillary is trying to win with tricks and tactics while Obama, no novice when it comes to smart tactics, is playing by the rules and emphasizing character, leadership, and demeanor. After he nearly got thrown off course by the Rev. Wright controversy, he came back with a speech in which his loyalty, his honesty, and his calm demeanor won the day. People admired his courage in addressing a hot topic, and in not completely disowning his pastor. They liked his ability to talk in more than sound bites, to address them as adults, and to look at issues in a complex rather than simplistic good and evil way. After eight years of lies, overly simplistic arguments, and dirty tricks, the people find Obama refreshing, and too many are seeing Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy.
Even the choice of the Republican nominee is a testament to the fact that people have Bush and Rove fatigue and want more honesty, more character, and less dirty tricks. McCain, the so-called Maverick, is ahead in the polls right now, beating both Obama and Clinton, even though the people are clearly on the side of both Obama and Clinton when it comes to the issues. The people like McCain's demeanor and character, and the Republicans nominated him even though the so-called conservative base does not embrace him.
Ultimately, I think Clinton's tactics will not work. While her supporters have accepted and even promoted her rationalizations that the Michigan and Florida situation is unfair to voters, and that she is a better candidate because she wins in large blue states this is not accepted by a majority of voters. The voters know she signed on to the DNC rules and they also know that in large states like California, New York and Massachusetts, Barack Obama will defeat John McCain. Clinton wants to use a Bush-Rove strategy, winning by tactics and rhetorical tricks, and the voters who are not among her most loyal fans do not like it.
This is why today Obama is ahead of Clinton by 10 points, and it is why, once Obama is the official nominee and is pitted one on one against McCain, McCain's numbers will go down. And the sooner that happens, the better.
I have been looking over some blogs this morning and it is apparent that those on Obama's side view the path to victory totally different than those favoring the Clinton campaign.
The Obama campaign has been working to pile up delegates according to the rules set down by the DNC. They are not just looking for state wins, they are looking for as many delegates as they can get within states, even states they lose (all of the states divide up their delegates according to weighted votes). They are not doing this (as far as I know) by cheating or demanding more than they have legitimately won, but by following the rules of the party. Because of the way the DNC rewards certain congressional districts within states, because of loyal democratic voting or other reasons, a candidate can actually win a state and lose the delegate count and vice versa. This may seem to the causal observer to be an unfair way to run a primary, but it is what the DNC laid down and what all the candidates knew going in. Obama is using the rules to his advantage.
Obama has also been trying to wrap up the contest by winning the most delegates, whether they come from caucus states or primary states. He does not see the delegates from caucus states as any less countable than delegates from primary states, nor it should be added does the DNC. Nor does he see the delegates from small states, or so-called red states, being any less important, as it is the overall delegate count that determines the winner.
Obama also wants to adhere to the rules laid down by the DNC regarding Florida and Michigan. The DNC, with the agreement of both campaigns, punished Florida and Michigan, as they said they would, because they moved their primary date up. Over the past couple of years, states have been moving their primaries up to an earlier date to have more of a say in who the nominee would be. My own state of California went from a June primary to a February primary for example.
My understanding is that the DNC was troubled by this development and we all saw Iowa and New Hampshire, who have traditionally been first, keep having to move their primaries up to stay in the first positions. The whole moving primary thing was getting ridiculous, so the DNC decided where the first four contests would be and asked all states to comply. When Florida and Michigan defied them, the DNC said they would not seat their delegates. This isn't because they didn't value the voters of Florida and Michigan, but because they were trying to put a halt to this "me first" contest in all the states and avoid fiascos in upcoming election years.
When the DNC made this decision, all the candidates were on board. All of the candidates (except Clinton and Dodd) took their names off of the ballot in Michigan, but Florida didn't allow that, so all the names remained. Furthermore, the candidates agreed not to campaign in these states. Obama has agreed to abide by the DNC's decision, although he says he would like to find a compromise by which the delegations could be seated.
Finally there are the superdelegates, those party officials who can also cast one delegate vote and possibly determine the winner of the nomination regardless of who wins the most pledged delegates. Obama has been trying to woo superdelegates as much as Clinton, and he is very aware that the superdelegates could vote for any candidate, including the one with the least pledged delegates. So far, he has not said anything publicly about wanting the superdelegates to abide by the will of the people, although some members of the party have said that.
In summary, then, Obama is moving forward trying to win as many delegates, pledged and super, as possible in order to secure the nomination. He is adhering to the rules, even though some believe those rules are unfair. So far, that strategy has served him well, so it is not difficult to stick to it. Obama is consistent. His message is trustworthy.
Hillary Clinton, who is currently behind in total delegate count, and most especially in the pledged delegates (those won in primaries and caucuses) has a very different strategy which operates on two fronts. One is to discount Obama's victories. The other is to emphasize "fairness." In neither of these fronts is she concerned about adhering to DNC rules.
Hillary and her surrogates have been discounting Obama's victories since he began winning them. In fact, this has become so obvious that some of the bloggers are writing parodies of her surrogates' attempts to downplay Obama's wins. So far, we have heard from Hillary's campaign that small state delegates aren't as important as big state delegates, red state delegates aren't as valuable as blue state delegates, and caucus delegates aren't as democratic as primary delegates. In other words, the delegates Hillary has won should count more than the delegates Obama has won. Of course, since the party rules are that a delegate is a delegate is a delegate, this is all spin and will make no difference in the final count.
What could make a difference in the final count is what what happens with the Michigan and Florida votes, and what the superdelegates ultimately do. Here again, Hillary has a different strategy.
While Hillary originally accepted the DNC rules regarding Michigan and Florida, she now talks about the "unfairness" of not seating the delegations. Since she "won" both contests, even though she was running against "uncommitted" in Michigan, and even though Obama had no chance to introduce himself to the voters in Florida, she now wants to change the rules in mid-game. There is a certain appeal to her argument, especially when she claims it is unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida not to count their votes, but she is not looking at all at the fact that it was unfair to Obama not to be on the ballot in Michigan, and not to be able to campaign in Florida, where had he campaigned he undoubtedly would have done better. Her argument also makes sense in terms of giving her an advantage. Since she won both contests, however unfairly, she wants those delegates and the only way to get them is to convince enough people her "fairness" argument is valid and the DNC rules should be overturned.
As to the superdelegates, Hillary is counting on them overturning and thus dishonoring the popular and pledged delegate votes (which is an ironic twist considering her cry that the votes in Florida and Michigan should be honored). She hopes that by winning Pennsylvania and many of the remaining states, she will prove she has momentum and will be a better candidate than Obama. The only problem with this is that there is nothing in the rules about momentum. Yes, if the Obama campaign implodes, for which the Clinton campaign is praying, the superdelegates can be a safeguard to vote for a better candidate, but this would be extraordinary and could tear the party apart.
The superdelegates would only overrule the will of the people who have given Obama more votes, and put Hillary in as the nominee, if they really believed Obama was radioactive. Right now, in opinion polls, Hillary has higher negatives than Obama or McCain, and is seen as the least likely to unify the country. So all she may have going for her is momentum, Michigan, and Florida and they are all long shots. In addition, Hillary's mind-changing with respect to the DNC rules makes her look untrustworthy and inconsistent, as does her dishonest story about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.
A presidential election campaign is really two things: a deadly serious business in which candidates' character, demeanor, leadership, and position on issues is evaluated, and a strategic game in which one side tries to outmaneuver the other with a variety of tactics and tricks.
Ronald Reagan was the last candidate who won on the first set of criteria. His character, personality, leadership style and conservative views (during a very conservative time) won the day. Since then, while Democratic candidates have generally had better positions on issues, candidates have either prevailed because of personality issues or through the use of tactics and (mostly dirty) tricks.
Bush I won because of dirty tricks against Dukakis while Bill Clinton won because of a combination of personality and Perot, who stole enough votes from Bush I to allow Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote. Bush II won as we all know because of the dirty campaing and electoral tricks of Karl Rove.
This election, however, may be different. These are different times. The problems the country faces are enormous, and the man who became president because of dirty tricks has not only failed to solve them, he has created more of them. This time, a reliance on strategy alone may not work. The people are treating the presidential election of 2008 as deadly serious business and are in no mood, I believe, for another Rovian election season.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not very different when it comes to issues, however, so Hillary is trying to win with tricks and tactics while Obama, no novice when it comes to smart tactics, is playing by the rules and emphasizing character, leadership, and demeanor. After he nearly got thrown off course by the Rev. Wright controversy, he came back with a speech in which his loyalty, his honesty, and his calm demeanor won the day. People admired his courage in addressing a hot topic, and in not completely disowning his pastor. They liked his ability to talk in more than sound bites, to address them as adults, and to look at issues in a complex rather than simplistic good and evil way. After eight years of lies, overly simplistic arguments, and dirty tricks, the people find Obama refreshing, and too many are seeing Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy.
Even the choice of the Republican nominee is a testament to the fact that people have Bush and Rove fatigue and want more honesty, more character, and less dirty tricks. McCain, the so-called Maverick, is ahead in the polls right now, beating both Obama and Clinton, even though the people are clearly on the side of both Obama and Clinton when it comes to the issues. The people like McCain's demeanor and character, and the Republicans nominated him even though the so-called conservative base does not embrace him.
Ultimately, I think Clinton's tactics will not work. While her supporters have accepted and even promoted her rationalizations that the Michigan and Florida situation is unfair to voters, and that she is a better candidate because she wins in large blue states this is not accepted by a majority of voters. The voters know she signed on to the DNC rules and they also know that in large states like California, New York and Massachusetts, Barack Obama will defeat John McCain. Clinton wants to use a Bush-Rove strategy, winning by tactics and rhetorical tricks, and the voters who are not among her most loyal fans do not like it.
This is why today Obama is ahead of Clinton by 10 points, and it is why, once Obama is the official nominee and is pitted one on one against McCain, McCain's numbers will go down. And the sooner that happens, the better.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lifting us up
I just finished watching the first two episodes of HBO's John Adams and it was an interesting documentary to view on the same day as Barack Obama's magnificent speech reminding us what the Founding Fathers left unfinished when they declared independence from Great Britain, and thus began the United States of America, in 1776.
It also saddens me to see how far from civility our politics has veered since that time.
Of course there were disagreements, some almost impossible to reconcile, but through it all the representatives of the colonies remained civil, all of them searching for the best possible course of action to save their land, their families, and their liberties from a despotic king. They all had enormous courage, knowing they could be hanged for their bold actions, but they went ahead anyway, believing there could be no other way.
At one point in the documentary, after a contentious vote, one of the representatives said the expected and politically correct "God save the king." At which, Thomas Jefferson, normally quiet during the proceedings, said "God damn the king."
I thought, of course, of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's long time pastor whose "God damn America" has reverberated across the airways these past few days, threatening to sink Obama's candidacy for the presidency.
At a time when it was treason to damn the king, Jefferson's frustration with the behavior of the crown led him to utter these words that could have sent him to the gallows. Yet today, when we think of Jefferson we do not hear these words. We hear only the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he penned shortly afterwards.
I'm sure Jeremiah Wright has said many inspiring words, as Barack Obama reminded us today. Yet his entire ministry has been reduced to a few frustration induced angry and passionate sound bites, shown endlessly on television by the corporate media as they seek to destroy the candidacy of the first viable African American presidential candidate.
How disgusting political campaigns have become in this once great country! How utterly contemptible it has been on the part of the media, which seeks ratings in the tarnishing of this young orator and lawmaker, and the crazed right wing big mouths of this country, who care nothing for the country and its people, but think only of themselves, their power, and the ascendancy of their failed and empty ideology.
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech today, one that will be read by students of history for hundreds of years. Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he survives the Clinton attempt to wrest it from him by political innuendo and intrigue, whether or not the people choose another empty headed Republican president who cannot match the intellect and spirit of this man, Barack Obama has shown us the best of America. He has shown us we can be better, stronger, kinder, more hopeful, and more united. He said things today no one has said before, and no one could say better, and he has lifted us up even as his enemies try desperately to bring him down.
The petty radio personalities, the envious Clinton strategists and supporters, and the desperate right wing nuts will continue to mock and denigrate him, but it is too late. Whether or not he becomes president, he has called us to be a better people, a better nation.
It will our great loss if we do not choose him as our leader.
It also saddens me to see how far from civility our politics has veered since that time.
Of course there were disagreements, some almost impossible to reconcile, but through it all the representatives of the colonies remained civil, all of them searching for the best possible course of action to save their land, their families, and their liberties from a despotic king. They all had enormous courage, knowing they could be hanged for their bold actions, but they went ahead anyway, believing there could be no other way.
At one point in the documentary, after a contentious vote, one of the representatives said the expected and politically correct "God save the king." At which, Thomas Jefferson, normally quiet during the proceedings, said "God damn the king."
I thought, of course, of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's long time pastor whose "God damn America" has reverberated across the airways these past few days, threatening to sink Obama's candidacy for the presidency.
At a time when it was treason to damn the king, Jefferson's frustration with the behavior of the crown led him to utter these words that could have sent him to the gallows. Yet today, when we think of Jefferson we do not hear these words. We hear only the words of the Declaration of Independence, which he penned shortly afterwards.
I'm sure Jeremiah Wright has said many inspiring words, as Barack Obama reminded us today. Yet his entire ministry has been reduced to a few frustration induced angry and passionate sound bites, shown endlessly on television by the corporate media as they seek to destroy the candidacy of the first viable African American presidential candidate.
How disgusting political campaigns have become in this once great country! How utterly contemptible it has been on the part of the media, which seeks ratings in the tarnishing of this young orator and lawmaker, and the crazed right wing big mouths of this country, who care nothing for the country and its people, but think only of themselves, their power, and the ascendancy of their failed and empty ideology.
Barack Obama gave a brilliant speech today, one that will be read by students of history for hundreds of years. Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he survives the Clinton attempt to wrest it from him by political innuendo and intrigue, whether or not the people choose another empty headed Republican president who cannot match the intellect and spirit of this man, Barack Obama has shown us the best of America. He has shown us we can be better, stronger, kinder, more hopeful, and more united. He said things today no one has said before, and no one could say better, and he has lifted us up even as his enemies try desperately to bring him down.
The petty radio personalities, the envious Clinton strategists and supporters, and the desperate right wing nuts will continue to mock and denigrate him, but it is too late. Whether or not he becomes president, he has called us to be a better people, a better nation.
It will our great loss if we do not choose him as our leader.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Who really chooses the president?
Do the people really choose the president or are we all just being played?
Check out my latest article on Outraged Citizen.
Check out my latest article on Outraged Citizen.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Returning to the Dark Ages
I really, really don't like having the negative view of organized religion that I have these days.
I'm not talking about faith, or spirituality, or one's search for meaning in the universe, or even the sincere practice of a faith that encourages one to love one's enemies and care for one's neighbor.
I'm talking about the many negative manifestations of organized religion today in this country and around the world, manifestations that are self-righteous, arrogant, petty, hateful, and even deadly.
We are all familiar with the self-righteous ramblings of radical Muslims, and their call for jihad against the West, as well as their unconscionable acts, but should we not also be appalled by the Christians and Jews among us who are war's biggest cheerleaders and torture's apologists?
And what are we to think of the Catholic Church scandal involving the molestation of children by priests, and the multiple scandals in evangelical churches involving secret homosexual affairs by ministers even as they rail against homosexuality? The hypocrisy, of course, is stunning.
And now, religion has entered the presidential race in full force.
The Republican Party has been showing great deference to the evangelical community for years now, even as its leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell insist Americans brought 9/11 on themselves, but the presence of a Mormon in the Republican field has made the specter of religion in politics even more absurd, if not dangerous.
Today, for instance, candidate Mike Huckabee, soft voiced, dewey eyed, dimple cheeked minister, with the name reminiscent of that beloved urchin created by Mark Twain, asked if rival Mitt Romney didn't believe Satan was the brother of Jesus. Though he later apologized and acted as if he meant no harm, the horrible word was out: Mitt Romney believes Satan and Jesus are in the same family. Now this is, to the best of my understanding, part of the rather convoluted dogma of Mormons, but how different is it really than believing that Lucifer was once the brightest and most important of all the angels, which is what Christians believe? It isn't all that different. Both are part of the complex narratives each religion tells. (Some of the things I was taught in Catholic school were real doozies, but let's not go there.) However, the very fact that Huckabee would bring this up, knowing how it would inflame Evangelical Christians, shows just how viscious he can be, and how dogmatic he knows many Americans to be, when it comes to religion.
At first, it seemed the republicans might embrace the Mormon Mitt Romney as an acceptable candidate, mostly because Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and didn't hate gays, and no other candidate seemed capable of beating the democrats. He seemed nice enough, his looks were Reaganesque, and he was a white guy, but that religion thing just wouldn't go away. Apparently a group of evangelical home schooling parents in Iowa who couldn't stomach a Romney presidency began supporting Huckabee big time, and his candidacy has taken off. Now that it seems he can win, the evangelicals are flocking to support him, because, after all, it doesn't matter to them who might have the best economic or foreign policies or who might be the best leader, it only matters what one's religious beliefs are.
This, of course, is why our founders wanted to keep church and state separate, and why they said there must be no religious test for candidates for public office. They wanted to protect us from the kind of nonsense that ensues when we begin judging candidates on the basis of the church they attend and the religious dogma they embrace.
I thought we had gotten over this when Kennedy was elected president and proved that his religion had nothing to do with his presidential decision making. Fears of the pope sending orders to Kennedy, of course, were never realized and Kennedy is revered today by both Protestants and Catholics. But something has changed today. We seem to be in a big hurry to return to the Dark Ages when faith trumped reason, and religious affiliation was somehow proof of one's character and worthiness.
We should all remember how all of that turned out. The Crusades and the Inquisition, the two bloody and vicious historical events that pitted groups of believers against other groups of believers, are permanent blights on Christianity. Huckabee's attack (and other attacks circulating on the internet) may not be of the same severity as the attacks of the Inquisition, but they are in the same tradition.
Fortunately, the Dark Ages gave way to the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, which is what inspired our founders to create this nation and to separate church from state.
Now, it seems, some in the Republican Party want to join church with state again, not formally of course, at least not yet, but informally, through whispering political campaigns, and slipping "innocent" questions about someone's faith into an interview, or as Romney did, implying that atheists and agnostics are simply not good Americans, or as others are doing, using Barack Obama's ancestry to imply he might be a "secret Muslim."
When it comes right down to it, the problem is dogma, i.e. beliefs that are held as absolute, mostly because some "prophet" or group of anonymous writers or preachers declare them to be the truth. Most dogmas contain truly unbelievable things to those who don't share the faith. Not being a Mormon or a Muslim, the belief in the "revelations" to Joseph Smith and Muhammad seem far fetched to me, but then as a Catholic, I have to admit that the teachings about guardian angels, Limbo, Purgatory, and indulgences are pretty out there as well. And the evangelical belief that the earth is only 6000 years old and that someday the good will be "raptured" up into heaven leaving behind their beloved family members, not to mention their clothes, is pure fiction to me. But it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone thinks about one's own or another's religion as long as it doesn't force its way into our politics.
In this country that was founded by wise and enlightened men, who professed many different faiths, there should be no need to debate our religious beliefs. All of us have some nutty teachings in our religions, at least nutty to those outside. So what? We are free to believe what we want about God and spiritual things in this country, and that is what makes us such a great nation. So why do we want to blow it by getting all worked up about what one group believes vs. another group? Do we want to divide the nation even more than it is already divided?
A focus on the religious beliefs of the candidates is simply a distraction from the things that do matter in this presidential campaign, like the war in Iraq, health care, poverty, the shrinking middle class, the environment and global warming, the need to find alternative sources of fuel, the population explosion that threatens to deplete the earth's resources, AIDS, the housing crisis, and so on. I want to hear about those things, not about the candidate's prayer habits or his religion's dogma. Have we forgotten so soon that Saint Ronny of California, the Republican patron saint, and Blessed Nancy, his wife, rarely attended church and brought astrologers into the White House? Perhaps in today's climate, Saint Ronny would have had to drop out before the second debate.
These attacks on people for their religious beliefs are part of the dark side of organized religion, and they both anger and terrify me. Not only does this intolerance divide us from each other, it ensures the ignorance and laziness of certain citizens when it comes to governance and voting. It is much easier to vote for a candidate on the basis of one issue, such as gay marriage or abortion, than to do the hard work of finding out all the policy positions of the candidate and the broad direction in which he or she wants to take the country. And it is much easier to simply believe God will guide the nation and anoint the leader, and then whisper his choice to you through your minister, than it is to educate yourself as a citizen.
It can't be said often enough that we are electing a president, not a saint, a theologian, or a holy man. We should be looking for courage and wisdom and maturity and stability and the ability to remain steadfast when trouble comes. We know that the pressures on any president are enormous. If prayer gives the president courage and strength to endure, terrific! If he gets his courage and wisdom from some other source, who cares? His religion, or even his lack of faith, should not matter. What should matter is his competence, his trustworthiness, and his vision for this country we all claim to love.
What shouldn't matter is whether he believes Lucifer was an angel or the brother of Jesus.
I'm not talking about faith, or spirituality, or one's search for meaning in the universe, or even the sincere practice of a faith that encourages one to love one's enemies and care for one's neighbor.
I'm talking about the many negative manifestations of organized religion today in this country and around the world, manifestations that are self-righteous, arrogant, petty, hateful, and even deadly.
We are all familiar with the self-righteous ramblings of radical Muslims, and their call for jihad against the West, as well as their unconscionable acts, but should we not also be appalled by the Christians and Jews among us who are war's biggest cheerleaders and torture's apologists?
And what are we to think of the Catholic Church scandal involving the molestation of children by priests, and the multiple scandals in evangelical churches involving secret homosexual affairs by ministers even as they rail against homosexuality? The hypocrisy, of course, is stunning.
And now, religion has entered the presidential race in full force.
The Republican Party has been showing great deference to the evangelical community for years now, even as its leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell insist Americans brought 9/11 on themselves, but the presence of a Mormon in the Republican field has made the specter of religion in politics even more absurd, if not dangerous.
Today, for instance, candidate Mike Huckabee, soft voiced, dewey eyed, dimple cheeked minister, with the name reminiscent of that beloved urchin created by Mark Twain, asked if rival Mitt Romney didn't believe Satan was the brother of Jesus. Though he later apologized and acted as if he meant no harm, the horrible word was out: Mitt Romney believes Satan and Jesus are in the same family. Now this is, to the best of my understanding, part of the rather convoluted dogma of Mormons, but how different is it really than believing that Lucifer was once the brightest and most important of all the angels, which is what Christians believe? It isn't all that different. Both are part of the complex narratives each religion tells. (Some of the things I was taught in Catholic school were real doozies, but let's not go there.) However, the very fact that Huckabee would bring this up, knowing how it would inflame Evangelical Christians, shows just how viscious he can be, and how dogmatic he knows many Americans to be, when it comes to religion.
At first, it seemed the republicans might embrace the Mormon Mitt Romney as an acceptable candidate, mostly because Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice and didn't hate gays, and no other candidate seemed capable of beating the democrats. He seemed nice enough, his looks were Reaganesque, and he was a white guy, but that religion thing just wouldn't go away. Apparently a group of evangelical home schooling parents in Iowa who couldn't stomach a Romney presidency began supporting Huckabee big time, and his candidacy has taken off. Now that it seems he can win, the evangelicals are flocking to support him, because, after all, it doesn't matter to them who might have the best economic or foreign policies or who might be the best leader, it only matters what one's religious beliefs are.
This, of course, is why our founders wanted to keep church and state separate, and why they said there must be no religious test for candidates for public office. They wanted to protect us from the kind of nonsense that ensues when we begin judging candidates on the basis of the church they attend and the religious dogma they embrace.
I thought we had gotten over this when Kennedy was elected president and proved that his religion had nothing to do with his presidential decision making. Fears of the pope sending orders to Kennedy, of course, were never realized and Kennedy is revered today by both Protestants and Catholics. But something has changed today. We seem to be in a big hurry to return to the Dark Ages when faith trumped reason, and religious affiliation was somehow proof of one's character and worthiness.
We should all remember how all of that turned out. The Crusades and the Inquisition, the two bloody and vicious historical events that pitted groups of believers against other groups of believers, are permanent blights on Christianity. Huckabee's attack (and other attacks circulating on the internet) may not be of the same severity as the attacks of the Inquisition, but they are in the same tradition.
Fortunately, the Dark Ages gave way to the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, which is what inspired our founders to create this nation and to separate church from state.
Now, it seems, some in the Republican Party want to join church with state again, not formally of course, at least not yet, but informally, through whispering political campaigns, and slipping "innocent" questions about someone's faith into an interview, or as Romney did, implying that atheists and agnostics are simply not good Americans, or as others are doing, using Barack Obama's ancestry to imply he might be a "secret Muslim."
When it comes right down to it, the problem is dogma, i.e. beliefs that are held as absolute, mostly because some "prophet" or group of anonymous writers or preachers declare them to be the truth. Most dogmas contain truly unbelievable things to those who don't share the faith. Not being a Mormon or a Muslim, the belief in the "revelations" to Joseph Smith and Muhammad seem far fetched to me, but then as a Catholic, I have to admit that the teachings about guardian angels, Limbo, Purgatory, and indulgences are pretty out there as well. And the evangelical belief that the earth is only 6000 years old and that someday the good will be "raptured" up into heaven leaving behind their beloved family members, not to mention their clothes, is pure fiction to me. But it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone thinks about one's own or another's religion as long as it doesn't force its way into our politics.
In this country that was founded by wise and enlightened men, who professed many different faiths, there should be no need to debate our religious beliefs. All of us have some nutty teachings in our religions, at least nutty to those outside. So what? We are free to believe what we want about God and spiritual things in this country, and that is what makes us such a great nation. So why do we want to blow it by getting all worked up about what one group believes vs. another group? Do we want to divide the nation even more than it is already divided?
A focus on the religious beliefs of the candidates is simply a distraction from the things that do matter in this presidential campaign, like the war in Iraq, health care, poverty, the shrinking middle class, the environment and global warming, the need to find alternative sources of fuel, the population explosion that threatens to deplete the earth's resources, AIDS, the housing crisis, and so on. I want to hear about those things, not about the candidate's prayer habits or his religion's dogma. Have we forgotten so soon that Saint Ronny of California, the Republican patron saint, and Blessed Nancy, his wife, rarely attended church and brought astrologers into the White House? Perhaps in today's climate, Saint Ronny would have had to drop out before the second debate.
These attacks on people for their religious beliefs are part of the dark side of organized religion, and they both anger and terrify me. Not only does this intolerance divide us from each other, it ensures the ignorance and laziness of certain citizens when it comes to governance and voting. It is much easier to vote for a candidate on the basis of one issue, such as gay marriage or abortion, than to do the hard work of finding out all the policy positions of the candidate and the broad direction in which he or she wants to take the country. And it is much easier to simply believe God will guide the nation and anoint the leader, and then whisper his choice to you through your minister, than it is to educate yourself as a citizen.
It can't be said often enough that we are electing a president, not a saint, a theologian, or a holy man. We should be looking for courage and wisdom and maturity and stability and the ability to remain steadfast when trouble comes. We know that the pressures on any president are enormous. If prayer gives the president courage and strength to endure, terrific! If he gets his courage and wisdom from some other source, who cares? His religion, or even his lack of faith, should not matter. What should matter is his competence, his trustworthiness, and his vision for this country we all claim to love.
What shouldn't matter is whether he believes Lucifer was an angel or the brother of Jesus.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
What I wish I had written...
Marty Kaplan has an essay in today's Huffington Post that reflects my sentiments exactly: in spite of just having suffered through seven years of governance by the worst president (and even worse vice-president) ever, there remains the real possibility that next November the American people could elect someone just as bad, or even worse (which seems unimaginable).
Here's a sample:
Here's a sample:
Despite all this country has gone through, anything can happen next November. Why should we believe that 2008 will not produce a president as incompetent and lawless as 2004 did, or as unelected as 2000 did?
If we think the news media in 2008 will rescue us from lying and demagoguery, we must have slept through its coverage of the run-up to Iraq, its yawning at Valerie Plame's outing and the Justice Department's corruption, its enabling of the Social Security "crisis," of "amnesty" propaganda, of the "other side" to evolution and climate change.
If we think that three billion dollars' worth of campaign ads in 2008 won't persuade Americans that day is night and black is white, we must not recall the Swift Boating.
If we place our faith in the critical thinking skills of the American people, we must have amnesia about the majority persuaded that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
If we believe that turnout in November 2008 will be unprecedented, we must also believe that voter caging, voter roll-purging, voter intimidation, papertrail-free machine voting, dubious election eve indictments, and the rest of the Rovian coup technology will somehow, perhaps out of the goodness of their own hearts, have been renounced by the Republican executive branch overnight.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The only presidential candidate representing a new direction
It's just over one month until the Iowa Caucuses, the first chance ordinary citizens - and not journalists and pundits - get to say who they want to be the party nominees for president.
The caucuses are different than primary elections where people simply mark a ballot. In Iowa, people actually get together, discuss, debate, and lobby each other. They talk about electability as well as personal and policy matters and often end up voting for the person that started out being their second choice. This is why the results in Iowa are often such a surprise and why they often change the dynamic of the entire race. People aren't just voting alone; they are talking to each other and thinking things through with other citizens. What a concept!
Currently, Obama leads the Democratic field in the Iowa polls, but just barely. Hillary Clinton is close, as is John Edwards. As we all know, Howard Dean was the favorite in Iowa a month out, but his surprise loss there pretty much ended his campaign.
On the Republican side, Romney's early advertising and digging into his own pockets has him first in polls, but Mike Huckabee is closing in. Giuliani and McCain have not paid much attention to Iowa and so are not high in the polls. I guess they don't want to upset their slick media based campaigns with an appeal to the great unwashed masses. This way, they can simply discount the results in Iowa by saying they never really tried to win.
The way I see things today, I believe Obama might just pull off a big victory in Iowa, which will enable him to come in no lower than second in New Hampshire. Then it will come down to super Tuesday in February, when 22 states will hold primaries.
In fact, I think it just might be possible for Obama to win the nomination and even go on to be the first African American president in the history of the country. I don't say this because of any inside knowledge, but because I think he represents the best candidate in either party on which the American people can pin their hopes and dreams.
Every other candidate in the race is either a well known commodity infused with the negative taint of politics (Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Edwards, Romney), a second tier candidate who excites some but is way too ideologically bound (Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich, Paul, Huckabee) or someone who is really running for Vice President or Secretary of State (Dodd, Biden, Richardson).
Obama is someone new with a fresh face and a quick mind. He is psychologically just what the American people need right now. He is nothing like George W. Bush, and for that matter, nothing like Bill Clinton. His intelligence and ability to speak clearly outshine Bush. He seems more sensible and down to earth, and is not nearly as ideological as Bush has proven himself to be. While he shows strength, he doesn't display arrogance, something we have seen too much of with the last president and vice president.
He has charisma, but not like Clinton. He is not nearly as slick, having already made a few mistakes on the campaign trail. But the mistakes only make him more human, more likeable and more trustworthy.
His moving up in the polls is an indication, I believe, that the American people are starting to feel quite comfortable with him. At first, the Democrats gravitated to Clinton, believing she was tough enough to take on any Republican. But the people may be growing weary of her for a variety of reasons, and having second thoughts about voting for her. Like the Iowa caucus voters, Americans are thinking things through and may be deciding that the best solution to the national depression we feel, after seven years of Bush and six years of fear and war, is to turn in a completely different direction to a completely different kind of candidate.
I sense a real change of mood with the American people, and I think that is good for an Obama candidacy. We will have to see, however, if the monied interests and the media will prevent the American people from really knowing their own minds, and influence them to vote not only against their own interests, but against their political instincts.
The caucuses are different than primary elections where people simply mark a ballot. In Iowa, people actually get together, discuss, debate, and lobby each other. They talk about electability as well as personal and policy matters and often end up voting for the person that started out being their second choice. This is why the results in Iowa are often such a surprise and why they often change the dynamic of the entire race. People aren't just voting alone; they are talking to each other and thinking things through with other citizens. What a concept!
Currently, Obama leads the Democratic field in the Iowa polls, but just barely. Hillary Clinton is close, as is John Edwards. As we all know, Howard Dean was the favorite in Iowa a month out, but his surprise loss there pretty much ended his campaign.
On the Republican side, Romney's early advertising and digging into his own pockets has him first in polls, but Mike Huckabee is closing in. Giuliani and McCain have not paid much attention to Iowa and so are not high in the polls. I guess they don't want to upset their slick media based campaigns with an appeal to the great unwashed masses. This way, they can simply discount the results in Iowa by saying they never really tried to win.
The way I see things today, I believe Obama might just pull off a big victory in Iowa, which will enable him to come in no lower than second in New Hampshire. Then it will come down to super Tuesday in February, when 22 states will hold primaries.
In fact, I think it just might be possible for Obama to win the nomination and even go on to be the first African American president in the history of the country. I don't say this because of any inside knowledge, but because I think he represents the best candidate in either party on which the American people can pin their hopes and dreams.
Every other candidate in the race is either a well known commodity infused with the negative taint of politics (Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Edwards, Romney), a second tier candidate who excites some but is way too ideologically bound (Tancredo, Hunter, Kucinich, Paul, Huckabee) or someone who is really running for Vice President or Secretary of State (Dodd, Biden, Richardson).
Obama is someone new with a fresh face and a quick mind. He is psychologically just what the American people need right now. He is nothing like George W. Bush, and for that matter, nothing like Bill Clinton. His intelligence and ability to speak clearly outshine Bush. He seems more sensible and down to earth, and is not nearly as ideological as Bush has proven himself to be. While he shows strength, he doesn't display arrogance, something we have seen too much of with the last president and vice president.
He has charisma, but not like Clinton. He is not nearly as slick, having already made a few mistakes on the campaign trail. But the mistakes only make him more human, more likeable and more trustworthy.
His moving up in the polls is an indication, I believe, that the American people are starting to feel quite comfortable with him. At first, the Democrats gravitated to Clinton, believing she was tough enough to take on any Republican. But the people may be growing weary of her for a variety of reasons, and having second thoughts about voting for her. Like the Iowa caucus voters, Americans are thinking things through and may be deciding that the best solution to the national depression we feel, after seven years of Bush and six years of fear and war, is to turn in a completely different direction to a completely different kind of candidate.
I sense a real change of mood with the American people, and I think that is good for an Obama candidacy. We will have to see, however, if the monied interests and the media will prevent the American people from really knowing their own minds, and influence them to vote not only against their own interests, but against their political instincts.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Getting the leaders we deserve?
I can't decide whether I want to scream for about five minutes, or throw an entire set of dishes across the room.
That's my general reaction to the presidential campaign, already in full swing one year prior to the election.
There is so much nonsense, insanity, dishonesty, and ugliness. There are so many dirty tricks, and media attempts to make mountains out of molehills, that the entire process of choosing a president seems tawdry and unbecoming a powerful and (supposedly) educated nation.
What bothers me the most, however, is the media's unending focus on trivial things. Last week, for instance, there was the story about McCain laughing when a woman at one of his speeches asked him how to "defeat the bitch." Then there was the story suggesting that the Hillary camp was playing the gender card. Then there was the debate in Las Vegas where CNN convinced a questioner to ask Senator Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls.
I am tired of hearing about John Edwards' haircut, or Hillary Clinton's laugh, or Mitt Romney's Mormonism, or Barak Obama's ancestry, or Mike Huckabee's Chuck Norris endorsement, as if these have anything to do with how good a president any of them would be.
In the meantime, the media doesn't pay nearly enough attention to things that are significant, such as Rudy Giuliani's actual record as mayor, Hillary Clinton's record as senator, Richardson's record as governor, and Edwards' work on behalf of the poor.
Because scandals and nonsense are easy to report and supposedly get ratings, the media seems unwilling to focus intensely on the candidate's positions on issues of importance, like the economy, jobs, health care, trade and foreign policy. We hear a little, but not nearly enough.
But, then, the media has decided the public isn't really interested in policy. They're convinced the public looks at political campaigns they way they read People magazine, or watch Entertainment Tonight. To the media, the people care about Hillary Clinton the same way they care about Brittany Spears, and so they call them both by their first names, and spread gossip about them in equal measure.
With this approach to covering campaigns, I can see it now – how two match-ups might play out in the media.
Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. A battle between the adulterer and the "bitch." A fight between a straight man dressed in drag, and "Nixon in a pantsuit." A contest between a guy who exudes enough testosterone to defeat the enemy, and a woman who is scary precisely because she's as tough as Giuliani. Giuliani and Clinton are the two candidates with the most baggage – he as a tough talking mayor who has been with a number of women (three of whom he married) - which is also a comment on his testosterone, she a perceived manipulator who, though married only once, chose to forgive her husband even though he has also been with a number of women. Rudy may be a cad, but he knows how to attract women - which makes him a guy's guy. Hillary may be forgiving, but she doesn't know how to keep her man interested, which reflects poorly on her as a woman. (These things might not be said, but they are implied.)
His claim to fame is walking around looking competent after 9/11 (even though the firefighters would say otherwise), hers is a failed health care plan in 1994 (even though she has been an exceptionally competent Senator for eight years). This would be an ugly race with an enormous amount of disgusting advertising about things that have nothing to do with the actual responsibility of the presidency. As such, it is the race the media wants, the one it promotes daily.
The other possible race that might appeal to the media is one between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. The media would spin it this way: the Mormon vs. the son of a Muslim. Since neither candidate has the baggage of a Giuliani or a Clinton – both have been married once, both have limited experience in government, and much less media visibility – the campaigns would, I suspect, appeal under the radar to racist and religious bias. One side would appeal to anti-Mormon sentiment, the other to anti-black prejudice.
In spite of the ugliness that might appear in a Romney - Obama race, I prefer it over the Giuliani - Clinton race. Both Giuliani and Clinton have become caricatures, and a race between them would not be good for the country, nor would it be good to have either of them as president. While I think Clinton would make a relatively good president, in terms of ability, the radical right would do everything it could to destroy her and would thus cripple her presidency. Giuliani, on the other hand, would be a disaster even worse than Bush.
A Romney - Obama race, on the other hand, even with its potential for fueling all of our prejudices, might actually stretch us a little. It took JFK to finally convince people that a Catholic could be a good president. It might take Romney to convince people that a Mormon could be a good president or Obama to convince them of the same thing regarding an African-American. (And isn't it a shame that the people have to be convinced.)
How I long for a unifying leader, someone with integrity, someone who can appeal to a large enough group of Americans to overcome the partisan ugliness. On the other hand, maybe it isn't our candidates, maybe it's us. After all, there is no perfect candidate. If our media focuses only on their imperfections while it ignores their abilities and their platforms, and we let the media get away with that and vote on the bases of our prejudices, we will never again have a strong and competent leader.
Maybe we really do get the leaders we deserve.
That's my general reaction to the presidential campaign, already in full swing one year prior to the election.
There is so much nonsense, insanity, dishonesty, and ugliness. There are so many dirty tricks, and media attempts to make mountains out of molehills, that the entire process of choosing a president seems tawdry and unbecoming a powerful and (supposedly) educated nation.
What bothers me the most, however, is the media's unending focus on trivial things. Last week, for instance, there was the story about McCain laughing when a woman at one of his speeches asked him how to "defeat the bitch." Then there was the story suggesting that the Hillary camp was playing the gender card. Then there was the debate in Las Vegas where CNN convinced a questioner to ask Senator Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls.
I am tired of hearing about John Edwards' haircut, or Hillary Clinton's laugh, or Mitt Romney's Mormonism, or Barak Obama's ancestry, or Mike Huckabee's Chuck Norris endorsement, as if these have anything to do with how good a president any of them would be.
In the meantime, the media doesn't pay nearly enough attention to things that are significant, such as Rudy Giuliani's actual record as mayor, Hillary Clinton's record as senator, Richardson's record as governor, and Edwards' work on behalf of the poor.
Because scandals and nonsense are easy to report and supposedly get ratings, the media seems unwilling to focus intensely on the candidate's positions on issues of importance, like the economy, jobs, health care, trade and foreign policy. We hear a little, but not nearly enough.
But, then, the media has decided the public isn't really interested in policy. They're convinced the public looks at political campaigns they way they read People magazine, or watch Entertainment Tonight. To the media, the people care about Hillary Clinton the same way they care about Brittany Spears, and so they call them both by their first names, and spread gossip about them in equal measure.
With this approach to covering campaigns, I can see it now – how two match-ups might play out in the media.
Rudy Giuliani vs. Hillary Clinton. A battle between the adulterer and the "bitch." A fight between a straight man dressed in drag, and "Nixon in a pantsuit." A contest between a guy who exudes enough testosterone to defeat the enemy, and a woman who is scary precisely because she's as tough as Giuliani. Giuliani and Clinton are the two candidates with the most baggage – he as a tough talking mayor who has been with a number of women (three of whom he married) - which is also a comment on his testosterone, she a perceived manipulator who, though married only once, chose to forgive her husband even though he has also been with a number of women. Rudy may be a cad, but he knows how to attract women - which makes him a guy's guy. Hillary may be forgiving, but she doesn't know how to keep her man interested, which reflects poorly on her as a woman. (These things might not be said, but they are implied.)
His claim to fame is walking around looking competent after 9/11 (even though the firefighters would say otherwise), hers is a failed health care plan in 1994 (even though she has been an exceptionally competent Senator for eight years). This would be an ugly race with an enormous amount of disgusting advertising about things that have nothing to do with the actual responsibility of the presidency. As such, it is the race the media wants, the one it promotes daily.
The other possible race that might appeal to the media is one between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. The media would spin it this way: the Mormon vs. the son of a Muslim. Since neither candidate has the baggage of a Giuliani or a Clinton – both have been married once, both have limited experience in government, and much less media visibility – the campaigns would, I suspect, appeal under the radar to racist and religious bias. One side would appeal to anti-Mormon sentiment, the other to anti-black prejudice.
In spite of the ugliness that might appear in a Romney - Obama race, I prefer it over the Giuliani - Clinton race. Both Giuliani and Clinton have become caricatures, and a race between them would not be good for the country, nor would it be good to have either of them as president. While I think Clinton would make a relatively good president, in terms of ability, the radical right would do everything it could to destroy her and would thus cripple her presidency. Giuliani, on the other hand, would be a disaster even worse than Bush.
A Romney - Obama race, on the other hand, even with its potential for fueling all of our prejudices, might actually stretch us a little. It took JFK to finally convince people that a Catholic could be a good president. It might take Romney to convince people that a Mormon could be a good president or Obama to convince them of the same thing regarding an African-American. (And isn't it a shame that the people have to be convinced.)
How I long for a unifying leader, someone with integrity, someone who can appeal to a large enough group of Americans to overcome the partisan ugliness. On the other hand, maybe it isn't our candidates, maybe it's us. After all, there is no perfect candidate. If our media focuses only on their imperfections while it ignores their abilities and their platforms, and we let the media get away with that and vote on the bases of our prejudices, we will never again have a strong and competent leader.
Maybe we really do get the leaders we deserve.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Her future
Today is my granddaughter Madeline's second birthday. It is because of her, her sister Grace, and her brother Sean that I care so much about the future. It is what motivates me to get up at 5 a.m. to write every day.I want a safe world for Maddie. I want clean skies and clear water and peace around the world. I want her to know that she can always see a doctor when she is sick, and that she doesn't have to worry about having enough to eat.
We owe Maddie and all the other two year olds in this country a decent place to grow up. We owe them leaders who care enough about them not to engage in foolish wars, or build up a huge national debt that they will have to pay for someday, and who are decent enough not to reward their cronies with the money that should go towards securing their future.
By the time Maddie reaches her third birthday, we will have elected a new president. The best present she could possibly receive would be the election of someone wise and humane, someone with the vision and the strength to restore the country that was taken away over six years ago.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MADDIE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)