Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Oh, stop it!!!
No doubt the format of this at-times questionable "debate" was overstated, underthought and more than a little stained with raw-meat and festering bacteria.
But in all honesty, Hillary took the gold ring on this go-round because she appeared the more electable, the more decisive.
Though I am by no means a Shillary fan, while Obama was protesting the nature of the debate, Hillary was running with it. Did she exploit the situation? Sure. That's a good thing to do at some times in some situations. That's what effective leadership does. It can also be a deplorable thing - and that's what effective power-mongering does.
That she did both yesterday - and many times throughout her carer - is gospel truth.
But Obabma on more than one occasion could have laid his critics low - as he did during his historic, silently stunning public treatise on race relations. He did not seize that occasion last night; instead he wasted words trying to defend earlier remarks. Something like this: "I understand how people might be offended by what I said because I really mangled it up, but I'm going to say it again right now anyway. Nyah nyah."
Look, Obama had a really easy go of it for a long time from the press and stages like this blogging platform. Hillary had to fight - and sometimes the blows were low, sometimes they really did rummage though her baggage. Now their roles have reversed. Fair's fair.
When she was being dragged thought the mud - and I was the guy who hog-tied her behind the horse - the complaints from the bloggers and other Obama-supporters were non-existent. They let it happen, and they were glad of it. Even though many of these same people voted for Bill and defended Hillary though thick and thin. All the way up 'til - oh, I don't know - say 18 months ago when this campaign started.
So now Obama gets knocked around by the same dunderheads who have ran this whole distorted political process since this particular spectacle began, and we cry foul? What?? It's alright for our guy and against their gal even though she used to be our gal back in the day, and she really hasn't changed one iota since then and then she really, really became our gal when she was done dirty by her guy, who used to our guy too but now he's just a dunderhead like all the rest, but we don't care how foolish and hypocritcal that makes us look because damn it, we just want to see our guy in that White house down in Washington way.... So NO it is not alright against our guy, even though he's being vetted by the same frustrating process that she underwent for so many months and all we could do then was laugh at her.
Got that?
In other words, Obama shouldn't win and Obama shouldn't be praised just because he's Obama and she's Hillary. Each and every issue they have to contend with has profound meaning to a hell of a lot of voters. For example, that "bitterness, clinging to religion" commentary by him truly is significant to hordes of people, and our kvetching that it's insignificant garbage means we don't understand the rural heart either.
It means that we condescend.
Our crying that this is trivial while that is substantial, and this attack on him was condescending and racist while that attack on her was sumptuous is the real problem with American politics: that it's all or nothing. Obama himself has said it a million times.
And yet we continue to embrace him while we cry "Obama or nothing!"
Maybe he's trying to teach us something without truly realizing what he's teaching himself. That self-sufficiency and independence of thought comes from truly being honest and brave enough to stand apart from the crowd. That's why so many of us love his message. But have you noticed how many of us are rushing to his defense willy-nilly no matter what he says or does because we have joined the crowd mentality??
What Obama really needs is the inner fortitude to man-up and admit he made mistakes, actually apologize for them, and seek advice from others on how to become a better person and more effective leader. And maybe as his true friends and supporters, we should tell him that.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Hillary wants to lead the team and make decisions for them, while Obama wants to work with the team. He needs to start doing that now - and we need to be willing to help him. Not shout down Hillary and her camp, but actually help him to make this a better America.
Or we all just better shut the hell up.








Comments (18)
While I agree that Obama's supporters need to be cognizant of his faults, this is troubling to me:
Why do you assume that people in rural areas are religious? That's just as condescending as the inverse. Rural folks are mostly concerned with land rights, conservation, the economy, gov't poking into their affairs, utility cost and access, and the market on grain and/or livestock. At least in my experience.
April 17, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did it ever occur to you I may be rural and/or that I may know a few others as well??
"Inverse"? Really??
And do I really need to comment on that "market on grain" thingee you just wrote?
-mark
April 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably that "we" thing that's confusing. You know, when you said "we don't understand the rural heart."
Now I know that having a rural hearting and understanding a rural heart are not one in the same, but you really did put yourself on the not-rural side there.
Plus, nobody say "kvetching" out here in the sticks.
All that aside, I think this is one hell of a post with a lot of good, honest points.
Oh, and Louisville only likes you cause you said Clinton won.
April 17, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did?
April 18, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wot? You never saw a synagogue out here in the sticks, sonny? I like to keep people guessing. And Louisville, darling, you read my entire post and checked back here so you could comment on Slouch commenting on me, and all you can manage is such a pejorative about sacks?
Aren't we better than this (Rhetorical)
April 18, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are one brave poster.
I salute you.
In all fairness, though, Obama did get beat on more than Hillary. That said. He's the frontrunner. Why anyone expected anything different is beyond me.
It is true, it surely doesn't help to pillory Hillary.
That seems kind of "anti-Obama" to me. His number one supporter, his wife, made a lot more sense on Colbert the other night.
Maybe the hysteria is why Colbert is doing what he's doing. That is, if he's really doing it.
At any rate, I hope folks don't demean you too much. I certainly understand your frustration. I share it.
April 17, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
April 17, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, they will demean and beat and whatever else. Like you just said, why should I expect anything different?
Thanks.
-Mark
April 17, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to sack up Mark...
April 17, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to you, too, my profound thanks.....
April 17, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objection to the debate wasn't that Barack was beat on more than Hillary, it's that he was beat on regarding right-wing smears/distractions rather than on issues which affect peoples lives.
April 17, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's inaccurate to try to characterize anything that happens in this race as the evil intent of "the other side". It's also highly unfair, and both right and left do it. There is a middle ground, you know. Barack was beat on because he's a politician and he's running for office. No other reason. It wasn't right or left or white or rural kvetchers or anything of the sort. It just is. Nobody gets a free pass.
April 18, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where were these same tough question for McCain during his Hardball interview with Chris Matthews, or from any other reporter for that matter? Nothing. Nada, since the NYT lobbyist story that backfired.
April 18, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hardball? You mean softball, don't you? Hardball is a Republican love fest; Colbert a Democrat love fest. I was talking about ABC news and a national debate. Why are you comparing two incomparable entities?
April 18, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, Mark. Thanks.
April 18, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you stop it.
Thanks for the rural perspective, Mark. It's good to hear the word from the heartland. But, your post would have a little more weight if you enumerated Senator Obama's mistakes. Having a pastor -- marrying a woman -- who is willing to point out that there have been a fair number of unhappy people for a long time? Pointing out that the zeitgeist seems to have given up on looking to government to protect us from the depredations of the wealthy?
Why are these attacks fair? Why are they OK from Senator Clinton, who seems to have no chance of being her party's nominee like a hostile Kucinich? Do you feel they have a place in substantive political discourse, or that we should just abandon our desire for same?
April 18, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's where we differ, Grasshopper: they are not attacks. At least not the questions and doubts themselves... as I've said, Gibson and Elaphant-pants-opolis beat these issues to death. Why do I feel that you really didn't read my post, or did and are only willing to focus on what you already decided would be your agenda coming into this?
Obbama never answered why he doesn't wear a flag pin; I'd call his not wearing it an adamant refusal. So I'd like to hear why. It's probably inconsequential, but I still want to hear why. He side-stepped the issue at the debate, and that smacks of politics as usual.
And besides I did enumerate his mistakes: his Heartland comments (capital "H", grasshopper. You're talking about people and a way of life that are near and dear to my heart.) and then his insistence on justifying it. Dodging the pin question. And while maybe not a mistake, whining about how unfair the whole thing is is not really, shall I say, presidential. Lately he's been sneering at Hillary's performance in the debate, and my friend, that's just juvenile.
I desperately want to believe in him. For several mnonths, I did. The point is, I thought he was the only answer. Now he's merely the best choice of many flawed people - and I've been there before.
I never said anything about it being a mistake to have a pastor or marry a woman or point things out - so I don't know why you're saying it now.
April 18, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're going to have to accept that whomever you support is going to be flawed. Even the Dalai Lama has his bad days.
It's unfair to ask me to explain your feelings.
I haven't followed the flag pin question closely, because it's stupid. However, I believe Senator Obama's point is that it's stupid. Do you suspect that he's lending his flag pin to Islamofascist terrorists so that they can gain access to the Senate chambers? Do you think maybe he's overcome with revulsion toward his country when he gets dressed in the morning, but recovers by the time he gets to work? What answer to the question could possibly justify having asked it?
His heartland comment is not a mistake. It's his explanation for the trouble with Kansas. And it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
April 18, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment