« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Campaign Dichotomy: "I am" vs. "We are"
Which candidate has won the nomination? Which is the candidate that seems to be in it for the right reasons?
Candidate 1:
"We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be."vs. Candidate 2:
" We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who've been told that they cannot have what they dream, that they cannot be what they imagine."
"yes we can"
"I am in this race for them -- all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference to their families."
"I believe," she said, "that both my theory and my strategy, and my track record and how I'm doing right now, really adds up to a very compelling argument that I will actually win."
"I believe I can provide the economic leadership we need to make the changes that are so desperately required, and I ask for your support and your counsel and your help as we make this journey together."
It's a difference. Yes there are quotes, like the last one, where Candidate 2 asks for votes and asks for help. Like the first where she says that she's shouldering the burden of Americans. But it's a basic conceit that only Candidate 2 can provide answers or help to make US lives better.
In terms of policy, it's reflected in the health care debate. Both candidates believe government should help, but Candidate 1 thinks it should be made available for people to afford. Candidate 2 thinks it should be forced upon people.
It is a genuine difference. It's been there from the start. And it shows why Candidate 1 has won and why Candidate 2 is clinging on to conceit that "I am the strongest nominee."
No, you're not. You've never been. Any current polling reflects only that you have not been hit with any attacks since Ohio at the latest. And because Senator Obama has required a higher discourse, you have yet to really been hit by a negative attack at all.
We, Democrats, progressives, and proud Americans, will be taking back the White House in 2008. We are proud to have Obama as our leader -- but it's not about him.
Advertisement
Comments (28)
It's the difference between the Royal We and an individual.
By the way, if Obama's plan is implemented, We will still have 15-23 million people without health insurance
May 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly don't understand the royal "we." For one thing, it's never followed by "all," which immediately assigns plurality. Nor would someone using the royal "we" only to indicate himself then switch into first person ("I know you didn't come here just for me....")
This is the inclusiveness that has attracted me to Obama from the start. It's not splitting hairs. It's the significant difference b/t a candidate who wants to lead an entire country versus a candidate who wants to RUN an entire country.
May 29, 2008 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought 15 million was the correct talking point?
Whatever, the truth is, we don't know what will happen and how many will remain uninsured.
But I do know how many will remain uninsured under Clinton's plan. 47 million. That's because Clinton's plan won't get passed. She couldn't pass a plan in 1993, and she hasn't learned a damn thing about playing nice in the last 15 years. Half of Congress hated her to begin with, and she's pissed off half the rest in the last five months. Even if she managed to get the nomination and the presidency, she would not be able to pass her bill as is.
Obama, on the other hand, knows how to work with people, and he will get a bill passed. It will not be a perfect bill, but it will put us on a path to a better way.
May 29, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also both Obama's and Edwards's plans focused on reducing costs first. No sense in mandates if no one can afford them.
May 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about splitting hairs.
May 28, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this is brilliant. A friend of mine, also a political junkie, was talking to me about this the other day, actually, when we were at the Democratic State Convention here. I'm surprised you noticed this difference, and applaud you for bringing it up! Bravo!
May 28, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that those 15 million, (funny how that number keeps going up and up and up every time she talks about it), will not have it because of CHOICE! That's right, choice. Not some mandatory, drain your bank account regardless of whether you can afford it or not, program that she is proposing. And let's be adults here and be real. Do you expect that there will not be any Republicans elected? Now, assuming that there will be an opposition, do you honestly believe that she can have her plan passed successfully? In these times with a broke treasury? Then, if you feel that she can, please explain her absolute failure when the economy was sound and the Clintons controlled the White House?
May 28, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting observation. There is definitely and extreme narcissism expressed on the part of both of the Clintons in my opinion.
Re: Healthcare. I am not in support of a mandate for paying for health insurance as basically a 'tax for having a body'. To me this is the unhealthy aspect of Clintons plan. I am nt interested in having americans pay a tax for having a body. We have a choice whether we have a job, whether we earn an income, whether we drive a car, whether we have children in our care. It may not seem that way based on our values but we do have a choice. However the one thing none of us can choose is whether or not we have a body which is what healthcare is all about. What is the answer? I think we have to move to universal healthcare in steps or phases but we need such a massive overhaul that we need extensive public discourse so that we can hear and incorporate the multitude of aspects that will need to be addressed. I like the idea of public hearings on Cspan that Senator Obama has suggested. We know that the public will in support of universal healthcare has grown and it is within reach. I would love to see our leaders have a commission on healthcare reform or some body like that... holding public hearings and making recommendations as to how to best proceed.
Hillary's mandate may be logical from the perspective of her argument that everyone needs to participate for it to work... but, sorry, she doesn't have the right path for getting there.
May 29, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Noticed the use of 'we' vs. 'I' as well. Thanks for bringing it out into the open.
As far as health care policy (and all policy/initiatives mentioned on the campaign trail) goes, I think we should take it all with a grain of salt. Things change when a candidate gets into office. No matter what s/he WANTS to do, the reality is always a bit different. With hundreds of House and Senate members with various agendas, special interest groups, States' interests, etc, to accomodate,there's no way either candidate would get carte blanche to do whatever they want even with a large Dem majority in the Houses.(Dems are not like Repubs and do not march in lockstep.)
So...just keep that in mind when we discuss policy - it's a wish list. Mostly a President can only set the tone of the administration and national dialog. It's up to a whole host of others to actually agree on and get some meaningful legislation passed.
With that in mind, I support Obama. His approach seems to be to get everyone to agree on something and move forward. I have no illusion as to what Obama will accomplish for me personally (I am sooo far left of center:)and do understand that he's not the most progressive candidate this cycle either - not by a long shot. But, I do trust him to break the DC gridlock and get things moving in a common sense direction. Maybe not as progressive as I'd like to see, but, I'm willing to give up some of my lefty-ness for just plain old common sense.
Clinton on the other hand, doesn't seem to be that big on compromise. That leads to stand-off, showdowns and gridlock. No matter how good her ideas are, they're meaningless if she can't get them turned into law.
May 29, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I have to say is, I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
May 29, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed the I/we dichotomy as well. While it's not a major part of my reasons to back Obama, I think it definitely reflects an attitude that he feels it's not about him - it's about the country as a whole ("we are all in this together"). Since Clinton seems to have made it all about her - personally - then that may be why it's hard for her to let go. Since her campaign has been all about her, then losing feels like a personal rejection from the voters - not a rejection of her policies. No wonder it's been difficult for her to let go of this.
As to healthcare...
My main problem with the Clinton healthcare plan is that the mandate requires that people buy insurance from insurance companies, which are for-profit entities. What the movie "Sicko" showed us is that the profit motive is part of what has damaged the US healthcare system. For those that didn't see it, "Sicko" isn't about the uninsured - it's primarily about those people who HAVE insurance, either that they purchase personally, or that came through their job. However, these people who thought they were covered, were screwed over by "lifetime maximums", "coverage denied", etc. One person in the film accidentally cut off the tips of two fingers with a circular saw - his insurance company basically told him he had to pick which fingertip got reattached, because it wouldn't pay for both. I don't think Clinton's plan addresses things like "denial of coverage" by these companies.
If insurance were provided by non-profit entities (or directly through a single-payer system), I think we'd be lot better off.
May 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I especially liked this little snippet from Sicko involving Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J1I_EJrCHU
May 29, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh I liked this one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UauB5Jl_1Y8&feature=related
May 29, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now Clinton is evil because she uses the word "I." Her soul is exposed to all because she has the audacity to speak in the first person singular! Never has criminal ambition been so fully exposed! A woman-- yes a woman-- dares to say the word "I." Burn her! Burn her! She is not THE ONE!
May 29, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh get over yourself. Nobody has said that.
Clinton is evil because she lies and votes for war and undermines the democratic process by trying to change rules to suit her needs.
She uses the "I" instead of the "we" because it's all about her. Like her husband, she's a narcissist.
Those complaints are all totally gender neutral.
Now quit crying sexism every five minutes before you do to feminism what Hillary did to healthcare reform 15 years ago.
May 29, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. She's not evil. And it's not just that she says "I" versus "We" in a sentence. But that's the philosophy behind how she presents herself as a candidate.
Her candidacy, her governing style, even her experience in the WH with the health care reform efforts in the 1990's all stem from the same idea: SHE is the one we've been waiting for, and if only "they'd" let her, she'd figure it all out.
You can disagree with the idea that we're stronger with a collective movement lead through transparency. There are many (including those in the WH today) that believe it is dangerous to lead that way. The current administration is very much about "I'm the person who's going to take care of you -- so let me be."
This idea that government is about more than the governing class is what drew me to Obama in the first place.
In terms of "she is not THE ONE!" -- that's the entire point. He (Obama) isn't "THE ONE" either. He's offering to open up government and lead, not pretend that he can dictate policy bulls. I'm ready to participate. There's no "bowing down" here, there's energy.
May 29, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naaaa, don't even go there. There's a difference between most people's "I" and Clinton's "I".
Obama's speeches are variations of "I believe that we can work together to make America great."
Clinton's speeches in contrast are "I will fight for you I will stand up for you I will represent you I am the best candidate I am the next president of the United States."
Obama says "We, we, we."
Clinton says "Me, Me, Me."
Anything else you choose to have trouble understanding?
May 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who knows anything about the history of sexism knows that insisting women practice self-abnegation--the denial and suppression of the self-- is a hallmark of misogyny. Equating a woman's ambition to narcissism is a classic tool of the trade: "you don't care about the kids-- you only care about yourself and your career!" You don't have to mention gender to deploy the tools of gender oppression.
That so many opponents of Senator Clinton are blithely unaware of this history and their own complicity in it no longer shocks me. However, I am shocked that people would give serious credence to a mere rhetorical device on the part of Senator Obama. His ambition-- "narcissism?"-- is as evident as hers, to those with eyes to see.
May 29, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly every politician has a massive ego, is narcissistic, and full of hubris. Obama, both Clintons, McCain, Bush, Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Jefferson.
But self-abnegation!? Isn't that what we want from our leaders -- male or female? To put nation before self? It's misogynistic to want a candidate to govern through consensus and participation rather than by fiat? I'm insisting male leaders practice the same, and I'm pointing out that the language used by Obama has been about participatory government vs. the "I'll take care of it" language used by Clinton.
May 29, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who knows anything about the history of sexism also knows the importance of language. Obama consistently speaks with inclusive phrases, and Clinton speaks differently.
I did not equate her ambition to narcissism. All candidates to national office are ambitious. It goes with the territory. Not all candidates to national office are complete narcissistic twits. Hillary is. So is Bill. So's Ralph Nader for that matter. It's not a gendered insult.
Also, comparing Hillary losing a national primary to a woman being guilted out of career advancement... it's so over-reaching, it's almost mind-numbing. Hillary has competed at the highest levels of American politics. She is not being sent back to the kitchen to bake cookies. It's just that, in every political contest, you have a winner and a loser. She didn't win it. It was as close to a fair fight as presidential politics ever gets, and she didn't win. Guess what, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney, Chris Dodd, Rudy Guiliani, and Dennis Kucinich didn't win either. It's not a gender issue. It's a delegate issue.
I have been a feminist for 30 years. I am sick and tired of being lectured on feminism by people who are simply twisting it to support their candidate of choice.
May 29, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not compare "Hillary losing a national primary to a woman being guilted out of career advancement." I compared Senator Clinton being denigrated for the use of the word "I" to women being kept-down for centuries for daring to have ambition. I don't care what you are sick of in your 30 years of being a feminist. If I see a woman being denigrated for using the word "I", this feminist will speak up for her. People can oppose her all they want. If they do it in a misogynistic way, I will speak out against it.
I see Senator Obama's use of "we" as a rhetorical device. Some might see it as disingenous, because "we" are not running for president, he is. I don't condemn him for that. I am just standing up for the complete innocence and normality of Senator Clinton using the word "I."
May 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're being purposefully obstinate.
If this were a discussion of two generic candidates, one male and one female, and an analysis showed the female candidate using we more and the male candidate using I, you'd be sitting here arguing that it's because women tend to use more inconclusive, cooperative language, and that's reflective of a female governing style, etc. And if anyone disagreed with you, you'd tell them they didn't understand the history of feminism.
But because it's Clinton and Obama, you have to argue that pointing out the different language styles of the candidates is somehow a direct assault on Clinton. No one's denying her the right to say I. But the I vs. we construction is reflective of the tenor of the campaign.
Hillary's "I" speech says, "leave it all to me," much more authoritarian and, dare I say, patriarchal. Obama's "we" speech says, "we're in this together," suggesting a more open, participatory view of government. That's the point. That's the point, and frankly, I don't see how you read a misogynistic attack into it.
May 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You speculate about my views regarding inherent differences in governing styles between men and women. You happen to be wrong. I am not a "difference" feminist so I don't believe that women and men necessarily have different governing styles. I do believe, however, that since governing has been the province of men for so long, women who seek to govern are penalized for doing the exact same thing a man would do. For example, saying something like "I'm running for president because I think I am the best person to lead the country at this moment in time." Utterly assertive and ambitious and utterly implicit in any politician standing in front of you and running for president, regardless of whether he sugar coats his ambition in "we" talk. Besides, this post offers no "study" of the frequency of "I" and "we" in each candidate's speeches. It only offers hearsay and anecdotal evidence.
FDR was a great leader, full of ambition, energy, self confidence bordering on arrogance in many people's opinion. He fought fought fought his opponents and the enemies of this nation. He used people right and left and discarded them when he was done. He was a serial womanizer to whom Eleanor Roosevelt remained politically loyal for her entire life, because of the good he was doing for the country. He did more for the people of the United States than any other president since Lincoln. I guarantee you that he used the word "I" quite freequently.
May 29, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting the nation before self is not self-abnegation-- it is patriotism. Insisting someone's use of the pronoun "I" is evidence of anything other than that she is a speaker of the English language is puerile, hare-brained, and if applied to a woman, sexist.
May 29, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly we disagree that the language reflects the candidates' different world views/views on governing. Fair enough, it was an observation that others seemed to have noticed as well.
To your point that a critique of a candidate's use of language, "if applied to a woman," is sexist betrays your argument. Certainly comments indicating that a woman CANNOT use "I" would be sexist. But to want to hear the same sort of language from both men and women cannot be sexist.
My point is that from the very beginning, the Obama campaign has made an effort to appeal to people's desire to participate. The "hope" and "change" mantras weren't based on things that Obama would do, but on what he could inspire others to do -- and that has been a consistent theme. Clinton's campaign started out as "I'm the inevitable candidate," which quickly turned to "I found my voice" after New Hampshire. Clinton has been running on her experience -- that she's unique in being able to accomplish the job. It's always about her -- good in a job interview, but maybe not great to a hungry electorate.
Yes, Obama has been running on his life story -- But he's been using it as an example and representation of what America can be. His message has been about inclusion and I think that has reverberated. That's my point.
BTW -- I found this on NYTimes from way back. Self-abnegation can be a good thing!!:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=980DEFD7143EE433A2575AC2A9619C946996D6CF
May 29, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
May 29, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My previous expression of incredulity was meant for DemD's comments above.
May 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gnopple-- I appreciate the measured tone of your comments. I hereby withdraw my use of the terms "hare-brained" and "puerile" with respect to the idea of reading narcissism into the use of "I."
I do not withdraw my condemnation of such analysis as sexist.
Words and ideas have different connotations when applied to people of different backgrounds. For a white man to call another white man "boy" can be an endearment. For him to call a black man "boy" is unacceptable, precisely because of the history of racism. To deny a woman the use of the term "I" -- a commonplace of the English language without which normal conversation would be impossible-- is likewise unaccceptable. In my view this is just one more example of her opponents demonizing and demeaning her. In this instance, there are misogyinistic overtones to the demonization.
She is a human being-- she is allowed to say "I" without it being held against her.
May 29, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment