One week to go February 25
Today it’s time to talk politics; namely, the Democratic primary. I’ve avoided doing this for as long as I could because 1) I’m not sure our band blog is the right place to do it and 2) I’m pretty sure no one really cares what my opinions are anyway. But in the absence of other posts today, this is what’s on my mind so I’d thought I’d share.
As Aaron has noted in his snarky “God, I am soooooo clever” little way, I am for Obama. This is not to be “cool” or as part of some idol worship; indeed, Like Dahlia Lithwick in this Slate article, the excessive adoration and “hip” celebrity status he’s achieved has caused me to question on numerous occasions whether he’s the real deal or just maybe the coolest politician ever, a guy everyone wants to be friends with but with little substance. I also don’t support him out of some deep belief in “hope” or the notion that he’s a messianic “change” agent here to deliver us from the evils of Karl Rove; I’m far too cynical for all that. In fact, I think I support him despite these things.
I’m for Barack Obama because he’s the best person for the job and I believe his plans are the right ones to address the issues we face. Rest assured, that wasn’t a decision I made without inner turmoil and wrangling - over his ability to be commander-in-chief, over his resume, over whether or not his rhetoric really was empty. But having wrestled with my decision, I’m more confident than ever in it. I won’t get into specifics on why; anyone who wants to have that discussion and/or debate, I welcome it and I can be e-mailed at spencer@thecityveins.com
In other words, my vote is for Obama, not just against Hillary. That being said, the last few weeks have really shown a lot about why this woman should not get the nomination. Frank Rich sums this up beautifully in his editorial “The Audacity of Hopelessness.” For those without registration on the NYT site, in the article Rich cites the preemptive arrogance Hillary had in the beginning of the race (believing herself to be inevitable), the innumerable blunders and strategic mistakes of her clearly clueless staff of advisers, the way she and Bill insult every state that she doesn’t win, the campaign’s complete misuse of its funding, and so on.
Some of the best lines from the article:
“This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.”
“The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it.”
“This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.”
I think you’re seeing Hillary for what she really is: a self-righteous, self-made martyr who thinks that power is owed to her and lashes out like a petulant child when she doesn’t get her way. She also wants to take credit for everything in Bill’s presidency that people still like and she wants to stand against all the stuff they don’t. As Obama said, “she has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years. So the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn’t politically convenient doesn’t make sense.”
In a little more than a week, Texas and Ohio vote and here’s hoping those states give this spoiled child a time out.