Mar

13

Monsters in Politics

Filed Under Babbling, Commentary on the News, Political Musings, Writings/Rants 

I’ve been sitting here for the better part of thirty minutes working on drafts for this weekend because, in all honesty, I didn’t want to really think about he writing I’d be doing here and now. The fact of the matter is? I feel I must. I feel that because of what I saw yesterday when I originally watched this air, that I had to repost it here and I had to add in my two cents to it.

If you’d rather read it, then head over here.

Last night as I watched live as Keith Olbermann delivered that on Countdown. And as Olbermann unwound it all, I noted a few things that really were key to how I felt. I’d like to share those outtakes here, but I think the whole thing is worth watching.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become President. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media, and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama. You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation. But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning, as if Barock [sic] Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, Senator — that way… madness… lies.
This, is the first thing that I noted. To go back to my words from March 6th–two days after the VOTR (Vermont, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island) primaries–this is no longer a presidential campaign, but a Vice Presidential War of Attrition. And its not one for her to keep her name up there to have to be nominated for him, but for her to overthrow his voters and try to tell them that a vote for her is a vote for him as a Vice President. Even as Jon Stewart showed a clip from CNN that showed all of the far-shot chances for Clinton to be able to overthrow Obama’s vote lead, the magic number is now 64%. That’s the number of contests that she must win with a decisive lead to overtake Obama’s delegate lead. That includes Michigan and Florida being re-enstated.

And when this despicable statement — ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts, and moronic in the historical context — when it floats outward from the Clinton Campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisors have their candidate do? Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline… on Jackie Robinson day… about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barock Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan? Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office, is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama’s… …while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state Senator before he became President? Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House? Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks? Or Richard Nixon… fourteen… and Calvin Coolidge 25? Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power — gone by sunrise after she used the word “monster” — and have Senator Clinton say, “this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for,” while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign? No. Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient. And she should then call, “regrettable”, words that should make any Democrat retch.
Retch is right. For the last debate for her to call upon Obama to do more than just reject Farrakhan’s support and for him to announce so amicably his rejection and denouncing? Bravo. (Watch from 3:00 through till the end, unless you care about the Clinton tax statements, which is a story for another time.)
And add to that, drawing a comparison to Samantha Power and the “monster”-incident, which I think is key. The biggest thing with that is that the comment that the two points are not equal is important, but I think that its important to note how the two campaigns did take care of these things. Obama was quick to remove her from her position, whereas Clinton left Ferraro in her position for two weeks afterwards. Its the difference in the two campaigns: Obama taking a less political road and facing more on the issues than mud-slinging, and Clinton taking the role of letting everyone say what it is she can’t say.
Another thing to point out with this is a Time magazine article on experience from a week or so back that I’ve cited before in conversation at least with friends. I wish they had part of the graphics online for this one, but they tallied up all of the experience from Washington all the way to W and showed it graphically and there were Presidents with less experience than any three of the candidates and those with more–which Olbermann briefly touched on the above.

This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed the “commander-in-chief threshold”… But — he might be your choice to be Vice President, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen Vice Presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession. But you’d only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention. But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become Vice President, not President.
In other words, this goes back to my Vice Presidental War of Attrition remark. There have been some great statements back and forth by Clinton and Obama about who would be Vice President, and its noted to that this one is one for you to research on your own and to keep watching for on the news as it replays as a talking point.

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name. Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late. Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.
I am not and have never been a Clinton supporter, but this statement is true beyond all words. More often than not when they’re talking about policies or talking points from one campaign or another, I feel like I hear Obama’s name more than I hear Clinton’s when they refer directly to the campaigns. I feel like they’re always mentioning Wolfson for Clinton as the person speaking, and not some direct statement from her. I know that they both have staffers that speak for them, but the difference I see are like a glove and a mitten.

A glove and a mitten–an interesting way to look at the two campaigns. Clinton is the glove: with many tentacles of statements and individuals reaching out from her, she’s a lot more effective at letting you move around and do what you’d like, but they’re all attached back to the palm, and in the end work together. They can sound off in 5 different directions, and choose to do so as they like. Obama, however, is the mitten: while it might be awkward to have to move all four fingers together, you have a unified movement and there’s no worries about any one of them doing something wrong that might hurt it or the others. Sure, there’s the thumb that shoots off from it all, but it helps the other fingers and works with it, and not in-as-much alone as a thumb works with a glove.

And to me, Obama/Clinton is like a mitten/glove difference: when we’re young, we wear the mittens and we have that warm comfortable feeling. Its a childish hope and wish. We’re tied to them and we dream for the gloves and maturity. But, when we get those gloves, we lose them or forget where we put one. And we always dream about the days when we wore mittens and had hope…

As a whole, I didn’t like Ferraro’s statements about Obama, and I did feel they were thinly veiled racism. And I really hope that Clinton can do something to repair the damage from these statements, but as a whole? I like the rest of America will have to wait… Racism and sexism are two big issues in this campaign. It’ll be a talking point that we’ll hear no matter who the Democrat candidate ends up being…

And me? I’ll just look for my other glove while I dream of childhood mittens…

Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sign up for free and comment away!

    About The Site


    Thanks for stopping by, folks! My name is Adam J. Cohen, and I'm a guitarist/songwriter in Champaign, IL, recently relocated from Orlando, FL where I'm a UCF grad. Here, you'll find vignettes on my life, setlists from open mics and reviews, and whatever else crosses my mind. Enjoy!