Frankly, I'm sick of the pair of them already.
I want to lock them in a room where they can bicker to their heart's content and let us get on with nominating a candidate who isn't providing his/her same-party opponent with video material for attack ads; one who has shown he can fight back against attacks and who doesn't come across like a narcissist; who gives the impression that this election is about US, not himself or herself.
If this wasn't some nice red meat that the media can use to make the eventual nominee look as unappealing as possible, thus furthering their corporate owners' goal of perpetuating Republican power, it would represent a possible breakthrough opportunity for John Edwards. But of course that can't be allowed to happen. It can't happen because media ownership will never allow the talking heads that are beamed into our living rooms, the ones idiotically obsessing about the horse race instead of what each of these candidates would actually do, to permit John Edwards, who represents a threat to their power and access to the corridors of Washington, to gain any traction.
We seem to have forgotten as we sit and watch, appalled, while Hillary Clinton engages in her scorched-earth campaign, is that this is why the Clintons were successful against the worst Republican onslaught of mud and feces in our lifetime: They fight dirty. They know how to fight dirty, they have no qualms about fighting dirty, and they're going to fight dirty. We loved it when we liked them. Now, with the public face of Clinton politics being the less appealing Hillary instead of the charismatic Bill, and now that it's directed against a candidate who's more transformational than Hillary Clinton is, and now that it's taking the form of a powerful white couple directing it against a black guy who's on their own team, it doesn't seem as much of a strength.
But here's the problem revealed by last night's debate: Barack Obama repeats over and over again that Americans are tired of this kind of divisive politics. And I'm sure that in his ideal world (as in ours), campaigns would be fought on issues and on real, substantive differences. But if he's going to complain about the tone of the Clinton campaign, what on earth is he going to do when the Republicans get hold of him? Obama's desire to run a different kind of campaign is a laudable one. But in Hillary Clinton, he's running against a candidate who plays for keeps. And she's just the warm-up. If he thinks that Hillary Clinton is being unfair and misrepresenting him, he isn't going to know what hit him when the Republicans try to turn him into a al-Qaeda mole trying to infiltrate our government.
Does anyone honestly believe that this kind of bickering is what Democrats want to hear as they decide for whom they want to vote?
And why on earth is the third guy not being taken seriously as a candidate? He's attractive, he's funny, he's smart as a whip, he keeps the focus on the American people, not about himself. He lets what he says and what he wants to do speak for itself. And in this context, with the "top two" trying to destroy each other, he's like a cool drink of water on a hot day. The way this contest is going, there's only one way to get this campaign back on the issues, and that's to get out from under the identity politics of race and gender. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama seem able to do that. Whether it's Clinton or Obama or their supporters doing it is immaterial. There are more important things we have to worry about than which identity group is going to take the White House.
Americans want someone who's running for this office for THEM -- for Americans -- not for themselves. Last night both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gave the distinct impression that it's all about THEM, not about US. I don't believe that Obama is the narcissist that Hillary Clinton is, but if he isn't, it's time for him to show us.
Haven't we had enough of narcissism in the White House? Can we please stop letting Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer and Joe Scarborough and Brian Williams and Tim Russert decide who should be the nominee, and actually listen to what these people are saying?
On Saturday, Martin Luther King III met with John Edwards at the King Center in Atlanta. On Sunday Edwards received this note:
…I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.
You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.
I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.[..]
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
Consider this: While the "transformative" candidate was taking Hillary Clinton's bait, the son of the man we honored yesterday was telling the southern white guy to keep fighting.
Senator Obama, I'm looking for a backup candidate should John Edwards prove unable to counteract the deck that's so stacked against him. You're the logical choice. Please stop giving me reasons to decide to just stay home.
(In case you missed it, and watching train wrecks isn't your cup of tea, Jeff Fecke liveblogged it, for which he has earned our eternal thanks.)
(h/t)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire