Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Off To Cast My Ballot
Thanks to everyone who offered their thoughts down the stretch. My impression from what people said reinforced my sense that the two basic images of the candidates, the Hip-Hope of Barack Obama or the Compromised Can-Do of Hillary Clinton, are just that, images, and (though they may be more or less telling) ultimately they only have a corrosive effect on intelligent debate. The question of whose image is more "pure" than the other, or whose image has changed more often, or has the most cracks in it, is absurd. And I wonder whether people's passions about this are not in fact fueled by a deeper frustration that these images remain the dominate currency/form of discourse. That said, I also got a keen sense from people's comments that most people know very well what is really at stake here. This is not about the revolution. This is about changing CEOs. So like a good share holder I'm off to vote, and like a bad joke I'm just off. Cheers. Joshua.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
"Hip-Hope of Barack Obama" ? Josh? Barack gave his Super Tuesday speech this evening after he entered the stage while "Beautiful Day" by U2 played overhead...s'up with the hip-hop reference...sort of knee jerk there..."Compromised Can-do of Hillary Clinton"...that's implicitly lame racist and sexist commentary my friend...
By the way, the choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is not a choice necessarily between CEO's...nearly all of Barack's campaign contributions came from individuals not affiliated with or sponsored by corporations...yes sir, you are just off...
"nearly all of Barack's campaign contributions came from individuals not affiliated with or sponsored by corporations..."
Well Joe, I'm with you that hip-hope and can-do are a bad choice of words, but to suggest that Obama isn't getting corporate dollars is a tad naive. In fact to suggest that there is even such a thing as a non-corporate dollar is in some ways naive. His hands may be less tainted than others, but you don't raise tens of millions of dollars from little old ladies piggy banks and school kid's allowances.
Oliver,
I didn't say he wasn't getting any corporate support I said most "nearly all.." of his money is coming from individuals...vis a vis fundraising. I was just invited to one sliding scale $50 -$2200 in New York. If you listened to commentators on the Newsweek live feed last night, it was duly noted that he has raised millions by on-line donations.
Given Michelle Obama's being a corporate lawyer, its highly likely he did have some corporate
sponsorship...I haven't check it out yet but that information is publicly available. Have a look. Part of the commentary on the Dem hopefuls is that Hillary has reached or is very near her limit in corporate contributions she can accept- Obama is not, because he depended far less on them. He even gave $150,000 of bad contributions from Tony Rezko to charity, and has turned down offers from corporations whose interests conflict. So far...not your average politician...
Seems there should be an EASY place to search for who contributed how much to whom, but alas there isn't. I'd be curious.
Anyway, yes, I agree that Obama's relationship to fundraising is less corporate than most.
On another topic:
This is an interesting take on the phenomena of "hillary hating" and maybe even a compelling argument for voting for her....
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
I found that article loud, irritating and basically made valid by the very last line- "Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am." I suppose something of like nature could be said by someone who identifies with Obama being black. The comparing chasm between men and women with that of the races is tired (particularly between black and white Americans).
People on the whole are fundamentally the same, and in every situation men and women find themselves differing from a biological, chemical standpoint which due to the sciences is a difference also being altered (can't wait for the first trans-gender candidate steps up, see how liberal Mrs. Morgan would be then.) As a man, I am certainly not going to say men are better suited to lead than women. I don't believe that at all. I also don't believe that women are fundamentally better suited to lead either.
Bearing progeny is a common function of every manner of animal. Its not particularly exceptional that a woman can do that, as sex is not particularly exceptional a phenomena generally. Life itself is unexplicable, stupifying, and strange. The mechanics of it are becoming understood very well but its essence- we're a long way from comprehending. That said there is a substantial body of literature, that indicates prior to patriarchal rule of the last few millenia there were dominant, well-placed matriarchies. Those societies were no less violent than the ones we've seen documented in the past couple thousand years.
Morgan has one legitimate point- Hillary and Barack have very similiar liberal belief systems. Save, Hillary and Bill have even closer, more intimate similiar belief systems. As most men worth their grain will admit your wife, or the woman you love holds incredible sway over your ideas, and how you approach the world with her- that said Bill under Hillary's tutelage did some pretty questionable things. Never mind his extramarital affairs- how about the fact that more black men went to prison under the Clinton admin. than any other president in history.
But lets say that that one thing, doesn't matter, that filegate, Whitewater, etc. none of that matters. We still have to judge the woman by her character, what we like or dislike, how we feel about her ideas. What we have to look at is what she's done in the past, and given the nature of things what the future looks like and what she would do- as is the case with the other candidates. I would not vote for anyone based on their sex or the color of their skin.
I am happy to see a fresh face running for office with fresh ideas (Obama); I am happy to know that Americans aren't so pathological that can't see a woman as a leader of a country. I don't hate Hillary. Several women, I know dislike her considerably (particularly how she has in the not so distant past waffled on Roe v. Wade, with overly diplomatic talk about it)and voted for her in the primary anyway- because as Morgan said they are desperate to see a woman president...a woman in the so-we-think ultimate power position...forgetting about Madeleine Albright who was as rough as they come...but you know whatever...
I thought Morgan referring to Obama this way- "Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore)" was cheap and off base. Obama's mom was white, so she inadvertently in her fervor used the one-drop law to leverage a point...Obama is just Obama. He is self-identified as black, behaves like an educated man, who's a father, professor, leader, living, born and raised (partly at least) in the West. I'd like to ask Mrs. Morgan how Obama is "passing" as white...
Post a Comment