Does anyone else find this funny?
Consistently, I see polls that show smart people supporting Obama and, well, not stupid people, but less educated ones supporting Clinton. To wit:
Clinton continues to lead among women, whites, voters older than 45 and those without college degrees. Obama leads among men, blacks, voters with college degrees and those under 45.
Old. White. Feminists. That’s where Clinton leads. Just priceless.
After beginning to read through Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father,” I’ve really begun to put a more human face on the superstar Senator. This book makes him more knowable and I highly recommend it so far. Up to this point it has talked about race, but it isn’t preachy or guilt-ridden like some other books I’ve read.
The reason I’ve decided to blog is to address, yet again, the Clintonian brand of hypocrisy that causes me to wonder why anyone can take her seriously.
Earlier this month I went on about how Hillary remarked that this is one of the most positive campaigns she’s ever participated in. When I see that, I see head games being played with the rest of us. Not merely “do one thing and say another,” but acting as if what you say is more real than what you’ve actually done. It is very reminiscent of what we’ve seen during the Bush administration. Bush claiming the economy is great and working how it’s supposed to, yet people are losing their homes left and right while individuals and businesses with flawless credit are being flatly denied for loans they’re fully capable of repaying. Among others, far too many for me to list here while keeping on-topic.
Part of what I’ve seen from the Clinton camp has been a kind of immaturity. Thinking back to my childhood, I remember how all the petty arguments between playmates seemed to go. “You’re stupid!” “Nuh uh! You’re stupid!!” “Nuh uh!! You are!!!” One thing I’ve observed on several occasions is the Clinton campaign pulling a “Nuh uh! You are!”
Take, for instance, the blatant refusal of Hillary Clinton to distance herself from Geraldine Ferraro after her racially charged comments concerning Senator Obama. Her denunciation of those remarks was lukewarm at best. She didn’t ask Ferraro to leave, at least publicly, and only mildly criticized statements that required a strong, decisive response.
Then, through some super-human act of contortion, Ferraro turned it around to claim that the entire fiasco–over statements she made–was somehow the fault of Barack Obama. Somehow, drawing anger from people for suggesting that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he’s black means that people are being racist towards you because you’re white? How does that even make sense? How, in any way, could this be blamed on Obama?
The response from the Clinton campaign? Silence. I wouldn’t characterize the Clintons as racists, but it’s pretty shameful that they’re still willing to exploit the issue for power.
For the tepid reaction, prominent figures from around the country made their disdain heard. Keith Olbermann and many others accused Hillary of campaigning against Obama by acting as if he were the Democrat, and she were the Republican.
What did the Clinton campaign have to say about this? “Nuh uh, he is!” It was perhaps a week ago when I saw this claim by Clinton’s campaign manager. Do they just copy what the other side says every time they want to make a comeback?
It gets me every time how Clinton gets all high and mighty over the matter of ethics. On the matter of such she says she’s been fully vetted, thus making “vetted” the latest buzzword amongst the news crowd. Because she has been fully vetted, it is argued, she is the most electable candidate. The overtones are obvious in this one: Barack Obama hasn’t been looked into like I have, and therefore has undisclosed baggage of the ethical variety.
Is that so? Senator Obama has released his tax returns and openly addressed controversies surrounding his dealings with Tony Rezko, who is under investigation for corruption charges, as well as the controversial statements of his pastor. As a response to the claim that he hasn’t been given the rubber glove treatment by the media, the Obama camp demanded that Clinton release records of her tax returns as well as a list of financiers for the Clinton library. For this, Obama is compared to Ken Starr–a name reviled by numerous Democrats–special prosecutor whose report eventually led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
So she hasn’t been fully vetted after all. Looks like she does, in fact, have something to hide. One can only wonder how much they cook the books for her tax returns and list of donors to her husbands library before finally releasing them.
The troubling part is not that she has something to hide–the Clintons have been hiding crap for years, we expect that. It’s the sheer hypocrisy of it all. How dare Barack Obama question Hillary Clinton’s integrity, yet she does the same thing by suggesting he’s got enough skeletons in his closet to cost him the general election? Then goes on record perpetuating myths against him with statements like “(he’s not a Muslim) as far as I know” yet expects us to buy her victim facade as her campaign releases unflattering photos and digs up dirt wherever they can get it, all while claiming that the media has given him a free pass?
Where does the madness end? Does anybody really buy this shit? Oh, that’s right, she’s attracted the uneducated majority. No wonder they keep falling for it. I guess I’ve answered my own question.
Tags: election, Hillary Clinton, Obama, primaries
March 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Interesting commentary. I can’t help notice your implication that women, or your words: Old, White, Feminists, are less educated than men. Priceless in itself. Ballsy of you to say it, too!
March 19th, 2008 at 8:00 am
I’d given you the benefit of the doubt before, but you’re a real dumbass. There’s nothing even close to an implication; only a lame-brained conservative’s weak attempt at a cheap shot by inferring what isn’t there and putting words in my mouth. Hm, just like you did on a previous entry where you poorly and inaccurately extrapolated that Democrats don’t want to protect Americans. Typical: you scumbags can’t back up your philosophy with reason, so you resort to scumbaggery in an attempt to bring other people–not even their ideology–down. Yet… you wonder why people think poorly of you. Tsk.
But do continue with the bottom-feeding. It provides amusement for the rest of us. Also, thanks for reading. Stick around and you might learn something. But yeah, nice try at calling me a sexist there, bub.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
White female, Master’s Degree, age 63! Yeah! One more mold I don’t fit! Voting for Obama every chance I get!
March 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Wow, Ramble, you’re a poet and you don’t even know it.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
If I pronounced “get” like “git”, that would be true.
But for today, I will say git, just for you!
March 19th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
YAY.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Wow, I must have really gotten to you! You’re right though, it wasn’t an implication you made, it was more of a statement. Your own words, from paragraph one:
“well, not stupid people, but less educated ones supporting Clinton. To wit: [quote snipped]…Old. White. Feminists. That’s where Clinton leads.” Those are YOUR words, YOU interpreted the quote that was posted. Not me, not the pollster, YOU.
I’m left thinking, either you believe what you typed in your own blog, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
You wind up your response, again where YOU use terms such as “dumbass,” “lame-brained,” “scumbags,” “scumbaggey” and “bottom feeders” by criticizing me for trying to bring other people, not their ideology, down. To quote you one more time: “Just priceless!”
I think I will stick around, thanks. I’m learning quite a bit, not from you, but rather about you.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Heh, forgive me for being high-strung. I’ll be easily excitable until the now-seemingly inevitable defeat this November. Then it’ll be back to the old grind.
But I suppose you’re right. The statement was referring to the less-educated women out there, but only as a subset of the condition “less-educated people.” Last I checked, women are still people. So if you want to split hairs (which you clearly do), then dangit, I guess you got me. But nowhere did I say or imply that women, as a whole, are less-educated than men, which is what you seem to be claiming.
Anyway, you’d benefit by being less literal-minded. “Old White Feminists.” So what? It’s as if to say,”We’ve solved the mystery, Watson!” by indicating that only a relatively small, niche group within the Democratic party supports Clinton. The idea is not to belittle, but to poke fun at a generation who had their time, used it well, and are part of an era that is mostly outdated and irrelevant (Geraldine Ferraro, anyone?), and ought to be at peace with the idea of passing the torch of power to the next generation rather than bitterly opposing it. But then again, there’s always the historical merits to consider.
Now that I’ve spelled it out for you as exhaustively as I can, do you get it? It really wasn’t that cryptic.
The feminists of HRC’s generation contributed a great deal to women’s rights. They have alot to be proud of. Sure, they were eccentric at times, but so is anyone with a cause in the heat of of the moment.
Again, the intent was not to belittle, but to poke fun. It wouldn’t be terribly tactful to write off half of my “team” as being absolute dullards (as I closed with in the last paragraph), yet still hope for their support should my horse win the qualifying round.
Did you get that? I said it because it was funny. You used it in an attempt to smear.
I’ll admit, I have to take a step back every now and then to remind myself that Obama and Clinton supporters are actually on the same side. Things have gotten way out of hand and I’ll be glad when it’s over with.
As for how I referred to you, I’ll own that much. It’s about the only thing you’ve said on here that isn’t ridiculously inane. Maybe on your planet, twisting someone’s words to make them out to be a misogynist passes for intelligent discourse. On planet Earth, people who do that are bottom-feeding dumbasses. I called you a lame-brained scumbag because I have no tolerance for bullshit, intellectually deficient non sequitur. But I guess that makes me closed-minded in whatever parodic version of reality you call home, right?
Is it hypocritical for calling you out on your bullshit by treating you in the same manner? Maybe. Doesn’t make it any less truthful. At least nobody on this side ridiculously accused you of prejudices by twisting your words and extrapolating meanings that weren’t there. Ya scumbag.
If this doesn’t suffice, which I know it won’t, so be it. I’ve said all I care to on the topic.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Well said my friend! Boggles my mind how much I agree with you most of the time. I appreciate your humor and insight. What I really appreciate is your willingness to call it like you see it - damn the torpedoes, full-steam ahead!
March 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Wait a minute, nobody said anything about a torpedo. ¬_¬
March 21st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Bobby said something about torpedos, didn’t he? :)~
March 21st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Yeah, meat-torpedoes.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
If there were no black or mulatto candidate running, I’ll bet you’d be singing Hillary’s praises juts as loud.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Yes, because his blackness is the only reason I like him, Vonster. You nailed it. Do you really wonder why people think you’re a racist? Anyway, I wouldn’t vote for Al “race wars” Sharpton.
Let’s try this again: “If Obama weren’t running, I’ll bet you’d be singing Hillary’s praises just as loud.”
Not likely. I agree with many of her policies. They’re very similar to Obama’s. But, she lacks that whole “trust” thing you conservatives blindly throw at your leaders. There’s an old saying in Washington: If you have nothing to hide, don’t act like you do. How transparent has the Bush cartel been all these years? Mhm. Clinton has been acting the same way.
See, unlike the hard right, we actually question our candidates character before trying to get them elected. If HRC were the nominee, I’d have more of a resigned-to-another-shitty-election attitude, not an enthusiastic one. It would more or less be 2004, the sequel.