Ok, there is an adult term in this blog so it's not intended for those under the age of consent (for all that they probably hear alot worse in their favorite video game).
Remember the SNL skit with Tina Fey that proclaimed Hillary was a bitch and that it was essentially a good thing? Well I am arguing the point. Bitches can be tough and tenacious (granted Madame Clinton is that) but a true bitch is straightforward and honest to the fault of being called brutally honest at worst. A real bitch isn't dishonest for all that they are probably capable of being reasonably vicious. Nor is a true bitch inherently self-absorbed and selfish. A true bitch is generally very smart and as such needn't sink to childish, juvenile and sophomoric methods to win - they are far more capable of making their points in ways that are characteristically scathing with rapier wit and intellect.
As a result, I would like to try - in my own little way - to reclaim the word... bitch.
If you feel similarly... perhaps you could consider creating your own blog or participating with mine (and there will be others) 'Bitch4Obama'. There is room for 100 authors so if you wish to offer your own flavor and shape on this and other similar related appropriately flavored attitude please let me know.
Call it corny...but on a day like today when tensions are running high and too many people in the blogs seem moderately homicidal and/or suicidal. It seemed a reasonable response.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Question of Inspiration...
Ok, this bitch4obama just realized the necessary ingredient to a great Presidency.
Bet you are on the edge of your seat, aren't you?
Well, it's the ability to inspire. Take a moment and consider every President that is considered great - by you and society. Their programs and accomplishments were likely powerful and maybe even revolutionary but they only way they got them all done was because they were propelled by the people. The people that they had influenced and inspired.
The Greatest Generation was inspired by FDR. During a struggle out of the Depression and into WWII, they listened to this trusted advisor via fireside chats and trusted his suggestions. When he asked women to work. They did. When he asked men to go to war, they did. When he asked the people at home to grow Victory Gardens they did. His efforts were so inspirational that the posters and images of the era have now become part of the iconic quality of our patriotism.
Washington, Father of a Country, but only because his inspiration and leadership propelled a rag tag, sick, ill-fed, ill-equipped and out numbered force to victory on the battlefield against the country that may have been the greatest military force on the planet at the time.
Lincoln, unlike his predecessor Buchanan (probably the most experienced and most 'qualified' man ever elected to the office also the President until recently anyway, considered the worst President in the history of our country), did not possess an illustrious resume' of experience or a career around people who knew how to get things done in Washington. He surrounded himself with a cabinet of those who had opposed him in his campaign to President and yet, he inspired them and lead them. His lack of experience did not stand in his way as he quickly learned on the job, making some mistakes but only once. He self-deprecating manner charmed the soldiers who met him and his words inspired everyone. Today, as a result, we are the United States of America and our social conscience is free of the stain of racial slavery since. His ability to unite disparity became evident as his cabinet and their effectiveness almost instantly dissolved upon his assasination. Reconstruction did not proceed as Lincoln planned and the following two Administrations were plagued with infighting and corruption.
John F. Kennedy was faced with several crises including the Cuban Missile Crisis. His mistakes with Vietnam might not have been as apparent if he had lived to fulfill whatever his intent may have been. Based on the ubiquitious quality and resonance of his quotes even today, there is little question that the charming young Catholic (people at the time doubted a Catholic, much less a Yankee could be elected just as they doubt a black man or woman could be elected now) Senator (and we have very very few Presidents that were Senators we prefer to elect Governors) from Massachusetts inspired us. How could we question that? The most common reference to his administration was Camelot.
So what does this mean? All we need is inspiration and challenge. It could be that simple. What if even an otherwise mediocre candidate for President was inspirational? Perhaps in the face of challenge and hope, people followed their inspiring leader and thus together lifted themselves, their effort and that Administration to greatness.
It seems far to simple a recipe... and yet, our worst Presidents number among those who were accomplished, educated men of great advantage who did not inspire. Perhaps the weakest Administration is one that has an apathetic or hopeless population to lead?
No doubt, some would argue for the inclusion of other Presidents - Teddy Roosevelt (he's on Mount Rushmore after all) as is Jefferson, and perhaps they were inspirational and the crises they led the country through just pale relative to others. Certainly most would agree that Teddy was colorful and charming, presuming you weren't his enemy! Reagan, Clinton and Jackson might also be included by some, but while they were charming and effective at campaigning there is little evidence that the inspired the kind of activity in the population during their Administration that the ones we use as examples uphold. Perhaps it was simply a matter of opportunity, without serious challenge to peace, prosperity and sovreignty, maybe the population doesn't even listen closely enough to the rambling of Washington to be inspired.
Regardless, I think all would agree that these times present a myriad and magnitude of challenge that may not have been faced since the founding of our country. Never have so many stood to lose so much because of the decisions made in Washington. Never before has inspirational leadership, the kind of leadership that will compel people to be part of the change been so critical. I will continue in the vein that I think all would agree that the only nominee possessing that level of inspirational ability to cross racial, ethnic, gender lines to unite our nation as a community is Barack Obama. Yes, I am sure that Clinton and McCain inspire their supporters but even so, those supporters are not propelling their campaigns with the energy, joy and fire that Obama commands.
Bet you are on the edge of your seat, aren't you?
Well, it's the ability to inspire. Take a moment and consider every President that is considered great - by you and society. Their programs and accomplishments were likely powerful and maybe even revolutionary but they only way they got them all done was because they were propelled by the people. The people that they had influenced and inspired.
The Greatest Generation was inspired by FDR. During a struggle out of the Depression and into WWII, they listened to this trusted advisor via fireside chats and trusted his suggestions. When he asked women to work. They did. When he asked men to go to war, they did. When he asked the people at home to grow Victory Gardens they did. His efforts were so inspirational that the posters and images of the era have now become part of the iconic quality of our patriotism.
Washington, Father of a Country, but only because his inspiration and leadership propelled a rag tag, sick, ill-fed, ill-equipped and out numbered force to victory on the battlefield against the country that may have been the greatest military force on the planet at the time.
Lincoln, unlike his predecessor Buchanan (probably the most experienced and most 'qualified' man ever elected to the office also the President until recently anyway, considered the worst President in the history of our country), did not possess an illustrious resume' of experience or a career around people who knew how to get things done in Washington. He surrounded himself with a cabinet of those who had opposed him in his campaign to President and yet, he inspired them and lead them. His lack of experience did not stand in his way as he quickly learned on the job, making some mistakes but only once. He self-deprecating manner charmed the soldiers who met him and his words inspired everyone. Today, as a result, we are the United States of America and our social conscience is free of the stain of racial slavery since. His ability to unite disparity became evident as his cabinet and their effectiveness almost instantly dissolved upon his assasination. Reconstruction did not proceed as Lincoln planned and the following two Administrations were plagued with infighting and corruption.
John F. Kennedy was faced with several crises including the Cuban Missile Crisis. His mistakes with Vietnam might not have been as apparent if he had lived to fulfill whatever his intent may have been. Based on the ubiquitious quality and resonance of his quotes even today, there is little question that the charming young Catholic (people at the time doubted a Catholic, much less a Yankee could be elected just as they doubt a black man or woman could be elected now) Senator (and we have very very few Presidents that were Senators we prefer to elect Governors) from Massachusetts inspired us. How could we question that? The most common reference to his administration was Camelot.
So what does this mean? All we need is inspiration and challenge. It could be that simple. What if even an otherwise mediocre candidate for President was inspirational? Perhaps in the face of challenge and hope, people followed their inspiring leader and thus together lifted themselves, their effort and that Administration to greatness.
It seems far to simple a recipe... and yet, our worst Presidents number among those who were accomplished, educated men of great advantage who did not inspire. Perhaps the weakest Administration is one that has an apathetic or hopeless population to lead?
No doubt, some would argue for the inclusion of other Presidents - Teddy Roosevelt (he's on Mount Rushmore after all) as is Jefferson, and perhaps they were inspirational and the crises they led the country through just pale relative to others. Certainly most would agree that Teddy was colorful and charming, presuming you weren't his enemy! Reagan, Clinton and Jackson might also be included by some, but while they were charming and effective at campaigning there is little evidence that the inspired the kind of activity in the population during their Administration that the ones we use as examples uphold. Perhaps it was simply a matter of opportunity, without serious challenge to peace, prosperity and sovreignty, maybe the population doesn't even listen closely enough to the rambling of Washington to be inspired.
Regardless, I think all would agree that these times present a myriad and magnitude of challenge that may not have been faced since the founding of our country. Never have so many stood to lose so much because of the decisions made in Washington. Never before has inspirational leadership, the kind of leadership that will compel people to be part of the change been so critical. I will continue in the vein that I think all would agree that the only nominee possessing that level of inspirational ability to cross racial, ethnic, gender lines to unite our nation as a community is Barack Obama. Yes, I am sure that Clinton and McCain inspire their supporters but even so, those supporters are not propelling their campaigns with the energy, joy and fire that Obama commands.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Understanding What Happened In Pennsylvania- or why loads of TV ads didn't buy votes...
If one is surprised by the results from Pennsylvania, then you are truly underestimating the power of the last 20 years of Clintons ruling the Democratic party. If you think that merely outspending Clinton on TV ads should have insured a victory, then your faith in the scrutiny of the American voter is quite naive. Do you know how insulting it is to suggest that lots of TV ads just 'buy voters'? Sounds like sheep being led to slaughter.
Please keep in mind that Hillary has had the goal of the White House for many years... easily since or before the whole Monica Lewinsky mess (why do you think she stood by Bill through it all as graciously and supportively as she did?? this was likely the payoff... that's the way the Clintons' or most serious politicians work). So don't you find it curious that these 'big' 'must-win' states are all her "FIREWALLS"? The Clintons were courting those states the ENTIRE time they were in office.. going there frequently, showing concern... they built a relationship with those people and the folks of Ohio and Pennsylvania are loyal. They aren't going to rethink years of friendship over a few TV and Radio spots!
Why do you think she chose to run for the Senate in NY? Another must win, big state and this way she could claim it as 'home' and help garner votes.
The fact that Obama is the front runner is the mindblower to people who REALLY understand how the power of the Democratic party works. Look at Hillary's endorsements in PA for example, or NY... do you think those were earned through merit or favors from the past?
How does a fresh, Junior Senator from Illinois with just 2 years on the National political scene compete with that?? Like I said, it says ALOT about the frustration of the electorate that he is - much less winning.
The question for Hillary is probably little more than symbolic now. The most she can accomplish is to destroy Obama's chances at the Presidency as she has no real basis to claim the nomination regardless of her posturing and spin. Seriously, consider for a moment what it would mean if the Democratic party chose it's nominee through autocratic methods? The entire primary system is based on choosing the nominee based on total pledged delegates won. It was never intended that the SuperDelegates would override the choice of the people. To do so would really mean that all these primaries, conventions and caucuses were meaningless and that the voters (not just Michigan and Florida) were disenfranchised.
Let's be frank, if you were a Democrat in an elected office and a Super Delegate, would you be willing to throw your support behind a nominee that was not democratically chosen? If so, you'd likely know you were playing with fire that would likely come back to burn you the next time you ran for re-election. At the same time, right now you would likely stay undeclared (which most are) because you'd know you are very likely to infuriate a significant percentage of your constituency if you declared before the dust settled on a clear 'presumptive' nominee. Again for the same reason, you can't afford to infuriate your base even a minority of it.
Of course, this is the log jam (along with missteps along the way like Michigan and Florida) that are giving Pelosi and Dean so many sleepless nights and incredulous stares into the camera.
Please keep in mind that Hillary has had the goal of the White House for many years... easily since or before the whole Monica Lewinsky mess (why do you think she stood by Bill through it all as graciously and supportively as she did?? this was likely the payoff... that's the way the Clintons' or most serious politicians work). So don't you find it curious that these 'big' 'must-win' states are all her "FIREWALLS"? The Clintons were courting those states the ENTIRE time they were in office.. going there frequently, showing concern... they built a relationship with those people and the folks of Ohio and Pennsylvania are loyal. They aren't going to rethink years of friendship over a few TV and Radio spots!
Why do you think she chose to run for the Senate in NY? Another must win, big state and this way she could claim it as 'home' and help garner votes.
The fact that Obama is the front runner is the mindblower to people who REALLY understand how the power of the Democratic party works. Look at Hillary's endorsements in PA for example, or NY... do you think those were earned through merit or favors from the past?
How does a fresh, Junior Senator from Illinois with just 2 years on the National political scene compete with that?? Like I said, it says ALOT about the frustration of the electorate that he is - much less winning.
The question for Hillary is probably little more than symbolic now. The most she can accomplish is to destroy Obama's chances at the Presidency as she has no real basis to claim the nomination regardless of her posturing and spin. Seriously, consider for a moment what it would mean if the Democratic party chose it's nominee through autocratic methods? The entire primary system is based on choosing the nominee based on total pledged delegates won. It was never intended that the SuperDelegates would override the choice of the people. To do so would really mean that all these primaries, conventions and caucuses were meaningless and that the voters (not just Michigan and Florida) were disenfranchised.
Let's be frank, if you were a Democrat in an elected office and a Super Delegate, would you be willing to throw your support behind a nominee that was not democratically chosen? If so, you'd likely know you were playing with fire that would likely come back to burn you the next time you ran for re-election. At the same time, right now you would likely stay undeclared (which most are) because you'd know you are very likely to infuriate a significant percentage of your constituency if you declared before the dust settled on a clear 'presumptive' nominee. Again for the same reason, you can't afford to infuriate your base even a minority of it.
Of course, this is the log jam (along with missteps along the way like Michigan and Florida) that are giving Pelosi and Dean so many sleepless nights and incredulous stares into the camera.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)