Gail Collins wrote a very good op-ed piece in the NYT (link below). It smartly lays out why Obama should be elected President. After reading the article, I posted the following comment:"Thank you for this sensible article. Obama supporters need to remember that he is not trying to lead a movement. Furthermore, lest we forget, he is a politician - a darned good one.Being a politician is neither good nor bad. It is what both Obama and McCain are. We Americans need to decide which of them will make the better President. Gail Collins’ excellently summarizes why I cast my lot with Obama.PS - I did not think that Obama flipped on financing. He never promised to unilaterally accept public financing. He can be faulted for not vigorously pursuing a deal with McCain."Here are some additional thoughts:This election is not about one issue. We are at war. Gas prices are at an all time high. Forty seven million Americans do not have health care insurance. Our economy is unhealthy.Americans need to think and vote with our heads and not solely with our hearts.Future Newsflash: If Obama becomes President, none of his big programs will get passed intact. Compromise is inevitable. This is part of what “reaching across the aisle” entails. Turning red states and blue states in the United States will be impossible if politicians reflexively hold the party line. Progress and greatness of the kind that Obama described will only be achieved through give and take. (Remember that none of Bill Clinton’s health care plan survived because he refused to compromise.)
Gail Collins op ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html
Many Obama supporters (inclusive) were outraged at Senator Clinton’s speech last night. Why didn’t she concede? If there was an ideal moment at which she could have endorsed/blessed Obama, last night was it.
After some sleep, though, and listening to some of the TV pundits, feelings of empathy (fueled personal euphoria and martinis), I am toying with another idea. What if Senator Clinton is taking extra time exactly because she is honoring her promise to enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee?
Think about it. Look at the reactions she was getting from the supporters while she was delivering her speech last night. What if she had unequivocally thrown her support to Obama? Perhaps, her devoted following would have turned on her. They may have thought, “How could she so easily change her allegiance to Obama? Didn’t she believe in her own cause? If she flips so easily, then maybe the Democratic Party isn’t for me.” It may be that what Senator Clinton is going through personally is what her followers are feeling as well – the Stages of Grief (for those of you who are unfamiliar with them, here they are (courtesy of Wikipedia):
1) Denial: "I feel fine. This can't be happening." <BR>2) Anger: "Why me? It's not fair! NO! NO! How can you accept this!" <BR>3) Bargaining: "I'll do anything, can't you stretch it out? A few more years." <BR>4) Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything? What's the point?" <BR>5) Acceptance: "It's going to be OK. I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
If last night she had gone to Step Five (out of expediency, or from listening to traditional pundits), she may have denied herself and her supporters the opportunity to sort things out. If the responses of pro-Hillary commenters at the NYT Caucus are a guide to the hearts and minds of her supporters, they are largely at Step Two. Senator Clinton may intellectually be at Step Five, but may emotionally be at Three or Four.
In taking the time to lead herself through the stages of grief, Clinton may also comprehend that, in order to place a Democrat in the White House, she needs to guide her constituency through the stages as well. She may have realized that doing the politically expedient/knee jerk reaction response (i.e., immediately throwing her response to Obama) would have been Democratic suicide for the fall.
Is she a political genius? Certainly, the fact that she lost the nomination is prime facie evidence that her acumen is not Einsteinian. On the other hand, if, by taking a few extra days (by Friday, if press reports are true), she is able to deliver her 18 million supporters to Obama, then she is one smart politico and psychologist.
Well, the RBC has spoken. To their credit, made a decision regarding both states and didn’t wimp out and defer decisions until the Democratic convention. Ickes and Flournoy released their pro-Clinton statement proclaiming victory in FL and reserving the right to challenge the MI decision. Did their statement serve as the official reaction of the Clinton campaign?
The true test will come in the next two days. What will Wolfson’s/the Clintons’ response be? Will Clinton concede after Tuesday’s results? Will she continue the fight to Minnesota?
Here are my thoughts. If she continues her fight for the nomination past June 6, she is essentially giving up any future political aspirations she may have. If she gives up her fight by this coming Friday and “plays nice” between now and the convention, Obama will offer her the VP slot.
Tomorrow is the DNC Rules Committee meeting. How Obama and Clinton handle the aftermath will be a true test of each one’s commitment to Party unity. (It is interesting to note that the Obama camp is discouraging demonstrations but Clinton’s is not.)
Neither campaign will totally get its way. FL and MI delegations will not get seated in their entirety, but they will be counted somehow.
If both camps accept the decision of the Committee, then the road to a party united behind a single nominee will be easier to forge. Hopefully, yesterday’s report from MSNBC (that a mutually acceptable compromise is in the works) is true.
If, however, one campaign disputes the ruling and rallies its constituency using inflammatory rhetoric, then rifts between the supporters of both candidates can only grow. What came out of the Clinton camp today is not encouraging (and contradicts the aforementioned MSNBC report). The ad put out by Count the Votes Cast (a pro-Clinton 527) also roils the Democratic waters.
Unity or not? The candidates better choose wisely.
What a difference vacation makes. Since Sunday, I've been at the Outer Banks of NC, doing a lot of sleeping, reading, and (way too much) eating. Renting a house at the shore is a tradition some friends, my wife, and I have maintained for over a decade.
Speaking of tradition, I have watched Senator Obama's campaign over the last two weeks and have been struck by the traditional approach it has taken since he has pivoted towards the general election.
I eagerly anticipated the response Obama would give in South Dakota to the comments made in Israel by Bush (and the subsequent coordinated add-on commentary by McCain). I envisioned another Philadelphia-like speech on his foreign policy. His actual reply was quite ordinary - a typical political response with requisite counter attacks against McCain. (The rest of his SD speech, followed by a discussion with two citizens of the state was awkward and uninspiring).
The Edwards endorsement was stirring and wonderful. However, why didn’t Obama follow the momentum of the moment with an Obama/Edwards tour of Kentucky? More generally, why did Obama spend so little time in KY and WV? Shouldn’t he have taken the time to connect with blue collar folks in both states, regardless of whether or not he stood a chance of winning their primaries? Instead, the Obama campaign resorted to traditional political strategies of neglecting states in which he was losing and focusing on those in which he was winning.
Finally, his speech in Iowa was good, but not up to the tear-inducing, inspirational levels of those he delivered previously. The rhetoric didn’t soar high enough to mitigate the lines caricaturing McCain as four more years of Bush. (This makes me cringe almost as much as when McCain typecasts Obama as inexperienced, naïve, or too liberal.)
It is difficult to break from tradition. Senator Obama’s run for the Presidency is in and of itself a departure from the past. Much of what he has done during the primary season is refreshingly different and groundbreaking. I hope that as his campaign retools for his (very likely) run for the Presidency that it maintains its (mostly) high road and doesn’t devolve into politics as usual.
And yes, I still strongly support Senator Obama.
My childhood memories are rushing back. I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas. I see the presents under the tree. I size them up and shake them in restless anticipation of what awaits. I’m pretty sure that I will get what I asked Santa for (I want the Lego set!), but I can’t be certain until December 25. Maybe I can stop being nice. On the other hand, if I misbehave now, I may not get the present that I have seen and held in my hands.
What a strange period this is in the Democratic process. Many believe that Obama will be the Party’s candidate, yet his nomination is not finalized. Senator Clinton presses on, despite diminishing chances. Certainly, many Obama supporters want to respond to Clinton’s recent statements forcefully, yet are reluctant because they fear losing the “present” that is so tantalizingly close. (Isn’t it so much easier to be naughty than nice?)
Will Christmas come on May 20, as many hope? Will Obama supporters have to wait until June 3 to tear open the gift wrapping? What shall we do until Christmas arrives? Here are two things that I (and others) have done:
- Tone down the rhetoric. As many have alluded to, the Democratic unification process must begin now. We should take our cues from Senator Obama and avoid the lure of intra-party divisiveness and negativity and focus on.
- Take a political “vacation.” Since the NC/IN primaries, I cut back on the political TV shows and am less vigilant in checking up on the NYT Caucus, HuffPo, TPM, and other websites. I actually spent the today politics-free until the evening news. What a refreshing feeling. I may go to the gym tomorrow morning instead of watching Morning Joe. Besides, this is an optimal time to take a break - the general election is coming up.
Ho, ho, ho…
I hope that fellow Obamacans resist the urge to crow. In listening to callers on this morning’s c-span show Washington Journal, it is clear that there is fence mending and reconciliation that needs to happen between both candidates’ factions. I know that if Clinton were to win the nomination, I would need some counseling from her supporters to convince me to vote for her in November.
This cannot be an easy time for Senator Clinton. She was the Anointed One over a year ago. It must be difficult to realize that the path to the Democratic nomination was not the mere formality that she (and her supporters) anticipated.
I hope supporters of Clinton openly and frankly comment on why they would hesitate to vote for Obama in the fall. Conversely, I hope that we Obamacans will reply to their concerns sensitively and thoughtfully.
I’m working on my second celebratory martini (is drinking martinis elitist?). MSNBC is talking positively about Senator Obama. Heck, even Joe Scarborough was bullish on Obama! And yes, Obama’s speech in NC brought tears to my eyes.
There seems to be inevitability to Obama’s nomination that needs to play itself out. The question is, how should we conduct ourselves? At the very least, we need to emulate Obama in his demeanor and character.
- Reflect Obama’s empathy. We can’t gloat over tonight’s results. We must respect the fact that Clinton has been formidable. We need to concede that she has forced Obama to become a stronger candidate. It can’t be easy for Clinton to face the fact that a nomination that was conceded to her a year ago has slipped away.
- Live Obama’s belief. If we truly agree with Obama’s message, we all need to be uniters. I have seen comments at other sites in which Clintonites have said that Obamacan rhetoric alone will cause them to vote for McCain in the November.
- Focus on the big picture. We cannot afford to antagonize Clinton supporters because we need them if Obama becomes the nominee. We must address their concerns in a respectable way that allays their concerns about Obama. If we fail to do this, then we will win the battle but lose the war.
I end with a childhood church memory. One of the hymns that sticks in my head is “They Will Know We Are Christians by Our Love.” Its lyrics always conveyed to me that it is our actions that reflect who we are and not how we identify ourselves.
Similarly, if we are true Obamacans, we must reflect our candidate’s philosophy not just by our vote, but by how we conduct ourselves.in our actions and conversations.
It has been a while since I have posted here. On nervous days like today, it feels good to be amongst allies.
One reason for the time between posts is that here, I feel like I am preaching to the choir. I have, therefore, spent time commenting at the Caucus site on the New York Times website. There is nothing better than reading and responding to opposing viewpoints to validate your opinions and to test the veracity of your beliefs.
Certainly, there is one NYT writer who has periodically rubbed Obamacans the wrong way – David Brooks. I know that a few weeks ago, many at this site were tearing into him because of one of his articles was especially critical of the Senator. Whether or not I agree with Brooks, I have almost always respected his opinion. The Shields and Brooks commentary on the McNeil newscast on PBS is a favorite of mine because the discussion is civil.
If you haven’t read today’s David Brooks article, click on the link below. It is a really good piece that compares Clinton’s and Obama’s demeanors and sums up I support Barack.
David Brooks Op Edhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06brooks.html?ref=opinion
The Bill Moyers interview with Jeremiah Wright was excellent. The Reverend’s controversial comments were shown in their context through extended clips. Furthermore, in listening to Wright speak with Moyers, one can’t help but conclude that the Reverend is thoughtful, intelligent, and had reasons for saying what he said. Contrast that with the image one conjures up from the uncontextualized film snippets of him with which we have, sadly, become all too familiar. Wright may be critical of America, but he doesn’t hate it.
Wright talked about the miseducation of Americans - of our difficulty in facing our country’s past misdeeds and how important it is to know our great history, warts and all. The mindset of miseducation is appropriate when thinking about the pundits who discussed the interview. After watching Moyers, I flipped to The O’Reilly Factor and listen to him and Newt Gingrich discuss the hour-long interview. I disagreed with their critiques and broad brush generalizations of Moyers (“far left”) and Wright (too many caricatures to enumerate). As usual, they opined unwaveringly, assured in their convictions.
What astounded me is that both O’Reilly and Gingrich acknowledged that they had yet to view the show! Shouldn’t they have watched the entire interview before trashing it? In fairness, Newt and Bill were not alone. The punditocracy at Morning Joe, et. al., also pre-judged. More should be expected from the members of the Fourth Estate because so many of us rely to them to form our opinions.
I conclude this post with a question to anyone reading this, but particularly to any Clinton supporters visiting the site. Senator Clinton said in a recent speech that voters should judge a candidate not by what they say, but on what they’ve done.
Can anyone name anything that Senator Obama has said or done that would indicate that he “bought into” Reverend Wright’s “hateful speech?”
I didn’t really expect that Barack Obama would win PA, but I thought that it would be closer. Unfortunately, with Senator Clinton staying in the race, it is inevitable that she will find yet more creative ways to salt the Earth.
Obama should avoid negativity (I think he succumbed a little in PA). However, he needs to be prepared as Clinton continues her “Sherman’s March” through the primaries. He needs to say more than just, “She represents the old politics,” and other generalities. He needs to turn her arguments and standards against her with specifics. Some quick examples (which Obama should rephrase into questions):
- If Clinton brings up the “bitterness,” etc., then he should restate that his word choice was poor and then point out that she is doing exactly what he said traditional politicians do (i.e., setting aside the real concerns of small towns by using guns and religion as wedge issues)
- At the Compassion Forum, Clinton said that “politics is not a game,” yet she continues to press on with broad brush stroke characterizations (he is elitist), fear mongering (commercial the last night of PA) other negativity. How can this not be seen as playing political games?
- In Clinton's world, any association with Louis Farrakhan is bad. Governor Rendell made a speech speaking positively of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Will Clinton ask the Governor to denounce and repudiate Farrakhan, and will she now disassociate herself from Governor Rendell? If she doesn’t she is breaking her own standard
- Clinton condemned Obama's decision to stay with the church and stand by Rev. Wright. Yet she made the decision to overlook President Clinton's infidelities and stand by him. It seems like both condemned their offenders' actions, but decided that the overall benefits of the relationship outweighed the few bad spots and that higher values (marriage, religion) superseded a quick solution (divorce, total condemnation and disassociation).
I think you get the idea (and I’m sure that you have your own examples). Any time Clinton unleashes some sort of a negative attack, he should discern the values implicit in the statement and find an example of how she is really attacking herself. Then, he should ask her to explain the contradiction. In this way, Obama manages to “attack” Clinton without being negative.
What do you think?
(I have some more thoughts, but it is late here and I’m feeling a little bummed, so I’m losing clarity of thought).
My sister and brother-in-law (who live in Pittsburgh) watched Wednesday’s debate and were outraged. “He should have dug back at her,” they said. Had he “dug back at her,” one would have heard an audible roar of approval generated by the millions of Obama fans watching the debate, not unlike the roar in a movie theater when the hero gives the villains their well deserved punishment. But he didn’t because he isn’t a wimp.
Some in the MSM wondered about his lack of fighting spirit. In one piece I saw, the reporter noted that Senator Obama could have easily twisted the knife when Senator Clinton explained Tuzla-gate. But he wouldn’t because he isn’t a wimp.
The Clintons are questioning Obama’s toughness. This is nothing. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Stop whining. But he isn’t because he isn’t a wimp.
Senator Obama is trying to define a new type of politics and be a different kind of politician. Stating this is pointing out the obvious. What is tougher to do is to live within the new paradigm: Apologize for mistakes. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Empathize with rivals’ missteps. Speak to voters like they are adults. Do not create political distractions. Unify by finding common ground. Ironically, adhering to this approach requires a great deal of strength. What is easier: hitting someone who hit you, or turning the other cheek?
Senator Clinton is the “wimp” for exclusively practicing the old politics of whining, wedge issues, pandering, and personal attack. Remember her comments when the Reverend Wright brouhaha exploded (which she repeated during the debate)? Senator Obama has shown strength by largely resisting the aforementioned temptations. Remember his deference when Tuzla-gate came to light (and the empathy he demonstrated during the debate)? How tough is this different approach to follow? Clearly, nobody is perfect. Particularly in recent days, Senator Obama has shown that he too can stray from his own ideals. Fortunately, he seems to have recovered, as witnessed by the speeches he made during this weekend’s train tour through Pennsylvania.
David Brooks wrote a NYT piece entitled “How Obama Fell to Earth,” in which he states that the once transcendent Senator Obama has, in the last few months, been found to be a “more conventional politician.” One sentence stayed in my mind: “It was inevitable that the period of ‘Yes We Can!’ deification would come to an end.” Brooks is right. Woe unto any of us who believes that the Senator walks on water. But Brooks is wrong about Obama being conventional. We should, rather, think of him as an extraordinary politician who has and will (as he has stated himself) be imperfect.
But he isn’t a wimp.
This post is especially for aficiaonados of bicycle racing.
Do you ever think that you can't get this election out of your head. like a song that stays in your mind, despite your best attempts to forget it, if only for a moment? Help!
Here I am, watching the 2008 edition of the Paris-Roubaix race on Versus, and it suddenly hit me - this Democratic primary season is like the 1986 Tour de France contest between Greg LeMond and Bernard Hinault.
In 1986, Greg LeMond (Barack) and Bernard Hinault (Hillary) raced for the same team, La Vie Claire (Democratic Party). For those of you reading this who are not familiar with bicycle racing, riders should subsume their personal ambitions to the goals of the team. Greg (Barack) was the young phenomenon. Bernard (Hillary) was the great 5-time champion representing the Old Establishment. Bernard was formidable, but in the twilight of his career. Greg was the ascendant star, the fish out of water in the traditional world of European cycling.
Despite the fact that Greg was the stronger of the two (and the designated leader of the team), Bernard let his ego get the better of him, and he took the overall lead in the middle of the race. Traditional cyclists went crazy!
Needless to say, the Bernard/Greg rivalry split the team. Europeans on La Vie Claire stuck by Bernard, while North Americans stood by Greg. Despite outward signs of reconciliation (Greg conceding the victory of Bernard on the L'Alpe du Huez stage), there was clearly turmoil within the team.
To make a long story short, Greg (Barack) eventually won the Tour de France. (I hope the analogy holds here!). Bernard, after losing, claimed that he was only testing Greg to see if he was worthy of winning the Tour (the ultimate statement of hypocrisy - Bernard would have given his left nut to win a 6th Tour).
Here's to Barack winning the Tour! Pardon me, while I return to reality and watch the end of this year's Paris-Roubaix.
Stay tuned for a more thoughtful post.
I have to say that I've been feeling a little glum since the whole San Francisco thing hit Friday. It wasn't that my support for you wavered, but I felt that you had been thrown for quite a loop by the strength of the response from MSM and the Clinton camp. You seemed to have lost your message at a critical time.
Your performance at Wednesday's debate did not hearten me either (sorry, but I've got to be honest). You seemed tired and your responses were not crisp. The most heartening thing about the debate is that you didn't attack Senator Clinton over Tuzla-gate. I thought that it was a sign of strength that you did not stoop to ad hominem attacks.
Today, I listened to excerpts from rallies you gave. I just finished listeneing (via cspan) to your stump speech in Harrisburg.
Thank you for rediscovering your voice. I missed your vision and your message for change. You once again demonstrated your vision and intelligence while cleverly incorporating your recent vicissitudes into your speech.
When I listen to you at your best, you make me cry (a good cry!). You make me think of the possibilities of your presidency.
Thank you for making me cry tonight.
Here are the things I agree with after watching the debate, surfing the Internet, and watching the punditocracy:
- ABC was more critical of Obama than Clinton (and yes, George S should have recused himself from tonight’s debate). They should have either been more substantive or been equally “trashy” to both candidates.
- Senator Obama did a good job and could have done an even better job.
The debate was a snoozer (sorry, fellow Obamacans; I’m trying to call it as I see it.). Both candidates gave the impression of weariness. The debate lacked the spark of previous ones.
I declare the debate a draw. The question is: what does the Obama camp do next? Certainly, they may have to respond to and flesh out some of his responses. Again, my two cents:
- Use analogies with which people can easily identify. For example, regarding the flag pin: “I think we all agree that if the President of Iran put a US flag pin on his lapel that he would not suddenly be patriotic. That isn’t to say that you shouldn’t be able to express love of country with a lapel pin. However, patriotism is something not just worn, it is felt.”
- Turn to Clinton. Senator Obama was smart to use the “baking cookies” example of how words can get blown out of proportion. He should do more of this. For example: “People have their religion and other traditions at all times. But Senator Clinton herself admitted on Sunday that she turned to religion during personally trying moments. That’s all I meant to say by my poorly worded statements.”
- Stay on message. I think that Senator Obama has been off of his game for the last few days. Move past bitter-gate. Return to hope (his final answer of the debate was very good).
If Senator Obama does not get the nomination, I’m not sure how I’ll vote in the fall…
Here are some questions that I hope will be asked to Senator Clinton during the Wednesday debate on ABC. Feel free to comment and add your own (and try not to sound bitter…). Senator Clinton:
1) Senator Obama has raised an incredible amount of money from over 1.3 million donors nationwide. How do you reconcile this with your statement that he is “out of touch” with Americans?
2) You have branded Senator Obama as “elitist,” implying you are not or are less so. Setting aside rhetorical evidence, compare and contrast your policies, records, careers, etc., and tell us how Senator Obama is an elitist, and/or how you are less so.
3) You said that Senator Obama’s statements in San Francisco were patronizing and that people don’t want a President that looks down on them. You have pressed the issue in speeches and ads, despite Senator Obama’s clarifications of his earlier statements. Some might say that it is condescending to simplify a candidate’s positions or statements, as if you believed that people are incapable of understanding subtlety and nuance. Please comment.
4) On Sunday, you said, “…when I say politics is not a game, it is really coming from deep within me because I know that we have the opportunity to really give other people a chance to live up to their own God-given potential. And that…is the kind of grace note that makes politics worthwhile.” Yet, despite Senator Obama’s apology about poor word use, you continue to press on with broad brush stroke characterizations. Some would see this as you playing political games. Please explain.
5) At Sunday’s compassion forum, the following was asked: “…you have written of how faith sustained you in bitter times. Many of us have been sustained by our faith in bitter times. What exactly is wrong with what Senator Obama had to say?” Your response was that you were going to let Senator Obama speak for himself. On the other hand, you have spoken for him through your accusations. Please take another crack at the question that was asked. Wasn’t your turn to religion during your tough times a confirmation of the truth of his (self-admittedly) poorly worded statement?
I spent most of the day today doing my tax returns. Working through multiple forms and cursing at every error made me think about Mike Huckabee. He wants to get rid of the income tax and shut down the IRS. Are you sure we’re backing the right candidate? :) I’m kidding, of course. Barack Obama is The Man.
However, as I got more involved in the task at hand (“multiply this number by that number, but only if the amount on form A is less that another number on form B...”), my overall stress reduced. How strange, I thought. Doing taxes as a way to relax? Can tax spas be far behind?
Then it suddenly hit me. I spent most of the day removed from the soap opera that is the Democratic primary. Initially, I missed following the political episodes. But as the day progressed, I was able to put bitterness, elitism and condescension behind me (at least temporarily).
I was glad to take a one-day getaway vacation from the political fishbowl. I believe that the campaigns of both candidates would benefit from a respite. Both Senators seem a little frayed at the edges. For goodness sakes, Hillary is even drinking in public!
I highly recommend taking a break from the 24/7, claustrophobic, blogospheric, cable TV driven world of politics. But don’t stay away too long. After all, the candidates debate on Wednesday…
I figured I needed an eye catching title...
Overall, I Senator Clinton was fine. I think that she was a little uncomfortable in the beginning and rambled, but she seemed to relax and find her voice after the commercial break. She showed humor and she connected with the people in the audience. Her last answer was quite good.
If all I knew about Senator Clinton was the last 30 minutes of her interview, I would have no problem a) advocating that she be the Vice-presidential candidate or b) supporting her should Senator Obama lose the nomination. As it is, I will have to think about whom I will vote for should Senator Clinton get the Democratic nod.
Why? Because of the first 10 minutes of the interview. Because it is difficult to match her words about her beliefs and her faith with the her actions during the campaign.
How could she talk about the seriousness of politics, of how it isn't a game, yet caricature Senator Obama as elitist? How does her faith guide her when she attacks Senator Obama with sketchy accusations? When given the choice between compassion or attack, she invariably picks the latter. How can she talk about humility, yet be utterly incapable of apologizing/accounting for her mistakes?
I think that even the most starlwart Obamacan will admit that Senator Clinton has the intelligence and the competency to be President. It is her failure to walk her talk that is her downfall.
It looks like the storm over "bitterness" has abated. I'm a little less stressed out and I can smile a little. I hope you're feeling the same way.
Have you heard a campaign snippet that cracked you up? For me, it came when Senator Clinton described herself as Paulette Revere. She inspired me to spoof Longfellow's poem. I posted this at another site a week or so ago and I post it here to (hopefully) bring a smile to your face. Let me know what you think!
“The Ride of Paulette Revere”
Listen, you voters, so you can hearOf the notorious ride of Paulette RevereThis poem, in April ’08, I writeTo be posted on an internet siteSo we remember this election year.
She said to a friend, “I’ve had this impressionThat our country is heading for a recession.I must warn the voters. I must stop Obama-mania.I must slow his momentum. It must end in Pennsylvania.”
She rode through the country persuading and cajoling,Talking of NAFTA and jobs and avoiding bowling.She tried a new tactic, an April Fool’s jokeThat many found humorless; had she misspoke?
With her poll numbers falling, she asked, ”What is wrong?I’m still trying hard; I once was so strong.My oration was tough. Is my voice now too delicate?Does anyone listen? I need superdelegates!”
Her team got together for a campaign Group ThinkAnd came up with a plan they named Kitchen Sink“We’ll take no prisoners! We’ll raise a big fuss!We’ll bury our foes! …Richardson’s under the bus!
“After all, if we lose, nothing we did will have mattered.We really don’t care if our Party is shattered.Let the skies open up and let heaven fallIf I cannot answer my 3 AM call!”
We don’t know the rest; it is up in the airDoes Paulette triumph or fall into despair?But one thing is certain: Paulette will take stockOf the time she went toe to toe with Barack.
Today is the first day that I have been to the Obama blog site and I must say that I am very excited and energized. I can’t believe that I am already posting my third blog entry! However, looking at the various blogs and comments compels me to write this post.
Was Senator Obama right to apologize for his “bitterness” comments? Most of what I read argues “no.” I stand with those who say “yes.” Don’t get mad now. (At least wait until you read all of this before you get angry…)
Apology is not weakness. Apology is strength.
Apology is part of a larger subset of concession. Saying that the opposition is right disarms them. Do you remember the “condemn vs. repudiate Farrakhan” moment of the CA debate? Senator Clinton was spoiling for a fight. Then Senator Obama said that he will condemn and repudiate the minister. The result? Battle over. By conceding her point, Senator Obama won the war and took away something that Clinton could exploit.
Sincere apology does the same thing. Think about the last few times you complained to a customer service representative. How did you react when the rep expressed sincere apology? How did you react when the rep offered no apology and gave you an excuse?
One issue with Senator Clinton is that she is both incapable of apology and offers excuses. Ask yourself: would Tuzla-gate been as bad had Senator Clinton simply said, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.”? Who caught more flack about the Iraq resolution vote – John Edwards (who regretted his vote) or Senator Clinton (whose twisted rationalizations were painful to watch)?
Senator Obama conceded the minor point (poor choice of words) to carry the major decision (people are bitter and angry). If Senator Obama tried to “win everything,” he would risk getting swamped in the minutiae of words. True, Senator Clinton may try to exploit his initial choice of words. However, since he agrees with her on poor word choice, that weapon is taken away from her.
I have more to say, but I will reserve it for any comments you may have. It may take a few hours for me to get back to you, but I need some sleep! Sorry...)
