There’s an interesting discussion going on downstairs (comments in the last post). Cutting to the heart of it, the issue is Obama vs. Clinton and the relative merits of each choice. Experience or perceived lack thereof. Female or male. Clinton or unrelated to same. That kind of thing.
Commenter dk-nyc says:
…Legislating in Washington is a job, and like any other job, experience should be considered a good thing. Would you hire a "fresh new voice" for your lawyer, or a likeable face for your dentist? And if things are a mess in Washington, maybe, just maybe, it's because we the people insist on new faces, stars, and likeableness….And when these folks get to Washington, or into state houses, they discover, like our WH inhabitant, that, gosh, "it's hard work"....And p.s. That eight term incumbent (b-note: who just got voted out) would've been just dandy by me. Look what LBJ was able to accomplish, versus, say, JFK. Or Carter.
LeftyMN answered the experience meme this way:
We just had 8 years of disaster with a President who brought in a fabled group with experience. If experience is the be all and end all to get my vote, good luck.
No kidding!! And re: questionable choices, let's not be forgetting what happened when the Dems, in their infinite wisdom, ran the consummate experienced insider, Walter Mondale, against Ronnie “Jellybean” Reagan. Mondale was coupled with Geraldine Ferraro, which was the first and, until now, only attempt to launch a woman through the political ceiling. They were crushed.
Let's not be forgetting the brilliant party pick of Michael Dukakis to take on George H.W. Bush. Bush was subsequently dethroned by a then-charismatic relative outsider named William Jefferson Clinton.
America is looking for a way out of the BushCo quagmire. The sense that we all need sheep-dip to disinfect ourselves seems to be accompanied by the following memes:
- "Young is better than old"
- "Personable is better than starched and scripted."
- "Relative newcomer is better than party hack."
I'm not saying I agree with all of that. But it’s what's in play here. American progressives are increasingly on the "no more same old, same old" bandwagon.
I think HC's candidacy is fraught with huge problems of perception, along with perceptions of reality. The name "Clinton" generates spine shivers, fairly or not. Her presence on the ballot may very well launch the Ventura Phenomenon nationally, i.e., people voting for the egomaniacal Nader or Bloomberg as a symbol of their fed-upness. I don't see that happening with Obama.
Yes, Obama has to show us his strategery for America. Soon. Yes, he must speak in depth about issues. He's not stupid. He’ll do that. Meanwhile, we snipe and snarl amongst ourselves while St. John attempts to herd Republicats into his fold. (Okay, it’s a weird metaphor. Deal with it.)
Remember the old Johnny Carson show, "Who(m) Do You Trust?"? Here is my variation on that theme:
- I do not trust Republicans.
- I do not trust the Democratic party, nationally or locally.
- I do not trust the dinosaur hacks.
- I do not trust super delegates. That peculiar designation is a testament to hack determination to control the endorsement process and ride roughshod over lesser beings, i.e., the rest of us.
Hmmm. Apparently I have a trust problem. Seven years of BushCo and a full year of Congressional belly-flopping does that to one.
Commenter John said this after previous post:
What we are really saying out here is, “Do your job or you will be irrelevant soon….(if) you are not a solution, you are the problem.
Americans are trying to figure out a pre-emptive approach to the solution/problem thing. How to keep apparent solutions from becoming part and parcel of the problems. We’re trying to figure out who can get elected in November and who can and will do the job once that happens.
barbara says: "Obama."