Well, so much has happened since I blathered last that it would be difficult to express all the things that have wandered through my brain in the meantime. But, I can certainly attempt a sampling:
* The Democratic race got particularly ugly there for a while (no?) with someone (well, several someones) "playing the race card" rather shamelessly, and I don't think it was the black guy...Yup, I agree with the opinion of various other observers who think that Clinton et al. (esp. the ex-president) were subtly, but very intentionally, trying to remind voters that, oh, in case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. I think the Clintons made a strategic decision of sorts to go ahead and p.o. the darker-skinned citizens of South Carolina, which they were almost certainly gonna lose anyway, so that they could pigeonhole Obama, so to speak, as "the black candidate" for the rest of the country. Any doubts about whether this was really intentional should've been put to rest when Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton made the brilliant observation that Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina primaries on account (by Clinton's obvious implication) of his being black...this, after the race-baiting had already been given significant scrutiny in the run-up to the vote.
Kinda reminds me why I was just a little bit happy to see that bastard get impeached, even if it was by a gaggle of Republican hypocrites. But hey, whatever it takes to win, right?
The question, of course, is whether it will help or hurt Billary come Tuesday. It obviously hurt in SC, but alas, I tend to think it might serve its purpose to some extent in other parts of the country (i.e., all the parts where blacks don't make up 50% of the electorate, which is most of them). Of course, in an earlier post, I submitted that I was somewhat hopeful that most of America was past the point where it would let racism be an issue, and to some extent, I retain that hope. What I was forgetting, I think, is how much politics is a game of fractions and tiny perceentages -- in a very close contest, it's hardly necessary that the Clintons' slimy, racist appeals be bought by a significant minority, let alone majority, of voters. If only, say, five percent here and there are primitive enough to be swayed by such nastiness, that could be more than enough to get her the nom in the long run.
But again, I really don't know if it will have the intended effect. It could even backfire -- let's hope so. (Of course, to be precise, I am speaking about overall numbers; obviously, it *has* angered a great many individuals who might have voted for H.C. otherwise, but it may be that they will be outnumbered, overall, by those who still can't cotton to some "uppity negro" aspiring to the *White* House.)
And of course, the race issue is just one aspect of the contest overall, such that we'll never be able to disentagle it entirely from all the other perceived pros and cons that might sway people to vote for one or the other. For example, a great many women, especially older ones, seem inclined to vote for Clinton for the relatively positive (though not necessarily much less stupid) reason that she is a she. Even absent the race-baiting, that - and the many other perceived pros and cons of both candidates - might be enough to give her a victory.
Indeed, though I (like virtually *everyone* else, I assume) have done pretty poorly with the electoral prognosticating in this particulary wild primary season, I am inclined to believe that the lady Clinton enjoys a slight (but even slight can be significant) advantage going into this most critical of rounds. Because, much as one might sometimes wish that general population was more tuned in to what's happening in the world, the fact is that the vast majority barely know, as Randy Newman might put it, their asses from a hole in the ground, and while Obama may be all the rage amongst the relatively well-educated and informed (and exit polls suggest that to be the case) most people, by definitional neccesity, are relatively clueless and dim-witted. But then, even the most ignorant of voters (excluding the deaf ones) could hardly have failed to hear the name Clinton repeated ad nauseam on their boobtubes these last 15 or so years...And so, methinks that in these 20-some Super Tuesday states she could well have that same dreaded name-recognition advantage that contrubted hugely to burdening the country with another loser Bush presidency these past 7 years.
Yes, it seems that in spite of the enormous crowds he continues to attract, Clinton could well beat Obama by a bit overall come Tuesday. Again, of course, I hope I'm wrong, and certainly there are some signs that could be taken as indictating that he is closingthe gap, but if I absolutely had to put money on it, I'd expect her to have a lead come Wednesday.
That said, and as I've alluded to in the title of this post, it seems that whoever wins on Tuesday is extremely unlikely to do so by a big enough outcome to make the ultimate outcome a certainty. Whatever happens Tuesday, it seems that neither Obama or Clinton will be able to make a credible claim on the nomination 'til many weeks later, at the earliest.
* 'Course, that's on the Dem side. The 'Publicans' nominee may well be decided, more or less, within the week. Or rather, to be precise, it may well have been decided, in effect, when wacky old John McCain managed to knock Romney off yet again in Florida. Yup, in spite of the distaste, if not downright hatred, he seems to inspire in conservative blowhards like Limbaugh and, uh, what's-his-name...the religious twit who thought Spongebob promoted homosexuality -- Oh yeah, Dobson...it seems that the old bugger has managed to come out atop the extremely crowded Republican field. Not bad for a guy who many people had written off as done for back in the summer, though I have to think it has more to do with the 'Publicans identity issues and the crowded, long-unsettled field than McCain's own appeal to most Republican voters. They just couldn't quite buy Romney's latter-day conversion (haha) to basic Republican planks like being anti-gay and anti-abortion, not to mention his freaky-deaky Mormonism, and, as one of this blog's readers pointed out, I guess enough of the party establishment likewise couldn't stomach the more populist aspects of Huckabee's candidacy to swing their support behind him. And so, with votes being split several ways in every primary, guess McCain just emerged as the not particularly popular, but least un-popular choice for early 'Publican voters. And, at least by all appearances, and especially with Huckabee still in the race to siphon away some of the religious-nut votes, it don't look like Romney will have a chance to catch McCain. And indeed, since most o' the Republican contests are winner-take-all, as opposed to proportionally awarded like the Dem ones, it's quite possible that McCain will come out of Tuesday with a virtual lock on the nomination.
* And of course, while that may dismay a lot of right-wingers, McCain may well be his party's best candidate for the general election, given his appeal to people who aren't, y'know, stoopid right-wingers. Like I've said meself, for example, while I find a good deal of McCain's actions and positions to be highly hypocritical, to say nothing of flat wrong in various cases, he certainly strikes me as the least of the potential Republican evils. Indeed, if it comes down to a contest b/t him and Clintons, I can't say, at this point, that I'd vote for her, or even necessarily prefer her. Probably wouldn't vote for him either, but honestly, much as I disagree with some of his postions (he *is* still a Republican, after all, in spite of what some of his own part's critics might say), I think he has shown himself to moderate and sensible enough for the most part that I prolly wouldn't mind the fact that he's anti-abortion, for example (cos hey, Roe v. Wade ain't gonna get overturned anyway, and if it ever does, let's face it, that'd be the Republicans writing their own political death warrant until it were reinstated again)...And then there's the fact that I find Clinton herself pretty damn dislikable.
And, as to much of the preceding paragraph, I daresay a lotta voters may feel the same way. I mean, I still think that Clinton should be able to beat McCain or any other Republican in a general, but given the antipathy she inspires in so many and his own popularity with moderates and independents, I think the old guy would have a pretty decent chance of beating her.
* Now, if it were Obama against McCain on the other hand, I tend to think McCain would have a harder time. True, I the whole race issue still seems to be a bit of an unknown, but I think that Obama's relative youth and charisma would contrast too strongly with the septagenarian for him to keep up, particulary given the fact that Obama (unlike Clinton) has himself proven to be pretty popular with moderates and independents alike.
...
Oh, but who knows what will happen? As I've said before, I can see no option better than an Obama v. McCain general, and it looks like at least half of that combo may get locked in on Tuesday, but as all the craziness thus far has amply demonstrated, there's just no tellin' what'll actually end up happenin'.
Whatever it is, I reckon I'll weigh-in with my own thoughts on it sometime in the aftermath, but for now, I reckon I'm ready to just see what them crazy American voters have to say.
***
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Nah, I'd still vote for Clinton over McCain, and I wouldn't even have to think about it. On foreign policy their positions are arguably similar, but there's no question that if there is a difference, it's that McCain would take an even more mucular approach. If there's anyone left in the campaign likely to poke Iran with pointed sticks, it's McCain. And on domestic policy, Clinton is better on the merits, smarter, and more interested. McCain is uninterested and unknowledgable about economic policies, and he's more likely to appoint people with bad ideas. I'm not in love with Clinton, and her husband is a looming danger, but she is not a bad candidate, and she would probably make a passable president, at least until, as my friend Noah suggests, Bill starts undermining her.
Seems like you're having some trouble keeping up on your posting there...this is obviously a little out of date by now.
One thing I never have been quite clear on was why everyone said that Bill's comment that Obama's run for office (or whatever) was a "fairy tale" or that Clinton's supporter's hints about Obama's youthful drug use had something to do with race. Since when is "fairy tale" a coded reference to black people? And what does snorting cocaine have to do with being black? The drug insinuations were underhanded, yes, and I can believe they were a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions on Obama's character/electabilty which the Clintons probably approved (I've read Primary Colors, after all), but why is it about race? The Jesse Jackson comparison was about Obama being black, but that came later. Did I miss some other obvious race-related comment?
I agree with kgaard on McCain vs. Clinton matchup; as I said earlier, I was even leaning towards her over Obama. At the moment I' m undecided, because there are certain things I like about Obama, and also I think he would (probably) do better against McCain, if nothing else because if Clinton gets the nomination through a brokered convention (which might be her only way to get it), a lot of Obama's supporters would probably stay home in November, whereas I think more of Clinton's supporters would accept Obama. Also I'll admit I was somewhat annoyed at some of the Clinton campaign's sneak attacks, though I still don't see them as race-baiting (and I don't think Obama's campaign has been entirely guiltless of attacks that went overboard). The ideal might be to have both of them on the ticket, but many people seem to consider that unlikely.
Frankly, back when Obama first started talking about running, I hoped he'd decide to wait, and I still wish he had. A few more years in the senate would have been good for him, and he wouldn't have had to compete with Hillary. Having said that, I might still vote for him (against Clinton, that is; I'd certainly pick him over McCain), though I still want to see him revise that idiotic plan to pay for his education plan by delaying NASA's Constellation program, and I also want to hear more from him about his position on China and related issues (Taiwan, Tibet, Burma, etc.). Actually, I'd like to see more people write him on some of these things; maybe he will modify some of his positions if he gets enough mail.
Yeah, yeah, if I really think about it, I'd have to prefer Clinton over McCain based on policy differences, but I'd have to hold my nose. The most obvious difference to me is the healthcare thing - I assume that, unlike her and Obama, McCain's not interested in completely overhauling the embarrassing state of affairs in which the richest country in the world let's millions of its citizens go without any care. Even on this score, though, I gather McCain has been a proponent of buying meds from Canada and some other things that would significantly reduce the power of the pharmaceutical industry, so again, I'm certainly glad that Republicans have at least gone with him (albeit somewhat reluctantly, to be sure).
As for the second comment...well, there was the Shaheen comment prior to Iowa about Obama's admitted drug use - something to the effect of "What will those nasty Republicans say about it? Will they suggest he was a drug dealer?" (And if you don't understand why some would see the idea of linking a black candidate with drug dealing as potentially, at least, race-related, then, well, you don't know your stereotypes very well.) There was the "shuck and jive" comment from Andrew Cuomo. And, immediately after Robert Johnson's (more widely criticized) reference to the aforementioned drug use, he also made some crack about Obama being a Sidney Poitier, "Look Who's Coming to Dinner" kind of black person. I'm not sure, but I *think* that could be construed as race-related.
Now, of course, no politician can rightly be held responsible for everything his or her supporters say, but when said politician is on the same stage as the **** in question (as Clinton was with Johnson) and fails to disavow such a cheapshot...well, it's tantamount to making it oneself (except more cowardly).
And again, all of these things were much-discussed *prior* to B. Clinton's Jesse Jackson crack (which I do think, considering the source and blatantness of it, was the worst of all). So anyhow, even if the Jesse Jackson crack was the only race-baiting (which, again, I don't think it was) what's your point exactly? If that was all there was, it would still be race-baiting. I guess you're referring to my statement that it occurred prior to SC (and again, I think it did -- the above points aren't even getting into it entirely), but even the extent of it was B.C.'s quote after that loss, I'd say it puts a huge black mark (no pun intended) on the whole Billary campaign.
I don't think I heard about the "shuck and jive" comment or the Sidney Poitier reference. Perhaps with those ones do indicate more of a pattern. But frankly I have more of a problem with the implication that having experimented with drugs in your youth somehow makes you less eligible for the presidency than observing that Obama gets a lot of support from black people, which is true. I don't really think every observation that has any relationship to a candidate's race automatically qualifies as race-baiting, and I think there is a tendency in the media to blow some things out of proportion. However, I'll grant that together with some of the comments that I evidently missed, it's not improbable that the Clinton campaign was indeed deliberately making an issue of Obama's ethnic background, and that weighs against her.
On the other hand, I recently read an analysis of the effect of Obama's rhetorical appeal which conversely reminded me of one thing about Hillary that I prefer. It was mentioned that Hillary's speeches often contain detailed policy positions and plans for dealing with some issue or another. Someone even referred to her as a "technician". But I think that talking about the issues is a good thing, and Obama's relative lack of detail about what he wants to do as president is a bit annoying at times. This was brought up in this article, which mentioned that some people's response to his "Yes we can" slogan is to ask "Yes we can what?" Someone else (and it was a Democrat and I think an Obama supporter) observed that many people don't realize how liberal Obama is, and that she wasn't sure how moderates would react when it dawned on them. Of course I have no problem with him being liberal, and you could argue that one virtue of him being vague is that he is more likely to get elected by the not-so-liberal general elctorate if he avoids specifics on his plans (in fact that may be the only way a true liberal can get elected in the US). But as a matter of principle, I like to hear about the issues in some detail, and Obama's failure to talk about them makes me think he's another case of style over substance. So I still hesitate to choose him over Clinton, despite his positive qualities (liberalism, charisma, electabilty).
Post a Comment