A white Obama might be as intelligent and as eloquent as the real BHO is, but he'd be deprived of Obama's greatest advantage: his being black trumps her being female. If Obama were white, don't you think the Clinton campaign would have talked even more than it has about the need to "smash" the "highest, toughest glass ceiling of them all?" As a young, white first-term Senator there'd have been a sense that his candidacy was unduly presumptious (a consideration that did some damage John Edwards in 2004) - what, after all, would be the rush? Better, in those circumstances, to make history by nominating and then electing the woman. (We might also note that, besides being a buffoon, Bill Richardson's status as a potential "first Latino" president never gained any traction since it was crowded out by the history-making potential of the Clinton and Obama candidacies).
Obama's candidacy also destroyed much of Clinton's attractiveness. Yes, selecting a woman would be a historic moment. But selecting a black politician would be even more significant. The idea of a symbolic reconciliation or of some imagined historical make-up call acknowledging America's original sin even as it sought to move, at long last, beyond it etc etc... all that makes choosing a woman pretty small beer. For the Clinton's it must have been as though they went all-in pre-flop holding a pair of Kings only to find a call from the last player to speak who, shockingly, happened to be holding Aces. (Of course, the analogy breaks down a little in as much as Hillary was still the front-runner. But in the Sex vs Colour stakes, she trails.)
I think Obama seems very very competent. But I also agree that he would also be seen as presumptious if he was white and was running for president as a first term senator. It is not his last chance but a long shot. It is Hillaries.
8 comments:
hey, I agree completely!
If he wern't black he wouldn't have much chance. but I think there's probably dosens of candidates I'd like better to be president.
1). I don't like her. I don't like her weird fake smile.
2). She's a real technocrat and paternalist, she wants to dictate people's choices cos she knows best, it's condescending. Obama gives off much less of that vibe.
3). Obama has surrounded himself with highly competent experts. clinton has surrounded herself with people to reinforce her populist appeal.
4). there is little difference between them on policy, but where there is I prefer Obama.
5). she has much more of a history of weasly lying.
6). she's been more unfair in the campaign.
7). her "experience" comprises one colosal failure.
There is more, but this should be enough for now.
so I deny that I'm choosing race over sex by the way.
of course, I want the old white dude to win.
You normally choose sex
ummm...
so. no response?
1) is a stupid reason, politicians like models have to have fake smiles... else remember your and Tracy's comments about the non-smiling Springboks...
2) I think the system doesn't support non political experts... see the number of gaffes made. It is a fine line to walk between appearing competent and condescending... I think women have a far harder job than men here. If she is too soft, she is criticised, if she is too hard, she is criticised. I think men have it easier in this space.
3) I like this about Obama, but in a political world, it is bound to backfire more often. This does put him in my good books though.
4) Like?
5) She has a longer history of everything... give him time and he will come up with a few. Not concerned by the NAFTA thing?
6) She was on the back foot with more to lose... he is a first time senator who was the underdog, no one expected him to be in the position he is. Add 20 years to him, and similar circumstance to her and I am not convinced he would act differently.
7) Which was?
1). Whatever. I felt the same way about mitt romney. It's also an X-factor fed by a million blog posts and sound bites that reflect on her character.
2). I disagree, being a paternalist (maternalist?) is often a way of actually seeming soft. Whatever, if a man said the same things about these issues I would dislike him for it, I guarantee it.
3). ummm... ok...
4). Immigration, health care, drug war, paternalism.
5). She is as bad on NAFTA!! I don't expect miracles from Obama, but why chose someone with a proven track record? we need standards.
6). It still counts against her. As the front runner for most of the time she should have done better.
7). Hilary Care. it was a disaster and its what she means when she talks about her experience (apart from everything good about bill's presidency).
Check this out. I can send a lot more your way
http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
My two cents...
I just can't avoid the feeling, with both Clintons, that they do not have an honest bone in their bodies (shit, that's two stupid cliches in two sentences). Every single thing they say or do is directed towards winning power/staying in power/looking good/beating the opponent etc. They really do seem to be completely amoral.
Just one example: the Lewinsky affair. It was so painfully obvious from the very beginning that the actual truth of what happened was COMPLETELY irrelevant to anything Bill Clinton said about it, and that he was going to LIE about it precisely up to the point when it was no longer possible to lie about it.
I admit the reason I want her in office is two fold.
1) Because she is a woman.
2) Because Obama is a first term senator in a country where first term senators don't become president.
I LIKE Obama MUCH MUCH more. I will be glad if he is president.
I am very cynical about US presidents and politics. I think they all lie. I think they all pander to pressure groups.
Anyway...
Obama is going to be the democratic nomination unless something crazy happens, so it is fairly academic.
The question is... will he beat McCain?
Post a Comment