It was assumed last night that Obama must have been fuming over Hillary Clinton’s non-concession speech. This was, the pundits noted, the one night when the national audience was watching, and she chose to withhold support.
I’m not so sure. Hillary’s speech makes it much easier for Obama to not choose her as running mate. If she had been gracious, helpful and effusive in praising the new party leader, Obama would be hardpressed to not choose her. (After all, if you count the votes in Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, and if you exclude Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming, and if you count all the votes for her in Michigan and none for him, and if you count Democrats abroad – then she may have narrowly won more popular votes than he did! )
Seriously, Obama will be under great pressure – not just from other pols but from the electoral logic, to choose her, whether he wants to or not. But her refusal to let him be the star of the show on Tuesday, combined with the veiled threats from Clinton aides earlier in the week that Obama had better choose her or else, means that if Obama were to select her now, he would look weak. Whatever benefit she might bring cannot be worth creating the impression that he’s malleable. The more she pushes, the more grudging her support, the more freedom Obama has to leave her off the ticket.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I agree with the comment that "the devil is in the details" - for instance, take a good look at Hillary Clinton's facial posturing and tone of voice as she speaks of her new allegiance to the elected democratic nominee and you'll find him. And while I agree that reverse racism does exist, it is no longer acceptable under any circumstance for any legitimate leader of the U.S. IMHO Hillary Clinton has conducted herself more like an over-indulged freshman Senator than a Presidential candidate, particulary during her speech last Tuesday evening. She and her supporters need to stop and consider a few particulars regarding her conduct during this campaign before bragging about her high qualifying points, political judgement and standards of excellence in public service. They also need to get a legitimate reality check from someone other than Bill Clinton who obviously is still trying to atone for his own past indescretions even if it's at the cost of the lives of people who want to put a new face on their hope for the future. She could have been a well-respected Vice President; but no, she just had to deliberately turn her face away from the high road and act like common "prideful" folk. As far as I am concerned, this has been a necessary revelation which God has allowed for us to learn more about the real side of our political leaders before we make the greavous mistake of pledging a loyalty vote for them in Nov of '08. Any truly God fearing soul could never justify threatening to "obliterate" another country and significant portion of life that God has created here on earth. Moreover, it is a disgraceful thing for a world leader to say on the eve of what could potentially be World War III. We have an obligation to put forth a much better figurehead to represent the will of the people in the U.S.
Ndmaster, I'd be very hesitant about projecting onto other people or pretending that you can see into their hearts. It is dangerous to try and find "the devil" in a politician - just as dangerous as treating a politician like Barack Obama as if he were the Messiah. When you project on others, you are usually talking about yourself anyway. People usually react the most to negative traits in others that they deny in themselves.
As far as "reverse racism" is concerned, I don't believe it exists. There is only racism, and all human beings are subject to it, in my opinion.
This is purely speculation, but I'm betting that the majority of voters for Obama so far fall into one of these categories:
* Voting for him because of his skin color (either because the voter is a person of color--as I am--or because the voter is a white person trying to "prove" a lack of racism).
* An irrational voter who fails to consider qualifications, etc. and is just mesmerized by the power of the speaker, or who wants "change" and isn't picky about what sort of change it happens to be. (They get what they deserve.)
Geraldine Ferraro is looking more correct all the time. Sooner or later, America will wake up and realize that Obama just isn't close to being ready to being POTUS 44. In fact, he probably never will be ready...
What has Obama done to merit your confidence? Why should the world trust Obama? The President of the United States becomes the de facto world leader, like it or not.
As much as I hate to invoke his name, Bill Clinton is right on Obama. Voting for Obama is a complete roll of the dice. He'll either be a great POTUS or (more likely) he'll prove to be far beneath the office.
If Obama cannot judge the character of Rev. Jeremiah Wright after 20 years, or his protege Rev. Otis Moss III, then what makes you think he'll be able to sit down with Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and come to any reasonable conclusion? His opinion will be about as reliable as Bush 43, who claimed to have looked in Putin's eyes, and measured the soul of the man. I defy anyone to look in that former KGB agent's glassy stare and come up with anything other than a reflection. He could be thinking about dinner, for all you know. He could be planning to have you imprisoned or worse...
History is repeating itself, but this time it's the Democrats who are electing someone on the basis of superficial characteristics.
The Professor, I think you make some good points. My impression is that Obama may actually be such a people pleaser that he won't have the strength to stand up when and if he becomes President. If he failed to stand up in 20 years in his own church, then he was either weak-willed, or he agreed with their racial separatist beliefs (which he claims not to) or he was there for reasons of pure expediency.
I suspect he is a weak-willed people-pleaser, who would become our ineffectual "moralist-in-chief."
People are afraid of change and it shows. Obama supporters do not call him the messiah. Only his opposers. Those who say he's getting votes for his skin color are showing their own racist sentiments. He is not a people pleaser, he is trying to do what is right and not be offensive in order to show love to his opposition. However, because Obama will not attack back and defend himself against bogus and inflammatory claims we call him weak. I think that he is stronger than us weaklings who want to see the candidates in a good fight and show their toughness. Finally a candidate tries to run on hope and love and faith and we treat him like all others who want to do good. We break them. We want to make him just like us because he can't be that good if we're not? Right.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.