Friday, January 11, 2008

White vs. Night

well, kiddies. isn't this going to be a fun democratic campaign for the presidential nomination? you have two fronrunners: barack obama and hillary clinton.
one is a black man with a light history of political experience. the other is a white woman with a light history of political experience (not counting her time as fist lady), but who is heir to a two-term political "dynasty".
the others (well, john edwards) can only hope to be a burr in the side of whomever needs his votes added to theirs in order to catch whoever's in front of them or to distance themselves from whomever's breathing down their necks.
and the battle has already been couched in words: change vs. experience.
do we stick with the tried and untrue (clinton) or opt for the unknown and unknowable (obama)?
or is it really that complicated? i, for one, think that the issue at hand for most democratic voters is a much simpler one. one that reflects not the voter's need to understand the inner workings of a health care plan that couldn't pass muster within the hallowed confines of a congress working for the insurance companies and that clinton intends to resurrect (having learned her lesson in the 90's).
nor do i think that the issue is about which candidate will bring the troops home from iraq by the earliest possible date.
nor do i believe that abortion, homosexual rights, immigration legislation, the leaning of the supreme court or federal prosecuters or free trade or universal health care (slightly different from that which clinton endorsed as fist lady) or global warming will play a significant factor.
no, i think that when it all gets boiled down most voters will be swayed by one of two things:
black vs. female.
it will have almost nothing to do with the candidate's stances on anything.
it will have almost everything to do with how black obama is; or, more specifically, how black he is not. being black will get a lot of black votes. being too black will lose a lot of white votes.
and it will have almost everything to do with how female clinton is; or, more specifically, how feminine she is not. being female will sway a lot of female voters. appearing emotional and easy to break down will lose a lot of male votes.
and the political machines are already in high gear exploiting this. the rev. jesse jackson has stated that clinton's tears (during a recent q and a session) "need to be analyzed". in other words, he is putting out the inference that she faked them in order to appear a bit more feminine (and human).
andrew cuomo (a big clinton backer) used the words "shuck and jive" to describe obama's supposed inability to answer hard questions about the issues of the day. these words are being touted in the press (as expressed to them by clinton campaign aides) as subtly racist.
we can expect the campaign process to get much uglier as we venture further into the primary season. and i don't think that the pr machines on either side will shy away from playing the race/gender card at any given opportunity while ignoring the fact that neither candidate is willing to giving any real hint as to what their real actions will be once assuming office or how they expect to overcome the entrenchment of the house of representatives and the senate against change of any sort that doesn't line the pockets of lobbyists and special interest groups.
at least, the republicans are up front with respect to their lunacy. their campaigns are all about who believes in god the most and who can kill the most muslims and who can pass on more money to those who need it the least(the only exception being ron paul, but since he's supported by david duke and other likeminded individuals representing extremist fringes of our society...i'll pass). to wit:
mike huckabee: hates the federal income tax and the irs and would institute a 23% sales tax nationwide, okay with the iraq war, loves lower taxes for the rich, once discoed with paul reubens, but wouldn't pardon him.
mitt romney: loves bush, hates gays. by bush, i mean the president. by gays, i mean anyone who isn't a mormon (or mer-man!) and stays in the closet. loves lower taxes. loves killing terrorists unless they're white, loves lower taxes for the rich. once drank coffee, but claimed he didn't swallow.
john mccain: loves bush (both kinds), loves the iraq war, wouldn't have it any other way (though, not too long ago, he was slamming bush over the iraq fiasco), loves lower taxes for the rich. twice kissed a guy on the mouth, claimed they were both animatronic cpr dummies and it was all was taken out of context despite what the dummies may have told the press.
rudy giuliani: loves the iraq war, hate gays, loves bush (the other pink meat), loves 9/11 (i mean really loves loves looooves 9/11 in a cheat on your wife sort of way). moved his mistress into the family home before he and his wife were divorced. children (his) don't really talk to him.
ron paul: hates the iraq war, loves lower taxes for the rich, loves .50 calibers and bigass machine guns in every home, doesn't much care for non-whites and homosexuals. married a blonde woman, because, "there was something, i don't know, eva braun-ish about her".

so, what's the skinny here, democratic lads and lasses? to dine in the dark or pick the chick? because, no matter what the average person says, i believe that is what it comes down to. as low and ignorant as it is.
note: idealists, cast your vote as you will. symbolism is great. i may just do it myself. but know that your doing so means you've given up on the two-party system. doesn't mean you're wrong. but you'd better be out there publicly giving your all to help usher in a new era. otherwise, you're pissing up the rope i'm hanging onto. and i will kick your ass if my hands get wet.

p.s. for those of you deciding between obama and clinton, obama is the one the conservatives are most scared of. while they will say publicly that clinton is the most to be feared , because she is a clinton, the pr points being put out to fox news are those that attack obama. his color, his ethnic background, the madrassa that he didn't actually attend and the u.s. flag pin he decided to not wear after a while have been the main talking points that fox news has pushed. with clinton they just bring up the soiled dress and her masculinity. she plays the game much more than he does. and the conservatives and fox news hate him for it. the fact that he has boycotted fox news since early 2007 says a lot.

3 comments:

airplanejayne said...

I thought this was gonna be about a white knight -- like that old TV show -- or some dude on a horse...

::sigh::
disappointed now!

mintzworks said...

SO if you only have the two choices, who(m) do you choose?

No other choices now!

Chick or Dick?

fishstick said...

sweet, steph. you know how i roll. and why did no one comment on my quite witty spelling of "fist lady"?
sorry, jane. no white knights to swoon over. maybe next time (oh wait, i already wrote the next one, oops). sorry.