The calculus of distaste
This is not the way to win over disaffected Clinton voters.
I don't like Obama. I don't like the way he handled himself against Clinton, and I don't like his recent tacks toward center. I don't like the "tell-tales" we get about his real attitudes towards women. I don't like his healthcare plan, or the shaky stabs he's taken at foreign policy, and, furthermore, I think his rhetorical gifts are, frankly, overrated.
What's more, I'm angry at the DNC. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to demonstrate, preferably en masse, that the women's vote cannot be taken for granted. Although painful in the short term, I think that, in the longer term, this kind of revolt might be the only thing that gets the attention of the Party leadership and moves us forward.
Don't get me wrong; it's not as though I were ever going to vote for McCain. I was thinking more along the lines of writing-in Clinton.
However.
It has recently come to my attention that the world is falling apart. Perhaps you've been too glued to the Olympics to notice the deadly unrest in Kashmir, with some of the biggest separatist protests in years? Don't worry. You'll be hearing more about it soon. And how many of you were aware that Thailand and Cambodia have been poised on the brink of armed conflict for weeks? Ok, fair enough; that shouldn't keep you up at night the way Kashmir oughta. But if war erupts, it'll essentially mean the end of the largely moribund ASEAN grouping, which, though it's done little else, has prevented internecine squabbling in the region from getting too serious for the past 40 years. If that goes away...well...let's just say, there're a lot of temples sitting on disputed territory in that area. And don't get me started about Georgia. (No, seriously, don't: I have my own pet theory/fear that's too cynical and horrible to be printed here.)
But, hey, just look within our own borders. Via regulation changes, executive orders, and other sneaky, democracy-trashing abominations, we're on the brink of major alterations to the Endangered Species Act, and to the definition of abortion (though I'm not generally a fan of Slate, William Saletan does a very good thing here.)
The stakes really are just too high right now, and the more I see of McCain in action, the more frightened I get. I'm disgusted and appalled that these two choices are the best that can be offered, but, clearly, I'm going to have to reconcile myself to the fact that these two miserable candidates are what's offered: dangerous, versus catastrophic.
Fine. I'll do my duty. But, man, is the DNC gonna be getting a nasty letter.
I don't like Obama. I don't like the way he handled himself against Clinton, and I don't like his recent tacks toward center. I don't like the "tell-tales" we get about his real attitudes towards women. I don't like his healthcare plan, or the shaky stabs he's taken at foreign policy, and, furthermore, I think his rhetorical gifts are, frankly, overrated.
What's more, I'm angry at the DNC. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to demonstrate, preferably en masse, that the women's vote cannot be taken for granted. Although painful in the short term, I think that, in the longer term, this kind of revolt might be the only thing that gets the attention of the Party leadership and moves us forward.
Don't get me wrong; it's not as though I were ever going to vote for McCain. I was thinking more along the lines of writing-in Clinton.
However.
It has recently come to my attention that the world is falling apart. Perhaps you've been too glued to the Olympics to notice the deadly unrest in Kashmir, with some of the biggest separatist protests in years? Don't worry. You'll be hearing more about it soon. And how many of you were aware that Thailand and Cambodia have been poised on the brink of armed conflict for weeks? Ok, fair enough; that shouldn't keep you up at night the way Kashmir oughta. But if war erupts, it'll essentially mean the end of the largely moribund ASEAN grouping, which, though it's done little else, has prevented internecine squabbling in the region from getting too serious for the past 40 years. If that goes away...well...let's just say, there're a lot of temples sitting on disputed territory in that area. And don't get me started about Georgia. (No, seriously, don't: I have my own pet theory/fear that's too cynical and horrible to be printed here.)
But, hey, just look within our own borders. Via regulation changes, executive orders, and other sneaky, democracy-trashing abominations, we're on the brink of major alterations to the Endangered Species Act, and to the definition of abortion (though I'm not generally a fan of Slate, William Saletan does a very good thing here.)
The stakes really are just too high right now, and the more I see of McCain in action, the more frightened I get. I'm disgusted and appalled that these two choices are the best that can be offered, but, clearly, I'm going to have to reconcile myself to the fact that these two miserable candidates are what's offered: dangerous, versus catastrophic.
Fine. I'll do my duty. But, man, is the DNC gonna be getting a nasty letter.
7 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 3:52 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 11:06 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 9:24 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 9:27 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 2:30 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 7:37 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 11:09 PM
Post a CommentOne of the really unfortunate aspects of the primary race was the way that Obamaites all got rallied to participate in caucuses, only to lose steam (predictably) once the race was over. This past winter, I even got the occasional e-mail from friends whom I didn't consider to be interested in politics, much less primary politics, frothing at the mouth about Obama.
Where are those friends now? Not exactly pounding the pavement for Obama. And, I hate to say it, but if the U.S. men's gymnastics team were to announce that they were running for president, something tells me that I'd get frothing-at-the-mouth e-mails in support of their candidacy from the same friends.
It's as though the primary process gives too much power to people with limited attention spans.
Thank you for your unswerving support, which we now know can be taken for granted, no matter what disastrous incompetent we put up for president. We have rewarded your faithfulness by bumping Hillary Clinton from the keynote speech, which will be given by a man, Mark Warner.
Now, now, Ted: no trolling. I mean, it's not like anyone's gonna be watching Warner instead of Clinton.
Look, my argument sort of got away from me, as tends to happen, but it's essentially this: I'd never realized, until recently, just how dim McCain is. And after the unmitigated disaster of the Bush years, we're one idiot away from having 1991 - 2008 be known as a brief interstice in the Cold War. For all Obama's many faults, he isn't an idiot. For now, that's got to suffice.
Also, I do hope everyone realizes that I was emphatically not recommending anything like this. Geez. I feel pretty bad now.
Italo -
I hate to say it, but, right about now, if the men's gymnastic team were to announce their candidacy, I couldn't promise you wouldn't be getting frothing-at-the-mouth emails in support from me.
-E.
Your point about McCain is a good one. My one straight-male-but-still-a-rabid-Democrat friend tried to pull me back from a ledge about six months ago with this: McCain looks great until he starts talking, and he hasn't had to say much.
I keep forgetting how loooooooooong the election cycle is. I mean, it's not even Labor Day yet. A lot can happen.
That's not to say I'm taking a McCain loss for granted (on the contrary). But unless Obama really screws it up (which I am taking for granted) or the Rove protegé (whatever his name is, David something, I think) manages to pull off a coup-de-grace more Rovian than even Rove is capable of, McCain will have to start actually talking to the electorate at some point.
Yours in abject pessimism and manic parenthesis use,
Italo
No, really, we are happy for your support, and we're especially looking forward to raising taxes by thousands of dollars a year on professional working women in two-income couples who get married. We need this money to bail out our friends at Fannie Mae, because who else would give millions of dollars to hire as executives male former Democratic politicians who have no cognizable skills? So, though Republican policies are clearly financially better for married working women, we're glad that they focus on the stereotypes and vote Democratic.
eah, but that extra money's only going to last them until their workplace, emboldened by McCain's stance on remedies for wage discrimination, decides to freeze their salaries. Or until they get knocked up. Which is about to get a whole heckuva lot easier, once the Pill is deemed an abortifacient, science be damned. These the "stereotypes" you had in mind?
Jesus, Ted, don't be such a tool. Not everyone measures their self-worth (and that of everyone around them) in terms of their income. Some of us actually think there's a point at which one can reasonably say "my needs are met," and go on to care about other things.
<< Home