« Reading Update and Pledge | Main | Today »

March 30, 2008

"Clinton has gone too far"

I've just about given up on the left-side Clinton/Obama debate being anything approximating rational.

Obama has impressed me recently with his whorish ability to please opposing types of Democrats simultaneously, and I'm hopeful that this could translate into effective executive skills, although with Obama we just won't know until we know.

But I've almost stopped caring in any case because Obama-supporting online wannapunds have utterly failed to notice how brilliantly whorish--rather than brilliant--his race speech was, and continue to accuse the Clinton camp of the same kind of whorishness, broadly accusing them of racism while refusing to use the word.

Lately people have been saying that "Clinton has gone too far."  Interestingly enough, everybody who expresses this sentiment uses the exact same words. Also interestingly, many of the "gone too far" purporters have identified wildly different incidents as the straw that broke the camel's back. (Some otherwise smart commentatoresses have actually taken issue with Hillary questioning Obama's experience and credentials, as if a presidential candidate's experience and credentials are somehow not fair game. Seriously?)

And many of them have simply not bothered to identify where and how, exactly, Hillary went too far. So where, actually, did Hillary go too far? Or was it Bill who went too far? Is there a difference in people's minds? (And, btw, do I still need to explain why it's a problem to take issue with Bill and blame it on Hillary?)

And most importantly, do you really think they arrived at this opinion independently?

I'm remembering a time I try hard to remind people of (but no one seems to remember it) about 20-12 months ago, when the word on every Dem-voter's lips was "I like Hillary but she's not electable." It was such a pervasive sentence, and was said over and over again by different people in exactly the same word order and tone, that it was impossible not to conclude that the whole thing was a stealth campaign.

Of course, it became so pervasive that the press had to pick up on it, and the moment it broke the surface, Clinton's campaign dispatched it, ruthlessly and effectively. I tend to think the Clinton campaign did a stealth campaign of their own to make the story break cover so they could squash it. No one says that Clinton is "not electable" now. They just say she's "gone too far." How curious.

What I'm also hearing, particularly from black online wannapunds, is that, while before they would have voted for Clinton if she got the nomination, now they won't. WTF? So you, lefty liberation atheologist, with a hard-on for social justice, will vote for fucking John McCain because clueless Clinton hath offended thee? Or, almost worse, avoid the polling place entirely?


That's the point, isn't it? If those of you undecideds out there don't choose Obama, the rest of us Dem-voters will take our ball and go home, and you can just sit there with your President McCain for eight years, kicking yourself for not choosing the Unity Candidate with the Sexy Voice. After all, if you don't choose Unity, then the lack of Unity is your fault.

It's blackmail, of course, but who am I to object to political blackmail? If it's effective, that is.

It's frustrating because I'd like rational debate, but this is an election, and elections are not about rational debate and probably shouldn't be. Because, as I've said before, we should be electing not the person with the best program, but rather the most effective political whore whose program approximates the one we want. So the person who best manipulates the election is clearly the best whore. That may well turn out to be Obama.

Two more points, no three:

Firstly, on the rational debate about the issues tip--which everyone says they want, but nobody really wants--Clinton constantly surprised everyone by how great she was on debates about the isshooz. Every time, in fact. Her only missteps were when she was confronted (read: blamed) for Bill Clinton's policies, when she was confronted with her pro-Iraq-War-whore vote, and when the debate veered away from the issues into the gender/race/electability thing. So here we are in the loooong post-important-primaries wasteland, where the isshooz have pretty much been exhausted and there is nothing new to say. So what are we focusing on? The candidates' identity issues ... where Clinton doesn't do well and Obama, because of his whorishness, does.

Second point: remember folks (why do you keep forgetting?) Obama is only 46. He's a top-end Gen Xer, or else in the crack between generations. Culturally, he belongs more to the later generation. As the brief debate over his supposed drug use suggested, rather than having to assert his non-inhaliness like a Baby Boomer candidate I could mention, he in fact may have exaggerated his drug use in a savvy ploy to speak to his natural constituency. He grew up after the heaviest part of the civil rights movement and during the heaviest part of the feminist movement. His understanding of race and gender politics, purely from a generational standpoint, would have to be different from Clinton's; given his family and personal history, his understanding of both is necessarily more sophisticated.

Is this a bad thing? Of course not. But it's not necessarily a good thing when you're trying to appeal to older voters who do not have the same sensibility as you.

By the same token, Clinton is firmly a Baby Boomer and second wave feminist. Her language and understanding of race and gender are Baby-Boom-Generation-determined. Does that mean she's behind the times? Well, she's no more behind the times than most of the rest of her generational cohort. (I won't break that down. I'm not satisfied with her language or concept of these issues, but then I'm a third wave feminist and a Gen Xer.) Does this means she's off-putting to Obama's GenX supporters? Yes. Does this mean that the awkward language and concepts she uses will lead her to support the wrong policies? Well ... not necessarily.

Does it mean that she may not prioritize social justice for racial minorities? Maybe. And does Obama's greater sophistication on these issues mean that he will prioritize social justice for racial minorities? Hmmm ... I somehow doubt it, especially in the light of his race speech which said, pretty clearly, "It's understandable that blacks are so angry, but their anger isn't right. And by the way, whites' anger about affirmative action is just as legitimate so we should all just get along."

And finally, keep in  mind that we're all getting bored with this and want to move on to the main event. This is why we're starting to unravel and shoot ourselves in our collective feets by saying stupid things like "I'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton because she's gone too far!"  It's like a playground where the nerd who doesn't know how to stand around and be cool gets hopelessly ragged on. Or maybe, the adult who doesn't know what "hella" means gets hopelessly ragged on. Earnest Hillary, who is no better than she should be anyway, can't hang out and be cool with the cool kids and Obama can. So, in our after school before dinner boredom, we're beating up on Hillary.

I still don't know who would be the better president, but I'm starting to suspect that all of this adds up to Obama being the better candidate.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Clinton has gone too far":


Fucking brilliant. If the press ever gets Obama's dick out of its collective mouth, I wonder if it will get around to actually examining what he says. I've always found his oration underwhelming. Not that he's a bad orator. It's just that, like, who cares. And you're right. Now he's just a whorator, pleasing everyone, or trying to.

heh, "whorator."


I read a poll that said that 19% of Obama's supporters claim they would vote for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination. That's pretty lousy. The same poll also showed that 28% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

Meanwhile, Air America is calling Hillary a whore, and you're calling Obama a whore. All this nonsense pretty much hands McCain the job.

Personally, I am very concerned about the issues, and the issue that concerns me most is Iraq and Iran. I think that Obama is much more aggressive about pulling the US out than Hillary is. And I think Hillary will surely have a softer touch than McCain.

I hate Hillary and Obama's positions on the credit mess we're in. Obama has my support because we must withdraw from Iraq ASAP, and Hillary is way too hawkish.

The poll

that's an interesting statistic. i didn't realize hillary's supporters were hardening as well.

you misunderstood me: when I say "whore," i mean it as a compliment ... to a politician. i won't support a politician who isn't a whore. non-whores are ineffective.

i'm suspecting that most people who say they've vote for mccain if their dem doesn't get the nom will change their minds. but it's still annoying.

and pulling out of iraq suddenly doesn't do anyone any good ... except of course the soldiers who aren't going to die as a result. we're in this mess and suddenly pulling out won't fix it. in fact, it might end up costing us more if the entire region is so destabilized that we can't get any oil out of it.

but i don't believe that anyone, not even obama, will pull out suddenly. we'll be there for decades, the cia will be there, we'll have bases there ... otherwise, why did we go over there in the first place?

what annoys me about obama isn't obama so much as the naivete of his supporters, who think he's an honest politician. oxymoron.

I honestly believe we went to Iraq because the neocons thought they were going to liberate that country and democratize the region. That doesn't mean they weren't opportunists. I think they saw plenty of opportunity in the adventure, and they saw the post-911 political climate as a perfect time to push their agenda.

But I think the region will stabilize when we pull out. Iran will have much wider control. It's not the best of all possible worlds, but we can't fix the situation and we can't even make it good for ourselves. I guess I don't have faith in Obama, but since he's the only one who at least gives lip service to the idea of getting out, then I'll vote for that over the 100 year war, or the 'we can't just cut an run' strategies.

As for whorishness, I think I just cringe at the idea of using the word whore. It's got too much baggage. It strikes me as puritanical, sexist, and I can't really see it being used as an asset. It's a pejorative. I guess I'm getting too old-fashioned. I could see calling him a panderer, a liar, oily, two-faced, deceptive, sneaky, deceitful, duplicitous, anything that doesn't drag gender and sexual politics into it.

i hear you, but none of the words you suggested mean that he sells himself. and that's the whole point of the word.

the only other words available for that are prostitute and gigolo, and neither of those are really strong enough ... probably because of the gender issue, of course.

What about corrupt? Mercenary?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Join My Mailing List!