The song is fun, but what I find most impressive is that it’s not an official Obama commercial — it was put together by an independent pro-Obama organization, www.amigosdeobama.com. (I’ll post a English translation of the lyrics in the comments).
Hat tip: Latinopoliticsblog. If a significant portion of the Latin@ community is moving to support Obama, it’s unlikely Clinton can win.
I’ve seen Obama’s ability to inspire ultra-fervent support used as an argument against him by Clinton supporters — and even by Obama supporters, like Kathleen Geier. I can definitely see that argument; there are a lot of Obama fans expecting way too much of someone who is, in the end, a mostly mainstream Democratic candidate.
At the same time, I just can’t believe that the ability to inspire huge numbers of people is a bad thing, overall; it’s plausible that Obama’s ability to inspire could lead to him sweeping more Democrats into office with him in November than Clinton would be able to. The more Democrats in Congress, the more useful having a Democratic president will be.
What’s disappointing is that the Obama movement probably won’t last beyond getting him elected president, or develop larger goals. Quoting Kathleen Geier:
Don’t get me wrong — inspiration is fine, necessary even, and the impressive grassroots organizing the Obama campaign is doing holds real promise. Ultimately though, neither Barack Obama nor any other leader is going to save us. What progressives achieve or do not achieve during the next presidency is almost completely dependent on how strong progressives are as a political movement.
Just look at our current president. He’s miserably incompetent and widely despised by at least half the country. And yet, he’s gotten much of his agenda passed through Congress. This has little to do with any special talents or abilities George W. Bush possesses has everything to do with the incredible power and discipline of the conservative movement in this country.
That’s why, although I support Barack, I don’t think Clinton would govern in ways that would be much different from him (except perhaps in foreign policy – and even there, there’s some doubt, since their senate votes about Iraq have tended to be similar). Like Obama, Clinton is a savvy pragmatist. If the center of gravity moves to the left, that’s where she’ll be.
I entirely agree.
Translation of the lyrics, from the “info” section on Youtube:
To the candidate who is Barack Obama
I sing this corrido with all my soul
He was born humble without pretension
He began in the streets of Chicago
Working to achieve a vision
To protect the working people
And bring us all together in this great nation
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
Families united and safe and even with a health care plan
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
A candidate fighting for our nation
It doesn’t matter if you’re from San Antonio
It doesn’t matter if you’re from Corpus Christi
From Dallas, from the Valley, from Houston or from El Paso
What matters is that we vote for Obama
Because his struggle is also our struggle, and today we urgently need a change
Let’s unite with our great friend
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
Families united and safe and even with a health care plan
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
A candidate fighting for our nation
Hopefully the Obama movement won’t last to getting him to be president.
Hillary ’08!
What if he wins the primary — would you still not want him to be president then?
I’d support him if he wins the primary, but of the two candidates, I believe Hillary is better, more experienced and in general more likely to foster my goals and beliefs than Barrack.
He’s all rhetoric, talk of ‘change’, as if ‘change’ was a magical enough word to leave any substance out what-so-ever. He champions easy causes that are popular, and takes victories where they don’t exist. He’s playing naive when we know he’s clever, and he’s USING WOMEN’S ISSUES TO COURT THE RELIGIOUS.
He’s a DailyKos’ers wet dream, and happily jumps in on the subtle sell-out women rhetoric to further his campaign, which makes me even more confident that I’m throwing my support in the right direction.
While Hillary is also smarmy in some of her politics, I know that she largely supports women’s issues and was instrumental in issues such as pushing Plan B through, supporting legislation on reproductive freedoms and in general giving me some confidence on that end. She also has a history of trying to work out health care coverage, and I believe she would pursue that in office.
I just can’t believe that the ability to inspire huge numbers of people is a bad thing, overall
Depends on how that ability is used, doesn’t it?
The thing with Sen. Obama is that the only thing I can see him inspiring people to do so far is to vote for him.
The domain is registered to Miguel Orozco at Nueva Vista Media, Inc. This company (whose home page is here) describes itself as “We are a creative digital media company using all mediums to connect with Latinos”. They give as examples of their work outreach campaigns for Fannie Mae and the U.S. Department of Labor (and a couple of others in Spanish that I don’t understand). They also list one Creative Media Campaign – the Obama video referenced in this post
Here’s what it says about Mr. Orozco:
So this isn’t just some amateur whipping up something on YouTube; this is a professionally produced video by a company that’s plugged into governmental contracts. I’m curious as to whether Mr. Orozco paid for this himself, or if his company was hired to do this by someone else. I bet that if Obama wins, it’s not going to hurt Mr. Orozco’s business connections with the Feds.
Well, also note the Chicago connect there. It’s telling.
Just look at our current president. He’s miserably incompetent and widely despised by at least half the country. And yet, he’s gotten much of his agenda passed through Congress. This has little to do with any special talents or abilities George W. Bush possesses has everything to do with the incredible power and discipline of the conservative movement in this country.
So he’s incompetent, but he’s gotten much of his agenda passed through Congress. Sorry, but that’s how you measure the competence of a politician, especially a President.
And it’s all due not to any ability he has, but the incredible power and discipline of the American conservative movement? The same movement that couldn’t get a conservative nominated for President this year?
This is something that on Free Republic is called BDS – Bush Derangment Syndrome. It compels its victims to refuse to give Bush any credit at all for any ability to do anything right at all. In extreme cases, anything that goes wrong in the world is his fault; anything right that happens is in spite of any of his efforts. Now, the man is assuredly the most inarticulate President of my lifetime. And I disfavor a number of his policies. But his opponents’ setting political strategies and tactics on the basis that he is no more than a marionette is one reason why he won two terms in the White House. And imagining that there’s a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy with incredible power and discipline is kind of at variance with the facts; it sure did a lousy job in the last election and is doing a lousy job with this one.
Kim, good point. I wonder what’s there.
That’s why, although I support Barack, I don’t think Clinton would govern in ways that would be much different from him
I’m curious. How do people here think Obama (or can I start calling Clinton “Hillary”?) will govern?
I’d go so far as to say I think Barrack Obama will govern differently, because I think he will be more wishy washy if not downright absent on certain issues, whereas I think that Hillary Clinton would at least champion a few important issues in a way that has a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on my life, and on my daughters lives.
McCain isn’t a conservative? Could you name some conservatives, then? I’m curious.
I’m glad you posted this. It really is well produced, and this is a quality mariachi band.
As for how Hillary would govern, I think that if you examine her record as Senator from NY, you have to ask yourself… why hasn’t she championed or sponsored any impacting legislation? She could really take the Bush administration to task like Dennis Kuchinich does or even in the way that Paul Wellstone was trying to do before he died, but she has remained on the sidelines.
Who said McCain wasn’t a conservative? He’s almost a textbook conservative.
It’s by no means a perfect metric, but check this list, Jake. Ordinally, McCain is at position 54 of 100 – right in the middle. He’s a liberal Republican – probably a conservative over in your neck of the woods, but your neck of the woods is the one where Hillary Clinton is objectionably right-wing.
Kim, the people saying he isn’t a conservative are, well, conservatives. Kind of going to take their (our) point of view over yours. Sorry.
Kim,
“and he’s USING WOMEN’S ISSUES TO COURT THE RELIGIOUS”
?
I don’t know what you are referring to, could you provide a link?
Obama is the only senator who financially supported the campaign to repeal the South Dakota abortion ban. He also worked closely with Planned Parenthood in Illinois (his infamous “present” votes on abortion issues were at the request of the Illinois Planned Parenthood branch), and he is an original cosponsor of bills to increase access to contraceptives, to increase federal funding for good sex ed, to end the global gag rule etc. Both Clinton and Obama (and you, if I recall correctly) favor some restrictions on late term abortions. I’d need to see something pretty substantial to believe that he doesn’t care about pro-choice issues or that he is substantively worse than Clinton.
Obviously, there are plenty of other women’s issues, but choice and reproductive freedom seems to be the one Obama usually gets attacked on.
Incidentally, Obama is explicitly in favor of including gender identity in the federal ENDA, while Clinton is wishy washy on the subject.
I’m not sure why this would be the case. Obama’s campaign has spent millions of dollars training grassroots organizers throughout the country, and it will spend millions more before the election is done. Those people won’t lose those skills when the political campaign ends. The hundreds or thousands of people that the Obama campaign has convinced to become active precinct chairs for the Democratic Party won’t quit being Democratic precinct chairs when Obama becomes president. Also, Obama is someone who knows the value of organizing. I can’t imagine that he won’t continue to use his massive popular movement to exert direct influence on congress to pass his agenda.
It’s true that McCain is noticibly to the left of most elected Republicans on environmental issues, and on immigration — although that’s more a measure of how radically right-wing the Republican party has become than an indication that McCain is liberal. He’s a party-line Republican on some other issues, though, such as Iraq and abortion.
It’s also true that McCain has turned to the right in the last couple of years; Robert’s link doesn’t include any data that recent.
Charles;
He has a tendency to use language that is seen as persuasive to pro-lifers, with intent of making his stance kind of nebulous and unclear. One of the more popular quotes floating around out there is this:
“I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all…Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.”
It’s the same old shit that you see on KOS and it panders to the pro-lifers in a way that sells out women.
In context, that looks like a hypothetical to me (a hypothetical in which he is saying that you can’t try to push religious beliefs qua religious beliefs as law, that you have to find a common rational ground in which your religious beliefs make sense to people who don’t share your religious beliefs). In the same speech, he makes it clear that he is pro-choice, but that he is willing to treat the other side as acting in good faith. You may disagree on whether we should treat individuals who are anti-abortion as acting in good faith, but that doesn’t leave you with a presidential candidate who agrees with you.
Googling “obama abortion” I see a lot of quotes from him that are basically [I understand that this is something that many people disagree on, and that most people agree involve moral questions, but I believe that the woman who is considering an abortion is the person who is in the best position to weigh those moral questions. We should work on the part of this that everyone agrees on, that there should be fewer accidental pregnancies. Therefore we should support better (non-abstinence based) sex ed and work to provide better access to birth control.] Not a quote.
Here’s a quote.
And here is Clinton saying the same thing. “Safe, legal and rare.”
Is this what you mean (in which case, Clinton and Obama are indistinguishable)? Or can you point me to other quotes that you consider to be less acceptable than Clinton’s quote linked above?
Naysayers. What you want to say without directly saying it, is you don’t believe a black man can generate such excitement and possibly win the presidency, and beyond that he’ll accomplish absolutely nothing. If he was white, very few of you would be griping. Instead he’d be called a frickin’ genius. You focus on his full name and just for that you judge and detest him. The last time I checked that’s discrimination. Bush is experienced and where the hell did that land us! You would never vote for a person of color from the very start even if his principles matched yours. Let’s be real!
If Hillary Clinton is “ready on day one”, then why wasn’t her campaign ready from day one?
John, there’s an old expression: “Please get off my side.”
Yes, there is obviously racism contributing to opposition to Obama; no, it doesn’t follow that you can assume that everyone who is supporting Clinton or McCain rather than Obama is being racist, any more than we can assume that anyone not supporting Clinton is a misogynist.
Also, unless I missed it, no one here has said anything implying they’re focusing on his full name. Try reading what people actually say.
The only reason I let your comment through is that, as an Obama supporter, I feel honor-bound not to abuse my position as moderator by hiding the fact that some Obama supporters are making stupid arguments and unfair accusations.
I do, however, agree with your final sentence; the less-than-stellar campaign Clinton has run contradicts her argument that experience has made her more competent than Obama at running things.
Charles;
You honestly bring up a good point, but I can only respond to you that it’s a nuance thing. Sen. Clinton certainly hedges issues as well, but the ambiguity doesn’t seem to be as rampant with her. In that speech you pointed out, the double-speak wasn’t present like it is with Sen. Obama. With Sen. Obama, I’m often left feeling like he thinks he is so smart that he can canvas a speech with double-speak and sympathetic platitudes that are often at the expense of women, and that we, the sheeple, will accept it and be happy for it.
Beyond that, I understand that there is similarity between the two, but to me, Sen. Clinton is the obvious choice with regards to experience, strength and in speaking to women’s issues in general.
Naysayers. What you want to say without directly saying it, is you don’t believe a black man can generate such excitement and possibly win the presidency, and beyond that he’ll accomplish absolutely nothing. If he was white, very few of you would be griping. Instead he’d be called a frickin’ genius.
Are you on drugs, or just naturally stupid?
I just have two words that come to mind with Obama’s whole campaign: Jimmy. Carter.
Kim,
I think it is more than fair to say that the Clinton campaign, especially the surrogates, have been just as willing to use racist rhetoric as Obama and his surrogates have to use sexist rhetoric.
For example, take the very ignorant comment by Hillary Clinton when she was arguing that it took a President to actually put MLK’s “dream” into place. What a nice way to downplay the tremendous sacrifices of those people (most of whom were African American) who actually did march and put their lives on the line.
The stupid drug dealer reference by her surrogate in New Hampshire, would be another example. And I don’t remember the exact quotes (and am on my way out the door, so someone else will have to look them up), but I seem to remember that Bill Clinton also made several remarks that many African Americans found offensive leading up the the SC primary.
That doesn’t mean that Obama and his supporters get a sexism pass–the cat claws comment was sexist. However, I think it is completely fair to say that the Clinton campaign has been just as racist as the Obama campaign has been sexist.
It shouldn’t be lost an anybody that over a year ago, Clinton was by far the most popular candidate with African Americans, and now Obama is. (I remember when I wrote this blog Obama had just edged out Clinton, and people, mostly whites, were suggesting that somehow Black America didn’t see him as black and other absurdities.) Something happened between then and now to dramatically change black voters views of Clinton and Obama. Part of the credit goes the the Obama campaign for making their case getting his name out there, but I think the Clinton campaign deserves credit for chasing black voters away with racially coded rhetoric and tactics that in my view are racist.
PS-When did Amp become an Obama supporter? I missed that one. :)
FWIW–I was going to vote for Richardson, but by the time the NY primary was held it was really down to Clinton and Obama. I can’t in good conscience vote for anybody with the last name Clinton or Bush (at least not when I have a reasonable alternative). If Clinton gets elected and serves two terms, we will have had 36 years straight with a Bush or a Clinton in the White House and to me that is completely undemocratic. Passing the Presidency back and forth between father and son and husband and wife, sounds more like a monarchy. That’s truly my main reason for not voting Clinton.
The second reason is that I find her very insincere, and I know most politcians are that way, so maybe I’m being hard on her, but I find myself second guessing almost everything she says.
I don’t think Obama is going to change the entire US political system, checks and balances will prevent that from happening, but I do think he can do more for change that the remaining candidates.
I do think the Clinton campaign has attempted to use racism in the same ways that Obama has used sexism (although I don’t necessarily agree on the racism allegations). However, the biggest difference I’ve seen is the mainstream media AND the “grassroots” movements, and the liberal public in general is willing to call out and recognize this racism to a significantly higher degree than they are willing to do about the sexism. And that says a lot to me. Admittedly, that’s less about the candidates themselves. It comes down to a) how much more sexism is ingrained in the general public’s consciousness, b) how much overt and covert sexism is much more allowable in the liberal blogosphere, and c) how much Obama supporters are willing to overlook in support of their candidate (and yes, IME, it is much more than Clinton supporters are willing to recognize and acknowledge the racism in their own candidate). And this is what tips me into the hating Obama realm (rather than just opposing his candidacy or supporting Clinton more).
Interesting, because I feel the exact same way about Obama.
bean said, “a) how much more sexism is ingrained in the general public’s consciousness, b) how much overt and covert sexism is much more allowable in the liberal blogosphere, and c) how much Obama supporters are willing to overlook in support of their candidate ”
You really need to prove that…I personally think it is about the same for both racism and sexism.
Maybe you’re missing many of the more covert forms of racism. You’re feminist radar may be a little stronger than your anti-racist radar. I definitely think the opposite is true for myself. I catch subtle racism very quickly, but sexism I vacillate back and forth on my level of sensitivity.
On the last point, I think we all have to overlook certain things in our preferred candidates–whether or not it is “isms,” personality issues, or other issues.
bean said, “Interesting, because I feel the exact same way about Obama.”
I’ve noticed this phenomenon with the two of them, and I think for many people it really is a tipping point factor since their policy leanings are about the same.
It’s tough for me to put my finger on exactly why I don’t feel Clinton is sincere, but a few things come to mind. I felt like she was carpet baggin’ by coming to NY, and I can’t get that out of my head. Plus, I feel like she is so heavily connected to politics of the last 20 years that she is all politics and has lost the values that she once stood for.
Oh one more thing…and this may indeed be unfair, but the smirk that she has in the debates is awful. It puts me in mind of Bush.
Ditto on the smirk. It’s a shame, because it comes off as disrespectful, which I’d like to believe is unintentional. But if it is unintentionally disrespectful, wouldn’t she have been clued in about it? Senator Clinton is surely capable of fully suppressing a smirk that millions of people can see, can’t she? What’s the political benefit of that smirk?
I have strong objections to both candidates, but I’m supporting Obama based mainly on the argument that presidents are much more influential on foreign policy (where there are barely any checks or balances) than on domestic policy, and on foreign policy there’s good reason to think that Obama — despite his severe flaws — is likely to be less hawkish than Clinton.
But I also agree with you that I hate the idea of 36 years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the presidency.
I disagree on the smirk. Honestly, in the debates I’ve watched, I thought they both came across as smart and likable, but also as politicians.
If Clinton gets elected and serves two terms, we will have had 36 years straight with a Bush or a Clinton in the White House and to me that is completely undemocratic.
The phrase I loved when I heard it was “Do you really want to see the circus come back to town?”
I’m with Amp. I really can’t stand to watch either of them give speeches or debate. They are both too skilled at the art of being politicians, and neither of them are all that close to my own politics. Still, given the range of likely presidential candidates (not just this year, over my life time), I think either of them is pretty good. I like Obama better on foreign policy for the same reasons as Amp, and I actually think that Obama’s campaign’s incredible skill at organizing is going to pay off big in the fall and in the next 8 years (within the limits of what we can get from the Democratic party).
bean, what do you see as the parallels between Carter (my favorite president in my life time {Clinton being the only possible competitor makes that not a very meaningful statement}, although I’d probably like him less if I had been more politically conscious during his presidency) and Obama?
Eva said, “It’s a shame, because it comes off as disrespectful, which I’d like to believe is unintentional. But if it is unintentionally disrespectful, wouldn’t she have been clued in about it?”
Clinton needs to watch a Saturday Night Live skit of her in the debate–kinda like they did with Al Gore because then hopefully, she could see how awful that smirk is. It not a real smile, and if it was a real smile, then it wouldn’t get so much more pronounced when she disagrees with Obama. The look she has is the same as some of the more disagreeable students I have. LOL!!
If I were to criticize Obama on body language, I think he needs to lighten up and not look so serious all the time. Although it is clear that these 8,000 debates have helped him tremendously because he seems to have gotten much better while Clinton has leveled off.
Anyone else think that if/when the democrats win, Bill Richardson should be Secretary of State? I think he would be really good at that position.
I’d like to see Richardson in either sec state, NSA or Veep. Not that the last one is likely given the electoral math.
I think we have two good candidates, which I never thought I’d see in the Democratic Party in my lifetime. I don’t think that they are as similar as most people do. They clearly have differing strengths and weaknesses. I would love to see a woman president. I would love to see a multiracial president.
Both of them are way too far right for me, Kucinich was definitely my first choice based on issues, and he is the person I voted for in our primary.
But I will happily vote for either. In my perfect world they would stop sniping at each other, decide who’s going to do what, and unite to form the most KICK ASS HISTORICAL campaign ever.
Mary, you actually just summed up what I’ve said quite frequently myself.
Rachel;
I’m quite irritated with Sen. Obama right now with a lot of the sexism that has been surfacing. And I can’t and won’t look at it generously, because it is just so obvious to me that the words that came out of his mouth were intended to use institutionalized sexism as a means of dismissing his opponent. When he used that language dismissing her, I feel he was dismissing women in general, and I can’t help but wonder how vocal he will be about women’s issues if he does get the nomination. Something tells me that women’s issues will be put in the back seat under the other 10 issues that he feels are more important.
I also think that Sen. Clinton has been clumsy around ethnicity based issues, but I don’t necessarily feel it qualifies the same way that the blatancy of Sen. Obama’s. Like you pointed out though, I could be less sensitized to it, since my focus tends to be on women’s issues. That doesn’t mean that I dismiss the validity of complaining about clumsy commandeering of a topic to try to prop up appeal. I do see that as being shady and politic in a way that could certainly raise the rancor of people who tend to focus more on ethnicity based issues, and cause pause among those that would like to consider themselves to have a vested interest in abolishing all types of oppression.
Also, you stated that Sen. Clinton seemed insincere to you as you watched her. That is how I feel with Sen. Obama. It happened for me the first time with the Youtube debates, where oddly enough, he ranked in my bottom three as far as candidates go, and Sen. Clinton did as well. Go figure.
Either way, I’ll be voting for Senator Clinton in the primaries, and then will accept whatever comes to be of that. If Sen. Obama gets the nomination, then I will be voting for him in the presidential race.
I agree with this and the entire post. I’m not sure I could vote for either of them as I haven’t voted Democrat outside a primary in quite a while. I don’t think that’s going to change this time around.
Flag burning amendment.
I was a Gore/Edwards supporter but turned to Obama after Edwards dropped out. The reason I support Obama is simple: whether he intended it or not, he has become the grassroots candidate versus the Democratic Establishment.
Perhaps the Obama movement won’t survive ’08. The Dean movement didn’t survive ’04. But the new grassroots, for all its flaws, is an improvement over the party establishment, it’s here to stay, and every victory it scores over the Party builds this moment. That the grassroots Democrats defeat mainstream Democrats is more important to me than that the Democratic Party as a whole defeats the Republican Party.
I was really, really soured on Clinton when she broke her promise on Michigan and tried backdoor politics afterwards (Florida as well, to a lesser extent). On the basis of that alone, I briefly considered supporting McCain over her if it came to it, but her closing statement at the last debate signals to me that she will concede graciously like a normal person when the time likely comes. More and more, I’m guessing some of the more abhorrent tactics she’s floated around to obtain a nomination were really gambits to keep the donors from jumping ship. So for the moment, my stance toward her has switched back from no-holds-barred opposition to disinterest and mild dislike.
The Black community certainly did, if you measure how quickly they jumped ship from the Clinton campaign to Obama’s. On the other hand, disparate Clinton supporters are playing a farcically convincing hand in the oppression sweepstakes. So what can I say, I’m stymied.
I think McCain is moderate on more issues than he lets on. He has spoken against reactionary religious leaders before prostrating before them. He voted against the tax cuts before speaking for them. He shows all the characteristic wishy-washiness and pandering of someone who wants the presidency a bit too much, but I believe his initial positions on these issues is more indicative of his true sympathies. That’s not to say I’ll vote for McCain; but I disagree with the idea that he’s just another rank-and-file Republican.
If Clinton gets elected and serves two terms, we will have had 36 years straight with a Bush or a Clinton in the White House…
Or, perhaps 28 years? Unless you’re counting Pa Bush’s VP years.
To the posters here who propose to vote for Sen. Obama because he’d be a better choice for foreign policy; what do you think he’ll do?
Jake said, “Unless you’re counting Pa Bush’s VP years.”
Yes, I’m counting since 1980.
I’m not sure I have “prove” anything, but a couple of things:
1) I left out a very important word in part of my post above — I meant to say that I do not agree with ALL of the racism allegations, not that I don’t believe any of them. For example, I definitely believe the Jesse Jackson comment was racist. I definitely do NOT believe the fairy tale comment was racism. I can see how the MLK/LBJ comment has racist connotations, but I also see what she may have been trying to say, which I agree with. But, I think the way she did say it was racist. I think the drug use comment was probably a racist dog whistle, but I don’t think it is overt racism — talking about past drug use is a pretty common tactic in any political campaign (just look at Bill Clinton, himself). I think you have to make the connection between drug use and race in your own mind –and maybe that was the purpose, pandering to those who DO make that connection (in a negative way). But I don’t think it’s inherently racist.
2) I think it would be hard to argue that the sexism from the Obama camp is covered nearly to the extent that the racism from the Clinton camp is covered. I’ve heard about the latter on CNN, MSNBC, my local news, NPR, and nearly every liberal blog there is. I’ve heard about the former on feminist blogs. That’s it’s (NPR did have a one-day piece on the sexism against Clinton, but they only looked at the sexism in the media, not from the Obama camp, and most callers completely dismissed the sexism and said it didn’t really exist, that Clinton was just trying to garner sympathy).
3) When Fox News made a comment about Michelle Obama’s “claws coming out,” the cries of sexism from the Obama supporters was overwhelming. But, when Obama, himself, uses that Exact. Same. Phrase wrt Hillary, the attempts to deny the sexism (“oh, I could totally imagine him saying that very same thing against a male candidate, it’s not sexist at all”) was overwhelming.
4) When speakers from the Clinton camp say things that are racist, that’s seen as a negative against Clinton, herself (e.g. the drug abuse statements). I don’t wholly disagree with that — someone who is officially tied to the campaign does, to some extent, speak for the candidate. But, when a speaker from the Obama camp makes homophobic and anti-gay statements, suddenly it’s all “that’s one speaker’s opinion, that doesn’t say anything about Obama’s stance on gay rights.”
I’m not even going to get into the slams against 2nd wave feminists. Gah, it’s too depressing
5) WRT Jimmy Carter — there you had a guy with almost no experience (both in state legislature, he was governor for 1 term, Obama in the US Senate for 2 years) who empassioned people with his claims of TRUST, coming in during a time where Americans needed to believe that they could have something different (a Beltway Outsider) who could and would bring about change. Someone who talked a lot about trust, and how we would bring it back to the office of president, without a lot of discussion on how he would do that. Someone who was able to mobilize a large grass-roots movement to win the presidency by being extremely charismatic and able to get large groups of people to become impassioned, without ever really explaining how we would do these things. And, yeah, there’s no way to know how any other Dem. would have handled the situations he faced, or if they would have even handled them better — but his lack of experience certainly didn’t help when those unprecedented incidents occurred, and if nothing else, allowed the right to take control by talking about how his inexperience made things worse. And there’s no doubt that McCain will use this same argument. Note: I admire Jimmy Carter greatly. I think he is an amazing man, who has done more for people than probably any former president ever. But that’s all stuff he did after being president, and through grassroots and non-profit work, not through politics.
I dislike Obama because I dislike what he stands for.
I detest the concept that ‘change” or “belief’ or “patriotism” are ways to run a country–that how a politician feels about something is more important than what she does about it. And to me, Obama represents the pinnacle of emotional appeals, and I hate him for it. It’s like religion, but with votes.
Jimmy Carter is perhaps one of the best ex-Presidents we’ve ever had, and perhaps one of the worst Presidents.
As far as drug use goes, there were comments during President Bush II’s first campaign about his cocaine and alcohol use. It didn’t go anywhere, just like this stuff with Sen. Obama hasn’t gone anywhere, but it was brought up.
On the drug issue..I don’t think anyone was ever bold enough to suggest that Clinton or Bush would be a drug dealer–not just a drug user. If you read the whole quote, the underlying drug dealer references is there.
And I don’t know how the hell y’all can live in the United States of America and not have heard of the stereotype that black men are drug pushers. C’mon now!!
On the drug issue..I don’t think anyone was ever bold enough to suggest that Clinton or Bush would be a drug dealer–not just a drug user.
And nobody I know of has suggested that of Obama, either, except for people on the Democratic side raising the fear that Republicans might ask if Obama had ever sold drugs.
You can’t hold up one side’s fear-mongering as evidence of what the other side is going to do. Hillary Clinton’s desperation for political power is not Republican racism.
While we’re on the subject, I think Obama deserves some credit for his candor and forthrightness on the drug issue. It was also good political maneuvering, as it took the one thing in his past that could be problematic and turned it into an asset. (“Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Democratic candidate who admits their past mistakes and moves on, instead of stonewalling and spinning?”)
Michele Obama isn’t yet picking out drapes for the White House, but I think Sen. Clinton is about ready to start thinking about redecorating her Senate office.
Michele Obama isn’t yet picking out drapes for the White House, but I think Sen. Clinton is about ready to start thinking about redecorating her Senate office.
Wow, that comment isn’t sexist at all, Robert.
I agree.
I can remember reading about drapes in the oval office long before there was a serious female candidate for the office. If it wasn’t sexist than does it become sexist now?
While I sympathize with your concern, Sailorman, I’d remind you that the Democrats have a sad, detailed history of nominating candidates who are long on “policy proposals” and “issues”* and short on emotional connection with voters. It’s easy to ask a party to martyr itself again before sky high notions of philosophical integrity when it’s not the one you’re rooting for.
As for me, I’m not particularly moved by Obama. But I’m just one person, and I know that Obama has the ability to inspire a great number of people, so out of practical concerns, I support him. That in addition to the fact that the way he chose to organize his campaign sets a very good precedent (and hopefully destroys Terry McAulliffe wing of the party) and that the recent conduct of his rival’s campaign had me considering what good guys Nader, Bloomberg, Paul et al are. (Yeah, I know two of those three are not actually running.) Notice there’s nothing in there about policy positions, because there isn’t a nanometer’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton. If I wanted issues, I’d have gone with Edwards or tried to write in Gore. I did, I lost, I wept, and I moved on.
*I air-quote these because I do not consider stale pandering to soccer moms or NASCAR dads to be real policy proposals.
Pingback: Obama Is The Best Thing To Happen To The Internet Since Cats and Porn — HeyBeUs
I was born a Democrat,. and I’ll die a Democrat. And if Obama wins the nomination I’ll vote for him as the least worst candidate. But I still hate him.
I’m bewildered by the baseless, but commonplace, belief that Obama has offered fewer policy specifics than Clinton or McCain. It takes very little research to read the specifics (such as they are) of all three candidates’ proposals, and Obama’s proposals are no less specific or detailed than Clinton’s or McCain’s.
Joe, why is Michelle Obama picking out the drapes? Well, why then isnt Bill Clinton?
Amp, I think a lot of that is because the media has picked up that meme and is promoting it. I’m guessing that it’s derived from the fact that his speeches stress things like hope, etc.; they spend so much time talking about the what a great job he does with the emotional content of his presentations that they rarely talk about anything substantive that he says and people think that the emotional stuff is all he talks about.
I’ve ranted before on this, but you rarely see any actual analytical discussion of the candidates’ positions and a comparison among them. It’s all either covering it like it’s a sports competition or about image issues. In this case, Obama’s image is that he’s one hell of an inspirational speaker, so all that makes it into the 30-second sound bite is the broad inspirational phrases.
Of course, the bottom line there is that the media sells what people want to buy. Judging by how everything else is marketed and sold and how political discourse works in general in the U.S., people do not and will not take the time to do research and think; they make their judgements off of feelings. Kind of like selling cars by how they look and whether or not “when you turn your car on, does it return the favor?”. Sure, some people buy Consumer Reports and see how reliable the car is and what the expected repair history is. But let’s face it; People far outsells Consumer Reports, and more people can name who won American Idol than can name their Senator and Congressperson.
I think it has to do with him not being really dull all the time. Also young and (possibly) inexperienced for the office.
CG, I missed that. You’re right, I’m wrong. It’s pretty clear that Robert assigned the interior design duties to the women.
I don’t think the phrase iteself is sexist but the way that he used it was. thanks for the catch.
Well, why then isnt Bill Clinton?
Because Bill Clinton doesn’t work or live in Hillary Clinton’s office.
Let’s make a little matrix.
(Winning) male candidate wins new office, (losing) female candidate returns to old office. Joke: “Male candidate’s spouse will be picking new drapes, female candidate will be redecorating office.”
Female candidate wins new office, female candidate returns to old office. Joke: “Female candidate’s spouse will be picking new drapes, female candidate will be redecorating office.”
Male candidate wins new office, male candidate returns to old office. Joke: “Male candidate’s spouse will be picking new drapes, male candidate will be redecorating office.”
Female candidate wins new office, male candidate returns to old office. Joke: “Female candidate’s spouse will be picking new drapes, male candidate will be redecorating office.”
Huh. In every possible gender combination, the joke is the same. It’s almost as though the joker is treating every person involved as a human being, without their gender making any difference whatsoever.
Robert, I sort of agree with you. But knowing this, why did you pick Female Candidate will decorate office, Male candidate’s spouse will buy new drapes for your joke? My assumption is that subconsciously you associate interior decorating with women.
Because traditionally the president’s spouse is the one said to be “picking out the drapes for the White House”. Since the first part of the comparative is interior-decor themed, it’s symmetrical to make the second part also involve interior decoration.
Good Lord, doesn’t anyone have any work to do today?
It’s Leap Day, a federal holiday, Robert.
But seriously: The traditional role of First Lady as White House redecoratin’ maven was born from a more sexist era but still persists and frames our expectations. Recall, after all, the negative public reaction to the arrival of a woman with a career of her own to the role of First Lady who didn’t feel like baking cookies all day in the kitchen. I still think that was one of Senator Clinton’s best moments as a public figure.