Hi folks.
We have all been fighting each other like cats and dogs on BMG the past few months as the campaign has heated up, candidate fortunes have tracked up and down and voters have made their voices heard across the land.
But now that John Edwards has officially withdrawn from the race, let us all take a deep breath, put down the keyboard cudgels for just a minute and comtemplate what we have just done – we as Democrats have just made history.
Every white dude up for election is out. Now we have a choice between either the first woman or the first African-American. And while the ugliness of identity politics threatens to tear the Democratic family apart, we should take a moment to pat ourselves on the back and recognise our own boldness.
I mean let’s think about – 2008 should be a slam dunk for us given the Bush legacy and we had a number of rather steady and rather experienced candidates to choose from – candidates who have far more experience than either of the two we are left with. Senators who have served with distinction and know how things get done, a half-Latino Governor (and Cab Sec, and UN Amb, etc…) from a swing state we need to win in November and our nominee for vice president from 2004, a tried a steady campaigner in his own right with purple state appeal. And yet, we went with none of them. This year we choose to make history – this year we wanted something different, new, fresh – a woman or a black man, neither of which had as much experience as the white dudes we left behind.
So let’s be frank with ourselves as we kick the crap out of each other through Feb 5th and beyond. We have already entered unchartered territory, we are already asking Americans to do something they have never done before. We have already rolled the dice.
Both Clinton and Obama would enter the general with great strengths, but significant weaknesses as well, many of which we have spent the last few months playing and replaying for each other over and over again on this website. We have already rolled the dice.
For Clinton, she can bring out the worst in people (often irrationally) and will no doubt serve as a rallying point for a divided opposition. And Obama, he will be seen by many(also somewhat unfairly) as young and inexperienced and maybe not the right choice for these difficult times. Clinton has too much baggage and Obama too little.
Ultimately, they both bring downsides to the race and so electability is not an easy factor to use in deciding whom to support – even as many of us often argue the point.
And we can speculate all we want to about who will make a better president and who is ready “from day one” based on their resumes, but it really is a job like no other, for which the pressures are unimaginable and often unexpected and it is difficult to know how under such conditions these two bright and capable people will respond. If anything whoever can survive this long and hard campaign, with its ups and downs, strategies and counter-strategies, policies and messages, will be ready. The 24-hour scrutiny, interminable travel, brutal hours and varied pressures of this campaign are as good a test as any for the challenges faced by a president.
And when it comes to policy, the differences are minute. The goals both candidates have are largely the same (health care, climate change, ending the war and restoring America’s global leadership) even if the bullet points are a bit different. We can speculate on who will best deliver this agenda but very little from each candidate’s past can serve as a guide.
All we do know is that this year, we Democrats have taken a leap of faith in the American people that they are ready to make history with us. I’m glad we did, we all should be (even as we assault each other for the next few months).
for the thoughtful, unifying, and generous perspective.
Seriously though, nice post. Either candidate is a good choice.
Always remember: The worst Democrat is usually better than the best Republican.
wondering why Gravel was never taken seriously. Was there a particular thing about him that people were offended by? His publicized stances strike me as pretty liberal (which is a good thing), and he was a historically significant figure in terms of the Penatagon papers and so forth. For some reason he attracted even less of a following than Dennis Kucinich. Any thoughts?
He was in the debates for the entertainment value as far as I’m concerned. My strongest objection was that he wanted to amend the Constitution to provide for direct referenda.
is not just there for the entertainment factor. Here’s part of his quote on Edward’s departure (really crazy, isn’t he?):
<
p>
He makes a lot of sense…it only stands to reason that Time-Warner and friends would not take a particular liking to him. Question: does it seem to anyone that the media took it upon itself to narrow down the Democratic field more aggressively than the Republican field, or have the criteria been the same (for inclusion in debates, etc.)?
criteria used by the media for inclusion in debates is $$$money$$$. That’s the qualifier in the Dem primary debates, and I would assume it’s universal. Show me the money, not the diversity of thought.
The man’s done 65 events since January 2007, and he doesn’t even have a day job!
78, let me know if that many events are grueling. Give Mike a break. He’s standing up there saying words that nobody else dares say. I like him for that.
<
p>PS – I just got a Suffolk University poll call! It’s my first time. I’m assuming it will be out tonight or tomorrow? The guy raced through the questions, and I heard the same thing going on in the background. Asked about Senate race and presidential primary (and some questions about transfats!).
nobody took Gravel seriously because of videos like this:
<
p>
<
p>…or this:
<
p>
Both clips have meaning and messages (genius in my opinion) that are not any different than what you read on progressive blogs every day. They are different. So what? Does that mean that we should not listen? Is that what you mean to say, because that’s what I’m hearing. Contrast this to Hillary and Obama videos, and if you take a giant step backwards in perspective, I think you might see the point he’s making. Have we really reached a point in history where anything that is radically different from mainstream media garbage and politically acceptable pablum must be considered not worth hearing? Isn’t that part of what has gotten us to the point we’re at where every single political ad could be a product of Rovian strategy? Uggghhh. Mike Gravel is a very, very smart man.
to point to Gravel clips, try this one with Tweety Bird. This is a good example of standing up to an ignorant media bully and thwacking Tweety upside the head (supercilious turd blossom that he is).
<
p>
“Every white dude up for election is out. Now we have a choice between either the first woman or the first African-American. And while the ugliness of identity politics threatens to tear the Democratic family apart, we should take a moment to pat ourselves on the back and recognise our own boldness.” – lanugo
Marc Davidson calls this “thoughtful, unifying and generous.” I call it racist, sexist and divisive. Keep this up and people will begin to see you Obama-pod mewlings for what you are: racist, sexist and divisive. Mewling is a real word, BTW. It’s from “mew” meaning to cry weakly; whimper. And recognize has a “z” in it, not an “s”, lanugo. Learn to spell, dude.
<
p>Thanks for an appalling but revealing post.
<
p>
So explain to me why it is racist to explain the fact that yes we have now chosen two candidates that will make history.
<
p>Let’s be real – part of the attraction of any candidate is who they are, and that is true of both Obama and Clinton. While identity politics can be taken too far, identity does matter to some degree. And it does not always mean that in recognizing it we are racist.
<
p>I gonna mew a little more while you think about that.
<
p>WHAT!? Identity, as you define it, is bullshit! And WTF is “identity politics”?
<
p>Pardon me, but I never heard of such idiocy.
<
p>Identity politics is useful if you’re voting on American Idol, but not for the leader of the once greatest nation on earth. You do not USE the physical person, people – you do not use the soul-vessel – to make decisions, pass judgment, or decide who is worthy of leadership. You do not use it unless you’re surfing match.com or, cruising a bar for pickups, trying to decide what deodorant to buy or…
<
p>You are a victim of a vicious, modern indoctrination, of media-fed hype and opinions formed so superficially it makes me sick and want to scream. So I’ll scream, you mew… and we’ll see who gets heard!
<
p>Mew on that!
You sound a little angry. You may also need a little charm school, kiddo. That was ugly. In defense of the poster you just eviscerated, identity politics is a real phenomenon, and while you may feel vastly superior to those who employ it or discuss it, this is what Courtney Martin, The American Prospect, wrote about it:
<
p>”Gender matters, not because Hillary Clinton is a woman … but because her election would fundamentally change the way we see women and power. I would never again have to hear one of my college students say, “I just can’t imagine a woman ever being president.” Little girls would … have the irreplaceable model of a bonafide woman president. “
<
p>”Race matters, again not because Barack Obama is biracial … but because his nomination would complicate the way we see race and power. I would have hard-and-fast evidence to counter my cynical students claim that America’s “just not ready” for a black president. Black kids’ leadership dreams would be taken seriously instead of being seen as cutesy Martin Luther King, Jr. impressions”
<
p>”Is Hillary’s femaleness or Barack’s blackness a sole justification to vote for either leader? Absolutely not. Are the symbolic power of their respective identities incentive — in addition to their policy positions, their track records, and their values — to vote for them? Of course …”
<
p>This is not a media fed theme. There are constituencies that have been waiting a long time for their “time.” I’m not saying it’s the sole arbiter for how people vote – but it’s a part of it. So – scream away. It doesn’t change a thing.
Yeah, you’re right. It doesn’t change a thing. As John Edwards said from the ninth ward on Wednesday, “I’m gonna be just fine.” Like Edwards, Maybe I should get out too. Why rail against Obama and his shoddy health plan? Or the MSM and their bought and paid-for surrogates, uh… I mean candidates. I have excellent health insurance. I’m gonna be just fine. I think I’ll rent a house out on Nantucket, write my memoirs, meditate on the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012. Chill out. Maybe read some Emily Post…
<
p>But the poster deserved to be eviscerated.
<
p>So now I’ll just ride off into the sunset.
<
p>FADE IN:
<
p>A man standing way off in the distance with someone, waving. He’s wearing a white hat. It’s Ronald Reagan with Courtney Martin. What a nice man, Reagan…
<
p>FADE OUT.
One can only hope.
Dial it back, there, “Julia.” This isn’t Daily Kos or some mud wrestling equivalent of DU.
<
p>Come back when you’re civil. As one who can get a little sharp around the edges, I’ll offer that your hoary chill is a bit much. You aren’t going to last here long with that ‘tude.
I need to “dial it back,” lightiris. And I was a bit ‘over the edge.’ Sorry but I’ve had a rough few days with the Edwards thing. I don’t know if you can understand. But this is what really freaked me about this post:
<
p>
<
p>Every “white dude” up for election is out! Tell me that isn’t racist. Tell me. I grew up in the South and wept at what I saw because I was a child and I couldn’t do anything about it! And here, in Massachusetts, on this board, after John Edwards leaves with such grace, I encounter this! It’s a whole new millennium from the one I grew up in and yet I encounter this! In Massachusetts!
<
p>I’m sorry, lightiris. Maybe I overreacted in words but you can’t imagine how I reacted inside. And I tend to be pretty outspoken.
<
p>And I don’t think anyone here noticed how offensive that remark was; I really don’t think you noticed. Now maybe you do. Think about it. Read it and think about it.
<
p>Thank you.
you say it that way, your point is a little easier to handle. Sometimes it seems like there is very little adherence to the rules around here. Some posters can get away with whatever insanity they care to dump on people, and others get called to the carpet for being passionate about calling attention to the obvious.
and the whole point of my post was that we as Dems had the balls to not pick a more safe bet stable white dude this time. I’m a white dude so believe me, I’m not dissin my fellow stiff white male brothers on this. What I am saying is in picking a chick and a mulatto man named Barack Hussein Obama we have stood racists and sexists down – that took guts as both HRC and Obama are gonna lose some votes down the line because of who they are. We didn’t pick em because of identity alone – far from it(although it is part of their MOs) – what I was saying is that we picked them inspite of their identity, because they both have great attributes.
<
p>Take it from a white dude – this was not a racist post.
Mewling is a real word, but it’s usually a verb or an adjective; “mewlings” might also be the sound someone makes when mewling. But it’s a bit of a stretch to claim it can be used as a noun to refer to someone who mewls.
<
p>Moreover, “recognise” is not the standard spelling of the word in American English, but it is in British (and, I believe, other European) English. Virtually all American dictionaries list “recognise” as a valid alternative spelling of “recognize” (presumably the reverse is the case with British dictionaries).
<
p>I’m no fan of the phrase “identity politics” — at best it’s meaningless, at worst it’s a cudgel used to try to prevent disadvantaged groups from arguing against the background framework that reinforces their disadvantaged positions.
<
p>But I’m with Justice4All on this, I think you’re off the deep end here. It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize lanugo for talking about “identity politics” (as long as it’s buying into the underlying notion and not just using the phrase that you’re criticizing), but if you’re going to call someone out for being “racist, sexist and divisive” for noting that it’s quite a landmark moment to have these particular two candidates competing for the Democratic nomination — and I remain convinced that whichever wins the nomination will win the general election — well, it would behoove you to have some reasoning ready to hand to back that up.
Mewlings as a noun. It’s in the plays. But then he got that from Florio who made a specialty of turning verbs into nouns and vice versa. I guess I’m criticizing buying into the underlying notion. Never heard it defined before but it sort of sucks, I think. What I’m calling “racist, sexist and divisive” is:
<
p>
<
p>Now this is the most elaborately constructed post I’ve ever written. Maybe you can take it to your English class and dissect it. Nice writing about the cudgel and all. I’ve just run across this concept and it sort of creeps me.
<
p>Thanks for explaining all that.
means you are either blind or dumb. And sorry to be offensive.
<
p>We should be proud that we were not afraid to pick the two candidates with the most to offer – even if one is a widely hated women and the other a fairly inexperienced black guy. We said damn with convention – these two are the best we got and their skirt or complexion ain’t gonna stop us from backing em.
<
p>I know you may be disppointed with Edwards being out. He had a lot to offer as well. But he just got beat by two candidates with a bit more to offer than he.
<
p>
But honestly, if the media didn’t keep bringing it up, I don’t think race/gender would have ever crossed my mind. When that becomes the case with pretty much everyone in the country, then we’ll probably have finally conquered our old demons.