There are a lot of questions surrounding the Democratic primaries. But I have two questions that are more fundamental than the current who should stay and who should drop out or how a race is being funded or why did he/she say that. The first goes to the very heart of the Democratic primaries: Are caucus’s legal?
I always thought that one of the greatest foundations of our republic was the ability to vote in private. To choose a candidate without immediate pressure and in secrecy so that no future action could be taken against you based on your vote. So I honestly don’t understand how a caucus could even be legal. First you must declare for a candidate in front of your friends, employers, co-workers and family. Then if your candidate does not have a certain percentage you need to choose another candidate while those candidate’s followers are publicly urging you to choose their candidate. Excuse me? That sounds like something out of the old Soviet Union or even China whereby you are harassed if you don’t pick “the right” candidate. It sure doesn’t sound like the United States.
It also makes the whole Barrack-Clinton race extremely interesting. Strip away the rhetoric and there really isn’t much difference in their ideology. Yet Barrack wins the caucus’s and Hillary wins the voting booth primaries. Imagine if you are standing in a crowded room filled with people you know and are told if you want to vote for Barrack stand in one corner and Hillary supporters are to stand in another corner. Now imagine that one of your neighbors is black and supporting Barrack and happens to glance your way. No matter your politics, anybody will start to feel self conscious and wonder if their neighbor might think you would be racist if you didn’t vote for Barrack. I know that I would feel very uncomfortable in the above situation and would probably end up voting for Barrack even if I was initially planning to vote for Clinton. Yet if given the secrecy of a voting booth I would feel no pressure to change my vote. Hence Barrack wins the caucus’s and Hillary wins the voting booth primaries.
My second question is: Isn’t the idea of super delegates belittling and condescending? I suppose they are legal but I can’t help but wonder why the rank and file allows their party to think that they can’t correctly choose a candidate. It basically says that the party doesn’t trust the rank and file to pick the right candidate so these old time party hacks can step in and make sure the party does the right thing. Wow. Actually that explains the whole philosophy of Democrats. They don’t think the citizens can pick a candidate, or a doctor or a job or take care of themselves and so the superior Democrat politicians must step in and do it for them. Can you imagine the media attacks if the Republican Party had super delegates of long-time conservative politicians? Yet the media is spending all their time counting super delegate votes to even bother to question the viability of super delegates.
If Barrack becomes the Democratic presidential candidate due to his wins in caucus’s and super delegates then in some ways he is negatively handicapped in the general election where people vote in secrecy and without the added super delegates, And if Barrack loses this November, it will be the fault of the Democrat Party for not running the same kind of race in the primaries that their candidate will face in the general election. On second thought, caucuses and super delegates may not be illegal but they sure are incredibly stupid ideas.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sermons of Race and Multiculturalism
To Christians worldwide, Easter Sunday is a day of hope, of forgiveness, of God’s undying love and His promise of a better tomorrow. When Christians walked out of church this Easter Sunday filled with His message what did they then face from the secular world? They heard that at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago the new pastor who replaced Rev. Wright preached a sermon titled “How to Handle a Public Lynching”. Rev. Otis Moss stated that the recent news stories on Rev. Wright’s vile anti-American hate filled statements were like lynchings and compared it to the crucifixion of Jesus.
They heard that Muslims are once again protesting and boycotting Denmark due to a movie they say is anti-Islamic. This comes on the heels of 17 Danish papers reprinting the 2005 cartoons which caused world wide protests. The reasoning behind republishing the cartoons was to strike a blow for free speech and stand up for it in the face of mounting violence.
While writing this blog, I went to YouTube and somehow stumbled onto a truly radical video by an Englishman. Pat Condell is a comedian and writer and gives a speech on race and multiculturalism that puts Barack Obama’s earlier speech to shame. For Pat doesn’t mince words as he bluntly and courageously speaks out against the real inequities in today’s society. He actually says out loud that not all cultures are equal. That to treat radical Islam the same as other cultures is to acquiese to Islams fascist regime, their degrading attitude towards woman and their archaic rules of law. I urge everyone to take a moment and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA before it, too, gets pulled when Islams protest it, as they surely will.
If more people take an honest stand like Pat does then maybe there is hope for tomorrow….
They heard that Muslims are once again protesting and boycotting Denmark due to a movie they say is anti-Islamic. This comes on the heels of 17 Danish papers reprinting the 2005 cartoons which caused world wide protests. The reasoning behind republishing the cartoons was to strike a blow for free speech and stand up for it in the face of mounting violence.
While writing this blog, I went to YouTube and somehow stumbled onto a truly radical video by an Englishman. Pat Condell is a comedian and writer and gives a speech on race and multiculturalism that puts Barack Obama’s earlier speech to shame. For Pat doesn’t mince words as he bluntly and courageously speaks out against the real inequities in today’s society. He actually says out loud that not all cultures are equal. That to treat radical Islam the same as other cultures is to acquiese to Islams fascist regime, their degrading attitude towards woman and their archaic rules of law. I urge everyone to take a moment and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA before it, too, gets pulled when Islams protest it, as they surely will.
If more people take an honest stand like Pat does then maybe there is hope for tomorrow….
Friday, March 21, 2008
The "Race" for the President
Barack Obama had three things going for him. First he was new. People were tired of the same old faces. Clinton and McCain have been around for decades and it was exciting to see a new young face. Second, he was black but yet not threatening or challenging in the way of other famous African Americans such as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Close your eyes when listening to him and he could be your white next door neighbor. And finally, he was charismatic. His speeches were inspiring and exciting. Combined, these three characteristics brought him center stage in the political world and made him a viable candidate for the presidency.
The videos showing Rev. Wright and the subsequent speeches by Obama have tarnished him by impinging on his image of being a new black candidate that didn’t act like the old politicians or the radical blacks. OK so it was inevitable that the “newness” would wear off of Obama. But as we learn more about him the public realizes that the bottom line is that Obama is a politician just like any other politician. He is trying to explain his way out of the problems of his relationship with his spiritual advisor by blaming it all on race. Huh? Basically he is trying to make whites feel guilty for judging Wright and himself harshly since we don’t understand the rage felt by most blacks. And to assuage whites he then compares it to the racism felt by whites towards blacks giving his white grandmother as an example.
Luckily a lot of people aren’t buying that reasoning. There is no correlation between an elderly woman’s concern about being mugged vs. the vile hatred espoused towards whites and America by Obama’s spiritual advisor. He needed to reject and repudiate Rev. Wright which is the one thing he refuses to do. And that worries and scares people. OK I should say it worries and scares white people because they now wonder if he is really no different from Jackson and Sharpton. They now are very concerned about exactly what kind of president he will he be and who he would surround himself with as presidential advisors and cabinet members. And so they begin to look again at Clinton and McCain. Yes they are old faces but there is some comfort in people you know and understand.
The remaining factor that Obama has going for him is his charisma and ability to inspire people through his speeches. Over the past few days he has given a number of speeches to not only give his views on the economy and terrorism but mainly to try to change the subject from his spiritual advisor. But he is not as successful as he hoped he would be as evidenced by declining polls. Yes he can still give wonderful speeches and maybe the MSM (main stream media) is still buying it but a lot of people are now listening to him with a new degree of cynicism and the audacity to challenge what he says.
The videos showing Rev. Wright and the subsequent speeches by Obama have tarnished him by impinging on his image of being a new black candidate that didn’t act like the old politicians or the radical blacks. OK so it was inevitable that the “newness” would wear off of Obama. But as we learn more about him the public realizes that the bottom line is that Obama is a politician just like any other politician. He is trying to explain his way out of the problems of his relationship with his spiritual advisor by blaming it all on race. Huh? Basically he is trying to make whites feel guilty for judging Wright and himself harshly since we don’t understand the rage felt by most blacks. And to assuage whites he then compares it to the racism felt by whites towards blacks giving his white grandmother as an example.
Luckily a lot of people aren’t buying that reasoning. There is no correlation between an elderly woman’s concern about being mugged vs. the vile hatred espoused towards whites and America by Obama’s spiritual advisor. He needed to reject and repudiate Rev. Wright which is the one thing he refuses to do. And that worries and scares people. OK I should say it worries and scares white people because they now wonder if he is really no different from Jackson and Sharpton. They now are very concerned about exactly what kind of president he will he be and who he would surround himself with as presidential advisors and cabinet members. And so they begin to look again at Clinton and McCain. Yes they are old faces but there is some comfort in people you know and understand.
The remaining factor that Obama has going for him is his charisma and ability to inspire people through his speeches. Over the past few days he has given a number of speeches to not only give his views on the economy and terrorism but mainly to try to change the subject from his spiritual advisor. But he is not as successful as he hoped he would be as evidenced by declining polls. Yes he can still give wonderful speeches and maybe the MSM (main stream media) is still buying it but a lot of people are now listening to him with a new degree of cynicism and the audacity to challenge what he says.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Short Retort
I am sitting here watching Barack Obama’s speech on race. The speech that the pundits say could make or break his campaign. Drudge Report illegal published his speech ahead of time so that I have already read what he is going to say. It seemed that it could be a powerful speech that could help him.
Obama has just started and the first impression is that this is one very angry man. Gone is the smooth delivery of a powerful speaker who can move crowds with his words. In its place is an irate man who clips is words and spits them out like bullets. Unlike prior speeches it seems as if he is not talking to us but rather at us. I have previously admitted that even I, a conservative, was moved by his past speeches. Whatever he had before, charisma, belief in what he is saying or whatever it was, is missing.
He started to slow down and speak a bit more powerfully when he read from the bible. So perhaps the rest of the speech will be more like his effective earlier speeches. But those first minutes gave a glimpse into the Barrack Obama normally kept under wraps behind the smooth talker. Which will win out and what the impact of this speech will be only time and the upcoming primaries will tell…
Obama has just started and the first impression is that this is one very angry man. Gone is the smooth delivery of a powerful speaker who can move crowds with his words. In its place is an irate man who clips is words and spits them out like bullets. Unlike prior speeches it seems as if he is not talking to us but rather at us. I have previously admitted that even I, a conservative, was moved by his past speeches. Whatever he had before, charisma, belief in what he is saying or whatever it was, is missing.
He started to slow down and speak a bit more powerfully when he read from the bible. So perhaps the rest of the speech will be more like his effective earlier speeches. But those first minutes gave a glimpse into the Barrack Obama normally kept under wraps behind the smooth talker. Which will win out and what the impact of this speech will be only time and the upcoming primaries will tell…
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sermons of Hatred
I watched all the Sunday talking heads shows and was extremely disgusted by what I heard. All of the Democratic leaders tried to minimize the impact of Barack Obama’s relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Every one of them agreed with each other that each candidate had someone associated with their campaign who said wrong things and it was time to put that aside and get to the issues.
Excuse me? The sermons of Jeremiah Wright cannot be set aside that easily. The impact of what Rev. Wright preached was so shocking to White America (to use one of his terms) that it will reverberate throughout the rest of Obama’s campaign. Set aside for a minute the fact that this is the church chosen by Obama. The revelation that this hatred for America and Whites is being preached in Black churches is so mind boggling that it needs further discussion itself.
After watching the many vile tapes of the sermons I always end up with the same question. Why? I keep thinking back to the atmosphere after September 11, 2001. It seemed like everyone was pulling together immediately after that terrorist attack. People were turning to each other and to their churches for comfort and assurance. Yet amidst all of this tragedy here was this church leader preaching hatred and anger and spitefulness. (I also am surprised that Obama wasn’t in the pews that day for anyone the least bit religious wanted to gather together in church the Sunday after 9/11. You would think this would be especially true of a community and state leader.)
Some pundits on TV were also upset over the church’s tie in to Africa. One of the mission statements for the church is “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land’, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” At first I was shocked by this until I started to think about it in other terms. For example, today just happens to be St. Patrick’s Day. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s there was a big trend (and still might be) for Irish Americans to give money to Ireland and dream of visiting their mother land. And many Jewish people still use the phrase that traditionally ends the seder of “next year in Jerusalem” and give money to their spiritual homeland, Israel. Same with Catholics and Rome. So when put in that perspective I can better understand the church’s fascination with Africa.
But as to other shocking statements by Rev. Wright, I repeat my original question, why? What purpose does it serve to preach those hateful things? Why would you tell your parishioners “God Damn America”? How does that tie in with the typical sermons of God, Jesus, Love, Forgiveness and Christianity? Even more disturbing were the churchgoer’s reactions. How scary it is to see them all cheering and applauding these mean spirited things. I never realized that there is such a large group of people who hate America yet are our own countrymen. It was awful enough to see zealot Muslims aroung the world cheering when the towers fell. But to now discover our own citizens were doing the same thing?
As much as the Democrats wish to brush this aside these tapes are too disturbing to forget that easily. Iromically, White America had thought we were making progress in regards to racial problems. They were even coming out in droves to vote for a Black man. I think that most would have said that racial tensions were low and people were less prejudiced than in the past. What a shock to now realize how much some Blacks hate White people. Wow. If these tapes are representative of how many Blacks feel then we are sitting on a powder keg of hatred of Blacks against Whites and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is striking the match…
Excuse me? The sermons of Jeremiah Wright cannot be set aside that easily. The impact of what Rev. Wright preached was so shocking to White America (to use one of his terms) that it will reverberate throughout the rest of Obama’s campaign. Set aside for a minute the fact that this is the church chosen by Obama. The revelation that this hatred for America and Whites is being preached in Black churches is so mind boggling that it needs further discussion itself.
After watching the many vile tapes of the sermons I always end up with the same question. Why? I keep thinking back to the atmosphere after September 11, 2001. It seemed like everyone was pulling together immediately after that terrorist attack. People were turning to each other and to their churches for comfort and assurance. Yet amidst all of this tragedy here was this church leader preaching hatred and anger and spitefulness. (I also am surprised that Obama wasn’t in the pews that day for anyone the least bit religious wanted to gather together in church the Sunday after 9/11. You would think this would be especially true of a community and state leader.)
Some pundits on TV were also upset over the church’s tie in to Africa. One of the mission statements for the church is “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land’, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” At first I was shocked by this until I started to think about it in other terms. For example, today just happens to be St. Patrick’s Day. Back in the 1970’s and 1980’s there was a big trend (and still might be) for Irish Americans to give money to Ireland and dream of visiting their mother land. And many Jewish people still use the phrase that traditionally ends the seder of “next year in Jerusalem” and give money to their spiritual homeland, Israel. Same with Catholics and Rome. So when put in that perspective I can better understand the church’s fascination with Africa.
But as to other shocking statements by Rev. Wright, I repeat my original question, why? What purpose does it serve to preach those hateful things? Why would you tell your parishioners “God Damn America”? How does that tie in with the typical sermons of God, Jesus, Love, Forgiveness and Christianity? Even more disturbing were the churchgoer’s reactions. How scary it is to see them all cheering and applauding these mean spirited things. I never realized that there is such a large group of people who hate America yet are our own countrymen. It was awful enough to see zealot Muslims aroung the world cheering when the towers fell. But to now discover our own citizens were doing the same thing?
As much as the Democrats wish to brush this aside these tapes are too disturbing to forget that easily. Iromically, White America had thought we were making progress in regards to racial problems. They were even coming out in droves to vote for a Black man. I think that most would have said that racial tensions were low and people were less prejudiced than in the past. What a shock to now realize how much some Blacks hate White people. Wow. If these tapes are representative of how many Blacks feel then we are sitting on a powder keg of hatred of Blacks against Whites and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is striking the match…
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Those Racist Liberals....
I never thought I would see this. Not only is the Democratic race starting to turn nastier but now the Obama supporters are saying the Clinton group is continuing to be racist. How ironic….
The latest hoopla is over a statement by former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro, a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. She said “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
You wouldn’t think anyone would consider that to be racist. Ask John Edwards or any of the other qualified white males who fell by the wayside early in the Democratic race. They were all more experienced than Obama or even Hillary but could not compete against the uniqueness of a woman or a black candidate. Only a minority could compete against another minority. Pointing this out isn’t racist, simply realistic.
Yet the Obama supporters don’t see it that way. Or perhaps they are trying to twist it to their own advantage. In either case, a number of Obama supporters, including senior advisor David Axelrod are crying racist, asking for an apology and for Ferraro to step down from her position on Clinton finance committee.
The professional campaigners on both Obama and Clinton staffs will probably be able to put this all aside and unite together when one of them is finally picked as their candidate. But to the rank and file supporters this is becoming personal. The nastier it gets, the more they take it to heart and resent the other side. And the latest Rasmussen polls are starting to show this trend. It could very well be that McCain might win simply because either the Obama or Clinton supporters were so disillusioned and bitter over their primary loss that they gave up and didn’t vote at all.
Meanwhile the Republicans will sit back while the Democrats tear their party apart. And many Republicans might think that even though McCain wasn’t their first or even second choice they are relieved that we have a candidate and can avoid the bitter fights that the Democrats are experiencing. And to think, a good part of it is because one Democratic group is calling another Democratic group racist. I suppose if you live long enough you will see just about anything…..
The latest hoopla is over a statement by former VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro, a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. She said “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
You wouldn’t think anyone would consider that to be racist. Ask John Edwards or any of the other qualified white males who fell by the wayside early in the Democratic race. They were all more experienced than Obama or even Hillary but could not compete against the uniqueness of a woman or a black candidate. Only a minority could compete against another minority. Pointing this out isn’t racist, simply realistic.
Yet the Obama supporters don’t see it that way. Or perhaps they are trying to twist it to their own advantage. In either case, a number of Obama supporters, including senior advisor David Axelrod are crying racist, asking for an apology and for Ferraro to step down from her position on Clinton finance committee.
The professional campaigners on both Obama and Clinton staffs will probably be able to put this all aside and unite together when one of them is finally picked as their candidate. But to the rank and file supporters this is becoming personal. The nastier it gets, the more they take it to heart and resent the other side. And the latest Rasmussen polls are starting to show this trend. It could very well be that McCain might win simply because either the Obama or Clinton supporters were so disillusioned and bitter over their primary loss that they gave up and didn’t vote at all.
Meanwhile the Republicans will sit back while the Democrats tear their party apart. And many Republicans might think that even though McCain wasn’t their first or even second choice they are relieved that we have a candidate and can avoid the bitter fights that the Democrats are experiencing. And to think, a good part of it is because one Democratic group is calling another Democratic group racist. I suppose if you live long enough you will see just about anything…..
Friday, March 7, 2008
BC Era - Before Computers, that is!
I had an old folk’s moment this evening. One of those times where you literally think to yourself “when I was a child….” followed by some nostalgic memory. In this case it wasn’t that I had to walk miles to school (and all uphill, right, Mom?) but rather a memory of pre-technology days.
I had been sitting here watching TV while bolts of lightening were literally flashing all around me. The rain had picked up and the wind was blowing it sideways against my window and I knew we were under a tornado watch. But since I was watching a program on cable, I no longer had the annoying yet informative beeping notices which had been shown on the local channels.
As always, I had my laptop next to me so I logged on to the Weather Channel. It has been a while since I had been on it and I discovered a new feature. When you are looking at your local radar map you can now enter in your home address and the map will pinpoint your location. Wow. Now I could follow the radar map of yellow and orange and purple storms as they had raced across my house. (OK so I could have stood outside and gotten wet, wetter and wettest as the storms passed by but this was a lot safer not to mention dryer!) Plus of course it gave me a preview of what was headed next to my house.
It was while I was looking at the exact weather expected at my address that I had my flashback. Out of nowhere I remembered as a child watching the school weather report on TV in the morning done by some old fat weatherman (even back then the weathermen on national news always seemed to be old and fat unlike the cute young women on local weather).
Back before computers, if it was going to be cloudy they had a cutout of a cloud that they would place over the city on the map. Rain forecasts were shown by cutouts of a child in a raincoat or umbrellas. And of course sunny day forecasts was just that – a cutout of a sun. That was it. No computers, no radar, no storm tracker or VIPIR or whatever they call it. Simply some jolly old guy with cute little cutouts he placed on a felt map. And yet today a satellite can monitor the sky and show me when a storm will be directly over my house. Wow I feel old. Then again on the bright side, at least I can say I had TV as a child and that the map contained all 50 states! Although you might have noted that I didn’t say if it was a yellow raincoat as that would imply color TV… {sigh}
I had been sitting here watching TV while bolts of lightening were literally flashing all around me. The rain had picked up and the wind was blowing it sideways against my window and I knew we were under a tornado watch. But since I was watching a program on cable, I no longer had the annoying yet informative beeping notices which had been shown on the local channels.
As always, I had my laptop next to me so I logged on to the Weather Channel. It has been a while since I had been on it and I discovered a new feature. When you are looking at your local radar map you can now enter in your home address and the map will pinpoint your location. Wow. Now I could follow the radar map of yellow and orange and purple storms as they had raced across my house. (OK so I could have stood outside and gotten wet, wetter and wettest as the storms passed by but this was a lot safer not to mention dryer!) Plus of course it gave me a preview of what was headed next to my house.
It was while I was looking at the exact weather expected at my address that I had my flashback. Out of nowhere I remembered as a child watching the school weather report on TV in the morning done by some old fat weatherman (even back then the weathermen on national news always seemed to be old and fat unlike the cute young women on local weather).
Back before computers, if it was going to be cloudy they had a cutout of a cloud that they would place over the city on the map. Rain forecasts were shown by cutouts of a child in a raincoat or umbrellas. And of course sunny day forecasts was just that – a cutout of a sun. That was it. No computers, no radar, no storm tracker or VIPIR or whatever they call it. Simply some jolly old guy with cute little cutouts he placed on a felt map. And yet today a satellite can monitor the sky and show me when a storm will be directly over my house. Wow I feel old. Then again on the bright side, at least I can say I had TV as a child and that the map contained all 50 states! Although you might have noted that I didn’t say if it was a yellow raincoat as that would imply color TV… {sigh}
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
SNL Impacting Tuesday Night Results
You are now hearing all kinds of reasons as to why Hillary won Ohio and Texas last night. Personally I give a lot of the credit (or blame) to something a little bit different than what the pundits are saying. I think the attacks on Obama, the hits on the media and the support for Hillary by Saturday Night Live played a major part in slowing down Obama and helping out Hillary.
I happened to have watched the first parody of the Obama-Clinton debates on SNL. It was the first time I had seen anyone poke fun at Obama and at the media, too. The fact that it was dead on in it’s portrayal of the media’s fawning over Barack to the detriment of Clinton made it that much funnier.
I am not sure if anyone else could have done what SNL did. The media that weren’t falling over themselves to praise Obama were held back from criticizing him for fear of looking racist. It might also make the media look “old” for it was considered young and hip to be a part of Obama’s team.
Then came this show that is known for being young and hip and cool. And they had the guts to yell out that the Emperor didn’t have any clothes on. Wow. From that point on things began to change.
The media, to its credit, actually started to look at it’s past actions and realized that they had been unfair to Hillary and way too easy on Barack. So the honeymoon was finally over and Obama started to get hit with questions that were not only uncomfortable but even lethal.
Meanwhile, Hillary took advantage of this change. She referenced the skit in the next debate. She even showed that she could make fun of herself by being in another skit the next week on SNL. And it gave her heart and energy to throw off the pessimism of being a loser and started to act like a winner again.
And then there were the voters. The SNL skit showed them that Obama was infallible. Even that it was ok to make fun of him. That maybe the media had been unfair to Hillary. And it made the women start to rethink their options and take another look at Hillary.
I am not saying that the SNL skit was the only reason Hillary did so well last night. But it sure played a part in what happened. And I can only wonder what the candidate’s images and standing would be today if the writers of SNL hadn’t been on strike for the last few months…
I happened to have watched the first parody of the Obama-Clinton debates on SNL. It was the first time I had seen anyone poke fun at Obama and at the media, too. The fact that it was dead on in it’s portrayal of the media’s fawning over Barack to the detriment of Clinton made it that much funnier.
I am not sure if anyone else could have done what SNL did. The media that weren’t falling over themselves to praise Obama were held back from criticizing him for fear of looking racist. It might also make the media look “old” for it was considered young and hip to be a part of Obama’s team.
Then came this show that is known for being young and hip and cool. And they had the guts to yell out that the Emperor didn’t have any clothes on. Wow. From that point on things began to change.
The media, to its credit, actually started to look at it’s past actions and realized that they had been unfair to Hillary and way too easy on Barack. So the honeymoon was finally over and Obama started to get hit with questions that were not only uncomfortable but even lethal.
Meanwhile, Hillary took advantage of this change. She referenced the skit in the next debate. She even showed that she could make fun of herself by being in another skit the next week on SNL. And it gave her heart and energy to throw off the pessimism of being a loser and started to act like a winner again.
And then there were the voters. The SNL skit showed them that Obama was infallible. Even that it was ok to make fun of him. That maybe the media had been unfair to Hillary. And it made the women start to rethink their options and take another look at Hillary.
I am not saying that the SNL skit was the only reason Hillary did so well last night. But it sure played a part in what happened. And I can only wonder what the candidate’s images and standing would be today if the writers of SNL hadn’t been on strike for the last few months…
Monday, March 3, 2008
Random Thoughts on Tomorrrow's Primary
I am glad tomorrow’s primary is in Texas and Ohio. Too often my state, Florida, has been accused of winning/losing the election depending on your party. For once it is nice that the heat and spotlight is somewhere other than Florida. (Although it may end up back here if there is still no clear winner and Hillary challenges the ruling not to sit Florida’s delegates.)
Hillary haters will again write back that I am wrong but I still feel sorry for her. I rewatched parts of the last debate and even after the SNL parody the media still was treating her differently than Obama. It was unbelievable the number of times she was cut off or dismissed. In comparison, Obama was allowed to talk and talk and talk. When Hillary did try to nail Obama for the support of Farrakhan, Obama ended up turning it into a joke over the words of renounce and reject (reminded me of what is the definition of is). What was worse was that the moderator, Brian Williams, not only allowed Obama to get away with it but abetted him by chuckling and shaking his head indicating that he was thoroughly dismissing Clinton’s valid concern.
Trying to judge what others were thinking I checked out some other political sites to see what they were saying. The most interesting was the Democratic Underground an extreme left-wing web site. Some of the titles of their articles and blogs were “I’m done defending Hillary”, “As A Hillary Supporter, I Know It’s Probably Over 3/4/08”, “The Bush Tragedy – NYT – The Most Disastrous President in Our History”, and “Obama’s Hollow ‘Judgement' and empty record”. From these, and others, it looks like democrats have little hope that Hillary will win. Actually this site is rich with insight into the far left and I will probably return later for a full article on it.
Meanwhile in the Junior Super Tuesday, as the media is calling tomorrow, it is too close to call. Personally I an rooting for Hillary because it is advantageous to the GOPs to see the democratic race extended for as long as possible. If she wins just one state, it will be interesting to see what she does. Then again, some are saying she will stay in the race until at least PA if she is even close in tomorrow’s primaries. I can’t help but wonder if the concept of losing with grace and style is even something her campaign will ever understand.
Hillary haters will again write back that I am wrong but I still feel sorry for her. I rewatched parts of the last debate and even after the SNL parody the media still was treating her differently than Obama. It was unbelievable the number of times she was cut off or dismissed. In comparison, Obama was allowed to talk and talk and talk. When Hillary did try to nail Obama for the support of Farrakhan, Obama ended up turning it into a joke over the words of renounce and reject (reminded me of what is the definition of is). What was worse was that the moderator, Brian Williams, not only allowed Obama to get away with it but abetted him by chuckling and shaking his head indicating that he was thoroughly dismissing Clinton’s valid concern.
Trying to judge what others were thinking I checked out some other political sites to see what they were saying. The most interesting was the Democratic Underground an extreme left-wing web site. Some of the titles of their articles and blogs were “I’m done defending Hillary”, “As A Hillary Supporter, I Know It’s Probably Over 3/4/08”, “The Bush Tragedy – NYT – The Most Disastrous President in Our History”, and “Obama’s Hollow ‘Judgement' and empty record”. From these, and others, it looks like democrats have little hope that Hillary will win. Actually this site is rich with insight into the far left and I will probably return later for a full article on it.
Meanwhile in the Junior Super Tuesday, as the media is calling tomorrow, it is too close to call. Personally I an rooting for Hillary because it is advantageous to the GOPs to see the democratic race extended for as long as possible. If she wins just one state, it will be interesting to see what she does. Then again, some are saying she will stay in the race until at least PA if she is even close in tomorrow’s primaries. I can’t help but wonder if the concept of losing with grace and style is even something her campaign will ever understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)