One More Political Thing
And since I’ve been writing so much about politics the last couple days, I want to say one more thing that’s on my mind.
Everywhere I look in the press, I see Democrat-friendly people complaining that the primary contest between Clinton and Obama is so divisive that Democrats will be unable to unite once one of them is finally nominated.
Okay, I’m sorry, but if you are partial to either Clinton or Obama (and, for my money, I’m highly partial to the latter) and you really think divisions between them or their respective supporters are so great that you could not in good conscience vote for the other one, then what exactly are you going to do come November? Vote for that lame excuse for a Republican, John McCain?
(In case you haven’t noticed, John McCain appears to have approximately one plank in his platform: “I’m a war hero, dammit!” I guess if you want a candidate who is completely out of touch with the interests of most Americans, including all those “red state” people, then sure, you could vote for McCain. I guess.)
Are you going to just not vote at all, because you have sour grapes over your favorite Democrat not getting the nomination? If so, then maybe you should go back to high school and re-take your civics class. Our system works when people participate, not when they stay home on election day.
If you plotted these three candidates on a political spectrum, they would form a skinny little isosceles triangle: Clinton and Obama over there next to each other with McCain off somewhere to the right. There’s no meaningful difference or division. I’d vote for either of those Democrats. I think Obama can think and clearly express more nuanced ideas than any public figure I’ve ever seen, but I suspect Clinton is just as smart behind closed doors. She just seems to be a little more embedded in the game of “politics” than he is. (McCain, on the other hand, seems to me like one of those cranky old anti-intellectual, let’s-just-go-blow-them-up kind of guys. No nuance at all.)
Would I prefer to vote for an atheist libertarian? YES. But none are in the race and there’s no way I’m going to vote for yet another old pandering white guy who claims to be a war hero. And the differences between the Democrats are negligible, in the grand scheme.
So what’s all this about a Democratic party that can’t unite under one candidate? It means we have to conclude that all (or substantially all) the supporters of one of those candidates will either stay home or go running to the arms of John McCain on election day. Really? Really? That’s ludicrous. And if you’re one of the people who would do either of those things, maybe you need to check and see whether you are really participating in politics or just playing the game of “politics.”
Good stuff. Would you be interested in letting me syndicate some of your content on my blog?
Sure. I think you have my email address if you need to contact me further on the matter.
Yeah, totally. I’m a Clinton supporter but that won’t stop me from voting for Obama should he get the nomination.
Whenever they do sporadically talk about the real issues and not lapel pins during debates, they both have nearly identical policies with small tweaks here or there.
I agree. I also find it hard to believe that if either Clinton or Obama must drop out of the race soon so that the remaining Dem can be a viable candidate for the Dems against the Reps, then the media and/or political pundits must know something we don’t. What’s wrong with three candidates to choose from up to the moment until there are two? No worries here.
I read a great post on Hillary having to deal with so many clamoring for her to quit.
Could you maybe give a more specific link to the exact post so I don’t have to wade through all the stuff over there? Otherwise, your comment starts to look a lot like you’re quasi-spamming for Shakesville.
Ooops, my bad, I meant to give a link directly to the post.
Try this one.
And what’s quasi-spamming?
It’s just like quasi- anything else: sorta kinda, not quite, halfway, etc.
At that post, are you talking about the excerpt at the bottom from Media Matters? I don’t really understand the point of the other stuff above that.
You don’t understand the point of pointing out sexism?
No, I don’t understand whether the author (Melissa McEwan) is trying to point out sexism, or if she is trying to point out that she thinks Clinton is the better candidate, or if she is just tromping on shallow journalism. If it is any of those, I think she did a fairly poor job, mostly because she writes for insiders (i.e., people who already agree with her) and is usually atrocious at writing persuasively (i.e., for people who do not already agree with her).
The upshot is that I got the impression she wanted to say something about any or all of the three points I listed above, but what she said was not particularly compelling on any of those points, individually or together.
because she writes for insiders (i.e., people who already agree with her) and is usually atrocious at writing persuasively
LOL! Excellent points. That must be why my blog never took off.
And that comment just demonstrates my point. You said nothing of substance because your remark is (apparently) predicated on the assumption that the people who read your blog are the people who don’t already agree with you or take your premises seriously. It may in fact be that the people who make your blog successful are the ones who don’t need convincing, who already agree with you, or who otherwise accept the legitimacy of what you write to the extent necessary to ground their opposition.
But you do not addresss these possibilities and instead assume (apparently) that I will automatically agree with you that high readership alone refutes my contention that you do a poor job if persuading. (That is like saying that we know mainstream American cinema is high-quality because it makes so much money.)
Instead, you make an apparently sarcastic remark and leave me confirmed in my tentative conclusion that you have no substance to offer anyone who does not already agree with you.
Instead, you make an apparently sarcastic remark and leave me confirmed in my tentative conclusion that you have no substance to offer anyone who does not already agree with you.
Maybe sometime after July, you’ll have some free time to explore her blog further and decide whether that tentative conclusion has any merit.
I’ve read stuff you’ve linked over there on many different occasions. I’ve rarely found any of it compelling or persuasive, but rather often so affected with sentiment and insider-ism that it is nearly incomprehensible.
The other day when you linked the whole blog without linking the specific post I read a few of the things that were up there and came to pretty much the same conclusion.
At this point, I don’t really feel any need to go “explore her blog further” to see more of what has always been the same on every previous foray. I much prefer to spend my time reading things that are presented in a rational fashion and allow me to make my own decision rather than beating me over the head with apparent truisms and then attempting to make me look like a bad person because I disagree with them.
Well, then I guess it isn’t much of a tentative conclusion then, is it?
Absolutely it’s a tentative conclusion because it can be changed. But I’m not going to assume the burden of seeking out new evidence that contradicts it.
Your decision to avoid seeking evidence that would refute or alter your tentative conclusion effectly renders it your final conclusion.
Play semantics if you want.
I think Melissa’s comment above was petty and immature - no matter how many LOL’s preface it.
I read the Shakesville blog occasionally and many times I find it entertaining just as “mainstream American cinema” can sometimes be entertaining. And occasionally, I find posts, either from Melissa or other guest bloggers, that are concise and reasoned pieces of writing. It seems a pity that her ego, displayed by her comment above, doesn’t allow for criticism.