Critical mass has been reached. “Bitter” and “cling” will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that “Tuzla” and “the laugh” will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race.Brad, at Sadly, No! responds:
Goddammit, I hate our press corps. I have never in my life seen a such a large collection of catty, shallow and gossipy pieces of garbage. Instead of, say, talking about health care, gas prices, inflation, the Iraq war or the environment, these useless gasbags waste our time finding the most idiotic and petty anecdotes to spread around, all while dutifully handing John Effing McCain boxes of donuts. Do I really give a rat’s ass about how Hillary Clinton laughs? Are you serious?"That is the nature of our press corps. Stupid, and ridiculously following the inconsequential and trivial rather than the substantive. Can Obama bowl? Is he "black enough?"
****
Jon Stewart had a great take on the whole "bitter" issue last night, and really pointed out how silly and destructive this political fear of "elitism" has become. Fear of elitism, according to Hillary, cost both John Kerry and Al Gore the presidency. And I think she is right. Think how many people voted for Bush because he seemed a "regular guy." Give me a break. As Jon said last night, "hey, if you don't think you are better than us, what the f*ck are you doing?" I know a lot of people who are very nice people, who I like personally, who I drink beer or coffee with. But none of them are qualified to lead our country.
Seriously, anyone who votes for the next President because they think the candidate is just like everyone else in the country--is AN IDIOT! How about we choose our leaders based on their ability and try to elevate the "best and the brightest" and then watch them like a hawk? Instead of electing the mentally challenged and giving them carte blanche. Talk about monumentally stupid.
I will say this about Bush. Clinton's (both of them) over the last few months have more than excused everyone who voted for Bush in 2000. They are insufferable and I now remember just how tired of them I was at the time, and how frustrated I was with the constant spinning and politicizing of so many issues.
But 2004 is a different issue. And we are paying the cost of this monumental stupidity. Deregulated industry and economy. Actually, Bush doesn't deregulate, he just appoints more monumentally stupid people to oversee critical areas like the housing market or aviation safety or mine safety and makes sure that no actual oversight occurs. But however you count it, in year 8 of his presidency, we are in 2 wars with no end in sight; 3 trillion dollars in debt and no end in sight; our social safety net shattered; our regulatory agencies gutted; our Justice Department packed with Pat Robertson clones, etc.
And our idiot press corps cares more about one phrase in a speech than all of that.
14 comments:
Streak- this election brings the 24 hours news and web coverage to the forefront again. I have to think it's alot like the issues that are debated with expansion of sports leagues- the talent gets watered down. The number of news "anchors" has shot up to fill multiple networks for 24 hours, but not only that, the thing that I've noticed more and more lately is that each show has it's own stable of additional commentators, sometimes half a dozen or more, that will be consulted during whatever focus story is being considered FOR THAT HALF HOUR. That means we've got hundreds of "anchors", commentators, "experts", etc... each day repeating this shit over and over again. I am so sick of it. Our kids and the locals are dying in Iraq, my kids and grandkids won't get this deficit paid off, Bush is doing whatever he damn well pleases now that he's out of the spotlight, and we're talking about one line from one speech that supposedly reflects a candidates entire character (elitist??). And this is coming from Hilary "I could have stayed home and baked cookies" Clinton? You have to be fucking kidding me! You'd think her experience with the sound byte politics would give a little grace in that regard. Of course, that's grossly naive to even think.
Clinton has affirmed for me that this is totally about HER winning this nomination. It is NOT about what's best for the party OR the country. She's willing to go to any lengths to get this nomination even if it means handing the ELECTION to McCain. To top it all off evidently they all sat around and discussed their "faith" on Sunday night! Makes me want to puke.
I guess I'm just bitter.
BB
Also, here's a good follow-up on an Obama speech given after the "bitter" speech. Like the commentator says, there probably won't be any real coverage of it, but it does serve as another good example of how intelligent people talking about real issues might need more than one or two sentences to explain their position.
Obama 'Gets It' on Trade
BB
Yeah, bitter describes it. The Bush people have simply stunned me with their incompetence and willingness to allow incompetence. The Clintons have just disgusted me. And the media is all bad--or nearly so.
I'm kinda bitter, bordering on pissy some days and nigh disillusioned on others. Today's forecast is more like partly jaded, though.
Seriously, anyone who votes for the next President because they think the candidate is just like everyone else in the country--is AN IDIOT! How about we choose our leaders based on their ability and try to elevate the "best and the brightest" and then watch them like a hawk? Instead of electing the mentally challenged and giving them carte blanche. Talk about monumentally stupid.
There is a difference between someone that is talented and humble and somone that is talented and egotistical. I would prefer a skilled individual, as opposed to some 'regular guy', but I do not want someone that looks down on me and caters to a specific group.
There are plenty of talented people that are in the first category. I briefly met Brett Favre and found him to be very friendly and accessible. I have heard the same about George Clooney. In the world of politics I have met several local and national representatives. Some were very easy to talk to and some seemed genuinely annoyed at being approached (by a constituent). This isn't THE deciding factor in a future vote, but it is one.
Voting for someone because they seem 'regular' is a stupid reason. Is it any worse than voting for someone because they:
-like the same sport's team as you.
-are a certain ethnicity.
-are a certain religion.
-come from your part of the country (though I can understand that they may be willing to help out their home state).
-belong to the ________ party.
Face it, most voters are too lazy to look at the issues and the voting records of the candidates.
Steve, you wrote:
Is it any worse than voting for someone because they:
-like the same sport's team as you.
-are a certain ethnicity.
-are a certain religion.
-come from your part of the country (though I can understand that they may be willing to help out their home state).
-belong to the ________ party.
I agree completely except the last. For now, and I hope not for the rest of my voting career, I cannot vote for a Republican. I am sure there are good Republicans, mind you, but as a party, they have allowed and enabled the worst administration in American history, or at least the very worst in the last 50 years. They have allowed torture, a god-awful war, and have done so with almost goose-stepping unanimity. Sure, a few have spoken out, but when the votes were counted, they were all in line to support this President--no matter what!
The Democratic party has only a slightly better record, I acknowledge, but until the Republican party moves away from the Bush/Rove/Cheney policies, I will not vote for one of their members. For anything.
I don't want to defend voting for someone who seems "regular," because I agree that it's indefensible; but I do think it's inevitable.
I have elderly relatives who voted for Bush in 2000 because Al Gore reminded them too much of all the rich, smart, articulate, convincing people throughout their lives who promised them things, then screwed them over. They don't trust people who sound educated because of the class struggle they've been involved with their entire lives. Thus when someone like Bush comes along, who is enough of a dumbfuck that he can sound uneducated despite having spent more time in higher education than I have, they instantly trust him because he talks like someone who cares about their concerns. They don't remember that his administration and his political appointments have screwed them over more than any Democrat (or Republican) in their lifetimes, but they remember that he sounds trustworthy.
In everyday affairs, these are some of the smartest, canniest, most cunning people I know; but when it comes to politics, there's this great gulf of...I don't even know what to call it. Ignorance doesn't seem right, because it's more like a kind of pragmatism where they're used to having so little say in their own fates that they don't bother investing much time in discovering where their tiny, plaintive vote can do the most good when there is work to be done and mouths to feed.
Anyway, it just seems to this second-generation college graduate that most of the partisan silliness is coming from places where there's no reason to believe educated votes will make any difference, and probably the best way to tackle this problem is to address fundamental economic inequalities in the system and try to figure out a way where everyone can afford to live and be healthy without crippling their children's financial futures.
Leighton, good comments. Obviously my blog posting came out of intense frustration--and so was probably a bit on the harsh side.
No worries, Streak, I didn't take offense at your tone. I knew plenty of fourth- and fifth-generation middle class people in college who voted Bush in '00 and again in '04 for no better reason than they thought he was their kind of stupid. Well, that's the undiplomatic way of putting it, anyway. There are all sorts of reasons why people make bad political choices, and some are less understandable than others.
Speaking of idiots in the press...man. The "debate" last night was bad enough that words fail me.
leighton- I thought this article pretty well summed up my impression of the debate. Later- BB
The Democrats Play Trivial Pursuit - TIME
Streak, you make a good point and I can respect your position. My 'party' comment was mostly directed at people that make zero effort into looking at a candidate, but just vote for them because of their party affiliation. They may not be getting what they think.
Steve- You're probably aware of this, but around here on the democratic side those are referred to as "yellow dog democrats" i.e. if the democrats ran a yellow dog they'd vote for it. For a number of presidential elections now I must say I've been a YDD.
BB
Steve, I agree. And in the past, I really was one of those people who wanted to vote for the best person available regardless of party. Now, as I have suggested, voting for the most moral Republican still means (at least for these last 8 years) lockstep support for Republican policy.
The democrats are only marginally better. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have not impressed, but I am hopeful that we will get something in the future. Perhaps this battle over telecom immunity is a sign that democrats may have discovered their spine.
Post a Comment