But last night, she turned in a great speech. It has been a long times since I actually got into one. When she quoted Harriet Tubman? Damn. That was something.
But her best line of the speech, and the one that the Obama people have to like the most was this one:
Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president.
I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?
Voting for McCain will do nothing to help those issues, and that was a masterful way to make that point.
Thinking back to the primary, I remember wondering about Hillary's electability. That was my big concern about her. I never doubted that she could govern, but I thought that the best way to raise money for the right was to use her name. Irrational as it often seems, people on the right just hate her. When I thought she was going to be the nominee, I suggested that was a little overblown--that the right would go after who ever we put up. In retrospect, of course, that is clearly true. McCain, after swearing off Swift-Boating style, now endorses it. They will do anything to make Obama a monster.
And that is the rather interesting thing, isn't it? After forcing us over the last 40 years to believe that Republicans believe in "family values" we have this situation--where a divorced and admitted womanizer who married into his money is running against a guy who grew up in a one parent household and worked his way up the ladder, forming what certainly appears to be a very healthy family along the way. Hard work, family values, commitment, etc., right?
Several observers noted that the Obama family presented up there Monday night, and through this campaign, has been far more traditional, and far more conservative, and far more familial, than anything the Republicans have tried to force down our throats.
Some of my real frustration of late comes from this lack of basic honesty and even decency in our political discourse. Oppositional responses are required, even if they are dishonest and clearly wrong--what Jon Stewart might call the "Crossfire effect." Calling something as a lie--as when the SwiftBoaters first disparaged John Kerry's service in VN--seems out of the Media's playbook. They have to address how it "played" politically. That made this Juan Williams reaction to Michelle Obama particularly refreshing. Calling it what it was.
Contrast that to those crickets you hear when you turn to the religious right--the self-proclaimed defenders of the family. Any of them standing up and applauding the Obama's work ethic, or approach to family, or, gasp, "family values?" Nope. Those are the same crickets you hear when you turn to them for moral outrage on torture.
No, we are forced to choose between Obama as "messiah" or Obama as "monster." Can't just see him as a great example of the American story. A great example of the American Dream, dare I say. Sullivan notes the complete disconnect between the rhetoric of the right regarding work and effort and reward and family, and how they address their own candidates:
"Mitt Romney is a bad thug, which is why he'd be a fatal choice for McCain. And so it was rather bizarre to hear him say that John McCain deserves all his houses/mansions/compounds because of the 'hard work' of McCain and his wife. McCain, to my knowledge, has never had a private sector job - unless you count working for his father-in-law - and his wife is a largely absentee heiress to her father's beer fortune. They inherited their fabulous life-style, and did nothing to earn it, unlike Mitt. For good measure, Romney, McCain and Bush were all products of the affirmative action called rich-and/or-powerful daddy. Obama did it all with no father and no inheritance. But he's the elitist. Their chutzpah is enough to drive you up the wall."How dare he? No inheritance AND black? And still successful? Nope. He has to be a monster who kills live babies and secretly loves Bin Laden. When John Kerry married Theresa Heinz, he was a gold digging liberal. McCain, on the other hand, has received permission to cheat on his first wife because of his POW status.
I have said this before, but it merits repeating. I don't ever want to be lectured on moral values by anyone who has stood with these people. Just save it. And stop sending on those emails that whisper that Obama "might be a muslim."
Sigh.
7 comments:
There's no question that brand loyalty to the name "Republican" trumps sense, reason and reality. I just wish I knew of a way to break that cycle, since making these societal mistakes doesn't do us any good if enough of the voting public thinks our problem was too little ruinous domestic and foreign policy, rather than too much.
Honestly, McCain's poll numbers are straining my faith that groups of people larger than, say, 10 or 20 are capable of making rational decisions, even purely selfish ones. But it's kind of a dark week, so I'll wait a bit before signing up with Aum Shinrikyo.
Are you saying that people that do not believe as you do are somehow incapable of reason, sense or viewing reality?
Steves, is that question aimed at Leighton or myself? I don't think either of us said that, but could be wrong.
In most cases yes, with the caveat that exactly the same is true of people who do agree with me on issues of policy. (Like I said, it's a bad week.)
What worries me in particular is that this slipshod approach to decision-making (which we have always, historically, had in every election, and before there were elections at all) might wind up putting a man in the White House who has an established history of making decisions while pissed off, and his advisers in their WSJ op-ed are talking about ratcheting up aggressiveness toward Russia and China--two countries we really do not need to be provoking right now.
So it's not so much the slapdash decision-making of Republican loyalists (self-identified Republicans who ignore when their candidates violate their principles and their opponents uphold them, and pretend the opposite is true) that bothers me, so much as the consequences of their blind partisanship. Democratic loyalists can be just as unreasonable, but I don't think the consequences of their mistakes could be as disastrously violent.
Thanks for the clarification. I often hear similar things on conservative forums directed at Democrats and I think it is unfair to assume that the "other side" is somehow ignorant or lacks sense.
So it's not so much the slapdash decision-making of Republican loyalists (self-identified Republicans who ignore when their candidates violate their principles and their opponents uphold them, and pretend the opposite is true) that bothers me, so much as the consequences of their blind partisanship.
I would agree and this is a certainly a good topic for discussion.
Democratic loyalists can be just as unreasonable, but I don't think the consequences of their mistakes could be as disastrously violent.
It depends on the issue, though it mostly comes down to a matter of opinion. The previously mentioned conservative forums are full of doom and gloom predictions regarding Obama. Many are wild speculation, but some are more thoughtful.
Foreign policy is my top issue in this election, so McCain worries me a lot. And to be fair, I'm not sure how much I can really blame people (of either party or no party) making decisions the way almost all humans have always made decisions. I think a huge reason the race is so close (if you believe the polls) is because the media has so much invested in the narrative of a close race. Never mind that one is a masterful orator, while the other would probably have trouble with the Turing Test. (Rhetorical skills aren't the best way to decide between candidates by a long shot, IMO, but if the this were really about humans making decisions by "gut feeling" or unconscious impressions, I would expect Obama to be much further ahead.)
Foreign policy is one of my top issues, too. This is clearly an area, IMO, where the Obama/Biden choice is the better one. This is mostly due to my belief that their ideas are better ones. McCain has ideas and polcies, but I just don't think they are the direction that we need to go. Obvously, others disagree and think we should.
Unfortunately, I think this is an area where most people are ignorant and easily influenced by fear and sound bites.
Post a Comment