For weeks now I've been trying to articulate my feelings about the democratic presidential candidates, largely for myself, but like my friend Kate at ak8, a cat, a mission, I've been asked who am I voting for? I want to direct everyone to Kate's thoughtful response to this question; she says it much better than I think I could have.
I do, however, want to add that if I had to vote today I am still unsure who I would vote for. I fully admit that the posts I have made here suggest that I would vote for Hillary Clinton, but I really don't know. A big part of me wants someone new in the White House. I don't think it will be advantageous to our country to establish a Clinton-Bush Dynasty. We've experienced 4 years under George H.W. Bush, 8 under Bill Clinton, and 8 under George W. Bush. If Hillary Clinton is elected (and possibly reelected), does that mean that we have to endure another Bush in the White House? I'd really like to move away from dynastic politics and encourage growth in Washington. That said, I like the idea of Hillary Clinton as president for many, many reasons (which I'm not going to go into here). I also find Barack Obama compelling for a number of reasons. In an ideal world I'd love to see an Obama/Clinton ticket (or vice versa). I really think their blend of experience and different views would be beneficial to the country. Unlike my fellow bloggers Solon and Harrogate, I tend to believe the ideal could really happen, but then sadly, I am generally disappointed. . .
6 comments:
I, like you, would LOVE a joint ticket. But I just don't think the tone of the race right now will allow that to happen. I know there are several pundits who say that, because of the fragmentation of the party over these candidates, a joint ticket is the ONLY way to heal in time for the election. But it would just ring false, wouldn't it? I mean, these seem to be two people who genuinely don't mesh.
If you want your answer on a possible ticket between the two, watch Obama's facial expression right after the question about a joint ticket. It is one of the few times when he did not mask his expressions.
As for who you should vote for, you need to lay out your reasoning for one candidate or against another candidate.
There are too many things to consider: knowledge of candidate's character, of political institutions, and stances on issues; how the candidate's sees the public and the political institutions; perception of candidates, especially from those that disagree; biographical background; etc. The best way is to work through it.
The problem with Kate's post is that she seems to possess a passing level of knowledge on the topic. Most people do. But this is why the public gets bogged down on certain issues (and the use of gender and race in the post is very meaningless compared to other topics.)
I have to disagree with your assessment's of Kate's use of gender and race. To me, she is working through her decision, in very much the way you've outlined (I'm quite sure, by the way, that you didn't mean to be as condescending as you came across. I do know how to make this decision, but it isn't an easy one for me to make for a whole lot of reasons that I don't want to go into here.).
Ok, I've been contemplating a second response to your comments, Solon, since I left my first response. I'm really bothered by your use of the word "meaningless" when you describe Kate's argument. I understand what you're saying: that in terms of her argument her references to race and gender don't add to her argument. What troubles me, however, is that you evaluated her post as though it were an argument, and it clearly isn't. I am equally troubled by your tendency to evaluate most posts (particularly those about politics) as though they are arguments, even the ones that aren't. When you used the word meaningless I believe you were dismissive of a point Kate (and me through Kate) was making. Her reference to race and gender may have not added to the quality of her argument, but the reference and discussion wasn't meaningless b/c those issues are meaningful to her--and to a lot of people.
I fully realize I seem as though I'm contradicting myself given the numerous posts I've written about the prevalent sexism in the campaign. But I don't think the issues of race and gender are meaningless, at least not in this particular context. So I'd really like you to be careful when using that particular word and when evaluating every post as though it were an argument as well-crafted as the ones you make. Despite the name of this blog, not every post represents an argument. And things are not meaningless just because they are meaningless to you.
I attempted to write a response the earlier post; however, things occurred and larges amounts of birthday decorations were being unraveled.
First, and most importantly, the style and tone of this disagreement, as well as other disagreements it seems, occur because of the nature of our fields. Kate's piece is an argument- it possesses a claim, evidence, and reasoning. While the original tone may not be "argumentative" in that interpersonal and combative sense, it is trying to ask the reader to see the world in a certain way. The tone of the piece may be an expression of "thought" and it is an interesting look at how a writer engages in the the act of invention, but it is still an argument.
I would say that this disagreement is nothing more than "trained incapacity" because of "English" and "Communication" or "Literature" and "Rhetoric." It is also a division between "dialogue" and "debate." Writing is a way of reading...
Second, the use of "meaningless" is amplification to show that there are other qualities that may be more important, as I have argued. There have been many times throughout the campaign when candidates "race" and "gender" have been used in positive and negative lights, just as candidates have used it explicitly and implicitly. And I know that many people are basing their judgment on race or that race is important to them in the equation. For some, this is the only issue; for others, it is a part of the issue. I understand that...
But I cannot help thinking about a conversation I had with an office mate before in the Spring of 2004. He self-identified as a member of the Christian Right. Both he as his wife were from a small town in Texas. His wife went to school with Kelly Clarkson. Though he identified with the Christian Right, he stated he could not believe that others in the group would vote just because of abortion and nothing more.
Third, for me to ask that it is important for you, or anyone else, to bring forth their reasoning is not to be combative. It is to have a debate, the back and forth. I realize fully the problem of incommensurability but it is always interesting to find these points and work on practical knowledge.
Post a Comment