Let me begin by first saying, that the inspiration for this post is taken from Dan Abrams report last night on Tuesday's primaries, despite briefly searching for the clip I could not find it--likewise, although, I like to have a little wit in my comments I'm just going to put it out there with no BS. Basically his report was titled: Sen. Clinton wins by being negative, Sen. Obama wins by charisma. While watching that report, which I unfortunately was unable to finish because a brief but welcomed drop in from some friends, I found myself questioning several things that at one time or another have been addressed on the RTS. First of all, there is little doubt that Sen. Obama is a charismatic guy that simply put can talk a good fucking game. With that said, Sen. Obama is where is he because he is a politician just like all those other politicos that he claims are the root of all evil in the country. Likewise, if he is to be the "man" that leads this country, the man is going to have to play a little pocket pool with the anciente regime in order to get he policies approved; if he doesn't it is going to be four years of stupidity resulting in the country not being any better off than we are now--so my friends, you best not start the beatification process quite yet because I don't want to see y'all crushed by the reality of your disillusionment. With that said, this is not say that I trust Sen. Clinton any more that I trust Sen. Obama. After all, I have witnessed her trickery in person in 2003 when she spoke at my old alma mater when she contradicted herself with every breadth while being questioned by the international audience there. Nonetheless whether you like her or "fucking hate her" as I have heard many family members and friends state, it is ridiculous that she gets no credit for being, brace yourself now, a good politician that low and behold people may actually like, just like they love Mr. Charisma. And that the reason she has done well in this whole democratic process is that she has a persona that some like, and therefore want to vote for her based on her personality and record, just as the other half of the party bases there choices on Mr. Charisma. Even though I'm beginning to loose my train of thought there, the complete polarization and discuss expressed towards Sen. Clinton compared to Sen. Obama's divinity is utterly fucking fascinating to me. So my question is, can anyone logically explain that to me why this is???? I know the "gender" discussion has been done before on the RTS but honestly that seems to be the only logical answer to me in this fucking patriarchal society in which we live. So can some of the Clinton hater's enlighten me as to why I am to "fucking hate that bitch" and not vote for her for the good of the party if she is the nominee without you spouting of "anciente regime" bullshit (yes as an Early Modernist scholar I'm taking liberties with this phrase that think is still highly applicable today) or without being overwhelmed by your prejudices? Simply put: convince to hate her as you do and as most seem to be doing here lately with all the [t]he[i]r "negativity."
With those asshole remarks made, I still have beef with this whole caucus crap. I really trying to understand how a small fraction of the 4.2 million people who voted in Tex-ass primary Tuesday, don't amount to much in comparison to the caucus results??? Is that not basically in line with the same elitist political structure that everyone is bitching about now, in which the privileging of a few outweigh the needs and wants of the many???
15 comments:
I give a check-plus to this post. I especially like your use of "fucking" throughout. It really captures and pronounces your enthusiasm for this primary race (and for fucking).
From you dear sir, that is an honor as a fellow lover of the carnal pleasures of life!
Can we also drop the use of Tex-ass? It tires.
I want to comment on this, as it seems directed toward solon and me as the haters, plural, since we're the only two who have outed ourselves as being Obama supporters. I really do. But, the thing is, I don't hate Clinton. I honestly don't. I like her, although not as much as Obama. People here that I talk to who voted for Obama in the primary feel, in the overwhelming majority, the same way. I know I keep saying this and it must be annoying, but it seems to bear repeating, especially after today's mud-slinging, as it were. M wrote a post (http://therhetoricalsituation.blogspot.com/2008/02/let-me-guess.html#comments) that elicited a lot of comments, which you probably read. If not, I talked there about my reading of the public's problems with Clinton and, thanks to the prompting of Harrogate, got much more clear and specific in subsequent comments. That might be a start, if not a final answer to your question.
The link got cut off, but here it is again: http://therhetoricalsituation.blogspo
t.com/2008/02/let-me-guess.html#comm
ents
thanks for the link there megs because I knew part of this has been discussed before but you think I actually read half the stuff posted on here, especially prior to commenting????
From a quick skim of the post, there does seem to be logic there, but alas I think the people that could answer this question are not on this blog, because other than a comment or two off the blog with some of you folks, the vast majority who have articulated the words "I hate her" are those who sadly do not engage in our attempts to find reason in this world--my fat ass sister is prime example. Sadly, my post was more of frustration and dumbfounded by the continuous persecution of powerful females in this country (need we forget Martha and her persecution for chump change swindling in comparison to all those fat ass white men).
For the record megs, I share with you and solon a devotion to what some here call Obamamania.
Are we sure, Paper-dub, that Martha-gate is nothing more than the persecution of a strong woman? I've heard this several times from your camp (and I'm not completely denying that it might play into things), but didn't she make her conviction much easier than those "fat ass white men" at Enron. To my knowledge, which is certainly limited on this subject (and just about any other subject that is talked about on TRS), she confessed and the Enron guys never did.
Re Martha/Enron.
Harrogate always found that to be a weird comparison. Harrogate also submits, paperweight, had Ken Lay not Died, he would likely be in prison right now, and for the rest of his life.
Skilling IS in prison right now, and may not ever see freedom again. Someone else (cannot remember his name off the top of my head) got off only by turning State's evidence.
It isn't quite fair to represent Enron as something that the White Guys got away with scot-free. is it?
Dudes, as I have argued elsewhere with you both, you are missing a huge point in all of this: we are talking roughly 50 to 100 grand with Martha in comparison with the MILLIONS that those homs screwed people out of, not to mention their lives--likewise look at the excessive amount of time that passed from the original accusations to the persecutions. I know megs has brought up somewhere else on this blog before the Mrs. Jones' incident in comparison to the dudes as well. Again my friends, you can argue "oh but she admitted to it" all you want but the simple fact is all these MFS are guilty. What we are not going to give Martha a little credit because she did what was right business wise to keep her company running and employing people by pleading guilty??? Which would you rather have your corrupt boss give you: a job or a cardboard box on the street???
I think we all should take a little time and reflect upon how much the patriarchy has reasserted itself in these past 8 years and how that is very clearly dictating how we examine Sen. Clinton, and the like, because I venture to say, the "institutional" construct that is passing judgment on her is going to get equally ugly when Sen. Obama becomes the man for the party (just so the records clear-I'll vote for either C or O because I think they are both win, win) here in the future--I can tell you my friends from the contact with the general pop of undereducated America, his Muslim name and race is already in play. So it will be interesting to see how we judge that BS when comes down to what has already taken place with Sen. Clinton. I will go ahead and put on record, there will be more sympathy for him from the large masses of Dems than has been for her.
paperweight,
It will of course come as no surprise to ye, that Harrogate agrees with all ye say about Hill and about Obama. Yea and verily, Harrogate for many months has been pontificating, from the obsene heights of this Award Winning Blog, that American ought to be thoroughly embarrassed by HRC's battle with open sexism in the Media and in the Popular Discourse.
But with respect to Martha Stewart and Enron, bear in mind, Dear Friend, 'twas not Harrogate who brought up the "Martha admitted it" thing. Harrogate's claim there was, and is, Enron people were held accountable, and the penalties were severe.
Not just for Skilling. But think of "Kenny Bpy" Lay. He died in disgrace, died on the verge of imprisonment. It was what he deserved.
Martha on the other hand, whilst she did a stiff sentence, remain at the top of her Game, and indeed might even be more of a sympathetic figure among many Now, than she was before she did her stint in Da Joint.
So, we're discussing different things here. Open Sexism in the Popular Discourse? Yes. But in the Criminal Justice System, as reflected by Martha's sentencing versus the Enron fallout? That's a tougher sell, at least for Harrogate.
Dude if you don't think sexism doesn't exist in the judicial system, we got serious issues--shall we not think of the centuries of persecution of alleged rape victims in comparison to that of the alleged rapist. With that said, this line needs to come to an end as I have to prepare for the upcoming interviews--likewise we are moving into another realm of discourse--one I think is relevant but that is for another day.
A strong point for you to end on. Harrogate cedes 90% of thy point, we'll quibble over the other 10% when you return.
In the meantime:
Knock Em Dead, Baby!!!!!
One point of clarification, men: Martha Stewart did not plead guilty; she was found guilty. Rather than going through a series of appeals that would have no doubt caused her company much difficulty she chose to accept her sentence and spend the 5 months in prison. As far as I know, she has never admitted any wrong doing.
The other day, Paperweight Writer posted on the negative/ charisma dilemma of the campaign. While certainly this is an either/or fallacy, there is some speculation that the Clinton campaign further distanced themselves from the Obama campaign by appealing to the economic anxieties found within the citizens of Ohio. One of the major stories concerned how one of Senator Obama's staff, speaking for the Senator, met secretly with the Canadian government to stay that the good Senator's public position on reworking NAFTA was "political posturing."
However, according to The Globe and Mail in Toronto, it was the Clinton campaign and not the Obama campaign that suggested to the Canadian Government to ignore the public comments about NAFTA. You can read more here.
Post a Comment