More thoughts on the great Rodham (Clinton) - Obama divide

The more I look at this conflict, the less I like it. I don't want to bash either candidate and I don't want to have to wince every time I read nastiness from Dems addressed to other Dems. We should be having a blast, looking at McCain stumble toward the finish line, dogged by party conservatives -- while Dems prepare for a glorious run in the fall.

Remember the last debate? How respectful and thoughtful both candidates were toward each other? And the immediate post-debate comments were variations on the theme of "dream ticket?" What happened to that moment, anyway? My guess -- it wasn't exciting enough for the media. No, we have to have conflict, the more bitter and scathing the better. That's old style politics, and I don't care for it.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination ought to immediately announce their proposed cabinet members, which should include as many of their primary opponents as possible. It is going to take an enormous amount of creativity, intelligence and disciplined commitment to overcome and turn around all the Bush damage. It will take women and men of all ethnicities as well as support from Democrats across the board.

So how to resolve this situation where roughly half of Dems want one candidate and the other half want another? I'm not talking about super delegates, either. I'm talking about looking beyond numbers to a ticket that gives everybody a stake in supporting it.

If Rodham (Clinton) and/or Barack Obama cannot bring themselves to make a deal that furthers the interests of the Democratic party, then their egos may very well bring about the decline and fall of the United States of America -- should McCain win in the fall. Likewise, if Dems can't get beyond accusations of racism or sexism because they support one or the other of the candidates, we will all lose.

This Ohioan is Leaning toward Hillary

I've been ambivalent about Hillary here, and I have had some compliments for Obama. However, as the campaign has drawn down to the final two, I find myself leaning toward Hillary Rodham (Clinton) as opposed to her opponent.

Bear in mind that I am about as Left as you can get, so I am looking at two people who do not represent my views very closely. Both are overtly religious, but I know that in my lifetime there will never be an avowed freethinker running for president. Both have voted consistently to fund the Iraq War. However, no one on the Republican side could ever get close to offering up a platform that I could accept in any way.

Realistically, if you look at Rodham (Clinton) and Obama, they are more alike than different, except Hillary's health care plan is better and Obama seems weak on details, although strong on metaphors. I'm in a detail kind of mood these days and not so keen on oratory without substance.

But the truth of the matter is, the more I read Democrats viciously attack Hillary, the more I'm inclined to vote for her. That's what it is coming down to. I cannot stand to see the term "Billary" for example. Like the users of said term have some kind of deep insight into the Clinton marriage. I know I don't and I don't trust the media to inform me about it either. Look at the Urban Dictionary's definitions of the term "Billary" and you see definitions that reek of unkindness if not downright cruelty.

Likewise, the critique that we don't want another Clinton is spurious. She has no Clinton DNA in her, which is why I will call her Rodham (Clinton) from now on as a response to the "Billary" derogatory.

The term "triangulation" -- why is it used to denigrate Hillary, but not Barack? I just saw a speech in which Barack boasts of his "Obamicans" -- Republicans that are voting for him. He is putting his ideology "above and between the left and the right" -- just as his fans accuse Hillary of doing.

In short, I am seeing way too much Hillary hatred and far too little in the way of concrete reasons to vote for Barack other than "we need change." Well duh, yes we do! Change from Republican theocratic war-mongering. Here's an example of a list of reasons why a Democrat blogger (Dave at Radio Free Newport) doesn't want Rodham (Clinton). Where's his list of reasons why he wants Obama? What is he doing to the outcome of this race? Rodham (Clinton) represents a large group of constituents. Why alienate the white women? Because Dems assume we'll just come around and forget the way Obama fans talked about Hillary?

I have said repeatedly here that I'd like to see them both on the same ticket. The Hillary attackers will have none of that, and are are attempting to make sure that the label "unelectable" sticks. What a shame it is to see Democrats smearing their own.

For a more thorough critique of Hillary-hating, please go here. Stanley Fish deals quite nicely with the media play-up of the supposed Clinton race-bashing for example.

I don't have time to answer all of Newport Dave's list tonight, but I will try to deal with them throughout the week. I will say that I am a huge fan of his blog, but his post today really got my goat! Not because I think he is sexist, but really -- the comment about Baby Boomers. Talk about your blatant ageist remarks! Look buddy, I didn't choose to be born into a generation that was tagged with such a hideous name, and I can tell you that throughout my life and in my art, I have been actively anti-war! And I am not alone in my generation to wave the banner of peace. Shame on you for such stereotyping!