Misplaced Feminism

To highlight the misplaced feminist fervor for Hillary Clinton’s campaign I first need to acknowledged some facts and figures.

Civil War 1861 – 1865

 Fifteenth Amendment 1870:  Forbids the federal government and the states from using a citizen’s race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.

 Nineteenth Amendment 1920:  Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.

 American Civil Rights Movement 1955 – 1968 

 Civil Rights Act of 1964:  Abolishes Jim Crow laws. 

 ”Women’s Liberation” 1964:  The phrase was first used in the United States and appeared in print in 1966. 

 Now from researching American history it appears as though African-Americans and women have worked together to both achieve better rights for American citizens and regardless of the benefit of this teamwork there are some points that should not be overlooked.  Firstly it seems as though African-Americans have taken the lead in instigating these movements and frankly that makes sense.  They have a larger umbrella of oppressed people.  It is an umbrella that incorporates both men and women and that should result in enhanced cooperation.  This increased cooperation could easily allow for the impetus to start a movement.  Not only does it allow for their intended African-American focused movement it creates the space for other movements to get more prominence.  This is just logical.

 With that in mind it would seem more logical for women to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.  Yes a Hillary presidency could provide benefits for women across the country, but what would lead anyone to assume that an Obama presidency would not do the same.  Fighting for the rights of disadvantaged Americans will include women too.

 Secondly, one must not forget black women.  Why would one feel that a Hillary presidency would reap equal to better benefits than an Obama presidency for black women.  He lives with three black women.  This demographic has shifted more to Obama’s side of late and that makes sense.

 White women for the most part remain ardent Hillary supporters and I can understand that, but that does not mean that this is the proper decision.  I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, but this lack of dislike does not eradicate the space to acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama is a better candidate and would be a better President.  

 Hillary only seems to encompass white women under her umbrella for change, and that is far smaller than Barack’s.  White women, for selfish reasons, may not want to see the sight of a Hillary defeat, but this reasoning seems to go against the very principles espoused in the above mentioned events and movements.  Caring about the image of white women over the needs of others seems counterproductive and the antithesis of what they hope to accomplish.

 Hillary may be great, but Barack opens up more space for the betterment of women and others.

 (I could go on, but since this is a blog I tried to keep this as concise as possible.) 

Talent and Unity Squandered

In the Democratic Debate Hillary Clinton echoed the beliefs of Martin Luther King Jr. in acknowledging the great diversity of equality on the stage in the forms of herself, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.  These three individuals show the strength that is America.  And due to the importance of the position at hand, these three are obligated to fight amongst themselves and serve as a blight on this prosperity in the hope that one of them can improve the country as President.  This logic is horrendous, is not what the country needs and should be frowned upon at every turn.

 

Politics is a game.  An extremely serious game, but still a game.  The application of “game theory” by John Nash should at least be a consideration.  If three people fervently pursue the same goal then all three most likely will come off the worse for it due to unnecessary competition.  Sure one may obtain the goal, but he may be a lesser person for it.  When the three work together they can all be better off for it.  Sure the goal might have altered, but an improvement of who they are compared to who they were should be evident.

 

I hate viewing self-destruction and implosion period, but this spectacle under the guise of progress and constructive exercise is infuriating to a degree that I can hardly fathom let alone measure.  These three democrats are truly missing the opportunity to forge the change they frequently mention and sincerely aspire for. 

Marginalizing Bill

I’ve just finished watching Bill Clinton’s speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church and it gave me strongly conflicting emotions.  It was a good speech and it made me feel inspired.  It made me proud that I supported this man as President and continue to support him.  It also left me frustrated.  Frustrated in that I do not get more of this.  Frustrated that he has been reduced to a biased pawn in a Presidential election.  His skills are not being used properly in a time when America needs Bill Clinton.

The Clintons’ attacks on Barack Obama in recent weeks has left them in not the most positive light in my eyes, and that saddened me.  I do not want to dislike the Clintons, but their ferocity in this election where Hillary is obviously second best continues to frustrate.  This competition does not seem to be the smartest decision.  It will only lead to a pyrrhic victory.

At a time when the Republican party has no focus and has been more at odds during a campaign than they have been in recent memory, it seems senseless for capable democrats, who like each other, to fight it out.  Intelligence would lead you to think they could come to an agreement to would expose the weaknesses of the Republican field.  So far intelligence has been wrong.

This lack of intelligence is the seed that grew into frustration when I saw Bill Clinton today.  Brilliance and passion as this should not be used as a pawn.  I do not wish for him to become President again, and I do support Obama, but that does allow for plenty of room for Bill to better aid America.  I’m tired of becoming frustrated when I should be inspired.   

Concession Speeches part 2

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if we heard one from John Edwards in the not so distant future. His decision to put all of his weight behind Barack Obama while staying in the race was as close to an abdication as his influence would allow. The support he showed Obama during the New Hampshire debate contributed to stoking the fire of the already frustrated Clinton campaign machine.  He hoped that the force of himself plus Obama would be too much for the Clintons to handle.  He was wrong, and that miscalculation probably attributed to more support shifting to Hillary and away from himself.  He got burnt.  

Concession Speeches

I do not care if it was hubris or tact, but Barack Obama made a great decision by not giving one.  The need to prepare a concession speech at this point is non-existent, so I’m very pleased that I did not have to hear one.  His victory speech despite coming in second was great.

No One Knows Anything

The polls are not helpful.

Hillary Clinton just won the New Hampshire Primary.

One political expert predicted that Hillary Clinton was now the favorite to win the democratic nomination.

Another expert believes that it will be a tough battle for the nomination.

And one more expert feels that the South Carolina Primary will be very important.

Where is the substance or insight?

I think I’m being overly saturated with mediocre political analysis.

New Hampshire now and Iowa a week ago has showed how little people know. 

Speechless

There is a funny thing about change that most of these candidates are either ignoring or unaware of.  The funny thing is that to foster change you must inspire others.  You cannot inspire people by jumping on the “change” bandwagon and/or not having a great oratory presence.  No matter how much people may describe speeches as flashy rhetoric being able to give a good one is an attribute all Presidential candidates need to have.  Eight years of W. may have allowed people to forget this fact, but it never went away.In New Hampshire all the candidates on both sides are now proclaiming their ability to create change, and it is becoming laughable.  You cannot be second, third, fourth, or anything but first in the change queue and still hope to have a strong influence.  Obama is first in line and gives the best speeches.  He has captured the publics attention with his initiative, and he has kept it with his voice.  The rest of the candidates are trying to mimic his platform with the hope that it will propel them to the top when it is only second best.  Their voices are not strong enough and I’m left speechless.

Obama Steals Clinton’s Platform

Following her defeat, Hillary Clinton has ushered in comparisons to Bill Clinton’s “comeback kid” performance, and acknowledged that she cannot beat Barack Obama on the “change” platform.  She is between a rock and a hard place.Obama on the other hand has proclaimed that a victory in New Hampshire will propel him to Presidency.  This has in effect stated that he is ready to take control on “day one”, as Hillary would say.  In addition to being ready on “day one” he will also have more than a year to get ready for it.  He is now positioned as the only viable candidate, and not Hillary.  Obama has displayed his readiness since “second one” of his arrival in New Hampshire.

A Defeat Seven Years in the Making

In 2000 Hillary Clinton did not have to opt for New York as her place of residency when she decided to run for the Senate.  She could have instead decided to represent the state of her birth.  That state is Illinois.  That is the same state that Barack Obama now represents.  By being the junior Senator from Illinois she could have coincidently prevented Barack Obama from becoming a Senator.  If he was not a Senator I doubt that he would be in contention for the Presidency.After a loss it is easy to dwell on many minute decisions that could have played a role in the negative result.  This innocuous  decision seems to have played a major role.

A Clinton Comparison

Following her disappointing lose in Iowa many pundits have already started comparing her defeat to Bill Clinton’s in 1992.  This comparison is the beginning to the end of her campaign.  She has campaigned on a platform of strength and experience, and after the first major bump in the road she is already being compared to Bill.  This may have been predicted, but that only compounds the negative impact. For her to have any chance of winning, she needs to be seen as an independent entity.  This might not have seemed as imperative before Thursday, but now it is.  She needs to win New Hampshire on her own, but most likely that will not happen.  Most likely she will enlist the aid of her husband to prevent her from appearing less than her husband and hopefully pull out a victory in New Hampshire.  This might seem like a strength, but it isn’t.If Bill Clinton plays a prominent role helping her win New Hampshire, she will get pushed to the periphery.  She would have saved her campaign to the detriment of herself.  Simply she cannot enlist the aid of Bill to prevent her from appearing less than him.  That is counter productivity and backwards thinking at its core.