Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Channelling My Inner Soccer (Grand)Mom










I realized today -- finally -- that who I hate isn't really Obama, but Obama supporters. My contempt for them runs the gamut from über-shrill and condescending Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks (whom I must disclose I've frequently enjoyed reading)... to the know-it-all older former hippie woman who pontificates on the bus... to one of my best friends.

Unfortunately, it's really going to take a strong force of will and maturity on my part to overcome a desire to blow raspberries at this smug group of acolytes and actually vote for their candidate in a general election. Because right now, I'm feeling a strong "f-you" impulse that just might last more than six months.

I'm really sad, more than anything, because I haven't been remotely lukewarm about this contest. A quote from a West Virginian today summed it up well for me:
That's what [Evelyn] Keener, 90, thinks, too. "There's 12 other countries that have woman presidents; why can't the U.S.?" she said from her Biscuit World booth. "That's what I want to see before . . . " -- she paused to rephrase her thought -- "in my lifetime."

8 comments:

Jeff said...

It's their cult-like mentality that really annoys me.

Huntington said...

Yeah, this has been the problem all year. I've said it again and again: we're blessed with two great choices whose positions are pretty indistinguishable. It had to happen that the campaign would boil down to personalities. It's been so exhausting because an essentially nutrient-free diet of personalities, as opposed to issues, gets exhausting after so many months. It's like we're suffering from electoral malnutrition, even though there's plenty to feast on.

The Angry Young Man said...

We're not blessed with two great choices. You people are completely deluded. The Clinton woman's sense of entitlement when it comes to this office is repulsive. I moved from being completely indifferent to her to totally disgusted, all because of HER actions. Barry hasn't unloaded any of the backhanded stunts La Clinton has. His ability to remain above the fray says volumes about his commitment to practicing what he preaches.

Even if their positions are identical, the way they've behaved during this process says a lot about their character and that says everything about the kind of leadership we can expect from them. That tells me most of what I need to know. Go Barry!

Huntington said...

Too bad about you and your messiah complex, AYM. You think St. Barack of Obama will fulfill all your utopian fantasies and we'll all surge forward together in a post-racial world. Well, I'm sure he'll be a lovely president, as presidents go, but no more.

Huntington said...

About blowing raspberries, Joe: you could always vote for Nader/Gonzalez. Since Obama will certainly have California sewn up, you can do it with a clear conscience.

joe said...

AYM: Thanks for so rabidly proving my entire point.

huntington: The worst I would do is not fill in the presidential bubble on the ballot, and yes, my single vote in California won't really matter.

The Angry Young Man said...

Van der Fah Fah, you just don't get it. I indulge this joke of yours about my Utopian fantasies because I know you're incapable of understanding the importance of good character in other people, particularly our leaders. For you, it's all about policy. Policy is all good and well, but the art of implementing policy is what's really truly important. Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy and I question her ability to build sound coalitions.

Obama is a person who has acted with a great deal of integrity throughout this race. Clinton is not. The woman wants to be president for her own sake and she will promise anyone anything to gain power. Fine. Give it to her. Your interests will cease to be of any importance to her once she has office.

I think a lot of the antipathy towards Obama from the gays comes from this desperate need for legitimacy that in their minds only legal recognition of some sort will supply. Clinton has made all these promises and is playing these people. Obama has been far more subtle in attempting to bridge the divide between disparate groups of people who have a traditional suspicion of one another. For example, the way he's raised the issue of homophobia among the blacks, very subtly trying to relate it to their own experience not as a group, but as individuals who have experienced discrimination all their lives. He recognizes how he has to tread softly in order to get anything of any real import accomplished. Clinton, she's all about flashy promises and empty rhetoric. It's all about the difference between style and substance and what we really need from a leader.

Stash said...

I really wonder whether people are seeing what they want to see in either candidate.

I've heard reports about the love that manifests during an Obama rally and I think to myself [perhaps because I'm a cynic or more likely, a realist] that there's no way all 75,000 will vote Democratic in November. I wonder just how many of that 75,000 are people who want to give Hillary the finger, which isn't quite the same thing as wanting to vote for her opponent.