“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
--Friedrich Nietzsche--
“In a heated argument we are apt to lose sight of the truth.”
--Publilius Syrus--
“Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.”
--Josh Billings--
The Clintons are playing the victim card once again. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton complained about being chosen to answer the questions from the moderator first, and the bias in the media that is skewed toward Barack Obama, and then she went on to overtly use the gender card to stump for votes. I have to admit that some members of the media do appear to favor Senator Obama over Senator Clinton, while other members of the media seem to slightly favor Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, but that is not the point. The reality is that Senator Clinton has very little to complain about since upon a close and reasonable review of her candidacy, she has received more than a few passes by the media. I will review two very big ones.
Senator Clinton has run on the platform of experience. She has declared herself to be the candidate that is the most prepared to be the President of the United States, even though there is nothing in her background to suggest that allegation is true. Think about it. There are three people that have a realistic chance at being elected to the Office of the President of the United States and none of them have any executive experience. All three of the candidates are senators and only have legislative experience. Yet, the media has not debunked her unsubstantiated assertion that she is the candidate that is “ready to be President on day one.”
Senator Clinton wants to have her cake and eat it too. She has subtly made the argument that she is the most experienced, most prepared, and therefore the most qualified candidate. This assertion can only come from her time as the First Lady because she is just a senator that has finished only one year of her second term. Since Senator Clinton was not a member of her husband’s cabinet or staff, it is unclear what her role was in his administration. The only responsibility that we know that she had during his administration was her failed attempt at health care reform. Does this means that she is ultimately asserting that she knows how to be the President because she was married to the President and has seen a President in action? We may never know because no member of the media has yet to force her to explain the basis of her assertion. The media has instead chosen to accept her assertion at face value without challenging it.
Watching something and doing something are two different things. I am a second generation White Sox, Bears, and Bulls fan. I have watched thousands of White Sox games, including the last two no-hitters that were thrown by a White Sox pitcher. I have also watched hundreds of Bears games and thousands of Bulls games. Does that mean that I am ready to pick up my baseball glove, baseball, and spikes and take the mound and throw a no-hitter against a major league team or even a minor league baseball team? Does that mean that I should be in spring training right now trying to crack the White Sox starting rotation? Does that mean that I should start getting ready for the Bears training camp in a few months to try to make their roster? Does that mean that I should give John Paxson a call and look for my short term contract with the Bulls? No!!! The reality is that the next President, regardless who is elected, will not have the luxury of calling the bullpen to bring in the closer when the game is on the line. Watching is not doing. Whoever is elected will have to learn on the job regardless of what she/he may assert.
Last night Senator Clinton essentially said that if she was elected President it would represent a “real challenge to the way things have been done, and who gets to do them, and what the rules are.” The reality is that she was correct in her assessment. Women have been and continue to be discriminated against in this country and throughout the world. Every time a country places the reigns of leadership into the hands of a leader that is also a woman it changes things, but the same is true for African-Americans (The numbers tell the story. The ratio of female governors to African-American governors is 8 to 1. The ratio of female senators to African-American senators is 16 to 1.) If Senator Obama had made that same statement he would have been drilled by the media to explain what he meant by it. He would have been criticized for injecting race into the debate. He would have been marginalized as the candidate that is only appealing to the African-American vote. And it may have jeopardized his chances of winning the nomination. There appears to be no such negative consequences for Senator Clinton. There was no and has been no such criticism toward Senator Clinton. The media gave her another important pass.
It seems that the media passes have not all been addressed to Senator Obama.
The bottom line to all of the back and forth negative assessments and debates between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters is that we need each other to win the ultimate battle. Obama can not win without Hillary supporters and Hillary can not win without Obama supporters in the general election.
I find the arguing and divisiveness to be quite disturbing. Both candidates have already stated that their agenda's are nearly the same. So, in the words of John McNamara, "It is what it is." Although my opinion may not be so popular, I truly do not trust ANY politician. Most have some type of hidden agenda. So, I try to objectively and equally scrutinize their intents.
Regardless of which democrat you support, if you intend to vote democratic in the general election, "STOP THE BICKERING" and find a common ground to rally around.
Posted by: Indigo | March 02, 2008 at 02:32 PM
ETA: Not John Mcnamara. Sorry, I meant Brian McNamee.
Posted by: Indigo | March 02, 2008 at 02:56 PM