05 March 2008

Wednesday Open Forum/Politicking

Super Duper Tuesday Deux has come and gone--without much fan-fair, really. Sure, Clinton took 3 of 4 states available, but only took a few more delegates total and hasn't yet come close to closing the gap between she and Obama. I'm feeling a bit too lethargic to look up some hard and fast numbers, but Mark Elrod has a better analysis of the whole situation with the appropriate slant favoring Obama. Feel free to tell me what you think and discuss whatever your heart desires. Again, I'm pretending that people read this blog and are interested. Have a fantastic day.


Anonymous said...

I'm tired of studying so thanks for providing a distraction.

I stayed up pretty late hoping to catch the final results. I tried watching both speeches by HRC and Obama in a critical light. The following are my observations based on recent events:

The Clinton campaign (and the McCain campaign for that matter) has consistently made attempts to attack Obama as merely a skilled orator who offers little to no substance to support his eloquence. Although I completely disagree with both Clinton and McCain, I'm not disturbed in the slightest with their complaint. If I were them, I'd probably say the same thing--it's one of the only attacks they can make at this point.

I AM, however, confused with the medium they use to make said complaints (speeches and statements)--the very medium they claim is susceptible to false realities and empty promises.

More specifically, I find it interesting that HRC supporters have appropriated Obama's war-cry, "Yes we can!" into "Yes she will!" (last night was the first time I had heard this chant). This left me feeling confused and slightly indignant. How can you attack someone's rhetorical prowess and then USE it as your own? I'm aware that HRC herself may have had very little to do with this particular incorporation of Obama's words, but I can't help but notice the irony. If you think speeches lack power, then ACT like you believe it. Don't recycle the very thing you find inconsequential to leading a country.

Supporters are obviously using "Yes she will" as a rhetorical corrective to "Yes we can" (the emphasis being on the more purposeful, pro-active WILL). I get it, but I think it's a mistake because of what it might reveal about HRC: 1) "Can" suggests hope, possibility, empowerment while "will" suggests victory at any costs (with possible connotations of oppression); 2)"she" is exclusive while "we" is inclusive. With Obama, it's not just about making him President, giving him all the power--it's about working together, WITH Obama, to change our country and ourselves for the better. The last thing we need is another president who asserts his/her individual power at any costs, who ignores the citizens whom he/she is supposed to be representing, who approaches issues with arrogance.

On another note, CNN analysts last night were noting that Obama really needs to flex his muscles a bit in recent light of the Canada/NAFTA incident in the Obama campaign and HRC's assertion of Obama's inability to act effectively as Commander in Chief. I feel a prominent difference in the speeches last night tellingly reflected Obama's strength and ability to command, even on such a small scale: Clinton struggled at times to speak over the crowds, who were understandably enthusiastic, enough to get through her speech (her voice cracking and at times hoarse) while Obama proved commanding over his audience. Part of what make his speeches so effective is that when he is ready to speak, people listen. When he is ready to act, people watch. Where he is willing to go, people follow.

And I'm proudly one of them.

Ian said...

Thanks for your analysis Jennie. It's a shame that you posted this in my comments, because that (at least for me) would be an excellent post for yourself. Of course, your writing is far superior to mine.

I, too, proudly listen to Obama and will gladly act when given the chance.

PA will count for something in the primaries!