Hawkeye Pierce said that in a great M.A.S.H. episode, where Hotlips yells ot Frank, " Do something! Do anything!" And hawkeye quips, "Yes Frank, Do anything." Well, we all have Franks in our lives in some way, but it's rare that we all have the Same Frank.
Hillary Clinton needs to do something, anything; yes Hillary, do anything. Except attack. Her campaign is so obvious it's painful. Being sweet didn't work. So move on to claiming your husband is the first black President for the South Carolina vote (you lost, by the way). Then switch at some point to your version of Rodney King's "...can't we all just get along", showing solidarity with the guy whipping you in 11 straight contests.
But you won the big ones, Cali and NY, and so you're still in it. And so you should be, I thought, until the past few days. And now I think it's time for you to find a way to duck out graciously, even before next week's primaries.
Because you're dragging the party down. You look bad. You make the rest of us look bad. I reject your middle-school-level attacks on Obama, your envious grin, your fake emotion. You want to win so badly, you don't even believe in yourself. And that's beneath you, and beneath the Democratic Party, and beneath those people whose votes you so desperately need and slime for.
I didn't expect perfect. But I did expect basic decency. I'm embarrassed for Hillary Clinton, and Democrats who believe her to be the best for this country. I can only imagine, given her recent, pathetic attacks on Obama, how she would treat foreign leaders with whom she disagrees. She's no the experience we need.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Yes, Frank, Do Anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Charlie, looks like your a little ticked off based on your last two posts!
I think it's interesting to look at both Clinton and Nader as shining examples of what's wrong at all levels of politics. They each represent the two poles of political thought and approach that are (unfortunately) the norm these days.
On one hand you have the extremist ideologue who zealously pursues their agenda unilaterly. This type is utterly convinced they have the monopoly on ideas and therefore refuses to consider other viewpoints (hmmm, sound like anyone else we know?).
The problem with this type of politician/person/group is twofold. First, no one has the "best" idea/approach when it's conceived in a vacuum, particularily when it's concieved from a very slanted viewpoint. I know of very few ideas, whether in public policy, business or elsewhere that aren't improved by collaboration.
Secondly, even if you do have the best idea (or close to it), by taking the unilateral stance there is no effort made to bring people along and in fact sets up even more resistance to the idea because of the approach. This practicly guarantees failure to get anything done.
On the other hand, we have the pandering triangulator type who floats on the wind of polls, lacking conviction in anything other than getting along or getting elected. This type offers nothing new as they are simply reacting to the moment and to the masses. It is an approach completely devoid of leadership, principal and vision which is what we should want and absolutely need in our elected officials as well as other areas of life.
That's why I'm supporting Obama as well. In him I see a chance (I'm still a political cynic) that I don't see in the others. Someone who could offer the strength of conviction and vision, but who isn't so convinced that he won't listen to other viewpoints and value their contributions and incorporate them in a way that doesn't compromise principals. I see someone who has the skills and desire to get things done not by beating people over the head or because he has a 51/49 majority, but through education and dialog bringing a large majority of people along with him and sharing a common vision which is the only way to make substantive progress. That's true leadership.
I think you'll have your wish by March 5th. Although, part of me selfishly wants her to hold on through PA so we'll get the chance to see them stump here! Let's just hope she and her campaign staff don't continue with the scorched earth approach and damage our chances in November.
yes re: obama a 1000:1 chance is still better than none at all. i voted for him in the primary here simply because i thought he could use it, but still expecting him to crumple at some point. guess i was wrong.
i've never had major issues with h.c. until she started campaigning, and i think 'wanting to win so bad she doesn't even believe in herself' about sums it up.
she's got more magic to bring to a campaign than we've seen (i.e. none at all). best thing she could do if she wants to pull ahead would be stop listening to whomever's been running her campaign and wing it, literally, make every moment up from here on out. she's placed tactics over principles. nobody wants another 8 years of that, even her initial supporters.
more than wanting or not wanting to see her be president, it saddens me to see her not even live up to her potential as a contender for the office.
she's paying the price of being the insider--can't separate herself from political machinery/style that has revealed itself pitifully out of date and out of favor. i suppose we're lucky to get a view to this now; better than later. always the optimist i.
Post a Comment