Obama & Clinton

A widespread discussion ensued last week after the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania. Locally, Mario Solich has a radio program and joined in the discussion. Last Thursday, he said a couple of things that frustrated me. To begin with, I’ve supported Obama since John Edwards dropped out of the race. Hillary Clinton has always been my last choice because I don’t get the sense she has any interest in following what the American people want. (1st tangent: Which brings up a point: the president is not the leader of this country. They are the executive of one branch of our government. They are supposed to be elected and they are the citizens’ employee, just like Congress members. We the people are the leaders.)

Back to Mario: one thing he said really stood out to me. He was comparing Obama’s and Clinton’s claims to war opposition. (2nd tangent: stop calling it a war, Mario. It’s an occupation and our engagement will end the sooner we all adopt this frame.) His comment went like this: “Hillary Clinton has taken a true stand against the war, while Obama hasn’t”. It was based on Clinton’s votes in the U.S. Congress while Barack Obama was a state Senator in Illinois. A true stand against the war, Mario? That comment projects so much snobbery, it’s disturbing to me. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, hardly a “true stand against the war”. She has since failed to acknowledge the lack of judgment of that vote, going so far as to say if she had to vote again, she would probably vote the same way. That is hardly a “true stand against the war”.

Mario’s larger argument was that Obama supporters only now understand what Hillary Clinton supporters have gone through: an aggressive media. To which I call a huge bullshit. That argument also reeks of snobbery. To be true, Obama supporters would have to be complete neophytes to the entire political process, something that every investigation of hard-core Obama supporters effectively discounts. Those supporters have been engaged in the political process. While they might not have been engaged for 20, 30 or 40 years like Clinton supporters, they are hardly babies lost in the woods. Every Obama supporter I know, including myself, have long recognized the right-wing slant of all of our major media outlets. It’s the major reason why we’ve created our own media infrastructure. What has Clinton done in response to the media that has spent the better part of 20+ years attacking her, her husband and their friends? Become friends with Rupert Murdoch. Agreed to Fox debates until every other Democratic presidential candidate refused to attend. If she has learned lessons from right-wing attacks, they make no sense to the rest of us. What can she gain by supporting monopolistic media conglomerates that work to undermine progressive causes? No, Hillary Clinton has insulted high-profile progressive bloggers to their face. She has insulted MoveOn.org, which was formulated to defend her husband from bullshit impeachment proceedings. She’s had lunch with Richard Scaife, who has spent 30+ years funding the Vast Right Wing Infrastructure.  Does Hillary think that something positive has come from that infrastructure?  What kind of judgment do these examples demonstrate?

Democrats, whether they support Obama or Clinton understand the media bias we all face. Obama supporters were not gloating or relieved when the attention on Clinton was vapid. Why are you talking about the bias when no one disagrees it exists? Why are you not covering the issues, Mario? The reason for the outrage at last week’s debate was no real issue was covered. The method of which Gibson and Stephanapoulos took to get there was secondary. The fact the Hillary joined their right-wing style attacks continue to demonstrate to me that Joe Lieberman isn’t the only person in the Senate who should have their (D) switched to an (R).

It took Mario an hour and 24 minutes of total time (not actual time on-air) to ask if the flag lapel pin discussion was ridiculous or not. Are you kidding me? None of the questions asked of Obama appear in the top ten concerns of Americans. None of them. Why then would any Democrat extoll their presence in the first hour of a prime-time debate broadcast over the publics’ airwaves? It seems to me Clinton supporters are growing incredible vindictive that their favored candidate has effectively lost the nomination. Only those seeking revenge against valid questioning of their candidate’s policy positions would think the PA debate served some positive purpose.

I do not consider Hillary Clinton to be a Democrat. She uses the “I’m a poor victim” frame far too much. She’s resorted to talking points, framing and attack methods that resemble Rove’s. So much so, in fact, she sounds just like a Republican. I’ve come to recognize that she and her supporters have been doing it for years. She has moved so far to the right that she is indistinguishable from the right wing at this point. I do not want a President whining for four years about every little imagined slight that they come across. I want a President who can get beyond the slights. If Obama is the candidate I think he is, he won’t whine about what happened last Wednesday night. He’ll go right back to addressing the real issues this country is facing.

Contrary to what Mario believes, last week wasn’t about Obama learning a lesson about what Hillary might or might not have dealt with in the past. Last night’s debate was about the non-seriousness George and Charlie approach the obscene number of issues we will have to deal with over the next generation. Hillary Clinton didn’t try very hard (if at all) to steer the debate back toward the real issues Americans want their president to address. Barack Obama, while not perfect on that score himself, did try. Like most other political shows on our corporate media outlets, 3-on-1 is a difficult place to get a positive message across.